[kiddglock]

sinewave, on 03 November 2009 - 01:01 AM, said:

When scientists reach the edge of understanding they stop and wait for someone to advance understanding to the next boundary. When pseudoscientists reach the edge of understanding they make leaps in logic and keep right on going. If the mind cannot "comprehend" as you have said, then the logical thing to do is stop and accept it, not surmise that there is some paranormal influence at work then proceed to build theories around that assumption.

Or when the first set of "scientists" come across something they don't like, they simply ignore it.

"And in relation to the first of my two "questions", certainly there is a lot that science is capable of explaining which has not been explained yet."

The words "first set of 'scientists'", in the above can be interchangeable with the words, "some folks".

[Wookietim]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 12:36 AM, said:

Emphasis, mine.

You tell me.

There is no evidence at all to cause us to think that thoughts originate from outside the brain.... Obviously what goes on outside the brain influences thought (Through the senses - when our sense of touch feels something hot our brain thinks "Stop touching that"). But the thought itself almost certainly originates inside the grey matter that sits in our skulls. Unless you can show any supporting evidence otherwise, that is a less than useful avenue of investigation at this time.

[Wookietim]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 08:36 AM, said:

Or when the first set of "scientists" come across something they don't like, they simply ignore it.

"And in relation to the first of my two "questions", certainly there is a lot that science is capable of explaining which has not been explained yet."

The words "first set of 'scientists'", in the above can be interchangeable with the words, "some folks".

I might argue that if a scientist ignores a certain piece of evidence then they cannot be referred to as a "Scientist".

[kiddglock]

Wookietim, on 03 November 2009 - 07:37 AM, said:

There is no evidence at all to cause us to think that thoughts originate from outside the brain.... Obviously what goes on outside the brain influences thought (Through the senses - when our sense of touch feels something hot our brain thinks "Stop touching that"). But the thought itself almost certainly originates inside the grey matter that sits in our skulls. Unless you can show any supporting evidence otherwise, that is a less than useful avenue of investigation at this time.

lol! You think this site is "scientific"? As I alluded at the start of this post, it has gotten completely away from anything having to do with experiences and entered the realm of "belief". Investigate any avenue you want. You guys should be arguing this over in one of the spiritual forums anyway. These types of arguments always devolve into something relating to beliefs. Scientists have beliefs too. They call them hypotheses and spend lots of our money trying to prove they are right, many times taking unreal shortcuts along the way or totally disregarding evidence that doesn't fit their theory.

This post has been edited by kiddglock: 03 November 2009 - 01:58 PM

[Wookietim]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 08:55 AM, said:

lol! You think this site is "scientific"? As I alluded at the start of this post, it has gotten completely away from anything having to do with experiences and entered the realm of "belief". Investigate any avenue you want. You guys should be arguing this over in one of the spiritual forums anyway. These types of arguments always devolve into something relating to beliefs. Scientists have beliefs too. They call them hypotheses and spend lots of our money trying to prove they are right, many times taking unreal shortcuts along the way or totally disregarding evidence that doesn't fit their theory. There is no way to tell where thoughts originate. Indeed our environment has to play a huge role in what we think. I actually once designed an experiment to test how much the results of a Rorschach Test were influenced by the environment of the subject, but it was never carried out, for example.

These arguments always end up circular and are a general waste of time, which is why I don't hang out on the other couple of forums here.

1. Considering that the posts I responded to have to do with measurable quantities rather than any philosophic ideals, I think that the concept of putting this in the "Spiritual Forums" would be an incorrect move.

2. It seems that your answer is to dispense with science and just argue based on some belief system. If that floats your boat, go ahead... But I prefer to discuss things that can be measured and objectively discussed.

3. There is a very simple way to tell where thoughts originate. If we have a brain and we can measure the electrical charges that flow through that brain as a person thinks, and there is absolutely no evidence that those thoughts originated from outside the brain, then why are you adamant that those thoughts are from somewhere other than the grey matter in a persons skull? It seems you are intent on "Believing" something with absolutely no basis in any measurable reality... Perhaps it is you that ought to go over to the spiritual forums if you want to persist in that type of thinking.

[sinewave]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 07:36 AM, said:

Or when the first set of "scientists" come across something they don't like, they simply ignore it.

"And in relation to the first of my two "questions", certainly there is a lot that science is capable of explaining which has not been explained yet."

The words "first set of 'scientists'", in the above can be interchangeable with the words, "some folks".

What evidence is being ignored, in your estimation?

This post has been edited by sinewave: 03 November 2009 - 02:31 PM

[sinewave]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 07:29 AM, said:

If you only face north, you will only see things to your north.

And if you unconditionally accept speculation, you can see in all directions at once and still not see the truth.

[sinewave]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 07:55 AM, said:

lol! You think this site is "scientific"? As I alluded at the start of this post, it has gotten completely away from anything having to do with experiences and entered the realm of "belief". Investigate any avenue you want. You guys should be arguing this over in one of the spiritual forums anyway. These types of arguments always devolve into something relating to beliefs. Scientists have beliefs too. They call them hypotheses and spend lots of our money trying to prove they are right, many times taking unreal shortcuts along the way or totally disregarding evidence that doesn't fit their theory.

You are just all over the road! Beliefs, science funding, nature of the forum - pick a topic and stick to it already. I am not really sure anymore what you are arguing so I will hit the high points. No, this is not a scientific site but it has a strong scientific component. As far getting away from experiences and entering the realm of belief goes, I don't accept experiences as evidence (due to human perception being flawed) and I don't believe in anything that is not scientifically verifiable or statistically plausible. Exactly where have I expressed beliefs and not science? You have not been specific in that regard, only evasive and random.


To a scientist, a hypothesis is just a starting point whereas a believer sees the belief as an end. Not all scientists are disciplined enough to stay the course and not be drawn in by belief. That is why universities started shutting down their parapsychology departments years ago, for example. It became clear parapsychology was more about beliefs and personal agendas than it was about science. Are you opposed to spending government money on scientific research in general because scientists are wasting our money?

[kiddglock]

Wookietim, on 03 November 2009 - 08:01 AM, said:

1. Considering that the posts I responded to have to do with measurable quantities rather than any philosophic ideals, I think that the concept of putting this in the "Spiritual Forums" would be an incorrect move.

2. It seems that your answer is to dispense with science and just argue based on some belief system. If that floats your boat, go ahead... But I prefer to discuss things that can be measured and objectively discussed.

3. There is a very simple way to tell where thoughts originate. If we have a brain and we can measure the electrical charges that flow through that brain as a person thinks, and there is absolutely no evidence that those thoughts originated from outside the brain, then why are you adamant that those thoughts are from somewhere other than the grey matter in a persons skull? It seems you are intent on "Believing" something with absolutely no basis in any measurable reality... Perhaps it is you that ought to go over to the spiritual forums if you want to persist in that type of thinking.

In the first place, brain-based research is very interesting, but only electrical activity can be measured, not thought. That a person was having a certain thought at the time of the electrical activity can be recorded, but the thoughts themselves cannot be measured, nor can they be adequately linked to the electrical activity to demonstrate actual "thoughts" being measured.

I don't dispense with science at all, but if you've been paying attention, lots of this stuff has to do with belief and endless advisement of people to get their head read doesn't help if they actually are seeing things that are there. If you don't believe the things they are seeing are real, then by all means, keep erroneously referring them to psychiatrists and psychologists so they can be medicated into oblivion or spend their time seeing the same things they saw in their house in a mental ward.

Again, you can't measure thoughts. You can measure electrical activity and since it may occur at the time of some specific thought, you can assign some number to the thought, but I don't think that is measuring it. Secondly, where does said thought come from? I don't think you and your pard Sine are getting it. What generates the charge? I haven't swallowed any Briggs and Strattons lately.

[kiddglock]

As to the comments about science and scientists, you seem to be a smart person, you can figure those out on your own. As to the more specific comments, see my post to Wookie.

IOW, face south awhile.

[Wookietim]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 01:30 PM, said:

In the first place, brain-based research is very interesting, but only electrical activity can be measured, not thought. That a person was having a certain thought at the time of the electrical activity can be recorded, but the thoughts themselves cannot be measured, nor can they be adequately linked to the electrical activity to demonstrate actual "thoughts" being measured.

I don't dispense with science at all, but if you've been paying attention, lots of this stuff has to do with belief and endless advisement of people to get their head read doesn't help if they actually are seeing things that are there. If you don't believe the things they are seeing are real, then by all means, keep erroneously referring them to psychiatrists and psychologists so they can be medicated into oblivion or spend their time seeing the same things they saw in their house in a mental ward.

