Page 5 of 11 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 164

Thread: Ghosts and other Paranormalities

  1. #61
    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?
    Last edited by Syn7; 04-10-2013 at 01:11 PM.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by Syn7 View Post
    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?
    Any evidence of a consciousness ?
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    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?

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Corner of somewhere and where am I
    Posts
    1,322
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    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.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    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.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  6. #66
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    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.
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    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..
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    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.
    Last edited by David Jamieson; 04-11-2013 at 06:00 AM.
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Ontario
    Posts
    22,250
    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.
    Psalms 144:1
    Praise be my Lord my Rock,
    He trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle !

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Quote Originally Posted by sanjuro_ronin View Post
    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.
    Last edited by David Jamieson; 04-11-2013 at 08:24 AM.
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Midgard
    Posts
    10,852
    For whoso comes amongst many shall one day find that no one man is by so far the mightiest of all.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    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.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    10,561
    Blog Entries
    6

    Nde

    Hung Sing Boyz, we gottit on lock down
    when he's around quick to ground and pound a clown
    Bruh we thought you knew better
    when it comes to head huntin, ain't no one can do it better

  14. #74
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    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.
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    CA, USA
    Posts
    4,900
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •