To think children may see things we can’t?

[Opal93]

My son is autistic and his language is disordered so it’s very hard to ask him what he actually means when he tells us something, but lately there have been a few instances where he has said things that have spooked us out a bit! Tonight he was at my mums, and he said “goodnight nana Marlene” (my mums mum who died when he was one) and started singing her favourite Doris Day song, word for word which he has never heard before and I didn’t know of the song until my mum told me today he started singing it and she has no idea how he knew it. My dad died when I was 16 and my son knows his photo. We were in a park the other week and my son pointed behind me and said “it’s grandad Stephen!” And I looked behind me thinking he probably saw a man that looked like the photo but there was nobody there. Another time, he started talking to my husbands dad about “nanny Margaret.” I didn’t realise he even had a nanny Margaret but apparently it was my husbands dads mums name. Then he said nanny Margaret has a big belly, and my FIL looked freaked out then and said she had a massive hernia that ruptured and killed her. I wouldn’t say I’m a believer in ghosts or life after death but it does make me wonder. Any other experiences of kids sensing things?

@BlithePilgrim

I always wonder about posts like this. Do you really live in a bubble where no one ever tells you your unfounded views about something are completely ridiculous?

No I do not live in a bubble I do however surround myself by people who are capable of having a conversation and a different opinion to me without being rude to me when I do not have the same view.

I am ok with someone saying "I don't agree with this and here is why"
I am ok with someone thinking my view is wrong.

What I have an issue with are comments that put the other person down. Why go down this lane? Why be rude? Your view doesn't come across better because you are rude. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, they make your view look poorly as you are not able to put it across without being rude.

Honestly No I have no friends or family /acquaintances who says to me my unfounded views about something are completely ridiculous.

I do have some who says " I disagree with you this is my view"

I listen. Sometimes I have changed my mind due to what they have told me.

[quote Enko]@BlithePilgrim

I always wonder about posts like this. Do you really live in a bubble where no one ever tells you your unfounded views about something are completely ridiculous?

No I do not live in a bubble I do however surround myself by people who are capable of having a conversation and a different opinion to me without being rude to me when I do not have the same view.

I am ok with someone saying "I don't agree with this and here is why"
I am ok with someone thinking my view is wrong.

What I have an issue with are comments that put the other person down. Why go down this lane? Why be rude? Your view doesn't come across better because you are rude. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, they make your view look poorly as you are not able to put it across without being rude.

Honestly No I have no friends or family /acquaintances who says to me my unfounded views about something are completely ridiculous.

I do have some who says " I disagree with you this is my view"

I listen. Sometimes I have changed my mind due to what they have told me.[/quote]
You’re getting confused. You can say ‘I disagree with capital punishment’ or ‘ I disagree with the idea of religion in schools’, or ‘I agree with restricting immigration’, because these things actually exist. You can’t ‘disagree’ with children communicating with spirits.

@Enko
I agree with you. What I find interesting on threads like this are people’s anecdotes about slightly “woo” experiences. They don’t lead me to any concrete conclusions, but they are interesting to me as a person with an interest in the spiritual and in the unknown.

What I don’t get is why so many people barge on with their “It’s all nonsense” replies, and why these people are so very angry

There are quite obviously lots of ‘big’ questions we don’t know the answers to - such as WHY there is a universe, why there isn’t just, you know, nothing. No science to date will tell us this. What I’m saying is that there is some fairly meaty stuff we don’t know, and explaining how light works won’t really help!

What is clear is that lots of people have weird little experiences that, circumstantial as they are, could, together, indicate something beyond our conventional understanding of the universe. Why this sends people into such paroxysms of anger, I don’t know.

