Demonic Possession?

What do you think?

 

Fail

 

whoa. too bad they don't have any video proof : (
then again, anybody can duplicate that stuff in Hollywood nowadays.

I think possessions can happen, and i doubt psychologists would make something up like that. if it's true, that's two words: scary ****.

 

If they are credible sources, then yeah.

 

I just hope it's true.
And not.

 

And not what?

 

Well, I think it might be true, else why would all those religious people try to exorcise something just to get an article on the internet? That's some scary stuff... Animal noises, telekinesis, levitating... Wow... The one weird thing is, how come all the interesting things happen but no one ever has a camera to record or take pictures of it?

 

I want it to be true, becuse it's paranormal, unreal and probably you could call it some form of magic.
Then again, it's likely an evil form, which I'm not fine with :/

 

I think they can happen. However, I think most are fake... A lot of "cases" of possession like closely to schizophrenia and other disorders.
But, I believe it can happen and it has in same cases.


I don't understand how you can label speaking a language you've never been exposed to a disorder.

 

It's not a disorder.

However, I personally believe in genetic memory, ie if your ancestor spoke a language, subconsciously, you can understand it, and when your subconscious takes over (Sleep? Possession?), even speak it.

 

Yes, that does make some sense to me. It's not that out there either.

 

Well....Genetic memory is a proven thing. Ever notice how some families, all their kids end up being, say, engineers? It's cause their family is more genetically inclined towards that kind of a thing. But it's off topic.

Unless demonic possession can access genetic memory.....Hmmm

 

I don't see why it couldn't.

 

I don't see genetic learning as plausible. My reason is because of this.

When an individual learns, your neurons branch out dendrites which release neurotransmitters. For successful learning, there are several different kinds of ways. One is called

HEBBIAN SYNAPSE: This requires 2 neurons to fire at once relating to a stimulus. Example: When 2 neurons are stimulated by a learning event, the information is then passed around the brain because when 2 neurons fire, there is enough ATP to be passed on to the next neuron.

another is

REINFORCEMENT LEARNING: Learning by condition and reinforcement. Learning by rewards.

there are many more, but I will not get into that.

For genetic learning to be true, those EXACT neurons must be transported to the infants brain. Which is not the case because infants develop their own neurons while in the female womb.

EVIDENCE: the super chiasmatic nucleus is a part of the brain which regulates or 24 hour clock. Tell's you when you are sleepy, etc. IF you remove this region from a rat in japan and implant it to a rat in the US, the US rat will be wired to Japan's time.
- this goes the same for learning.
- A rat who learns a maze gives birth. It's infants will have no memory of that maze what so ever.

HOWEVER. individuals can LEARN FASTER if parents are pre-exposed. Why? Because neuronal tissue influences off springs. A smart parent is more likely to give birth to a smart child. A parent who has schizophrenia is more likely to pass it on to their child. It's not that they are passing down their knowledge, but they are passing down their learning abilities.


Learned information is only acquirable through experience and is kept by neuronal transmission within the brain and only that individual brain.

 

Please cit your source for this, this is rather interesting, and I would like to look farther into it.

 

The way I see it....And this involves evolution.

If a certain skill is learned over and over, it becomes part of your genetic code. So, say for twelve generations, your family speaks Spanish and nothing but Spanish. It's my opinion, from what I've heard and experienced, that speaking, or at least learning Spanish is becoming instinct, instead of a learned skill.

It's similar to, say, climbing a tree. Our ancestors didn't start out in trees, they started on land, but evolved to trees. Look at any kid on the monkey bars. To me, it's the same basic concept on a much shorter scale

 

I agree with Fenix. Instinct has to come from somewhere. This seems like the most logical way for it to come about.

 

Sure, but it's all in my books not websites. Read up on these books.

Ninth Edition - Biological Psychology by James W. Kalat
Learning & Behavior Fifth Edition by Paul Chance
Psychology Eighth Edition by David G Myers
The Developing Persons Through the Life Span Sixth Edition By Kathleen Berger

I see it as genetic code passing down the learning capabilities. Like how a father who plays football has a son who does too because his gentic is passed through his gametes (sperm or egg cells). He did not learn his skills naturally, but learning capabilities and interests are passed down as well. If he becomes a foot ball player, his body type was acquired by his parents and his football passion was passed down by his fathers influence.

Evolution is wired by Nature + Nuture.

LANGUAGE: Infants are wired to learn language as children. No one knows why, but my idea is that, children have no way to communicate so they have more interest in what other people are saying. They have studies of adopted children in other countries learning 1 language and not their own. EXAMPLE: A Russian child is adopted by a filipino. He will never understand Russian unless he is exposed to it at an early age. Yes children can learn languages fast. I have a friend who is japanese, and doesn't understand a damn thing because he was adopted and was never exposed to his native language. As for me, my parents never taught me tagalog, but they spoke it all the time when I was an infant. I can now fully understand tagalog but not speak it very well due to my lack of practice and use for it.

As the the monkey's: The answer is Darwinism. A monkey learned to climb a tree, and thus survived while those who did not learn were killed. Therefore, as the monkey's evolved into their own separate species, we acquired some of the strengths while losing some. We evolved off a species who learned how to climb trees, thus we have the learning capabilities and body structure to climb a tree. But is climbing a tree important to us? Not really. This is because we probably evolved to rely on tools and thus, we lost our abilities to climb with skill like a monkey but still able to climb because of our body structure. If you never show anyone what climbing is, they probably might not ever learn unless they decide to give it a go because they want something in a tree our of survival.
- Cats can learn to turn a wheel for food, but this was never genetic trait. It can learn out of survival, thus showing its offspring how to turn a wheel and giving it a chance of evolving.
- There are jelly fish who evolved to not have any tentacles. They are completely isolated therefore don't need tentacles.
- We don't need to climb as much the more we learned how to use tools so we evolved to not rely on climbing so much.

That's the way I see it.

@ Darkone
Instincts is a puzzling topic. They require a lot of genetic influence but do not rely on it completely. I don't see language as a genetic instinct because of the neuronal actions taking place in the brain. However things such as birds flying south are. I believe the topic of instincts is still questionable. According to Darwinism though, lets use birds as an example for my theory.

- Maybe in the past, migrating was not so common. Perhaps those who flew south for winter lived on, while those who stayed died. Their infants thus learned from the adults to fly south, and learned much faster. Those who did not learn probably died off, thus nature kept the ones who learned at catch on and fly south to live. This is why domestication can make an animal's offspring lose it's instincts.
- Baby foxes where taken from their parents and bred domestically. They then compared the human raised foxes with wild raised foxes. Human raised foxes were not as aggressive and did not elicit anger in the same way as the wild foxes. - Learning Behavior by Paul Chance


And yeah, I think demonic possession is possible. But I'm not sure if i can trust the article, it could be exaggerated.

 

Wild animals that are raised by humans still maintain their instincts, they're just used to humans, so are les violent towards them, and have training from said human, to act against their instincts.

Damn text books, can't read those online. The majority of that just took me away.

Of course it could be exaggerated, there is always that risk for such things were people will be skeptical, they exaggerate to get some skeptics to believe it.

 

True true about the article, especially what you said about Julia. Because of that, it loses its credibility. I have to admit, I get a little bit paranoid when I watch exorcist movies, haha.

I'd go on with this psychology stuff because I can still go on, but I'm lazy and I think we'd need a separate thread for that discussion, haha.