Question for non-believers. (And other interested parties.)

[pnwmom]

Are any of you open to the idea of the possibility of some sort of sense beyond the five that we've already identified? We know that some animals (and some color-blind humans) appear to be able to distinguish between colors that look the same to us "normal" people. . . in other words, can see colors that most of us cannot. We know that other animals can hear things that we cannot, and that their sense of smell is greatly developed compared to ours.

Could it be possible that some people or some animals have a kind of sense beyond those that we have identified among our five senses? That lets them apprehend something -- a dimension, as it were, that we cannot?

Although, as an atheist, you reject the idea of a god, does it interest you to think about the possibility of dimensions of the world that might be lying there just beyond the level of our five senses, in the same way that the world of color (as we see it) lies beyond the apprehension of a color-blind person?

Don't worry, this isn't a trap. If you say yes, to any of this, that doesn't make you a theist.

[bowens43]

1. What does this have to do with believing or not believing

in deities?

[pnwmom]

2. I started thinking about this because of atheists in another

thread who were talking about reality being limited to what can be perceived with the five senses or scientific instruments.

Then I wondered whether most of them thought that.

[Kiouni]

3. i saw

something the other day about how guinea pigs have the best hearing and that's just nuts. but i believe your 6 senses are limited by a physical being and if their was another enviroment it would be experienced with your mind or lsd.

[pnwmom]

6. Welcome, Kiouni!

But could there be an additional sense that lies just beyond our conscious detection of it? Or at least beyond the five senses that we have been taught are the only ones that we have? Since we are locked inside our bodies, how would we know if there was something out there that we weren't perceiving? Like the colors that my son cannot perceive?

[Kiouni]

9. that's a good point

it reminds me kind of why we made up religion and i like the question. what's the one thing the mind can not comprehend? an end to it self. so we created god heaven hell so forth. you mind would just alter what it saw to make it normal kind of like how my brain flips the image that comes through my beady little eye balls.

[Kutjara]

4. I think, before even considering whether...

...there are any 'extrasensory' senses, we should first dispense with one of the oldest misconceptions in biology: the five senses. We all learned in school that there are five senses, but actually there are far more. I remember reading that there are probably something like 25 senses, that include balance, 'proprioception' (knowing where your arms and legs are even without being able to see or feel them), sensitivity to magnetic fields (some people always seem to know which way is north) and a number of internal senses that help to regulate involuntary bodily systems.

This is not just hair splitting. By ignoring these perfectly natural senses that are more subtle than the 'Big 5', we run the risk of ascribing supernatural causes to perfectly natural effects.

Beyond that, there is a strong school of thought in physics that we inhabit a universe of 11 or more spatial dimensions, not just the four we can perceive. So extra dimensions of space that are beyond our perceptions are distinctly possible. Whether we can access these dimensions in some manner not accessible to our conscious minds is beyond our current ability to know, but at least one respected physisist (Roger Penrose) believes that consciousness depends on quantum effects, which is very much the realm in which the higher dimensions operate.

[pnwmom]

7. Thank you, Kutjara. Food for thought.

[Mythsaje]

16. I posted before I read yours...

We're thinking along the same lines, though I think our reference material used slightly different terminology.

It's interesting you should bring up the whole "supernatural" angle though, since I don't believe "ESP" and the like ARE "supernatural." I believe they're natural phenomenon we just haven't figured out yet. Quantum physics are a part of this, I believe.

[Random_Australian]

24. Indeed, if they exist in nature they are not supernatural. I look forward

more to what we will be able to do with a UFT though. In fact, I want to work on it. (In a few years, it is way beyond my capabilities right now)

[Mythsaje]

63. Me too...

I think we're close.

[Random_Australian]

73. Yep. String is looking pretty strong (Now that all five versions are

working as one, anyway)

OoooOOOooh 11 dimensions. What's more, the others don't have to be curled up! Apparently they are allowed to stretch an arbitrary length.

[Kailassa]

65. ahh, looked it up

Unified field theory, not ultra fast train.

