Ghosts and other Paranormalities

[Snipsky]

I think this is real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIw-wfXp5Vw

[Snipsky]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A4jFBMdjsEU

[hskwarrior]

LOL

this one is kinda freaky. you can pause play pause play and she is transparent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ncI4zBG0nc

[David Jamieson]

Ghosts? Bwahahahaha!

hey, did you know that if you say "Orange" very slowly, it sounds just like "gullible".

[Syn7]

I spent all morning saying it at diff speeds and I still can't hear gullible :(

[David Jamieson]

Two razors can be applied to the stubble of these topics.

One: Hitchen's razor - That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

and

Two: Occam's razor - Plurality should not be posited without necessity.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Two razors can be applied to the stubble of these topics.

One: Hitchen's razor - That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

and

Two: Occam's razor - Plurality should not be posited without necessity.

Hitchen's razor?
Seriously?
If you are gonna dismiss something without evidence you better have a very concrete definition of "evidence".
Especially when you are dealing with "intangibles".

[David Jamieson]

Hitchen's razor?
Seriously?
If you are gonna dismiss something without evidence you better have a very concrete definition of "evidence".
Especially when you are dealing with "intangibles".

what can be asserted without evidence? If it's reality, very little. the key word is not "evidence" but "assertion" and specifically, "assertion" without any evidence.

So, the self explanatory is given a pass IE: ground is down, sky is up, sun is a flaming ball of gas and elements, space is void etc and logic can be asserted as it has evidence to the reality of it and the application of it thanks to Bertrand Russell actually proving through logic that 1+1=2. Yes, he proved it.

"Belief" does not constitute reality in any way shape or form. So believing in ghosts is not enough to assert that they are real.

The same is true of anything that one can consider in that framework.

[MightyB]

With what I know about After Effects and editing, it's hard to take anything seriously that's been "caught on tape". The hotel one was entertaining at least.

[sanjuro_ronin]

what can be asserted without evidence? If it's reality, very little. the key word is not "evidence" but "assertion" and specifically, "assertion" without any evidence.

So, the self explanatory is given a pass IE: ground is down, sky is up, sun is a flaming ball of gas and elements, space is void etc and logic can be asserted as it has evidence to the reality of it and the application of it thanks to Bertrand Russell actually proving through logic that 1+1=2. Yes, he proved it.

"Belief" does not constitute reality in any way shape or form. So believing in ghosts is not enough to assert that they are real.

The same is true of anything that one can consider in that framework.

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the assertion may still be correct and we have dismissed based on a perceive bias that comes from an "incomplete understanding" of what we call "reality".


The wright brothers asserted that man could fly and up until the day they did, that asserted that without any evidence and , according to the "Hitchens razor", they are to be dismissed without any need for evidence to dismiss them.
Which many did, to which they were ALL proved wrong.

My point is to dismiss any assertion based on the fact that it lacks or has no evidence should ONLY be applied to things that CAN be evidenced.
Those things that can't be "evidenced"should NOT be dismissed per say BUT we should keep a very healthy sense of "doubt".

I think that the only time we can make "absolute" judgment calls such is outright dismissals is when something has been proven to be "not so" OR when we have a complete and full-proof understanding of how ALL the universe works.

[Jimbo]

I've seen, and met, a number of apparently rational people, in a couple of cases police officers, who believed in God and everything in the Bible literally, word for word, yet completely disbelieved in "ghosts/spirits, ESP/precognition, and all that 'weird stuff'." Which, if you think about it, doesn't make the least bit of sense.

Healthy skepticism is a necessity in life, while keeping one's mind open to possibilities outside of our current understanding. However, irrational skepticism (actually, cynicism) is every bit as bad as total gullibility.

[David Jamieson]

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the assertion may still be correct and we have dismissed based on a perceive bias that comes from an "incomplete understanding" of what we call "reality".


The wright brothers asserted that man could fly and up until the day they did, that asserted that without any evidence and , according to the "Hitchens razor", they are to be dismissed without any need for evidence to dismiss them.
Which many did, to which they were ALL proved wrong.

My point is to dismiss any assertion based on the fact that it lacks or has no evidence should ONLY be applied to things that CAN be evidenced.
Those things that can't be "evidenced"should NOT be dismissed per say BUT we should keep a very healthy sense of "doubt".

I think that the only time we can make "absolute" judgment calls such is outright dismissals is when something has been proven to be "not so" OR when we have a complete and full-proof understanding of how ALL the universe works.

I think you are off base on the Wright brothers. They believed it possible for Man to fly and asserted that and then went on to evidence it by showing it through application. It was not a new thing by the Time the Wright brothers got hold of it. Leonardo fashioned a workable hang glider after all. Powered flight is where the Wright brothers made the departure.

What is it that cannot be evidenced that can be asserted? Not much really.
And if it is asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed in the same manner. It is that simple. It is really as simple as, if there is no proof, then come back when you have some and your assertion will be considered.

If someone asserts the existence of a deity, I would refute that as a belief. I believe it, but I can't evidence it. I can't evidence mine or anyone else's god at all. But I don't assert it to anyone that mine is real etc. I can only assert that I believe.

I am completely okay with the statement because it mete's out factually and actually. And whether an individual lacks the evidence is different from whether or not there actually is any at all.

[Syn7]

Ugh, believing something w/o any actual reason based in reality is just silly. Asserting it is just that. It means nothing w/o evidence. I can assert lots of dumb ****, doesn't give it any validity simply because there are unknowns in the universe. Rational people believe in probabilities, not absolutes.

Things that cannot be evidenced should be put aside. There is no point in participating in such monumental conjecture like that. All it does is create division and confusion. It's selfish. That kind of thinking holds us back. There is nothing wrong with hypothesizing, but when you cross over to conclusion w/o any actual reason rooted in reality, you are just talking ****.

You can believe anything you want, but don't assert it as a reality w/o evidence. And please please please stop arguing from ignorance. Just say you believe and leave it at that. Go find some evidence if you wanna have a real conversation about the legitimacy of the idea. Real evidence, that is. Not unsourced pics and vids with zero context and no controls. They mean nothing w/o the controls.

[Lucas]

I witnessed a paranormal activity one time. i was with my girlfriend (we were teenagers) while she was babysitting her little baby neice. we went and put her to bed and then went to watch tv to wait for her parents to come home. after a while the baby started screaming and crying really bad. when we went into the room the baby was in a dresser drawer pulled out and laying in all the clothes freaking out. i saw the baby go in the crib, and we both left the room and both went back in together, we were the only people in that house. my girl made me go everywhere with here because it was a huge old dark house and she was scared of it. after that night she wouldnt go back there.

[pazman]

Pretty sure it's real:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhjmcFxOe4w

[hskwarrior]

once, i left my mothers cemetary and as i was driving out of it my doors locked by themselves. scared the beejeebus out of me.

[Syn7]

once, i left my mothers cemetary and as i was driving out of it my doors locked by themselves. scared the beejeebus out of me.


You aren't claiming this as a paranormal experience though, right?

[Drake]

I'm actually angry with myself for ever believing any of that crap when I was younger.

[Syn7]

When we are young we want to believe therefor we do. Many grow out of it and take a critical position, others never let go of that comfort zone. Rather than be angry that you were led astray as a youth, be happy that you had the wherewithal to ask the right questions in order to gain a broader perspective. A lot of people think that believing the unlikely is what an open mind is, they have no idea of what they are missing. As a scientist you have to be open to the idea that there will be things you can't explain, but you also have to follow the evidence. In this case, all the evidence is either inconclusive or outright flawed. To believe based on inconclusive evidence is actually being closed minded. Some will never get that though, they are far too entrenched in the comfort zone bubble they have created for themselves. Self delusion is a ***** like that.

[pazman]

Boo!
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Music/Pix/pictures/2009/1/22/1232636376890/Ghost-002.jpg

[Syn7]

"Bill Nye, do you believe in ghosts? NO, however, I'd love to see one."

Too many people confuse skepticism with cynicism. A skeptic mind as in open mind... by definition. In the frontiers of the sciences, being wrong is often more exciting than being right.

Everybody has the right to an opinion, but they do NOT have the right to have that opinion respected. This is especially true when offering nothing but an opinion.

[hskwarrior]

You aren't claiming this as a paranormal experience though, right?

No, sorry i know better than that. I WAS IN FACT controlled by alien life forms concerned over my well being. But i would still love to hear your thoughts on what you think just locked my doors. can you 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt prove it wasn't?


When we are young we want to believe therefor we do. Many grow out of it and take a critical position, others never let go of that comfort zone.

This seems to bother you more than the average person. of course you'll deny it. tis very stereotypical of your types.


A lot of people think that believing the unlikely is what an open mind is, they have no idea of what they are missing.

not everything can be proven with science. not yet at least. I'd take unlikely over "it just didn't happen". at least you know you can't say for sure if it did or not.


One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

Fits you to the T buddy boy. it was generally accepted that the earth was flat too for a time. can you imagine how they felt when they realized just how wrong they were? i know you can.


To believe based on inconclusive evidence is actually being closed minded. Some will never get that though, they are far too entrenched in the comfort zone bubble they have created for themselves.

No no....thats your ego. See, you're even speaking for those ....fuk i don't even know who you're referring to since there's only 3 people involved with this thread. LOL. see you have the choice not to believe based on science. I chose to believe my experience while always knowing there are people who fake stuff because they're low lifes. so while science has no concrete answer.....i'll continue to know and experience things some people are just to dense to comprehend.


Everybody has the right to an opinion, but they do NOT have the right to have that opinion respected. This is especially true when offering nothing but an opinion.

Vice versa...Capish?

[Syn7]

But i would still love to hear your thoughts on what you think just locked my doors. can you 100% beyond the shadow of a doubt prove it wasn't?

No, but as a person who's education is covers the process used in door locks, I can tell you that if they are powered locks, it's a no brainer. If they are mechanical locks, I don't believe you that all of them locked at the same time with no physical force acting upon them.

And jesus told me again this morning that you are full of ****.

YOU CAN'T DEBUNK THAT!!!

Man, we have been through this like 10 times now. COME ON!


For the rest...

Wow.

I'm sorry, I'm not even going to dignify that with a point to point response.

Maybe somebody else can show you where you have utterly failed. I couldn't be bothered anymore. I tried to even walk you through the things you ask of me and you were unwilling to put in the work the whole time. Real science is hard work, bull**** is easy. If you aren't willing to understand, don't ask.

[Syn7]

And the opinions I offer have tons evidence supporting them... or lack thereof.

Yours have none. That's the difference. And you asking me to show you all this evidence demonstrates your deep lack of understanding of what it is we're talking about here.

[hskwarrior]

No, but as a person who's education is covers the process used in door locks, I can tell you that if they are powered locks, it's a no brainer. If they are mechanical locks, I don't believe you that all of them locked at the same time with no physical force acting upon them.

And jesus told me again this morning that you are full of ****.

if he told you that he was only feeding your never ending ego. LOL you will learn the truth some day. you really will. i promise you. but then again, according to you we just die and that's it. hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahah

does it matter to me if you don't believe me? nope. you're spiritually dead. what waits for you on the other side isn't meant for you.


And the opinions I offer have tons evidence supporting them... or lack thereof.

none of it amounts to sh1t.


Yours have none. That's the difference. And you asking me to show you all this evidence demonstrates your deep lack of understanding of what it is we're talking about here.

who are you and what does your opinion matter in the bigger scheme of things? absolutely nathin. you're just a naysayer wanna be know it all. it must suck to be so spiritually dead.

[hskwarrior]

But syn,

i won't fault you on being spiritually dead. you chose this life and all it had to offer for whatever it had to offer you as an individual in this existence. perhaps you were on the other end of the spectrum in past lives. in all there is there's a balance. some things are not meant for you to experience but your scientific ego can't wrap itself around this idea.

So is mother's intuition fake too? would you tell your mother the same things you told me? LOL. :rolleyes:

[bawang]

if ghosts are real, the black ghosts and white ghosts would be fighting all the time, flipping tables throwing chairs. America seems pretty peaceful to me.

[Drake]

So, people claiming to have the "real truth" and telling people they need to "wake up" are the same people calling people arrogant?

Aw-righty...

[hskwarrior]

if ghosts are real, the black ghosts and white ghosts would be fighting all the time, flipping tables throwing chairs. America seems pretty peaceful to me.

yup at denny's, mickey d's, burger king. america is peace

[sanjuro_ronin]

I think you are off base on the Wright brothers. They believed it possible for Man to fly and asserted that and then went on to evidence it by showing it through application. It was not a new thing by the Time the Wright brothers got hold of it. Leonardo fashioned a workable hang glider after all. Powered flight is where the Wright brothers made the departure.

What is it that cannot be evidenced that can be asserted? Not much really.
And if it is asserted without evidence, it can be dismissed in the same manner. It is that simple. It is really as simple as, if there is no proof, then come back when you have some and your assertion will be considered.

If someone asserts the existence of a deity, I would refute that as a belief. I believe it, but I can't evidence it. I can't evidence mine or anyone else's god at all. But I don't assert it to anyone that mine is real etc. I can only assert that I believe.

I am completely okay with the statement because it mete's out factually and actually. And whether an individual lacks the evidence is different from whether or not there actually is any at all.

IMO, the issue is dismissing something outright simply because there may be no evidence for it, especially when we have not set out definite parameters for evidence.

[David Jamieson]

IMO, the issue is dismissing something outright simply because there may be no evidence for it, especially when we have not set out definite parameters for evidence.

