"I know what I saw! " "A shadow person walked right by that spot!" "I was touched by something!" "I heard a voice speaking where there was no other person around." "One moment a person was standing there and the next moment it was gone, vanished" "The object moved all by itself."
Some people presume that, concerning the paranormal, the study of how our brain functions is the most logical path to take as it pertains to "beliefs," yet it does not empirically rule out that what we claim to have observed couldn't possibly exist or be alive, not withstanding the slippery slope of the power of suggestion.
Science can be used for both sides of the question on the reality of the paranormal. That question remains empirically unanswered, but by taking a logical step past the stagnation that has become the paranormal standard, perhaps we can get closer to answers.
Some science arguments for belief in spirit contact:
James Carpenter, Ph.D., Clinical psychologist & research parapsychologist proposes from his research into ESP a concept he calls "First Sight." "First Sight brings in what is popularly called "the paranormal." 'First Sight' assumes that a much bigger domain of unconscious information stands behind experience. This includes things that are beyond the reach of our senses — it includes the extrasensory. And it assumes that this reference to extrasensory information is not rare, but that it is continual." Carpenter's thesis is that "psychic abilities such as ESP — long considered to occur only in 'gifted' individuals or on rare traumatic occasions — are, in fact, ongoing subconscious processes that continuously influence all of us."
[I personally contend my medicine man friend has this particular type of sensitivity.]
This principle appears to support my hypothesis referred to in my previous article of the 'super power' we all possibly possess, exemplified in the simple act of daydreaming. One example is daydreaming while driving. Haven't we all done this at one time or another? We seem to be on auto-pilot, our primary visual focus taken over by the 'First Sight' mentioned above, yet simultaneously and subconsciously we are still reacting to the visual road conditions in our driving path. The key may be as to where our vision is actually pointed or aimed. Studies of texting while driving appear to support this, as looking away from the road causes a disconnect from this superpower we have. A visual and cognitive refocus from the road to our cell phone disrupts that unconscious 'feed' from our brains.
I would submit that during a paranormal investigation, the focus of our subconscious mind is in sync with our active visual focus, leading to a sensitivity or perception beyond what is normally triggered in some but not all. Does this imply being conducive to belief in the possibility of seeing or hearing alleged paranormal activity actually enhances an actual encounter, or does it engage an overactive imagination, one desiring for an experience. The 'Negative Proof Fallacy' usually accompanies such behavior.
The Negative Proof fallacy place an impossible burden of proof on the proposition’s critic. By demanding that the critic proves an unfalsifiable argument wrong, one can convince oneself of the truth in just about anything. Science might use this as saying the burden of proof of the paranormal is not on them to prove they don't exist, but rather on believers to proof that they do exist. While this makes sense, science doesn't do itself any favors towards credibility in general when they publish some things as they have in 2020 only to have to issue retractions later. The Lancet Medical Journal & The Asian Journal of Medical Health both issued & retracted claims on the effectiveness of hydroxycloroquine against COVID-19. The Journal of Biological Regulators and Homeostatic Agents claimed that COVID-19 resulted from 5G telecom energy. A 2018 Nobel Prize in Chemistry retracted a 2019 paper after being unable to replicate the results. A controversial essay at a German chemistry journal against diversity in the field lead to suspensions, mass resignations. Not to be outdone, a scientist whose shall remained unnamed in this article, claimed COV-19 came from outer space. Even an Assistant Professor in Infectious Diseases and Microbiology at the University of Pittsburgh claimed that COVID-19 is related to magnetic fields and that jade amulets can potentially prevent the disease!
My point to all of this is simply that I tire of the 'same old paranormal claims.' When someone now claims to have seen a UFO, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc., I say to myself, "so what." Whether those claims are based on subjective or objective events, the bottom line is that it was provable to you... only. To others that trust in you, their belief in you is their burden of proof. But as astronomer Carl Sagan once said, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
Believing the story of others involves trusting in the accuracy of that same reporting. The results of a study by Annelies Vredeveldt, Department of Psychology, University of York and Steven D. Penrod, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York. It involved testing with a simple technique for improving eye-witness memory - getting them to close their eyes. Lab research has already shown that this can be beneficial. Vredeveldt and Penrod took the technique out on the streets to see if it works there too.
Ninety-six undergrads signed up for what they thought was a study into "social interactions". After they'd witnessed a rehearsed public spat, the participants were led away either to another street location or the psychology lab, both being five minutes' walk. Here they were asked to recall everything they could about the event, and then they were asked a series of questions about what happened. Overall, participants who closed their eyes recalled 37.6 per cent more useful visual information about the argument, and, in questioning, they produced 23.8 per cent more correct answers coded as having high detail. The advantage of having closed eyes was most pronounced for participants who were quizzed inside. This supports the idea that the technique works by helping participants to create the original context in their mind's eye. The major unknown concerning this technique is elapsed time frame of accurate memory retention.
[Is any questioning of eyewitness reporting and subsequent analysis of Bigfoot, ufo and ghost sightings ever done this way?]
Some science arguments against belief in spirit contact:
Our ability to perceive something to be alive and it not just being a by-product of a neurological function affecting us, is at the root of the argument for or against things such as the paranormal, demons, ufos, etc. Yet, it is that same part of our human nature that is responsible for what is known as "agent detection."
By definition: Agent detection is the inclination for animals, including humans, to presume the purposeful intervention of a sentient or intelligent agent in situations that may or may not involve one.