But I could imagine you with an ultra fast train set to play with ;-)

When you get it all worked out, do let us know.
I've been waiting for years to find out what our reality is based on.

[Random_Australian]

23. w00t the 11 dimensions! (see below)

[tocqueville]

5. I can smell BS when I hear it..... nt

[pnwmom]

8. Sorry. You just smell a former philosophy major. Maybe

you should go somewhere else if it bothers you too much.

[tocqueville]

12. I was making a joke at the "extrasensory", not a you

and the fact that you are a major in philosophy doesn't impress me at all, but I won't brag with my own academic background...

in the animal world there are plenty of of extrasensory abilities, but the fact that you can see UVs or listen to ultrasounds or read magnetic impulses doesn't make you communicate with God, at least in the scientific world...

an extrasensory ability could make you able to communicate with another entity using the same device. But that other entity doesn't have to be a deity. God is not a scientific question, it's a philosophical one. So senses are not related to the problem.

Hello, I'm God, I broadcast every evening on 58000 MHz...

[pnwmom]

13. I never imagined I could impress anybody with my former

major. I was just trying to demonstrate my sincere and non-bullshitted interest in what most people consider to be a perfectly boring and useless subject.

[tocqueville]

17. I said the joke wasn't aimed at you or your question...

but I consider the question basically flawed (see edited previous post) even if it can of course be asked...

[pnwmom]

40. Most people consider philosophical questions to be a waste

of time. Join the club.

[tocqueville]

64. I don't belong to that category

I just state that extrasensory perception and theism are not related both scientifically and philosophically. In the best case it's pseudoscience or/and pseudophilosophy. Philosophically it could be seen as some kind of shamanism, budhism or ascetism where altered states could make you contact the divinity. Since it can't be proven that the contact is made with the deity or with your own brain's delusional biochemistry, I don't see how we can avoid the question of faith or not. But we are back to the beginning.

[neoblues]

10. What about an Eighth or Ninth or... sense?

Alas, insofar as anyone can demonstrate or determine, in the real world, there are only the five senses. You can have access to more, if you want to by simply exercising your imagination.

Still, if you want to believe in more... these people have thought about it:
http://www.kabbalah.info/engkab/6sense.htm

[pnwmom]

11. Thanks. And you might be interested in Kutjara's post #4.

25 senses. Wow!

[neoblues]

32. I Saw That.... It Was Very Interesting, Thank You.

And, while it was interesting... to my way of thinking either the other senses were just subsets or components of the primary five, or they were still simply senses to measure the physical world or the body's orientation or response to it. Granted, I've not spent much time considering this subject (at least not for decades), but--while I try to keep an open mind--I would be very surpised indeed if anyone were to ever convince me that humans have any "sense/s" to measure "supernatural" phenomena. That;s consistent because there is no such thing as "supernatural" in terms of or as far as measureable, detectable, verfiable evidence goes. Even anecdotal "experiential" "evidence" is not transferrable proof and is easily explained away on the basis that human consciousness is based on fantastically complex biological processes which commonly undergo spurious organic/neurochemical transients (brief variations/interruptions/errors etc). Basically, we're a wetware system with glitches in our operating system.

I guess I'd have to just say that I don't believe anything of consequence to us exists beyond the physical universe. Certainly it's vastly more complex than we yet understand, and that allows for the possibility of things "that aren't dreamt of in my philosopy". Then again, the state of the art of Science isn't always meaningful or even understandable outside of mathematics. I'm referring to one of the relatively recent PBS NOVA programs describing various theories in Physics; I believe they said String Theory suggested 19 separate "Universes" occupying the same physical space--they even proposed that Gravity was the one constant or point of contact between those Universes. All fine and well, but while we can sense physical Acceleration--which can be caused by Gravity, and perhaps we can detect the physical effects of Gravity on our bodies (and maybe even other detections using any of the proposed senses beyond five), we're still just sensing our current, measurable, detectable physical Universe. Also, such concepts may be an illusion owing to the facinating, but natural patterns in the language of Mathematics--and may be meaningless as well as of no consequence to people (no bearing, impact or interaction in their lives).

Generally, I expect Science either can or will be able to explain everything we can conceive to ask--at least that subset of those questions that are "meaningful"; for one of the facinating things about our minds and our use of language is that we're able to ask questions that actually don't mean anything (though I'm not prepared to provide much in the way of examples--but that doesn't mean that there aren't a vast number of prime examples). They, by the way, are really tough to answer.

I think I've expressed my take on things; it's been fun.

[Kailassa]

35. "Why???"

You don't need to provide examples to anyone who's cared for a toddler.

But mathematics can be helpful in answering:

"That's once ..."

[pnwmom]

42. LOL Don't you love those questions that come out of

a three year old's mouth?

[pnwmom]

41. Thank you, neoblues, for your thougtful answer.

It was fun to read, too!

[Mythsaje]

14. The funny thing is that we DO have more than five senses...

And I'm not talking about ESP either.

The kinesthetic sense is one of them--where our body is in relation to other things around us...this is related to balance, btw.

Another is sense of direction. Some people can orient themselves without visual cues. I'm not quite THAT good, but I've some talent in that direction.

As for the rest, yes, I believe in ESP. There's been a lot of interesting research into this stuff, from the telepathic testing at Rhine University to the remote viewing experiments done by our own government.

And personal experiences, for that matter. Just last night I answered a post by another DUer with lyrics to her favorite song. They just popped into my head as I read the post. Coincidence? Perhaps. But eerie nevertheless.

I believe a lot of things are possible, and I believe that we humans have too much of a tendency to make up our minds too quickly.

Airplanes? "If man were meant to fly, God would've given him wings."

Everything is impossible until someone figures out how it works and makes it happen. The universe is a very large and mysterious place.

[pnwmom]

15. "A large and mysterious place" -- indeed!

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. But our senses are associated with specific organs and structures

which can be examined, and the behaviour of animals can be observed to see how the senses are used - as, for exmpales, the animals that can detect electric fields. We don't see organs or behaviour in humans like this, beyond those described in post #4 (I have to say I haven't heard of the 'magnetic north' sense, and presume no structure has been found in humans for that - though I thought there was a candidate in birds that migrate).

While the existence of other dimensions is possible (and most physicists now think it's needed for their equations to make sense, though my maths isn't good enough to follow their arguments - I have Roger Penrose's "The Road To Reality" sitting on my bookshelf, because I found the maths too hard, and am going to have to start again with it), and I appreciate the concepts of 'Flatland' (though I've never found a copy to read), I find myself agnostic to them - our understanding of physics is that they'll only remain theoretical to us in the forseeable future, so I don't have a firm belief in them, and don't worry about them, or base my life on them.

[Random_Australian]

19. I think in 11 dimensions. But they are not like the ones you describe.

(In other words, string theory).

As for the senses, being more acute to things is easy, but specialised processing is what takes the cake (when looking at behaviour, although seeing IR and UV is something that looks magical at times)

You know, dogs detecting epileptic fits, horses 'that can do math', animals perceiving something we miss.

But for more senses entirely, it gets a bit iffy. But for things with enough brains that we don't have to go into that, no, there are no more senses. (look if we really want to get technical about CAN things have more senses, it will take a while but the short answer is still no)

There are only a few ways information can be transmitted. Nothing as yet has gone against our current theories (except they won't mesh). There is no more light reaching the eyes of an animal than our own... why should similar eyes find dissimilar information?

Basically, anything that carries infomation can be detected. There may be some novel way to carry information, but if any animal had it, we would know. Biologists can be pretty dogmatic about anomalies. What's more, if they are not anomalies, then they would be widespread, ie we could see them too.

Why should animals be able to? We are animals too, after all.

Edit: for the purposes of simplicity, I left out gravity, balance, what the hell ever else.
2nd edit: AND I left out magnetic detection and whatnot, I only refer to 'unknown' senses.

