Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-10-2013, 12:44 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
Was watching Ghost Hunters last night and the two investigators heard what sounded like a type writer sound, They went off to find a typewriter and determined the sound was similar but it wasnt a match....

Later when they went over the recording they heard it again and yelled, wow, thats a typewriter!

That annoys me. Lack of objective thoughts towards the paranormal or whatever you want to call the nonsense.

and what about EVPs? why is it that when they hear a woman scream or a spirit whisper Irish? all I hear is ahalalala? Gibberish.

Has anyone seen a GREAT movie called , The skeptic? It explains so much of the Paranormal, why people believe as they do, why people hear their names being spoken on recorders and the like!

Of course its possible that there is an afterlife but I see no evidence for it or any other supernatural/paranormal activity but that is just me, other perspectives welcomed.

Blessings
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-10-2013, 06:45 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(11-10-2013 12:44 AM)Irishdize Wrote:  Was watching Ghost Hunters last night and the two investigators heard what sounded like a type writer sound, They went off to find a typewriter and determined the sound was similar but it wasnt a match....

Later when they went over the recording they heard it again and yelled, wow, thats a typewriter!

That annoys me. Lack of objective thoughts towards the paranormal or whatever you want to call the nonsense.

and what about EVPs? why is it that when they hear a woman scream or a spirit whisper Irish? all I hear is ahalalala? Gibberish.

Has anyone seen a GREAT movie called , The skeptic? It explains so much of the Paranormal, why people believe as they do, why people hear their names being spoken on recorders and the like!

Of course its possible that there is an afterlife but I see no evidence for it or any other supernatural/paranormal activity but that is just me, other perspectives welcomed.

Blessings
Ghost hunters is all fake. Funny thing is I actually believed in ghosts when they first aired, thought they were being "scientific" silly me. Then I began hearing the other side of the ghost photography and also the evps. When they say they hear a word it is all static or it captures the remnants of a radio station. And of course keeping the microphone going to record at full blast your going to get distortion. Have you ever notice that sometimes you can't even hear what it says until they actually point it out? Well your brain is primed then to look for those words now. Its like pareidolia for your ears. YES! I did see the skeptic, good movie. That was with Tim Daly, the first time I watched it I was like, "holy shit, is that Superman?" and it was. He's also a voice actor who does the voice for the animated superman.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes grizzlysnake's post
12-10-2013, 08:52 PM
Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
Earlier tonight my Cross Country team had a bonfire. Some of us went into the treehouse. Eventually we told ghost stories, and these two girls started talking about Supernatural. One of them said that Roanoke was cannibal demons. The others thought that was a perfect explanation.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2013, 08:46 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
http://consciouslifenews.com/scientist-p...y/1165924/

Please laugh and do not look at this at all, as you usually do Wink Don't click the link, don't watch the videos, wait for journals to examine this stuff for you. If it was true, the guy would already win Randi's prize and Nobel prize for it.







Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 01:21 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(15-10-2013 08:46 AM)Luminon Wrote:  http://consciouslifenews.com/scientist-p...y/1165924/

Please laugh and do not look at this at all, as you usually do Wink Don't click the link, don't watch the videos, wait for journals to examine this stuff for you.

It's easy to be convinced of something when you want to believe it.

p.s. first video repeats 2 ish minutes in.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 05:21 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2013 05:30 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(16-10-2013 01:21 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  It's easy to be convinced of something when you want to believe it.

p.s. first video repeats 2 ish minutes in.
So switch to the second video, the interview. The first video is pretty unprofessional, I just skipped through the pictures, sound off.

I always find it insulting that you think I have any respect whatsoever to beliefs, mine or others'. Living in modern world, I am used to the standard of having a working technology and a hands-on experience. I may have hypotheses based on the hands-on experience, but they don't magically grow into beliefs. But I suppose beliefs are so common that it's the first thing you can think of, when someone says something weird, it must be belief.

By the way, you should read Ludwik Fleck. He confirms what I suspected all along, that scientific community and journals are just another group with groupthink. Less than other groups, but nonetheless, the scientific discourse is not free and has a lot of Whispering Game element in it. There is a body of scientific knowledge, which has no basis in reality, it just tags along without being questioned. Similarly, I suspect there is a body of knowledge that just gets omitted or ignored for no good scientific reason. That's the reason why I call the journals a vicarious sacrament. I'll find out more about that as I study, so far it was just a few lectures.
Fleck was a microbiologist and he's kind of hard to read, laymen like us should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of scientific revolutions, he draws from Fleck's work a lot.
It kind of worries me, because I rely on science a lot as a method to decide lots of things in society, so I might be shooting myself in the leg.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 10:23 AM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2013 10:27 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(16-10-2013 05:21 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 01:21 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  It's easy to be convinced of something when you want to believe it.

p.s. first video repeats 2 ish minutes in.
So switch to the second video, the interview. The first video is pretty unprofessional, I just skipped through the pictures, sound off.

I always find it insulting that you think I have any respect whatsoever to beliefs, mine or others'. Living in modern world, I am used to the standard of having a working technology and a hands-on experience. I may have hypotheses based on the hands-on experience, but they don't magically grow into beliefs. But I suppose beliefs are so common that it's the first thing you can think of, when someone says something weird, it must be belief.

By the way, you should read Ludwik Fleck. He confirms what I suspected all along, that scientific community and journals are just another group with groupthink. Less than other groups, but nonetheless, the scientific discourse is not free and has a lot of Whispering Game element in it. There is a body of scientific knowledge, which has no basis in reality, it just tags along without being questioned. Similarly, I suspect there is a body of knowledge that just gets omitted or ignored for no good scientific reason. That's the reason why I call the journals a vicarious sacrament. I'll find out more about that as I study, so far it was just a few lectures.
Fleck was a microbiologist and he's kind of hard to read, laymen like us should read Thomas Kuhn's Structure of scientific revolutions, he draws from Fleck's work a lot.
It kind of worries me, because I rely on science a lot as a method to decide lots of things in society, so I might be shooting myself in the leg.

That's correct, it's not free. It costs. It takes time and money to have groups run experiments to confirm/falsify hypotheses. If we had an endless supply I'm sure they'd be testing for everything, including the plasma clouds only you can see and/or feel.

Don't suspect, it's clear there is stuff that gets omitted and ignored. Omitted knowledge because results come back negative, and ignored because they can't test every crack pots theories. Can you elaborate on the body of scientific knowledge with no basis in reality? The only one I can think of is String Theory. It has a great deal of physicists attention and it hasn't been confirmed. Yet I’d still argue it has some basis in reality, even though the theory itself is just a hypothesis. String Theories base is Quantum theory which has been confirmed. The two main attempts to merge Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity start from one and then try to incorporate the other. There's Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. They both have a basis in reality, whether they are true or not.

"A "truth" was a relative value, expressed in the language or symbolism of the thoughtcollective in which it belonged, and subject to the social and temporal structure of this collective. To state therefore that a specific truth is true or false is impossible."


