Ghosts

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: mechtech2
bigmike - Do you have the ability to be neutral about math equations? How about the boiling temperature of water at STP?

Ability? It's more like you can't take a stand from lack of information. This is no credit to you.


I am pretty neutral on math equations and the boiling temp. of water. I see no need to have an opinion one way or another. This has taken me many years to accomplish actually, as I used to have an opinion or "view" on everything. At some point you realize you just aren't that important and you pick and choose what is. To state it differently, I prefer to remain neutral until I can either no longer do so or something becomes important enough to respond. This is nothing different than what most of us do here, including you I would assume.

I wish others would do the same, but that's their own journey in life.

You do touch on something that hits the nail on the head, however, and that is the lack of information. Most people do make decisions this way and, in fact, many people BELIEVE things the same way. I encourage people to seek out the truth and facts as best they can before making judgments.

 

[Schmoe]

No change of heart, but as ususal, you have a unique gift in changing the meanings of what other people say.

 

[TooManyWheels]

My opinion re math equations and the boiling point of water is that I will believe them as long as they work. For the moment they have a history of working well in the contexts in which they have been used, but they could conceivably be used in other contexts in the future in which inaccuracies of those equations and values, as we know them, become apparent and they need to be refined, or redefined.

My general sense, not to mention my personal experience, is that there is much less of an experience base with paranormal phenomena to support a widespread conclusion that they are, or are not, "real". When paranormal phenomena are used to do the equivalent of building structures, putting men on the moon, etc., they will not be hard to believe. Of course, in that case, by definition, they will be "normal", not para-.

In the meantime, I am quite willing to have an open mind, and if other people are unwilling to have an open mind about me having an open mind, that is their concern. They get to decide what to expend their emotional energy on, as do I.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
No change of heart, but as ususal, you have a unique gift in changing the meanings of what other people say.

It's very important to me to get my facts and arguments straight. If I misunderstood you, please show me where and how.

 

[CivicFan]

doodfood, how can you be so categorically be against anything that is not currently based on scientific theory?

Before Galileo Galilei you probably would be against such silly thoughts as a round Earth (as dogmatic as now and on the side of the mainstream thought).

 

[d00df00d]

If by "scientific theory" you mean currently established ideas, I couldn't possibly care less. In my line of work, that's where all the fun is: pushing the boundaries and doing something new. Established theory is boring to play with (unless you can prove it wrong somehow).

If by "scientific theory" you mean all the things humanity has learned over the centuries about how to tell fact from fantasy, then yes, I do care about that. I am categorically against anything that violates those things when it is seriously proposed as a matter of reality, for reasons that should be obvious.

I am also categorically against believers trying to portray their belief as totally rational while accusing skeptics of dogmatism and closed-mindedness, because that is sheer hypocrisy.

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
I don't care that it's not based on "scientific theory."

Since I didn't see where you plucked that from in quote, let me offer you this alternative and see how you handle it.

"I don't care that it's not based on current scientific theory".

As Civicfan expressed, would you be a (would be) "ghost believer" when the current theory asserted that the world was flat and you believed otherwise? (insert any major revelation or enlightenment that humanity has experienced).

 

[CivicFan]

You give too much credit to the current knowledge. Right now, based on what we know, multiple dimensions, travel between them, etc. are pure fantasy (the string theory makes a good case for them but has not been proven scientifically). 100 years ago walking on the moon was a pure fantasy, too. In a 100 years a lot of the things we think are fantasies will be reality.

This of course doesn't mean that we will be able to walk around with a device and detect ghosts, angels and what not but I keep that possibility open.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
As Civicfan expressed, would you be a (would be) "ghost believer" when the current theory asserted that the world was flat and you believed otherwise? (insert any major revelation or enlightenment that humanity has experienced).


I find the question largely unintelligible as it's stated. But I'll have a go at what I think it means; if I've missed the point, maybe you or CivicFan could flesh it out a bit more for me.


