Definition And Explanations

[Emmisal]

5 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

No, in the same way that I don't decide how the scientific model works. All evidence points towards a universe made of matter that can be measured, not ghosts that can't. And this has just been admitted by someone arguing on your side on this very thread:

You are merely stating your opinion here because there are many (scientists included) who disagree with your conclusion. I don't have a problem with you holding on to your opinion, don't just state it as though it is absolute.

[papageorge1]

5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I think it's most reasonable to believe that there is almost no reason to believe in spirits.  The actual 'evidence' is pretty much absent; if we wanted to actually research something about spirits (which has already been attempted to no avail yet), where would we even start?  It's pretty much all testimony which isn't really that valuable all on its own.  How do you know that someone knows something they couldn't reasonably learn through normal channels, how have you validated that?  

Even without evidence, some of the arguments don't fare much better.  If we want to argue there's something going on just because millions of people believe in spirits, then all the more inconsistent that we have no good evidence for them with that large number of encounters.  If we want to argue that there's just too many people having spirit experiences that it's unreasonable that they are all incorrect, then how many past natural disasters were caused by upset gods as lots of people used to also believe?  I'm hard-pressed to even think of any big event or unexplained mystery for which spirits are a good explanation, what to you is the most significant event that has ever occurred that you think is indicative of spirits?  People saying they've gotten messages from the afterlife are a dime a dozen, I'd be looking for something that is more than just people (or small groups of people) claiming things.  

IMO, The collection of evidence is overwhelming for the existence of spirit worlds. Millions of ghost events, physical events, multiple witness events, independent witnessing, spirit communication, etc.. Paranormal investigators are now even recording anomalous events with some very sophisticated technology.  You can consider all that data and conclude the materialist explanation makes the most sense but I would not agree. I believe the spiritual worlds are real and in dimensions outside of the physical three-dimensions of our physical senses and instruments and thus not directly detectable. Science tells us most of the universe is not directly detectable (some mysterious dark matter). We can detect the spirit world's effect on our physical three-dimensional world. The spirit world can also be detected by those with more advanced psychic senses that can perceive beyond the physical.

 

Edited December 28, 2016 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

The collection of evidence is overwhelming for the existence of spirit worlds. Millions of ghost events, physical events, multiple witness events, independent witnessing, spirit communication, etc..

All those millions of events... and simultaneously absolutely nothing we can examine.  No paranormal event that really has ever really been established to have occurred.  Apparently no particular single event is that strong of evidence, we need to look at the 'collection'?  If so, again, how many natural disasters were caused by angry gods?  You have a much different definition of 'overwhelming' than I do.

[papageorge1]

10 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

All those millions of events... and simultaneously absolutely nothing we can examine.  No paranormal event that really has ever really been established to have occurred.  

Video evidence, audio evidence, anomalous equipment events, controlled tests with gifted medium, etc.. Examine away.

10 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 Apparently no particular single event is that strong of evidence, we need to look at the 'collection'?

There are some fantastic cases. But a collection of quite similar cases is always more robust and impressive.

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 If so, again, how many natural disasters were caused by angry gods?  

I have no idea, but I am not arguing for angry gods causing natural disasters. I am arguing for the existence of spirits.

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I have no idea, but I am not arguing for angry gods causing natural disasters. I am arguing for the existence of spirits.

So some then, some were caused by gods?  I'm asking if the fact that lots of people claimed gods caused disasters is a reason to think some were, similar to your argument that since there are so many claimed paranormal experiences we should think some must be true.

Quote

There are some fantastic cases. But a collection of quite similar cases is always more robust and impressive.

What would you consider to be the most fantastic case with the best evidence that something paranormal actually occurred?  You are definitely more up-to-date than I am, I'm just curious as to the best evidence we have.  I haven't looked into it in a while, maybe something more significant has happened recently, I don't know.  

I disagree, especially in the case of paranormal; one actual good documented case would be worth the existing mountain of kinda crappy evidence we have right now.  One ghost appearing in a crowded shopping mall and having a couple conversations with people would be worth everything we currently have.  To my knowledge we don't even have an established event that requires an explanation beyond 'people are mistaken'.

[back to earth]

I am wondering if the 'millions of events '  and their evidence  includes such as these ;  

 

   

 

... since there is only vague references to the material and no specific examples  ?  

