74 replies to this topic

[Emma_Acid]

Seeker79, on 27 August 2012 - 02:26 AM, said:

Useless ??

It's the basis for all knowledge. It's how we learn to interact with the world.... It's how we make observations. It's only useless for the fundamentalist.

No it isn't. The way we learn about the world is through an aggregate of empirical discovery. Its the sum of all scientific discovery. What it isnt, is a collection of things people thought they might have seen.

[Seeker79]

Imaginarynumber1, on 27 August 2012 - 01:22 AM, said:

The problem with memory is that it is not an exact recording of an event like people think it is. Memories can, and often do, change over time. Also what one person experiences and attributes to the paranormal maybe just be something that they are not familiar with or something they misidentified, etc.

And to add, there is no reason for belief in "spirit" outside of religion. It's not testable, observable, or even quantifiable.

You are incorrect. It is all of those things. What it is not is controllable.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Shankpin, on 27 August 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

As I said You have no arguement & I'm bored.

Repeating a falsehood does not make it true. Enjoy being bored.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Seeker79, on 27 August 2012 - 02:32 AM, said:

You are incorrect. It is all of those things. What it is not is controllable.

Are you saying that spirit is all of those things? If so, I simply ask, prove it. But you and I have done that dance before. No need to rehash it here.

[Seeker79]

Imaginarynumber1, on 27 August 2012 - 02:43 AM, said:

Are you saying that spirit is all of those things? If so, I simply ask, prove it. But you and I have done that dance before. No need to rehash it here.

It's predictable

I predict people will see spirits in the future

It's quantifiable
A certain percentage of people see spirits

It's testable

I can run polls and gather  statistics about how many people them  see and what attributes they have.

It's observable
I can see spirits I have a relationship with several so do many other people. Some are fakers but some really do. I bet you can meet one yourself if you really wanted to. How is that not observable?

I'm not sure what you are looking for other than someone being able to produce a spirit. I don't think spirits are controllable.

Edited by Seeker79, 27 August 2012 - 04:22 AM.

[Imaginarynumber1]

Seeker79, on 27 August 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

It's predictable

I predict people will see spirits in the future

Not what is meant by predictability. More like, if condition x is satisfied, then y will occur.

Quote

It's quantifiable
A certain percentage of people see spirits

Spirit itself, not perception of spirit. What is it made of, how does it react to its environment, what effect does x have on it?

Quote

It's testable
I can run polls and gather  statistics about how many people them  see and what attributes they have.

But then you are not testing spirit itself, but again perception of it.

Quote

It's observable
I can see spirits I have a relationship with several so do many other people. Some are fakers but some really do. I bet you can meet one yourself if you really wanted to. How is that not observable?

I'm not sure what you are looking for other than someone being able to produce a spirit. I don't think spirits are controllable.

So how can I see spirits? Seriously. I'm not being factious here. I must admit I often see you talking about OOBE I am a bit curious. PM me about it.

Edited by Imaginarynumber1, 27 August 2012 - 04:37 AM.

[Chrlzs]

Sheetz, on 26 August 2012 - 10:21 PM, said:

I understand the viewpoints going back and forth, but have yet to see an answer to my question from any of the skeptics or non-believers.

I think I'm in that category, so...

Quote

Can you give an example of a type of evidence that would be shown to you that might change your mind.

A peer reviewed scientific paper appearing in a recognised journal.
A situation like the one you suggest, where the event was captured by more than one camera and a number of credible witnesses (including 'provenance' on the cameras and witnesses to ensure no collusion was involved.
Why, I'd even consider a successful payout from the JREF Challenge...

Quote

...while certainly anything we see on TV can be post produced, or even false altogether, what would it take for you to convince you?

There are some journalists and many scientists that I would have little hesitation believing if they were genuinely convinced of the proof.  That said, even some of the finest minds go over the edge at times, and not just from old age/senility - but then it's pretty obvious.

Quote

For sake of argument, and is a hypothetical now being introduced here, what if this happened.  A video of the most incredible offering was shot of a proposed ghost.  The ghost was both witnessed by several people AND captured on video.  The video was taken to an engineer (like in my main example above) and that forensic engineer confirmed that the video was not tampered with, was not a video composite by a computer or other FX trick and therefore confirmed as authentic.

Problem - ask any high end video expert and s/he will tell you that given the extent of today's technology pretty much anything can be faked in almost any way.  They could not possibly 100% guarantee a video's authenticity, let alone the content of it.  So unless the witnesses and other provenance was all credible and it was all watertight, it could still be a hoax.

Quote

Its not like you can run the video before a panel of scientists who can offer more input... they are merely now second hand witness to a video and can only comment on it.

But these situations can be quite complex to unravel, so why wouldn't you throw every expert at it that you can?  And to be brutally honest, if this was a one-off incident that was not testable or repeatable.. why is it signficant?  It is merely unexplained.

