Ghostly Experience

[Paul]

On the other hand, it could indeed all be b@ll@cks!

 

I think it is, and don't forget he's making a tidy living selling all these books on the subject

[Rob]

I think it is, and don't forget he's making a tidy living selling all these books on the subject

 

That's what I always say. If there is a true conspiracy/secret government of lizards and so forth and someone knew all about it and had proof, they would act to uncover/destroy it, not publish a book about it.

George Stephenson never wrote a book called "You too can travel the land in a horseless carriage" for 2 shillings and sixpence at all good book emporiums.

[Arbedark]

That's what I always say. If there is a true conspiracy/secret government of lizards and so forth and someone knew all about it and had proof, they would act to uncover/destroy it, not publish a book about it.

George Stephenson never wrote a book called "You too can travel the land in a horseless carriage" for 2 shillings and sixpence at all good book emporiums.

 

But...but...he wants to uncover the secret shape shifting reptile race so that we can be free fro...

 

No, wait, you're right.

[Morpheus]

I think it is, and don't forget he's making a tidy living selling all these books on the subject

 

Is he though? Even if he was a Billionaire from it, does that necessarily have any negative bearing whatsoever on the contents of his books, which he himself has always said is "Just information. Take the bits that you like and ignore the ones that you don't. Whatever feels right to you"?

 

People aren't buying them to read about being slaves to some unseen masters; they're buying them inspite of it and would rather he didn't go there, if you ask me. He happens to go where the research takes him, whatever the consequences.

 

I'm sure that he'd rather spend his time and energies doing other things. He could afterall, have kept his mouth shut like so many others in his previous profession as a journalist and would probably still be presenting sports programmes.

 

We could argue the toss forever but your logical assumptions don't take into account all of the available information because you clearly haven't got the bigger picture in mind. In the context of his previous stuff, the reptile thing is entirely plausible.

 

Again, he's quoting others most of the time but taken as a whole, it's the only explanation that makes any sense of the obssessive use of occult symbolism in every area of authority.

 

Look at the way that companies have been merging in the last 20 years. Changing their logos and names. Why on earth would the Alfa Romeo badge for example, have a George cross and a snake eating a human? Note that the snake is wearing a crown, sort of. Symbolically, this means that the Royal bloodline is Serpentine or reptilian and they have us by the nads, so to speak! Any other explanation? The guy even has his arms out like Jesus. Apparently it's been changed recently. I'll have a look.

 

BT is another example. Bloke with trumpet with red snake in it. Perhaps they just forgot to draw his right foot by accident and gave him a pincer for his right hand to make the signwriter's/decal applier's job easier? Now the BT logo is a globe, divided into coloured regions.

 

Just two of thousands of examples throughout history.

 

A video example but not the best quality...could obviously find much better examples.

 

http://current.com/entertainment/comedy/88850610_fascist-symbolism-employed-by-the-american-government-just-watch-the-video.htm

[Morpheus]

That's what I always say. If there is a true conspiracy/secret government of lizards and so forth and someone knew all about it and had proof, they would act to uncover/destroy it, not publish a book about it.

George Stephenson never wrote a book called "You too can travel the land in a horseless carriage" for 2 shillings and sixpence at all good book emporiums.

 

He did try to claim intellectual authority though and presumably was paid for his 'advice'.

 

http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=160

 

I wonder what The Health & Safety Executive would have to say about his Rocket?

 

Anyway, getting off topic. Ghosts are possible. So there!

[RedM]

Blah blah blah

 

Seriously mate. Lay off the crack for a bit.

[Brazil]

I've seen a ghost before...! I was so scared that I did not tell anybody for 13yrs, thinking if I told somebody I might see it again. When I told my mum about it she said that her sister has also seen a ghost in my grandmothers house.

[Paul]

Seriously mate. Lay off the crack for a bit.

 

You and him have more in common than you would like to think

[Charlotte]

you and him have more in common than you would like to think

 

[Morpheus]

Seriously mate. Lay off the crack for a bit.

 

Obviously another one who's invested zero effort to understand me. Stuart Goldsmith was right.

 

Anyway, leave my fantastic sex life out of it.

 

[Morpheus]

You and him have more in common than you would like to think

 

Explain?

[benkei]

I've created a monster!

[Rob]

I've created a monster!

 

Yes, I fully blame you for this debacle.

[Morpheus]

I've created a monster!

 

Cool huh?

 

 

Might be the one who fell down your stairs! Does the video make you fall, I mean feel better?

 

[Morpheus]

Both fine posts gentlemen, and I've taken the liberty of bolding my favoutire parts.

 

I bald my favourite parts regularly myself!

 

There's nothing quite like a shawn scrotum! Mwhahahahaha!

 

Minime! Stop humping the lazer!

 

[Morpheus]

I've created a monster!

 

"'cos nobody wants to see Marshall no more - they want Shady, Yey!"

 

[Purity14]

Explain?

 

You are both on crack.

[Morpheus]

You are both on crack.

 

Who needs it? Comes naturally to me Mate!

 

It's those voices, see......

[Tannhauser]

Edit, sorry, I'll have to fail on rule 4 but hey, no biggie; what do so-called 'Scientists' know about energy anyway? They don't even know where 98 odd percent of it is or what to call it! They even call 98% of our DNA 'junk' because they don't know what it does. Also, there is no concensus atall in 'Science' about such matters. It all depends on who's opinion you want to believe. The ultimate truth is that belief creates reality, since all of this is in our collective minds. Even matter itself. What you perceive as reality is just what your particular mind/brain wants to believe. What you see and feel are waveform sound vibrations, interfering in such a way as to create the illusion of solid matter, when it is anything but. Sound can even be used to dissociate matter.

 

Considering that scientists know so little about energy, it's amazing how successfully they use it to - for example - design car braking systems, or kettles, or stereos, or the computer system we are currently communicating over. It's a mathematical concept that has proven its validity through real world application.

 

This can be contrasted with psychic nonsense-peddlers, who use it as the universal sentence filler, so vague that it means precisely nothing.

 

Your first paragraph illustrates the usual ambivalent nature of the psychic believer toward science. On the one hand, borrowing scientific concepts to bolster conclusions (e.g. waveform sound vibrations), but also biting at the hand that feeds you (e.g. scientists don't understand DNA).

 

Without a background in science, with respect, you're vulnerable to absurd claims about what scientists know or don't know, believe or don't believe, agree or disagree on.

 

As Albert Einstein apparently said, "Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one". Are you going to disagree with him too?

 

Einstein is eminently quotable, isn't he? There's one of his aphorisms for every occasion. But of course, I can't agree or disagree with the comment because I've no idea what the context is. I don't know what he is driving at: whether he's talking about quantum mechanics, indulging in a bit of metaphor, or commenting on a magic show he'd seen. Neither, I suspect, have you.

 

An equation is only as good as the amount of data that it factors in, or it's bandwidth, as it were. Garbage in = garbage out. Logic is a linearly deductive or projective process, based on assumptions, any single one of which if inaccurate, makes the outcome invalid. It's this failure to integrate the two hemispheres of the brain that cause these misunderstandings. It was probably the Reptiles that did this to us for a laugh! Google Reptilian Brain or R Complex. We all have reptilian brains! It's a fact!

 

What are you on about? Logic is a set of commonly agreed rules by which we assess whether an argument is valid or not. It's the way in which human beings judge whether other human beings are making any sense. I believe that you are saying that logic has limitations because it misses some vital aspects of reality. But this itself is a logical argument, proceeding from a series of (mistaken) premises to a conclusion.

 

As for this left brain-right brain stuff, puh-leeease stop it.

 

Again, this shows that schizophrenic attitude (figuratively speaking) towards science. I mean, the whole reason that left brain -right brain is out there is because of the work of guys like Roger Sperry and his split-brain patients, and Springer and Deutsch. But then the woo-woo community got hold of it and this simplistic idea of creative/logical sides to the brain took root in the public consciousness. Scientists have been jumping up and down about it for years, but they have no chance in shifting it.

 

This is because the left brain-right brain idea acts as guard dog against critical examination of loopy ideas. Any criticism can be dismissed as 'left brain thinking'.

 

Thanks for the tip on the reptilian brain, though. I'll know where to look next time I want to read about a speculative hypothesis from 40 years ago that isn't supported by any evidence.

[Morpheus]

Considering that scientists know so little about energy, it's amazing how successfully they use it to - for example - design car braking systems, or kettles, or stereos, or the computer system we are currently communicating over. It's a mathematical concept that has proven its validity through real world application.

 

This can be contrasted with psychic nonsense-peddlers, who use it as the universal sentence filler, so vague that it means precisely nothing.

 

Your first paragraph illustrates the usual ambivalent nature of the psychic believer toward science. On the one hand, borrowing scientific concepts to bolster conclusions (e.g. waveform sound vibrations), but also biting at the hand that feeds you (e.g. scientists don't understand DNA).

 

Without a background in science, with respect, you're vulnerable to absurd claims about what scientists know or don't know, believe or don't believe, agree or disagree on.

 

 

 

Einstein is eminently quotable, isn't he? There's one of his aphorisms for every occasion. But of course, I can't agree or disagree with the comment because I've no idea what the context is. I don't know what he is driving at: whether he's talking about quantum mechanics, indulging in a bit of metaphor, or commenting on a magic show he'd seen. Neither, I suspect, have you.

 

 

 

What are you on about? Logic is a set of commonly agreed rules by which we assess whether an argument is valid or not. It's the way in which human beings judge whether other human beings are making any sense. I believe that you are saying that logic has limitations because it misses some vital aspects of reality. But this itself is a logical argument, proceeding from a series of (mistaken) premises to a conclusion.

 

As for this left brain-right brain stuff, puh-leeease stop it.

 

Again, this shows that schizophrenic attitude (figuratively speaking) towards science. I mean, the whole reason that left brain -right brain is out there is because of the work of guys like Roger Sperry and his split-brain patients, and Springer and Deutsch. But then the woo-woo community got hold of it and this simplistic idea of creative/logical sides to the brain took root in the public consciousness. Scientists have been jumping up and down about it for years, but they have no chance in shifting it.

 

This is because the left brain-right brain idea acts as guard dog against critical examination of loopy ideas. Any criticism can be dismissed as 'left brain thinking'.

 

Thanks for the tip on the reptilian brain, though. I'll know where to look next time I want to read about a speculative hypothesis from 40 years ago that isn't supported by any evidence.

 

Really, no evidence? Please tell me where it says that? Not asking you to prove a negative but it must have been proven or explained somewhere?

 

Here's a random link, regarding our obvious genetic heritage, though it doesn't refer to the brain. I could post others that do, of course;-http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1635647/posts

 

I'm not ambivalent to Science, just Pseudoscience.

 

You don't have to know everything about a thing to make it useful, say to design brakes or kettles, even computers. They are all still evolving are they not? If 'Science' doesn't know absolutely everything there is to know, 'it' cannot claim to know what cannot be possible, therefore it can never (to all intents and purposes) claim intellectual authority. That would be the height of arrogance.

 

The more 'basic' laws are understood already and accepted (though I wouldn't claim to know more than school level physics and chemistry). The subject inhand is the possibility of 'paranormal' phenomena being more than just 'imagination'.

 

I absolutely accept that a person can hallucinate or imagine almost anything but to dismiss all accounts (particularly involving multiple witnesses) as such is sheer bloodymindedness. You're literally calling millions of regular people crazy for believing their own eyes and gut instincts. If just one ghost is 'real' or a single UFO account is of Alien origin, for example, or even of Earth/military origin, the implications are staggering. It changes everything.

 

I think my point can be summed up by restating that we create our own reality, much more than we realise. The mind is able to see what it wants to see, yes? I'm sure you'd agree.

 

This is the deeper subject that I referred to. The question is, who is right? All I see is opinions, not absolutes. Can you give me an example of something that all scientists agree on and could you claim to even know what all of them really think, as you seem to speak on their collective behalf as if they are all in total agreement about the impossibility of the paranormal, for example?

 

You've obviously got very good connections and remarkable mediation skills, as they've been arguing for centuries.

 

Logic is deductive reasoning as you well know. There's no room for error or opinion. It's pure, unadulterated honesty. Using it to decide if a person 'makes sense' is tough if you begin with a conclusion; that certain unaccepted areas are 'loopy' or whatever. Doesn't sound like a scientific approach to me.

 

Science should be about establishing truth without bias. That's real critical thinking. Considering an argument until all known information is factored in, whether or not you agree with it already and still keeping in mind that you don't know everything and could be wrong. Setting aside the ego and being truly objective, prepared to accept whatever proves to be true, if such a thing even exists beyond observed behaviour being accepted as fact etc.

 

I'd love to meet one day and you can remind me of my brother, as you rack up points against me at connect 4!

 

Definitely smart, I'll give you that.

 

Very late now, so please forgive my not responding to all of your points. Let me know if you want me to? I doubt that anyone else will however!

[Rob]

I only continue to read this utter garbage pile of a thread in case Tannhauser should post and his logic might shine out like a beacon in a pile of sh**e. Now he has, I'm happy, well, happier.

[Septic]

Great...that's 10 minutes of my life I won't get back.

[Tannhauser]

This is the deeper subject that I referred to. The question is, who is right? All I see is opinions, not absolutes. Can you give me an example of something that all scientists agree on and could you claim to even know what all of them really think, as you seem to speak on their collective behalf as if they are all in total agreement about the impossibility of the paranormal, for example?

 

You've obviously got very good connections and remarkable mediation skills, as they've been arguing for centuries.

 

Plenty to comment on in your post, but sneaking a few minutes at lunch to address just one aspect - the one above.

 

Science doesn't deal in absolutes. Maths deals in absolutes. Science deals in probabilities. It tries to use a systematic gathering and analysis of evidence to establish general principles that can then be used to make specific predictions.

 

For example, through hundreds of thousands of mind-bogglingly careful observations, a general rule about gravitation was established - that the force between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between those objects. This is then applied, with staggering success, to specific situations, such as firing shells from location A to location B. And yes I know relativity overturns Newtonian mechanics, but this will serve to illustrate the point.

 

However, apart from being a method of carefully looking at the world, science is also (as Thomas Kuhn pointed out) a sociological phenomenon: an activity carried out by scientists. Science operates by consensus and what we mean by ‘scientific belief’ turns out in actuality to be the majority opinion of practising scientists at any given time. This being the case, there are probably very few topics on which you can achieve 100% consensus between scientists.

 

This does not mean that science can be reduced to “it’s all just opinion”. For a start, ‘opinion’ seems to imply a viewpoint that is casually arrived at, without a careful examination of evidence. For opinion to become ‘scientific opinion’ , it has to be based on something other than personal preference. Secondly, although there may be disagreement on details, there is a huge body of work on which the overwhelming majority of scientists agree - and that's as close as you are ever going to get with any large group of people in any enterprise.

 

For example, if we say ‘science says that apes and humans have a common ancestor’, we don’t mean that every scientist on the planet will agree to that statement. We mean that the prevailing view, amongst the overwhelming majority of scientists, is that the evidence points to the truth. There is also likely to be disagreement over the details of the process.

 

The media, with a fixation on ‘balance’ and an even greater one on controversy, just doesn’t understand this. This is why scientific mavericks, with poorly thought out ideas, and attention seekers, are given equal air time to established experts, with a critical mass of evidence on their side. The result is the misperception that every scientific topic is a matter of controversy. It isn’t.

[Rob]

Can we mention man-made global warming at this point?

[Purity14]

Can we mention man-made global warming at this point?

 

There is no such thing, its a Hoax.