Why the Paranormal is Normal

The idiocy of religion can be summed up in that Christians are certain that unless you believe in JC you will burn forever in hell, whereas Muslims contend that if you do not believe in Mohammed then you end up burning in hell. The question is which one of these world views is correct? The simplest (and best explanation) is neither is correct.

What a bunch of gobbledeegook Mr. Chopra writes! The simple truth is that REALITY is much more than our empirical-metric material science will ever be able to detect. But, because we humans have a non-material aspect to us (called a soul by the Roman Catholic Church) as well as a material aspect (the material body), some aspects of the non-material-based portions of REALITY are sometimes detected by our souls. We label these detection experiences as spiritual or paranormal experiences. As Shakespeare had Hamlet pronounce upon the appearance of a ghost, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

God created man in his own image, not the monkey: but the creator, every step, every touch, every word is an act of creation.

Reality is nothing more than crayons on paper, the ability to show our ideas to others and allow them to flourish for a time.

But the system is set up to be self regulating through time, ashes to ashes dust to dust

"To see a World in a Grain of Sand
And a Heaven in a Wild Flower,
Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand
And Eternity in an hour..."

infinity in a glance, eternity in a moment

You could almost say that the difference between a scientist and a zen-master is that a scientist believes in nothing and a zen-master _believes_ in nothing.
"The-void-which-binds", as Dan Simmons puts it; I'm not a fan of his but I like that particular expression.

I have older colleagues/professors at the local University where I taught who believe in spirits, hexes, native shamans, healers, and superstitions. And these people are by all means highly educated individuals who have earned their doctorates from some of the best Universities in the world. I've always wondered how in the Age of Enlightenment, could they reconcile their wholesale beliefs in the supernatural and the “triumph” of the Enlightenment over superstitious beliefs.

I guess the answer lies in Bourdieu's concept of the habitus. In the Philippines, most of us are raised as if the supernatural co-exists with the natural world. We are raised believing in the spirits of our dead relatives lingering on 40 days after their death, sometimes longer depending on the nature of their deaths. We are raised believing that the dead make their presence felt and sometimes speak to us in dreams, that nature spirits live side by side us; that supernatural beings like tikbalangs (giants who live in trees who are half horse [upper body], half human in form), aswangs (beings that prey on unborn fetuses), etc exist; that people with special supernatural abilities could hex us, among others. The Catholic Church, which still wields much influence in the Philippines also has a hand in perpetuating this what with its endorsement of supposed miracles of the saints and Mary, rituals that help the dead in their transition to the other world, its promotion of syncretic beliefs and practices of Catholic official doctrines and practices and indigenous beliefs and practices, and what not. And for many of us, the Catholic Church serves as a looming figure in our formative years.

And no amount of education could shake off these beliefs among many of us even among the most educated. It is a reality that is so deeply ingrained that no amount of exposure to the ideas of the Englightenment could shake these off or could challenge these. These have become part of our habitus. For some of us, we are able to compartmentalize this as Chopra says. Thus, although some of us scoff at many of these superstitions, we find ourselves practicing—sometimes unaware—these superstitions. Or we rationalize that since not all things could be explained by science (or at least it has not provided explanations for a lot of things), it is all right to subscribe to these as a way of making sense of the world.

I’d like to think that everything has a rational explanation, including things that we think as supernatural. But then again, maybe Nietzsche is right, there is no Truth, just interpretations and that the supposed inroads the Enlightenment has achieved are no more than interpretations like the superstitions that some of us subscribe to.

One other thing to add --

Spooky as it seems at times, Quantum Mechanics is probably the single most successful field in the history of human science.

But it's no replacement or suppliment for spirituality.

It's more like gambling.

bc

Some quick comment - I think it's a mistake to try to reconcile spiritual faith and scientific fact.

Apples and oranges, IMO.
Emotion and logic.

The scientific revolutions of the first half of the 20th century seem to have cemented the idea that "reality" is subjective and relative, and you can no more dissuade a person from their spiritual faith and to beleive solely in science, logic, and facts by killing them with a gun than you can attempt to convince them that they won't really be dead if they don't believe in the bullet.

We humans are nothing if not complete and utter contradiction.

A path to true happiness may be knowing that we'll never get to the bottom of things, but all we can hope for is finding Who to blame for Everything. And that person may or may not be in the mirror.

