Printable View
I love this site and www.astralpulse.com (which seems to be just a more complete version of this site? am i wrong) but when it comes to all this lucid dreaming etc i just dont have time!
But the thing is i do have time i have loads of time in yet laziness just gets in the way and i feel ill never achieve any of this :(
Yeah, I guess it is a more complete version of Dream Views if you're a nutjob. Unfortunately, we here at Dream Views, with the exception of the Beyond Dreaming forum, are sane. Well, mostly. See, magic and all that has absolutely no basis in the real world. None. And this site is geared towards the real world, while that site seems to be geared towards the mystical (and imaginary) world(s). Not to mention we've got more info on LD's in general, rather than on Astral Projections alone. (EDIT: Well, they've got more than info on Astral Projections, but I can't find many threads on Lucidity in general)
So, anyways, was there any specific point of your post? Are you asking for advice on how to fit Lucid Dreaming into a busy daily schedule? (or a lazy one?) Or were you just notifying us of AstralPulse's existence or something?
And if any of you feel like arguing, I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile. Y'know, just if you feel like it.
That's Robert Bruce's site isn't it. I got a signed copy of his book from him for my 18th Birthday, years ago. He's a great guy. :)
As for time and laziness, I have suffered from this issues too. There is a solution, however.
Time: If you want to learn to have lucid dreams/obe's then you need to make time. You really don't need heaps of time, you just need patience and you need to work things (like reality checks) into your every day life. You will have to give up time to write in your dream journal, but if lucidity is your goal... it will be a labour of love!
Same thing for laziness. This held me back for a long time, but I'm finally over coming it. You just have to force yourself over this particular hurdle. Remember to do everything you need to do, and when you remember to do something (be it writing dreams down, trying out a new technique like WILD or something) even if you can't be bothered, or don't feel like it, just DO IT. It won't take long. And the big pay off at the end will be worth all that blood and sweat... :)
What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on "magic"Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile.
No. Somehow I don't think he does. And neither do I. Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night. :roll:Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arcadia)</div>Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on \"magic\"[/b]Quote:
I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile.
That is possibly the most ignorant remark i have ever heard in my lifeQuote:
Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia@
<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
No. Somehow I don't think he does. And neither do I. Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night. :roll:[/b]Quote:
Quote:
I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile.
What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on \"magic\"
That is possibly the most ignorant remark i have ever heard in my life[/b][/quote]Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Arcadia)</div>Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)
Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Arcadia
Quote:
@
<!--QuoteBegin-Tsen
No. Somehow I don't think he does. And neither do I. Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night. :roll:[/b]Quote:
Quote:
I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile.
What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean,im not very clued up on \"magic\"
Of course you're not ignorant because you believe blindly in these things, right? :roll:
[quote] Of course you're not ignorant because you believe blindly in these things, right? [quote]
That doesnt really make any sense i believe in it because its true ???
Where exactly did you did you get this from?Quote:
Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night :roll:
I think that dreamviews is still better because we talk about stuff you can do easily I mean about 90% of people here have had lucid dreams if not 10 LD's, in that site 2% of people have had astral projection, and dreamviews focuses on stuff that revolves around RL, that we can do about 5% of it is fake, in that site about 40% of it is fake, I'm not critizising you or the site, but I just like dreamviews better for that, that is the Question you asked, don't get me wrong I realy like to astral project if I could, sounds like you beleive in ghosts, take my advice its just a bunch of crap (sorry for the harsh remark)
the ghost thing is done by a bunch of nerds who have no girlfriends <----- Signs Quote
No...it's not true. Try again.Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia
That doesnt really make any sense i believe in it because its true ???
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Where exactly did you did you get this from?[/b][/quote]Quote:
Ghosts, the evil thing in white sheets created to scare little children at night :roll:[/b]
Common interpretation of ghosts.
Ghosts again?! :shakehead2:
I wish bradybaker would get in on this.
I was trying to avoid jumping in here, but at Ophelia's request, I guess I'll take a crack at it. :P
It's been my experience that people who believe in things like ghosts are so beyond reasonable thinking that they will pretty much tune out anything that you say to convince them otherwise.
Quote:
Originally posted by Arcadia
What you dont believe in it? Ghosts i mean
Quote:
That is possibly the most ignorant remark i have ever heard in my life[/b]
Ok, so it's pretty clear that you believe in ghosts. Before I go any further, would you care to justify that belief?Quote:
i believe in it because its true[/b]
Yay! I won a free argument! And free music! (Thank you Pepsi!)