I would think that would be a combination of senses and direct observation wouldn't you?

I mean, as an example, we find planets in other solar systems through observation, use of mathematical skills, hypothesis and finally experiments that prove or disprove.

I think the parameters of what constitutes "evidence" are available readily. It's why you could say "that man killed my dog" but if you have no record of purchasing a dog, no one has ever seen you with a dog, and there is no body of the dog then you cannot bear witness against a person for lack of evidence. In essence, evidence is that which is used to prove or disprove something and if neither can be done, it must be relegated to the subjective position of speculation, conjecture or belief.

[Lucas]

i don't claim that my experience was a ghost. but to this day i have yet to find an explanation as to how that baby moved. completely impossible for it to move itself. cant even walk, let alone climb. maybe the more 'rational' explanation is that a baby moving ninja stopped by the house. it would have to be some sort of ninja because he would have to have entered on a second story window with a sheer climb, because the steps leading up stairs shoot off from the living room, where we were sitting. there was without a doubt, no people in that house besides us.

i'd love to hear some theories though. lay it on me!

[Syn7]

Maybe it wasn't really a baby! :eek: Or maybe the baby is the ninja.

:eek:

BOOM, I just blew your mind!!!



:p

[Lucas]

MY MIND HAS BEEN BLOWN!!!!

to me ghosts, aliens, angels, gods, god, heaven, hell, etc. are all on a level playing field with each other. IMO i dont see any way i can believe in anyone unproven aspect over another. to me you either believe in the possibility or you dont. i do believe that anything is possible. after all what would a ghost be besides another form of energy. energy in many forms is a proven thing. so its not so far fetched to think that the energy that sustains us, when our bodies no longer can hold it, transforms in more than one way.

actually it makes more sense that the transferance and transformation of that energy would not consistently occur the exact same way every single time. that is against the way of nature itself.

[Syn7]

Maybe if we can define consciousness, then we can move on to what happens to it when the brain stops working.

Maybe we don't actually think, maybe we just think we think and really when we are thinking it's a predetermined thought created by our physical reality.

Hold on... lemme get some drugs, I'm sure I can figure this one out!!!

[Lucas]

lol drugs.

I decided a long time ago not to put much energy into it. As really, I don't care all that much. Either i'll learn more when i pass on, or I wont.

All I know is i'm really going to miss lucious booty when im dead, so I hope there is some of that later on.

[SoCo KungFu]

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the assertion may still be correct and we have dismissed based on a perceive bias that comes from an "incomplete understanding" of what we call "reality".


The wright brothers asserted that man could fly and up until the day they did, that asserted that without any evidence and , according to the "Hitchens razor", they are to be dismissed without any need for evidence to dismiss them.
Which many did, to which they were ALL proved wrong.

My point is to dismiss any assertion based on the fact that it lacks or has no evidence should ONLY be applied to things that CAN be evidenced.
Those things that can't be "evidenced"should NOT be dismissed per say BUT we should keep a very healthy sense of "doubt".

I think that the only time we can make "absolute" judgment calls such is outright dismissals is when something has been proven to be "not so" OR when we have a complete and full-proof understanding of how ALL the universe works.

Logically, if this were the case (its not) then yes it would be proper to dismiss the Wright brothers without evidence. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, without evidence there is no logically defensible reason to believe a claim. To do so puts you at a far greater risk of accepting mutually contradictory conclusions. This is exactly what we see with religion and science (aka God of the gaps and all that jazz).

But, luckily for the Wright's, we had plenty of evidence that man could fly. Birds evolved long before man, the evidence of flight was here long before we came around. Kites have been flying in China for how long? All that was required was putting reasoning to work, understanding angle of attack and airflow to create lift. Simple physics. This wasn't without evidence, it was driven by observation!

To your second part. No, that's logically fallacious. In fact, any claim that CAN'T be evidenced, should not even be given the time of day. Its cliche, but this is exactly the point of Huxley's space teapot. You are logically backing yourself into a corner. Either you then accept all claims without evidence or you're engaging in hypocrisy. Without evidence, you have no basis for determining which claims are more valid than others. Again, insert any monotheism (not to bash religion again, its just an easy example).

And frankly, these supernatural explanations are not just intellectually, but spiritually devoid. Where is the imagination? This isn't a question for you, just rhetoric. But do you know how many points of incident light are in a photo or video feed like the ones getting posted here lately? Every single surface in an image is reflecting that light (that's why its in the image to begin with). So, we are going to neglect to question each and every one of the millions of incident rays in favor of something so juvenile as ghosts or aliens?

Talk about boring. An interesting story? How about how the very principle used in taking these photos (reflection and refraction of light), which seem so simple, are the very same concepts researchers use to map the galaxies. We use the same warping of light rays, the same technology in your hands (granted much more elaborate) to age the universe back to the big bang. Its the same bending and stretching of wavelengths that gives us red shift and lets us know that not only is the universe expanding, but doing so at increasing acceleration. Now that is an imaginative story. And yet people here are wasting their time chasing ghosts.....and they call me spiritually empty. Laughable.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Logically, if this were the case (its not) then yes it would be proper to dismiss the Wright brothers without evidence. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, without evidence there is no logically defensible reason to believe a claim. To do so puts you at a far greater risk of accepting mutually contradictory conclusions. This is exactly what we see with religion and science (aka God of the gaps and all that jazz).

But, luckily for the Wright's, we had plenty of evidence that man could fly. Birds evolved long before man, the evidence of flight was here long before we came around. Kites have been flying in China for how long? All that was required was putting reasoning to work, understanding angle of attack and airflow to create lift. Simple physics. This wasn't without evidence, it was driven by observation!

To your second part. No, that's logically fallacious. In fact, any claim that CAN'T be evidenced, should not even be given the time of day. Its cliche, but this is exactly the point of Huxley's space teapot. You are logically backing yourself into a corner. Either you then accept all claims without evidence or you're engaging in hypocrisy. Without evidence, you have no basis for determining which claims are more valid than others. Again, insert any monotheism (not to bash religion again, its just an easy example).

And frankly, these supernatural explanations are not just intellectually, but spiritually devoid. Where is the imagination? This isn't a question for you, just rhetoric. But do you know how many points of incident light are in a photo or video feed like the ones getting posted here lately? Every single surface in an image is reflecting that light (that's why its in the image to begin with). So, we are going to neglect to question each and every one of the millions of incident rays in favor of something so juvenile as ghosts or aliens?

Talk about boring. An interesting story? How about how the very principle used in taking these photos (reflection and refraction of light), which seem so simple, are the very same concepts researchers use to map the galaxies. We use the same warping of light rays, the same technology in your hands (granted much more elaborate) to age the universe back to the big bang. Its the same bending and stretching of wavelengths that gives us red shift and lets us know that not only is the universe expanding, but doing so at increasing acceleration. Now that is an imaginative story. And yet people here are wasting their time chasing ghosts.....and they call me spiritually empty. Laughable.

Now, apply that to the MA and enjoy.
LOL !

[sanjuro_ronin]

So I ask this:
Is personal experience a valid form of evidence?

[David Jamieson]

So I ask this:
Is personal experience a valid form of evidence?

In my opinion, no. At least not if you want others to be convinced.
Personal experience is just that, personal.

You bet application to MA is called for when it comes to evidence.
If this site has taught us anything, it's that! :p

[Lucas]

I think personal experience only matters if you have a method of being able to share that with someone else. Which in most cases, is not possible. However throughout time there have been cases of mass experience. However all we have left in todays world is the records of such events. So looking back most people see these recordings and are not able to justify any type of belief based on the past. If 1000 people all experienced a phenomenon 70 years ago, and at that time no one in that group had a single doubt as to what was witnessed/experienced, that belief stays with them. As time goes forward, people are unwilling or unable to justify having the same belief based on someone elses experience, even if its an entire village. There is always going to be a stronger case to dismiss something, that there will be to solidify the existance of what may have taken place.

[Jimbo]

I think personal experience only matters if you have a method of being able to share that with someone else. Which in most cases, is not possible. However throughout time there have been cases of mass experience. However all we have left in todays world is the records of such events. So looking back most people see these recordings and are not able to justify any type of belief based on the past. If 1000 people all experienced a phenomenon 70 years ago, and at that time no one in that group had a single doubt as to what was witnessed/experienced, that belief stays with them. As time goes forward, people are unwilling or unable to justify having the same belief based on someone elses experience, even if its an entire village. There is always going to be a stronger case to dismiss something, that there will be to solidify the existance of what may have taken place.

This is a good point.

In the end, there are many things that are only experienced personally. All things do not repeat themselves on cue like a performing seal at the zoo. Yes, there are things that require repeatable proof, but to try to corral all things into that category when not everything works that way is unrealistic.

I think we also get hung up on words. "Paranormal,""ghost," "spirit," etc., elicit an immediate, knee-jerk negative reaction out of some people, whereas if there were a more "acceptable" scientific term for it, then the issue would probably not be seen as much of an issue.

The unfortunate thing is when some people say, "If only everyone else would see the world the way it is (meaning the way I do), then all would be right, and the world would be without retards." That's making a sweeping judgment of people without knowing the facts or the people themselves. What you "know" about them is some words typed and posted on the Internet. Yet I also wouldn't go the other way and refer to non-believers/non-experiences as spiritually devoid. Firstly, because
their beliefs are their business as are mine.

One of the mistakes skeptics make is to assume that because someone claims "paranormal" experiences they somehow lack critical thinking abilities, and go for the "tin foil hats", or that they are gullible to every little thing. They come across as pi$$ed off that everyone isn't like they are. And this isn't narcissistic and condescending? "They believe in A; therefore, that means they believe in XYZ." "They mustn't discuss such things because it annoys the hell out of me and is leading to global decadence."

[KungfuCasting]

I can make something similar with a green screen and after effects.
by making the person small blurry and transparant.

But I believe there are other beings that we can not see, but I think this one might be edited.

[hskwarrior]

Yet I also wouldn't go the other way and refer to non-believers/non-experiences as spiritually devoid.

LOL. I'm just talking sh1t to the non believers. i don't care if they believe or not because they will know one day. like i keep saying, what i've experienced was meant for me. everything i've experienced turned out to be very real and i've never thought something was real and it never happened. in most cases, i think just like them. I also know that there is more to existence than what science can explain.

we all have the abilities. most just ignore it or shut it down completely or just pass it off as coincidence. it's their ego's that stand in the way of truth.

[Syn7]

So I ask this:
Is personal experience a valid form of evidence?

Absolutely not. Unless it's demonstrable, that is. If you can repeat your specific personal experience under controls so that everyone else has the same personal experience, then that's a lil different.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Absolutely not. Unless it's demonstrable, that is. If you can repeat your specific personal experience under controls so that everyone else has the same personal experience, then that's a lil different.

Then why do so many skeptics ask for personal experience if it isn't a valid form of evidence?

[Syn7]

If it's a demonstrable, repeatable experience that is shared by all, then that's something else.

What personal experience are you asking about? And what skeptics? Educated people who understand the process? or just dudes on the street who don't believe you for reasons that are just as irrational as your belief?


And for the record, I have never asked for a personal experience as a conclusive form of evidence.


Actually, wait.... define personal experience.
Are all experiences personal? are shared experiences still personal? does it have to be something only you feel/see/whatever to be personal experience? Would watching the sun come up in the morning be a personal experience?

[sanjuro_ronin]

If it's a demonstrable, repeatable experience that is shared by all, then that's something else.

What personal experience are you asking about? And what skeptics? Educated people who understand the process? or just dudes on the street who don't believe you for reasons that are just as irrational as your belief?


And for the record, I have never asked for a personal experience as a conclusive form of evidence.


Actually, wait.... define personal experience.
Are all experiences personal? are shared experiences still personal? does it have to be something only you feel/see/whatever to be personal experience? Would watching the sun come up in the morning be a personal experience?

If someone says that such and such MA move works and it works on YOU, is it evidence that it works? is that evidence at all since it is only personal experience?

[David Jamieson]

I also know that there is more to existence than what science can explain.


To be fair though, this is less and less with each and every day.
Especially now, in this time where learning and accumulation of knowledge is exponential in nature.

[Syn7]

I will say this though, "eye witness" testimony is the lowest form of evidence.

[Syn7]

If someone says that such and such MA move works and it works on YOU, is it evidence that it works? is that evidence at all since it is only personal experience?

If you can make it work, you can make it work. That's that. We hear claims all the time of people saying they can do this and that yet until they show us that it works under reasonable conditions, no... I have no reason to believe them. If it's somebody I trust I may give them the benefit of doubt though.

Reasonable conditions is the key here. If it works on me, that doesn't mean it will work on everyone else.

If I say this product A can turn all metals into gold and then show you it turning iron into gold... all I have shown you is that it turns iron to gold and cannot say I have shown it changes all metals to gold. Feel me?

[Syn7]

If you say the bible works for you, great. Seriously. Have at it. Just don't project your ideals on me and we're good. If you insist that god is real, I require more than just your word that you know that it's true.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If you can make it work, you can make it work. That's that. We hear claims all the time of people saying they can do this and that yet until they show us that it works under reasonable conditions, no... I have no reason to believe them. If it's somebody I trust I may give them the benefit of doubt though.

Reasonable conditions is the key here. If it works on me, that doesn't mean it will work on everyone else.

Understood and agreed.

[hskwarrior]

To be fair though, this is less and less with each and every day.
Especially now, in this time where learning and accumulation of knowledge is exponential in nature.

agreed. i mean look, they just found the god particle. i just don't believe it will happen in my life time

does anyone know an atheist that died as one?