Sorry, this got a little over the top.

bc

ARTISTKVIP - if you play guitar you're alright with me. You come from Bluegrass country! I think of Ralph Stanley, Tony Rice and so many others, from that neck of the woods.....

Two bits of wisdom help me to reconcile science and religion and see them as 2 harmonious expressions of monoreality:

1)"In Islamic belief, knowledge is two-fold. There is that revealed through the Holy Prophet and that which man discovers by virtue of his own intellect. Nor do these two involve any contradiction, provided man remembers that his own mind is itself the creation of God. Without this humility, no balance is possible. With it, there are no barriers. Indeed, one strength of Islam has always lain in its belief that creation is not static but continuous, that through scientific and other endeavours, God has opened and continues to open new windows for us to see the marvels of His creation"(Aga Khan IV, Aga Khan University, 16 March 1983, Karachi, Pakistan)

2):"Islam is fundamentally in its very nature a natural religion. Throughout the Quran God's signs (Ayats) are referred to as the natural phenomenon, the law and order of the universe, the exactitudes and consequences of the relations between natural phenomenon in cause and effect. Over and over, the stars, sun, moon, earthquakes, fruits of the earth and trees are mentioned as the signs of divine power, divine law and divine order. Even in the Ayeh of Noor, divine is referred to as the natural phenomenon of light and even references are made to the fruit of the earth"(Aga Khan III, April 4th 1952, Karachi, Pakistan)

Mr. Chopra,
By your definition is consciousness simply energy? If so then this would be an apt statement, "in the ultimate reality there is only pure energy..." Roger Penrose thinks that quantum mechanics will lead us to an understanding of what consciousness might be. Can we clearly talk of such a thing as consciousness? How can we prove that consciousness exists? Since we are that which is looking at itself how do we objectify us?
IF consciousness is the stillness that is the space of fullness like Sunya in the midst and surrounding all there is then that would be similar to the singularity that physics points towards. It would be like the unmoved mover. Anyhow, the question I ask may be purely semantics but I do think it's important that we define what it is we are talking about. What do you really mean when you speak of consciousness?
Sincerely,
P.Habib

Dr. Chopra says:
"Germs and gravity were once waiting in the wings but now stand center stage."

They are part of human reality because science proved their existence through their measurable effects. I do not see why 25% of people in this country do not believe in ghosts even though science demonstrated their existence, using a variety of sensitive instruments.
Below are ghosts citing.
http://www.ghoststudy.com/new6/new/gettysburg13.htm

artistkvip: "if God were to create a universe it would most likely make sense and be cohesive"

This reminded me: consciousness itself is supernatural. Until recently nobody believed in it and identifying it was seen as unscientific. Maybe many people still see it that way.

i enjoyed your article very much you bring up some good points and you point the finger toward other points that are accepted as reality and scientifically grounded when in fact they are not...it is i think the indivual examination in real life with the scientific method that makes the so called supernatural occasionall proveable and therefore natuaral and perhaps misnamed in the real world...the fact that our spy agencies actually have intelligence in thier job discription when in real life they exhibit very little at times is all the proof we need...., faith in things that in real life i think everyone would agree would be foolish and in the real world over time these are thrown aside for things that are obviously or not so ovbiously true...i think faith spirituality and science are made of the same cloth and are different words and perspectives to describle the same fundamental facts. ..the key word here i think is facts. eienstein belive if i understand his writing correctly believe in the ultimate truth and ultimate rational purpose for both scientific priciples and the concept of the universe and they all fit together in a way that was logical and interdependant, and being also being created by God.. i agree if God were to create a universe it would most likely make sense and be cohesive.. the reson some of our sciece do not intererlate completely nmay be due to the fact that mankind has an uncomplete understanding or reality and physicl properties, and science. just a few years ago science insisted stomach ulcers were cause by stress and spicy foods .. they now know it is a bacteria that can easily be killed,,, the stress part as it relates to pulling down the actual human imune system on every leveel of protection in my research is true but they did not understand the cause and effect relationship and actual chemical processes involved like i do. if you want proof that science already acknowledges spirituality in its literature i will give you a few ietems i have run accross in my studies.... the the DSM iv... the scientific holy grail for diagnosing and treating mental illness in moder medice make the following distinctions....for delusions and hallucinations... if they pertain to religious or spiritual beliefs the doctor should not automatically suspect them to be a sign of mental illness and that further colabborating or corroberating evidence of metal disese is neccesarry for diagnosis... i wonder if people realize what a profound statement and admission, that is is real life and an admission to the scientic proof of spiritual guidance in individuals.. of coarse there are many mentally trouble people who also claim spiritual experiences so don't assume the oppisite is always true,lol, but the fact that it is not thrown out out of hand is important... also the scientic fact that the placebo effect actually happens in real life in real people with real medical problems in very real clinical studies..show people are....being cured not by medicine but by something else ..may be proof in devine intervention and miracle happening all around us and mistakenly misnamed... the placebo effect.. but please check 4 truth if any i am just the dyslexic son of a southwestern virginia blueridgemountain hillbilly that had some very iinteresting jobs he cant exactly talk about in real life... we are not to brite lol