Anyway, as BradyBaker suggested, give us some evidence!
Well, here's what evidence I've got against it.
Okay, see, this is how things work!
According to heaven knows how many laws of physics, in order to affect reality (whether it be by reflecting light, moving objects or whatever) something must have matter. As in, a body and such. Now, there may or may not be some exceptions on the quantum scale, but those are irrevelant for this discussion. Now, this is because, in order for light to reflect off something, there must be something there to reflect off of. Something does not include "spirits," because "spirits" are not matter, according to the theory of the conservation of matter. Now, again there are some exceptions to the law of conservation of matter, (E=MC^2 and all that stuff), but again, it is irrelevant. Now, since no matter is lost from a body when somebody dies, we must assume that a ghost has no matter. Now, with no matter, how do you suppose a ghost could be detected? With no atoms existing within a 'ghost', what would the light reflect off of? Therefore it isn't visible. Now, since there's no atoms to vibrate (or lack vibration) there is no heat, or lack of heat, therefore it cannot be picked up with infared detectors. I have some other, deeper thoughts and theories on the matter, if anybodies interested, but for now this will do.
-Taylor
Arcadia, I believe in ghosts too. :)
I also believe in ghosts(i never refer to them as ghosts though) and magick and such things, although I have not witnessed much proof of any of those things.
Why, though?
Tsen, I don't entirely disagree with your post, but I want to put some points to you. There are some holes in your argument that make it difficult for me to take your post as absolute fact, rather than just how you personally view it.
For the record, I don't believe in 'ghosts' per se, but I do believe there is a lot more to the universe than we know, and I accept the possibility that some or much of this could be, um, 'spiritual?', for want of a better word. (Y'know, like gods, ghosts, Karma, ESP, whatever)
The immediate exception that springs to mind is gravity. It has no measurable mass and is not detectable in itself, but we know it's real for the obvious reasons. I'm sure there are others.Quote:
in order to affect reality (whether it be by reflecting light, moving objects or whatever) something must have matter. [/b]
How is a legitimate area of physics irrelevant in any argument, when the argument is to prove(or disprove) something by way of physics? Many religions use a similar approach when 'proving' the 'truth' of their doctrine. Can we say for certain that there is no connection between quantum physics and the paranormal? If not then we cannot exclude it.Quote:
As in, a body and such. Now, there may or may not be some exceptions on the quantum scale, those are irrelevant for this discussion.[/b]
That's a perfectly fair assumption, but who said a spirit has matter?Quote:
Now, since no matter is lost from a body when somebody dies, we must assume that a ghost has no matter. [/b]
Again, a fair assumption, but you then have to assume any such ghosts would be 'seen' by means of light reflection. Would it not be a fair argument to say that any 'sixth sense' might have it's own type of perception that would not be taken through the eyes? For example you can't see a sound and you can't hear a colour, how could you be sure that you would 'see' a ghost in the conventional manner?Quote:
what would the light reflect off of? [/b]
I'm interested to hear those, I find it interesting to hear peoples views on these things.Quote:
I have some other, deeper thoughts and theories on the matter, if anybodies interested, but for now this will do.[/b]
No offence intended in any of this Tsen
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
The immediate exception that springs to mind is gravity. It has no measurable mass and is not detectable in itself, but we know it's real for the obvious reasons. I'm sure there are others.[/b][/quote]Quote:
in order to affect reality (whether it be by reflecting light, moving objects or whatever) something must have matter. [/b]
I can't answer that, I know nothing about it. I do know you can sort of measure gravity though. Kind of. I think.
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
How is a legitimate area of physics irrelevant in any argument, when the argument is to prove(or disprove) something by way of physics? Many religions use a similar approach when 'proving' the 'truth' of their doctrine. Can we say for certain that there is no connection between quantum physics and the paranormal? If not then we cannot exclude it.[/b][/quote]Quote:
As in, a body and such. Now, there may or may not be some exceptions on the quantum scale, those are irrelevant for this discussion.[/b]
Won't try and answer that which I have no idea about. I should really read up on this because all the time I hear \"quantum psyhics\". It reminds me of the almighty topic that nobody knows nothing about so they use it so nobody argues. But I'm just making excuses for my lack of knowldege. To the wikipedia.
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
That's a perfectly fair assumption, but who said a spirit has matter?[/b][/quote]Quote:
Now, since no matter is lost from a body when somebody dies, we must assume that a ghost has no matter. [/b]
What spirits?
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
Again, a fair assumption, but you then have to assume any such ghosts would be 'seen' by means of light reflection. Would it not be a fair argument to say that any 'sixth sense' might have it's own type of perception that would not be taken through the eyes? For example you can't see a sound and you can't hear a colour, how could you be sure that you would 'see' a ghost in the conventional manner?[/b][/quote]Quote:
what would the light reflect off of? [/b]
This argument is fast rolling to being the normal "I have proof. Except you can't see it with any methods of perception we have!" argument. You can see gravity because of the effects it has on the envirroment (I suppose). But you can't see ghosts at all, unless you use some sort of ESP-meter-imbued-with-Allahs-almighty-presence that is a load of rubbish anyway.
Or rely on dodgy photos or "experiences". That just isn't good enough.
It's just like the invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her hooves). She's invisible. She's pink. But she's defintely there man, because she's got just as much reliable evidence as ghosts so she's true. She flies too!
And I believe in The Pink Unicorn. Why? Because it's true, of course! What, of COURSE I don't need to have any proof for this, nor do I need to make any sense, or be logical for that matter :roll:
Critical thinking is the magic word. People today are so full of sheer stupid that I sometimes wish to have a short life, just so I won't have to experience the pain of witnessing these people running the world.
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.Quote:
you can sort of measure gravity though[/b]
You're right that people often use it to justify things in a kind of 'smoke and mirrors' way, and that is just as irrational as saying 'God moves in mysterious ways' when you can't explain war or famine, but that's not what I'm doing here.Quote:
It reminds me of the almighty topic that nobody knows nothing about so they use it so nobody argues[/b]
QP experiments repeatedly show the rules of QP often directly contradict the rules of regular physics. My point is not that X is being proved by use of QP, just that the rules of regular physics are not constant and absolute in all situations, and if the rules of physics are not absolute you cannot use them as proof of the non-existance of something - certainly not until you've worked out where, why and how the inconsistencies come about.
For the same reason, you cannot exlude them from an argument if you want to use the rules of physics as your base of logic, which is what Tsen did.
for the purposes of my post, spirits = ghostsQuote:
What spirits? [/b]
I'm not saying I have proof of anything, I'm not even saying that there is something there to prove the existnce of, just that Tsen's argument has some holes in it. You can't prove the non-existence of something simply by an absence of proof, just as you can't prove the presence of something by the lack of contradictory evidence.Quote:
This argument is fast rolling to being the normal \"I have proof. Except you can't see it with any methods of perception we have!\" argument.[/b]
I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything, quite the opposite.Quote:
Or rely on dodgy photos or \"experiences\". That just isn't good enough.
It's just like the invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her hooves). She's invisible. She's pink. But she's defintely there man, because she's got just as much reliable evidence as ghosts so she's true. She flies too![/b]
I'm trying to demonstrate that (despite all the anecdotal evidence and logical theories in favour of both sides of the argument) there is no absolute proof either way, and therefore opinions on the existence of something, or otherwise, are simply opinions and nothing more.
If you feel you have a sound method for absolutely proving the non-existance of something then please share it, but I've not heard one theory yet that doesn't rely on some unprovable assumptions, leaving gaping holes in the argument.
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:
Originally posted by Yogi Bare
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.[/b]Quote:
you can sort of measure gravity though
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
You're right that people often use it to justify things in a kind of 'smoke and mirrors' way, and that is just as irrational as saying 'God moves in mysterious ways' when you can't explain war or famine, but that's not what I'm doing here.Quote:
It reminds me of the almighty topic that nobody knows nothing about so they use it so nobody argues[/b]
QP experiments repeatedly show the rules of QP often directly contradict the rules of regular physics. My point is not that X is being proved by use of QP, just that the rules of regular physics are not constant and absolute in all situations, and if the rules of physics are not absolute you cannot use them as proof of the non-existance of something - certainly not until you've worked out where, why and how the inconsistencies come about.[/b][/quote]
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?
Quote:
For the same reason, you cannot exlude them from an argument if you want to use the rules of physics as your base of logic, which is what Tsen did.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
for the purposes of my post, spirits = ghosts[/quot[/b][/quote]Quote:
What spirits? [/b]
Okay.
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
I'm not saying I have proof of anything, I'm not even saying that there is something there to prove the existnce of, just that Tsen's argument has some holes in it. You can't prove the non-existence of something simply by an absence of proof, just as you can't prove the presence of something by the lack of contradictory evidence.[/b][/quote]Quote:
This argument is fast rolling to being the normal \"I have proof. Except you can't see it with any methods of perception we have!\" argument.[/b]
I know, I never indeed say you had any proof or anything like that, but it is what the argument would end up being, I expect. I think there was some argument exactly like this once before (the argument we are having now, about perception blah blah). I'll see if I can find it later and let it do the arguing for me instead of me trying to talk about something I don't really have enough knowledge in to hold my own. :P
Quote:
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE
I think you've misunderstood my post. I'm not trying to prove the existence of anything, quite the opposite.Quote:
Or rely on dodgy photos or \"experiences\". That just isn't good enough.
It's just like the invisible pink unicorn (blessed be her hooves). She's invisible. She's pink. But she's defintely there man, because she's got just as much reliable evidence as ghosts so she's true. She flies too![/b]
I'm trying to demonstrate that (despite all the anecdotal evidence and logical theories in favour of both sides of the argument) there is no absolute proof either way, and therefore opinions on the existence of something, or otherwise, are simply opinions and nothing more.
If you feel you have a sound method for absolutely proving the non-existance of something then please share it, but I've not heard one theory yet that doesn't rely on some unprovable assumptions, leaving gaping holes in the argument.[/b][/quote]
I'm not sure about that. Most of what you've said sounds reasonable to me, but this last bit sounds wrong to me somewhere. Everything is a opinon and there is no cold fact? I suppose there is a probability of 1 in several hundred thousand billion (estimate, don't quote me on that ;)) that a pink unicorn exists, and so you can't say solidly that a pink unicorn (a invisible one, mind) exists, but you can say that it's pretty much true that there is no pink unicorn. You can easily say that anything could exist it's just really unlikely that it does. But I don't see the point in getting into detail like that. You might as well call it "fact" it doesn't. It's better than ploughing through every exception in the world and never getting anyway.
If the probability of ghosts existing is 1 in 90000000000 billion, for example (not my opinon), I'd probably say it was fact that there was no such thing as ghosts. I mean you can stick a exception on to the end of everything you say, but...so what? I can't think of the best way to word what I'm trying to say - sure there's no way we can solidly prove anything, but based upon what we've seen in our lives so far i'd be quite comfortable to say gravity will keep working for millions of years to come, etc. We could get into detail about it and say it might stop, but the probability is so low...why bother?
You'll have to understand I've never quite got into a argument about stuff like this before so my logic is probably flawed in some way so obvious it would make Einstein cry, but hey, just point it out and leap upon it and i'll continue with my shreds of dignity. :P
One word: graviton (observed? not quite, but heavily hypothesized. When the new particle accelerator in Europe is finshed we'll have a good shot at detecting it).Quote:
Originally posted by Yogi Bare+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Yogi Bare)</div><!--QuoteBegin-Yogi BareQuote:
The immediate exception that springs to mind is gravity. It has no measurable mass and is not detectable in itself, but we know it's real for the obvious reasons. I'm sure there are others.[/b]
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.
On another note, indirect measurements can and do prove somethings existence.
The rules of physics ARE constant and absolute in all situations. We just don't know and understand them all yet.Quote:
My point is not that X is being proved by use of QP, just that the rules of regular physics are not constant and absolute in all situations[/b]
^^ bradybaker does this stuff a million times better than me (and stops Einstein from doing 5000RPM's in his grave).
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.
Well thanks for the assignment there Aneas.
Would you be willing to accept the fact that there is no "conscious observer"? That consciousness is only an illusion created by the multiple levels and parallel processing of our powerful pattern analysis machine (the brain)?
PS. You don't know much about dark matter do you?
Hahah, picturing that makes me laugh.Quote:
Originally posted by Kaniaz
and stops Einstein from doing 5000RPM's in his grave
Does that mean you're building a shrine to the Pink Unicorn?Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
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?
That's the theory, but can you prove it?Quote:
Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>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.Quote:
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]
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
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Kaniaz+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Kaniaz)</div>Yes, that what I believe.Quote:
Everything is a opinon and there is no cold fact? [/b]
BTW - How can a unicorn be pink AND invisible? :-P
<!--QuoteBegin-bradybaker@
On another note, indirect measurements can and do prove somethings existence.
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.
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.Quote:
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.Quote:
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?
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
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.
Yes, that what I believe. [/quote]Quote:
Everything is a opinon and there is no cold fact?
OK.
It's put there deliberately to be paradoxial (wikipedia: invisible pink unicorn).Quote:
BTW - How can a unicorn be pink AND invisible? :-P
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:
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.Quote:
you can sort of measure gravity though
[/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?
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Wicked+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wicked)</div>Quote:
<!--QuoteBegin-Aneas
Does that mean you're building a shrine to the Pink Unicorn?Quote:
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.
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]
Haha, I guess you can't take him seriously. :lol:Quote:
Originally posted by Aneas
You are joking, aren't you Bradybaker?
His name reminds me of the baker in the old computer game Bud Tuck. :D
I'm not quite sure where you're going with that...what does lucid dreaming have to do with this?Quote:
Originally posted by Aneas+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Aneas)</div>No, no I'm not joking.Quote:
You are joking, aren't you Bradybaker? Most of the machinery that I come in contact with doesn't have self awareness.[/b]
<!--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.
http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12381Quote:
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?
Do you have anything intelligent to add to this conversation? Or is making obscure references to old video games the extent of your knowledge?Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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 :-P J/K
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Kaniaz
It's put there deliberately to be paradoxial (wikipedia: invisible pink unicorn).
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.
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.Quote:
Originally posted by Tron
Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation
Force of Gravity = (6.67 x 10E-11) x Mass1 x Mass2 / Radius-Squared
----------------
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!! :lol:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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]
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.Quote:
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 :-P J/K[/b]
That's okay, wikipedia is great for things like this. And you are right.Quote:
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]
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.Quote:
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]
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.Quote:
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]
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.
Which has what to do with whether it's true or not?Quote:
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\".
It is foolish, however, to blindly accept unsubstantiated claims that you otherwise know as impossible.Quote:
It is extremely ignorant to scoff at a part of reality, only because someone has told you ignore it.[/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...Quote:
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]
Freedom of mind does not equal gullibility. Without criticism and logic, we wouldn't have been able to progress past the stone age.Quote:
The free mind of humanity is a very powerful thing, and to loose that mind would set mankind free.[/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.Quote:
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]
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.Quote:
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]
Imagination is very good, but confusing it with reality is VERY dangerous, and is the source of many, many problems in our world.
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! :mad:Quote:
Which has what to do with whether it's true or not?
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).Quote:
It is foolish, however, to blindly accept unsubstantiated claims that you otherwise know as impossible.
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.
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.Quote:
\"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 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.
Without creative thinking, and the ability to accept things we hardly know anything of - we would never have gotten to the stone age.Quote:
Freedom of mind does not equal gullibility. Without criticism and logic, we wouldn't have been able to progress past 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? :|
Again, you show a complete arrogance and a disrespect to the experiences of tens of thousands of people before you.Quote:
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.
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]
Indeed. Now, who is the boss of reality and imagination?Quote:
Imagination is very good, but confusing it with reality is VERY dangerous, and is the source of many, many problems in our world.
Please, tell me who I can entrust my entire world - my entire life - with?
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!Quote:
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! :mad:Quote:
Which has what to do with whether it's true or not?
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).Quote:
It is foolish, however, to blindly accept unsubstantiated claims that you otherwise know as impossible.
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.
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.Quote:
\"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 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\".
Without creative thinking, and the ability to accept things we hardly know anything of - we would never have gotten to the stone age.Quote:
Freedom of mind does not equal gullibility. Without criticism and logic, we wouldn't have been able to progress past 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.
Again, you show a complete arrogance and a disrespect to the experiences of tens of thousands of people before you.Quote:
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.
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.
Who said anything about anyone's life?Quote:
Indeed. Now, who is the boss of reality and imagination?Quote:
Imagination is very good, but confusing it with reality is VERY dangerous, and is the source of many, many problems in our world.
Please, tell me who I can entrust my entire world - my entire life - with?
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.Quote:
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! :mad:
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.Quote:
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).
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.Quote:
All the people who have seen so called ghosts, aren't simply stupid or sick, you know.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Without creative thinking, and the ability to accept things we hardly know anything of - we would never have gotten to the stone age.
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.Quote:
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? :|
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?Quote:
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?
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.
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.Quote:
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 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.Quote:
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. :|
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 :roll:Quote:
Indeed. Now, who is the boss of reality and imagination?
Please, tell me who I can entrust my entire world - my entire life - with?
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 :okbyenow:
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. :P So, sure.
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).Quote:
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.
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.
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.Quote:
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!
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.
Why waste time refuting what people like Tsen say? They believe what they need to believe. Let them.Quote:
Originally posted by Tsen
Yeah, I guess it is a more complete version of Dream Views if you're a nutjob. Unfortunately, we here at Dream Views, with the exception of the Beyond Dreaming forum, are sane. Well, mostly. See, magic and all that has absolutely no basis in the real world. None. And this site is geared towards the real world, while that site seems to be geared towards the mystical (and imaginary) world(s). Not to mention we've got more info on LD's in general, rather than on Astral Projections alone. (EDIT: Well, they've got more than info on Astral Projections, but I can't find many threads on Lucidity in general)
So, anyways, was there any specific point of your post? Are you asking for advice on how to fit Lucid Dreaming into a busy daily schedule? (or a lazy one?) Or were you just notifying us of AstralPulse's existence or something?
And if any of you feel like arguing, I'd be happy to engage you on the veracity of Astral Projections, magic, ghosts and all that other crap you guys seem to stockpile. Y'know, just if you feel like it.
But I would ask him: How do you justify believing in the astral (well, ok, I am only assuming you believe in its existence since you are a member of this board) yet not believe in the possibility of being able to control various energies in 'real life'?
People often think they cant manifest their own wishes in dreams - and after much practice some are able to.
Its all about how much you believe in your own ability.
Same applies to manipulating energy in 'real life' - you do what you 'know' you can. Some 'know' more than others. Some will never know at all.
You DO realize that what you've just said sounds like a load of bullshit, right? No offense.Quote:
Originally posted by othniel
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.
No, I do not believe in the astral. I believe in lucid dreaming, of course, because for one, I've experienced it, and two, it's a proven phenomenon. Astral projection is not.
Is that all you are going to say? You don't even explain why you think this. What a waste..Quote:
Originally posted by Wicked
You DO realize that what you've just said sounds like a load of bullshit, right? No offense.
You know....I really hate subjects like this.....
Forgive me if I rehash anything thats probably been said a million times, but I'm new to the site, and with so many long winded posts since the topic started, it would have taken me ages to get here. But hell, I might as well get in on the action.
Look.....Could anyone call someone stupid for believe in alien life? Could anyone call someone stupid for NOT Believing in alien life? No on both counts.
This relates to ghosts because, no matter what a person HAS seen, or what a person Hasn't seen, or what a generation believes or doesn't believe, we, as people have a Full-Hands-On-View of about 0.00003 percent of what goes on in this great universe of ours. (Give or take a 0 ;) )
People use the argument about aliens "But if there are aliens out there, we would have seen them by now." The same as 'if there were ghosts we would have seen them." Let me ask you..If a BMX rider took a trip to the mountains where there is no televsion, and whatnot, and told someone "Hey, I'm going to ride my bike up this ramp, do a complete backward flip, let my feet leave the pedals and spin the bottom half of the bike around 360 degrees before landing perfectly and riding straight down the ramp....
...What do you think the speculator who had never seen the gravity games would say? "You've GOT to be joking."
Now, if this BMX'er, had done this a few times, at home, and with conditions as they are (Stomach ache, bad frame of mind, bad mood) he is not able to complete the stunt in front of this witness....
...Does this mean he cannot do it?
What if they tried it over again, using the scientific process of pete-and-repeat, and this BMX'r had gotten so amped to prove this guy wrong, that his subconscious makes it IMPOSSIBLE for him to complete this while he's in the company of this spectator...
....Does this mean he Cannot do it?
No. It doesn't. And why?
Because as human beings, there are constantly variables at work that are either Unthought of, or simply Unknown. Not one, or all, of us hold the answers to the universe. And no matter what you Think you know, no matter who's ideas you believe, scientific or otherwise, you as a human have No RIGHT whatsoever, took look at another person's view on an Unprovable phenomenon as Ignorant. Thats called hypocrosy. (sp)
A Skeptic is a person who is not easily persuaded, and would like to look at all variables before blindly believing something...
A Psuedo-skeptic is a person who takes an unbelievable idea, Assumes it to be impossible, and then bashes someone who disagrees with that view for whatever reason.
My point? Something like this should Not Turn ugly, as I can see it have without even reading all the posts on this thread. For every reason why someone doesn't believe in ghosts, you will find a reason why someone does.
...Thats the way the world works, guys. Lets get on the ball.
For the people that believe in ghosts: Don't Believe - Be Open to the Possibility that they Exist.
For those that Don't believe in ghosts: There is nothing wrong with a see-it-to-believe-it attitude, but do not take scientific deduction for universal Fact.
Sure, Science can tell you humans use 10% of their brain.....
....but after countless generations of people who have been experimenting with the mind....can they tell you what the other 90% does?
Theories, like the men who make them, are fallible. Some of the most brilliant minds on this earth can be found under Different beliefs. Scientific theories are argued Every Day BY OTHER SCIENTISTS. Do Not bicker about something you cannot prove. And if you absolutely Have to bicker, keep it civil. Don't go insulting someone's intelligence by throwing words like "Ignorant" around.
Becoming agressive over a point you, yourself, have never seen First Hand Undeniable proof of, is Ignorant.
...That goes for Proof Of, or Against, the existence of ghosts, astral projection, OOBE, or whatever subject you want to argue over.
Now..on a lighter note.... :)
It doesn't matter if you believe in ghosts, or not, but there is a free ebook I came across a while ago called "A lawyer presents a case for the afterlife" by Victor Zammit. Something all Psuedo-skeptics should at least take a look at before writing it off a 'banter.' (Which many will do without a second thought) Not saying that I blindly believe in the afterlife,cause I don't, but I'm open to the possibility that Hey......You know......It COULD exist. It takes a whooole lot of arrogance to know without a shadow of a doubt, that you've answered a question that will not be answered until you 1. Die and find out yourself, or 2. Have a supernatural encounter.
Check it out. ;)
Me and Tsen would get along real well.
I'm a very interesting subject when it comes to believing in paranormal stuff. I've seen ghosts. Actual, full body ghosts that move around, make noises, move things, knock on doors and scare the crap out of you. Frankly it still creeps the shat out of me out thinking about all the things I've witnessed, but I still don't believe in that stuff, and I never will. Whatever; didn't happen, wasn't real, not possible. (I'm not lying)
How does that work, Death? You've witnessed things first hand, but refuse to believe even yourself because the possibility seems...."Out there?"
Pretty weird huh? No, not weird. Just a little weird. Weird huh? Am I spelling weird right? Wierd, weird, wierd, weird... whatever.Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
How does that work, Death? You've witnessed things first hand, but refuse to believe even yourself because the possibility seems....\"Out there?\"
Because it doesn't fit in with everything else seems good. Our perceptions aren't as clear as crystal; optical illusions for example fool our eyes. And somebody with no idea of what caused them could easily think "wow! psyhic magic!".Quote:
Originally posted by Oneironaut
How does that work, Death? You've witnessed things first hand, but refuse to believe even yourself because the possibility seems....\"Out there?\"
Kaniaz can I ask you a question? Why do you always seek out the paranormal stuff if you don't believe? Why would you even care? Please clear this up because it seriously does not make sense....
It is likely b/c he wants to prove that they don't exist by seeking them out. I know of a lot of people like that!Quote:
Originally posted by othniel
Kaniaz can I ask you a question? Why do you always seek out the paranormal stuff if you don't believe? Why would you even care? Please clear this up because it seriously does not make sense....
Quote:
We only use 10% of our brains[/b]
ARGHH! That's about as true as saying that if you die in a dream you'll die in real life.
That's because what he said genuinely DOESN'T make any sense, to me at least. Let's examine it closely:Quote:
Originally posted by Anonymous
Is that all you are going to say? You don't even explain why you think this. What a waste..
Congratulations to othniel, who has just raped the theory of Probability. It is just as probable that all those people are subscribing to something fake than to something real. The things people believe in cannot be used to gauge real life phenomena, unless you actually know what causes them to believe those particular things. Tell me, why DO you think so many people believe in God, spirits etc. etc.?Quote:
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. [/b]
This is where 90% of the "bullshit" part is located. Nobody is trying to "exclude himself from humanity" (WTF is that supposed to mean!?), some people just have the common sense to realize that popular does not equal probable, or real, or certain. There are some witnesses to extraordinary things, yet they can't provide any proof, even if theoretically the opportunity is there to provide it. There are many alleged witnesses to all kinds of things. 99% of them can be explained mundanely. The remaining 1% is either genuine or not, but probably not. So many people in history believing in those things... SURELY someone could find reliable proof for those things over thousands of years and millions of people... right?Quote:
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.[/b]
And the second part of that quote makes no more sense than the first. It looks like a load of bullshit carefully disguised to appear as a deep philosophical pondering or something like that (a common tactic these days). Basically, he's saying that you are insulting yourself when you insult someone else, because you share the same beliefs, even though you don't :eek: Don't tell me that's not bullshit right there.
DENIED.Quote:
Originally posted by othniel
Kaniaz can I ask you a question?
I think those beliefs, such as ghosts, magick, etc, are all subjected to a very personal perception. You may try to make everything crystal-clear with amazing displays of logic & physics, but you have to consider that not everything is subject to physics or logic at all.
Certain things may include emotions, faith or any abnormality. I would agree with you 100% if everything could actuaylly be explained with logic, but you see, not even our origin can be explained logically and I guess will always be a matter of faith.
You can argue all you want wether ghosts exist or not, but some things are still a fact. For example, many people donīt even know (perhaps for their lack of involvement with the church) but exorcisms are practiced all the time to "vanquish" demons. You might say that these people are delisuional or have some psychological issue, but itīs not the case. I have a couple of friends who are catholic priests and practically shit their pants when asked to perform an exorcism. Another few have to perform them all the time.
So, next time you try to explain everything with proved laws of physics, remember that this life is just full of crazy shit that you have just not seen (yet).
Live your life being a non-believer, live it believing, live it faithless, live it full of faith, itīs always your choice.
ps: I donīt believe in ghosts. I would call them differently.
Saying that priests who perform exorcisms are scared does absolutely NIL for your argument. Now, science doesn't know everything--we all know, or should know that. We still haven't unpuzzled the human brain, but we DO know what causes emotion. Chemicals in your mind have been proven to be the source of such feelings as love, hate and happiness. Now, we don't know everything, but that doesn't mean that they aren't exempt from laws of physics and logic. Remember--we don't make the laws, we're just trying to understand the complexities found therin.
On a lighter note...
I didn't want to open any old wounds, but I found this topic too late to post anything earlier. My question is (no offense to anybody)...
How can a unicorn be pink and invisble at the same time?
:wtf: What on earth are you talking about? Unicorns aren't real!! :PQuote:
Originally posted by Shining Shadow
On a lighter note...
I didn't want to open any old wounds, but I found this topic too late to post anything earlier. My question is (no offense to anybody)...
How can a unicorn be pink and invisble at the same time?
i think we need to stop relying so strongly on physics here. physics may make sense in a classroom, but there is so much that physics can't answer for us. so proving a point by busting out your einstein knowledge is a waste of time.
Not true. Physics answers most everything for us...at least in the field it was designed to answer for. It's based on observations from centuries of work, and it's very accurate.
It's much more plausible to use physics as your trump card than to use 'psi'. After all, at least physics has some ground rules...I don't really recall anybody giving the same explanation for psi, or for how to use it, let alone come up with some tangible 'rules' of psi. So using physics is very much acceptable as a form of proof, or at least it's much more acceptable than psi as your reason. After all, what kind of answer is just repeating "I know it 'cuz I've felt it" ?
physics definitely has its good sides don't get me wrong, but when it comes to the discussion of ghosts, dreams, etc., backing up an answer by saying it can't exist because of some physics equation isn't reasonable. there are many things that physics cannot explain, many of which are being discussed in this thread.
But if I had some pink lemonade that was invisible, would it still be pink? :?
What else would we base it on? Physics is the ground rules for the universe. It explains everything, or attempts to. Now, that includes ghosts and the extraterrestrial and whatever else, so we can therefore use it to disprove them, at least for the moment. Doing so is somewhat immature, however. It's better to accept that it MAY be possible, and if so, find what needs to be changed in the 'Laws of Physics' to explain why. This is how science evolves--through experimentation and observation. But most of these claims are downright ridiculous, and very seldom has physics been the subject of debate here. More often it's simply logic and the veracity of the proof. If we can find substantially truthful proof, we can move ahead, but as of yet, we've come nowhere close.
Anyway, was the lemonade pink BEFORE it became invisible, or was it pink AFTER? Deep thoughts. :?