Again, you can't measure thoughts. You can measure electrical activity and since it may occur at the time of some specific thought, you can assign some number to the thought, but I don't think that is measuring it. Secondly, where does said thought come from? I don't think you and your pard Sine are getting it. What generates the charge? I haven't swallowed any Briggs and Strattons lately.

So I am confused - are you claiming that thoughts originate in some nebulous and so far evidence-less space outside the head, or are you claiming that the things that are reported as having been experienced have a concrete reality outside of the brain?

The former I completely disagree with - we have ample evidence that thoughts form in the grey matter of the brain. An easy way of testing that hypothesis would be to enter a room that is shielded from all types of EM pulses and see if a person still thinks.

If you are claiming the latter I might agree with you 50/50 - My opinion is that some experiences are the results of what are essentially fantasies concocted by the brain and others may have a physical/external reality.

[sinewave]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 12:30 PM, said:

In the first place, brain-based research is very interesting, but only electrical activity can be measured, not thought. That a person was having a certain thought at the time of the electrical activity can be recorded, but the thoughts themselves cannot be measured, nor can they be adequately linked to the electrical activity to demonstrate actual "thoughts" being measured.

I don't dispense with science at all, but if you've been paying attention, lots of this stuff has to do with belief and endless advisement of people to get their head read doesn't help if they actually are seeing things that are there. If you don't believe the things they are seeing are real, then by all means, keep erroneously referring them to psychiatrists and psychologists so they can be medicated into oblivion or spend their time seeing the same things they saw in their house in a mental ward.

Again, you can't measure thoughts. You can measure electrical activity and since it may occur at the time of some specific thought, you can assign some number to the thought, but I don't think that is measuring it. Secondly, where does said thought come from? I don't think you and your pard Sine are getting it. What generates the charge? I haven't swallowed any Briggs and Strattons lately.

Sure, we don't fully understand brain function. We don't understand how memory works. We don't understand how thought works. We don't know much about cognitive function at all but the answer is likely to be found in the complex neural networks that have evolved into our brains. It is not likely to be due to mystical outside forces that connect with our minds and transmit thoughts. There are indeed a great many mysteries yet to be unlocked but the absence of viable science is not reason enough to assume the existence of unseen sentient forces or the transference of thought from person to person or object to person. Despite years of ongoing belief in such things no one has been able to demonstrate consistent phenomena.

This post has been edited by sinewave: 03 November 2009 - 07:05 PM

[sinewave]

kiddglock, on 03 November 2009 - 12:32 PM, said:

As to the comments about science and scientists, you seem to be a smart person, you can figure those out on your own. As to the more specific comments, see my post to Wookie.

IOW, face south awhile.

I would rather face the facts, where ever they are.

[maximaldecimal]

I think this thread would lend itself well to the spirituality versus skeptisism forum myself. With reference to the paranormal that does not happen only in observation of single persons. I will submit this link on the heartland ghost done by Sightings.

Heartland Ghost Sightings

I am still looking for the followup episode. It has even better footage of paranormal happenings live on film. In the episode provided they send a small crew to research a ghost that scratches the father while the camera is running. There are also EM fluctuations and coldspots that are observed by multiple persons. I also posted this on the prove it thread.

This post has been edited by maximaldecimal: 04 November 2009 - 06:22 PM

[Wookietim]

maximaldecimal, on 04 November 2009 - 01:20 PM, said:

I think this thread would lend itself well to the spirituality versus skeptisism forum myself. With reference to the paranormal that does not happen only in observation of single persons. I will submit this link on the heartland ghost done by Sightings.

Heartland Ghost Sightings

I am still looking for the followup episode. It has even better footage of paranormal happenings live on film. In the episode provided they send a small crew to research a ghost that scratches the father while the camera is running. There are also EM fluctuations and coldspots that are observed by multiple persons. I also posted this on the prove it thread.

Your example is a good example of something that seems to point at an objective reality to the "Paranormal".... After all, if more than one person sees it happening, it's caught on camera and there are other readings to say something happened, then we can arrive at a simple conclusion - maybe something actually happened.

But to hark back to an earlier post by me - jumping from that "Maybe something objectively happened" to "There is an angry ghost of a deceased person that wants to attack that person" is too big a leap to make for me.