Terra Gazelle:

I am sincerely sorry I upset you. I'm not even close to a racist and wonder what gave you that idea.

perspective: "I gather that you side with Ken Wilber in the hypothesis that consciousness is a primary phenomenon."

I try to side with everyone I can, but in the Mind/Body controversy there is no question. It's like rock/paper/scissors: mind trumps body. There would be no body without it. Body is something we dream up because we have a mind. When you look at all the evidence, you can see it will not work the other way. The trick is getting others to agree with what you dream up.

terra: "Ever see the "Elegant Universe" and "What the Beep Do we know?" If you get the chance please do. Do not worry, they are all very scientific."
***********************************************
Sorry, "What the Bleep..." is pseudoscience- "quantum mysticism."

Terra - thanks for the links. You've been reading my mail! I see Benjamin Libet's work mentioned in other of my readings. These theorems tie in with the ideas of physicist David Bohm regarding what he called the Implicate and Explicate order - he believed that (all) probable realities were warehoused in the Implicate order, and made manifest in the Explicate order via complex holographic projections....he didn't specifically state that consciousness caused the projections (as others have) but instead talked of 'hidden' variables for causation. A vast electromagnetic information-based field may be part of the equation!

Others have said that normal brain volume and accompanying neurological connections are not sufficient for storing the vast amount of data necessary for many simultaneous & complex cognitive functions, decision-making, dreaming, and assorted cerebral and sub-cortical activities....it might have been Libet himself. Thought as a function of consciousness is among the hardest of hard problems to sort out.

In effect, this makes the brain as much a receiver as a transmitter - and with possible quantum functions and features. Good stuff!

I recommend taking a look at Kurt Engelhart's work.

L. Kurt Engelhart - impressive work. I glanced over it and will take more time with it later.

In short, I gather that you side with Ken Wilber in the hypothesis that consciousness is a primary phenomenon - both integrated with and independent of brain function? Of course he has written extensively regarding what is normally classified as transcendent experience.

I'm not trying to put words where they don't belong, but am curious about your own personal view of consciousness based on your obviously extensive research.

Do you see differences between categories of consciousness and the Buddhist concept of primal awareness (Tibetan Rigpa), or is it all matter of degree?

Anyway, you've got some interesting reading there. And congratulations, academically speaking!

BGone,
Is it your way to always put down others?
You did it in a post about Blacks and welfair...so liderate of you.

You do not know me, but feel that you can say what I do or not do. First off Wiccans do not pass a plate...neither do we try to get anyone to "believe " us...we do try to get others to know us. That we are not baby killing blood drinkers. We do not kill small furry animals...we do not wash our hair in blood to keep our power, or if there are three of us with our shoes off we are having an orgy...yes that was on a Christian web site.

I don't give a fig if you believe what I say or not...just know that we are not evil.

I am a High Priestess; a leader, a teacher...and I am not paid. Now in teaching I often have to use my printer paper and ink...I do ask for contriputions when i need to replace ink.

So how do I take my beliefs out of what I believe and brings me happiness and connection? I take what I know and am inspired to learn and teach...I have had a very popular online magazine...I have taught people from all over the world, I have ministered to people and helped them. I have worked for over 30 years to be of worth to my community. So you tell me, what is more soul satisfying? To be true to yourself and your beliefs or to care what people say that not only do not believe what I do is worthy, but who denigrates my integrety.

terra

Many of the gods have been embodied already. Perhaps the most popular one is Fortuna, (George who decides which numbers will be drawn in keno) the god of good luck. Nevada has the larges prison population of those who embodied that god no doubt but everywhere there are those who realize god is just a tool. Of course the casino operators rely on their own embodiment showing that there is more than one embodiment possible.

