Paranormal Phenomena

[Tokis-Phoenix]

A debate is where you need to prevail over your opponent by way of providing arguments.

Not necessarily- IMO debating/serious discussions isn't just about winning or loosing, its about furthering your understanding of other people's opinions & developing your own for the better. This is just my own view point to discussions/debates though.

Hostility is more towards facile or absent reasoning than towards individuals and the only person to blame for the facility of an argument is the person who puts it forward.

I personally don't see the correctness in being hostile towards people who show you no harm. Isn't being hostile towards someone whose opinions you find fustrating more a loss of your temper (thus taking a step towards getting into an argument)?

There is middle ground, people like Tsuyoiko or yourself, among other folks, but that doesn't put an obligation on the rest of us to follow your example. It is an example, one alternative of the many. There are numerous other forms of style that are still within the boundaries created by the rules applicable.

I don't see the point in being unessarily hostile/condescending/aggressive etc. This may all be within the rules, but it rarely achieves anything positive.

How about 'Through rigorous and ruthless scrutiny we will see which one of us prevails.'

You make it sound SD like a bear pit, a war, a battle of opinions- rather than a place of civilised peaceful serious discussions.

There is no reason to criticise people for making valid claims and pointing out the truth. The forum regulations are silent on the issue of manner and only go on to provide for sanctions for grossly inappropriate behaviour and they are enforced. I don't see a reason to make this section of the forum a haven of peace as the regulations provide for no such thing. Also, if you introduce rules on respect and whatnot, this bit of the forum will quickly become an overpoliced swamp of stupidity where stylistic considerations are more important than the underlying truth people wish to convey.

I am not saying we introduce new rules (who mentioned them?), i am merely pointing out that the reason why Hitsugaya called Mycernius a douch bag was because of his attitude, (which Mycernius completely disagreed with).

Secondly you prediction that if people behaved more politely & peacefully towards each other then SD would essentially go downhill in quality of discussion, i disagree with this. I have been on many forums over the years, and i would say that the more disrespectful & aggressive they are the more the quality of discussion goes downhill. Threads get closed on a regular basis, people take sides, people fall out with each other constantly, people end up just trying to point score against each other and undermine each other, people don't consider other peoples opinions or try to understand how they formed them etc- basically doing everything instead of having a peaceful serious discussion about the topic at hand with each other.

Again i think middle grounds are the best for good serious discussions ^_^ .

I am not concerned with the style of his points. He is will within the boundaries laid down by the regulations and so I have no reason to complain. He could be considerably more polite if he wanted to, but he, like anyone else, has the freedom not to act in such a polite fashion. Surely he knows better than us whether he finds the effects of his words agreeable or not.

Well, there's being within the rules & being polite etc and then there's being within the rules but (Hitsugaya's words) acting like a douche bag.

I'm personally a peaceful type of person- i like a good debate, not an unconstructive arguement. If we are talking about winning & loosing in debates here: You may have the right opinion in a debate, but you may not have the right way of going about it- you can be a "winner" & a "looser" at the same time.

I am not suggesting a change of rules, i am merely expressing my personal opinion on this matter of forum conduct. A lot of good threads have been closed because discussion descended into debate and debate descended into aggressive argument. I think a lot of these arguements could have been avoided & a civilised conclusion drawn instead if perhaps people acted a little less aggressively/condescendingly/disrespectfully etc- you don't need to be aggressive or condescending to get a good point across, and as i have said before i agree with Mycernius's points just not his manner of getting them across.

There are many ways you can express your opinion honestly, and some are definitely more tactful than others- thats all i'm saying ^_^v .

I completely agree with you,but who's gonna understand ? !!

"There is middle ground, people like Tsuyoiko"

http://www.laymark.com gomeeto...

!

 

[Haruspex]

Not necessarily- IMO debating/serious discussions isn't just about winning or loosing, its about furthering your understanding of other people's opinions & developing your own for the better. This is just my own view point to discussions/debates though.

I participate in serious discussions to further the process of ascertaining facts. Whoever provide more persuasive arguments is more likely to have come closer to ascertaining a fact.

I personally don't see the correctness in being hostile towards people who show you no harm. Isn't being hostile towards someone whose opinions you find fustrating more a loss of your temper (thus taking a step towards getting into an argument)?

There was no attack ad hominem, so how is it a loss of temper? Hostility does not amount to rage. It is entirely possible arduously to attack your opponent's claims, yet remain calm.

I don't see the point in being unessarily hostile/condescending/aggressive etc. This may all be within the rules, but it rarely achieves anything positive.

A sound argument will not be defeated by hostility, condescension or aggression. What flimsy claim is it that cannot withstand a bit of venom?

You make it sound SD like a bear pit, a war, a battle of opinions- rather than a place of civilised peaceful serious discussions.

Not all participants agree on all matters and many opinions are conflicting irreconcilably. The best way to ascertain which one of the irreconcilably conflicting views is correct is to allow passionate participants to line up the arguments in favour of their claims. Like it or not, many of the arguments lined up will be counter-arguments.

I am not saying we introduce new rules (who mentioned them?), i am merely pointing out that the reason why Hitsugaya called Mycernius a douch bag was because of his attitude, (which Mycernius completely disagreed with).

And I am not claiming that you called for the introduction of such rules. I sought to draw up an image of what would happen if such rules were introduced, which rules would compel everyone to act in accordance with your wish regarding manners.

Secondly you prediction that if people behaved more politely & peacefully towards each other then SD would essentially go downhill in quality of discussion, i disagree with this. I have been on many forums over the years, and i would say that the more disrespectful & aggressive they are the more the quality of discussion goes downhill. Threads get closed on a regular basis, people take sides, people fall out with each other constantly, people end up just trying to point score against each other and undermine each other, people don't consider other peoples opinions or try to understand how they formed them etc- basically doing everything instead of having a peaceful serious discussion about the topic at hand with each other.

A baseless assertion is exactly that, a baseless assertion, and pointing the fact out can hardly be compared to the online gangwar you have envisioned above. Also, we are not concerned with what compels people to participate in arguments, only the validity of the arguments they produce. You disregard the fact altogether that argumentation can mean various forms of pastime. I may wish to argue in order to socialise with others, in order to protect a deeply-held belief or simply to compete. These are a few examples and all three are, in my view, valid reasons. So long as I infringe no rules, I am free to argue for whatever reason, out of spite and hatred even.

Again i think middle grounds are the best for good serious discussions ^_^ .

I think calling bollocks bollocks is a good way of not misrepresenting facts. Someone making unsubstantiated claims is not entitled to have his or her maidenly pure heart protected from the cruel, evil world where people have the nerve to point the lack of reasoning out.

Well, there's being within the rules & being polite etc and then there's being within the rules but (Hitsugaya's words) acting like a douche bag.

How would you feel like if I approached you on the street and gave you a lesson on how to behave, dress, etc., in accordance with the prevailing moral values of society, even though your previous behaviour had been lawful? You'd probably tell me to **** off on the double.

I'm personally a peaceful type of person- i like a good debate, not an unconstructive arguement. If we are talking about winning & loosing in debates here: You may have the right opinion in a debate, but you may not have the right way of going about it- you can be a "winner" & a "looser" at the same time.

If I have proven my opposition wrong then I am, for all practical purposes, the victor. 'The right way of going about...' would only lead to a battle of subjectivity. It may be rather heartwarming to sing Kumbaya with all the participants of the SD subforum, but that will hardly help ascertain any facts. I am a peaceful person too, albeit argumentative. The two are not mutually exclusive

I am not suggesting a change of rules, i am merely expressing my personal opinion on this matter of forum conduct. A lot of good threads have been closed because discussion descended into debate and debate descended into aggressive argument. I think a lot of these arguements could have been avoided & a civilised conclusion drawn instead if perhaps people acted a little less aggressively/condescendingly/disrespectfully etc- you don't need to be aggressive or condescending to get a good point across, and as i have said before i agree with Mycernius's points just not his manner of getting them across.

Just take a look at academic debates. They are often dripping with venom, yet the participants refrain from attacking each other ad hominem and concentrate on the points raised by their opponents. It is possible to act in such a way in SD. A good debate need not be full of euphemisms.

There are many ways you can express your opinion honestly, and some are definitely more tactful than others- thats all i'm saying ^_^v .

!

Tactful need not amount to effective.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

A sound argument will not be defeated by hostility, condescension or aggression. What flimsy claim is it that cannot withstand a bit of venom?

Why do you need "venom" to dispute someone's claim? Again, unnessary aggression, which often leads to unnessary arguments.

Not all participants agree on all matters and many opinions are conflicting irreconcilably. The best way to ascertain which one of the irreconcilably conflicting views is correct is to allow passionate participants to line up the arguments in favour of their claims. Like it or not, many of the arguments lined up will be counter-arguments.

You don't need to argue with people to see how much you differ in opinion, you just need to be detailed in your opinions and then see what the other person has to say to them. If you disagree you disagree. If someone comes off as an aggressive douch bag then the person being spoken to by them are probably not going to even bother giving the douche bag a second reply (and if they do it will naturally probably be a very offenced or defensive one).

And I am not claiming that you called for the introduction of such rules. I sought to draw up an image of what would happen if such rules were introduced, which rules would compel everyone to act in accordance with your wish regarding manners.

Your example was extreme & very assuming- not at all like the points i was making at all (i mentioned middle ground, and then you go on about an extreme scenario about a controlled forum where everyone has to be nice to each other and can't be honest about their true opinions etc).

A baseless assertion is exactly that, a baseless assertion, and pointing the fact out can hardly be compared to the online gangwar you have envisioned above. Also, we are not concerned with what compels people to participate in arguments, only the validity of the arguments they produce. You disregard the fact altogether that argumentation can mean various forms of pastime. I may wish to argue in order to socialise with others, in order to protect a deeply-held belief or simply to compete. These are a few examples and all three are, in my view, valid reasons. So long as I infringe no rules, I am free to argue for whatever reason, out of spite and hatred even.

Actually i am both concerned with what compells people to argue and how valid the points are they make. I am not debating how valid the points are, i am debating the manner in which they are spoken (this is all i have talked about since the start of this particular discussion). Also i think arguing is a poor "pastime"; argueing is a negative, it is beyond a discussion or debate- it is when voices become raised and tempers heated. I fail to see anything generally positive gained in argueing as a form of comunication- it always has a negative result, one way or the other.

There is a big difference between having an arguement with someone and having a debate or a discussion with them.

I think calling bollocks bollocks is a good way of not misrepresenting facts. Someone making unsubstantiated claims is not entitled to have his or her maidenly pure heart protected from the cruel, evil world where people have the nerve to point the lack of reasoning out.

The person isn't misrepresenting facts, they are merely voicing their beliefs. And IMO people should have the right to voice their beliefs without being immediately bashed for them. We live in a very, very large world, full of people of strongly differing beliefs- a little tolerance/self-control goes a long way. You might not agree with someone and you may think what they believe in is utter nonsense etc, but you don't have to be aggressive or rude to etc in speaking against their beliefs.

How would you feel like if I approached you on the street and gave you a lesson on how to behave, dress, etc., in accordance with the prevailing moral values of society, even though your previous behaviour had been lawful? You'd probably tell me to **** off on the double.

This is a forum where the discussion is open to all. If someone wants to disagree with the way you act they are free to do that, if someone wants to disagree with what you say they are free to do that, if someone wants to raise a new point they are free to do that etc. This is hardly a scenario where i am interupting someone having a private conversation in the street & then lecturing them on their attitude etc.

]If I have proven my opposition wrong then I am, for all practical purposes, the victor. 'The right way of going about...' would only lead to a battle of subjectivity. It may be rather heartwarming to sing Kumbaya with all the participants of the SD subforum, but that will hardly help ascertain any facts. I am a peaceful person too, albeit argumentative. The two are not mutually exclusive

Lol based on what you say (argumentation as a pastime, victory is everything in a debate, argueing is a fine means of getting your point across about anything in a debate etc) i would not call you a peaceful person. Even now you are talking at me in a condescending manner (for example your Kumbaya sarcasm etc). You are certainly very much on the offence in your attitude and don't seem to care much if you cause arguement or offend people in your debates due to your manner etc. What is peaceful about this?

Just take a look at academic debates. They are often dripping with venom, yet the participants refrain from attacking each other ad hominem and concentrate on the points raised by their opponents. It is possible to act in such a way in SD. A good debate need not be full of euphemisms.

Tactful need not amount to effective.

Actually being tactful is all about getting your point across in an effective yet aggreeable manner. I don't think anyone would equate being arguementative as being tactful and very few would associate it with efficiency.

While you use acedemic debates as an example, i could also pull up political debates- the best politicians at debating are the ones which use a mix of tactfulness/diplomecy & facts to get their points across. Middle ground. Be an overly/unnessarily aggressive individual and people won't want to hear what you have to say and you will just cause offence, but be too image conscious & shy in your approach and you won't get your opinions heard- But if you use a mixture of good conduct and strong facts etc, and you strike the right middle ground ^_^v.

Don't you agree with this?

 

[Haruspex]

Why do you need "venom" to dispute someone's claim? Again, unnessary aggression, which often leads to unnessary arguments.

You don't need it, but it can help. You're helping your opponent if you do not, readily, point out the mistakes he or she made in putting forward a claim.

You don't need to argue with people to see how much you differ in opinion, you just need to be detailed in your opinions and then see what the other person has to say to them. If you disagree you disagree. If someone comes off as an aggressive douch bag then the person being spoken to by them are probably not going to even bother giving the douche bag a second reply (and if they do it will naturally probably be a very offenced or defensive one).

The more arguments and counter-arguments you line up, the less likely that there will be an omission in the final conclusion. Even now we are facilitating the ascertainment of truth through clashing our opinions.

Your example was extreme & very assuming- not at all like the points i was making at all (i mentioned middle ground, and then you go on about an extreme scenario about a controlled forum where everyone has to be nice to each other and can't be honest about their true opinions etc).

You called for politeness. Whether such politeness is present because of the authority of the regulations or because people themselves choose to act politely in all situations, it is a hinderance. If someone is hindered by stylistic considerations that filter out the rather 'tame' post made by Mycernius, then that is undue restraint.

Actually i am both concerned with what compells people to argue and how valid the points are they make. I am not debating how valid the points are, i am debating the manner in which they are spoken (this is all i have talked about since the start of this particular discussion). Also i think arguing is a poor "pastime"; argueing is a negative, it is beyond a discussion or debate- it is when voices become raised and tempers heated. I fail to see anything generally positive gained in argueing as a form of comunication- it always has a negative result, one way or the other.

You went and used the 'bitter couple' sense of arguing. I never meant anything like the violent threats accompanied by the throwing of dishes and the breaking of furniture.

There is a big difference between having an arguement with someone and having a debate or a discussion with them.

Yes, if we use the 'bitter couple' definition of argument. Otherwise, the overlap is great.

The person isn't misrepresenting facts, they are merely voicing their beliefs. And IMO people should have the right to voice their beliefs without being immediately bashed for them. We live in a very, very large world, full of people of strongly differing beliefs- a little tolerance/self-control goes a long way. You might not agree with someone and you may think what they believe in is utter nonsense etc, but you don't have to be aggressive or rude to etc in speaking against them.

She made a claim as to the existing states of affairs. Unless she is right, her claim is a misrepresentation.

We indeed live in a very large world and that means a great number of people who think that they have a right not to be offended. I am half Armenian and having been brought up around eastern people, I had my fair share of taboos, matters you can't speak about and things you just can't say. Your second sentence above is entirely wasted on me. There are very few things which I loathe more in this life than the notion of a right which protects from criticism. I'd probably readily cut my balls off if that would rid the world of said notion.

My way of demonstrating tolerance is by not taking any physical action other than verbal. If some cow-worshipping sacred dude straight from the Ganges approaches me and tells me how awesome cow-worship is, you can be certain I will tell him how little I think of his ancient beliefs. No beliefs deserve any protection. A sound view is able to fend attacks through its own excellence and it doesn't require some sort of moralistic protection like all the rubbish humanity is showered with every day. Freedom of speech is one of the greatest assets that allows us to think critically.

This is a forum where the discussion is open to all. If someone wants to disagree with the way you act they are free to do that, if someone wants to disagree with what you say they are free to do that, if someone wants to raise a new point they are free to do that etc. This is hardly a scenario where i am interupting someone having a private conversation in the street & then lecturing them on their attitude etc.

And in the natural world I am free to tell you to observe popular moral rules more strictly, amn't I? Well, you gave Mycernius a lecture on how you think he should behave.

Lol based on what you say (argumentation as a pastime, victory is everything in a debate, argueing is a fine means of getting your point across about anything in a debate etc) i would not call you a peaceful person. Even now you are talking at me in a condescending manner (for example your Kumbaya sarcasm etc). You are certainly very much on the offence in your attitude and don't seem to care much if you cause arguement or offend people in your debates due to your manner etc. What is peaceful about this?

You would be surprised how easygoing I actually am outside of arguments. Also, I did not meant to be condescending and I am certainly not talking down to you. We are equals in this argument, but since you are voicing opinions contrary to mine, you are my opponent whether you like it or not. That is the reality of the matter. I cannot not be your opponent if you give the words describing what we are currently engaged in their ordinary meaning. Yes, I don't really care if I offend people. If I am wrong and their views are correct, then there is always the potential to prove me wrong. Similarly I won't complain about how my sacred views have been offended. Such drama only detracts from an argument.

Actually being tactful is all about getting your point across in an effective yet aggreeable manner. I don't think anyone would equate being arguementative as being tactful and very few would associate it with efficiency.

To tell the truth, you are being argumentative here and despite your negative view of the notion, it isn't really the seed of evil. It only means that you are eager to prove your claims right. The more accurately you can describe a fact, the more efficient you are. If there is a rock in my room, than it would be true if I said 'There is a rock in my room.' and whether it may offend anyone is of no relevance whatsoever. What matters is that the sentence is perfectly accurate and free of any extraneous nonsense.

While you use acedemic debates as an example, i could also pull up political debates- the best politicians at debating are the ones which use a mix of tactfulness/diplomecy & facts to get their points across. Middle ground. Be an overly/unnessarily aggressive individual and people won't want to hear what you have to say and you will just cause offence, but be too image conscious & shy in your approach and you won't get your opinions heard- But if you use a mixture of good conduct and strong facts etc, and you strike the right middle ground ^_^v.

Politics is much more populistic than academia. Politicians are forced to observe some of the social rules and respect certain principles laid down by society whether they like it or not. Politics is hardly about ascertaining the truth, so the analogy is problematic.

Don't you agree with this?

I would like to appear as the nice guy who gets along well with everyone, but no, I don't agree. I support free speech to its full extent and I don't want to live in the world of 'you can't say that.', which I encounter far too often.

I think George Carlin says it perfectly:
Rape is funny
Soft language

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

The more arguments and counter-arguments you line up, the less likely that there will be an omission in the final conclusion. Even now we are facilitating the ascertainment of truth through clashing our opinions.

There's a difference between debating a subject though and argueing over it, the latter of which i am not doing.

You called for politeness. Whether such politeness is present because of the authority of the regulations or because people themselves choose to act politely in all situations, it is a hinderance. If someone is hindered by stylistic considerations that filter out the rather 'tame' post made by Mycernius, then that is undue restraint.

Politeness is not a hindrance whatsoever. For example i am being polite to you right now, yet you can comprehend my points yes?

You went and used the 'bitter couple' sense of arguing. I never meant anything like the violent threats accompanied by the throwing of dishes and the breaking of furniture.

Yes, if we use the 'bitter couple' definition of argument. Otherwise, the overlap is great.

To me an arguement is an arguement (unless someone is using it in a debate sense i.e. "S/he put forward a convincing arguement in the debate on whaling in Japan" etc), but i say this word in no other sense than the sense people usually use the word in (people usually associate arguements with raised voices, heated tempers, condescending attitudes, being aggressive or non-receptive etc etc).

We indeed live in a very large world and that means a great number of people who think that they have a right not to be offended. I am half Armenian and having been brought up around eastern people, I had my fair share of taboos, matters you can't speak about and things you just can't say. Your second sentence above is entirely wasted on me. There are very few things which I loathe more in this life than the notion of a right which protects from criticism. I'd probably readily cut my balls off if that would rid the world of said notion.

I'm not dictating what people can & can't say, i'm merely expressing my opinions on the subject at hand. I'm not trying to "protect people from criticism", merely saying that i disagree with people being treated unessarily aggressively for no good reason at all (as people took opposing stances on the Mycernius matter, so i offered my opinion to the mix).

And in the natural world I am free to tell you to observe popular moral rules more strictly, amn't I? Well, you gave Mycernius a lecture on how you think he should behave.

Lecture? 3 short lines is hardly a lecture.

Yes, I don't really care if I offend people. If I am wrong and their views are correct, then there is always the potential to prove me wrong. Similarly I won't complain about how my sacred views have been offended. Such drama only detracts from an argument.

Meh, i guess trying to debate good codes of conduct with someone who really doesn't care if they offend people or not is wasted on you then (IMO its like trying to discuss the ethics of eating meat with someone who couldn't care less about animals?).

To tell the truth, you are being argumentative here and despite your negative view of the notion, it isn't really the seed of evil. It only means that you are eager to prove your claims right.

Nope, just because i disagree with you doesn't mean that i am argueing with you, i merely just disagree with you -_- .

I would like to appear as the nice guy who gets along well with everyone, but no, I don't agree. I support free speech to its full extent and I don't want to live in the world of 'you can't say that.', which I encounter far too often.

I'm not saying "you can't say that", just saying i disagree with the way some things were said etc- there's a difference. I don't have the power to dictate what people can or can't say and i'm not attempting to try this at all.

Anyhoo, right now i feel we are just repeating ourselves over & over- we're not really being that productice here?

Life is valuable and time is life, so i should probably avoid debating this topic for too much longer (this may be my final post on the matter) otherwise i will end up wasting too many hours on forum debates again (the original reason why i took a long break from Jref lol!).

Agree to disagree on this matter :beer1: ?

 

[Mycernius]

hitsugayaOMFG might not like my style of posting, but that does not give him the right to insult me. I have let it slide this time.

Okay, can we get back on topic guys. This has strayed somewhet

 

[hitsugayaOMFG]

hitsugayaOMFG might not like my style of posting, but that does not give him the right to insult me. I have let it slide this time.
Okay, can we get back on topic guys. This has strayed somewhet

you insulted her i was just doing the same to you since you feel like putting people down

 

[Haruspex]

you insulted her i was just doing the same to you since you feel like putting people down

Straightforward style =/= attack ad hominem. What you perceived as an insult was not one.

Agree to disagree on this matter ?

You don't need my opinion to form your own. If that's what you wish to point out, I have to agree.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

You don't need my opinion to form your own. If that's what you wish to point out, I have to agree.

No i just mean it in the sense that most people use the term "agree to disagree" in -_- ;

Agree to disagree - Wikipedia

define:Agree to disagree - Google Search

Seriously, unless you wanna discuss paranormal stuff here, i'm done with this debate >_> .

 

[Haruspex]

Seriously, unless you wanna discuss paranormal stuff here, i'm done with this debate >_> .

Right, not exactly paranormal, but my own story related to it.

My grandmother is well into her shady magic literature and some 4-5 years ago she read a book on indigo children. She approached and asked me if I have been seeing colours and whatnot, and at the time I had no clue why she would ask such a thing. I was surprised at the question and I didn't have quite a clue what sort of colours she meant so I stopped for a brief couple of seconds to try and make sense of the question, which she interpreted as an attempt on my part to conceal that I 'see colours'. When she 'enlightened me' I tried to clear up the misunderstanding and I tried telling her that I see no such colours, but she wouldn't believe me. Ultimately, she wanted her grandson to be special, so she decided he is an indigo child, which must in turn mean that indigo children exist.

The thing with the paranormal is no different. To discover the cause of something 'mysterious', first the missing bits must be found that will lead to a conclusion and not vice versa, ie the missing bits interpreted so as to fit the conclusion.

 

[Mycernius]

you insulted her i was just doing the same to you since you feel like putting people down

You need to lose that chip on your shoulder. I did not insult her. She posted a bunch of blind assertions. I want evidence. That does not give you the right to throw around insults. You might not like my posting style, you have that right, but you do not have the right to insult people because you do not like what they post.

Now END OF SUBJECT, and back ontopic.

 

[Mycernius]

My grandmother is well into her shady magic literature and some 4-5 years ago she read a book on indigo children. She approached and asked me if I have been seeing colours and whatnot, and at the time I had no clue why she would ask such a thing. I was surprised at the question and I didn't have quite a clue what sort of colours she meant so I stopped for a brief couple of seconds to try and make sense of the question, which she interpreted as an attempt on my part to conceal that I 'see colours'. When she 'enlightened me' I tried to clear up the misunderstanding and I tried telling her that I see no such colours, but she wouldn't believe me. Ultimately, she wanted her grandson to be special, so she decided he is an indigo child, which must in turn mean that indigo children exist.

I have haerd of the term, but had to look it up
Here is the wiki entry on Indigo children, but I have heard of some people who do see music as colours and the phenomenon is known as Synesthesia. I also dug up a list og people who have or had it.
List
I knew that Rimsky-Korsakov had it, but not Listz.

 

[life]

i see science more as humanity's attempt to unravel the grand design of existence. we may not have come yet to that level where everything could be explained within the level of human understanding but the fervor and determination of many will soon lead us to it. i have had many paranormal encounters too, if that's how most people would call it, but i honestly feel that those who are into it are those who have developed a higher sensibility to the motions of life maybe. i hope to see that day when all these missing bits and pieces are made available to our understanding. this is just my own understanding behind paranormal occurrences. not really that significant but i hope i was able to contribute a little. thanks.