# The NFs are Talking About Prophetic Dreams and Ghosts



## under skies (Jun 9, 2010)

timeless said:


> It doesn't take a genius to realize that making a thread about "The NFs" maybe -- just maybe -- typist? Because it's... I dunno... making a sweeping generalization about _all_ NFs? Not quite rocket science here.


The NFs were talking about prophetic dreams and ghosts, and it was a hot discussion topic at the time this thread was created. Perhaps the OP should have written, "Some NFs...;" minor mistake. If you ask me, it seems there was no intended implication that all NFs participate in those kinds of discussions. There was an implication that most NTs did not. That is how NTs tend to function, naturally favoring logic and objective analysis over personal/subjective concerns, unlike NFs. I don't think this is typist, as this is a basic concept to MB types.

The OP has already apologized, and you turned down the apology, stating that there was nothing else you wanted from this person. What I fail to understand, then, is why you continue to read and respond to replies to this thread.


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Just because something isn't yet measurable by the scientific tools that currently exist, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.The scientific tools that we have, were created from the knowledge that we already gained only through the senses. Basically we are measuring more of the same, rather than measuring something new. How would we know what tools to develop, to measure the supernatural? That said, yes, I believe in the the paranormal. To me, it encompasses the things that science has yet to physically measure. The people who snub their noses at this would have been the same ones to think early scientists were nutters also. I guess its more satisfying for most people to join in the crowd and get a sense of satisfaction through solidarity, all bleating in unison about how irrational someone is. Takes more effort to actually think of possibilities, and I guess it also threatens one's neat little world view.
> 
> Scientists who were considered crackpots at first:
> Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated
> ...


science could never measure the super natural , as it isn't something natural 

its one thing though to contemplate these things rationally as one could conclude the unfalsifiable nature of the paranormal (and all metaphysics for that matter) 

but i dont think belief in the paranormal is born of rational deduction by in large 



...knowing what i know about science and the nature of reality i find belief in the paranormal to be laughable


----------



## SPtheGhost (Apr 26, 2010)

RafaelEnvoy said:


> I wonder what a similar thread aimed at NTs would be called if it were created on the NF forum.


i would relish in taking part in that massacr...i mean.. discussion


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

SPtheGhost said:


> science could never measure the super natural , as it isn't something natural
> 
> ...knowing what i know about science and the nature of reality i find belief in the paranormal to be laughable


And if everyone thought that way, then all of the scientific knowledge that we take for granted today, would have never been discovered - which was my point that you missed _entirely_.

The limited scientific instruments that we use to measure a limited number of things today is just that- limited. Who is to say that we can't develop something in the future, that might measure something that we didn't have the instruments to measure, in the past? 

It's ridiculous to think that science has met a dead-end. And yes, most of them just measure more of the same, but take into consideration quantum physics for example. Try explaining the basic principles of that to people from the past who share a similar mindset to you, and they would say its completely "laughable." But it wasn't. This mindset only seeks to stifle actual new discoveries, and keep science as some stagnant pool in which we measure in loops, nothing new, only the same.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

SPtheGhost said:


> i would relish in taking part in that massacr...i mean.. discussion


Could you explain why you think it would be a massacre? I am curious.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

SPtheGhost said:


> science could never measure the super natural , as it isn't something natural


Circular logic. You're defining "natural" as everything that can be sensed with our current technology, while dismissing things that have not yet been detected as being "supernatural" and therefore unable to be detected. Many concepts, like dark matter, seemed supernatural before they could be measured. How do you know what "natural" is, other than by your limited perceptions?


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

Promethea said:


> And if everyone thought that way, then all of the scientific knowledge that we take for granted today, would have never been discovered - which was my point that you missed _entirely_.


Actually, I think we would have been a lot further already because it always went like this:

- Look something strange is happening there. Let's find out what it is and why it's happening.
* No, that's God doing that and he does that to punish us. Don't investigate.
- But I think it's this and his, let me investigate and confirm.
* If you do, we will have to arrest you and burn you for having those kinds of ideas.
- ........
- ........
- Here I proved it. This is what's happening.
* You´re a dead man and everybody else that tells what you discovered as well.



Without all that crap it would go like this:

- Look something strange is happening there. Let's find out what it is and why it's happening.
* Ok, go ahead.
- It's this and this. I investigated like this and confirmed.
* Cool!


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Peter said:


> Actually, I think we would have been a lot further already because it always went like this:
> 
> - Look something strange is happening there. Let's find out what it is and why it's happening.
> * No, that's God doing that and he does that to punish us. Don't investigate.
> ...


Not entirely certain what your point is here, but when I think of "paranormal" and "supernatural" occurrences, I see it as phenomena that isn't -yet- understood or explained, but can be, if in fact it does exist. I am not sure why you brought the 'god' thing into it.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Peter said:


> Actually, I think we would have been a lot further already because it always went like this:
> 
> - Look something strange is happening there. Let's find out what it is and why it's happening.
> * No, that's God doing that and he does that to punish us. Don't investigate.
> ...


Your sweeping generalization is incorrect. While some people on the Internet would have you believe that "it always went like this", this is not the case. Religious scientists like Francis Bacon (who created the scientific method that you are praising in your second example) did so without interference from the Church. For example, Copernicus (who had the first mathematically-based model of planets orbiting around the Sun) first presented his idea in the Vatican gardens and was urged by the Pope to publish his work. Isaac Newton was motivated by religion to come up with a groundbreaking system of physics. It's easy to paint the whole subject with a broad brush but that's simply not the case.


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

RafaelEnvoy said:


> I wonder what a similar thread aimed at NTs would be called if it were created on the NF forum.


option 1
Should the NTs get more in touch with their softer sides?

option 2
NTs: nasty meanies or sad puppies?

option 3
adopt-an-NT


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

timeless said:


> So you figured the best way to get some peace and keep a low profile about it is to start a thread called "The NFs are talking about prophetic dreams and ghosts"... as opposed to, say... not reading the threads about prophetic dreams and ghosts...?


wow.. you guys have an edge sometimes.

I'm a little confused, though. 

Is there something wrong with talking about prophetic dreams and ghosts? I mean, as opposed to talking about zombies or robots shooting lasers out of their eyes or hobbits?


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

Isis said:


> wow.. you guys have an edge sometimes.
> 
> I'm a little confused, though.
> 
> Is there something wrong with talking about prophetic dreams and ghosts? I mean, as opposed to talking about zombies or robots shooting lasers out of their eyes or hobbits?


They were speaking of prophetic dreams and ghosts as though they were things that happened in the realm of reality and encouraging each other to believe in such things, which was, at the time I made the thread, quite irritating to me.


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

rowingineden said:


> They were speaking of prophetic dreams and ghosts as though they were things that happened in the realm of reality and encouraging each other to believe in such things, which was, at the time I made the thread, quite irritating to me.


I still don't see the difference between that and talking about hobbits... Lots of people believe in prophetic dreams and ghosts.

You're better off not worrying about them, probably?


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

Isis said:


> I still don't see the difference between that and talking about hobbits... Lots of people believe in prophetic dreams and ghosts.
> 
> You're better off not worrying about them, probably?


The difference is, when NFs talk of hobbits, they know they're speaking of something which is fictional. They don't seem to have that awareness about prophetic dreams and ghosts. I find it disturbing.


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

rowingineden said:


> The difference is, when NFs talk of hobbits, they know they're speaking of something which is fictional. They don't seem to have that awareness about prophetic dreams and ghosts. I find it disturbing.


because they believe in them ...a lot of people actually believe in hobbits... or at least laser beam robots. Just let them have their fun. ; )


----------



## rowingineden (Jun 23, 2010)

Isis said:


> because they believe in them ...a lot of people actually believe in hobbits... or at least laser beam robots. Just let them have their fun. ; )


My concern is merely for their overall well-being. You know, I would be similarly concerned if there was a pro-eating disorder or pro-self injury sentiment. I just don't think it's a good thing to be encouraging each other to engage in fantasy as reality without any sort of rationality brought into the equation. But I was done with this thread immediately after I posted it, and I'm not sure why people keep bringing it back. :crazy:


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

i don't beieve in rationalty or any of science. i just think that they're no reason for anything, i don't care how the world began. i don't believe in any form of mysticism(future telling, destiny, karma i just don't care:dry. it's werid for me seeing them all influenced by that cuse part of me wants to feel some kind of spirtual-ness,but never have and i never will. my philosphy is basically kindness is it's own reward and it applies to everything. i don't need a higher cause to be a good person, sometimes religion is just an excuse to be good(and yes i know thereare assholes in every religion).i mean if it makes them feel good-whatever.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Perhaps someone could explain to me how there's no difference between having an experience with the paranormal, and imagining hobbits and robots.

I think that you need to understand the paranormal a little better. An experience with a phenomena that can't -yet- be explained by science is not the same as pulling a fictional character out of a book, to have as an imaginary friend, or nemesis. There is a difference between having a strange occurrence happen, and using one's imagination to make-believe one.

Denying the possibility of someone having an experience that cannot yet be explained by science is making the assumption that everything that exists is already explained by science. Do you really believe that science has already explained everything there is to be explained?


----------



## NeedsNewNameNow (Dec 1, 2009)

Promethea said:


> Denying the possibility of someone having an experience that cannot yet be explained by science is making the assumption that everything that exists is already explained by science. Do you really believe that science has already explained everything there is to be explained?


This view is nothing new. I think there is a certain comfort in believing that we pretty much understand everything. Gives an illusion of control. The truth is if you pick almost any scientific topic, you don't have to look far to find things we aren't really sure about the answer to.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

unleashthehounds said:


> This view is nothing new. I think there is a certain comfort in believing that we pretty much understand everything. Gives an illusion of control. The truth is if you pick almost any scientific topic, you don't have to look far to find things we aren't really sure about the answer to.


Of course... don't you know that modern science has discovered everything there is to be discovered? Just like science 50, 100, 200, and so on years ago also discovered everything. (sarcasm off now)

But seriously, the paranormal is absolutely nothing like hobbits, although it must be comforting to dismiss it as such.


----------



## talemin (Jul 4, 2010)

um, i think Isis' posts point was _Just let them have their fun_, and poor hobbits were to lighten the atmosphere and not as a lessening metaphore?
Guest's duty, you know, everybody always saying INTJs must strive to make feel people at ease...it seems doesn't work. XD


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

talemin said:


> um, i think Isis' posts point was _Just let them have their fun_, and poor hobbits were to lighten the atmosphere and not as a lessening metaphore?
> Guest's duty, you know, everybody always saying INTJs must strive to make feel people at ease...it seems doesn't work. XD


I also meant that there are people (some of them dear friends) who do, quite literally, believe in hobbits, the probability of intelligent robots and whatnot. 

I think people are so used to use being sarcastic that the earnestness gets lost...


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

I don't think predisposition to religions, cults, and believing stuff that doesn't exist has anything to do with MBTI type. There simply exists a portion of people who don't have a strong mind-reality connection going on. It doesn't matter their type. In some way we are all disconnected from reality - your mind cannot grasp the whole model that reality is - but for some people the image is way more distorted than for other people. This is something a person can correct by interacting with the world more and forcing oneself to think about it and analyze it.


----------



## Proteus (Mar 5, 2010)

I can't think of anything more rational than wanting to discover and understand those things that are not currently understood or able to be measured by established methods.

Of course not every subject appeals to everyone, and that's ok. It would be no fun if everyone had all the same interests, and no one could learn that much from anyone else.

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning."
-Werner Heisenberg


----------



## Mendelevium (Jan 16, 2010)

There is a difference between healthy skepticism and a complete lack of faith in established science.


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

Mendelevium said:


> There is a difference between healthy skepticism and a complete lack of faith in established science.


True. But still, there are many people who suffer from this.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

vel said:


> I don't think predisposition to religions, cults, and believing stuff that doesn't exist has anything to do with MBTI type. There simply exists a portion of people who don't have a strong mind-reality connection going on. It doesn't matter their type. In some way we are all disconnected from reality - your mind cannot grasp the whole model that reality is - but for some people the image is way more distorted than for other people. This is something a person can correct by interacting with the world more and forcing oneself to think about it and analyze it.


We are still discovering "reality." I have made this point several times in this thread already. Go read it.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

talemin said:


> _Just let them have their fun_


Seems like its a commonly accepted activity here, patronizing the NFs.


----------



## RafaelEnvoy (Apr 25, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Perhaps someone could explain to me how there's no difference between having an experience with the paranormal, and imagining hobbits and robots.


Well, when you refer to something as abstractly as "the paranormal" you should be aware of the broadness of the term - though I'm sure the hobbit and robots thing was just a reduction to the absurd. Addressing your question though, one might claim to have had a paranormal experience involving either or both - be it in concept or not. It's really hard to say what is and isn't eligible for a paranormal claim. 



Promethea said:


> There is a difference between having a strange occurrence happen, and using one's imagination to make-believe one.


Indeed. The question is, however: how do you make the distinction? A phenomenon without an explanation is entirely different from no phenomenon at all, sure, but the process to determine whether the phenomena occurred and if a cause-effect relation exists is, then, of primary concern.



Promethea said:


> Denying the possibility of someone having an experience that cannot yet be explained by science is making the assumption that everything that exists is already explained by science. Do you really believe that science has already explained everything there is to be explained?


Well, accepting that someone (a) had an experience which (b), indeed, cannot be explained by science and (c) postulating an explanation which has no verifiability, is making the assumption that in presence of a unknown phenomena, any answer is better than just "I don't know". "Paranormal" is not "what science cannot explain yet", it is an assumption about reality in the lack of (or even against) scientific knowledge.



Promethea said:


> Seems like its a commonly accepted activity here, patronizing the NFs.


Do you mean in this thread or in the forums in general? I particularly had the opposite impression. Especially given the thread's title, only a few commented on the topic. Either way, I'm not sure what others are supposed to do to "not accept" what one says. :laughing:


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

RafaelEnvoy said:


> Well, when you refer to something as abstractly as "the paranormal" you should be aware of the broadness of the term - though I'm sure the hobbit and robots thing was just a reduction to the absurd. Addressing your question though, one might claim to have had a paranormal experience involving either or both - be it in concept or not. It's really hard to say what is and isn't eligible for a paranormal claim.
> 
> Indeed. The question is, however: how do you make the distinction? A phenomenon without an explanation is entirely different from no phenomenon at all, sure, but the process to determine whether the phenomena occurred and if a cause-effect relation exists is, then, of primary concern.
> 
> ...


In seriously researching the paranormal, there are patterns and trends - undeniable similarities in accounts of experiences to be found all over the world, in completely dissimilar cultures, through out time, and even before much intercontinental communication was taking place. All coincidence? One theory is that it can all be explained away with psychology - universal archetypes in the human mind, and parasomnia disorders playing on manifestations of our base fears. These are hardly just strange isolated incidents, such as a schizophrenic's fantasy, when there are so many similarities. Science has at least put enough stock into it, to search for an explanation in the human mind. But, what if its not just, for example, a psychological manifestation caused by a half-sleeping/half-waking state? 

It's not like paranormal researchers just consider any random fantasy or hallucination as possible evidence of something real. Of course I wouldn't expect many people to realize this, as they don't know anything about paranormal research to begin with. It's also hard to get started in it, because cutting through the fluffy-bunny bullshit is a bitch.

So far as the claim that NFs aren't patronized - yes, it's something that I see NTs do quite often in general. Just my observations. I'm not going to go hunt down quotes from the forum in order to prove it to you, because it would bore me - and I don't really care if you believe it or not.


----------



## Zomboy (Jun 12, 2010)

There is a balance in the nature of all things

What questions we ask now, we may know in the future

But know that there are literally unlimited questions to be asked

And therefore, the seemingly unlimited amount of answers seems so overbearing it may be construed as 'mystical' or even 'otherworldly'

Find rest in that the answers are out there

Find motivation in that you only have one life to seek them


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Zomboy said:


> Find motivation in that you only have one life to seek them


Makes me feel cheated.


----------