[Syn7]

agreed. i mean look, they just found the god particle. i just don't believe it will happen in my life time

God particle is such a misnomer.

[sanjuro_ronin]

If you say the bible works for you, great. Seriously. Have at it. Just don't project your ideals on me and we're good. If you insist that god is real, I require more than just your word that you know that it's true.

Not really about religion but about ANYTHING that is subjective and to which evidence is, at best, elusive.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I will say this though, "eye witness" testimony is the lowest form of evidence.

Is there any other kind of "direct experience" testimony ??
Even scientific experiments are "eye witness".

[Syn7]

Not really about religion but about ANYTHING that is subjective and to which evidence is, at best, elusive.

I know, we just always end up there. lol. And it is a ghost thread after all. And no disrespect intended, but they are in the same league to me. I have no issue with peoples beliefs, it's their actions I have issue with. Not you, of course. You are always willing to engage in a civilized debate and willing to listen as well as talk and I respect that.

[Syn7]

Is there any other kind of "direct experience" testimony ??
Even scientific experiments are "eye witness".

Yes but they are repeatable which makes them a communal experience that anyone can observe. When they are successful of course. Not every hypothesis works out. I get what you are saying though, which is why I asked for you to define personal experience. I put eye witness in quotations because I meant it as a personal observation. Personal as in nobody, or not everybody, had the same observation. That isn't to say that a personal experience can't be true, just that it isn't evidence to others. Of course you believe your experiences validate your belief in a God, but it's just that... personal. As in not for others.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I know, we just always end up there. lol. And it is a ghost thread after all. And no disrespect intended, but they are in the same league to me. I have no issue with peoples beliefs, it's their actions I have issue with. Not you, of course. You are always willing to engage in a civilized debate and willing to listen as well as talk and I respect that.

Thanks, I appreciate that and view you in the same light :)
Personally I have never seen or experienced anything "paranormal" in the sense of Ghosts and such.
Do I think they exist?
I quess that would depend on what a ghost is of course.
If we are energy and energy can't be destroyed and can only change form then who is to say that when we die out "living energy" becomes "dead energy" and that is what MAY be called "ghosts" or "spirits".
As a christian I certainly believe in life after death and in lifer after, life after death ( the resurrection). Can I prove it? Nope. Is their evidence for it?
Depends on how you view evidence such as NDE and such.
To be honest I have never put much study into NDE and such so...
I am open to the possibility of "restless spirits" of course.
I am also open to the possibility that WC works :D
I am probably delusional !

[Syn7]

I guess that depends on whether consciousness is more than just a product of our brains. If it is, then from what we know today, it has to go somewhere. If it's not, then we know exactly where that energy goes. I haven't personally seen or heard of any evidence suggestion it is more than a product of our physical being, but then that's not my field. Maybe somebody with some medical knowledge can jump in.

Do we think or do we just think we think?:p

[sanjuro_ronin]

I guess that depends on whether consciousness is more than just a product of our brains. If it is, then from what we know today, it has to go somewhere. If it's not, then we know exactly where that energy goes. I haven't personally seen or heard of any evidence suggestion it is more than a product of our physical being, but then that's not my field. Maybe somebody with some medical knowledge can jump in.

Do we think or do we just think we think?:p

Any evidence of a consciousness ?

[Syn7]

Any evidence of a consciousness ?

lol. no.

Evidence that consciousness is more than the sum of of the brains parts. That it can exist outside of our heads. Know what I mean?

[SoCo KungFu]

Then why do so many skeptics ask for personal experience if it isn't a valid form of evidence?

I'm not sure which skeptics you're referring to, but no where in being a skeptic is there a requirement for advanced logical proficiency. Its just a matter of condition that logic and skepticism in many cases coincide.

At any rate, I can only speak for myself and I've repeated until I'm about sick of repeating it. I personally could not care less about "personal" experience. That was the very point that EarthDragon kept missing in that other thread on chi. You could fly me out to the most well set up test site and have me personally witness something, and you may even convince me. BUT its still not proof of the claim, because all it would do is draw my ability to judge evidence, into question.

A hypothesis has to have 2 things to be valid. 1) it must be testable. 2) If true it must actually mechanistically explain the phenomenon in question. Proof must be objective, demonstrable and reproducible under similar conditions.


If someone says that such and such MA move works and it works on YOU, is it evidence that it works? is that evidence at all since it is only personal experience?

Again, no. Its one sample. You are also no longer testing the technique. You are testing my physical ability to respond to the technique. This is why experimental design is so critical. The only way to overcome this type of bias in an experiment is to have an incredible sample size and as many other controls as possible. For example, MMA. There are still variances for skill and athleticism, but this is probably the environment you would find the variance from subject to subject to be the least. And what happens? The same techniques are repeatedly successful. Someone on bullshido did a count a couple years ago on which techniques ended in most submissions. I forget the exacts, but the top 3 were I believe RNC with a sizable majority, followed by armbar and kimura. Triangle was a distant 4th and nothing else was even statistically considerable.

That's not personal experience. That's not even the right question. The matter that is actually important is objectivity. RNC is physically demonstrable. Its quantifiable, we can check the records and count how many sub wins it is responsible for. It is objective, we all can see this qualitative and quantitatively. Its reproducible.

[sanjuro_ronin]

And yet, eye witness accounts and personal experience of those accounts are the foundation and cornerstones of history.
Most ( if not all) we know of the past, especially the ancient past, that we accept as correct, is ( typically) based on eye witness accounts.

[David Jamieson]

And yet, eye witness accounts and personal experience of those accounts are the foundation and cornerstones of history.
Most ( if not all) we know of the past, especially the ancient past, that we accept as correct, is ( typically) based on eye witness accounts.

I have to disagree here again. Mostly the foundations are documentation and extant proof that is corroborative.

We don't accept accounts of the ancient past readily and the history around that changes all the time. It is a living history after all. For instance the Rossetta stone utterly changed how scholars viewed the ancient Egyptian world. the records of kings pharaohs and so in is not exactly clear until the Ptolemy dynasty ending in Cleopatra. This is recorded not only in Egypt, but in Greece and elsewhere as shown by many artifacts that have shown these people to have existed , lived, loved and laboured in those times.

As for the seven arts and sciences, grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. These are tools to finding truth that overshadows whatever someone wants to say and we use them regularly to explain the world around us in terms that are very real an universal.

Ultimately, with people, we lose sight of the lesson in favour of celebrating the person who gave it. In my opinion, this is an error as the teachings are universally more important than the teacher. the teacher can be noted, and is throughout history but I think this nod that I mention about the lesson being the value is what causes people to attribute the lesson to a fictitious character.

For instance, Socrates. It doesn't matter if he existed or not, what matters is that the many of lessons he is attributed with putting forth are universal truths in context with humanity and not just in his day.

The same is true of other people and figures in time. Isaac Newton as a person has no relevance for me. I never knew him of course, but I benefit from the universal truth he bestowed upon us all. (Also there is well documented and corroborative evidence of his physical existence, but that is not relevant case in point).

Many of us don't accept that "America won WW2" because we know that it was actually the Soviets who beat Hitler. It wasn't Britain, though they certainly helped, as did all the Allies, but the real work and highest losses to achieve it came from the Soviets.

We know for a fact that Hitler didn't kill him self in that bunker because the body the Russians had that was allegedly his from that day with the bullet hole intact was in fact a woman. Historically, we pretend "we got him" but actual truth is unknown. So in that sense I understand what you are saying about people accepting what amounts to untruths as history. It's easier to move on if you fill the void where information is lacking seems to be the trend.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I have to disagree here again. Mostly the foundations are documentation and extant proof that is corroborative.

We don't accept accounts of the ancient past readily and the history around that changes all the time. It is a living history after all. For instance the Rossetta stone utterly changed how scholars viewed the ancient Egyptian world. the records of kings pharaohs and so in is not exactly clear until the Ptolemy dynasty ending in Cleopatra. This is recorded not only in Egypt, but in Greece and elsewhere as shown by many artifacts that have shown these people to have existed , lived, loved and laboured in those times.

As for the seven arts and sciences, grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy. These are tools to finding truth that overshadows whatever someone wants to say and we use them regularly to explain the world around us in terms that are very real an universal.

Ultimately, with people, we lose sight of the lesson in favour of celebrating the person who gave it. In my opinion, this is an error as the teachings are universally more important than the teacher. the teacher can be noted, and is throughout history but I think this nod that I mention about the lesson being the value is what causes people to attribute the lesson to a fictitious character.

For instance, Socrates. It doesn't matter if he existed or not, what matters is that the many of lessons he is attributed with putting forth are universal truths in context with humanity and not just in his day.

The same is true of other people and figures in time. Isaac Newton as a person has no relevance for me. I never knew him of course, but I benefit from the universal truth he bestowed upon us all. (Also there is well documented and corroborative evidence of his physical existence, but that is not relevant case in point).

Many of us don't accept that "America won WW2" because we know that it was actually the Soviets who beat Hitler. It wasn't Britain, though they certainly helped, as did all the Allies, but the real work and highest losses to achieve it came from the Soviets.

We know for a fact that Hitler didn't kill him self in that bunker because the body the Russians had that was allegedly his from that day with the bullet hole intact was in fact a woman. Historically, we pretend "we got him" but actual truth is unknown. So in that sense I understand what you are saying about people accepting what amounts to untruths as history. It's easier to move on if you fill the void where information is lacking seems to be the trend.

Any "documented" proof we have was written and passed on by...eye witnesses.
In the ancient world there was no better evidence than an eye witness account and the more "involved" the better because they not only passed on "facts" but also "emotions" from the event and that was very important to historians in the ancient world.
The "dispassionate view" that we seem to favour now was NOT the ideal then.

A prime example, since you mentioned Hitler, are the eye witness accounts of the Holocaust.
I have read the works of some of the survivors and the emotional aspect of it is something that is crucial to our understanding of what happened.
An account saying that the Nazi's killed children as well as adults does NOT convey the actual, emotional, description of an eye witness seeing a infant or toddler thrown into a fire pit and the screams of it and it's family as they watch it born alive.

I think that in our pursuit of the "unbiased and detached view" because we, for some reason, feel it is "more valid", we have lost or downplayed the significance of an event..

[David Jamieson]

Any "documented" proof we have was written and passed on by...eye witnesses.
In the ancient world there was no better evidence than an eye witness account and the more "involved" the better because they not only passed on "facts" but also "emotions" from the event and that was very important to historians in the ancient world.
The "dispassionate view" that we seem to favour now was NOT the ideal then.

A prime example, since you mentioned Hitler, are the eye witness accounts of the Holocaust.
I have read the works of some of the survivors and the emotional aspect of it is something that is crucial to our understanding of what happened.
An account saying that the Nazi's killed children as well as adults does NOT convey the actual, emotional, description of an eye witness seeing a infant or toddler thrown into a fire pit and the screams of it and it's family as they watch it born alive.

I think that in our pursuit of the "unbiased and detached view" because we, for some reason, feel it is "more valid", we have lost or downplayed the significance of an event..

The eyewitnesses to the holocaust are corroborative with the evidence. The records, the artifacts that remain and what the allies found. The eyewitnesses are not what make us understand that this event happened, it is the physical evidence of it. the documents that account a final solution, the testimonies of those involved at Nuremberg and the whistle blowers from within Nazi Germany itself. Crikey, there is a whole book that Embarrasses the crap out of IBM because it was their business in Germany that came up with the way to index and catalog the European Jews with the numbers and the punch cards etc. The physical evidence exists and upholds the eyewitness account.

I think we are off on a tangent.

The original premise was that anything that is presented without evidence can be dismissed without it.

I still hold to that. I don't accept History as truth blindly either. There is always three sides to any story and the evidence that supports truth of the matter is the real one despite the telling from one side or another.

Eyewitness is partial. It is not the full evidence of something. there has to be follow up and if there isn't, then it is subject to debate to find the evidence or dismissal.
I would also add, we are not ancient by any stretch of the imagination and there are more educated people now, more scientists, engineers and doctors walking around today than throughout all of history.

Primitive ways of bronze age thinkers do not really apply anymore except where the universal truth holds from their observations.

[sanjuro_ronin]

My point is that, IMO, the eye witness accounts give us far more than the "physical evidence" and that was something that ancient historians realized and tha tis why they prioritized it.
IMO, we have lost something because we have "degenerated" eye witness accounts.

[David Jamieson]

My point is that, IMO, the eye witness accounts give us far more than the "physical evidence" and that was something that ancient historians realized and tha tis why they prioritized it.
IMO, we have lost something because we have "degenerated" eye witness accounts.

The problem with eye witness accounts is that they are subject to being bullsh!t as well. Often serving a biased agenda.

I think we have gained something by necessitating physical evidence to be what gives eye witness accounts any credence.

EDIT: If for no other reason than to eliminate false witness.

[Lucas]

:eek::eek::eek::eek:

[Jimbo]

The problem with eye witness accounts is that they are subject to being bullsh!t as well. Often serving a biased agenda.

I think we have gained something by necessitating physical evidence to be what gives eye witness accounts any credence.

EDIT: If for no other reason than to eliminate false witness.

I do agree with this, especially when it comes to courtroom testimony. You can get ten people who witnessed the same incident/person, and their eyewitness descriptions can all be different. Some only slightly, some maybe way different.