For a long time, the theory of a flat earth worked just fine because we didn't have the means (e.g. telescopes, long-distance travel) to do anything that would reveal otherwise. In that context, the idea of a round earth would have been interesting but spurious.

Eventually, the flat earth theory didn't work so well because we observed phenomena that didn't fit with that idea, and started finding evidence that the world was not flat. Here, it would be hard to make a call either way, but the idea of a round earth would make sense.

Now, the round earth theory explains everything perfectly well, and is supported by a mountain of evidence. The flat earth theory explains almost nothing and is contradicted by the aforementioned evidence.


If anything, the idea of ghosts looks more and more like the idea of a FLAT earth as time goes by. The more we know, the more it seems to be a simple product of our own biases and limitations. I suppose that means the "ghost believers" would be comparable to the flat-earthers, not the round-earthers, at the dawn of the round earth idea...


Again, if I've misunderstood something in the question, let me know.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: CivicFan
You give too much credit to the current knowledge. Right now, based on what we know, multiple dimensions, travel between them, etc. are pure fantasy (the string theory makes a good case for them but has not been proven scientifically). 100 years ago walking on the moon was a pure fantasy, too. In a 100 years a lot of the things we think are fantasies will be reality.

This of course doesn't mean that we will be able to walk around with a device and detect ghosts, angels and what not but I keep that possibility open.

Do you not see how you are leaping from "it might be true" to "it's perfectly reasonable to believe it?"

Of course we keep options open. Of course fantasies have become reality. This doesn't mean it makes sense to believe whatever we want until we can be proven wrong.

Again, for the umpteenth time: I'm not saying ghosts don't exist. All I'm saying is that we shouldn't be claiming they do unless the evidence is in place, and we should recognize that the evidence would have to be a lot more spectacular than a creeping feeling or a visual illusion.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
Again, if I've misunderstood something in the question, let me know.


Yes, you have ..and merely altered the question to fit to your needs for continuing on in the same pathway that can only lead to your own self proclaimed "one truth".

Again, for a 2nd time. Suppose you're the country bumpkin and has no means to go beyond the horizon. Or for that matter, the highly influential pseudo intellectual that just made his truth the only valid one out of pure assertiveness ..oh, wait .

Never mind.


btw- the round Earth theory wasn't an evolution from the flat Earth theory ..at least in its latest form. The flat Earth belief was a popularized diversion to that belief ...by alleged authorities of alleged gifted insight.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Never mind.

Okay. Take care, Gary.

 

[UncleS2]

I can make you a great deal on the Brooklyn Bridge. No, wait- just because I can't prove that I own it doesn't mean that I don't own it!

 

[eljefino]

I like to keep a spot of mystery in my life.

At work, there are a couple subsystems that other employees work, that I look away when they're being operated. I don't know how they work, and I prefer the mystery.

I'm naturally curious, but there's a limit.

There are probably lots of people on this BBS that are curious about how stuff works, moreso than the general population. If a "ghost" can't be pigeonholed into a natural phenomena, then what? Is it okay to leave it on the back burner of one's mind? Or would one rather burn the mental images as some self-induced hallucination, so they would then not be found "wrong" at a later point? Even if defending their own ideas within their heads?

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
Quote:
Again, if I've misunderstood something in the question, let me know.


Yes, you have ..and merely altered the question to fit to your needs for continuing on in the same pathway that can only lead to your own self proclaimed "one truth".

Again, for a 2nd time. Suppose you're the country bumpkin and has no means to go beyond the horizon. Or for that matter, the highly influential pseudo intellectual that just made his truth the only valid one out of pure assertiveness ..oh, wait .

Never mind.


btw- the round Earth theory wasn't an evolution from the flat Earth theory ..at least in its latest form. The flat Earth belief was a popularized diversion to that belief ...by alleged authorities of alleged gifted insight.


This is what most post-modernists do. I'm surprised you didn't see that coming?

For the flat earth/round earth comments, I'm glad you beat me to this. Expanding more so, the flat earth theory as it is explained so often, is mainly a myth and I'd call it propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

 

[CivicFan]

Yeah, that's why I said 'mainstream thought' rather than any other term.

 

[Gary Allan]

Quote:
If a "ghost" can't be pigeonholed into a natural phenomena, then what? Is it okay to leave it on the back burner of one's mind? Or would one rather burn the mental images as some self-induced hallucination, so they would then not be found "wrong" at a later point? Even if defending their own ideas within their heads?


The argument is two pronged. One would surely admit that every phenomena has a rational origin. If one cannot explain it, one has not the knowledge or level of enlightenment to comprehend its cause.

The other is validating that "something" occurred that was real.

You can dance around in intellectualizing between the two and never have to admit "I don't know" if you choose to oppose the notion in some assumed position of superior insight or enlightenment.

Yet quantum entanglements may be totally plausible to you since you align yourself with that "consensus of convention".


It's sorta like an advanced version of "We'll win ..well, because we're Bradys!"

 

[mechtech2]

So for only one instance:
What about a guy who dies on the operating table in a certain hospital room, and finds himself temporarily moving about in other hospital rooms, and can describe people and events there, when he is crash carted back to life by the doctors?

The mind? Can't be. It's spiritual stuff.
Umpteen jillion examples exist in different flavors.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
For the flat earth/round earth comments, I'm glad you beat me to this. Expanding more so, the flat earth theory as it is explained so often, is mainly a myth and I'd call it propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


I think you missed an important qualifier in that article:

Quote:
The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat


So, the flat earth idea didn't prevail in the Middle Ages. That doesn't mean it never prevailed. In fact, one click through that article to the main Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth" indicates the following:

Quote:
The Flat Earth model is a view that the Earth's shape is a flat plane or disk. Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Ancient Near East until the Hellenistic period, Ancient India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century.

A flat earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is the typical "scientifically naive" conception of the cosmos found in pre-modern, tribal societies the world over, and in the cultures of the New World was typically held until the time of European contact.


Seems pretty prevalent to me.

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d
Originally Posted By: bigmike
For the flat earth/round earth comments, I'm glad you beat me to this. Expanding more so, the flat earth theory as it is explained so often, is mainly a myth and I'd call it propaganda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth


I think you missed an important qualifier in that article:

Quote:
The myth of the Flat Earth is the modern misconception that the prevailing cosmological view during the Middle Ages saw the Earth as flat


So, the flat earth idea didn't prevail in the Middle Ages. That doesn't mean it never prevailed. In fact, one click through that article to the main Wikipedia article on "Flat Earth" indicates the following:

Quote:
The Flat Earth model is a view that the Earth's shape is a flat plane or disk. Most pre-modern cultures have had conceptions of a flat Earth, including the Bronze Age and Iron Age civilizations of the Ancient Near East until the Hellenistic period, Ancient India until the Gupta period (early centuries AD) and China until the 17th century.

A flat earth domed by the firmament in the shape of an inverted bowl is the typical "scientifically naive" conception of the cosmos found in pre-modern, tribal societies the world over, and in the cultures of the New World was typically held until the time of European contact.


Seems pretty prevalent to me.


Propaganda.

I'd already stated in a previous post the Buddhist and Indian belief of a flat earth. Thanks for pointing it out again for us.

That said, nobody ever thinks of these cultures when they state ridiculous comments about the earth being flat. They blame religion for made up preposterous ideas instead and try to compare that their science is greater than someone's religion. They have, indeed, cornered and painted themselves into a nice, neat box in their own minds and call it skepticism and realism.

I find it all to be self-serving and, quite frankly, deism. This, of course, is my own opinion and upon my own studies, I've concluded that 1) I don't know everything (I'm not a deity) and 2) science and religion are not independent of each other. Many great scientists will confirm this is their opinion as well and I'm apt to agree.