[electropop]

20. There are many things which can be sensed, but for which we have no

specialized nerve endings. We can sense photons, but not at all wavelengths. We can sense very strong electric fields, but not weaker ones (as, say, many sea creatures can). There are many organisms (even bacteria) which can sense magnetic fields. There are many animals which can see in what we would call total darkness, or sense minute vibrations caused by other animals. There are many things which no known animal can sense, but we know they exist and we can measure them: neutrons, neutrinos, gravity waves, radio waves, and so on. No doubt the list is ever-expanding, implying many yet-undiscovered things which could be sensed one day, and even some which may never be measured by humans. Future possibilities: string vibrations (strings are thought to be the lower level foundation underlying particle physics and possibly cosmology too) and the additional dimensions which strings exist in.

The existence of many properties and dimensions which require mechanical aid to measure, or which are unproven theories, does not imply that any of these have to do with the existence of anything supernatural, or "outside nature." To a non-religionist, nature by definition is everything which is real, whether easily tangible or more difficult to measure. Something which can operate outside the laws of nature would either be grounds for revising and deepening our understanding of the laws of nature, or would be (if inherently or by definition unmeasurable or unprovable) not part of the picture.

[Random_Australian]

22. AAAaaaGH! Sorry, but we can't measure gravity waves yet. They've

been the holy grail for a long time though. Soon though.... just a few years now....

[pnwmom]

44. Thanks for your post, electropop

And I agree: "Something which can operate outside the laws of nature would either be grounds for revising and deepening our understanding of the laws of nature, or would be (if inherently or by definition unmeasurable or unprovable) not part of the picture."

That's why my opinion is that neither science nor religion can really disprove each other. They're not in the same picture, as it were, by definition.

[Kailassa]

21. Peoples' brain waves can be picked up at a distance

by machines. I see no reason to be certain that structures within our brains cannot work as antennae to pick these signals up too, and decipher them.

I'm biased because telepathy is a common thing in my family. We don't think it's weird to suddenly "hear" what another is saying without words being spoken, and have to work to stop it showing around other people if it appens unexpectedly.

Several times I've hopped on a train and gone to where my daughter was, because I could feel her distress, and each time she badly needed immediate help. A cousin of mine always knows when her husband arrives at the station, so she can drive over and pick him up, because she "just gets that feeling," in her words.

It's traditional in some Australian Aboriginal tribes to meet and talk with other people in your sleep, andit's just taken for granted, not considered strange at all.

[pnwmom]

46. I've had some things happen, too, Kailissa, that I can't

imagine ever being explained in scientific terms -- like someone I know having a detailed dream about a very odd and unexpected thing that happened to me several hours later. Or a three year old telling me about something that happened in our family before she was born, involving a relative she had never met!

So I've been trying to figure out whether all atheists are as inextricably bound to the idea of the five known senses as some of the ones I've seen posting here. Because, whether a person believes in a god or not, it seems to me there is still so much we just don't know. And maybe never will.

[Kailassa]

66. It's good to meet someone else who has seen there are holes

in the fabric we accept as reality.

I'm hoping quantum physics will provide an explanation for some.
And I'm sure one day a physical explanation will be found for telepathy.

But the time distortion stuff ...
That's happened to me, seeing a friend's mother in a dream before I met her.
So when my friend wanted to introduce her mother to me at a dance, I pointed her out, and my friend was surprised, wanting to know how I knew. Her mother was wearing the same hugely overdone hat that I'd seen in the dream the night before, so I tried to wriggle out of it by saying my friend had once told me about her mother's hat. Ann looked at me coldly, "My mother only bought that hat today." *oops* :blush:

The only way I can explain this stuff is that the world we know simply is not real in the sense of what we believe reality to be. I can't believe in a physical and a separate "miraculous" or supernatural world. There has to be a rational explanation that brings it all together, and I think that's something you are fishing for too.

Perhaps time is a dimension we travel through, like space, and it really all exists simultaneously. Perhaps telepathy happens because we are all one, living in lots of separate but interconnected planes. There is so much that I want to understand, but pehaps speculating is more fun than knowing. ;-)

[Kailassa]

25. Some people say that they don't need to set an alarm.

They say they just have to concentrate before they go to sleep on exactly the time they want to get up, and they wake at that time.
That's never worked for me, but as a kid I could shut my eyes and look at the kitchen clock in my mind, and see what the time was.