And enough with the “why has no one proved it” nonsense. Some things aren’t FOR examining under a microscope. Imagine if I asked you to measure your love for your child with a ruler and then sneered at you and told you that you clearly didn’t love them if you couldn’t prove it with maths 🙄😂

@Shakespeare79, I agree the anecdotes are often interesting, but they’re interesting because of how different cultures interpret these experiences — like how a biological phenomenon like sleep paralysis is culturally-specific in that the hallucinations make sense in terms of the culture of the person having them, or how Jinn differ from ‘western ghosts’.

But there’s a measurable biological basis for your love for your child, as you’re surely aware, located in the frontal lobes of the brain, vagus nerve and various neurochemicals like oxytocin, and reinforced by social rituals.

@BlithePilgrim
I don’t disagree with you. But I’m also interested in the idea that there genuinely ARE things that we just don’t know or understand about the universe.

@Terhou

For me personally I dont think we will ever know. Recently scientists discovered a possible light that may suggest there is another universe further afield than we believed until now. So things are possible we do not yet know. I am open minded to that and due to that also open minded to the idea that actually gbosts and paranormal could exist. Personally I have not seen one nor do I wish to.

I think we're dealing with two different things here. Sure, there are likely to be aspects of the universe that we don't know about just because science hasn't got that far, just as 250 years ago we had no concept of motorised vehicles, planes, the internet etc. But the difference is that those are things that just weren't conceived of, and any future developments are likewise going to be things that we have little or no inkling of now.

That is not the same as concepts like ghosts, spirits etc which have been around forever and were originally made up by people essentially as superstitions and/or explanations for things that are perfectly rationally explicable now - e.g. if someone was able to cure someone of a serious condition it might have been attributed to witchcraft rather than, perhaps, the fact that herbs they used actually did have some scientific efficacy. People have been investigating them for centuries and have never been able to find proof despite their very best efforts. There is no real reason to believe that something we don't know about will miraculously come to light at some point in the future whereupon we will all proclaim that all these ghost/spirit sightings must universally have been real.

Other issues apart, many of the ghost sightings people talk about seem just so irrational. Why on earth would, say, someone's spirit spend eternity walking through one particular wall and then disappearing? If you have the power to come back, surely it would make more sense to do something that is actually useful. And why are spirits allegedly so selective about who they come back to? Why, for instance, make yourself visible to a baby who will never remember a thing about it rather than to their parent?

Omg this is my favourite post of the last few months.

NAILED IT!! 👏👏🤝

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

Always the same in these types of threads and those regarding faith and belief in 'gods'.

Incredulity at the willingness of some apparently intelligent people to believe in something despite it running contrary to common sense, requiring the abandonment of logic and reason, AND having not a single iota of anything tangible to suggest it is in any way real = being rude

It's not rudeness, it's utter incredulity. It's 2021 and some people still indulge in baseless, medieval superstitious nonsense like ghosts, spirits, gods etc. I despair.

Another superb rationing and completely logical post 👏

Scary thing is, of the otherwise completely rational individuals, so many of them still believe in sprits, ghosts, gods etc…

Because neurodiverse have a hard enough time without people colonising their differences to support their own woo world views.

I mean, this is at the benign end, I get that, but surely you can't just blindly assert that your autistic child has some kind of paranormal connection - or however you write up that story - without knowing the history and context of neurodiverse children being othered in this same manner with far less benign consequences and which you are now supporting by carrying on like this is a real thing whilst at the same time patting yourself on the back for being so open minded?

I mean, come on. Just stop it.

@BlithePilgrim

But there’s a measurable biological basis for your love for your child, as you’re surely aware, located in the frontal lobes of the brain, vagus nerve and various neurochemicals like oxytocin, and reinforced by social rituals.

But do you really think your love for people is JUST chemicals? Or your appreciation of art, music, beauty? Where’s the scientific reason for art, for example?

I think part of of the problem with positions like Terhou’s is the assumption that we CAN know everything if we try hard enough. If indeed there were spirits that did things like walk through walls, why imagine that the explanation for that would make sense to the human brain? If there is a whole load of spiritual stuff that most of us don’t ever encounter, the odds are it’s not easily explained and plotted on a graph by Brian Cox

@Shakespeare79, I suppose we’re just clever mammals who’ve been making art since we drew bisons on cave walls! You’re right though, in that I find art far more awe-inducing than anything relating to the supernatural, and I combine being contentedly atheist with a love for lots of the firms of art inspired by religion.

Far too deep. Some people just like art because they’re creative…. Nothing more nothing less. Personal preference and nothing to do with anything this thread is about.

The love for your child is biological and has an evolutionary basis. If we didn’t feel that intense love, then species wouldn’t survive. We’re programmed to feel like this about our children, otherwise the human race would die out. You can see evolution at work throughout the world.

It’s all completely logical. The concept of spirits however, defies logic. When we’re alive we have emotions etc when we die, we cease to exist.

People that suggest that’s incorrect are within their rights to hold those views but rationally, it is completely illogical and based on fantasy as opposed to any reality whatsoever.

Science can send astronauts to the moon, they can tell us how the earth formed and with every decade that goes by, we learn more.

Yet there is no evidence at all that ghosts exist. It really is akin to saying fairies are in my garden. People get offended when you say that, but the reality is, it really is comparable. Neither have an scientific basis to suggest they’re true.

@Shakespeare79

I think part of of the problem with positions like Terhou’s is the assumption that we CAN know everything if we try hard enough. If indeed there were spirits that did things like walk through walls, why imagine that the explanation for that would make sense to the human brain? If there is a whole load of spiritual stuff that most of us don’t ever encounter, the odds are it’s not easily explained and plotted on a graph by Brian Cox

I think what makes me impatient on some of these threads is the idea that comes up a lot from ‘woo believers’ that sceptics are afraid of the idea of the supernatural, or are heavily personally invested in closing it down. It’s fairly, obvious, it seems to me, that if there was the faintest actual evidence of haunting/psychic abilities/life after death/time travel etc that sceptics would be as fascinated and delighted as anyone else. We miss our dead loved ones as much as anyone, after all. We don’t approach death with enthusiasm.

I would personally be thrilled to discover my beloved grandad was contacting me from beyond the grave, it’s just that I don’t view Madame Zelda’s cold-reading, the appearance of white feathers or a picture falling off the wall as indicators of this.

@TableFlowerss

Far too deep. Some people just like art because they’re creative…. Nothing more nothing less. Personal preference and nothing to do with anything this thread is about.

The love for your child is biological and has an evolutionary basis. If we didn’t feel that intense love, then species wouldn’t survive. We’re programmed to feel like this about our children, otherwise the human race would die out. You can see evolution at work throughout the world.

It’s all completely logical. The concept of spirits however, defies logic. When we’re alive we have emotions etc when we die, we cease to exist.

People that suggest that’s incorrect are within their rights to hold those views but rationally, it is completely illogical and based on fantasy as opposed to any reality whatsoever.

Science can send astronauts to the moon, they can tell us how the earth formed and with every decade that goes by, we learn more.

Yet there is no evidence at all that ghosts exist. It really is akin to saying fairies are in my garden. People get offended when you say that, but the reality is, it really is comparable. Neither have an scientific basis to suggest they’re true.

Your first paragraph is… oddly incurious. I’m always suspicious when people say things are “too deep”! Doesn’t living in this world show you that human experience is, if nothing else, deep and mysterious?!

It’s odd to say that some people are just creative, end of. Why would humans be driven to create?! and it’s very much to do with this thread, despite your dismissive tone. When people refuse to entertain even the flicker of possibility that there is more to life than science, I find it useful to ask about art and beauty. Yes, there’s a biological imperative to loving your children, but what about being moved by a subset or a piece of music? When people can only answer these questions with a trite ‘that’s just how it is’, it just seems like a little chink in the armour of science. Which interests me.

*sunset, not subset 🙄

**Your first paragraph is… oddly incurious. I’m always suspicious when people say things are “too deep”! Doesn’t living in this world show you that human experience is, if nothing else, deep and mysterious?!

It’s odd to say that some people are just creative, end of. Why would humans be driven to create?! and it’s very much to do with this thread, despite your dismissive tone. When people refuse to entertain even the flicker of possibility that there is more to life than science, I find it useful to ask about art and beauty. Yes, there’s a biological imperative to loving your children, but what about being moved by a subset or a piece of music? When people can only answer these questions with a trite ‘that’s just how it is’, it just seems like a little chink in the armour of science. Which interests me**

You’re clearly very passionate about the cause and that’s fair enough.

The top and bottom of it though, is that the concept in which you believe, is the same as me saying there are fairy’s in my garden.

Now I know that really you’ll think that’s a ridiculous concept, but you probably won’t admit that, because if you, then that contradicts your point.

@TableFlowerss

Not sure I’m following what you’re saying here; you mention ‘the concept I believe in’ - but what would that be? I haven’t stated a belief, have I? I’ve just said that I don’t understand the desperate need some posters have to furiously denounce any possibility that there might be elements of the universe that contradict what we think we know. That’s all. I think that’s quite different from you stating a very specific claim like fairies living at the bottom of the garden?!

It irks me a little when people who state a clear instance (as it seems to them) of something a bit ‘woo’ and some posters denounce it with such certainty. I mean, there are literally hundreds of posts (over the years) of people seeming to know in one way or another about a death before they could logically know. Now, I get that there are various possible explanations (you’ve remembered wrong, you overheard this or that) but quite often the poster has been at pains to explain why those rational explanations don’t quite work. Again, it’s fair enough to go “hmm seems unlikely” and reject it. BUT it’s very different to say “you are definitely wrong about what you think you experienced, and what’s more you’re a total idiot for even entertaining the idea’. And yet the latter is what many sceptics do.

We only experience what we experience. If everything in your life makes perfect, rational sense, is it still not possible for you to open your mind to the possibility that someone has experienced something you haven’t?

@BlithePilgrim No, I am not getting confused..

My point is that you can have opposing opinions without you have to swear or put people down. Whether I agree or ‘disagree’ with children communicating with spirits is not my issue here.

I can agree or disagree but IF I disagreed I can communicate this without saying " Your @~stupid " or " that's nonsense" I can express that my view is different without putting others views and opinions down.

@Shakespeare79
Again, it’s fair enough to go “hmm seems unlikely” and reject it. BUT it’s very different to say “you are definitely wrong about what you think you experienced, and what’s more you’re a total idiot for even entertaining the idea’. And yet the latter is what many sceptics do.

Absolutely agree with this.

[quote Shakespeare79]@TableFlowerss

Not sure I’m following what you’re saying here; you mention ‘the concept I believe in’ - but what would that be? I haven’t stated a belief, have I? I’ve just said that I don’t understand the desperate need some posters have to furiously denounce any possibility that there might be elements of the universe that contradict what we think we know. That’s all. I think that’s quite different from you stating a very specific claim like fairies living at the bottom of the garden?!

It irks me a little when people who state a clear instance (as it seems to them) of something a bit ‘woo’ and some posters denounce it with such certainty. I mean, there are literally hundreds of posts (over the years) of people seeming to know in one way or another about a death before they could logically know. Now, I get that there are various possible explanations (you’ve remembered wrong, you overheard this or that) but quite often the poster has been at pains to explain why those rational explanations don’t quite work. Again, it’s fair enough to go “hmm seems unlikely” and reject it. BUT it’s very different to say “you are definitely wrong about what you think you experienced, and what’s more you’re a total idiot for even entertaining the idea’. And yet the latter is what many sceptics do.

We only experience what we experience. If everything in your life makes perfect, rational sense, is it still not possible for you to open your mind to the possibility that someone has experienced something you haven’t?[/quote]
But by rejecting the concept that if there is no scientific basis for the afterlife, therefore it’s unlikely to true, that in itself suggests you believe in it. That’s how I made my inference on what side you were on.

To what degree is questionable and perhaps it is on the side of caution and you don’t completely believe, but you’re open to the possibility.

That’s fair enough and it could be argued (and often is on threads like this) that just because something isn’t known to exist (yet), it doesn’t mean it can’t exist or will not be discovered at some point in the future, thus does exist.

The problem with that concept though, is that it could relate to an infinite number of scenarios.

‘Just because no one has seen the borrowers from the film, it doesn’t mean they don’t exist in real life’

The above example is factually correct, within a certain context, however the onus isn’t on those that question the likelihood of this notion, the onus is on those that believe the borrows exists, to show evidence.

The argument ‘Just because no evidence can be found, doesn’t mean the borrowers don’t exist’ is moot. If there’s no evidence of anything then fur all sense and purpose, it doesn’t exist….. yet. If something happens in the next few years to suggest we were wrong and spirits and the like do exist, then great. But based on what we know of the universe etc… it’s highly highly unlucky to happen.

I think where we’re having trouble is that you are coming up with highly specific (and, possibly, slightly absurd notions - the borrowers?!) whereas I am simply saying that if you look at the absolutely vast wealth of anecdotal evidence supporting a very, very general notion of ‘the unexplained’, then it may be fairly reasonable to make the very general claim that ‘there’s more to life than we know or understand’.

I know that many on here are very scientific-evidence-orientated (very sensible) BUT if I’d had a very personal and profound spiritual experience, I would consider that evidence for my beliefs even though I know that’s not what people mean on here when they say ‘evidence’.

@Shakespeare79

I think where we’re having trouble is that you are coming up with highly specific (and, possibly, slightly absurd notions - the borrowers?!) whereas I am simply saying that if you look at the absolutely vast wealth of anecdotal evidence supporting a very, very general notion of ‘the unexplained’, then it may be fairly reasonable to make the very general claim that ‘there’s more to life than we know or understand’.

I know that many on here are very scientific-evidence-orientated (very sensible) BUT if I’d had a very personal and profound spiritual experience, I would consider that evidence for my beliefs even though I know that’s not what people mean on here when they say ‘evidence’.

I agree with all of your posts here and I do come from a scientific background. The day we believe we have cracked all the secrets will be a very sad day indeed.

This is a subject I'm very interested in and have invested a lot of time researching.

For me it all boils down to consciousness and quantum physics and if we can scientifically prove where consciousness comes from one way or another then this will in part prove/disprove some form of life after death.

There are scientists much cleverer than any of us here who have dedicated their entire lives trying to answer this question. If anybody is interested I would recommend having a read up on Dr Peter Fenwick, Bruce Grayson, Dr Raymond Moody and Dr Sam Parnia.

I also recommend reading anything by Dr Pim Van Lommel. He is a cardiologist who has studied near death experiences for most of his professional life and his work is absolutely fascinating.

The jury is still out for me but I am more inclined to believe our consciousness does transcend death. Not in a spiritual way but in very much a scientific way. I don't believe in god.

I also believe that there are some things that we aren't supposed to understand and better left a mystery. Imagine if we managed to prove beyond doubt that some kind of afterlife was real? People would be checking out of their lives in droves.

It's such an interesting topic and it's not stupid or ridiculous to want to believe or explore it further. The subject experts mentioned above have PHDs coming out of their arseholes and funnily enough, the majority are surgeons.

Anyone remember the birdie friend thread ?

A neighbour of ours died suddenly, we all went to the funeral. His best friend lived next door with his wife and young child, the young child wasnt at the funeral but his parents picked her up on the way home. They didn't tell her where they'd been. As they came out the car she pointed to the neighbour who had died's house and said why is *** standing at the door.