Thread: does anyone else feel this?

Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>

So what you're saying to me is that based on the fact the rules aren't solid in some situations, everything could very well still be real? Like, well, the invisible pink unicorn?[/b]

Sort of, but not exactly. What I'm saying is that unless you can prove something to be false, when taking all the factors into account, then you cannot entirely rule it out - especially if someone esle wholeheartedly believes in it.

Sure, some things, pink unicorns for example, are pretty silly and I personally don't believe they exist, but if you were to put forward enough anecdotal or other evidence I would accept the possibility. In the same line of thought, although there is no proof there is a lot of evidence for paranormal phenomenon, so I accept that it's a possibility yet to be fully explored.

Further, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how daft. Some people seem to think that because one person's belief seems wrong to them then it is fine to ridicule that person, and this seems to go on a lot in discussions like this. I personally find that such a stance gets in the way of a properly reasoned examination of the initial proposition.

I have the Jehova's Whitnesses in for a cup of tea whenever they call, and I am dumbfounded at some of what they believe, but it is their right to believe whatever they want and I'm certainly not going to change their mind without a sound and reasoned argument - mind you, a sound and reasoned argument doesn't seem to do much good either most of the time, lol

Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>

Everything is a opinon and there is no cold fact? [/b]

Yes, that what I believe.

BTW - How can a unicorn be pink AND invisible?

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker@
On another note, indirect measurements can and do prove somethings existence.

Gravitons are still just a theory, but you're right, and that was my point. Tsen proposed that if something has no detectable mass/matter then it cannot exist and I was giving an example of something that, so far, has no detectable mass but is still proven to exist.

How do we know that at some point in the future someone will not discover some type of particle (or whatever) that would allow for the concept of ghosts, ESP, telekenesis etc.?

<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker
The rules of physics ARE constant and absolute in all situations. We just don't know and understand them all yet.

That's the theory, but can you prove it?

So what you're saying to me is that based on the fact the rules aren't solid in some situations, everything could very well still be real? Like, well, the invisible pink unicorn?

Sort of, but not exactly. What I'm saying is that unless you can prove something to be false, when taking all the factors into account, then you cannot entirely rule it out - especially if someone esle wholeheartedly believes in it.

Sure, some things, pink unicorns for example, are pretty silly and I personally don't believe they exist, but if you were to put forward enough anecdotal or other evidence I would accept the possibility. In the same line of thought, although there is no proof there is a lot of evidence for paranormal phenomenon, so I accept that it's a possibility yet to be fully explored.

Further, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, no matter how daft. Some people seem to think that because one person's belief seems wrong to them then it is fine to ridicule that person, and this seems to go on a lot in discussions like this. I personally find that such a stance gets in the way of a properly reasoned examination of the initial proposition.

I have the Jehova's Whitnesses in for a cup of tea whenever they call, and I am dumbfounded at some of what they believe, but it is their right to believe whatever they want and I'm certainly not going to change their mind without a sound and reasoned argument - mind you, a sound and reasoned argument doesn't seem to do much good either most of the time, lol

I see what you mean now and yes, we shouldn't really make fun of it. But things do indeed come along and are presented that are worse than the pink invisible unicorn, and really are clearly made up fantasies of some person, etc, and holding your tounge is very hard to do. I'm all for tolerance but tolerating little delusions like Alex Chiu's \"immortality rings\" (wait until he dies), Geller bending spoons with his amazing abilites of \"rub the spoon\" etc, is pretty much borderline for me. I have trouble debating sensibly with people that believe they can, for example, run 200mph when nobody's looking. I'd probably say \"are you mad?\", and I expect you would too.

There's that which I don't think is correct and is pretty much mad and not deserving of real sensible debate itself, then that which does at least command some respect from me.

Everything is a opinon and there is no cold fact?

Yes, that what I believe. [/quote]
OK.

BTW - How can a unicorn be pink AND invisible?

It's put there deliberately to be paradoxial (wikipedia: invisible pink unicorn).

you can sort of measure gravity though

You can only measure gravity by observing it's effects, there is no way to measure it directly. With a pound of sugar, for instance, there is something physical to measure directly in whatever way you like, not so with gravity.

Hmm, ok. I think. I'm probably *very* wrong, but I thought there was a \"kinda\" way to measure gravity, which is the mass of the object eg: Jupiter. Then you perform some fancy formulae to get the answer.

[/quote]

how about:

Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Force of Gravity = (6.67 x 10E-11) x Mass1 x Mass2 / Radius-Squared

You are joking, aren't you Bradybaker? Most of the machinery that I come in contact with doesn't have self awareness. I am very curious as to the content of your LD's. I would think that your "attentiveness" to law would keep you from doing anything outside of the norm.

Dark matter is simply a way of trying to explain why objects react the way they do on a comsmological scale. Where is the imperical proof that it even exists?