Thinking about this in relation to your post, it occurred to me it might not be odd at all, we might have a time sense built into our brains that some people can access better than others. Imagining the clock may have just been a handy way to access a perfectly natural source of information.

[Random_Australian]

28. Yes, we have a biological clock. Yes, if you are lucky you can get

good at it. I can, provided I am getting at least 6 hrs sleep. It is pretty useful.

[pnwmom]

45. I'm one of those people, actually, but it never seemed like

any special talent, or anything extrasensory. I still assume it has a biological basis but now I'm wondering -- just how does that work?

[NobleCynic]

26. What an amusing thread

Especially Mythsaje's bit on the additional 20 senses already identified. That is some interesting stuff.

I think most atheists, when explained what agnosticism is would classify themselves as agnostics. All that little change in phraseology means is you accept that somethings are unknowable. That is how I see myself. Because of that I consider theology to be a topic to discuss in leisure time. But as long as there is still work to be done, one should only concern oneself with what the senses available indicate.

[Random_Australian]

29. "I think most atheists, when explained what agnosticism is would classify

themselves as agnostics" tread lightly. note that "when explained what agnosticism is" implies we don't already know. (Unless we are using different definitions, (as in weak atheism = agnosticism to you))

[trotsky]

37. I think you're wrong.

I know very well what agnosticism is, and it's a separate concept from atheism/theism. One can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

[NobleCynic]

75. In a strict technical sense

...you are correct. Agnosticism is recognizing or believing the truth is unknowable, which is a only a moderator on one's faith in god or faith that god does not exist.

Atheist = There is no god
Agnostic atheist = There is probably no god, and if there is, probably not how you imagine God to be
Agnostic theist = There is probably / there is a god, but his nature is unknowable.
Theist = There is a god and his nature is knowable (If only to an extent)

In practical terms however, the first two a nigh identical. It is just that full atheism, ironically, takes more faith as it requires one to believe with certainty that there is no God.

If you're using a different definition, I would like to hear it. This is just the definition I'm used to, and I'm sure there are others.

[trotsky]

79. You are wrong again.

Atheism does not mean you have to be certain gods do not exist. That's a particular type - STRONG atheism. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in gods. Don't try to tell me what it is I think, alright? And I promise not to do the same to you. Deal?

[NobleCynic]

81. I'm struggling with your definition

I'm not Christian, I'm not trying to convert you. No need to get so defensive. I'm not challenging your beliefs. Just clearing up confusion regarding the definitions of atheism and agnosticism for myself.

So semantically what is the difference between a weak atheist and an atheistic agnostic?

[trotsky]

83. Weak atheism and agnostic atheism are essentially the same.

Austin Cline maintains the atheism section at About.com and does a good job clarifying a lot of issues. Here's his take on atheism/agnosticism and strong vs. weak atheism.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismquestions/a/strong_weak.htm

[pnwmom]

47. Thank you, NobleCynic.

I was hoping we (posters in R&T) could find some common ground and have a different sort of discussion this time. Because I think we actually probably do have a lot in common, in the sense that most of us are intrigued by issues that leave a lot of people cold. . . even if we often end up on opposite sides of the divide.

[Strong Atheist]

50. "I think most atheists ... would classify themselves as agnostics."

Not me!

[Minnesota Libra]

27. I think what you are suggesting is ESP, a "sixth sense", "gut feeling"....

....call it what you may but it's that extra sense to know things many other people are not aware of or maybe choose to ignore.

It's funny you mention color blindness because I have the most horrible time telling the difference between the extra dark versions of Navy Blue, Hunter Green, Black, Dark Gray, and other such really dark colors. I've been known to wear hunter green with navy blue because I thought they were the same color. Now I label things where it can't be seen and try to simply steer clear of really dark colors except black.

Yes, I've got that extra something and I've astonished some people, especially close friends and family, by seeming to know things and predicting things I had no way of knowing about.