 

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I disagree, especially in the case of paranormal; one actual good documented case would be worth the existing mountain of kinda crappy evidence we have right now.  One ghost appearing in a crowded shopping mall and having a couple conversations with people would be worth everything we currently have.  To my knowledge we don't even have an established event that requires an explanation beyond 'people are mistaken'.

I guarantee that people would not accept the shopping mall story as proof of a ghost. I have already heard stories of someone appearing and multiple people saw and talked with that spirit/angel and then it vanished. They quickly get dismissed as anecdotal hearsay by the committed non-believers.

[back to earth]

Ummmmmm     ....  'hearing stories'  is actually   ' anecdotal hearsay'   .    What term do use to describe anecdotes that you have heard others say  ? 

[back to earth]

Here is a great anecdote  ( which can be backed up by evidence )    several people saw exactly the same thing , it wasnt just hearsay and it wasn't really a case of 'people were just mistaken.' 

 After The Order of the Solar Temple *  was exposed, several people were interviewed, one guy was in it close to the end, he seemed  intelligent and fairly stable so he was asked by the interviewer of the documentary ; 'How could someone like you get involved and believe this stuff ? "  he explained sme things  and then ;  ' During a ritual in the temple I  had a vision that was very realisitic, an image of the Holy Grail appeared over the altar.  Later, without describing any thing, I asked another memebr if they saw anything doing the ritual '...   Sure did !  He said he saw the Holy Grail appear out of thin air, float abve the altar and desribes it exactly as the ohter had seen it. Other saw it too  .  

Later, during the police examination of the temple ( and the bodies) they started pulling things apart, in the temple they found a holographic projector inside the altar .

Point is ,   there are a LOT of  things that need to be  examined and eliminated in these cases , otherwise our prejudices just accept the evidence of our senses .  If there was never any trouble at  T O S T  and the altar (and other things ) had never been examined, we would have yet more proof of the supernatural ..... yet some claim this is biased and overly skeptical , when all this type of skepticism is , is a close examing of the events !   What, you dont want that to happen ?   You complain about it ?  Why ?

...    and also, on that subject ,  I noticed a comment today on anti-skepticism run rather amok ,   worth reading  @ post # 41 In the 'PSY OPS"  thread in the 'Urban legends'  forum  .

 

*     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple 

[Habitat]

23 minutes ago, back to earth said:

 

...    and also, on that subject ,  I noticed a comment today on anti-skepticism run rather amok ,   worth reading  @ post # 41 In the 'PSY OPS"  thread in the 'Urban legends'  forum  .

 

*     https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Solar_Temple 

The anti-woo warriors needed some administrative intervention ? Surely with truth on your side, there is nothing to worry about. I am actually very much a sceptic, which is rather different from being a compulsive nay-sayer.

[back to earth]

Then obviously the above posts are not meant for you to respond to  .  

[Habitat]

2 minutes ago, back to earth said:

Then obviously the above posts are not meant for you to respond to  .  

You don't think I was branded "anti-sceptic" ? 

[back to earth]

I dont know .     Strip off, look in the mirror,      and you tell me . 

[Habitat]

14 minutes ago, back to earth said:

I dont know .     Strip off, look in the mirror,      and you tell me . 

How disingenuous of you.

[Emma_Acid]

18 hours ago, Emmisal said:

You are merely stating your opinion here because there are many (scientists included) who disagree with your conclusion. I don't have a problem with you holding on to your opinion, don't just state it as though it is absolute.

Please can you provide scientific papers that show that the un-material world (ie the spiritual world) is supported by scientific evidence?

Such evidence would utterly change the studies of physics, biology and cosmology. I must have missed this momentous event.

[Mr Walker]

On 28/12/2016 at 0:33 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, this is pretty easy to turn around.  IMO the only reason we even have what we call a 'modern world' is because of skepticism; "trust me, I know what I know" is in the opposite direction from the scientific method.  You wouldn't live long in that modern world because our knowledge of medicine would be so stunted that our life expectancy would still be closer to the level of past societies.  Even back when we had to worry about bushes rustling, Caveman Walker would fare no better; he's just as likely to think, 'oh, that must be my physical god just coming by to visit special me' as 'that might be a tiger'.  It is the fruits of skepticism that has provided you the safe civilization in which you have time to entertain your otherwise potentially dangerous and distracting fancies.

