Something really strange just happened

[InSwamTiddler]

I’ve NC for this as I’m not sure what to make of it and I’m really confused.
Back story - I was raised Catholic, but I’m atheist now. I work in a science based field and for as long as I can remember I have believed in the factual, empirically provable reality of things. I don’t believe in God or the afterlife, or ghosts / paranormal stuff.

Nearly 9 years ago my dad died. He died very suddenly and unexpectedly at a young age in my childhood family home.

Due to some circumstantial things, I’m currently living back in my family home.
My mum has mentioned a few times over the years that she’s felt my dad’s presence here and I’ve always been openly kind to her about it, but thinking “nope. Your imagination is going crazy because you’re grieving”. She’s mentioned she’s felt pressure on the bed as if someone has sat down on it next to her for example.

Anyway, this morning DP has left for work and I was still in bed. I was listening to him brushing his teeth, then popping the kettle on so I was definitely awake, but a little drowsy.

I felt him get back into bed with me and thought “what’s he doing?”... it’s not unusual for him to pop back into the bedroom and give me a hug or kiss before leaving the house.

I felt the heaviness of him pressed against my back and his arms wrapped around me. There was a heat between my shoulder blades I have never felt before but I wasn’t scared but I knew it wasn’t DP then. I heard the front door open so DP was leaving the house. Then my whole back went tingly a bit like pins and needles but not in an unpleasant way.

When it was happened I felt calm and warm but I’m freaking out now and can’t stop crying. Sounds silly but I feel like it may have been my dad.

I was 100% awake, not dreaming. I leant over and flicked the lamp on straight after.

Does anyone believe in this stuff? I never have but now I’m questioning everything.

Something like this, Bertrand.

(Sorry, couldn't resist)

What do you think the results have been, bertrand? Any peer reviewed research you'd like to share?

big this is an interesting read....www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fulfillment-any-age/201209/the-secrets-behind-the-latest-esp-research

big sorry posted too soon. The point of the link is that it shows exactly what actually happens when someone comes up with a positive result for ESP. There is no cover up, there is no refusal to publish (unless there are obvious serious flaws in the research protocol...and as this case shows, even then you may well get published, and then a whole lot of other people get interested and excited and attempt to reproduce and support the result.

In this case, as in all others, the reproduction phase failed...comprehensively.

As I said earlier - science doesn't have to explain things that don't actually happen.

"Any peer reviewed research you'd like to share?"

You're the one putting forward "extraordinary" claims-it's up to you to provide the evidence for them!

bertrand what claims have I made which were extraordinary? saying that esp and remote viewing and premonition might be advanced intuition isn't exactly extraordinary.

basically to answer your question the research isn't conclusive. obviously, otherwise it wouldn't be ongoing.

anyway i will read m3lon's link, i guess, its all good, though i think there has been more recent investigations than that by harvard, m3lon.

m3lon the article is really not much to do with what we are talking about. it was about a bizarre one off situation and the conclusion was more to do with scientific method and reporting than the actual subject matter. harvard has done more recent things using neuro scanning, though nothing which takes anything very much further.

Sorry that probably sounded patronising

No, don't worry, it didn't sound patronising. Unfortunately, it sounded misinformed.

Defo sleep paralysis. You can hear, see feel whats going on around you during that time. It can happen in a calm way as opposed to the typical ippressing feeling.
I get it regularly where I wake up and Ican hear my son and other half moving round and I lie there. I even take a drink from the bottle of juice beside me and then ill feel sometjing pressing down on me. Or there have been a few occassions I have fwkt what i thought to be my son get into bed n lie next to me. Onky to then literalky see my son come walking in to check if Im uo as Im still feeling it.
I once had it so bad one night I had a bad dream and managed to wake from it. I got up went to the toilet got a drink etc and washed my face to ensure I didnt slip back into it. But then I lay bacj diwn and hadnt even cloaed my wywa when I fwlt something trying to hold me down. My partner has witnessed me just kaid there eyes open as though Im trying to fight somone and has woken me up to stop it.
I have tried everything to atop it, if it where just the feeling of been cuddled I wouldn't kdnt mind so much its the negative side that gets me. I was toldby my gp not to sleep on my back, so I laid in a way I couldnt roll over ine night then next morning it hapoened again onky this time I got the feeling of somwone stood behind me holding me in a headlock instead. I think mine was first triggered when I moved into my latest home. Its the first place I have felt totally settled and it feels as though something is testing me to see if I can stay put, I always moved every so many month before that n never Settled. I have been here 6 years now n love it, sleep paralyis doesnt seem to happen when Im on holiday or visiting people just at home. Its because im getting into a deep deep sleep
A friend I have gets it when she skeeps in a strange bed. My son used to sleep walk. First time ut happens can be disturbing whether its a good or bad feeling.

big when you say it isn't relevant, do you mean that it isn't written from the stand point of assuming that ESP is a real phenomenon?

Again - finding activity in people's brains is not in any way connected to deciding the activity has been caused by supernatural phenomenon. The primary cause of brain activity is..well...brain function.

Something happens that we don't understand. First we look around for simple explanations. If that doesn't help, we start thinking about more obscure ones-but still based on things we already know. If there's still no joy, we start to think about new things-things we don't yet know about. That's how science works-how we discover new stuff. Sadly -and I say sadly because it would be very exciting if it was otherwise- everything paranormal that has ever been properly investigated fits into the first, or occasionally the second category. Never into the third. Maybe one day something will? But it hasn't yet.

m3lon not relevant because it was widely discredited. Re brain function as I have said a few times, I am saying that just as intuition is an accepted part of our normal brain function, I think it is possible that a lot of what you call "paranormal" and "supernatural" and so on is also part of our normal brain function, just not particularly well understood yet, and a part of the brain many people don't use. I am not sure, obviously. So far all the experiments (afaik) look for something different going on - I am saying it isn't something different, it is just enhanced consciousness and intuition, and these things are still being explored though possibly not necessarily in relation to "paranormal" I really hope that that clarifies what I meant.

For some things some spirituality is going to be part of it and that isn't something which is going to be proved any time soon.

I am not talking about everything which bertrand is referring to as paranormal though.

bertrand if in your first three lines you replaced "we" with "I" and before "science" you write "I think" and after "category" you write "as far as I know" and at the end you write "I don't think" it would make more sense. I am not being rude - your knowledge base is limited to your experiences and this isn't something you have studied.

Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that the scientific method is a matter of opinion?

bertrand you have misunderstood because no I have most definitely not said that. Do you have any expertise whatsoever in relation to scientific method?

So when you said I should put "I" and "I think" and "in my opinion" in my para about how we should look at things we don't understand.........

You really need to be referring to scientific methods, plural. Whilst there are commonalities, science is not a monolith. Methods in theoretical physics are not one and the same as methods in evo devo.

No, science is not a monolith. But observation then hypothesis then test then review = theory is pretty standard, surely?

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

I really wouldn't take Hamlet as a scientific role model.

Interesting (partial) interview from the worlds most notorious and influential atheist philosopher Anthony Flew just before the release of his book, There is a God: How The Worlds Most Notorios Atheist Changed His Mind.

“Dr. Benjamin Wiker: You say in There is a God, that "it may well be that no one is as surprised as I am that my exploration of the Divine has after all these years turned from denial...to discovery." Everyone else was certainly very surprised as well, perhaps all the more so since on our end, it seemed so sudden. But in There is a God, we find that it was actually a very gradual process—a "two decade migration," as you call it. God was the conclusion of a rather long argument, then. But wasn't there a point in the "argument" where you found yourself suddenly surprised by the realization that "There is a God" after all? So that, in some sense, you really did "hear a Voice that says" in the evidence itself "'Can you hear me now?'"
Antony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe. The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself—which is far more complex than the physical Universe—can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source. I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical. The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.
Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e., as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist. What are your thoughts on that?
There Is a God Flew I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.
Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through "experiments and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific?
FlewIt was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.”

Not really the sort of man who should be dismissed out of hand. What i mean is, if a man of his intellect came to this reasoning, it’s hard to be quite so dismissive or blasé

Sorry for the presentation, i’m not very good at it.

I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist. I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

And I would ask again. where does this intelligence come from? Why believe that there is an intelligent creator out there, that just exists.

Philosophers do tend to argue for the sake of arguing. They also argue for the sake of selling books. I know some very intelligent theists and some very intelligent atheists. But this is more a matter of faith than of reasoning - some people need to believe in a god, or some sort of superior intelligence. Personally, I don't.

Lots of clever people believe in God. Lots of clever people don’t. Not sure how Flew is relevant here?

How do you scientifically explain love?

"How do you scientifically explain love?"

I can't completely. There are lots of things we can't explain scientifically yet. That doesn't mean we need a supernatural explanation to fill in the gaps. We just need to keep looking.

But a mixture of hormones, pheromones, psychological history, family background, social class, interests, education, proximity, chance- all that adds up to love.