XPost: sci.psychology.psychotherapy, alt.consciousness, talk.origins   
   From: suzych@swcp.com   
      
   > > >We do not know, and indeed can not know,   
   > > >whether the experiences are also "supernatural" in any way because, by   
   > > >definition, the "supernatural" is outside of nature and therefore not   
   > > >measurable.   
   > >   
   > > I realize this statement doesn't reflect just you, it reflects   
   > > practically   
   > > our entire society. But this is the type of thinking that most needs to   
   > > change. "Supernatural" is an artificial definition.   
      
   I agree.  It's maddening to have this definition relied upon when it's   
   completely useless.  If your brain can perceive it in some way (even   
   indirectly through other analysis of other animals' senses, or other   
   people's experience passed on verbally or otherwise),it's part ofthe   
   natural world that your brain is part of and interfaces with.   
      
   > > >Maybe they are, and maybe they aren't, but we can not   
   > > >determine that from the experiences themselves.   
   > >   
   > > The scientific method can be applied to anecdotal evidence; it's done   
   > > all   
   > > the time. See the works of Ian Stevenson and Carol Bowman. In fact, I   
   > > would say that it is far more scientific to analyze the wealth of   
   > > reports   
   > > of "supernatural" phenomena than to reject them as unknowable. If   
   > > investigation is not the heart of science, what good is it?   
      
   Excellently put! Thankyou.   
      
   > > There are many more experiences I have had that are far more subjective   
   > > in   
   > > nature, such as remembering a portion of a past life--this memory   
   > > accounted for a lifelong problem I have had, and remembering it and   
   > > being   
   > > able to consider it from the point of view I have now enabled me to get   
   > > over that problem. This experience correlates perfectly with many   
   > > others'   
   > > accounts of past life memory and the effects of remembering   
      
   I've had the odd experience of being told by a discorporate third party   
   (through a channeler, as it happens -- sorry if that's too far out for   
   some, but what the heck, we'll never get anywhere with any of this if   
   perceptibly sane, functional people don't speak up about their own   
   experience -- though you'll have to take my word on the sane, functional   
   part, won't you?) of a past-life experience which purpored to account   
   for the sudden onset of quite extreme claustrophobia at the age of about   
   fifty-five.  I don't remember that experience (of being tossed down   
   and oubliette and basically oblied out of existence) but being informed   
   of the cause coincided (I can't verify that it *caused*) a fairly rapid   
   recovery and growth out of the presenting condition.   
      
   > > My reason for focusing on the "natural"/"supernatural" dichotomy is   
   > > that the human mind has an unlimited capacity for denying reality.   
      
   Too true.  Do you read Terry Pratchett?  He uses this all the time, to   
   considerably comic effect, in his fiction.   
      
   > the   
   > challenge then: Name anything demonstrably actual that is not natural.   
      
   Precisely.   
      
   C   
   --   
   Crow   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)