However, since the subject here is the paranormal, many times you simply have no choice but to take personal experience. Different people experience differently, and not everybody has the same reliability or lack of it; meaning, clarity of recall, veracity, etc. Regarding paranormal experiences, I would say that few people have anything to gain by sharing them; quite the contrary, as is evident.

The problem with so-called paranormal events is that, at least in my experience, they don't happen when you're looking for or expecting them. And once something's happened, it *never* repeats itself in the exact same sequence ever again. I've had other people present on more than one occasion who experienced the same thing simultaneously, without any prompting from me that anything was even happening. In fact, it freaked them out, because they clearly knew something was really happening, but it was so far outside of their previous beliefs/experiences.

Of course, by their very nature of never repeating exactly or on cue, these things will remain 'unprovable' according to our current means of understanding or determining solid evidence. It's the nature of the beast, I suppose.

[hskwarrior]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOSb3G53HsA

[David Jamieson]

Not to mention, do you believe in what the schizophrenic sees and hears? It is absolutely real to them and the term schizophrenia and the recognition of it as a mental illness wasn't even around until the late 1800's when people were finally figuring out that perception is not truth. :)

The mind can be deceived, as can ll your senses. Even by your own neuro-chemistry. Hence the paramount importance of evidence to give credence to anything that is being dolled out as true.

[Jimbo]

Not to mention, do you believe in what the schizophrenic sees and hears? It is absolutely real to them and the term schizophrenia and the recognition of it as a mental illness wasn't even around until the late 1800's when people were finally figuring out that perception is not truth. :)

The mind can be deceived, as can ll your senses. Even by your own neuro-chemistry. Hence the paramount importance of evidence to give credence to anything that is being dolled out as true.

This is true, too.

However, what happens in cases where heavy or somewhat heavy physical objects are clearly moved/affected in a blatant, violent manner, without without the aid of: wind, earth movements, hidden strings, animals, inherent instability, differential air pressure, any nearby person, etc., etc.? After witnessing one such incident, the other person seriously suggested to me, "You must have moved it with your mind," suggesting PK (psychokinesis). I don't think so, but who knows. But even involving physical objects, it still remains unrepeatable and therefore unprovable.

[Syn7]

SJ

It's not that eye witness accounts have no value. It's just not reliable evidence and certainly is not proof.

DJ laid it out pretty well though. Either you accept it or you don't. In your field, almost all your evidence is eye witness when it comes to the meat of it, so I see why you place more value on these things. And yeah, we used to put great stock in these accounts. Now look how much we have shown to be wrong in the last few hundred years when we took a more objective approach. People say "look how much is shown to be wrong down the line" but they fail to take into account that we are just barely on the other side of this transition to objectivity. In 200 years, I doubt that argument will hold any weight. It's already losing steam.

[SoCo KungFu]

However, since the subject here is the paranormal, many times you simply have no choice but to take personal experience.

No there's another choice. Disregard the claim. And you've already provided a good reason why...


Different people experience differently, and not everybody has the same reliability or lack of it; meaning, clarity of recall, veracity, etc.

[SoCo KungFu]

Don't get me started on historians. We still have "historians" debating over the cause of the US Civil War....

Its quite clear that for a substantially large portion of historians, there is just simply not the level of proper standards for evidence being put into practice. Not as compared to the hard sciences.

[Syn7]

Don't get me started on historians. We still have "historians" debating over the cause of the US Civil War....

Its quite clear that for a substantially large portion of historians, there is just simply not the level of proper standards for evidence being put into practice. Not as compared to the hard sciences.

Many historians are not objective because their priorities are centered around validating beliefs rather than seeking truth.

[Jimbo]

No there's another choice. Disregard the claim. And you've already provided a good reason why...

So let me ask you: Am I supposed to disregard my own personal experiences? Because I am very clear-minded and know with certainty what I experienced. It isn't 'faith'. It doesn't make me special, and they don't happen all the time. In fact, I rarely if ever even discuss them, but the subject came up here, so...

I'm perfectly okay with anyone not believing. But my experiences remain mine.

[Syn7]

So let me ask you: Am I supposed to disregard my own personal experiences? Because I am very clear-minded and know with certainty what I experienced. It isn't 'faith'. It doesn't make me special, and they don't happen all the time. In fact, I rarely if ever even discuss them, but the subject came up here, so...

I'm perfectly okay with anyone not believing. But my experiences remain mine.

You can believe anything you want, but it doesn't mean it happened. Many people who believe they have "clear unbiased minds" are dead wrong.

How can you be so certain? Where's your evidence? Just saying it, even believing it doesn't make it so.

[hskwarrior]

So let me ask you: Am I supposed to disregard my own personal experiences? Because I am very clear-minded and know with certainty what I experienced. It isn't 'faith'. It doesn't make me special, and they don't happen all the time. In fact, I rarely if ever even discuss them, but the subject came up here, so...

I'm perfectly okay with anyone not believing. But my experiences remain mine.

There's nothing for you to prove to anyone for any reason. as long as YOU know what you experience is not meant for GROUP environments and it was meant for YOU, disregard what the nay sayers feel or believe. it never happened to them because aren't open to allow that to happen. their ego will get in the way because what you experience doesn't conform what they feel is their truth.

Jimbo, you're not alone. I've had my experiences. It also runs in my family. One of my students is really experienced. My aunt has never been wrong about any of her readings for me. i mean to the letter she had everything right. there are so many more people out there that can relate to your experiences jimbo.

these kung fu science geeks can never comprehend these experiences. it just doesn't make sense to them. still, when we have them, we're not as shaken up about it as they seem to be. think about it. we got syn and So Co. look at it this way, its their loss for not being open enough to receive these experiences. its not like only special people have them. we all have them.

my experiences for example. syn and so co and whoever else can jump up and down and cry foul all they want. they can call me a fraud if they wish because regardless of what they say, my experiences are very real. These guys feel left out and unspecial. but i can even teach them how to open up. I've done it with my students who also were skeptical till they had their own experiences that validated everything i've ever told them.

I'm not too worried about what two unknowns think and feel about what was designed to be my personal experience.

[Syn7]

Yeah, all that knowledge crap is so nerdy.

[hskwarrior]

Yeah, all that knowledge crap is so nerdy.

no, its not nerdy. knowledge is power. its YOU that is nerdy. LOL

****, i used to want a son to teach him how to be tough till i got older and realized just how stupid that was. If i had a son today i'd encourage him to be the next bill gates or even higher. nothing wrong with nerdy. its when nerdy get ****y we have the problem

[Syn7]

What do you do for a living?

[Jimbo]

There's nothing for you to prove to anyone for any reason. as long as YOU know what you experience is not meant for GROUP environments and it was meant for YOU, disregard what the nay sayers feel or believe. it never happened to them because aren't open to allow that to happen. their ego will get in the way because what you experience doesn't conform what they feel is their truth.

Jimbo, you're not alone. I've had my experiences. It also runs in my family. One of my students is really experienced. My aunt has never been wrong about any of her readings for me. i mean to the letter she had everything right. there are so many more people out there that can relate to your experiences jimbo.

these kung fu science geeks can never comprehend these experiences. it just doesn't make sense to them. still, when we have them, we're not as shaken up about it as they seem to be. think about it. we got syn and So Co. look at it this way, its their loss for not being open enough to receive these experiences. its not like only special people have them. we all have them.

my experiences for example. syn and so co and whoever else can jump up and down and cry foul all they want. they can call me a fraud if they wish because regardless of what they say, my experiences are very real. These guys feel left out and unspecial. but i can even teach them how to open up. I've done it with my students who also were skeptical till they had their own experiences that validated everything i've ever told them.

I'm not too worried about what two unknowns think and feel about what was designed to be my personal experience.

Agreed, hsk. What I don't understand is why some skeptics come across as so p!ssed off about it. I perfectly understand a degree of healthy skepticism and different world views. But some of these skeptics seem intent on making everyone else conform to their views, and those who don't/won't are somehow (according to them) incompetent. And if the subject is such an annoyance to them, why even open the thread and read about it in the first place???

They have far more in common with religious fundamentalists then they may want to admit.

[hskwarrior]

What do you do for a living?

What does that have to do with the price of tea in china?

[hskwarrior]

Agreed, hsk. What I don't understand is why some skeptics come across as so p!ssed off about it.

it triggers something in them when they can't fathom it but you do because you've experienced it. like i said....EGO is one helluva an enemy.


They have far more in common with religious fundamentalists then they may want to admit.

i think they were those who fiercely believe the world is flat in past lives. all you can do is keep allowing yourself to open up and experience more as it was intended for you alone to experience.

like when SO CO tried to post a link about flashes of light in your eyes. the funny part is the lights we see aren't what the GEEKS think we're seeing. it's nothing like when you see stars from having your bell rung. and i don't have migrains. but i see colored flashes unlike what was described in So Co's link and i've had my eyes checked. i still see these colors which aren't in my normal field of vision. for example, if someone flashed a light from outside into my window and i see that light on the wall? should i call my doctor or just realize that someone with a flashlight was shining the light on my wall.

science doesn't have all the answers.

[Jimbo]

it triggers something in them when they can't fathom it but you do because you've experienced it. like i said....EGO is one helluva an enemy.

And if indeed someone is speaking from a stronger position, they should have no need for condescension. I haven't detected either you or myself stating or implying that anyone with differing world views are mentally incompetent. That's a very strong statement to make about another person that in itself requires unimpeachable evidence.

[Syn7]

You don't have one then? I'm just curious.

Who's mad? Why do you feel the need to project like that?

[hskwarrior]

And if indeed someone is speaking from a stronger position, they should have no need for condescension. I haven't detected either you or myself stating or implying that anyone with differing world views are mentally incompetent. That's a very strong statement to make about another person that in itself requires unimpeachable evidence.

you know its because of a lack of something. The only weapon some people possess is their intelligence and certain people always wanna make you feel like you're not as smart as they are. do they see that? nope. its what they do in their comfort zone. i may have said these fools are spiritually dead out of joking. but the more they go on the more i know their spiritual side is in hibernation or totally ignored.


You don't have one then? I'm just curious.

Who's mad? Why do you feel the need to project like that?

Tea. Price. China. whats that got to do with anything? I'm a street pharmacologist. now what?
what do you do? where do you work?

[Syn7]

And if indeed someone is speaking from a stronger position, they should have no need for condescension. I haven't detected either you or myself stating or implying that anyone with differing world views are mentally incompetent. That's a very strong statement to make about another person that in itself requires unimpeachable evidence.

Who called you mentally incompetent?

I called HSK a retard way back because he was unwilling to facilitate what was needed to meet his demands of answers. Not because he believes in something I do not. SJ believes in stuff I find ridiculous, but we get along fine. I think he's a pretty smart guy. I just don't agree with him.

I also called people retarded who were making MASSIVE assumptions about videos in which they had no references or datasets to refer to. Of course you should know when I say retarded, I don't actually mean mentally deficient. Anyone with half a brain should see that.

[Syn7]

you know its because of a lack of something. The only weapon some people possess is their intelligence and certain people always wanna make you feel like you're not as smart as they are. do they see that? nope. its what they do in their comfort zone. i may have said these fools are spiritually dead out of joking. but the more they go on the more i know their spiritual side is in hibernation or totally ignored.



Tea. Price. China. whats that got to do with anything? I'm a street pharmacologist. now what?
what do you do? where do you work?


I work in research and development. I'm also working on a degree in engineering. One project I'm working on is bringing cheap energy to rural 3rd world communities.

You collect a cheque too, right? I'm just curious as to what your contribution to your community and humanity are as a whole.

You can just say drug dealer. And pharmacologist is the wrong word, pharmacist is what you're looking for. Another indication of your advanced intellect.

I'm not saying this because of some need to feel superior. I call your ability to objectively assess anything like this into question. And in that respect your education and experience does matter.

[Syn7]

And for the record, intelligence is by far the greatest weapon of all.

[hskwarrior]

You can just say drug dealer. And pharmacologist is the wrong word, pharmacist is what you're looking for. Another indication of your advanced intellect.

i actually erased the original and preferred pharmacologist to sound super ghetto idiot. and sell drugs? me admit that on the forum? you're not too bright for being a geek.

of course it is. Geekologist.


I'm not saying this because of some need to feel superior. I call your ability to objectively assess anything like this into question. And in that respect your education and experience does matter.

see, thats where your ego gets your tripped up. you for some reason ASSUME i'm putting what ever you think i think is deep thought behind any of this bs. i purposely don't engage you because of your ego. i'd rather let your rattle off what you do and i just sit back and watch your replies. may the lord take my life tonite in my sleep if i'm BS'ing you. you're too full of yourself which is clearly evident to someone blind deaf and dumb. I'm a CLF guy, you fight my game, i don't fight yours. and my game is to simply telegraph something for you and watch you bite. then i side step your every move which leaves you open.

I don't debate with folks like you. i won't waste my energy especially when its not face to face.

[GoldenBrain]

One project I'm working on is bringing cheap energy to rural 3rd world communities.

Awesome! I wish you all the best towards this very nobel cause.

[hskwarrior]

You collect a cheque too, right? I'm just curious as to what your contribution to your community and humanity are as a whole.

why should what i do for my community be of your concern? As a ranked member of the Chinese masons its part of my duty to work with our community. to work with the at risk kids. I've been working with our community since i was 14 years old. still doing the same thing today. what is it? its not your business. I have nothing to prove. I do what i do.

My accident and recovery has made at least one person get up out of his own wheel chair and walk again. And i'm working on a book in regards to my experience for the people who are newly in the situation i was in. My personal quest to walk again has touched many people's lives. I am currently the inspiration for someone who has breast cancer. She tells me all the time i'm her inspiration to keep the fight going. Since i've met her and knowing my own mother died from breast cancer at the age of 35, i've been promoting and supporting Breast Cancer research.

[hskwarrior]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaEAinJMwHI

[Syn7]

lol... bet you wrote a song bout all that, huh.
You actually did say you sold drugs in a forum. They should be legal anyways. Social issue, not criminal.

I was just being a dick, you didn't have to write all that out. lol. I like the whole "none of your biz(but I'll tell you anyways)" thing. I'm glad you're an inspiring miracle though. :p

You should totally come kick my ass.




Goldenbrain:
I'm no humanitarian. I mean, yeah it's cool that it helps people. But for me the primary driver is that I'm interested. It's not as charitable as you would think. I do it cause I like the work. Not so noble really. But thanx. Yesterday I saw this soccer ball, you play with it for a bit and then you can use it to power your whatever. You can pretty much tap into anything that moves. Some efficient, some not so efficient. I thought the soccer ball was a good idea though. Storage is the real problem.

[SoCo KungFu]

So let me ask you: Am I supposed to disregard my own personal experiences? Because I am very clear-minded and know with certainty what I experienced. It isn't 'faith'. It doesn't make me special, and they don't happen all the time. In fact, I rarely if ever even discuss them, but the subject came up here, so...

I'm perfectly okay with anyone not believing. But my experiences remain mine.

No, you do not know with certainty.

Disregard the experience? No. Disregard your interpretation of the experience? Very much so. Look, I realize you think you covered all the bases. But you haven't. You weren't prepared for an event to happen. And so it is literally impossible for you to have considered all the possibilities because you weren't looking for them. Its just that simple. Add in time and the mind's ability to both alter details and gradually exaggerate claims over time...

I'm not calling you a liar, so don't think that. But I don't believe the events occurred as your recollection tells you they did. Memory by itself simply isn't reliable. What I do find contentious is your choice to pick the low hanging fruit (ghost, spirit, whatever). I find it intellectually lazy. Just being honest.


I haven't detected either you (referring to HSK) or myself stating or implying that anyone with differing world views are mentally incompetent.

Are we reading the same thread?

[SoCo KungFu]

I have nothing to prove. I do what i do.

And then you proceed to show the exact opposite in the very next paragraph....


My accident and recovery has made at least one person get up out of his own wheel chair and walk again. And i'm working on a book in regards to my experience for the people who are newly in the situation i was in. My personal quest to walk again has touched many people's lives. I am currently the inspiration for someone who has breast cancer. She tells me all the time i'm her inspiration to keep the fight going. Since i've met her and knowing my own mother died from breast cancer at the age of 35, i've been promoting and supporting Breast Cancer research.

You know, I was annoyed by this the first time you posted, but I was just going to let it go. But now, it needs to be said. You're **** if you think you can claim this. You DO NOT get to take credit for another man's struggles. I don't give anyone else credit for your recovery other than you. Likewise, you had nothing to do with his. The more you say this, the more it makes you look exactly the opposite of what you claim. You do care very much what people think and you have a lot to prove. Its obvious. He did his own quest, he walked (literally) on his own journey. You have no place there.

[sanjuro_ronin]

SJ

It's not that eye witness accounts have no value. It's just not reliable evidence and certainly is not proof.

DJ laid it out pretty well though. Either you accept it or you don't. In your field, almost all your evidence is eye witness when it comes to the meat of it, so I see why you place more value on these things. And yeah, we used to put great stock in these accounts. Now look how much we have shown to be wrong in the last few hundred years when we took a more objective approach. People say "look how much is shown to be wrong down the line" but they fail to take into account that we are just barely on the other side of this transition to objectivity. In 200 years, I doubt that argument will hold any weight. It's already losing steam.

Don't get me wrong, I am very well aware of the limitations of eye witness accounts, even my own.
It is just that in our haste to have "unbias and unemotional" testimony we tend to forget the VALUE of emotional testimony too.
The physical evidence of the holocaust PROVES it happened BUT the emotional and eye witness evidence allows us to UNDERSTAND why, to understand HOW and to understand what the Jews went through in a way that "un-bias and unemotional" testimony NEVER will.

And History is as much THAT as it is everything else.

IN regards to THIS topic, IMO, eye witness testimony tells us that SOMETHING happened and HOW it was precieved.
That is evidence that SOMETHING happened and evidence of HOW it effected the people involved.
It does NOT, however, CONFIRM or PROVE that, whatever did happen ( and something DID happen) it IS what the eye witness believes it to be.

[hskwarrior]

You know, I was annoyed by this the first time you posted, but I was just going to let it go. But now, it needs to be said. You're **** if you think you can claim this. You DO NOT get to take credit for another man's struggles. I don't give anyone else credit for your recovery other than you. Likewise, you had nothing to do with his. The more you say this, the more it makes you look exactly the opposite of what you claim. You do care very much what people think and you have a lot to prove. Its obvious. He did his own quest, he walked (literally) on his own journey. You have no place there.

ROTFFLMFAO. SO CO is the most retarded bitter b1tch on the face of this planet. i don't give a fuk what you think. the truth is between me and the man who told me i am the reason he got out of his wheel chair. I SAW him walking and his words to me were "ITS BECAUSE OF YOU". say what you want, think what you want. but from the side of the TRUTH.......you are painting a really ugly picture of yourself. you whack ass insanely insecure jealous piece of dookey. hahahahahaha

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/5/6/3/0/0/5/rotflmao-66790972088.jpeg

[hskwarrior]

originally posted by SO CO KUNG FU: You DO NOT get to take credit for another man's struggles.

ME: HAVE YOU EVER HEARD OF A GREATER HATER THAN THIS IDIOT?????????

http://images.sodahead.com/profiles/0/0/2/7/8/7/6/8/3/ROTFLMAO-101294121309.gif

[Shǎguā]

Threads containing hskwarrior provide 100% of daily recommended estrogen.

[hskwarrior]

Threads containing hskwarrior provide 100% of daily recommended estrogen.

This is for YOU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=my7sxZ0KfHU) too.

ps. yes you are!!!!!

[GoldenBrain]

Goldenbrain:
I'm no humanitarian. I mean, yeah it's cool that it helps people. But for me the primary driver is that I'm interested. It's not as charitable as you would think. I do it cause I like the work. Not so noble really. But thanx. Yesterday I saw this soccer ball, you play with it for a bit and then you can use it to power your whatever. You can pretty much tap into anything that moves. Some efficient, some not so efficient. I thought the soccer ball was a good idea though. Storage is the real problem.

I can respect that. At least you know your role and aren't posing. I think as long as the end result gets to the 3rd world cheaply then it'll be a noble cause no matter how anybody feels about it.

I totally agree that storage is the problem. Batteries have got to be improved before we can advance power generation much further.

Unless the soccer ball is filled with tech then maybe it could be adapted to those rodent exercise balls. Just let them little buggers run around for a while and plug it in.

[Jimbo]

No, you do not know with certainty.

Disregard the experience? No. Disregard your interpretation of the experience? Very much so. Look, I realize you think you covered all the bases. But you haven't. You weren't prepared for an event to happen. And so it is literally impossible for you to have considered all the possibilities because you weren't looking for them. Its just that simple. Add in time and the mind's ability to both alter details and gradually exaggerate claims over time...

I'm not calling you a liar, so don't think that. But I don't believe the events occurred as your recollection tells you they did. Memory by itself simply isn't reliable. What I do find contentious is your choice to pick the low hanging fruit (ghost, spirit, whatever). I find it intellectually lazy. Just being honest.



Are we reading the same thread?

Fair enough. We will simply agree to disagree on certain things. As far as the terms 'ghost', etc., I was using them for simplification. It's not intellectual laziness if I don't try to find some type of scientific word for it (if there is any). For lack of a better word or words pertaining to the subject of the thread, I used what I felt was the most apt. Truth is, I don't know if the phenomena were due to a ghost or ghosts or not. And to be truthful, in general I really don't think much about it at all. I find them interesting, but I get the impression they're not as important to me as other people's conforming to your beliefs seems to be to you. Not trying to be contentious, but that's the appearance of it.

And from my observation, it appeared that hsk started responding back to what he felt were slights first directed towards his beliefs/experiences. He doesn't need me to speak for him, and I don't necessarily agree with the way it's done, but I can understand it.

Edit to add: And as for myself, I've never referred to anyone on the forum as mentally incompetent. I said that certain people who think that everyone must conform to their way or the highway are narcissistic and condescending. Of course, this should not bother anyone who doesn't fit that profile.

[Syn7]

Don't get me wrong, I am very well aware of the limitations of eye witness accounts, even my own.
It is just that in our haste to have "unbias and unemotional" testimony we tend to forget the VALUE of emotional testimony too.
The physical evidence of the holocaust PROVES it happened BUT the emotional and eye witness evidence allows us to UNDERSTAND why, to understand HOW and to understand what the Jews went through in a way that "un-bias and unemotional" testimony NEVER will.

And History is as much THAT as it is everything else.

IN regards to THIS topic, IMO, eye witness testimony tells us that SOMETHING happened and HOW it was precieved.
That is evidence that SOMETHING happened and evidence of HOW it effected the people involved.
It does NOT, however, CONFIRM or PROVE that, whatever did happen ( and something DID happen) it IS what the eye witness believes it to be.


In some of the social sciences eye witness accounts do matter. For sure. And we shouldn't view one perspective as the way things went down either. Of course we always do. But then that's why we seek more objective evidence.


A lot of our history is based solely on eye witness accounts and I believe that is a mistake. But the accounts quite often do have value. It's a place to start anyways. Then you can seek out real evidence.

The siege of Alesia, we are pretty sure it happened but there is some dispute about the exact location. Many believe it was Alise-Sainte-Reine, but we don't know for sure and we may never know. And since their was so much activity all over the region, there are artifacts everywhere.

I gotta say though, from a strategic point of view, if it really went down the way people think it did, Caesar was beyond genius. Ballsy move to ring yourself in like that against so many with so little. Modern estimates that the relief force was about double. But there's another good example, because Plutarch said it was 300 thousand. Grain of salt, right. Like look at Marius success at the battle at Vercellae. Were the numbers really that high? or were they inflated for political and patriotic reasons?

[hskwarrior]

I guess some people just naturally suffer from Dikism. but yeah.

how do you prove to someone else that you get preminitions? I don't know of one single person who get's ON DEMAND PREMINITIONS. do you know of any? Mine come random as fuk in both day visions,feelings, or dreams.

How can i prove to you that someone on the other side came to me? How would you explain my describing her physical appearance as well as character without ever seeing her or even a picture of her?

how does a toddler see her grand father at his own wake and she waves bye bye to him when she has no clue what death is about at that age? to be honest, it was closed casket, so how did she even know it was her grand father? was she an idiot for waving to her grandfather even tho no one else saw him? if you think this toddler was an idiot then this is where i have to end that conversation because you are letting your ego blur the truth.

how do you even try to prove something to someone when each case is super random and no telling where and how it will happen?

See, i don't mind you being skeptical because i have nothing to gain be telling you about my experiences. Now, if i just started seeing stuff the never comes true.....sure i need to get my head checked. Also, meeting my story with immediate skepticism is already putting up road blocks. for me, my experiences were very profound and very real. Just because its not reproducible for a bunch of science geeks doesn't make it fake or untrue.

I'm by far not the first person to say i have some psychic abilities so i don't worry what one or two people here think. now, if i'm trying to say to you i can talk to dead spirits who tell me about YOU or say something only you would know....sure be skeptical. if i'm selling my abilities for money, sure be skeptical. if i open a palm reading shop.....of course be skeptical.

but when i say my stuff was personal i'm not trying to say to you i am Miss Cleo and here is my 900 call line. What i am saying is i had an experience. this is what is was and this was the results. It's not like i'm saying i can read your mind or even your future. I can't even do a reading for myself. but what i have experienced on more than one occasion are day visions, dreams, and feeling of things (which every single one came true as per the vision, dream, etc). in addition to those i've also saw auras. can i do that anytime? no. it only happened once. but not on one person or two. See, when that happened, i too was skeptical and thought i might be trippin. but 15 people later, i knew i wasn't trippin and that i was allowed to see that for the first time of my life.

Also, how can i be lying when i said i saw a ufo that was also mentioned later on that night in the evening news? how does that happen? my story can be verified through the person i was with that we did see something that made us say "WHOA, WTF IS THAT?"

Still, at the end of the day, what does my personal experiences have to do with my community or even humanity? I'm not the type of person who has to lie to kick it. no one will ever catch me in a lie making such outrageous claims. I value myself too much than to be putting myself on the chopping block and allow my character to be tarnished in such a manner. Can i reproduce the act of seeing aura's at will? Nope. even tho i know how i still can't see them by trying to see them. it just happened. when it did, i wasn't trying to see aura's. it just happened. just like when i get my preminitions, they just happen. i cannot turn it on or off. they just happen.

would i subject myself to scientific studies based on my claims. yes i would. i find all this stuff pretty fascinating. and if the conclusion came down that i was somehow brain damaged...i'd never open my mouth again. i would just know what i saw was my jacked up mind. still, all of the preminitions i experienced whether sleeping or awake all came true. never had a fake or false experience. ever.

But most importantly, the best you can do is be skeptical and poo poo it. or you can accept it. but we know that won't happen. so again, all you can do is accuse me of lying. your disbelief won't change my truth. this is why if no one believed me, i'm ok with that because i don't know any of you. i won't lose sleep over that. lol

See, i'm doing this here in advance of knowing your reaction and not caring about it. but i taught one of my students how to listen to his soul. some say gut feelings. i call it your soul talking to you. he too was skeptical. but one night after class he was on his way home when he suddenly stopped and turned around and went to the airport based on this feeling he got and he remembered what i taught him. when he arrived at the airport he sent a text to his girl who was supposed to arrive in a few hours. his text read that he was there already waiting for her. immediately after she returned his text saying "great, because i'm already here in baggage claim". it was at that moment he knew i was telling the truth. he even called me while he waited for her and told me about it. so, now i'm expecting your lovely commentary on all this. i'm sure it will be pretty profound.

but oh....just a little forewarning.......IDC if you disagree. you're entitled to do that. but it doesn't mean you're right and i'm wrong.

[Syn7]

Lotta words for somebody who "doesn't care what anyone thinks".

[hskwarrior]

Lotta words for somebody who "doesn't care what anyone thinks".

it never ends huh? pls refer to the first sentence.

[Syn7]

You keep saying you don't care what me and SoCo think... and then you make giant posts that are clearly all about the confrontation regardless of who the intended recipient is.

BTW, we (me and SoCo) are different people. While we may agree on many things, his words are not mine and mine are not his. You seem like you get confused a lil about who said what at some times.

But nah, I'm done with all this repetition ****. You've read what I have to say, I have read what you have had to say. To keep going at this point would make us both idiots. I tried a few angles, even tried to walk you through the process you demanded of me. To keep up with the same **** and expecting different results would be stupid. I'm happy to just be a dick about it from now on. Make fun of the odd video and cherry pick dumb statements to **** on. Whether you notice or not is besides the point.

[hskwarrior]

BTW, we (me and SoCo) are different people. While we may agree on many things, his words are not mine and mine are not his. You seem like you get confused a lil about who said what at some times.

you view is skewed a bit

don't let the door hitcha playyyyyboi

[hskwarrior]

did i mention idc what you gotta say? torta faccia

tootles

[hskwarrior]

here is a video of a noted and respected Neurosurgeon who felt he knew everything about the brain and consciousness until he had acute bacterial menengitis (spelling?). He eventually fell into a coma and coming out of it realizes all he thought was scientifically correct was in fact the opposite of what he knew. He says the mind and consciousness are independent of the brain.

Check out this interview of Dr. Eben Alexander : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYZoX4N5_YQ

[Drake]

I can't see how anyone here can take any sort of scientific discourse seriously when 99% of it is "Check out this youtube clip from BLAHBLAH!"

It's so ri-goddamm-diculous that I don't even know how to start.

It's like... if the person is SO adamant about their ****-poor evidence, horrifically elementary methodology, logical errors that would make a critical thinker's head explode, that they cannot possibly accept that maybe, just MAYBE they were wrong... then WHY BOTHER?

Let's face it... this is confirmation bias, strawman logic, and burden of proof mistakes all compiled into this abomination of stupidity.

And people who don't like being called stupid should STOP ****ING ACTING STUPID.

Thin-skinned lunatics, I tell ya...

[hskwarrior]

:confused: did you say something? :confused:

[bawang]

have u ever had sexy time with ghosts

[Syn7]

I can't see how anyone here can take any sort of scientific discourse seriously when 99% of it is "Check out this youtube clip from BLAHBLAH!"

It's so ri-goddamm-diculous that I don't even know how to start.

It's like... if the person is SO adamant about their ****-poor evidence, horrifically elementary methodology, logical errors that would make a critical thinker's head explode, that they cannot possibly accept that maybe, just MAYBE they were wrong... then WHY BOTHER?

Let's face it... this is confirmation bias, strawman logic, and burden of proof mistakes all compiled into this abomination of stupidity.

And people who don't like being called stupid should STOP ****ING ACTING STUPID.

Thin-skinned lunatics, I tell ya...

They aren't interested in the truth... they are interested in validation.

[SimonM]

I think this is real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIw-wfXp5Vw

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Breath!

HAhahahahahahahahahahahaha

You were joking, right?

[Snipsky]

Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Breath!

HAhahahahahahahahahahahaha

You were joking, right?

uh, no. i'm very serious. that doesn't look like a person to you? what does it look like? it scared me

[SimonM]

It was a person far away and at very low light. The "supernatural" aspects of the video were obviously camera glitches from lack of information.

[Drake]

It was a person far away and at very low light. The "supernatural" aspects of the video were obviously camera glitches from lack of information.

Not to mention that it was just a fun video made by a YouTube publisher.

The gullibility here is disturbing.

[Snipsky]

It was a person far away and at very low light. The "supernatural" aspects of the video were obviously camera glitches from lack of information.

what kind of computer glitch? now i'm curious. i don't like peoples who lie to the publics like that. please, can you point them out so i can see more clearly?

[Drake]

what kind of computer glitch? now i'm curious. i don't like peoples who lie to the publics like that. please, can you point them out so i can see more clearly?

They aren't lying. It's entertainment. The problem is when people like you take it seriously.

It was meant to be a fun video, and you took it seriously.

[Snipsky]

They aren't lying. It's entertainment. The problem is when people like you take it seriously.

It was meant to be a fun video, and you took it seriously.

It was? how can you be sure of that? i watched again. i didn't see anything that said it was for entertainment purposes. you're smart. show me where. i don't see it.

[Shǎguā]

Galileo was a great scientist partly because he wasn't afraid to admit when he was wrong, argues Adam Gopnik, who only wishes some of the people who write to him could do the same.

When you write for a living, over time you learn that certain subjects will get set responses. You're resigned to getting the responses before you write the story.

If you write something about Shakespeare, you will get many letters and emails from what we call the cracked (and I think you call the barking), explaining that Shakespeare didn't write the plays that everyone who was alive when he was, said he had.

If you write something about the scandal of American prisons, you will be sent letters, many heartbreaking, from those wrongly imprisoned - and you will also get many letters from those who you're pretty sure couldn't possibly be more rightfully imprisoned. Sorting out what to say to each kind is a big job. (My wife has a simple rule - be nice to the ones who are going to be getting out).

The oddest response, though, is if you write making an obvious point about an historical period or historical figure, you will get lots of letters and emails insisting that the obvious thing about the guy or his time is completely wrong.

If you write about Botticelli as a painter of the Italian Renaissance, you'll be told sapiently that there was never really a renaissance in Italy for him to paint in. If you write about Abraham Lincoln and emancipation, you'll be bombarded, on a Fort Sumter scale, with people telling you that the American Civil War wasn't really fought over slavery. The Spanish Inquisition was a benevolent, fact-checking organisation, Edmund Burke was no conservative… On and on it goes.

Now these letters and emails come more often from the half-bright, some of them professional academics, than from the fully bonkers or barking.

You can tell the half-bright from the barking because the barking don't know how little they know, while the half-bright know enough to think that they know a lot, but don't know enough to know what part of what they know is actually worth knowing.

Not long ago, for instance, I wrote an essay about the great Galileo, and the beginnings of modern science. I explained, or tried to, that what made Galileo's work science, properly so-called, wasn't that he was always right about the universe (he was very often wrong) but that he believed in searching for ways of finding out what was right by figuring out what would happen in the world if he wasn't.

One story of that search is famous. When he wanted to find out if Aristotle was right to say that a smaller body would always fall at the same speed as a larger body, he didn't look the answer up in an old book about falling objects. Instead, he threw cannonballs of two different sizes off the Tower of Pisa, and, checking to make sure that no-one was down there, watched what happened. They hit the ground at the same time.

That story may be a legend - but it's a legend that points towards a truth.

We know for certain that he attempted lots of adventures in looking that were just as decisive. He looked at stars and planets and the way cannonballs fell on moving ships - and changed the mind of man as he did. We call it the experimental method, and if science had an essence, that would be it.

In 1632 Galileo wrote a great book - his Dialogue On Two World Systems. It's one of the best books ever written because it's essentially a record of a temperament, of a kind of impatience and irritability that leads men to drop things from towers and see what happens when they fall.

He invented a dumb character for the book named Simplicio and two smart ones to argue with him. The joke is that Simplicio is the most erudite of the three - the dumb guy who thinks he's the smart guy (the original half-bright guy), who's read a lot but just repeats whatever Aristotle says. He's erudite and ignorant.

Galileo wasn't naive about experiments. He always emphasises the importance of looking for yourself. But he also wants to convince you that sometimes it's important not to look for yourself, not just to trust your own eyes, and that you have to work to understand the real meaning of what you're seeing.

But on every page of that wonderful book, he's trying to imagine a decisive test - dropping a cannonball from a ship's mast, or digging a hole in the ground and watching the Moon - to help you argue your way around the universe.

There's a lovely moment, it could be the motto of the scientific revolution, when Salviati, one of his alter egos, says, "Therefore Simplicio, come either with arguments and demonstrations and bring us no more Texts and authorities, for our disputes are about the Sensible World, and not one of Paper."

In that essay I wrote about Galileo I compared him to John Dee, the famous English magician, alchemist and astrologer, who was one of his contemporaries who was also a consultant to Queen Elizabeth I, and who read everything there was to read in his time and knew everything there was to know in the esoterica of his time - but didn't know what was worth knowing.

He knew a lot about Copernicus, for instance, but he also spent half his life trying to talk to angels and have demons intervene to help him turn lead into gold.

Well, it turns out that John Dee the magician and astrologer has his admirers - indeed his web pages and his fan clubs and his chatboard, just like Harry or Liam or Justin - and they took up the cause of the old alchemist with me. How dare you knock John, his fans, some of them half-bright, some of them just a little, well, barking, insisted. Wasn't he a formidably erudite man particularly on just those subjects - stars and orbits and falling objects - that Galileo cared about too? Why shut him out of the scientific creed.

Well, that was the point I was making. And it seems to me worth making again - and then again and then again. It just can't be made too often.

The scientific revolution wasn't an extension in erudition. It involved instead what we might call a second-order attitude to erudition - and if that sounds fancy, it just means the human practice of calling bull on an idea which you think is full of it, and being unafraid to do so.

Dee was a learned man - too learned a man, in fact, in whose head all kinds of stuff lodged, some obviously silly and some in retrospect sane, but impacted together like trash in a dump heap. Above all, his work is filled with supernatural explanations - with angels and demons and astrological spells.

Galileo, emphatically did not believe in magic. Galileo has no time for supernatural explanations of any kind - indeed, when he goes wrong, as he did when he rejected the idea that the Moon causes the tides, it's because he resists the right explanation because it just sounds too strange or magical.

Galileo, emphatically did not believe in magic. Galileo has no time for supernatural explanations of any kind - indeed, when he goes wrong, as he did when he rejected the idea that the Moon causes the tides, it's because he resists the right explanation because it just sounds too strange or magical.

John Dee believes in some things that now belong to science - but in a hundred others that don't. And not once in his life did he ever seem to ask the essential question - is this idea bull or is it for real?

The smartest people of his time knew the score. Ben Jonson wrote his play, The Alchemist, about someone just like Dee. And he called his alchemist Subtle, exactly to make the point that you could be very subtle and very silly all at the same time.

History has taught us that science didn't just happen in a burst. Alchemy and astrology evolved slowly and over time into chemistry and astronomy. Galileo even made a buck in his youth by casting horoscopes for rich people.

There were no bright lines. Indeed sometimes science slipped back into astrology and alchemy and superstition and the occult. It's well-known that Isaac Newton spent a lifetime searching for the Philosopher's Stone.

But science never slipped all the way back. This new habit of throwing things off towers to see how fast they really fell, this experimental method, made sure that it couldn't. Truth no longer depended on the prestige, or the intelligence or even the integrity of any one person. That's why Galileo had the last laugh on the inquisitors.

Well, why does any of this matter except to historians and the barking, or half-bright?

It matters because every time we make science more esoteric than it really is, we make modern life - which depends on science - more complicated than it needs to be.

The glory of modern science is that, while only a very few can understand its particular theories, anyone can understand its peculiar approach - it is simply the perpetual assertion of experience over authority, and of debate over dogma.

Galileo looked at stars and planets and the way cannon balls fell on moving ships - and changed the mind of man as he did.

When we insist, as all the wisest child psychologists do now, that every child is like a small scientist, we don't mean that she has esoteric knowledge of a broad range of subjects, or talks to angels, or makes lead into gold.

We mean that she makes a theory about how her blocks are going to fall down and then tests it by knocking them over. And her range of knowledge in that way grows by leaps and bounds.

Science is really just that child's groping, with wings on - no, not with wings on, rather up on stilts, awkward-looking earthbound instruments, that get you high enough to see the world.

There's supposed to be a sign up on the Tower Of Pisa: "Please don't throw things from this tower". That sign is the best memorial that Galileo could ever have.

Of course, I'm not sure that it's actually there. I'll have to go and look.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-22105898

[Syn7]

It was? how can you be sure of that? i watched again. i didn't see anything that said it was for entertainment purposes. you're smart. show me where. i don't see it.

"You can tell the half-bright from the barking because the barking don't know how little they know, while the half-bright know enough to think that they know a lot, but don't know enough to know what part of what they know is actually worth knowing."

[SimonM]

A peculiarity of digital cameras is that a CCD has a threshold below which nothing registers on that pixel. When an object moves across a field with a combination of low light, low resolution and distance it will pass in and out of that threshold. This causes the moving figure to contort and seemingly fade as it moves.

Besides that, the slim man is entirely a construction of creative minds on the web. There is no legitimate mythology surrounding that figure prior to about 2008 or so.

Here's my reference (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/slender-man) for the fictional nature of the slender man story.

I feel safe saying anything coming from something awful / creepypasta and a game by Yahzee Croshaw is not real.

But of course I am part of the Illuminati so I might be lying to you so that I can continue to hide the TRUTHtm

[Syn7]

A peculiarity of digital cameras is that a CCD has a threshold below which nothing registers on that pixel. When an object moves across a field with a combination of low light, low resolution and distance it will pass in and out of that threshold. This causes the moving figure to contort and seemingly fade as it moves.

Besides that, the slim man is entirely a construction of creative minds on the web. There is no legitimate mythology surrounding that figure prior to about 2008 or so.

Here's my reference (http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/slender-man) for the fictional nature of the slender man story.

I feel safe saying anything coming from something awful / creepypasta and a game by Yahzee Croshaw is not real.

But of course I am part of the Illuminati so I might be lying to you so that I can continue to hide the TRUTHtm

Hey, I already trademarked TRUTH. You owe me money you illuminati scum!!! :p

[sanjuro_ronin]

In some of the social sciences eye witness accounts do matter. For sure. And we shouldn't view one perspective as the way things went down either. Of course we always do. But then that's why we seek more objective evidence.


A lot of our history is based solely on eye witness accounts and I believe that is a mistake. But the accounts quite often do have value. It's a place to start anyways. Then you can seek out real evidence.

The siege of Alesia, we are pretty sure it happened but there is some dispute about the exact location. Many believe it was Alise-Sainte-Reine, but we don't know for sure and we may never know. And since their was so much activity all over the region, there are artifacts everywhere.

I gotta say though, from a strategic point of view, if it really went down the way people think it did, Caesar was beyond genius. Ballsy move to ring yourself in like that against so many with so little. Modern estimates that the relief force was about double. But there's another good example, because Plutarch said it was 300 thousand. Grain of salt, right. Like look at Marius success at the battle at Vercellae. Were the numbers really that high? or were they inflated for political and patriotic reasons?

All valid points of course.
We may even have number errors simply because of scribal error.
Of course Historians will point out that what is crucial is that a battle DID happen and that it changed t course of history ( the numbers and exact location being irrelevant).

An example I like to use:
3 guys rob a bank and there are 3 eye witnesses:
1)- They came in at lunch time, went right to a teller, passed her a note, got the money and took off, they were all black and wore dark clothes.
2) -They came in after lunch, yelled for the teller to give them the money and took off, they were east indian and were wearing blue overalls.
3)- They came in at around 1PM, they spoke to the teller and she gave them the money, first 1 left then the other two, they wore one piece jumpsuits that were black and they were dark skinned, maybe hispanic or something like that.

Conflicting? Nope, all were correct in all the details that mattered:
3 men, dark skinned wearing dark overalls, came in between 12 and 1, went to one of the tellers, got their money and left.

The rest and differences were based on the perspectives of the various eye witnesses ( when is lunch hour?, dark skin = what ethnic background?, etc).

Historical accounts tend to be that way also, the "historian" prioritizing what He/She is focusing on at the moment and what He/She thinks is crucial of his/her audience.

[David Jamieson]

Yes, but in the case of the bank robbers, there is corroboration of evidence as well.

There is money missing. There is a note. etc.
So again, the eye witness testimony is only held up by the evidence that there was indeed a crime that took place.

Also historical accounts are often in the form of factual treatises that take both accounts of events into consideration and through factual layout either form a truth or leave the reader to decide. the outcomes are often what delineates the reality of the event that led up to it.

This is how we can understand the migration of Buddhism into China for instance. Without knowing exactly which monk did what, we seethe outcomes in the reality of the practice as it exists.

We can also look at wars in the same light and know that the propaganda and rhetoric was not necessarily the truth of a matter.

Because of this type of thinking, we know the Tokyo firebombings did more damage than the nukes that were used.

Because of this type of thinking and fact collection we know that the Dresden firebombing was an atrocity and so on and so forth. With more ancient information, we have to rely on an archaeological record more so than a written one.

But, with eye witness reports, they only stand up if their is corroborative and supporting hard evidence. Otherwise, they're just a story.

There is a real bank robbery, then there is fiction. both describe a robbery, but only one is real and it can only be found to be real through the supporting evidence.

[SoCo KungFu]

Basically what DJ said. But I would like to add one more piece. This topic isn't about, "did something happen?"

Something happened. That's not the question. The question is, what happened and more importantly, how did it happen?

These questions are the type that eye witness, personal experience, etc. are simply not suitable to answer.

Really, this is where I have a huge issue with historians/theologians/etc, in general. When they attempt to engage in issues regarding mechanistic matters (and I throw in "why and how was XXX ancient city sacked?", "did Jesus resurrect? and how?", etc.) into that category above, then their evidence is often simply not up to standard.

The good ones do as DJ listed above, multiple documents corroborating single facts, etc. But even then, without reproduction (which is almost impossible with history, unless we're talking physical processes), its still a huge assumption.

[Snipsky]

Basically what DJ said. But I would like to add one more piece. This topic isn't about, "did something happen?"

Something happened. That's not the question. The question is, what happened and more importantly, how did it happen?

These questions are the type that eye witness, personal experience, etc. are simply not suitable to answer.

Really, this is where I have a huge issue with historians/theologians/etc, in general. When they attempt to engage in issues regarding mechanistic matters (and I throw in "why and how was XXX ancient city sacked?", "did Jesus resurrect? and how?", etc.) into that category above, then their evidence is often simply not up to standard.

The good ones do as DJ listed above, multiple documents corroborating single facts, etc. But even then, without reproduction (which is almost impossible with history, unless we're talking physical processes), its still a huge assumption.

**** Off Doofus

[Syn7]

Troy and the Trojan war is a good example.

Did Troy exist?
Was there really a war?
If so, who took part in the war?

Etc etc...

[sanjuro_ronin]

You guys have pretty much eliminated the vast majority of ancient history that we have taken as actually happened.
Just saying...

Regardless of how we feel NOW about eye witness testimony, the fact is that the vast majority of recorded history is based on just that and also, it should be clear that in those days, eye witness testimony was value higher because it gave us more than "just the facts", facts that without context or content could be ( and still are) misinterpreted.

[David Jamieson]

You guys have pretty much eliminated the vast majority of ancient history that we have taken as actually happened.
Just saying...

Regardless of how we feel NOW about eye witness testimony, the fact is that the vast majority of recorded history is based on just that and also, it should be clear that in those days, eye witness testimony was value higher because it gave us more than "just the facts", facts that without context or content could be ( and still are) misinterpreted.

I don't know about that SR.

The vast majority of recorded history is based on events.
The events that occured are evident by the results.

For instance, History records that Rome conquered Egypt and ended the reign of the Ptolemy family there with the end of Cleopatra and the end of Egyptian power in the Battle of Actium. After which Egypt was ruled by Rome.

this can be traced archeologically and through not only roman texts, but through corroborating texts as well. the only thing obscured is the details but the reality is the basic fact that it did occur and their is physical evidence to show that.

Same as London. The ancient city founded by Rome. the results of that founding extend into the culture today, a judiciary, a senate, tribunals and so on. The extensions of the former empire leaking into the others is made as clear as the historical influence of Britain on India.

As time progresses, evidence is demanded on claims made. All history aside, in the here and now, this has led to a much more refined way of doing a great deal of things. There is no more alchemy overshadowing chemistry. There are no more shamans overshadowing surgeons and if you make a claim about something, you better have evidence to that claim or you will be dismissed and rightly so.

Personal experience is just that. Eye witness testimony is invalid without exhibits to support it. the exhibits aren't valid without evidential ties to an event and so on. In the end, eye witness testimony alone is simply hearsay.

[sanjuro_ronin]

I don't know about that SR.

The vast majority of recorded history is based on events.
The events that occured are evident by the results.

For instance, History records that Rome conquered Egypt and ended the reign of the Ptolemy family there with the end of Cleopatra and the end of Egyptian power in the Battle of Actium. After which Egypt was ruled by Rome.

this can be traced archeologically and through not only roman texts, but through corroborating texts as well. the only thing obscured is the details but the reality is the basic fact that it did occur and their is physical evidence to show that.

Same as London. The ancient city founded by Rome. the results of that founding extend into the culture today, a judiciary, a senate, tribunals and so on. The extensions of the former empire leaking into the others is made as clear as the historical influence of Britain on India.

As time progresses, evidence is demanded on claims made. All history aside, in the here and now, this has led to a much more refined way of doing a great deal of things. There is no more alchemy overshadowing chemistry. There are no more shamans overshadowing surgeons and if you make a claim about something, you better have evidence to that claim or you will be dismissed and rightly so.

Personal experience is just that. Eye witness testimony is invalid without exhibits to support it. the exhibits aren't valid without evidential ties to an event and so on. In the end, eye witness testimony alone is simply hearsay.

Agreed of course BUT, the evidence would be what without the eye witness testimony to help us understand WHAT happened and WHY.


My point is simply this, we can not discount eye witness testimony as evidence.
That said, eye witness testimony, typically, can NOT be used as PROOF.

[David Jamieson]

Agreed of course BUT, the evidence would be what without the eye witness testimony to help us understand WHAT happened and WHY.


My point is simply this, we can not discount eye witness testimony as evidence.
That said, eye witness testimony, typically, can NOT be used as PROOF.

I can accept that. :)

[Syn7]

Eye witness testimony is evidence. It's just the lowest form of evidence.

[Drake]

Agreed of course BUT, the evidence would be what without the eye witness testimony to help us understand WHAT happened and WHY.


My point is simply this, we can not discount eye witness testimony as evidence.
That said, eye witness testimony, typically, can NOT be used as PROOF.

Actually, much of history is slowly being proven to be different from what those eye-witness testimonies have said.

[David Jamieson]

Actually, much of history is slowly being proven to be different from what those eye-witness testimonies have said.

That's a pretty broad statement, but in essence as we learn more and understand the world around us more, we have a tendency to put down the old thoughts which were often formed out of a need to fill a void.

It builds on itself like we build on ourselves.

Imagine the entire species of humanity is one person.
We start as a baby, ignorant and dependent.
We become a youth, curious an desirous.
We become an adult, firm an forthright.
We grow old, tempered and wiser.

Macroscopically, this applies in a fractal like manner to generational shifts as well.

We can always become more knowledgeable. We can always have room for more. We deny ourselves this by denying truth really and that is the stumbling block of special progress. IMO. :)

[Syn7]

That's a pretty broad statement, but in essence as we learn more and understand the world around us more, we have a tendency to put down the old thoughts which were often formed out of a need to fill a void.

It builds on itself like we build on ourselves.

Imagine the entire species of humanity is one person.
We start as a baby, ignorant and dependent.
We become a youth, curious an desirous.
We become an adult, firm an forthright.
We grow old, tempered and wiser.

Macroscopically, this applies in a fractal like manner to generational shifts as well.

We can always become more knowledgeable. We can always have room for more. We deny ourselves this by denying truth really and that is the stumbling block of special progress. IMO. :)


We do ok when we question old beliefs. When we take them for granted we build off a broken foundation. No matter how good the craftsmanship after that... we still have serious problems.

Thankfully we are in a position now where we can question and criticize old knowledge and not get stretched out on the rack for the trouble.

[Snipsky]

Thankfully we are in a position now where we can question and criticize old knowledge and not get stretched out on the rack for the trouble.

lololololol

[David Jamieson]

Thankfully we are in a position now where we can question and criticize old knowledge and not get stretched out on the rack for the trouble.

Only in a western liberal democracy for the most part, and even then, there is blowback.

people are in jail for criticizing government policy all over the world.
People are burned still for being charged as witches in some places and don't get me started on how many messed up backwards countries dot this world. There's plenty.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Oh I don't think we are as open as we would like to think.
Sure we are open to criticizing "old and outdated ideas", but how open are we to the criticizim of ideas we actually agree with?

[Syn7]

Depends on who "we" is.

You know what I mean though. I was talking about Canada.

You can pretty much get away with criticizing anything here. You may not get elected or not get a job for speaking out, but you won't be thrown in a cage or beaten.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Depends on who "we" is.

You know what I mean though. I was talking about Canada.

You can pretty much get away with criticizing anything here. You may not get elected or not get a job for speaking out, but you won't be thrown in a cage or beaten.

No, we won't be physically assaulted (typically) or incarcerated (typically), but we can lose our jobs, we can be made out to be things we are not.
Trying disagreeing with ****sexuality or gay marriage or be a holocaust denier or try to put forth a view that makes a "special interest" group take note.
Free speech tends to be tolerated when the majority or the "special interest" groups agree with it.
Fact is that we all are bias towards the views and opinions we agree with, that;'s just normal, but we should always be aware that is exactly what we are and not try to pass our views off as unbias or even tolerant when, in reality, they aren't.

[David Jamieson]

No, we won't be physically assaulted (typically) or incarcerated (typically), but we can lose our jobs, we can be made out to be things we are not.
Trying disagreeing with ****sexuality or gay marriage or be a holocaust denier or try to put forth a view that makes a "special interest" group take note.
Free speech tends to be tolerated when the majority or the "special interest" groups agree with it.
Fact is that we all are bias towards the views and opinions we agree with, that;'s just normal, but we should always be aware that is exactly what we are and not try to pass our views off as unbias or even tolerant when, in reality, they aren't.

lol..try being intolerant and in-egalitarian?
No can do Bro, I live in Markham.

first, why disagree with ****sexuality? That in short, makes no sense. It can be shown exactly why the same as how societal hate for gays can be shown to be inculcated over generations into the youth who quite frankly don't know any better.