Quote

The witnesses' testimony from the video taped event will be thrown out as the above skeptic pointed out...the event, even though filmed (or reportedly) was their own "perception" which you shown can be flawed as human perception can and will be....even though it might be some type of mass halucination?  I see what you say with dreams, they are real, but their content??

But that's the whole point - if it is testable and repeatable, and/or if it is unshakably 'proven' by adding up all the testimony and the evidence and it is all watertight and credible.. it WILL be accepted.

Thing is... THAT HASN'T HAPPENED!  Nothing even vaguely close to it has happened, and that's why folks like seeker strenuously avoid the simple request to SHOW THE BEST EVIDENCE TO DATE.  They don't want to go there, because the 'best' is unbelievably shaky, and wouldn't pass first muster in a court or a scientific forum...

Quote

Regardless, the skeptic throws that out as flawed, since human perception is not a valid piece of evidence.

Quite rightly, because we as a race have a cultural bias towards believing in the afterlife, in ghosts, etc, and movies and almost every aspect of our culture plays on that and promotes it mercilessly.  So it's little wonder you will get lots of anecdotes.  And that means you MUST NOT accept those anecdotes as being lots of evidence.  It's the QUALITY that matters.

I would turn this around - what, in the eyes of the true believers, is 'good enough'?  Every anecdote, every story?  Which ones are the worthy ones, and on what basis do you select them?  How do you recognise hoaxes and charlatans, or do you think they don't exist?

Me, I apply science and logic and look for normal explanations - I work from the known to try the explain the unknown.  To date, I'm not seeing anything that makes me think twice, but I'm ready to see it..  So believers, what is the best evidence?  Don't just give me a Youtube video - explain in your own words why your example is THE ONE, and what expertise you have applied to reach your conclusion..

[Emma_Acid]

Seeker79, on 27 August 2012 - 04:19 AM, said:

It's predictable

I predict people will see spirits in the future

It's quantifiable
A certain percentage of people see spirits

It's testable

I can run polls and gather  statistics about how many people them  see and what attributes they have.

It's observable
I can see spirits I have a relationship with several so do many other people. Some are fakers but some really do. I bet you can meet one yourself if you really wanted to. How is that not observable?

I'm not sure what you are looking for other than someone being able to produce a spirit. I don't think spirits are controllable.

That isn't how science works. You're still talking only about personal experience.

[Seeker79]

Chrlzs, on 27 August 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

I think I'm in that category, so...

A peer reviewed scientific paper appearing in a recognised journal.
A situation like the one you suggest, where the event was captured by more than one camera and a number of credible witnesses (including 'provenance' on the cameras and witnesses to ensure no collusion was involved.
Why, I'd even consider a successful payout from the JREF Challenge...


There are some journalists and many scientists that I would have little hesitation believing if they were genuinely convinced of the proof.  That said, even some of the finest minds go over the edge at times, and not just from old age/senility - but then it's pretty obvious.


Problem - ask any high end video expert and s/he will tell you that given the extent of today's technology pretty much anything can be faked in almost any way.  They could not possibly 100% guarantee a video's authenticity, let alone the content of it.  So unless the witnesses and other provenance was all credible and it was all watertight, it could still be a hoax.


But these situations can be quite complex to unravel, so why wouldn't you throw every expert at it that you can?  And to be brutally honest, if this was a one-off incident that was not testable or repeatable.. why is it signficant?  It is merely unexplained.


But that's the whole point - if it is testable and repeatable, and/or if it is unshakably 'proven' by adding up all the testimony and the evidence and it is all watertight and credible.. it WILL be accepted.

Thing is... THAT HASN'T HAPPENED!  Nothing even vaguely close to it has happened, and that's why folks like seeker strenuously avoid the simple request to SHOW THE BEST EVIDENCE TO DATE.  They don't want to go there, because the 'best' is unbelievably shaky, and wouldn't pass first muster in a court or a scientific forum...


Quite rightly, because we as a race have a cultural bias towards believing in the afterlife, in ghosts, etc, and movies and almost every aspect of our culture plays on that and promotes it mercilessly.  So it's little wonder you will get lots of anecdotes.  And that means you MUST NOT accept those anecdotes as being lots of evidence.  It's the QUALITY that matters.

I would turn this around - what, in the eyes of the true believers, is 'good enough'?  Every anecdote, every story?  Which ones are the worthy ones, and on what basis do you select them?  How do you recognise hoaxes and charlatans, or do you think they don't exist?

Me, I apply science and logic and look for normal explanations - I work from the known to try the explain the unknown.  To date, I'm not seeing anything that makes me think twice, but I'm ready to see it..  So believers, what is the best evidence?  Don't just give me a Youtube video - explain in your own words why your example is THE ONE, and what expertise you have applied to reach your conclusion..

Chrlz, empiricism has its limits an fails just like all other forms of evidence, institutions have dogmas and gurus, and methods are limited. Being a fundamentalist is a sure way for you to miss the boat. There is plenty of evidence documenting "spirit" ( and I'm not talking about orbs and things that go bump) the problem is that you have limited yourself to only one kind of evidence based on a false premis then allowed yourself to have so much faith in this as to make you a fundamentalist in it. Not unlike our bible thumping brothers and sisters.

Would you like me to show you how empiricism miserably fails under your way of thinking?

[Seeker79]

Emma_Acid, on 27 August 2012 - 03:10 PM, said:

That isn't how science works. You're still talking only about personal experience.

How is it just a personal experience when there are thousands and millions of people stretching across the planet and history. That's not very personal.

I assume you mean plural of annecdote dosnt make something true. No... It dosnt... But it makes things more and more likely. Scientific conclusions are stated in likely hoods. Science ( rightly so) is also a purely empirical methodology. Empiricism fails just as easy as other types of evidence. A look at the greater picture of all the evidence would be prudent don't you think?

[Seeker79]

Imaginarynumber1, on 27 August 2012 - 04:37 AM, said:

Not what is meant by predictability. More like, if condition x is satisfied, then y will occur.

Spirit itself, not perception of spirit. What is it made of, how does it react to its environment, what effect does x have on it?

But then you are not testing spirit itself, but again perception of it.



So how can I see spirits? Seriously. I'm not being factious here. I must admit I often see you talking about OOBE I am a bit curious. PM me about it.

Sent you a pm

All "tests" are perceptions. There are just differences how those perceptions are made. a material fundamentalist can only accept material evidence.... But even this is flawed.

Ill say it again... All types of evidence are flawed. All types of evidence are usefull. Focusing on any single one you are bound to bump up against its flaw.

[Chrlzs]

Seeker79, on 27 August 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

I assume you mean plural of annecdote dosnt make something true. No... It dosnt... But it makes things more and more likely.

Nope, sorry.  It does NOT, especially if there is any sort of bias.  You don't think there is perhaps a cultural bias to believe in ufos=aliens/ghosts/paranormal/etc?
The plural of anecdote in this case simply means that the anecdoter merely saw some other anecdotes and/or movies/books/forum posts and/or is a troll.

In fact, I would argue the absolute opposite of your assertion.  How is it that we have increasing numbers of anecdotes, yet any actual evidence that passes even the most basic tests of 'proof' is becoming even scarcer than it has ever been?  There's a very obvious answer to that.  See if you can join the dots...

[Beany]

Having experienced or witnessed what is termed "supernatural", I an convinced that the phenomena occurs. I am not convinced that there is anything supernatural about it. Given outrageous and absurd ideas like entanglement theory, that the presence of an observer affects the outcome of an experiment, that science believes that at least 70% of the universe is composed of dark matter but doesn't know what it is or where it is (I say, look under your bed), that we live in a multiverse of at least 8 dimensions, well, if we have to believe 10 impossible things before breakfast, why not 11?

Science has proved what a strange & quirky world we live in, are we to limit our beliefs about what is "real" only to what science has currently been able to explain? If we do that, then we'd be changing our minds (upgrading) about every 3 months. Science does not have explanations for everything that occurs or exists, possibly it never will have; what it can do is help us understand ourselves & the world we live in a little, or hopefully, a lot better. But understand that science is an open-ended discipline, it is not finite, there will always be new things to study or discover or understand, either perfectly or imperfectly.

So I'm skeptical about the explanations for the phenomena I have observed or experienced, and I am skeptical about most of the current explanations for them, as most of the explanations seem rooted in religious doctrine or dogma, which are usually self-limiting systems and require the kind of belief that I'm not willing to extend. As I'm not a scientist, and don't have ANY scientific training, all I can do is observe, without  making any judgments or drawing any conclusions about what I'm experiencing, with the understanding that it is likely that I will sometimes misinterpret or misidentify the experience. That may even be probable. What I do not do is dismiss my experiences, subjective or otherwise, and as the experiences are personal, it's hard to take the subjective part of it out, because there is something there for me to learn. And I give credit to the skeptics and believers both for adding to my store of knowledge, for forcing me to approach some ideas from a different angle, which has led to new thoughts & ideas, which keeps my life interesting.

So put down as skeptical believer, who currently thinks that science, quantum theory, will one of these days be able to explain all this monkey business. And there's a lot of monkey business going on!

[FlyingAngel]

Science can't prove whatever can't be sensed with human's 5 senses.

[Beany]

FlyingAngel, on 03 September 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

Science can't prove whatever can't be sensed with human's 5 senses.

\

You  may be right about that. But maybe some of us ARE using some of our 5 senses when experiencing or witnessing "paranormal". I dislike that word, can someone come up with a better one that's not so loaded? Non-ordinary? Could it be possible that some bodies have higher than average nerve endings, for instance, that allow us to see/hear/feel stuff that can't normally be detected? In the same way that some people have more acute hearing, or sense of smell, or an ear for music, etc?