Originally posted by Wicked+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wicked)</div>

<!--QuoteBegin-Aneas

I grew up with having an entity as a part of my life. Our entity was very physical and could indeed move physical objects. How is it so hard for anyone to conceive that we share our space? I have a thread on here someplace that explains (in my humble opinion) how this is possible. You can't see dark matter or absolutely prove that it does or does not exist, but science is rapidly drawing closer to understanding the \"space between\". Saying that something doesn't exist because it is not readily identifiable to our senses doesn't prove a thing, nor is doing so a sign of intelligence. I have a project for Bradybaker: find what part of the brain that the conscious observer is located. Not where science thinks it might be, I want absolute certainty as to where it is located. Quantum Physics is opening doors to greater perception of the Self.

Does that mean you're building a shrine to the Pink Unicorn?

Can you show this entity to me, or show how it can affect physical objects in a controlled environment, under observation? If not, then why? What reason do I or anyone else have to believe the words of some random guy on the net?[/b]

I said that this happened as I was growing up. I'm almost 40 years old so unless you know of a way that we can travel back in time I can't offer you proof.

Originally posted by Aneas
You are joking, aren't you Bradybaker?

Haha, I guess you can't take him seriously.

His name reminds me of the baker in the old computer game Bud Tuck.

Originally posted by Aneas+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aneas)</div>

You are joking, aren't you Bradybaker? Most of the machinery that I come in contact with doesn't have self awareness.[/b]

No, no I'm not joking.

<!--QuoteBegin-Aneas
I am very curious as to the content of your LD's. I would think that your \"attentiveness\" to law would keep you from doing anything outside of the norm.

I'm not quite sure where you're going with that...what does lucid dreaming have to do with this?

Originally posted by Aneas
Dark matter is simply a way of trying to explain why objects react the way they do on a comsmological scale. Where is the imperical proof that it even exists?

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12381

Originally posted by albinox
Haha, I guess you can't take him seriously.

His name reminds me of the baker in the old computer game Bud Tuck.

Do you have anything intelligent to add to this conversation? Or is making obscure references to old video games the extent of your knowledge?

Originally posted by Kaniaz
I'm all for tolerance but tolerating little delusions like Alex Chiu's \"immortality rings\" (wait until he dies), Geller bending spoons with his amazing abilites of \"rub the spoon\" etc, is pretty much borderline for me. I have trouble debating sensibly with people that believe they can, for example, run 200mph when nobody's looking. I'd probably say \"are you mad?\", and I expect you would too.

There's always people about who many of us would agree are nuts, but one of the things I love about this site is that some fairly obscure theories and views that we might not always feel comfortable talking about in certain company are treated with respect, and discussed honestly with an open mind - it just seems there's a bit of a double standard sometimes.

I know it's difficult to talk seriously about a subject we find ridiculous, but wouldn't it be better to just ignore those posts and let other people have as silly a discussion as they want?

I know you are an intelligent guy with your head screwed on so I don't mean to tell you your business, but if you see someone posting something you think is stupid maybe it would be more in keeping with the open minded vibe of the site in general to just laugh to yourself and move on - that's what I do with most of your posts J/K

Originally posted by Kaniaz
It's put there deliberately to be paradoxial (wikipedia: invisible pink unicorn).

Thanks for the link, some interesting background and I appreciate what is being said, however (You knew there was a 'however' on it's way, right? ) it does seem to be a bit of an easy way out for anyone who doesn't want to discuss an idea on it's own merits.

I've seen a few examples where the Invisible Pink Unicorn idea has been used to great effect but more often it seems to a case of - \"someone says something I don't believe? Whip out the old IPU, that'll sort 'em out\". The same idea can be all too easily applied to any un-provable idea you want to discredit.

Example - Invisible Pink Matter - (observed? not quite, but heavily hypothesized. When the new particle accelerator in Europe is finshed we'll have a good shot at detecting Invisible Pink Matter).

Of course, I'm being facetious with this example. I accept the graviton theory has a lot going for it and I would not be surprised if one of these days it were proven, but so far it's an unproven and un-provable theory. Apply IPM and you instantly undermine a perfectly credible theory.

Originally posted by Tron
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Force of Gravity = (6.67 x 10E-11) x Mass1 x Mass2 / Radius-Squared

This is a way to calculate gravity, but not to measure it. In the same way, I can calculate the distance from here to London by measuring a map and knowing it's scale, but I'm calculating it, not measuring. As yet there is no way to measure gravity directly, only a way to calculate it's force by using accurate observations of it's effects in other situations.

----------------

Anyway, all that aside, we will only be able to have a more definite discussion about the facts of the paranormal when the huge jigsaw of physics is complete, although I suspect we'll all be long dead the time that happens...

...well, you will, I won't because I've just bought some of Alex Chiu's immortality rings - what a bargain!!

Okay, my apologies, I don't have enough time to read ALL of these posts, but I've caught the general drift of things.