In one way according to your particular nomenclature, you are far more skeptical than I am, I accept evidence-based knowledge that I don't personally experience, like Pluto and the danger of cobras.  Paradoxically your kind of (very selective) skepticism leads to greater danger; since you haven't died from a cobra bite you can only have faith that their venom can be fatal, and there's no reason, since you have no 'knowledge', not to just have faith that they are not dangerous.  I'm not sure why you are referencing 'materialistic evidence of danger'; what would be 'non-materialistic evidence of danger'?

The reason we have  a modern world is accumulated and expanding knowledge and data; stored recorded and transmitted down from generation to generation  We have been evolving sentience for a t least 100000 years and probably several million. Hence our most basic cognition is evolved for survival in a NON technological world   if you try using modern cognition without the data or knowledge to support it you will not survive Our minds operate with the data we have but using skills and techniques of cognition evolved to enhance our survival.

 Skepticism is only healthy up to a point. Beyond that it prevents you operating effectively.  It requires you to act only on knowledge, not on intuition, hunches,  subliminal understandings, subconscious realisations,  primitive pattern recognition etc  It can also slow down your response times when danger threatens

( Although a healthy amount can also provide better responses than primitive biological responses)

In other words you can only afford to be sceptical BECAUSE of the safety net science and technology provides for you. MAke an error of judgement, and it is less likely to be fatal for you than it would have been in the past. 

While i do not  KNOW cobras are deadly i have a reasonable belief that they are, hence i act with caution However i don't claim knowledge to be the same as a reasonable and true belief. I don't require knowldge to act with caution.   I am not sure how i would classify myself.  i am not sceptical in that i disbelieve nothing at first instance. On the other hand I am sceptical in that i do  not believe anything at first instance either

 I don't accept anyone's word on any thing, but i do not disbelieve any claim by anyone as impossible as a starting point, either.  I suspend belief and disbelief, gradually accruing evidences, until i have a personal knowledge of something's validity/non validity. Some things are well down the  line, towards improbable while others are so probable they are approaching knowledge.  I have never encountered a poltergeist but the evidences for them make them highly probable

 I know ghosts exist, having encountered a few. I suspect crop circles are the work of a few fanatical humans  

There are lots of things i know exist, like ghosts, ufos, angels, gods etc. but cannot know for certain just what they really are.  Ufos are the most commonly experienced of these things. UFO'S definitely exist, and i have, again, encountered a few, from the standard to the very unusual, However just what each one was, i do not know, and can only guess from observation of their characteristics.  

Same with ghosts. There are many forms of ghosts, with quite different characteristics. For example one type seems to be attached to an object  (like a bed) and moves with that object, while others are limited to a specific locale  My best guess is that most are energy recordings from the past, but some seem capable of real time interaction with humans, (eg conversing with them, or touching them) while most never notice the humans who can perceive them. 

Non materialist  evidence of danger is the realisation or sense of danger which comes not for a recognisable source of danger like a snake,  but from  an evolved subconscious realisation.   Colour, sound, patterns, shapes, etc.,  can trigger a sense of danger even though materially they do not, in themselves, present a danger.

 The classic is the rustling bush. It does not, in itself, present a material danger but our mind perceives it as a potential (and, perhaps truly, an actual danger source, and reacts )  i guess this is most commonly known as intuition/instinct or a sixth sense. Humans have learned to stay clear of rustling bushes on the basis of probability and this has become an d evolved cognitive response  to which we react subconsciously .  Fear of the dark is probably another classic  Fear of the unknown, strangers, or the unfamiliar, certainly is. Evolution has meant that humans who react to these non material dangers survive and reproduce more often than those who do not,  thus breeding this trait /pattern of  cognitive thinking, into human beings. 

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, back to earth said:

Ummmmmm     ....  'hearing stories'  is actually   ' anecdotal hearsay'   .    What term do use to describe anecdotes that you have heard others say  ? 

What happens to one individual is objective reality.

How they perceive it, is subjective reality.

When they tell another person it becomes an anecdote and without verification (eg the second person has had the same experience) it remains an anecdote to the second person but reality to the first.

 A ll stories, be they; first, second, third, or millionth hand, are anecdotes to the person hearing them. They are only reality (non anecdotal experiences) to the person who had the original experience, or in one sense  others with similar experiences .   Eg two diggers from the same battlefield on the somme, or at long tan, or two people who encounter a stray cat in their front yard.  If you were therem then another's narrative of the event is LESS anecdotal. than if you were not. 

[Mr Walker]

On 27/12/2016 at 8:52 AM, XenoFish said:

Corrected that for you. Because all you've mentioned so far has been subjective. You're personal experience/beliefs. 

Are you seriously arguing that our experiences are only subjective?  This is untrue. We have  entirely objective interactions with our environment, and then often ( but not always)  interpret them subjectively

( A human mind can think objectively as well as subjectively )

  Personal experience is objectively existent because WE are objectively existent, and our environment is objectively existent,  meaning that our interactions are objectively existent.   Objective existence and reality can  be objectively measured, assessed and verified, by an individual. Although confirmation is always nice, it is not essential,.or else  no one could live alone, and survive, for any length of time. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

33 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 Skepticism is only healthy up to a point. Beyond that it prevents you operating effectively.  It requires you to act only on knowledge, not on intuition, hunches,  subliminal understandings, subconscious realisations,  primitive pattern recognition etc  It can also slow down your response times when danger threatens

And acting on intuition, hunches, etc, can be dangerous.

Quote

In other words you can only afford to be sceptical BECAUSE of the safety net science and technology provides for you. 

In the same way it affords you the opportunity to be more gullible.

Quote

Non materialist  evidence of danger is the realisation or sense of danger which comes not for a recognisable source of danger like a snake,  but from  an evolved subconscious realisation.   Colour, sound, patterns, shapes, etc.,  can trigger a sense of danger even though materially they do not, in themselves, present a danger.

You are using 'non-materialist' incorrectly then; colors and sounds are material.

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

So some then, some were caused by gods?  I'm asking if the fact that lots of people claimed gods caused disasters is a reason to think some were, similar to your argument that since there are so many claimed paranormal experiences we should think some must be true.

What would you consider to be the most fantastic case with the best evidence that something paranormal actually occurred?  You are definitely more up-to-date than I am, I'm just curious as to the best evidence we have.  I haven't looked into it in a while, maybe something more significant has happened recently, I don't know.  

I disagree, especially in the case of paranormal; one actual good documented case would be worth the existing mountain of kinda crappy evidence we have right now.  One ghost appearing in a crowded shopping mall and having a couple conversations with people would be worth everything we currently have.  To my knowledge we don't even have an established event that requires an explanation beyond 'people are mistaken'.

Poltergeists are generally accepted by science as the most demonstrable paranormal form  Like ufos they have been investigated and while some have been explained, many have not. There a re often multiple witnesses, even recordings, and no discover able trick, fakery, or human cause  I would go so far as to say that  "poltergeist activity" is accepted as a genuine phenomena by mainstream science, even though the cause of it is not understood. However science tends by nature to the rational rather than the paranormal in seeking causes of such events.

Three famous cases are outlined here but hundreds if not thousands are documented and unexplained.  

http://paranormal.about.com/od/poltergeists/a/Poltergeists-Three-Famous-Cases_2.htm

 

Of course even with something as physically evident as  poltergeists it is very difficult for science to verify definitively, and this is why, 

 

In order for 'scientific documentation' to take place, the phenomena must occur a) consistently and repeatedly, definitively i.e. it must be known uncategorically that the root cause is not attributable to anything natural, c) leave a measurable impact whose root cause cannot be attributed to anything natural. Sadly, the vast variety of so-called paranormal phenomena fails to meet this test. Therefore, scientific documentation of paranormal phenomena cannot occur unless those parameters have been met.

Here, then, is what I have been building up to:

No such phenomena has ever occurred that meets those parameters.

https://www.quora.com/Has-there-ever-been-any-credible-and-robust-scientific-documentation-of-any-type-of-paranormal-activity

As the author goes on to say; 

 

When something paranormal (i.e. paradoxical) does occur, you can bet scientists will try to explain it using the tools they have, rather than accept an unsupported hypothesis and work with it. Therefore, explanations in terms of paranormal activity are always the last resort and have never been invoked.

 

Thus something like poltergeists will be explained  in psychological terms or as part of some human fakery or a misperception by witnesses  

Science can do nothing else but this and remain science, but it makes it ill equipped to do an open, unbiased, and definitive analysis of a phenomenon such as poltergeists. if it initially discards any possibility that there may be a "supernatual" cause. How do you prove  uncategorically that the root cause is not attributable to anything natural,

 

if all you look for are natural causes.?

[+Liquid Gardens]

12 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I guarantee that people would not accept the shopping mall story as proof of a ghost.

That doesn't really have much to do with anything though; the bar that we are trying to clear is not, 'convince everybody', that's impossible, even concerning facts.

Quote

 I have already heard stories of someone appearing and multiple people saw and talked with that spirit/angel and then it vanished. They quickly get dismissed as anecdotal hearsay by the committed non-believers.

Well then that's exactly the issue:  'heard stories'.  I've heard all kinds of stories, and unfortunately with the paranormal right now it seems that this is all there is, just stories.  The question is, how do we determine these stories are true?  Because all I've seen so far is you just have to believe them. Contrast this with another story: human beings have walked on the moon (speaking of things that some people don't accept).  Here's the advantage I have with my story though: the truth of my story doesn't depend at all on my merely telling it, it's fine if you don't believe me, someone who doubts my story can check out the 'overwhelming' evidence for it and provide a better explanation.  All the paranormal stories evaporate if the story teller steps aside; if I don't believe it there's nothing else to examine, and thus not a lot of reason to believe it.

I'm not sure why if the evidence is overwhelming as you say that you won't provide the best evidenced example of the paranormal, but this is the last time I'll mention it since you won't respond to it.  I'll just say that this inability to offer up the best evidence doesn't help the case for 'overwhelming' evidence.

[Mr Walker]

39 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

And acting on intuition, hunches, etc, can be dangerous.

In the same way it affords you the opportunity to be more gullible.

You are using 'non-materialist' incorrectly then; colors and sounds are material.

No, although it may sound like that.  The colours and sounds represent/present  no MATERIAL danger   it is not like you see a snake or a tiger. They generate a perception of danger which is non material.  For example the colour red or the scent of smoke are not material sources of danger in themselves.  if you wish, take out the cases where we consciously recognises the potential  source of danger  and just think of the subconscious/ intuitive/ "instinctive"/ subliminal things which cause us to perceive danger .Intuitions/ hunches. based on subconscious and subliminal knowledge and reasoning are very effective in warning us of danger. It has nothing to do with gullibility Are you gullible if you are wary about a strange noise, a change in the environment or a rustling in the bushes?  Is it gullible to be cautious of a strange car suddenly parked outside your house at odd hours? You have no knowledge- based reason to be worried about it, but should you?   Is it safer not to notice, or think about the car; or to act upon your recognition of its existence with caution and awareness?. 

The evolved actions based on intuition or hunches are ones of prudence otherwise they would not have enhanced our survival, and  would not have become  standard responses in human beings. If they were dangerous then that trait would have not been bred into humanity Evolution proves that NOT acting on "intuition", or a belief about a situation, is dangerous. . 

Err! I think i missed something. How on earth does science, knowledge etc., afford me an opportunity to be  more gullible?  The more a person knows about self, others, and the physical world, then  the less room there is for doubt or gullibility.  

That is the upside of the equation, but it does not diminish the downside if we lose or ignore things like intuition and instinct or subliminal /subconscious awareness.

The optimal answer is to have sufficient knowldge of neurology, biology, and psychology, to know how  your body and mind works, and to utilise them most effectively, to enhance both intuition and logic. (intuitive and logical thinking) 

Edited December 29, 2016 by Mr Walker

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Poltergeists are generally accepted by science as the most demonstrable paranormal form  Like ufos they have been investigated and while some have been explained, many have not. There a re often multiple witnesses, even recordings, and no discover able trick, fakery, or human cause  I would go so far as to say that  "poltergeist activity" is accepted as a genuine phenomena by mainstream science, even though the cause of it is not understood.

I would go so far to say that you are pretty clueless about 'mainstream science'.  Tell me, what research is occurring right now on poltergeists?  What, if anything, have we pretty definitely determined about them, what journals have they been documented in?  If you were truly familiar with mainstream science you'd realize that poltergeists would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time; funny how so many mainstream scientists are unaware of its genuineness.

Your 'famous cases' are pretty poor.  From the link concerning one of the 'cases':

Quote

Despite the documentation, however, much controversy surrounds the case. Skeptics claim that the case is nothing more than the work of a very clever and mischievous girl -- Janet. The poltergeist activity always stopped when she was watched closely, and when she was taken to a hospital for several days to be tested for physical or mental abnormality, the phenomena ceased in the house. Some researchers believe that Janet taught herself to speak in the strange male voice, and that photos of her levitating in her bedroom merely caught her jumping off her bed. Was this poltergeist case just the result of an attention-seeking 11-year-old?

The evidence for this poltergeist is so good that it can also be explained by an 11 year old girl merely faking it?

Quote

In order for 'scientific documentation' to take place, the phenomena must occur a) consistently and repeatedly,  definitively i.e. it must be known uncategorically that the root cause is not attributable to anything natural, c) leave a measurable impact whose root cause cannot be attributed to anything natural. Sadly, the vast variety of so-called paranormal phenomena fails to meet this test. 

Logically leading us to wonder then why people think something paranormal is going on at all if it can be attributable to something natural.  We don't think demons cause infections anymore because of the natural explanation of bacteria either, and that's usually considered logical and rational.  Science has done a lot of documentation of things like the Tunguska fireball, the Lake Nyos disaster, etc, which are not repeatable.

Quote

When something paranormal (i.e. paradoxical) does occur, you can bet scientists will try to explain it using the tools they have, rather than accept an unsupported hypothesis and work with it. 

How should they work with it?  What research do you propose they do?  Scientists have tried and so far utterly failed to work with anything paranormal, they can't even get to the point of determining if there is even any phenomena there at all.

Quote

Science can do nothing else but this and remain science, but it makes it ill equipped to do an open, unbiased, and definitive analysis of a phenomenon such as poltergeists. if it initially discards any possibility that there may be a "supernatual" cause. How do you prove  uncategorically that the root cause is not attributable to anything natural,

If they were not 'biased', they would do what exactly?  I don't think you realize that people have tried to study this stuff and haven't gotten anywhere, almost like there's nothing really to study.  It 'initially' discards supernatural causes for the same reason it discards wizards as an explanation.  When you have some phenomenon that natural explanations don't do a good job of explaining, then we can proceed.  If you have a video of an 11 year old levitating in front of people who are objective and disinterested in whether the phenomenon is real, along with some fairly normal checks for trickery, there'd at least be something to talk about and explain.  Funny how despite what one may expect as a result of so many people walking around with video cameras in their pockets that the quality of paranormal evidence hasn't improved.

[+Liquid Gardens]

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No, although it may sound like that.  The colours and sounds represent/present  no MATERIAL danger   it is not like you see a snake or a tiger. They generate a perception of danger which is non material.  For example the colour red or the scent of smoke are not material sources of danger in themselves. 

Neither is the mere sight of a tiger, but whatever.

Quote

 if you wish, take out the cases where we consciously recognises the potential  source of danger  and just think of the subconscious/ intuitive/ "instinctive"/ subliminal things which cause us to perceive danger .Intuitions/ hunches. based on subconscious and subliminal knowledge and reasoning are very effective in warning us of danger. It has nothing to do with gullibility Are you gullible if you are wary about a strange noise, a change in the environment or a rustling in the bushes?  Is it gullible to be cautious of a strange car suddenly parked outside your house at odd hours? You have no knowledge- based reason to be worried about it, but should you?   Is it safer not to notice, or think about the car; or to act upon your recognition of its existence with caution and awareness?. 

Being wary of strange cars parked outside of your house isn't a result of subliminal/subconscious anything; it is the result of the fact that there is a small possibility that they could be burglars for instance.  I even suspect burglars not because of 'hunches', but because of the knowledge that I've accumulated where people's houses were burgled and 'a strange car was seen in the area around the same time' at the same time.  So yes, I do have a knowledge-based, non-subliminal/subconscious reason to make note of it.  

The issue is that you don't call that 'knowledge-based', although now you seem to be hedging.  You state that you don't know but have 'reasonable belief' that cobras are dangerous.  You don't have knowledge because you haven't personally died from their bite, which as you've said many times means your supposedly 'reasonable belief' is actually based on what you have defined as 'faith'.  It's 'reasonable' to believe things on faith now?  You like to attack other people's opposition to your stories because their positions can only be based on 'faith', according to you.  So is believing things based on your version of 'faith' valid and reasonable or not? 

[back to earth]

13 hours ago, Habitat said:

How disingenuous of you.

Get your words right and I will answer  your questions.   For all I know, you could have  * ** * *******  branded right across your ****  .  .