So according to this fella, you can't run experiments to confirm or falsify anything? I'm getting a Solipsist vibe. I agree that some phenomena (real or otherwise) aren't able to be given the time they may deserve. But when we test for something we can confirm if it is true or false, if it exists or doesn’t. You go up to someone working in a field of science with hard evidence of some phenomena they will accept it, perhaps after confirming with their own run at the experiment you did but nonetheless, that doesn't happen in other groups.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 01:54 PM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2013 02:14 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(16-10-2013 10:23 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  That's correct, it's not free. It costs. It takes time and money to have groups run experiments to confirm/falsify hypotheses. If we had an endless supply I'm sure they'd be testing for everything, including the plasma clouds only you can see and/or feel.
Finally! Finally someone confirms that. They all say "arrange an experiment, win a Nobel prize", ignoring that I'd need some kind of equipment producing photon discharge in liquids or whatever Korotkov uses. With an equipment like Korotkov's or Oldfield's, I could perform simple experiments like photographing me before and after an energetic concentration, seeing the obvious difference. But why? Both of these people already did experiments like that. All you need is to look and finally become positively open-minded.
Truth be told, I am only learning to use my "energetic body" equipment. It looks like I've been not in my body all my life, like I was only wrapped around it. And now I finally get inside. There are so many channels for energy along the spine and everywhere, that laid dormant for so long. I am awakening them, but the progress is so fast, that I can't stop and describe it. Whatever I claimed before, is dwarfed by what I could claim now. This is all meaningless, except that these expansions of feeling have corresponding expansions of behavior, of psychology, of personality expression. A perceived awakening of a vortex or center has a corresponding behavior improvement, for example, an ability to relate to other people, or to just hang out without withdrawing inside. These two are one, it's as if the brain was not the main source of behavior and consciousness, as if the energy body was the layout of consciousness.

The implications are so complex, that all the empirical tests proposed by me are just basics, "is there something we don't know about?" Well, any of the guys I've proposed can prove that there is. You don't really need me to see that.

(16-10-2013 10:23 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Don't suspect, it's clear there is stuff that gets omitted and ignored. Omitted knowledge because results come back negative, and ignored because they can't test every crack pots theories. Can you elaborate on the body of scientific knowledge with no basis in reality? The only one I can think of is String Theory. It has a great deal of physicists attention and it hasn't been confirmed. Yet I’d still argue it has some basis in reality, even though the theory itself is just a hypothesis. String Theories base is Quantum theory which has been confirmed. The two main attempts to merge Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity start from one and then try to incorporate the other. There's Loop Quantum Gravity and String Theory. They both have a basis in reality, whether they are true or not.

"A "truth" was a relative value, expressed in the language or symbolism of the thoughtcollective in which it belonged, and subject to the social and temporal structure of this collective. To state therefore that a specific truth is true or false is impossible."
One Fleck's example I know about was some kind of channel in female genital area, which does not in fact exist, but it could be found in every textbook of anatomy for 200 years. Another well-known example is the depiction of human embryo development, supposedly going through phases of fish, amphibians and animals in a miniature evolution. I think it might still have been in some book I read as a child back in the early 90's. These could be called errors of the first order.

(16-10-2013 10:23 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  So according to this fella, you can't run experiments to confirm or falsify anything? I'm getting a Solipsist vibe. I agree that some phenomena (real or otherwise) aren't able to be given the time they may deserve. But when we test for something we can confirm if it is true or false, if it exists or doesn’t. You go up to someone working in a field of science with hard evidence of some phenomena they will accept it, perhaps after confirming with their own run at the experiment you did but nonetheless, that doesn't happen in other groups.
No, Fleck was no solipsist. He was a Polish Jewish microbiologist, hard science guy. He was so good at his job, that even Nazis had let him live to work at making vaccines, so he survived WW2. His observations are used at sociology courses, but he simply studied the process of how scientific knowledge is examined gathered, discussed, spread, and simplified for general public. As a microbiologist, he speaks a lot about microbiology, uses the long-unquestioned assumptions about syphilis as an example... (see below)

Scientific fields have an esoteric and exoteric circle like in religions. There are experts, journalists, discourse and several levels of publications. There are a few experts who actually understand it in all complexity. When they publish it, they publish as individuals. There may be a discourse and the group can reach a conclusion of certainty. If we interview the scientists one by one, not a single one will be ready to take responsibility for that conclusion. But this conclusion then gets into manuals and textbooks, where all signs of uncertainty vanish. Science is presented in a still more certain and unified way. The final product is a popular science, which makes an unanimous impression, it could be called propaganda, compared to how uncertain the original experts are about any given phenomenon. Experts know how wrong can any single conclusion be and they'd be probably offended by how simplistic is their science presented, apparently for "political" reasons.