Gravity is directly porportional to mass, therefore we must, for the present time, assume that it is a PROPERTY of mass. Not an entity in itself. Further research may prove this wrong, but I highly doubt it. More likely we'll find a specific type of mass that causes it, but not disprove that statement in its entirety.
Continuing on this logic, saying that gravity is an entity in itself is like saying that color is an entity in itself. Color isn't an actual piece of matter, it only exists in the sense that it is a property of light (which, under certain laws of physics, is a particle under most situations.

Onwards:

When I said that there were exceptions, but none that were relevant, this is what I meant:
Things generally need matter to affect things. The exceptions include quantum tunnelling and similar phenomenon. But these DO NOT apply on any scale larger than individual atoms as far as we know. If some experimental data comes about that changes our knowlege about these things drastically, my apologies. But as of yet, we have NO evidence that quantum tunelling happens on large scales (being anything more than a few atoms)

Now, what Kaniaz said is extremely relevant. If these ghosts/spirit thingies have to be detected by some 'Sixth Sense', there is no proof. Now, if you could prove this 'Sixth Sense', things would be different. Hell, if you could find a way to RELIABLY detect ghosts/spirits, I'd consider believing you. I provided two examples in anticipation of two frequent 'proofs' of ghosts (sight & heat), but I'm open to anything else you might want. Give me a way you can detect these 'spirits' and I'll tell you whether I find it plausible or not. But you've got nothin' as of yet. A lot of you have provided some half-arsed counters to my remarks, but nobody's stepped up to try and explain anything. Burden of proof is on the accusor. You 'accuse' us that we don't realize that there are spirits and whatnot about, but you haven't come up with any evidence. Step up! Make your claim! Show us that you're not just superstitious! I dare you!


EDIT: Also, just as color can be measured, so can gravity. But only by their effects. Gravity can be measured by the acceleration of two masses accelerating towards eachother. That's it's definition. Color is the wavelenght(s) of light that a material absorbs. Now, mass is a measurable substance, correct? Well, we can only measure mass by it's inertia or other indirect means.

Originally posted by Yogi Bare
There's always people about who many of us would agree are nuts, but one of the things I love about this site is that some fairly obscure theories and views that we might not always feel comfortable talking about in certain company are treated with respect, and discussed honestly with an open mind - it just seems there's a bit of a double standard sometimes.

Oh yes, there's the fairly obscure. I can live with that, I don't attack something because it ranges in the realm of general oddness, but really, there is this vauge, nearly transparent line between \"rather odd and outworldish\" and \"stupid\". That's not just it though, you'll find that depending on the person's evidence and personality and spelling a idea will get treated with respect or contempt. It's just the way it works, really - and it's not just for me.

I know it's difficult to talk seriously about a subject we find ridiculous, but wouldn't it be better to just ignore those posts and let other people have as silly a discussion as they want?[/b]

But we can't let them breed! Seriously though, skepticism in these things is just nice to have. If it does nothing else for a person it does at least help show there is \"another opinon\" out there, which is easy to forget sometimes.

I know you are an intelligent guy with your head screwed on so I don't mean to tell you your business, but if you see someone posting something you think is stupid maybe it would be more in keeping with the open minded vibe of the site in general to just laugh to yourself and move on - that's what I do with most of your posts J/K[/b]

Nah, it's like a unofficial policy. Please don't hesitate to tell me things though, I catch myself being a asshole sometimes and I'm just as much as a person as you are, and likely to make mistakes. I think Beyond Dreaming has balanced out, really. Nobody gets upset anymore and to generalize - with probable exceptions - I think everybody gets along as well as you possibly can when there's conflicting opinons. This is Dreamviews and it is more biased towards science, so really I think it's OK. If someone wants less skepticism and stuff they should look at other forums out there, of which there are plenty- Dreamviews is just \"mostly scientific\". I like it like that.

Thanks for the link, some interesting background and I appreciate what is being said, however (You knew there was a 'however' on it's way, right? ) it does seem to be a bit of an easy way out for anyone who doesn't want to discuss an idea on it's own merits.[/b]

That's okay, wikipedia is great for things like this. And you are right.

I've seen a few examples where the Invisible Pink Unicorn idea has been used to great effect but more often it seems to a case of - \"someone says something I don't believe? Whip out the old IPU, that'll sort 'em out\". The same idea can be all too easily applied to any un-provable idea you want to discredit.

Example - Invisible Pink Matter - (observed? not quite, but heavily hypothesized. When the new particle accelerator in Europe is finshed we'll have a good shot at detecting Invisible Pink Matter).

Of course, I'm being facetious with this example. I accept the graviton theory has a lot going for it and I would not be surprised if one of these days it were proven, but so far it's an unproven and un-provable theory. Apply IPM and you instantly undermine a perfectly credible theory.[/b]

It is indeed so. Because of the sheer madness of a invisible pink unicorn it does detract from the actual seriousness or something, wether or not it actually should, but I feel it all balances out when other parties whip out their \"tools\" as well. I think everybody has their own sort of tools of debate. I don't think the invisible pink unicorn's actually been used before, when I think about it. Not sure though.

