Is there a "sixth sense"? - DPChallenge Forums

08/29/2008 10:50:55 AM · #376

Originally posted by Louis:

From my persepctive, your trouble, Jeb, is that you find it impossible to separate the opinions you have from a rational discussion about them. You emote about your opinions as though they were inviolate. This causes you to see absolutely no problem in calling Sam intractable, or calling me a pathological baiter, or a dick, or any number of other childish insults.

Your opinions, and everybody else's, are not inviolate. If you discuss them, they will be discussed. They may even be torn apart and made to look foolish. This has nothing to do with you, irrespective of your inability to see that. Sam doesn't know you, I don't know you, and neither of us cares enough about you to go following you around here making your life miserable. Come on.

This is actually very timely. At the risk of making you even angrier, you may be interested in a blog article I wrote in the wee hours of this morning. Here it is.

Like you said, people who possibly aren't as smart, or definitely not as quick, get exasperated with you when you take argument to a science and/or art form for its own sake rather than considerate discourse.

You look for the dark side, call it reasonable, then claim righteous indignation when someone frustrated takes umbrage at your unpleasant style of exchange and snipes at you.

As I said, I shouldn't either have feelings or care, as it has no place in your purview

I am not someone who enjoys argument for its own sake or for the thrill of victory.

I have to wonder what's wrong with me that I keep hoping that I'll get into a discussion and share views, rather than a bitter argument where opposing views are treated with disdain and generally dismissed if they aren't shared, or discounted and argued for the express purpose of disproving them.

It's obviously a flaw to feel passionately, and/or emotionally,in these discussions as well, as that merely exposes the jugular to the knife of those who delight in argument.

ETA: Louis, I think I would probably be interested, and amazed by your thought processes were I not the constant brunt of your quest to take apart everything I say.

And probably calling it a quest is an overstatement.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 10:55:21.

08/29/2008 11:08:24 AM · #377

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I have to wonder what's wrong with me that I keep hoping that I'll get into a discussion and share views, rather than a bitter argument where opposing views are treated with disdain and generally dismissed if they aren't shared, or discounted and argued for the express purpose of disproving them.

But you see, this is exactly my position. From my perspective, you and others are quick to discount contrary opinions, most often perceiving them as personal attacks. That's no kind of discussion at all.

And what are those to do who disagree with someone else? What are those to do who recognize egregious errors of fact or logic or whatever in someone's stated position? Yield to it? Let it slide? Not offer a contrary opinion for fear of giving offence, for fear of being perceived as an habitual attacker?

The problem is not that contrary opinions exist and that people seek to discuss and dissect them, or discredit the arguments they support; the problem is the chronically ill state of argument itself, or for that which passes as argument in most of us.

The best advice I can give someone who thinks my or anyone else's dogged inquiry into their ideas is some form of schoolyard bullying is to simply ignore everything I say. If you don't respond, the person will get bored and go away.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/29/2008 11:11:17 AM · #378

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Louis:
From my persepctive, your trouble, Jeb, is that you find it impossible to separate the opinions you have from a rational discussion about them. You emote about your opinions as though they were inviolate. This causes you to see absolutely no problem in calling Sam intractable, or calling me a pathological baiter, or a dick, or any number of other childish insults.

Your opinions, and everybody else's, are not inviolate. If you discuss them, they will be discussed. They may even be torn apart and made to look foolish. This has nothing to do with you, irrespective of your inability to see that. Sam doesn't know you, I don't know you, and neither of us cares enough about you to go following you around here making your life miserable. Come on.

This is actually very timely. At the risk of making you even angrier, you may be interested in a blog article I wrote in the wee hours of this morning. Here it is.

Since you've brought up your blog, it seems reasonable to me to quote an interesting paragraph from your "End of Happiness" blogpage:

"I think people tend to show their true moral fibre in dealing with strangers. I personally have a difficult time with strangers. I am usually suspicious of them, and it is with only a great effort that I can bring myself to give a stranger the benefit of the doubt. I seem to be predisposed to mistrusting those I donâ��t know at all. What comes along with this is a tendency to discredit the actions of strangers, to cast their most innocent actions in a bad light, to assume the worst in people. Itâ��s a disheartening struggle, because I otherwise enjoy almost everyone around me."

This seems to bear an eerie resemblance to....

R.

If you read the article, you'll know it had to do with direct, face-to-face communication with strangers, not dispassionate discussion of ideas, as here. But it's all fair game.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/29/2008 11:13:21 AM · #379

Originally posted by Louis:

If you read the article, you'll know it had to do with direct, face-to-face communication with strangers, not dispassionate discussion of ideas, as here. But it's all fair game.

Sure, I grant you that :-) My post wasn't even intended to be the least bit negative. I just think you guys are a lot closer, under the skin, than you both seem to think you are :-)

R.

08/29/2008 11:17:09 AM · #380

Originally posted by Louis:

If you read the article, you'll know it had to do with direct, face-to-face communication with strangers, not dispassionate discussion of ideas, as here. But it's all fair game.

But this is a community that interacts with people on a personal, and face to face basis, as well as the discourse in the forums.

Look at the cameras bought, projects embarked upon, comfort given, sponsorship made......and all to, and from, people who sometimes have not met other than here.

Though I haven't met you in person, I certainly feel that I know you, or some of your personality by now.

Just a sense I have......8>)

I've met quite a few people in person, taken part in drives and projects that range far outside the normal scope of strangers on a website, and we discuss very personal life issues and experiences as well as whether or not the earth is flat.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 11:19:47.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

08/29/2008 11:24:57 AM · #381

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Maybe an expectation of shared views is the problem? The very nature of opposing views is that they aren't shared, and the reasoning behind each is itself an attempt to discount/discredit/disprove the alternative.

togtog

Nikon D300

08/29/2008 11:37:10 AM · #382

I think it is horrible that with all the bad things going on in the world, photographers under exposing, breaking glass, leaving assistants behind in drunken stupors, that a bunch of people who obviously are very passionate and share one of the greatest hobbies and professions known to man have to take arms against each other over such a small topic.

Sorry if this distracts from the bickering and points being tossed about.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/29/2008 11:39:45 AM · #383

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by scalvert:

If anything I expect others to have differing views, and I am interested in learning about them.

I'm as interested in the experience and perspective of differing views just out of curiosity.

Rarely do I assume others' experiences to parallel my own.

I don't view most of my ideas/opinions as an inate attempt to discount or disprove others, merely to offer a possible alternative.

raish

Olympus C-2500L

08/29/2008 11:40:32 AM · #384

Originally posted by togtog:

I think it is horrible that with all the bad things going on in the world, photographers under exposing, breaking glass, leaving assistants behind in drunken stupors,

But what about the bad things?

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

08/29/2008 11:47:10 AM · #385

Originally posted by togtog:

We're ALL trying to increase photographer exposure and reduce opinions seemingly held with the assistance of drunken stupors. Breaking your glass is next on the to-do list. ;-P

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

08/29/2008 12:23:49 PM · #386

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I have to wonder what's wrong with me that I keep hoping that I'll get into a discussion and share views, rather than a bitter argument where opposing views are treated with disdain and generally dismissed if they aren't shared, or discounted and argued for the express purpose of disproving them.

Maybe an expectation of shared views is the problem? The very nature of opposing views is that they aren't shared, and the reasoning behind each is itself an attempt to discount/discredit/disprove the alternative.

I think what Jeb is hoping/advocating for is a discussion where all views are treated equally, considered and weighed as fully substantive and relevant of themselves. This is a lovely idea, but it runs up against a major dialectic problem. To be blunt:

Not all beliefs or views are equally valid. Not all beliefs or views deserve equal treatment, consideration, or respect.

