127 replies to this topic

[Order66]

I think the hypothesis is self-defeating because by definition spirit is disconnected from the physical. So even if you show physical evidence, what's the causal connection between physical and non-physical?

[Arbitran]

Vein Capital, on 21 September 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

I think the hypothesis is self-defeating because by definition spirit is disconnected from the physical. So even if you show physical evidence, what's the causal connection between physical and non-physical?

You see, I'm not talking about non-physical spirits, but what physical object or process might explain the phenomenon of "spirits". Of course, by definition, non-physical equates to non-existent. (I'll of course probably be met with opposition on that point, but that's my stance.)

[Professor T]

Vein Capital, on 21 September 2012 - 08:21 AM, said:

I think the hypothesis is self-defeating because by definition spirit is disconnected from the physical. So even if you show physical evidence, what's the causal connection between physical and non-physical?

Doh!
And the thread collapses into the etheric.. Lol..
And science shrugs and walks away..
Good point though, but that doesn't explain a whole raft of Photographic evidence, witness statements, and countless millions of people who have had first hand experience..

[Order66]

Arbitran, on 21 September 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

You see, I'm not talking about non-physical spirits, but what physical object or process might explain the phenomenon of "spirits". Of course, by definition, non-physical equates to non-existent. (I'll of course probably be met with opposition on that point, but that's my stance.)

Professor T, on 21 September 2012 - 08:29 AM, said:

Doh!
And the thread collapses into the etheric.. Lol..
And science shrugs and walks away..
Good point though, but that doesn't explain a whole raft of Photographic evidence, witness statements, and countless millions of people who have had first hand experience..

I'm not trying to discount all of that, but even if you can make the skeptic admit that ( for example ) such-and-such video isn't fake, these books did fly off the shelf, these sounds on the audio are real, that doesn't mean they're required to posit an supernatural explanation just because there is lack of another. if the skeptic still says, "I admit this physical phenomenon is real, but how do you know that a non-physical entity caused it?" then I think that is a valid reply. I don't think anyone's obliged to accept to theorize a non-physical cause just because a physical explanation is lacking.

[Rlyeh]

White Unicorn, on 21 September 2012 - 12:01 AM, said:

I don't have an  argument, I'm just making a point and I don't know how to make that point clear to you.

Kirlian wasn't around thousands of years but ancients spoke of plants and severed limbs that still had an aura (vaporous light or field) that could be observed. FACT-Kirlian and the photo of the leaf shows this same effect today observed centuries later. It is repeatable.

So basically you've found something in science that is *similar* to a superstitious belief you hold, therefore they are the same phenomena.

[Emma_Acid]

Arbitran, on 21 September 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

You see, I'm not talking about non-physical spirits, but what physical object or process might explain the phenomenon of "spirits". Of course, by definition, non-physical equates to non-existent. (I'll of course probably be met with opposition on that point, but that's my stance.)

But what phenomenon is that?

[Seeker79]

Arbitran, on 21 September 2012 - 08:27 AM, said:

You see, I'm not talking about non-physical spirits, but what physical object or process might explain the phenomenon of "spirits". Of course, by definition, non-physical equates to non-existent. (I'll of course probably be met with opposition on that point, but that's my stance.)

What about the laws of physics? Are they physical?

[Arbitran]

Emma_Acid, on 21 September 2012 - 12:37 PM, said:

But what phenomenon is that?

I don't know. I was making suggestions however. Having recently been studying morphic field hypothesis and dark plasma, they sound like reasonably-viable candidates; among others things, of course.

[twistedtesticle]

A bibliography would be much appreciated here so this scientific evidence can be looked over.

[Rlyeh]

Seeker79, on 21 September 2012 - 03:27 PM, said:

What about the laws of physics? Are they physical?

Since they are properties of the physical universe, yes.

[White Unicorn]

Emma_Acid, on 21 September 2012 - 08:11 AM, said:

It isn't the same effect. It has nothing to do with the fact that its a plant. It could be a wet drinks coaster. What the image is picking up is the outline of the water the plant has left behind. It has nothing to do with the fact that its a plant, and everything to do with the fact that the electricity is picking up the shape the plant left behind.




Of course you build on previous knowledge. That's what science is. But your assertion earlier in the thread that modern science essentially steals everything from "ancient knowledge" and that the "ancients" knew about things like advanced physics is demonstrably wrong.

I will answer you just like you take things out of context LOL
Of course you build on previous knowledge. That's what science is.

NOW you are admiting it is science!!!!

[White Unicorn]

Rlyeh, on 21 September 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

So basically you've found something in science that is *similar* to a superstitious belief you hold, therefore they are the same phenomena.

The person that posted the photo of the leaf was showing an effect that is repeatable and had been speculated about but never shown before Kirlian. No belief involved just a comment to the observation of the photo. Look at how many years it took for mainstream to show there is an effect that is invisable to the naked eye.  There are many fields of light and magnetism that we do not see just like they developed the military's night vision.

[Professor T]

Rlyeh, on 21 September 2012 - 08:55 AM, said:

So basically you've found something in science that is *similar* to a superstitious belief you hold, therefore they are the same phenomena.

Within quantumn physics science is discovering these energies. One could argue that science is catching up to anient world's beliefs, or in the very least discovering these so called "superstitious beliefs" have a quantifyable ring of truth to them. The anomylous behavior of particals at a quantumn level do not always conform to the known laws of physics, yet all known matter is made of these quirky particals, including us.

[Seeker79]

Rlyeh, on 21 September 2012 - 09:57 PM, said:

Since they are properties of the physical universe, yes.

So do the Laws lead to the physical universe or does the universe lead to the laws?

[Arbitran]

Seeker79, on 22 September 2012 - 05:04 AM, said:

So do the Laws lead to the physical universe or does the universe lead to the laws?

Does it have to be one or the other?