Personally, I think we all have the potential for developing that "sixth sense" "ESP" or whatever a person wants to call it. It's simply a matter of first acknowledging you've got it and then developing it by using it.

BTW, I'm not an atheist by any means. I truly do believe their is a god and there is lucifer but they are busy having their little power struggles and haven't got time for us humans - in fact we humans are nothing but play toys in their games. So what that makes me is anyone's guess. Maybe someone here can tell me.

[Random_Australian]

30. plain theist? Just my guess.

[pnwmom]

48. I've heard about that sock problem before, among the

mildly color blind. It might be the only symptom they have.

But I just read recently that color blind people might be able to see extra colors that other people can't! So perhaps there is a compensation you weren't aware of . . .

[trotsky]

31. If something is being detected,

then it's using a natural process to do so. And identifying a slightly different shade of color is much, MUCH different than perceiving another dimension, as you seem to be equating.

Anyway, since we and every other creature inhabiting this universe are governed by its physical laws, if we can't detect it (either with our senses or with machines we build), that means it cannot influence us physically. If it cannot influence us physically, then how is it any different than if it didn't exist at all?

[Kailassa]

33. Ozone, ELF waves, radiation ...

If we had never developed ways to detect these things, would that have stopped them from affecting us?

There is on characteristic that all unknowns have in common. They are unknown. So we don't know about any of them.

There is no way to know what undiscovered things may exist that are affecting us all in ways we'd never guess. And there could be some that we will never discover.

[trotsky]

34. That's the point.

If we can't yet detect them, we can at least detect their effects. If something mysterious is happening that we can't detect, then we at least have some sign it's there. But the point is, if we can't even see the effects of this mysterious thing, why do we have to imagine there's some unseen dimension or other such make-believe?

[Kailassa]

38. hmmm ...

Firstly, I'm not trying to argue a case for the existence of God or of a spiritual dimension, I'm only responding to your question.

So to continue with our discussion, you might have a chemical, let's say DDT, in your body, and be affected in many different ways, but still have no way to detect those effects, if they are subtle, or are effects that are taken for granted as inevitable, or if they can be attributed to other causes.

Perhaps oxygen causes aging and eventual death, and we don't realize because we have no control group to compare oxygen breathers with, ;-)

As for imagining unseen dimensions and make-believe, imagining is a good mental exercise, and has been the beginning of many advances and discoveries. These days the world being discovered by quantum physicists is as fascinating as any supernatural world, and it takes all the imagination I have to try to understand it.

[trotsky]

43. Here's what I'm saying.

Rather than refer to an existing chemical, like DDT, let's say there is something called Chemical X. And no, it's not the Chemical X that created the PowerPuff Girls! There are some people who believe Chemical X exists (Xers), and there are others who do not (non-Xers). The Xers say it's everywhere, in everybody, but only some people can detect it with a certain sense. The non-Xers ask, OK, how do you know? Where are these people who can detect it?

The Xers say, well, they can't really detect it, they just "feel" it's there and causing harm. The non-Xers say, alright, what kind of harm does it cause? The Xers point to things like arthritis, cancer, AIDS, whatever. But the non-Xers reply, we understand those conditions, and we know what causes them. The existing mechanisms do not require we postulate an unseen, undetectable Chemical X.

So the Xers come back and say that even though we can't detect it, and don't see how its existence is required to explain anything, that it STILL EXISTS. The non-Xers response is then, well, if this Chemical X can't be detected, and doesn't have any effects that can be detected, how does Chemical X differ from a chemical that doesn't exist?

They (and I) will be perfectly content to withhold judgment on Chemical X until SOME kind of evidence is provided. Such as the evidence for DDT causing harm.

[Kailassa]

68. And it's skeptics like you

who encourage scientific endeavors that may eventually lead to provable facts being known about "Chemical X".

:toast:

I have beliefs, but I'd hate my beliefs or anyone else's to be respected in the place of real knowledge.