That persistent message you are given as an infant all the way up to your being socialized with like minded kids in school etc etc.

Anyway, it is an error in thinking to believe that one human being is better than another when it comes to sexual proclivity. Nobody complains about Bolivians and their donkey humping rite of passage tradition.

I think also that people want to understand love on their own terms and by their own limited definition instead of extending it outwards towards the world in a more general sense.

As for marriage, that is a legal binding. There's no reason it should be tied to people's religious beliefs and that is downright silly. Marriage is an economic union and has always been and there are consequences. Why not let the gay folk know the hassle of tax and divorce too? lol

And holocaust denial? That is simply low minded retarded nonsense. People can play with the numbers, but to deny the persecution and murder of Jews in particular along with other "undesirables" was common across Europe actually and it was Hitler and his goofs that made the indelibly stamped memory for the rest of us.

In my opinion, if we don't make the change, we will fall back into out stupid ass ways of hurting people for no other reason than what their preferences are or their religious leanings. And yeah, I think that's unacceptable and would gladly debate anyone that had a capable mind on any of these matters.

the trouble is that anti ****sexuals, anti gay marriage and holocaust deniers etc have a tendency to be locked inside their own point of view and are incapable of any real argument and instead choose to iterate and reiterate their vitriol about what bugs them over and over again and if the current climate of society has them shutting up, good. the can shut the f^%k up. they had their day.

And if they are finally shutting up, maybe they realize the error. Which is a good thing!

[sanjuro_ronin]

Like I said, tolerance of the views we agree on.

[David Jamieson]

Like I said, tolerance of the views we agree on.

But here's the thing, we are talking about living breathing human beings. No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

If we were talking about objects, then yes, absolutely, or conventions, or constructs or political policy etc etc.

But your three things as examples were all about not accepting human diversity. It's not a "view we agree on" it's simple compassion and decency and if people don't have that, maybe they should consult the wisdom from somewhere else in order to obtain it.

[sanjuro_ronin]

But here's the thing, we are talking about living breathing human beings. No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

If we were talking about objects, then yes, absolutely, or conventions, or constructs or political policy etc etc.

But your three things as examples were all about not accepting human diversity. It's not a "view we agree on" it's simple compassion and decency and if people don't have that, maybe they should consult the wisdom from somewhere else in order to obtain it.

According to YOUR view and what YOU view as something that should be accepted and tolerated.
My point is that we are biased in what we tolerate and what we view as worth tolerating and accepting and bias in regards to people that don't agree with our views.

You have to be careful when you make a broad statement like this:

No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

[David Jamieson]

According to YOUR view and what YOU view as something that should be accepted and tolerated.
My point is that we are biased in what we tolerate and what we view as worth tolerating and accepting and bias in regards to people that don't agree with our views.

You have to be careful when you make a broad statement like this:

I disagree. That broad statement is applicable in virtually all formats.
Punishing a known criminal is not oppression, it is C&P. Now, how we practice C&P has changed considerably over the years and this is due entirely to well...growth, learning an acceptance of differences as well as developing a more compassionate view towards our fellow creatures in particular to our fellow humans.

If someone holds the view that it is ok to oppress others, or enslave them or to exclude them, then I have to say, that I am confident that the right view is the on that sees everyone happy.

People who hold bitterness in their hearts towards others because of someone else's experience and belief that they somehow adhere to are in a state of error in my opinion.

It is wrong to harm others who bring no harm to you. Jews didn't bring harm to Hitler, he had no place in commanding the orders to do what was done and not a single one of the Nazis who carried out those atrocities had any place doing it either on moral grounds or on common sense grounds.

We cannot just allow every hateful and broken minded person to run around and dictate that we should also hate and then wear some silk around our hate as if it's sacred or something.

But if you can provide an example that you think is reflective of where it is ok to oppress someone else because of your viewpoint, I am willing to argue it out or accept it. It's not all case by case. Simple human compassion is common sense to me. Simple human hate has got to go in the garbage bin as far as I'm concerned. It doesn't help anything along. The more we diminish hate and intolerance based on insubstantial viewpoints with no real validity the better.

Love your enemy man. I don't see many people doing this even in that context of it.


EDIT: Accommodating hate is not respecting a point of view. It's foolish.

[sanjuro_ronin]

We oppress behavior that we find immoral or harmful all the time.
You said:
No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

Yet we "oppress" anti-social behaviour all the time.
We "oppress" activities that we have deemed incorrect or harmful all the time.
We "oppress" hate speak all the time.

[David Jamieson]

We oppress behavior that we find immoral or harmful all the time.
You said:
No one and I mean no one has any right whatsoever in any context to oppress anyone over anything.

Yet we "oppress" anti-social behaviour all the time.
We "oppress" activities that we have deemed incorrect or harmful all the time.
We "oppress" hate speak all the time.

Now you are splitting hairs.

anti-social behaviour is generally harmful to someone else. We diminish the spread of harm. We are not oppressing and already oppressive thought form that seeks to bring harm.

We don't oppress incorrect or harmful activities. We seek to impede them.
Oppression is generally viewed as something that is morally incorrect.

We shut down hate speak. It's harmful.

Honestly, I really don't think you're advocating for harm in society to be accepted because it's someone's point of view.

In short and by definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

Burdensome, cruel and unjust is not acceptable. That's not just a point of view, those are words that anyone can live by and in doing so be good.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Now you are splitting hairs.

anti-social behaviour is generally harmful to someone else. We diminish the spread of harm. We are not oppressing and already oppressive thought form that seeks to bring harm.

We don't oppress incorrect or harmful activities. We seek to impede them.
Oppression is generally viewed as something that is morally incorrect.

We shut down hate speak. It's harmful.

Honestly, I really don't think you're advocating for harm in society to be accepted because it's someone's point of view.

In short and by definition: Oppression is the exercise of authority or power in a burdensome, cruel, or unjust manner.

Burdensome, cruel and unjust is not acceptable. That's not just a point of view, those are words that anyone can live by and in doing so be good.

Just playing devil's advocate here.
You say tomato and I say Tomahtoe...

Oppression by any other name...

My point stands, we are bias in our views and we will oppress what we agree is incorrect based on that bias far more and far more quicker than what is outside that bias.

100 years ago we would "oppress" women in the work force and now we don't.
The only thing that changed was that the bias against women was overruled by the fact that we could get cheap labour :D

[David Jamieson]

Just playing devil's advocate here.
You say tomato and I say Tomahtoe...

Oppression by any other name...

My point stands, we are bias in our views and we will oppress what we agree is incorrect based on that bias far more and far more quicker than what is outside that bias.

100 years ago we would "oppress" women in the work force and now we don't.
The only thing that changed was that the bias against women was overruled by the fact that we could get cheap labour :D

Love and compassion will always beat evil and fear.
I have taken that to the bank on more than one occasion. :)

[sanjuro_ronin]

Love and compassion will always beat evil and fear.
I have taken that to the bank on more than one occasion. :)

Great, now you just reminded me of Steven Seagal in Hard to kill !
:mad:

[Syn7]

No, we won't be physically assaulted (typically) or incarcerated (typically), but we can lose our jobs, we can be made out to be things we are not.
Trying disagreeing with ****sexuality or gay marriage or be a holocaust denier or try to put forth a view that makes a "special interest" group take note.
Free speech tends to be tolerated when the majority or the "special interest" groups agree with it.
Fact is that we all are bias towards the views and opinions we agree with, that;'s just normal, but we should always be aware that is exactly what we are and not try to pass our views off as unbias or even tolerant when, in reality, they aren't.

Must be fun being a neo con in a progressive society. It's amazing how intolerant some progressives can be. I guess in some ways we are all intolerant. But atleast some people put in the effort.

[Syn7]

lol..try being intolerant and in-egalitarian?
No can do Bro, I live in Markham.

first, why disagree with ****sexuality? That in short, makes no sense. It can be shown exactly why the same as how societal hate for gays can be shown to be inculcated over generations into the youth who quite frankly don't know any better.

That persistent message you are given as an infant all the way up to your being socialized with like minded kids in school etc etc.

Anyway, it is an error in thinking to believe that one human being is better than another when it comes to sexual proclivity. Nobody complains about Bolivians and their donkey humping rite of passage tradition.

I think also that people want to understand love on their own terms and by their own limited definition instead of extending it outwards towards the world in a more general sense.

As for marriage, that is a legal binding. There's no reason it should be tied to people's religious beliefs and that is downright silly. Marriage is an economic union and has always been and there are consequences. Why not let the gay folk know the hassle of tax and divorce too? lol

And holocaust denial? That is simply low minded retarded nonsense. People can play with the numbers, but to deny the persecution and murder of Jews in particular along with other "undesirables" was common across Europe actually and it was Hitler and his goofs that made the indelibly stamped memory for the rest of us.

In my opinion, if we don't make the change, we will fall back into out stupid ass ways of hurting people for no other reason than what their preferences are or their religious leanings. And yeah, I think that's unacceptable and would gladly debate anyone that had a capable mind on any of these matters.

the trouble is that anti ****sexuals, anti gay marriage and holocaust deniers etc have a tendency to be locked inside their own point of view and are incapable of any real argument and instead choose to iterate and reiterate their vitriol about what bugs them over and over again and if the current climate of society has them shutting up, good. the can shut the f^%k up. they had their day.

And if they are finally shutting up, maybe they realize the error. Which is a good thing!

Usually it's just excuses to justify their bigotry. Whether intended or not, learned early or acquired later. Intention is irrelevant to this point. When you cherry pick to disagree, you stand on very shakey ground. I mean if we wanna follow leviticus, who isn't going to hell in todays world? You like bacon, wear mixed textiles? both just as bad as ****sexuality according to that particular book/section.

[hskwarrior]

https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/75633_10151113842722732_1747122625_n.jpg

[sanjuro_ronin]

Must be fun being a neo con in a progressive society. It's amazing how intolerant some progressives can be. I guess in some ways we are all intolerant. But atleast some people put in the effort.

Indeed.
I know a few conservatives that are so frustrated with society and then again I know quite a bit of liberals that are the same.
Personally, I understand that society is what tends to dictate what is to be tolerated and accepted at any given time, history has taught us that.
I think we LIKE to think we are progressive because, compared to generations of the past, we are more accepting of what THEY were intolerant about.
I guess that is one way to "define" progressive.
I am sure for the guys at NAMBLA society is NOT progressive enough.
I worry sometimes that, in our rush to do things that we THINK we should we forget to think IF we should.
So far we have had our ups and downs through out history BUT I think we have hit the mark MORE than we have missed.

I recall on a friend of mine got AIDS and because he was Gay, how shunned he was by his family. Now, they spoke to him and they didn't "disown" him or what not, but there was such a lack of compassion and love.
They tolerated him.
It was not a pleasant thing to see.
I remember his BIL asking me if I was gay because I knew him and because I gave him a kiss on the cheek.

We have come a long way in many things and still have so much to further to go and I, for one, have much hope and faith in humanity.

That said, I have no delusions about the simple fact that we don't always do what is best for us as a society in the long run.

[GeneChing]

But you know me - I just can't resist a half-decade old ttt.


Uber's 'ghost drivers' scaring passengers out of rides and money (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/sep/22/uber-ghost-drivers-zombie-profile-pictures)
Chinese drivers use zombie-like profile pictures in scam to trick users into paying a cancellation fee
Samuel Gibbs
Thu 22 Sep 2016 06.51 EDT Last modified on Tue 21 Feb 2017 12.14 EST

https://i.guim.co.uk/img/media/7fd6bcacb9394eb67def668f6ff3cd9278017186/0_169_3500_2100/master/3500.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&
A boy dressed as a zombie gestures at a taxi driver

Drivers in China are using Uber to scam passengers out of money posing as the dead. Photograph: Stringer/Reuters
China has a so-called “ghost driver” problem, with Uber passengers being scammed out of rides and money, fearful of being picked up by what looks like a zombie.

According to local reports, pick-up requests are being met by Uber drivers using zombie-like profile shots to scare would-be passengers into cancelling their rides, which means the driver is paid a small cancellation fee.

When the passenger books the ride they are shown a profile photo, numberplate and other bits of information about the driver. Given fears over the safety of so-called ride-sharing systems such as Uber, its understandable that when a creepy-looking profile of the driver pops up to confirm their pickup that many passengers simply cancel the request.

Should the passenger carry on with the journey regardless of the deathly face staring at them on their phone, the ghost drivers will also claim that the passenger has entered the vehicle and cancel it a short time after, again charging the customer a small fee.

According to a statement given to Chinese media, Uber is aware of the problem and is in the process of collecting evidence and user reports.

The company said that it has a “zero-tolerance attitude to scamming behaviour” and that it was refunding those scammed and was using technology to try to combat the scammers. It recently introduced facial-recognition technology in an attempt to reduce driver fraud in China, which confirms that the driver’s face matches the one the company has on file.

“We have taken immediate actions and banned these reported individual fraud accounts while continuing to investigate and crack down on any fraudulent behavior to protect rider and driver interests,” an Uber spokesperson told Quartz.

Uber and local rival Didi Chuxing merged at the start of August, leaving the new Uber-branded service with control of the new app-assisted taxi industry in the country. The merger saw Uber hand over its to Didi in exchange for a 20% stake of the company.

This is kind of brilliant actually - well, it was until Uber caught on...:rolleyes: