Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
macqdor

Dr. Vladimir Dubaj - Some Insights into Ghost

35 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

macqdor

Some Insights into Ghost Research - Dr. Vladimir Dubaj (AIPR Mini Conference 2016)

The scientific community devotes little attention to ghost and haunting phenomena due to their unpredictable and spontaneous nature.

Based on eight years of research, Dr. Dubaj presents his findings about these phenomena, and he describes some theories that may help elucidate ghost activity.

 

 

required viewing for both skeptic and believer  - Keith L

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Saru

Thread cleaned

Keep the comments civil please.

If this topic does not interest you or you have nothing to add, simply ignore it and move on to another thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 hour ago, macqdor said:

Some Insights into Ghost Research - Dr. Vladimir Dubaj (AIPR Mini Conference 2016)

required viewing for both skeptic and believer  - Keith L

 

 

As it is a 41 minute video I think it would be a benefit to us readers to get a brief synopsis of what is in this video. In this internet age we can spend all our lives watching 1% of all videos.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd

Why should we waste time on that guy, when every aspect of "ghost encounters" are easily explained by environment factors and psychological quirks?
If ghosts are real, they seem to value their privacy a lot, and to go out of their way to avoid leaving real proof.
Until that changes, any evidence based discussion about it, is pointless. Including this.

Edited by sci-nerd
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

The scientific community devotes little attention to ghost and haunting phenomena due to their unpredictable and spontaneous nature.

Based on eight years of research, Dr. Dubaj presents his findings about these phenomena, and he describes some theories that may help elucidate ghost activity.

[............................Based on eight years of research, Dr. Dubaj presents his findings about these phenomena, and he describes some theories that may help elucidate ghost activity.] 

 

as pasted under the URL.

@papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

[............................Based on eight years of research, Dr. Dubaj presents his findings about these phenomena, and he describes some theories that may help elucidate ghost activity.] 

 

as pasted under the URL.

@papageorge1

Can you briefly describe his theories and finding in your own words? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Can you briefly describe his theories and finding in your own words? 

 

He lists several theories..............in power point form.    I wouldn't do it justice in describing accept to say he presents skeptic and believer with viable solutions for advancing the subject matter further.

If you dont have 40+ minutes dedicated now, might be viable to slice it up.      Watch in intervals and make comments accordingly.  In this age (we now live in) of instant gratification (which I'm not a member of)......because I think it interferes with deep thought.

@papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Why should we waste time on that guy, when every aspect of "ghost encounters" are easily explained by environment factors and psychological quirks?
If ghosts are real, they seem to value their privacy a lot, and to go to of their way to avoid leaving real proof.
Until that changes, any evidence based discussion about it, is pointless. Including this.

@sci-nerd

That argument is addressed, actually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

@sci-nerd

That argument is addressed, actually.

Then bring it on. Don't expect skeptics to spend 40 minutes on something they consider superstition. They are not going to do it!

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Then bring it on. Don't expect skeptics to spend 40 minutes on something they consider superstition. They are not going to do it!

I don't expect anything.   "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't him drink it"

I learned that ages ago   We all must to our own intellectual heavy lifting around here. If 40+ minutes is too much for you to stomach - then...................proceed to the next thread.  Its really that simple.  I'm being 200% sincere by saying that.

 

Every posts is not for everybody.

 

@sci-nerd

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sci-nerd
1 minute ago, macqdor said:

I don't expect anything.   "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't him drink it"

I learned that ages ago   We all must to our own intellectual heavy lifting around here. If 40+ minutes is too much for you to stomach - then...................proceed to the next thread.  Its really that simple.  I'm being 200% sincere by saying that.

 

Every posts is not for everybody.

Fine. But it seems to me that you lack the courage to bring up the argument in question, because you're aware it's too weak.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
28 minutes ago, macqdor said:

[............................Based on eight years of research, Dr. Dubaj presents his findings about these phenomena, and he describes some theories that may help elucidate ghost activity.] 

 

as pasted under the URL.

@papageorge1

But What are your thoughts?  Do you agree 100%?  At least say that.  This is a discussion forum.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

Fine. But it seems to me that you lack the courage to bring up the argument in question, because you're aware it's too weak.

if we subscribe to the existing paradigm which includes our current definition of science. then yes the argument is weak.   I never found that prism attractive/accurate to begin with therefore I've abandoned it quite some time ago.   And in doing so discovered other like minded individuals.     

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
8 minutes ago, macqdor said:

if we subscribe to the existing paradigm which includes our current definition of science. then yes the argument is weak.   I never found that prism attractive/accurate to begin with therefore I've abandoned it quite some time ago.   And in doing so discovered other like minded individuals.     

 

It would be helpful if you stated that in your OP, then anyone who is interested can watch the video and comment or discuss with you.  I still haven't clicked on the video because I did not know why you posted it.  I did post some other thing in this thread, but not really discussion about your OP, since I had no clue what your discussion point is.

I agree that science does not always take in to account the variables that would give credence or at least provide valid experimentation to this subject, but this guy is not the only one doing these kinds of experiments.  And besides most scientists are dependent on funding from outside sources, and those are what determines the experiments.  It has nothing to do with the current definition of science, that is still valid, it has everything to do with money.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

Still no topic . No surprise there.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor

 

@Desertrat56

I'm still forming my opinion.  I find the lecturer knowledgeable, very sincere and very pragmatic in his approach.

I agree w/him "unpredictable and spontaneous nature" which is what the paranormal is has no slip in science.  It does donuts around it.  I'm talking total 360 spins.  Completely different paradigm.

There's so many different analogies I could use in describing the phenomena (that frustrates everyone because man has no answer).   Why can't ghosts, etc be proven?

 

short answer:

  • man doesn't occupy the top of the intellectual food chain
  • there are limits to our knowledge. Call us babies in the Universe. More like embryo's.  We just got here - you have to ask yourself, what was here for before us (in this 15 billion year old Universe).
  • some things we thought were facts yesterday turned out to be wrong today.   Some things we take as facts now will be proven after we've died. And so on.   We're intellectual babies.  An eye trying to pepe through a moving key hole

 

I could go on.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1

I watched about half and skipped around and to the end. First he is one that seems to think that there are normal and paranormal things going on with ghost phenomena (key point for this group is that he won't please the hard skeptics as he believes the objective physical phenomena associated with ghost sightings imply more than psychological-only phenomena).

His big thing seems to be about earth's magnetic activity's effect on apparition cases. He's excited as this might give science a place to start speculating further.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
macqdor
Quote

It would be helpful if you stated that in your OP, then anyone who is interested can watch the video and comment or discuss with you.  I still haven't clicked on the video because I did not know why you posted it.  I did post some other thing in this thread, but not really discussion about your OP, since I had no clue what your discussion point is.

I agree that science does not always take in to account the variables that would give credence or at least provide valid experimentation to this subject, but this guy is not the only one doing these kinds of experiments.  And besides most scientists are dependent on funding from outside sources, and those are what determines the experiments.  It has nothing to do with the current definition of science, that is still valid, it has everything to do with money.

My opinion matters zilch.  Individuals should watch the video and offer input based on the video. Not me. I'm a student, just like everyone else here.  The proclivity here to to make the forum/debate i.e. discussion about the OPs views.   I noticed skeptics like to  keep their opinions in the 'high level, generic atmosphere" when commenting on videos and articles written by other people.   No one said you had to watch the 40 min video in one swell swoop.  You can patrician it accordingly.  Take your time even.  This knee jerk response to posts supports one of my theories of people arent really listening/learning or have a desire to learn.  They just want to nip pick and make topics about the Op vs. the content the OP actually provided.   

Each one of you after watching the video should offer a view about what it is Dr Vladimir has said.  I'm just the deliverer.   The spark if you will of starting a discussion. A discussion IMO that doesn't have to involve me

 

@Desertrat56

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Daughter of the Nine Moons
1 hour ago, Saru said:

Thread cleaned

Keep the comments civil please.

If this topic does not interest you or you have nothing to add, simply ignore it and move on to another thread.

What part of Saru's request is difficult for members participating in this thread to understand?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist

The speaker suggest that the fact that worldwide about 21% of people believe in ghosts makes it somehow more than a story.

This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to numbers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
25 minutes ago, stereologist said:

The speaker suggest that the fact that worldwide about 21% of people believe in ghosts makes it somehow more than a story.

This is a logical fallacy called an appeal to numbers.

He never makes that logical fallacy.  I watched. He does present the 21% figure though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
46 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

He never makes that logical fallacy.  I watched. He does present the 21% figure though.

Yes he does make that logical fallacy.  You might want to listen again to that section in which he makes the appeal that so many people must be referring to a real event.

In fact, he doesn't tell what these percents actually refer to or how they were collected. It isn't clear if these figures even refer to the same type of thing or whether there are cultural differences making him compare apples and oranges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
33 minutes ago, stereologist said:

Yes he does make that logical fallacy.  You might want to listen again to that section in which he makes the appeal that so many people must be referring to a real event.

In fact, he doesn't tell what these percents actually refer to or how they were collected. It isn't clear if these figures even refer to the same type of thing or whether there are cultural differences making him compare apples and oranges.

He never made the logical error that the numbers meant the cause must be paranormal. ‘Something’ is happening we all agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
stereologist
1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

He never made the logical error that the numbers meant the cause must be paranormal. ‘Something’ is happening we all agree.

I didn't say that did I?

No sure why you want to create a straw man argument but you have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.