Okay, my apologies, I don't have enough time to read ALL of these posts, but I've caught the general drift of things. [/b]

Don't sweat it, I barely ever read all the posts in big things like this either. There's just way too much content sometimes.

I don't think that site is like this one. That site focuses on astral stuff and psychic stuff. Though there is a forum for dreams, it's all mudged into one.

This is breaks down lucid dreaming really nicely.

What's "that site"?

The one that started this lovely discussion...don't remember how, come to think of it. Anyways...It was AstralPulse or something. I dunno...Haven't read through the first page in a while.

Oh, yeah. We strayed from the whole thing alot. The point is, if you find a scientific view of your "experiences" too much to handle, stop crying and move your butt to a forum that doesn't have people that think a diferent way.

Uhm, I just watched the "ghost arguments"..

Shamanism and magics of many kinds have been around for more than 20000 years. That's quite a bit older than science and the present illusion of safe reality and "matter".

It is extremely ignorant to scoff at a part of reality, only because someone has told you ignore it.

There is a reason fantasy and imagination are being repressed. There is a reason why "ghosts" are being laughed at, and there is a reason only "logical", "scientifically proved" stuff "gets the right" to hold the beliefs of the masses.

The free mind of humanity is a very powerful thing, and to loose that mind would set mankind free.
Don't forget who taught you to reason, don't forget where your knowledge comes from.
We shouldn't forget that the results of science are the results of experiments done by human beings, as stupid and fragmented as we are.
Think of how science looked 500 years ago, and think of the people who with the sincerity of their beings claimed science was right.

Those who claim ghosts doesn't exist, or don't believe in spirits simply haven't experienced them, or they want to shut them out of their world with the temporary means of denial.
But, it really is folly to try to convince others that a part of reality just simply isn't there. It's like saying the planet is flat.. But, oh, people DID say that, didn't they? With quite the certainty.

My 4 cents.

Originally posted by Gortiag
Uhm, I just watched the \"ghost arguments\"..

Shamanism and magics of many kinds have been around for more than 20000 years. That's quite a bit older than science and the present illusion of safe reality and \"matter\".

Which has what to do with whether it's true or not?

It is extremely ignorant to scoff at a part of reality, only because someone has told you ignore it.[/b]

It is foolish, however, to blindly accept unsubstantiated claims that you otherwise know as impossible.

There is a reason fantasy and imagination are being repressed. There is a reason why \"ghosts\" are being laughed at, and there is a reason only \"logical\", \"scientifically proved\" stuff \"gets the right\" to hold the beliefs of the masses.[/b]

\"fantasy\" and \"imagination\" are repressed? Yeah you're right... I wish there were thousands of different genres and kinds of books movies games etc. in the world... there would have been various stories about places, creatures, powers, all imaginary, too bad we don't ever get those in our \"repressive\" society. oh wait...

The free mind of humanity is a very powerful thing, and to loose that mind would set mankind free.[/b]

Freedom of mind does not equal gullibility. Without criticism and logic, we wouldn't have been able to progress past the stone age.

Don't forget who taught you to reason, don't forget where your knowledge comes from.
We shouldn't forget that the results of science are the results of experiments done by human beings, as stupid and fragmented as we are.
Think of how science looked 500 years ago, and think of the people who with the sincerity of their beings claimed science was right.

Those who claim ghosts doesn't exist, or don't believe in spirits simply haven't experienced them, or they want to shut them out of their world with the temporary means of denial.[/b]

Nope. They're simply not buying into the lies and fantasies of others. If they WERE real, they would've been quantified and tested in controlled environments ages ago. Why acn nobody EVER produce at least SOMEWHAT consistent results, OR produce them in a controlled environment? I have never, ever heard a plausible explanation for that.

But, it really is folly to try to convince others that a part of reality just simply isn't there. It's like saying the planet is flat.. But, oh, people DID say that, didn't they? With quite the certainty. * *

My 4 cents.[/b]

Yes. And there are people that are saying it is flat UP TO THIS DAY. They're called the Flat Earth Society. Now, who would you believe - these people who claim that the Earth is flat and it's "common sense", which consider quotes from the Bible as "evidence" for this and who claim to see that the Earth is flat from their personal experience, or the scientifically, experimentally proven notion that the Earth is round.


Imagination is very good, but confusing it with reality is VERY dangerous, and is the source of many, many problems in our world.

Which has what to do with whether it's true or not?

There is a reason it is still around. Or, perhaps you think that the thousands of perfectly sane people - probably millions over the millenias - were just... wrong? Hell, screw them - we know damn right!

It is foolish, however, to blindly accept unsubstantiated claims that you otherwise know as impossible.

You see, here is the problem. You would not think them impossible if it were not for previous \"data input\" so to speak. The frame you are using to argument with is something you have snapped up from the view of scientific opinion (which is not, mind you, the perfect way of describing the whole reality).
All the people who have seen so called ghosts, aren't simply stupid or sick, you know.
I never mentioned blindly accepting \"unsubstantiated claims\" either. If you ever get unfortunate enough to get your ass haunted, or see the result of such a thing on another human being, the intellectual pride would be blown away quite quickly. Mental ideologies are nice, but emotions are the real rulers out there.

\"fantasy\" and \"imagination\" are repressed? Yeah you're right... I wish there were thousands of different genres and kinds of books movies games etc. in the world... there would have been various stories about places, creatures, powers, all imaginary, too bad we don't ever get those in our \"repressive\" society. oh wait...

I don't think you got my drift. I didn't say we didn't get information or fantasy. I said fantasy, or perhaps I should say fantasies, and imagination are being repressed.
I have never, ever, seen anyone get a positive response from thinking in a way that isn't already established. What I meant was, people are still repressing new ways of looking at the world, and refusing the possibility that these new, unexplored ways carry more truth than the established ones today.
Hey, look at what happened to men and women like Jesus. The exact same thing is happening today, although people don't get crucified. Or at least medias don't mention it.

Freedom of mind does not equal gullibility. Without criticism and logic, we wouldn't have been able to progress past the stone age.

Without creative thinking, and the ability to accept things we hardly know anything of - we would never have gotten to the stone age.
Humans are imperfect, and so is their reasoning. (sorry to break this fact to you) We cannot claim to know anything - because quite simply, we don't. However, we can change our lives, and we can choose to look at the world the way we want to. But, that's pretty hard if you are limited to the researches of old geezers in labs - who only give you their way of viewing the world. They, give you criticism and logic. I guess that's nice?

Nope. They're simply not buying into the lies and fantasies of others. If they WERE real, they would've been quantified and tested in controlled environments ages ago. Why acn nobody EVER produce at least SOMEWHAT consistent results, OR produce them in a controlled environment? I have never, ever heard a plausible explanation for that.

Again, you show a complete arrogance and a disrespect to the experiences of tens of thousands of people before you.
You say \"tested in controlled environments\"... But, how should we test ghosts? The old geezers called \"Science\" haven't invented any machines to measure them properly. How can science ever, ever measure something it cannot grasp? Ironically, science can only grasp things it has already discovered. This is why science has such a hard time accepting new things. Another ironic fact is that science need fiction to evolve, since science only focuses on what can be perceived - and what can be perceived is limited by the current state of science... You get my drift?

[quote]

Imagination is very good, but confusing it with reality is VERY dangerous, and is the source of many, many problems in our world.

Indeed. Now, who is the boss of reality and imagination?
Please, tell me who I can entrust my entire world - my entire life - with?

Which has what to do with whether it's true or not?

There is a reason it is still around. Or, perhaps you think that the thousands of perfectly sane people - probably millions over the millenias - were just... wrong? Hell, screw them - we know damn right!

I know I do. Just like, well, thousands - probably millions of perfectly sane people over the world thought the Earth was flat...but they were quite impeccably just plain wrong!

It is foolish, however, to blindly accept unsubstantiated claims that you otherwise know as impossible.

You see, here is the problem. You would not think them impossible if it were not for previous \"data input\" so to speak. The frame you are using to argument with is something you have snapped up from the view of scientific opinion (which is not, mind you, the perfect way of describing the whole reality).
All the people who have seen so called ghosts, aren't simply stupid or sick, you know.
I never mentioned blindly accepting \"unsubstantiated claims\" either. If you ever get unfortunate enough to get your ass haunted, or see the result of such a thing on another human being, the intellectual pride would be blown away quite quickly. Mental ideologies are nice, but emotions are the real rulers out there.[/quote]
The threat of having a evil ass-spectre on my tail is most scary.

\"fantasy\" and \"imagination\" are repressed? Yeah you're right... I wish there were thousands of different genres and kinds of books movies games etc. in the world... there would have been various stories about places, creatures, powers, all imaginary, too bad we don't ever get those in our \"repressive\" society. oh wait...

I don't think you got my drift. I didn't say we didn't get information or fantasy. I said fantasy, or perhaps I should say fantasies, and imagination are being repressed.
I have never, ever, seen anyone get a positive response from thinking in a way that isn't already established. What I meant was, people are still repressing new ways of looking at the world, and refusing the possibility that these new, unexplored ways carry more truth than the established ones today.
Hey, look at what happened to men and women like Jesus. The exact same thing is happening today, although people don't get crucified. Or at least medias don't mention it.[/quote]
Nobody's \"refusing\". It's just looking at the evidence and saying no based on what they've presented us. Charles Dariwin was hated by christians and the like, but he actually gave some proper evidence other than \"my aunt betty got haunted\".

Freedom of mind does not equal gullibility. Without criticism and logic, we wouldn't have been able to progress past the stone age.

Without creative thinking, and the ability to accept things we hardly know anything of - we would never have gotten to the stone age.
Humans are imperfect, and so is their reasoning. (sorry to break this fact to you) We cannot claim to know anything - because quite simply, we don't. However, we can change our lives, and we can choose to look at the world the way we want to. But, that's pretty hard if you are limited to the researches of old geezers in labs - who only give you their way of viewing the world. They, give you criticism and logic. I guess that's nice? [/quote]
They give us how the world actually seems to be, not their way. Researchers don't go in a lab and write up their best guess, they look at evidence.

Nope. They're simply not buying into the lies and fantasies of others. If they WERE real, they would've been quantified and tested in controlled environments ages ago. Why acn nobody EVER produce at least SOMEWHAT consistent results, OR produce them in a controlled environment? I have never, ever heard a plausible explanation for that.

Again, you show a complete arrogance and a disrespect to the experiences of tens of thousands of people before you.
You say \"tested in controlled environments\"... But, how should we test ghosts? The old geezers called \"Science\" haven't invented any machines to measure them properly. How can science ever, ever measure something it cannot grasp? Ironically, science can only grasp things it has already discovered. This is why science has such a hard time accepting new things. Another ironic fact is that science need fiction to evolve, since science only focuses on what can be perceived - and what can be perceived is limited by the current state of science... You get my drift?[/quote]
If you can't perceive it then it's got the same amount of proof as a flying, invisible pink toaster floating over my head, except a bunch of people wrongly believe in it. No difference.

Imagination is very good, but confusing it with reality is VERY dangerous, and is the source of many, many problems in our world.

Indeed. Now, who is the boss of reality and imagination?
Please, tell me who I can entrust my entire world - my entire life - with?

Who said anything about anyone's life?

There is a reason it is still around. Or, perhaps you think that the thousands of perfectly sane people - probably millions over the millenias - were just... wrong? Hell, screw them - we know damn right!

People have thought the world was flat for equal if not greater time. By your logic they're right, because they are somehow \"many\". Yes, masses of people can and were wrong for long periods of time. Don't be an ass.

You see, here is the problem. You would not think them impossible if it were not for previous \"data input\" so to speak. The frame you are using to argument with is something you have snapped up from the view of scientific opinion (which is not, mind you, the perfect way of describing the whole reality).

Views which I've reviewed VERY closely, and they passed my inspection and criticism. Something that other things failed to do. Logic is not \"conditioning\" - it's the basis of human intelligence, heck, for any intelligence at all! It also happens to be the basis for science.

All the people who have seen so called ghosts, aren't simply stupid or sick, you know.

They can easily be. People who have suffered very realistic illusions as a result of mental instability - has precedence. People who have reliably communicated with ghosts and managed to prove it (something that should be very easy to do) - unprecedented.

I never mentioned blindly accepting \"unsubstantiated claims\" either. If you ever get unfortunate enough to get your ass haunted, or see the result of such a thing on another human being, the intellectual pride would be blown away quite quickly. Mental ideologies are nice, but emotions are the real rulers out there.

So, why not showing these to other people, thus proving their criticism wrong? People all over the planet had hundreds of years to do that, yet not a single reliable case was brought up.

I don't think you got my drift. I didn't say we didn't get information or fantasy. I said fantasy, or perhaps I should say fantasies, and imagination are being repressed.
I have never, ever, seen anyone get a positive response from thinking in a way that isn't already established. What I meant was, people are still repressing new ways of looking at the world, and refusing the possibility that these new, unexplored ways carry more truth than the established ones today.
Hey, look at what happened to men and women like Jesus. The exact same thing is happening today, although people don't get crucified. Or at least medias don't mention it.

I think you are wildly paranoid. People today can accept and believe ANYTHING, no matter how stupid it is. Look at how successful Astrology, superstitions etc are. If you're talking about the scientific community specifically then you are correct. It's the scientists duty not to accept unsubstantiated claims, as far as I'm concerned.

Without creative thinking, and the ability to accept things we hardly know anything of - we would never have gotten to the stone age.

My bold emphasis shows the part were you are wrong. Show me an example, please. As for creativeness - yes. But it has nothing to do with blindly accepting wild stories that for some reason have never been proven dispite ample opportunity to do so.

Humans are imperfect, and so is their reasoning. (sorry to break this fact to you) We cannot claim to know anything - because quite simply, we don't. However, we can change our lives, and we can choose to look at the world the way we want to. But, that's pretty hard if you are limited to the researches of old geezers in labs - who only give you their way of viewing the world. They, give you criticism and logic. I guess that's nice?

You see, it is this attitude that kept technology at glacial pace during the medieval ages. \"We can't possibly know everything, therefore we shouldn't try to understand ANYTHING\". Frankly, it doesn't matter if we're perfect or not, logic is universal and with enough people with different views contributing to it can construct a very precise picture together. Or do you think that those \"old geezers\" are all clones with identical thoughts and minds? Frankly, that comment of yours made me doubt that you even know what you're talking about.

Again, you show a complete arrogance and a disrespect to the experiences of tens of thousands of people before you.
You say \"tested in controlled environments\"... But, how should we test ghosts? The old geezers called \"Science\" haven't invented any machines to measure them properly. How can science ever, ever measure something it cannot grasp? Ironically, science can only grasp things it has already discovered. This is why science has such a hard time accepting new things. Another ironic fact is that science need fiction to evolve, since science only focuses on what can be perceived - and what can be perceived is limited by the current state of science... You get my drift?

They're very easily testable. All that is needed is for a person who can communicate with them to relay information that they couldn't have possibly got otherwise to the scientists, and if it checks out, the only possibility remaining is a paranormal one. Do it consistently, and viola. Another method is to move some serious equipment to a supposedly \"haunted\" place and document the occurances of the ghosts properly. If they are consistently haunted there shouldn't be any problem... right?

Your posts show extreme ignorance and I can't possibly believe you're taking yourself seriously. Calling millions of experts of their various fields \"old geezers\" and dismissing their findings for no apparent reason WHATSOEVER is way more disrespectful than dismissing the experiences of ignorant past generations which has a good explanation.

I'm sorry, you lost me here.
Science has proved that the earth is round. Science has yet to prove the existance of the psychic sphere.

No. There are people TODAY that believe that Earth is flat (seriously). DISPITE what science says. Just like what the \"psychic sphere\" siders say. Some people just preffer to make stuff up in the face of logic. I guess some people are just uncomfortable with science's findings, so they'd rather dismiss it and make up excuses for it.

Humm, I've read this part over a couple of times... Sorry, it doesn't make sense when I compare it to my previous post.

No surprise here. I've already figured out that your ideas are simplistic and that you lack even the basic reasoning skills. If you really had them you could've understand waaaay better what science is all about.

Indeed. Now, who is the boss of reality and imagination?
Please, tell me who I can entrust my entire world - my entire life - with?

With people who are actually trying to find the truth, and not make up things, people who aren't swayed by unproven lies, people who actually depend on logic and observation - scientists. Or "old geezers" as you preffer to call them

I'd rather have an old geezer guarding my back than a fraud.

err, wow Wicked & Kaniaz. ^_^

Since I don't have the energy to go into details with you, I'll just focus on my main point.
I really don't know how to get through to you, but I guess I can make an attempt.

The people who believe in things not yet discovered by science will continue to do so, and benefit or lose from doing so.
The people only believing in the results of science, will - obviously - continue to do so, benefiting from science and losing everything else.

The real truth, so to speak, is still to be known.

I'm not trying to convince you about some bullshit I've read about.
I have reasons to have the beliefs I have today, just as you have your reasons to carry yours.
I cannot ignore previous experiences in my own life, and claim science to be right.

However, do you have experiences that show you that the spiritual world isn't real?
No, you don't. You have the absence of spiritual experiences - which is not proof of that this world does not exist.

You ask "Well, prove it to us then. Make us see."
Well, show a person who is blind, deaf and with no capability to feel anything the existance of a horse.
I think you'll pretty quickly find out that the person won't believe that the large, obvious, meaty horse is there. Just because that person cannot feel the horse, doesn't mean the horse isn't there!

However, if the horse decides to jump that deaf person, the person is going to get hurt. But, he won't feel the horse likewise. He won't even feel the wounds properly.
What's the result of this?
The result is a suffering, deaf human who doesn't understand what's happening, and who understands less and less the more damage is inflicted upon him/her.

This is my reason to press upon this matter. If there was no reason to convince you about "ghosts", I wouldn't take the time.
I really don't care that much about what people believe, because there simply is too many different beliefs. However, it would be wise of you to take this part of the world into account.

It's easier to rape someone who sleeps, and most people today are sleeping in the comfortable bed called "reality", "evidence", "objectiveness", "science".
I'm telling you to wake up, for your sake, not for mine.
And, take my word in this case; science isn't as safe and objective as you think. Just trust me now, or find it out later for yourselves.

This will be my final words in this matter, since I have nothing else to say.
We could argue endlessly over this, and get nowhere (or, we would arrive at insults and personal disputes.. Or are we already there, Wicked?) . Take these words to you, or throw them away - it's your life.

Peace & love

I can't be bothered to reply properly, you just rehashed everything everybody else (who has a brain) that thinks something psyhic is real ends up saying. So, sure.

Originally posted by Gortiag

This will be my final words in this matter, since I have nothing else to say.
We could argue endlessly over this, and get nowhere (or, we would arrive at insults and personal disputes.. Or are we already there, Wicked?) . Take these words to you, or throw them away - it's your life.

No we're not there. Show me a single instance where I insulted you. I've only claimed that your posts are ignorant (which they are).

Now, you seem to look at this from a completely wrong perspective. The blind man and horse analogy is cute and all, but it has nothing to do with science and ghosts, seeing as the existance of ghosts (as claimed to exist by "witnesses") CAN be easily proven in any one of the ways I've already mentioned, but for some "mysterious" reason, it never was.

Science and realism has absolutely nothing to do with safety. In fact, science is the only tool that can bring you close to the REAL, objective truth. NOT ghost stories. I believe you'll just find out the hard way that your fantasies have nothing to do with reality. Either way, you may believe in whatever you want. As long as you don't use your beliefs to justify violent and otherwise unacceptable acts (something that too many religious and other beliefs are used for), it is your right.

What I'm telling you, and remember this: our world is better off trusting science than self-proclaimed psychics. History has proven this over and over again over the years, and continues to prove it again and again today. So excuse me if I'm going to listen to millions of experts who have experimentally concluded that there are no such thing as ghosts (if there were, they WOULD have discover them by now, since they ARE supposedly observable) over the opinion of one guy over the internet, who asks me to "trust" his words, even though he's basically running away from argument.

Originally posted by Gortiag
Well, show a person who is blind, deaf and with no capability to feel anything the existance of a horse.
I think you'll pretty quickly find out that the person won't believe that the large, obvious, meaty horse is there. Just because that person cannot feel the horse, doesn't mean the horse isn't there!

Well, if you're all-knowing and all-seeing, by all means, take the horse and ride away on it. But it doesn't seem to be much use to somebody that can't do ANYTHING with it.

Now, my turn for the argument!

Why do you think science was created? Because scientists were jealous that psychics were making more money than them? Hell no! It was because they wanted to know WHY things happened, and WHAT could and could not happen. Not because they wanted to be narrow-minded old geezers in labs day in and day out. They just wanted to be able to answer when people gave them a question.

Now, you said something about science not accepting new ideas. No, we don't really like accepting new ideas. It took photon theory DECADES to finally be accepted. And nobody can really agree on Quantum physics nowadays, either, so, technically, it hasn't really been accepted, either. There's a reason for this: If they accepted everything put in their way, it wouldn't be the TRUTH.

Now, if you get stubborn, like every scientist since the beginning of the world, and actually try to PROVE what you're saying, science might begin to give a damn.

Now, you also mentioned something about Psychics and Gurus and whatnot being around for 20,000 years. Now, you want to know why? Of course, I can't prove this, because it was 20,000 years ago, but I can provide theories. Which is better than what you have. Why would they CONSISTENTLY believe in such things for 20,000 years? The answer deserves bold text.
PEOPLE ARE STUPID

Get it? The average person would believe anything you told them if you gave them half a sausage as evidence. A kid down the street swore up and down to me that ghosts were real JUST BECAUSE somebody on TV said that they were just in a fifth demension and so we couldn't see them with normal eyes. I asked what proof he had that this fifth demension existed, and he had NOTHING. Just that somebody said it on TV. Why would people believe things that were just tossed in front of them on a screen? Because they don't know better, and they want to believe that somebody has the answers to their questions. That they got the answers from the wrong source, one that didn't really have the answers, was not their fault entirely. They just don't know better. And people that don't know better are easy victims for con artists. It happens today, and I'm guessing it happened back then too. Again, I can't prove every case, but I can prove a few, and I can strongly hypothesize about the rest.

Now, what proof have ye?


I'll give you mine. How do you explain the PROSPERITY of science? What are you typing on? Do you think that such a device could happen by dumb luck and guess and check? What do you listen to music on? An iPod? A CD player? A radio? All of the above are based on science. Especially the radio. Provided you're using a transistor radio (Well, it's either that or a radio produced back before 1950 or so that probably wouldn't fit in your car), you're using a testament to modern science. The transistor is a tiny device used to pick up radio waves based on the predecessor to modern Quantum physics. It uses the probability that a wave will exist inside it to capture a radiowave with a device that is hundreds of times smaller than the originals. Now, again, can this be explained on guess-and-check and luck? NO!

Now give me the support to your claims!

In a seemingly infinite universe there is a seemingly infinite set of possibilities.



-I forgot who said this


Now pay very close attention to the word possibility. Now think of the word probability. Probability is likely. Possibility is not likely, but nonetheless still possible. We know that magick, ghost, GOD, pychic talents, pretty much anything and everything occultic, etc... has been around for a very long time, with millions upon millions of witnesses to this, possibly billions. That makes all of it probable. Simple as that.

It seems to me that by denying this and others testimonies you are in a sense trying to exclude yourself from humanity. We are all the same. One persons beliefs are no different than yours, just in a different "shape" so to speak. So when you call others stupid, based on their beliefs or style of thinking, it's like calling yourself stupid.