Well, some of the cognitive scientists I had read make speculations regarding how we have adapted to a fast paced, and dangerous environments over the course of our ancestors evolution.

I mean if you cannot make quick analysis and either fight or flight before something life threatening takes place, then you cannot save yourself to pass on your genes.

Its far better to have some idea, flawed or otherwise, regarding what that strange stimulus is, then none at all, or to take too long in doing so.

That's a convenient theory. But what I was suggesting is that if this is true, then our perceptions can't truly be relied upon for accurately defining objective 'reality' especially if this phenomenon is standard and happens to everyone because this would mean that even the scientists who study objective reality cannot even be sure if what they observe is accurate.

Thank you...had just got off work and couldn't remember. They are exceptional books. You don't always need help to 'see'

I'm just suggesting here you're far more left brained. Simple as it all is, if you experienced it- more than just once (just used that one example) you would KNOW that science just can't begin to cover alot of things thatgo on in life. You have to be very open to it and relaxed. What you have written here makes me admire your intelligence and reading- yet life is not all 'book learned'

There is much help..out there. To summon spirit, ghosts, whatever one calls it, is not always a bad thing. We have been taught it's bad, or evil...
most don't teach that possibly, just possibly there are "non physical" beings there to help us. A crazy idea..that just may have a fair amount of truth to it.

Right and wrong.

Right, we cannot rely solely on our personal perceptions to determine with accuracy details of reality.

Wrong, in that science is all about removing doubt through rigorous methodological standards. This is why methodological naturalism and science have been so successful, even scientists must be VERY careful with the data, humans can be susceptible to seeing what they want to see, and we must cross examine and be very rigorous.

Science done right works. Scientists, are human and make mistakes.


Its not a scientific theory, to my knowledge no theory has been accepted for the evolution of cognition, pieces are there, but scientific theories require a vast amount of supporting datum, and cross verification. Evolution as a whole is readily abundant, the branch dealing with cognition is to my knowledge mostly speculation as I mentioned.


I am not sure this is what your doing, but attacking science is really counter productive, just look around you, science works. bring me evidence of the paranormal and we can examine it, otherwise . . .

I was an artist long before a scientist, I believed long before I lost that belief, I experienced long before I had cogent explanations. From my perspective most of these kinds of claims are made from a very emotional place, and not objective at all. I wish I had controls in place when I myself had weird experiences that sound so much like others . . .

When I am looking at a piece of art, or interpreting the meanings of action in a play, I wear my artist hat, and style of thinking, when I am dealing with trying to decipher the truth of a given claim there is really only one way to think that will shed light, and science has taught us that the only successful method.

Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Our criminal system knows that eye witness testimony is the worst sort of evidence, this is for a good reason.

I believe all paranormal phenomena will one day be explained by science. But I doubt it will come down to as just tricks the mind plays on us.

I like science. I live a fairly normal life with Lupus instead of being hospitalized or dead because of science. I like science a lot.