Minister hold master god, God who is the sum total of all the gods in their hands, point IT at the congregation, threaten the folks with hell, remind them of the Biblical passage, "render to God" pass the plate and enjoy all the benefits of George the god of good fortune.

If man can think of it, it can and sooner or later will be done,, unless the great god atom is deployed. Atom is no doubt the real master god but then there is omeba.

Now we are getting somewhere. Understanding consciousness makes the supernatural a necessary part of the natural. For an independently confirming view:

http://kengelhart.home.igc.org/Dissertation/

Terra Gazelle:

Are you literate? I said, "Science fiction leads to science fact. Great inventions came about by folks believing in what they hallucinated for all practical purposes."

Don't just hallucinate and then declare yourself done. Let's see you turn that wonderful stuff you see that no one else sees into something useful. Getting weak minds to believe you is not useful to other than you when you pass the plate and charge them for it.

Marconi hallucinated the radio. He didn't stop there and make money getting idiots to believe. He made it. Embody your hallucinations and take the belief out of it. And get literate.

Chris Everett,

Well in my reality there is a need and function of the astral plane. I just love how folks who have different beliefs try to correct our thinking, as if they have the key on the universe and how it works.

BGone,
you do not get it..imagination does not mean not true... It is part of the process of creation.

terra

Just a thought. Isn't man's ability to visualize at the heart of the paranormal thing? Science fiction leads to science fact. Great inventions came about by folks believing in what they hallucinated for all practical purposes. Electrical devices are presently at our zenith of imagination.

Suppose one was thrust across time back 2,000 years and has a battery, (no place to plug it in) operated toy. One of those remote control race cars would do fine. What could that individual do with the minds of those folks? A good psychological test asks what one would bring along on a trip back in time. A machine gun is the winning device telling us an awfully lot about ourselves.

Religion, "faith" says it's not necessary for the vision to be embodied into working machinery. All that is necessary is for people to believe. What are sold as god based miracles, bringing the dead back to life for example are no doubt possible and will be done by ordinary people once knowledge advances. It can't be done without first visualizing it. "Faith" is just way ahead of the curve imagining things so high tech only God can do them. There is nothing God can do that man can't do because God is one of those visualizations.

There's one of those unpublished UFO encounters where the aliens have God. God is an electrical device fitting into a cube shaped and very plain box, no dials, knobs or gauges measuring about 30 inches on the side that is operated by thought. It delivers to everyone everything but one thing. No one can stop anyone from doing anything or force anyone to do anything. It brings the dead back to life and allows everyone to be young and healthy delivering everything everyone wants and needs to stay alive and be as happy as they possibly can. Unfortunately, it eliminates all power for it is God and all power rests with God. Those who would be king, pope, America's pastor and so on are miserable of course. This kinda signals who is going to heaven and who is going to hell. It's a matter of imagination.

Diana,

There's no such thing as an astral plane. Take the example of the electromagnetic field. The only reason it exists as an idea is that to explain electromagnetic phenomena. Since it *does* explain them, we call it real. But what does the astral plane explain? Nothing. Like the electromagnetic field, it was invented as a means of explaining certain "paranormal" phenomena. But under closer examination it is evident that there are no paranormal phenomena. Just coincidences coupled with credulity and confirmation bias. In other words, diddly squat. All of which consigns the astral plane to the realm of fantasy. You say as much yourself when you wait with baited breath for the arrival of evidence that doesn't currently exist, and not for lack of investigation, I might add. So please please try and think rationally about these things, and perhaps keep this story in mind:

Pierre-Simon Laplace's Mécanique Céleste (Celestial Mechanics) essentially translated the geometrical study of mechanics by Newton to one based on calculus. Napoleon asked Laplace why there was not a single mention of God in Laplace's entire five volumes explaining how the heavens operated. Laplace replied to Napoleon that he had "no need for that particular hypothesis".

Well said, my friend. How about consensual validation? Imagine how the world will change when at least two people (know) they have contacted each other through the astral plane, through telepathy, and/or through remote viewing/influence?

Perspective,

I believe in the Electromagnetic field also...

http://www.unisci.com/stories/20022/0516026.htm

http://www.geneticengineering.org/evolution/mcfaddenc13.html

interesting stuff.

terra

Terra,

Please be advised that "What the Bleep" is not scientific - it is a sham, produced by cranks. The only respected physicist in it is David Albert of Columbia University, who was hoodwinked into giving interviews that were then deliberately edited to say the opposite of what David meant. You have to ask yourself what kind of people would intentionlly construct such a blatant deception without any regard for the hard-earned reputation of an elite physicist. You have to ask yourself whether or not they deserve your time, attention and respect. Here's an article snippet:

"One of the few legitimate academics in the film, David Albert, a philosopher of physics at Columbia University, is outraged at the final product. He says that he spent four hours patiently explaining to the filmmakers why quantum mechanics has nothing to do with consciousness or spirituality, only to see his statements edited and cut to the point where it appears as though he and the spirit warrior are speaking with one voice. “I was taken,” Albert admits. “I was really gullible, but I learned my lesson.” Yet the real shame with this film is that it plays on people’s fascination with science while distorting and misrepresenting that science."

If you're intersted in what David has to say, read Quantum Mechanics and Experience. It's kind of a dry slog, but it doens't require any prior math or physiscs.

Brian Green's Elegant Universe is science, although it is spectulative science. It's about string theory, which is promising but wholly untested so far.

BTW, when someone pulls out the old "solids aren't really solid" routine, I point out that yes, they are - it's just that our intuitions about what a solid IS are wrong. We intuit that solids are extended regions of nonzero density. Fortunately, science enlightens us, and now we know better. A solid is an extended body whose constituent parts remain in approximate spatial relation to each other, at least with respect to any disruptive energies involved.

Mr. Mark,
I am so happy to conceed to your expectations...lol.

terra

Dear Terra -

All I can say is: I knew you were going to say that!

;)

Terra - I believe in electromagnatism, which is why I can't walk through walls - yet. I'm not so sure about atoms as real entities though. We should remember that not so long ago atoms were thought to be tiny planet-like spheres with minute particles orbiting around the perimeter.

And now, we have 6 weak quarks as a nucleus, with wavy gravy electrons leapfrogging between different orbits around the perimeter - somewhere in time and space.

All we know is that different electrons can't occupy the same position, based on Pauli's exclusion principle....otherwise, it's the goofy world of uncertainty, ala Heisenberg. And yet, we have the atom as the ultimate foundation and last bastion of our material reality.

Maybe an atom is merely a minute focal point of unseen and permanently invisible forces, rather than a real thing/particle?

Apparently acting as though it's real is all that matters!

Mr. Mark,

Mind reading is a talent...it's kind of like being an artist. You can have the talent, but art school is still a help.

I am not a mind reader, I was not born with that talent. But I can tell a sceptic when I am hit over the head with the info enough.

You are wrong...I can not force you to have an open mind...but you also can not force me not to know what I know.

My experiences,the way I see the universe and my place in it, all informs my reality. Atoms make a table solid and water fluid...all energies that can be changed. Set fire to the table, freeze the water and you have energies that have been changed into something else.

Ever see the "Elegant Universe" and "What the Beep Do we know?" If you get the chance please do. Do not worry, they are all very scientific.

terra

This article sounded good until it started slipping into strong-case cognitive constructivism, suggesting that “ultimate reality” is whatever you invent in your own head.

Chopra says, “Only perception makes a hand solid.” That simply is not true. As most people understand “solid” (roughly defined), it is a material object through which other material objects of a certain size cannot pass without causing damage. A baseball cannot pass through my hand (both are solid objects). A bullet can, but not without causing damage. A neutrino can pass through, but only because it is so small, so “solid” doesn’t really apply.

This is not the result of my perception. I can’t will myself to be bullet-proof. That’s just the way the world really is, like it or not.

Persistent belief in illusion and falsehood is sometimes harmless, but often has real-world consequences.

It seems that our view of reality is always provisional and subject to change - or maybe it should be in a perfectly realistic world.

But no matter what we believe, the heavy lifting has already been done - we can just as easily function in a world of illusion or delusion for a lifetime, without ever missing a heartbeat. Reality is beyond any and all considerations of right or wrong....it just is what it is and always has been.

2

I was surprised to see that there wasn't a single comment posted to Deepak Chopra's latest column...until I checked with On Faith's paranormal bloggers, whence I discovered thousands of responses.

They're easy to access if you have ESP. Go ahead and try it!

BTW - I'm thinking of a whole number between 1 and 3. Can you read my mind and tell me what it is?

;)