Beliefs that have little support in evidence should be received skeptically. Beliefs that contradict available evidence should be disdained. Those who hold to beliefs which have shown to be either wrong or highly improbable due to extensive evaluation, testing, and experimentation should not expect to be given equal consideration or respect in debate. If one is going to argue from such a position, then they should be prepared to back up their claims with extraordinary - and extraordinarily credible - evidence in support.

Jeb, I don't doubt your sincerity of belief, or the honesty of your experiences. (Also, you and others should perhaps be less quick to assume that those of us who reject the paranormal explanations for such experiences haven't had similar ourselves.) The problem is that your mind is already made up about your belief in this regard. I get the feeling that no matter what evidence or argument was presented to you, it would not matter and would not persuade you to change your belief.

For example, the belief in telepathy or other types of paranormal "sixth sense" phenomenon. You characterize those who disagree with you as simply just "having a different explanation" than yours, but this is not correct. It isn't just that others have a different, but equally valid/invalid explanation, it's that through scientific inquiry, observation, and experimentation science is uncovering the biological, psychological, and sociological mechanism which lead people to believe in such phenomenon and/or believe they have experienced such phenomenon. You should check out the research in this area - the field of brain psychology is, pun intended, truly mind-blowing.

Your "explanation" isn't really any explanation at all - it's just a declaration that something "magic" happens, and that you don't care how or why it works that way, or even if its real. You want to believe, and you are going to believe, come hell, high-water, or snarky Canadians to the contrary. (hat-tip Louis)

Scientific thinking - critical, evidence-based thinking - must always be open to the possibility that evidence may come along that contradicts or re-valuates the currently available evidence. A scientific thinker should always be able to tell you what credible evidence, if presented to them, would change their minds about the topic.

So here is mine: I would be willing to concede the possibility that some sort of "sixth sense" is real if claimed telepathic/empathic/precognitive ability could be shown under controlled, reproduceable, experimental conditions to produce results greater than what would be expected simply by random chance.

Your turn.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 12:25:57.

08/29/2008 12:36:48 PM · #387

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

So here is mine: I would be willing to concede the possibility that some sort of "sixth sense" is real if claimed telepathic/empathic/precognitive ability could be shown under controlled, reproduceable, experimental conditions to produce results greater than what would be expected simply by random chance.

Your turn.

My opinion based on some experiences, is that there is something as yet undefined, undocumented, and unverifiable by today's methods, yet it seems to be something that has been experienced by many people who are not prone to whimsy.

I'm not sure why I keep hearing this idea that "You want to believe" as a supposition.....there really is no good reason to assume anything of the kind. I'd REALLY like to have either definitive verification or refutation of said experiences, yet I haven't sen it.

This is in no way similar to my faith and belief in God......that's something entirely different.

I freely acknowledge that is possibly all wet, but that doesn't stop me from trying to be the best person I can based on my beliefs.

I'm just not one of those people who feels the need to atribute anything I can't explain to divine intervention.

Some things just are.....

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

08/29/2008 12:43:16 PM · #388

So is there anyone here that feels themselves to be a linear, scientific thinker who has had an experience that they have no rational, scientific explanation for that they'd care to share?

thegrandwazoo

Nikon D750

08/29/2008 12:43:45 PM · #389

Einstein developed his theory of relativity in 1905-07 and it could not be confirmed until 1919 over a decade later. The same can be said for this "6th sense". We could propose a theory like Einstein and it may not be proved until much later.

So both sides of the discussion will spew nothing but conjecture until confirmed.

08/29/2008 12:51:24 PM · #390

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

So is there anyone here that feels themselves to be a linear, scientific thinker who has had an experience that they have no rational, scientific explanation for that they'd care to share?

I've got some, but I wouldn't say there's no explanation.

When I was about twenty-six, I dreamed that my Mom was very upset that her father, my grandfather, died. Three months later, he was dead. Precognition? No, he was in his eighties and had been a filterless cigarette smoker all his life, so his death shortly after such a dream is coincidence, not an indication of a sixth sense.

Alex and I are always finishing each others sentences without thinking about it, saying the same word (or sentence) at exactly the same moment, and otherwise finding that our minds seem intimately connected. Sixth sense? No, after fourteen years, you'd expect this kind of thing from two people who live and work together in close proximity.

Once, we decided to try the game where you guess what one person has drawn on a piece of paper without looking. He dutifully drew something, put it in an envelope, and I tried to "pick up his thoughts". I guessed, "star", and sure enough, he had drawn a star.

ESP? Hardly. First of all, there is nothing to say that our long history of shared experiences would not make us more likely to think of exactly the same symbol. Secondly, he had selected a fairly obvious (and easy to draw) shape that wasn't a geometric clichÃ© like a circle or square. The explanation for this astounding mental feat is pretty pedestrian if you examine it critically for more than just a minute.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 12:53:09.

08/29/2008 12:57:22 PM · #391

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

For example, the belief in telepathy or other types of paranormal "sixth sense" phenomenon. You characterize those who disagree with you as simply just "having a different explanation" than yours, but this is not correct.

Why?

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Your "explanation" isn't really any explanation at all - it's just a declaration that something "magic" happens, and that you don't care how or why it works that way, or even if its real. You want to believe, and you are going to believe, come hell, high-water, or snarky Canadians to the contrary. (hat-tip Louis)

No, and no.

I neither believe that it's magical nor do I want to believe same.

This is part of what frustrates me.....this is NOT the case.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Scientific thinking - critical, evidence-based thinking - must always be open to the possibility that evidence may come along that contradicts or re-valuates the currently available evidence. A scientific thinker should always be able to tell you what credible evidence, if presented to them, would change their minds about the topic.

I readily concede and embrace that premise.

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Here's what I have been trying since the outset of this discussion to point out.

The stipulation that this sense, power, situation, enigma, WHATEVER, is that it be reproduced on command under verifiable conditions is a real stumbling block with me.

By the properties that I have for the whole concept, that's an unlikely scenario, within the boundaries of today's abilities to ascertain/measure/detect said ideas.

Can you see that point, even if you don't agree?

If by its very properties, a sixth sense is not predictable or controllable, how can you say that it doesn't exist when so many people really feel that due to their experience have had incidents that they attribute to it?

Believe me, I don't really like the idea that things happen to me that are beyond my control, but they do.....all the time.

Most are very much verifiable and easily explained, others not.

I just am not sure that everything that cannot be explained by what we know today is completely random.

I'm by nature fairly curious, and I've just run into a lot of odd things over the years.

08/29/2008 01:05:17 PM · #392

Originally posted by Louis:

Alex and I are always finishing each others sentences without thinking about it, saying the same word (or sentence) at exactly the same moment, and otherwise finding that our minds seem intimately connected. Sixth sense? No, after fourteen years, you'd expect this kind of thing from two people who live and work together in close proximity.

Once, we decided to try the game where you guess what one person has drawn on a piece of paper without looking. He dutifully drew something, put it in an envelope, and I tried to "pick up his thoughts". I guessed, "star", and sure enough, he had drawn a star.

ESP? Hardly. First of all, there is nothing to say that our long history of shared experiences would not make us more likely to think of exactly the same symbol. Secondly, he had selected a fairly obvious (and easy to draw) shape that wasn't a geometric clichÃ© like a circle or square. The explanation for this astounding mental feat is pretty pedestrian if you examine it critically for more than just a minute.

That's pretty standard fare for people who are closely connected in both thoughts and emotions.

Lisa and I have been together for 30 years, and the similarity in our thought processes is astonishing.

We spend an inordinate amount of time together, especially after so many years, and we have found that on many occasions that we'll have the same thoughts or ideas as the other, on or about the same time, while apart even, yet this to me is to be expected and I do not attribute that to anything but environmental grooming, if you will.

From another perspective, I "knew" the first time I met her, that this was the woman I was going to grow old with.

That was sort of a tough thing.......especially for the woman I was married to at the time.

08/29/2008 01:05:18 PM · #393

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I just am not sure that everything that cannot be explained by what we know today is completely random.

Do you not recognize that random events over the course of the long experience you've claimed would naturally result in at least a few extreme coincidences such as those described in this thread? Someone who wins the lottery twice might very well attribute such incredible luck to something they did/thought/dreamed, etc., but with enough people playing it's simply going to happen eventually. The way to exclude such random chance is with a controlled study. Otherwise, you essentially keep rolling the dice until it happens again and point to the successes as evidence.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 13:07:42.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

08/29/2008 01:06:49 PM · #394

Originally posted by scalvert:

Do you not recognize that random events over the course of the long experience you've claimed would naturally result in at least a few extreme coincidences such as those described in this thread?

Absoluely and unequivocally.

Would you concede that there is a possibility that a sixth sense might exist?

raish

Olympus C-2500L

08/29/2008 01:16:52 PM · #395

I think you should have them all fairly backed up in a corner now, Jeb.

If, on the one hand, we are asked if the five senses, i.e. taste, smell, touch, sight and hearing are accompanied by another, similarly discrete and physiologically separable sense, then I think we would have to say no, however reluctantly.

If, on the other hand, we are asked whether there is (or even may be) some perception that is not immediately ascertainable through or attributable to the five senses previously listed, then we ought perhaps to answer that indeed there may be, although it remains a phenomenon as no such thing has ever been empirically established.

The rest is conversation.

Message edited by author 2008-08-29 13:17:28.

08/29/2008 01:22:03 PM · #396

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:
For example, the belief in telepathy or other types of paranormal "sixth sense" phenomenon. You characterize those who disagree with you as simply just "having a different explanation" than yours, but this is not correct.

Why?

He explained it here:

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

It isn't just that others have a different, but equally valid/invalid explanation, it's that through scientific inquiry, observation, and experimentation science is uncovering the biological, psychological, and sociological mechanism which lead people to believe in such phenomenon and/or believe they have experienced such phenomenon.

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The stipulation that this sense, power, situation, enigma, WHATEVER, is that it be reproduced on command under verifiable conditions is a real stumbling block with me.

Well, this position is a stumbling block for anyone who demands that an extraordinary claim with supernatural connotations be backed up by some kind of verifiable, testable, and falsifiable data. There is simply no reason to believe any claim of this sort without it.

08/29/2008 01:35:27 PM · #397

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

The stipulation that this sense, power, situation, enigma, WHATEVER, is that it be reproduced on command under verifiable conditions is a real stumbling block with me.

Originally posted by Louis:

All I ask is that the mind remain open to the possibility, that's all.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to WANT to be able to have it reproduced under verifiable conditions, but just as sometimes composition doesn't lend itself to perfect conditions in photography, sometimes circumstances don't lend themselves to lab conditions, either.

I actually thought my ball lightning experience was a terrific example......imagine my chagrin at finding out that it doesn't scientifically exist after seeing it.....with my wife no less.

One of the elemental truths of MY life is that if my wife says it's so.....it IS!.....8>)

08/29/2008 01:52:31 PM · #398

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Would you concede that there is a possibility that a sixth sense might exist?

The question is actually twofold by implication: whether an extra sense exists and whether it's supernatural in nature (though I suspect you're only referring to the first part). Unicorns and martians might exist, but the likelihood is extremely low. Unless you can actually demonstrate any of the three, they belong in the same category IMO. Homing pigeons have a "sixth sense" that helps them find their way home (with natural explanations), but it's repeatably observable as more than random chance. If it's not, then it either IS random chance or indistinguishable from it and therefore useless.