I personally am more skeptic than believer when it comes to the paranormal yet I must objectively step outside myself and acknowledge that I, like many others, participate in some form of 'agent detection' each and every day. We treat other things, many of which are inanimate objects, as if they were alive. What do I mean by this? Have you ever talked to a plant in your home, a smart-home device or attempting to coax a red traffic light to turn green, et. al.? Those who are in touch with nature often talk to trees and flowers, thanking mother nature for its abundant blessings.
The recall of an experience by using the 'closing of the eyes' technique mentioned above can also be debated as not worthy of being a reliable technique for interruption-free replay in our minds. Isolation of relative senses could possibly disable interruption-free replay of memories because of simultaneous decline in signal reading ability for the other senses that facilitated that particular memory recall. This idea is no less plausible as the assumption that the simple blink of an eye is more than for the purpose of lubrication, but facilitates a kind of timeout for our senses to absorb data and prevent 'overloads.' Don't we generally associate the appearance of someone blinking in astonishment as evidence of confusion or 'blankness?'
Other hypotheses in the 'against' category arise from the use of technologies as evidence of spirit communication, and perpetuating this false reality is the goal of TV ghost show entertainment. Certainly, for hundreds of years, the indigenous of North America have had no need of technological assistance in their methodologies. Are we so arrogant to think their ways of spirit/ancestral contact were not as valid as ghost boxes are considered? Ghost boxes... snippets of sound in short bursts of 1-2 seconds that can be interpreted in a multitude of ways, especially when subjective to the purpose of listening in the first place, discarding unwanted pieces and keeping others. This takes us back to the question, "what empirical proof was provided to start believing in this type of spirit communication?"
My own personal experiences have led me down the path of some of the tech analysis results frequently mentioned, especially where people "hear" different things in audio recordings. To me, it reinforces the subjective influence & cognitive bias involved in such analysis. It is claimed that spirit voices are left on recordings, yet it cannot be explained how these voices can be produced. Just saying they are spirit voices doesn't make it so. Yet, too many are satisfied that they are. Furthermore, if subjected scientifically to oscilloscope and spectrogram analysis, there is a lack of the tell-tale signs of voice formation. I add to this my observational opinion from audio research of mine and so many others: "if communication is actually happening , we are constantly and always fooling ourselves that we can achieve empirical proof when the deck is stacked against us... that is, try as we may, the Creator/Cosmos simply forbids such contact, and if allowed, communication is never direct but rather subject to awakening the awareness within ourselves of intentionally indirect messages, available to be perceived without need of technological involvement, as has most likely been done throughout time. Perhaps we should be paying attention to those indirect methods of spirit communication from such things we call guardian angels and spirit guides. If we are willing to base our protection against demons and evil entities on the basis of faith, then why not base our communication on the same?
Finally, there is the 'Ship of Theseus.' Definition: The ship of Theseus has a philosophical issue or paradox which is generally referred to as the Theseus paradox. It concerns whether an object whose parts have been changed by way of replacement deserves to be identified as the same object. Many philosophers have tried to address the issue and take different stands. Some argue that the object is still the same even after the replacement while others argue that the object is no longer fundamentally the same. I pose the question then... if a former living person can haunt a particular location, why can't the subsequent multitude of paranormal investigators also haunt that location? The ghost/spirit is NEVER reported to be a dead body but rather an anomalous representation of a once living person!
Paranormal folklore is the reference here. How many paranormal enthusiasts base their investigations and claimed evidence on the stories that preceded their efforts. I'm referring to things such as cold spots, infrared spectrum of light, thermal hits, and the ridiculous use of the term 'energy' to name a few. Even the widespread belief of EMF being indicative of spirit presence is ambiguous at best when based simply on long-perpetuated claims that have morphed over the years. Is EMF fluctuation just another example of a false reality created to furnish evidence fabricated by means of tech measurement? Scientifically, EMF claims can be countered by studies such as that from a 'Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology' Main article, subtitled "Alterations in brain electrical activity caused by magnetic fields: detecting the detection process." The basic resulting indicators of the "study of 20 people, all but one exhibited field-induced alterations in the EEG. Most subjects exhibited increased EEG activity at 2 or more frequencies within 1–18.5 Hz. The field-induced changes were recorded more often at the central and parietal electrodes than at the occipital electrodes... The data support the view that detection loci for magnetic fields exist within the nervous system." [Note: the 1-18.5 hz frequency span is more commonly known as "infrasound," and is in my opinion, something for which base lines should be determined before any investigation]. I don't know about you, but I'm more inclined to research more deeply into these such studies than rely on someone on a ghost TV show telling me that their crappy little K2 meter going off means there is a ghost around!
Finally, if you've read this article and are at this point, it means that you fit the category of people that are the spirit of the article itself... those interested in moving past the same old paranormal rhetoric and can devote a few minutes to entertain new and different ideas... no spooky stories... no spooky pictures... just a willingness to hear a different outlook to move paranormal research forward. It is so badly needed. Hopefully you will also comment on this article in the hope that your comments will trigger a paranormal hypothesis awareness worthy of testing that I and others haven't entertained and are willing to learn from.
Going forward, I keep an open mind and remain intrigued by the possibilities of contact with the unexplained. I have promised myself to not get sucked down too deep into the rabbit hole that I cannot get back out. For now, I think I'll go make a sandwich, relax and see what tomorrow brings.
- MoonJoey