[pnwmom]

55. Great post, Kailissa. Thank you.

[Random_Australian]

36. Err, except that because the way we found things like radio waves -

predicted not stumbled upon by chance. (James Clerk Maxwell)

But yes, there may be more unknowns.... and if they ever affect anything, they will be detected and whatnot.

But still. Q.T is called the most successful theory of all time for good reason.

Me tired. Goodnight.

[Kailassa]

69. They will be detected if civilization keeps progressing.

I'm hoping Chimpy's idiocy does not bring it all to an abrupt halt.

[Random_Australian]

71. Or the UFT brings it to an 'abrupt' but rather different halt in regards

to completely new phenomena.

[Kailassa]

74. Now That would be exciting.

good morning.

[Random_Australian]

76. Yup! It would open an entirely new book on what we can do with the

current things though, even if it meant that everything was explained. Hmmm.... We are going to live in interesting times!

[pnwmom]

51. Couldn't it influence us unconsciously?

[trotsky]

52. If it influences us, then it's changing our actions

and would be detectable that way.

[pnwmom]

54. It could be changing our thoughts, but how would we know?

[trotsky]

56. How can we know we're not a brain in a vat?

How can we know we're not simulations in a giant computer?

We can play these games, but ultimately, that's all they are - games. Until you've got some kind of evidence, either direct or indirect, your questions aren't really analyzing anything or bringing any new knowledge to the table.

[pnwmom]

57. Please, Trotsky, don't spoil the fun. This kind of discussion IS

enjoyable to some of us.

Are you sure you aren't the least bit interested?

[trotsky]

59. For me, these kinds of discussions are no different than...

wondering how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or if there really is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

The universe is so very interesting and complex all on its own, I really don't see why it's necessary to invent other stuff to add on to it.

[pnwmom]

60. Oh well.

[kwassa]

39. I think spirituality is a separate sense

It is a different way of sensing information, an extrarational means.

and pretty universal.

At least, many people have this sense.

[Kailassa]

70. The sense of the numinous.

numinous \NOO-min-us; NYOO-\, adjective:
1. Of or pertaining to a numen; supernatural.
2. Indicating or suggesting the presence of a god; divine; holy.
3. Inspiring awe and reverence; spiritual.
(Dictionary.com)

OH WHAT A FEELING!

It seems to be a genetic part of our make-up, and is experienced by atheists and agnostics, as well as (some) believers. Did God put this ability into our brains so that we could be aware of the divine, or did this aspect of our brain chemistry help drive our invention of God?

Whichever it is, it's a favourite word of mine. ;-)

[Strong Atheist]

49. Prove it. nt.

[pnwmom]

53. Now why'd you have to go and do that?

That's sure a conversation stopper. Geez.

[Strong Atheist]

61. Lol! nt.

[Goblinmonger]

62. Good to see you back. nt

[Strong Atheist]

84. Thank you for the kind words. I am dipping my toes back into the

shark-infested waters... not tilting at too many windmills yet...

[pnwmom]

58. Thank you, everyone, for your responsive replies. I was

really groping there for the words that could get a discussion going. In my "real life" these conversations are few and far between, LOL.

[Proud_Democratt]

67. There are many things that can't be explained by science yet...

but it doesn't mean the unexplained have any religious connection.

[InaneAnanity]

72. Not possible

It's not possible for humans to have more than five senses. Some can have BETTER senses, but having additional senses would make them different species.

Animals certainly have different senses than we do and can perceive things that we can't, but I sincerely doubt that any of that would change my opinion regarding god.

[Ready4Change]

77. I'm an "Undecided", call it what you will.

Many of your examples are of animals who have greater sensitivity than humans in known, understood senses. Dogs can hear higher pitches of sound than humans, but they are still hearing sound waves. Bees can discern finer gradients of tones in certain color wavelengths than humans, but they are still seeing light waves.

With that said, I still don't reject the idea that there may be things which exist, yet we as yet have no means of detecting. Or no recognized means. For example: perhaps there are alternate dimensions, and perhaps there are ways of detecting those dimensions which we don't yet understand. Perhaps there is magic, but we lack the technique needed to cast spells. Perhaps there is a God, but we don't understand how he is trying to communicate with us.

I just require proof before I can believe.

[bloom]

78. One thing that comes to mind

is autistic savants. People who have abilities that seem like they can't be explained.

Plus people with autism tend to have various sensory sensitivities. Tastes, sounds, touch, can all seem magnified.

I think there are all kinds of things that don't fit into what people can normally explain. Science hasn't solved all of the mysteries yet.

[Zhade]

80. Without evidence, any such suspicions can't be considered true.

So even if I *did* believe in those things (I don't, but am open to them if science uncovers them), I wouldn't be silly enough to think they were real for certain.

[varkam]

82. To say that there is no good evidence to believe...

in God is quite different from saying that we know everything about our bodies, our minds, and our world. Do I think there is such a thing as a sixth sense? I don't know. There's no real good systematic body of evidence supporting such a conclusion. There are numerous anectdotal reports (e.g. My grandmother had a dream that came true), but those don't impress me that much (nor do they impress my BS detector). Am I open to the possibility? Of course.

[jukes]

85. no

such a sense wd be demonstrable empirically; all attempts to prove a consistent "sixth sense" have failed.


taking it on faith doesn't make it real. in fact, such faith leads one to be a victim in a con-game.

[simonm]

86. Unlike the existence of God, there is proof of ESP

If one looks seriously into the subject of paranormal phenomenon it can be quite an eye opener. The major obstacle for most is having an open mind. An open mind doesn't necessarily require leaving critical thought. It means being open to the possibilities. In this case it is all about human potential (ESP).

I've found that some paranormal skeptics share an interesting relation with religious fanatics. They can both be dedicated to their beliefs and dismiss all ideas contrary to their system. One uses an old story book while the other preaches from man's current limited understanding of nature.

So far, I've personally seen examples of weak telekinesis (movement or influence of lightweight objects), telepathy, remote viewing and other abilities. These subjects are very real and the implications are serious. How does it work? I don’t know. Unfortunately, we cannot always measure the results directly.

As a subscriber to string theory and relativity, I believe the discovery of additional spectrums/frequencies/dimensions is possible as our technology advances. There is nothing supernatural about it. Until our knowledge is advanced enough, these topics will remain publicly ignored along with the neutrino power generator and cold fusion.

None of the possibilities would confirm the existence of a supreme being.

[Random_Australian]

87. Tread lightly, you are very close to stepping on fingers.

(With the skeptics thing)
For example:

I certainly don't believe in telekinesis, and it would probably seem like I dismissed it. I thought about it and decided that if it anyone did it using the correct standards of proof, evidence and analysis, I'd beleive, but until then, I should dismiss in some senses those who believe that personal experience is enough - just before you go nuts at me for being an offensive gimboid, I'd like to clarify - not enough for it to be considered a real, scientific phenomenon. If you want to beleive it as a personal opinion, of course, what you've stated is more than enough reason to believe.

As you can see from "those who believe that personal experience is enough", it is very easy to offend someone unintentionally. There also happens be a large overlap between the skeptics and a very insulted group too.

No, you've not quite insulted yet, but if you imply that in "preaches from man's current limited understanding of nature" you mean scientists, that would be enough. You'll get used to DU.

However, if you believe that science ought to accept the existence of ESP, we can start another thread because that would make an interesting topic of discussion.

(Short answer IMO: No, it shouldn't accept it)

If you feel insulted, patronised, preached to, or anything else of the sort, we've misunderstood each other & don't hesitate to ask me to explain, or if I have wrongly percieved, correct.

Edit: Go String Theory! (I hope to be working on that a few more years into my degree)

[simonm]

88. No offense meant

The scientific method is the best standard IMO since it demands reproducible results. Based on experience, ESP is reproducible if given enough time and effort. That was years ago and I have no desire to argue about it. I'm merely sharing a basic observation.

What I find most discouraging is when people claim an idea as the ultimate truth or fact and ignore contradicting evidence. This problem is applicable to both sides.

[Random_Australian]

89. good good good. No need to argue if you've no wish.

See you round!