The interesting thing is, popular science popularizes the concepts. Popular science is read by experts from other areas, who start to use the concepts in their area, to describe their new phenomena. This is why sociologists talk of "social organism" or "social system", even though their science is not biology nor informatics.
I don't know yet all the details, but Fleck and Kuhn are clear, the scientific discourse is a very social, very opinionated process. It's no less prone to error than any other human business. It however strongly creates an appearance of impersonal, objective, unanimous statements. Fleck observes, as the scientific knowledge trickles down from esoteric to exoteric groups and the public, it becomes more certain.
If you read this book, you should look at the notion of scientific "truth" in a different way. What if for experts there is no such thing as "hard evidence"? What if the "hard evidence" gets created only retrospectively or worse, along the way to the public, as the writings become more impersonal?

Yes, my view can be a bit more radical, I draw on more sources and see it from another point of view. More than asking me, you'd be better off reading Kuhn's book yourself. As I said, Ludwik Fleck (Genesis and development of a scientific fact) is very difficult to read, unless you happen to be a (micro)biologist, but his chapters each has a clear point... I am only certain here, because that article was taken apart thoroughly at a lecture.
I think every science enthusiast and skeptic should take a look at the sociological aspect of science. We should not behave as if journalists and reviewers weren't people, as if scientific method would somehow sanitize all the messy process of getting knowledge from the microscope to textbooks.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-10-2013, 03:59 PM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2013 04:11 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(16-10-2013 01:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(16-10-2013 10:23 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  That's correct, it's not free. It costs. It takes time and money to have groups run experiments to confirm/falsify hypotheses. If we had an endless supply I'm sure they'd be testing for everything, including the plasma clouds only you can see and/or feel.
Finally! Finally someone confirms that. They all say "arrange an experiment, win a Nobel prize", ignoring that I'd need some kind of equipment producing photon discharge in liquids or whatever Korotkov uses. With an equipment like Korotkov's or Oldfield's, I could perform simple experiments like photographing me before and after an energetic concentration, seeing the obvious difference. But why? Both of these people already did experiments like that. All you need is to look and finally become positively open-minded.

An open mind? Sure I'm looking. All I see is a four year old article that was quoted in the first video you posted. No attached photo of the claimed picture of the soul. Convenient. Lots of edited pictures though. Why you didn't catch on to this, I'm curious. Confirmation bias?

"Scientists using the GDV technique say that the aura of those who die unexpectedly or violently differs from those who experience a calm death. The souls of the former remain in a state of confusion for several days and return frequently to their bodies, especially at night."

They went from taking a photo of a soul to understanding the state of mind (that such a thing exists is amusing) of the soul in different death scenarios? Does it come back as a ghost if it has unfinished business too?

(16-10-2013 01:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Truth be told, I am only learning to use my "energetic body" equipment. It looks like I've been not in my body all my life, like I was only wrapped around it. And now I finally get inside. There are so many channels for energy along the spine and everywhere, that laid dormant for so long. I am awakening them, but the progress is so fast, that I can't stop and describe it. Whatever I claimed before, is dwarfed by what I could claim now. This is all meaningless, except that these expansions of feeling have corresponding expansions of behavior, of psychology, of personality expression. A perceived awakening of a vortex or center has a corresponding behavior improvement, for example, an ability to relate to other people, or to just hang out without withdrawing inside. These two are one, it's as if the brain was not the main source of behavior and consciousness, as if the energy body was the layout of consciousness.

The implications are so complex, that all the empirical tests proposed by me are just basics, "is there something we don't know about?" Well, any of the guys I've proposed can prove that there is. You don't really need me to see that.

The above is why I chose the word believe earlier.

(16-10-2013 01:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  One Fleck's example I know about was some kind of channel in female genital area, which does not in fact exist, but it could be found in every textbook of anatomy for 200 years. Another well-known example is the depiction of human embryo development, supposedly going through phases of fish, amphibians and animals in a miniature evolution. I think it might still have been in some book I read as a child back in the early 90's. These could be called errors of the first order.

Doesn't the fetus looks like a reptile/amphibian early on, rather a bit like a seahorse with no snout? I did not know this had been debunked. Someone knowledgeable in this area might be able to clarify.

Some kind of channel? I hate to ask you to clarify again but it's hard to look into what you say if your not specific. This might be good stuff to have written down.

(16-10-2013 01:54 PM)Luminon Wrote:  There are a few experts who actually understand it in all complexity. When they publish it, they publish as individuals. There may be a discourse and the group can reach a conclusion of certainty. If we interview the scientists one by one, not a single one will be ready to take responsibility for that conclusion. But this conclusion then gets into manuals and textbooks, where all signs of uncertainty vanish.

My opinion is that uncertainty is a natural part of science. I'd say uncertainty is a hallmark quality that makes science stand out among the various groups on the planet, scientists accept uncertainty. I'm inclined to agree that not everyone in a said field is familiar with every nook and cranny of that field. However I'd be damned if anyone with a degree in a particular field couldn't give you a fly by explanation of a theory in that field and it's supporting evidence, especially when it's the area they specialize in. It's just crap they have to have learned in order for them to be in the position they are in now.

Any biologist can explain the theory of evolution, the genetic connection between all living things, the fossil samples, ect.

Any physicist can walk you through inflationary cosmology, the microwave background, the distancing of most galaxies.

Naturally the group that is studying a specific phenomena will be one of the most knowledgeable of it, that's a given. Does this mean other groups can't study the phenomena, look over the results, and re-run the tests? As far as I'm concerned experiments are run by at least one other group before anything is said to be confirmed.

The latest example I can think of is at the LHC, the discovery of the higgs boson. The same accelerator was used, but different detectors and groups (some 2000 physicists at each of the two detectors that produced data confirming the higgs). You make it sound like one guy comes up with something clever sounding and everyone just follows suit. The one group at the LHC didn't give out their findings until the other group had found similar findings. I hardly call that one person with special knowledge jumping the gun.

That being said there can be different interpretations of theories. On the edge of science there naturally are always different interpretations, that is until some data gets collected and presented that makes one version stand out among the rest. There is always room to confirm or falsify (I literally can't state this enough). When the microwave background was detected and the big bang validated, it was unknown whether the universe was expanding or contracting. But we knew the universe wasn't static, a beginning rules out a static universe. Then Hubble collected data that suggested the universe was expanding. Great, so is it slowing down or speeding up? More data yield the answer to that question.

The point being, the theories in place now are there for a reason, all the data collected thus far points in that direction. When more data is brought in, things can be refined. Does this mean we were wrong in the past? Not necessarily wrong, but we may just be getting more accurate answers.

Newton's law of gravity works perfectly fine, NASA uses it all the time. General Relativity simplifies to it when used in scenarios Newton's law could deal with. All it does is expand the range of phenomena that can be explained. Is it wrong to say Pi is 3.14? how about 3.14159? At what point is it wrong if it represents what we observe in reality? (The observation being the compared lengths between the diameter and the circumference of a circle).

I went on a bit of a rant, but I hope I was able to communicate my point.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
16-10-2013, 05:10 PM (This post was last modified: 16-10-2013 05:13 PM by Adenosis.)
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(16-10-2013 03:59 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  "Scientists using the GDV technique say that the aura of those who die unexpectedly or violently differs from those who experience a calm death. The souls of the former remain in a state of confusion for several days and return frequently to their bodies, especially at night."

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt. Let's assume the soul exists, and that this GDV technique can expose it. What do we learn from the above? Apparently they've trapped people, killed them when they least expected it, and monitored their corpses for several days with the GDV technique to see what would happen.

This can't possibly sound legit to anyone. Like seriously Luminion. In a video of him he questions whether we are conscious in sleep. Is he actually on crack? I don't know about you but I'm quite unconscious in my sleep. Quite.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: