Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2013, 08:15 PM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(19-10-2013 11:40 AM)Dom Wrote:  I once knew a psychologist who specialized in dreams. I picked his brain a little, and one thing he said that in the case of a bad nightmare or any experience while you are asleep, you can call in a friend (dad, superman, Mr. Spock, you name it, we are in dreamland here) to help you. He said merely knowing that this can be done will enable you to do it next time, and then you will be empowered to finish the dream up according to YOUR wishes. All you need to do is to decide now whom you're going to call in the future when shit happens.

I tried this and it does work. Didn't work with some specific dreams, but it worked in general. Try it sometime, it's just your brain producing this stuff, you can take the lead.

I do have the ability to lucid dream more often than anyone I'm aware of. From what I've read this is not uncommon for someone who suffers from regular bouts of sleep paralysis. However, with sleep paralysis, it is not a nightmare. You are not even technically asleep. It happens at two different times, usually only one or the other depending on the person. When entering into sleep, or when waking. For me it is always when entering into sleep. The brain excretes a chemical chemical, normally excreted to to paralyze you during REM so you do not act out your dreams - when not enough is excreted you get sleep walking, talking, and rolling around. In this case it is excreted way to early and causes paralysis and hallucinations before you are really asleep.

There you go, more info than you probably wanted Tongue

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 12:08 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(19-10-2013 08:15 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I do have the ability to lucid dream more often than anyone I'm aware of. From what I've read this is not uncommon for someone who suffers from regular bouts of sleep paralysis. However, with sleep paralysis, it is not a nightmare. You are not even technically asleep. It happens at two different times, usually only one or the other depending on the person. When entering into sleep, or when waking. For me it is always when entering into sleep. The brain excretes a chemical chemical, normally excreted to to paralyze you during REM so you do not act out your dreams - when not enough is excreted you get sleep walking, talking, and rolling around. In this case it is excreted way to early and causes paralysis and hallucinations before you are really asleep.

There you go, more info than you probably wanted Tongue
Yes, that is an important point to make, that it is not a nightmare therefore you can't just rely on nightmare coping strategies. I always had it happen while waking up, not while going to sleep.

As for lucid dreaming, I can remember having them as early as 6 years old. In my early 20s I decided it was such a nifty phenomenon that I wanted to do it more often, and ended up doing the "reality checks" method by checking watches and written words while awake, throughout the day. This gets you in a habit and you start doing it in your dreams. The trick is to look, look away, and look back to see if the numbers/words have changed. In dreams they usually do. But now it's gotten to the point that I don't have to check anymore, the mere presence of a written word, clock, or number will make me question whether or not I'm dreaming.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 12:41 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2013 12:51 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(19-10-2013 04:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  The actual "soul" looks a bit different.

Your pulling information out of your ass Luminion. When did you see a soul?


(19-10-2013 04:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  People can give you a flyby example, what they know. But they can't take something I know and take it seriously, try to express it in better words. So far I haven't met a scientist who could work with terminology outside of his field.

Undecided Something like your plasma clouds? You do know why they won't take you seriously right? Cause your bonkers. I don't see any real arguments against scientists, I just see someone that's angry with science (possibly because it doesn't confirm your wacky suspicions).

So how many scientists have you spoken to? Can you give a list of their names? Surely if you can't list their name you wouldn't be able to remember what terminology they are familiar with. Waiting.

(19-10-2013 04:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I think it has to do with adopted thought-style that one is unable to change. This is a problem with natural science, it has only one paradigm at a time (sociology has several) and not only it limits communication, it also limits imagination.

Every different hypothesis is a different paradigm. A different model for looking at how the world works which will be confirmed or verified by experiments. You think of science as static because it's not flimsy enough to embrace the world of woo you enjoy pondering so much. Science is the most rich in models next to pseudo-science.

(19-10-2013 04:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Scientists who encounter someone speaking about real phenomena not in the thought style of their group, but in common or even religious language, depreciate the phenomenon. If let's say a medieval hermit would see a modern space shuttle launch, he'd describe it as something from Ezechiel, or as some nonsense like "a fire of St. Anthony!" And a natural scientist is guaranteed to skip St Anthony's hagiography to figure out the figurative and pictorial reference to the fire.

So basically, scientists can speak, but they can not listen. By definition, they are a closed group, because nobody outside their group produces the kind of data in the language that they need. Call me a modern heretical feely goody karma hippie, but I think when someone speaks, one should also listen. Why? Firstly, because there may be natural phenomena that get detected by people an so we need social science skills to learn about them.


So everyone speaking nonsense should be given the time to be heard out? Why don't you volunteer to gather and record the hypotheses of all the crack pots then. Surely they are all worth hearing out, you just said so yourself.

Now, as you feel the reasons bubbling up for why you can't do this, remember. Scientists are just people too, no infinite supply of time, money, and patience. So if even you can't, don't be a hypocrite and say scientists should. They have better things to do, like contributing to the knowledge base of our species.

Also, if there are people that can actually exhibit unnatural abilities then they can win a million dollars from the James Randy Foundation. All those claims of wooful powers and not a single winner. No one takes any of these things seriously because people time and time again fail to confirm them.

(19-10-2013 04:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Secondly, because the future belongs to scientific generalists and they are going to need some social sciences. Specialists, especially natural science specialists, are dangerous. People who convert money to nuclear bombs. So they need humanities to understand why that is a bad idea and humanities are inherently multi-paradigmatic and you need to use some common language and good semantics to switch between the paradigms.

Say I forge a hammer and nails to help build stronger houses, if someone uses that hammer to kill someone is it my fault? also should anyone with the capacity to make hammers be considered a danger to society?

Our common language is English, and we can understand each other fine until someone starts throwing their woo on the table. If I start talking to you about my personal fantasy world of course your going to be confused, lost, unable to make connections between it and reality.

(19-10-2013 04:28 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's clear, but it's not the problem. What I meant has more to do with formation of hypotheses, underlying assumptions about reality, what direction of research to take, what is possible, what is impossible, what should or shouldn't be done. Fleck uses the disease of syphilis as an example, for centuries people thought it's the same, it was probably carried from south America and it was known to be not so dangerous there. Only eventually it became such an embarrassment to the society (usually the best known people got insane, disfigured and died from it - political leaders and artists) so that a group of scientists was prompted to get together and study it.

Yes, there is a strong empirical element in scientific community, but how, if and on what is this empiricism used, that is very much a social process of fallible people.

So it was thought to be harmless but was realized that it wasn't. So what? Our view of reality is subject to new data. Are you saying we should assume everything can kill us, and send in teams to do advanced research on all those things? We don't live in a perfect world with infinite resources in our hands, this would be a waste of time.

Everyone is fallible and to produce the most accurate picture of reality more people need to be involved to minimize mistakes that could have been made by others. Obviously it's not perfect, nothing is. Your not just arguing that it's not perfect though, you think it has severe handicaps. Well for something with such handicaps it sure seems to be working pretty good Tongue

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
20-10-2013, 02:27 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(18-12-2012 02:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  http://www.esotericscience.org/article2a.htm

You are exactly what I have referred to in some of my posts, namely, an atheist that believes in pseudoscience and superstition. You are evidence of my thesis that even if all of the major religions were wiped from the face of the planet we would still be mired in other forms of superstition and institutionalised stupidity.

http://www.esotericscience.org is pseudoscientific bullshit as are your posts. There is as much evidence of ghosts and souls as there is of gnomes.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
20-10-2013, 04:25 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(20-10-2013 02:27 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 02:24 AM)Luminon Wrote:  http://www.esotericscience.org/article2a.htm

You are exactly what I have referred to in some of my posts, namely, an atheist that believes in pseudoscience and superstition. You are evidence of my thesis that even if all of the major religions were wiped from the face of the planet we would still be mired in other forms of superstition and institutionalised stupidity.

http://www.esotericscience.org is pseudoscientific bullshit as are your posts. There is as much evidence of ghosts and souls as there is of gnomes.

[Image: comicghosts1.png]

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Dark Light's post
20-10-2013, 01:02 PM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(18-10-2013 10:43 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  [...] However, I think it's obvious that there is a connection between her former epilepsy and her "visions."

Has anyone seen the film The Exorcism of Emily Rose? It was based on the true story of a German girl named Anneliese Michel who died during a supposed exorcism. She too suffered from epilepsy and claimed to see demons and spirits.

(18-10-2013 03:32 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  In any case, as a very young child I was taken by the devil a few times, a few times as some unknown/unseen force. Once a witch had taken me. [...]

(19-10-2013 03:19 AM)Vlad Wrote:  One of my lieutenants had experienced it once, and thought he was seeing a demon (a long haired black woman was sitting on him, apparently) until I explained to him what it really was. [...]

The "witch" nightmare is an eerily common phenomenon stretching back centuries. One source mentions the common belief in 13th-century Europe was that the Incubus, a spirit said to smother people and children in their sleep, was an old woman. A common belief in the African American community is that a witch smothers people in their sleep. This is known as "witch riding." One folklorist suggests the color of the witch is cultural. For instance, the Puritans of 17th-century Salem said their nightmarish attackers were black, while African Americans of 19th- and 20th-century Louisiana said they were white. I'm actually writing a paper on the subject.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2013, 01:12 PM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2013 01:31 PM by TheGulegon.)
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
I thought I saw the ghost of Timothy Leary, once!

But it was probably just....

...swamp gas Dodgy

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheGulegon's post
21-10-2013, 04:20 PM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(20-10-2013 12:41 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Your pulling information out of your ass Luminion. When did you see a soul?[/b]
More than a year ago, when I was aura-watching. Depends on if you mean the soul as the astral/emotional vehicle, which is the colloquial meaning, not the esoteric one. But living people, like teachers are good stationary objects for soul or ghost watching, they are after all a soul with body still inside, the actual soul is bigger than the body.

(20-10-2013 12:41 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Undecided Something like your plasma clouds? You do know why they won't take you seriously right? Cause your bonkers. I don't see any real arguments against scientists, I just see someone that's angry with science (possibly because it doesn't confirm your wacky suspicions).

So how many scientists have you spoken to? Can you give a list of their names? Surely if you can't list their name you wouldn't be able to remember what terminology they are familiar with. Waiting.
Actually, I'm waiting too, on Cjlr. I am fully aware I take this a bit too intensely, so I had the e-mail to scientist first reviewed, before I send it. I must send a message to Cjlr to look at the 2nd version if that's good enough. Considering the misunderstandings here, I don't want to repeat them with real scientists. Actually, it is rather difficult to find a scientist, I'm a countryside guy and I'm not familiar yet with the big city life.

But if I'm bonkers, then I am bonkers in a statistically and sociologically meaningful way, which can serve as a basis for further research. My kind of bonkers isn't really well understood yet.

(20-10-2013 12:41 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Every different hypothesis is a different paradigm. A different model for looking at how the world works which will be confirmed or verified by experiments. You think of science as static because it's not flimsy enough to embrace the world of woo you enjoy pondering so much. Science is the most rich in models next to pseudo-science.
Please don't redefine paradigm. Paradigm determines which experiments are scientists even capable of thinking about. The science is flimsy enough to embrace my woo, and it already tried, but sssshhh, it's still a secret stage of a relationship yet. Don't let the big bad journals know about this forbidden relationship!

(20-10-2013 12:41 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  So everyone speaking nonsense should be given the time to be heard out? Why don't you volunteer to gather and record the hypotheses of all the crack pots then. Surely they are all worth hearing out, you just said so yourself.

Now, as you feel the reasons bubbling up for why you can't do this, remember. Scientists are just people too, no infinite supply of time, money, and patience. So if even you can't, don't be a hypocrite and say scientists should. They have better things to do, like contributing to the knowledge base of our species.

Also, if there are people that can actually exhibit unnatural abilities then they can win a million dollars from the James Randy Foundation. All those claims of wooful powers and not a single winner. No one takes any of these things seriously because people time and time again fail to confirm them.
I have already gathered experiments and technologies of the "crackpots" which I found relevant. Now I just wait for a green light from Cjlr, who is apparently one of senior scientists here and the second toughest guy just after Chas.

The actual crackpots are unable to put together any evidence or a coherent hypothesis, because they don't know anything. They just use it. They don't understand their stuff themselves. They don't really know what "understanding" means, what is replication. Or what they do is so far out of this paradigm, that conventional scientists just don't get it. I mean, I've encountered so many people who substituted their subconscious assumptions in place of what they were lazy to learn, especially in economy and social sciences (human nature and motivation beliefs).

By the way, any unnatural abilities I might think of are natural in the sense, that they underlie the known nature and always did. They do not violate natural laws, they uphold them. They are pretty much explainable in terms of a world of supersymmetric particles and plasma dynamics.

(20-10-2013 12:41 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Say I forge a hammer and nails to help build stronger houses, if someone uses that hammer to kill someone is it my fault? also should anyone with the capacity to make hammers be considered a danger to society?
If something can wipe out life on Earth, then scientists should make a moral decision to leave it alone, even if it has beneficial uses. They should seal it deep underground for a time when there are no politicians on Earth and holding an opinion is unheard of.

(20-10-2013 12:41 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  Our common language is English, and we can understand each other fine until someone starts throwing their woo on the table. If I start talking to you about my personal fantasy world of course your going to be confused, lost, unable to make connections between it and reality.
Science works, because it uses a language where one word has one and the same meaning, once it's established. In the discourse it's still fluid, but otherwise when you want to get drunk in China but don't know how, you say to a chemist you want CH3CH2OH and you'll get some booze. Or if you take a blueprint of a car, you can give it to any engineer on Earth and he will understand it and will be able to make a working car. This is not possible with English.
English is an unscientific language, put together by a random historical process, with a mostly random pronunciation and grammar from many different languages. Most words have multiple meanings, many of them are metaphors and euphemisms. If we called things the real names, we wouldn't say "government", we'd say "legal monopoly on violence". We'd call marriage a "sex & property corporation" and we'd call spanking for what it is, child torture. Then we have really dangerous words like "freedom", "democracy", "free market", "rights" and so on.

However, it seems there's some of the politics in scientific discourse as well and that's worrisome. There is the barrier of language and jargon, of funding and reputation. See further. If that is true, we should be extra careful about how we think and talk. We shouldn't say things like "if that was true, the guy would already win the million dollar prize". Maybe they don't consider their research an extraordinary, supernatural claim. Maybe they don't have a good opinion of Randi and all the other claimants. Maybe they have more lucrative offers.

(20-10-2013 12:41 AM)Adenosis Wrote:  So it was thought to be harmless but was realized that it wasn't. So what? Our view of reality is subject to new data. Are you saying we should assume everything can kill us, and send in teams to do advanced research on all those things? We don't live in a perfect world with infinite resources in our hands, this would be a waste of time.

Everyone is fallible and to produce the most accurate picture of reality more people need to be involved to minimize mistakes that could have been made by others. Obviously it's not perfect, nothing is. Your not just arguing that it's not perfect though, you think it has severe handicaps. Well for something with such handicaps it sure seems to be working pretty good Tongue
Pretty good, considering most of our society is unscientific and only uses science as instrument in some areas where there's no traditional alternative. Yes, I am suggesting the money we pay to traditional problem-makers (such as politicians, generals, corporations) we should pay to scientific problem-solvers, such as scientists, universities and laboratories, for the same jobs.
But back to the topic, there is one scientific paradigm and it does not change fluidly. It can integrate new information, but only to a degree, only within its limits. There must be an information that stands against the paradigm. I think I have stumbled upon some of it, because of my unusual fieldwork and style of thinking.

If you love science, you've got to love it all, the empirical side and the the sociological side. The fact that science has only one paradigm at a time and it undergoes major revolutions means, that it is not a universal or fluid paradigm and that it misses information and that it contains seeds of its own destruction. I believe scientific discourse is normally almost fair (as you say, we don't have infinite resources), but I'm worried that it gets a lot more rigid once politics and money get thrown into it. Fleck and Kuhn are worried, that it gets less personal and more dogmatic, the further we get from the actual discovery.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-10-2013, 09:06 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(21-10-2013 04:20 PM)Luminon Wrote:  If you love science, you've got to love it all, the empirical side and the the sociological side. The fact that science has only one paradigm at a time and it undergoes major revolutions means, that it is not a universal or fluid paradigm and that it misses information and that it contains seeds of its own destruction. I believe scientific discourse is normally almost fair (as you say, we don't have infinite resources), but I'm worried that it gets a lot more rigid once politics and money get thrown into it. Fleck and Kuhn are worried, that it gets less personal and more dogmatic, the further we get from the actual discovery.

I don't get the "one paradigm at a time" , that would only apply to one particular project at a time, and hundreds of teams could be working on a similar project at a time with radically different paradigms.
What they publish may be of an accepted paradigm, but there are no science police to forbid out of box methods in getting there.

I've never wondered why scientists never see supernatural things
And Astronomers never see flying saucers.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like sporehux's post
22-10-2013, 11:36 AM
RE: Ghosts, Spirits, Apparitions, and the like.
(20-10-2013 01:02 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  
(18-10-2013 10:43 AM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  [...] However, I think it's obvious that there is a connection between her former epilepsy and her "visions."

Has anyone seen the film The Exorcism of Emily Rose? It was based on the true story of a German girl named Anneliese Michel who died during a supposed exorcism. She too suffered from epilepsy and claimed to see demons and spirits.

(18-10-2013 03:32 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  In any case, as a very young child I was taken by the devil a few times, a few times as some unknown/unseen force. Once a witch had taken me. [...]

(19-10-2013 03:19 AM)Vlad Wrote:  One of my lieutenants had experienced it once, and thought he was seeing a demon (a long haired black woman was sitting on him, apparently) until I explained to him what it really was. [...]

The "witch" nightmare is an eerily common phenomenon stretching back centuries. One source mentions the common belief in 13th-century Europe was that the Incubus, a spirit said to smother people and children in their sleep, was an old woman. A common belief in the African American community is that a witch smothers people in their sleep. This is known as "witch riding." One folklorist suggests the color of the witch is cultural. For instance, the Puritans of 17th-century Salem said their nightmarish attackers were black, while African Americans of 19th- and 20th-century Louisiana said they were white. I'm actually writing a paper on the subject.
Thats awesome, the "old hag" myth. I'd love to read your paper when your doneSmile

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: