On Sun, 11 Dec 2011 11:14:35 -0000, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
>"John Baker" <
nu...@bizniz.net> wrote on 10th Dec:
>> On Sat, 10 Dec 2011 19:13:55 -0000, "A B" <@bleBaker.uk> wrote:
>>>I notice most of you have ignored the actual phenomena Emmett was asking
>>>about, so here's my two pennorth: there are people in Mongolia who can
>>>sing
>>>two notes at once, so I suppose it could be possible for someone to mimic
>>>two voices at once. As for speaking languages she didn't know, that's a
>>>question of how sound the evidence is that she did so.
>>
>> That's one of my questions as well. It's a common claim in cases of
>> alleged possession, yet I've never seen any *real* evidence for it.
>> Only claims.
>>
>>>I'd be interested to
>>>hear more detail about that. (There are other such cases, but the same
>>>applies to them).
>>
>> It's perhaps telling that, while there are exceptions, the vast
>> majority of cases of so-called "possession" seem to occur in cultures
>> where there's a strong belief in such things to begin with.
>>
>> Believers might be well advised to present some real, testable
>> evidence for the reality of demons before they try to convince us of
>> the reality of possession.
>
>Well, surely if they can prove the possession they've proved the demons?
>Properly prove, I mean.
Not really. Even if they could prove that the affliction is indeed
caused by a non-corporeal entity invading the victim's body and mind,
that doesn't prove it's a demon.
Some cultures, for example, believe that ghosts can possess the
living.
>As for the culture thing, I wouldn't expect people
>who didn't believe in demons to mention possession; they'd just assume it
>was brain trouble pure and simple.
It isn't just that. The symptoms of of the affliction actually vary
according to the prevalent beliefs of the victim's culture. For
example, what most Westerners think of as "classic" possession occurs
for the most part in predominantly Catholic societies.
>If the victim spoke in two voices at
>once, they'd assume that that was possible, since no other possibility was
>available;
As the Mongolian Khoomei singers demonstrate, it *is* possible,
although the singer isn't actually singing with two voices. It's a
neat trick, but the explanation is a bit complicated.
>and if he/she spoke in foreign languages they'd be unlikely to
>check the far-fetched, to them, possibility that he/she was speaking them
>correctly.
I think it's a little unfair to assume they wouldn't even bother to
investigate. Perhaps the victim is merely uttering nonsense syllables
that *sound* like a particular foreign language to those not familiar
with it. Perhaps he's actually speaking that language. But no
*competent* doctor or scientist would just assume, one way or the
other.
Cases of "real" possession are seldom if ever as severe as the
phenomenon is commonly portrayed in fiction. In fact, most cases
consist of the victim merely being terrorized by the entity - or
rather, *believing* he is - with no actual possession in the classic
sense. Even the case of Anneliese Michel has been greatly embellished
in the retelling.
As of now, there is no convincing evidence that "possession" is in
fact caused by malevolent non-corporeal entities. There is no real
evidence that such entities actually exist, nor is there a known
scientifically plausible mechanism by which consciousness and
intelligence could exist without a physical body - not to mention how
an immaterial being could interact with material objects. Given that,
the logical conclusion is that possession is a mental illness, albeit
one with religious overtones.