lazyhazycrazydays3
New member
I guess that would explain the bright orbs trapped in my chest!
Paranormal?
- Thread starter rhyannakitty
- Start date
I haven't been online here in a bit, but I'd like to say something about the general attitude towards people "confessing" that they are spiritual or believe in iofftopicterial things.
I can never understand why some people refuse to consider the existence of more than what is at first obvious... many physicists theorize that infinitely many parallel universes exist based off of observation of electrons, perhaps with good reason. Would we have thought of anything like that without first observing the bewildering behavior of electrons? It's not very likely. You shouldn't simply write off a somewhat fantastical theory or belief because there is currently no evidence for it. That may seem logical, after all, because modern understanding of logic would demand a statement and then evidence to back it up, but sometimes hard evidence to prove or disprove is simply not yet available or possible. Exploring the behavior of electrons without the use of tip top observational technology is not possible.
Sometimes we notice many little things that subconsciously convince us of something (gut instinct, for example), but we don't have hard evidence or physical proof to back it up easily at hand. If, for example, I believe that I have observed something unnatural, perhaps a "spirit" manifesting itself in semi-physical shape, and I have only the power to observe, photograph (which really doesn't count as evidence anymore), or videotape it, I will simply not be able to make a case for its existence. If I tell someone about it, they think I'm saying I saw some kind of spirit or something, and they write it off as crazy.
What if it was actually some kind of creature from a parallel universe (if such things exist) or perhaps some type of creature that exists in a yet undiscovered form? If you have removed what is possible, what is impossible must be the answer. The key is not that it's impossible, though, but your perception of it... anything is possible. Even with our huge progress in the last few hundred years, we are barely beginning to unlock the secrets of this amazing universe.
I am open minded. Ideas are possible until proven impossible, and I always think of "How could this be true?" rather than "How can this idea, feeling,or conviction be shot down and misrepresented?"
Anyway, I said I can never understand why people who are so materialistically minded would write off such experiences as anything but real. Where is the science in that!? Don't you feel a burning desire, an unquenchable yearning to discover WHAT is causing this person to feel this conviction? I sometimes feel so motivated to learn all there is to learn that I can hardly stand it... if a person has experienced something that rattles them to the core or just plain contradicts everything I believe in, I will investigate what they have experienced until I can come to a tentative conclusion. If I cannot come to a definite conclusion, I will never do anything but theorize on the possible answer.
Respectfully,
Pat
I can never understand why some people refuse to consider the existence of more than what is at first obvious... many physicists theorize that infinitely many parallel universes exist based off of observation of electrons, perhaps with good reason. Would we have thought of anything like that without first observing the bewildering behavior of electrons? It's not very likely. You shouldn't simply write off a somewhat fantastical theory or belief because there is currently no evidence for it. That may seem logical, after all, because modern understanding of logic would demand a statement and then evidence to back it up, but sometimes hard evidence to prove or disprove is simply not yet available or possible. Exploring the behavior of electrons without the use of tip top observational technology is not possible.
Sometimes we notice many little things that subconsciously convince us of something (gut instinct, for example), but we don't have hard evidence or physical proof to back it up easily at hand. If, for example, I believe that I have observed something unnatural, perhaps a "spirit" manifesting itself in semi-physical shape, and I have only the power to observe, photograph (which really doesn't count as evidence anymore), or videotape it, I will simply not be able to make a case for its existence. If I tell someone about it, they think I'm saying I saw some kind of spirit or something, and they write it off as crazy.
What if it was actually some kind of creature from a parallel universe (if such things exist) or perhaps some type of creature that exists in a yet undiscovered form? If you have removed what is possible, what is impossible must be the answer. The key is not that it's impossible, though, but your perception of it... anything is possible. Even with our huge progress in the last few hundred years, we are barely beginning to unlock the secrets of this amazing universe.
I am open minded. Ideas are possible until proven impossible, and I always think of "How could this be true?" rather than "How can this idea, feeling,or conviction be shot down and misrepresented?"
Anyway, I said I can never understand why people who are so materialistically minded would write off such experiences as anything but real. Where is the science in that!? Don't you feel a burning desire, an unquenchable yearning to discover WHAT is causing this person to feel this conviction? I sometimes feel so motivated to learn all there is to learn that I can hardly stand it... if a person has experienced something that rattles them to the core or just plain contradicts everything I believe in, I will investigate what they have experienced until I can come to a tentative conclusion. If I cannot come to a definite conclusion, I will never do anything but theorize on the possible answer.
Respectfully,
Pat
That's a good point. Things like String Theory get discussed but there'd have to be people who'd think it's koo koo. People are having experiences with something. I don't have an explanation for it, but I can accept that whatever it is is part of the natural world around us. People writing things off is also perfectly natural in my book.
I had a laugh earlier today about being thanked 666 times. There are probably people out there who'd be so superstitious as to think that's the sign of the Devil upon me. Either way, it's still funny.
I had a laugh earlier today about being thanked 666 times. There are probably people out there who'd be so superstitious as to think that's the sign of the Devil upon me. Either way, it's still funny.
curtisports2
New member
I think it's definitely common, but not necessarily natural. Consider this: Young children who don't "know what is possible" have the habit of coming to very insightful conclusions about things that we older people (although I'm only 18) have kind of been taught to dismiss. For example, if I see a car flying through the air I am likely to think "What propelled that car through the sky? Did something throw it?" than "Look, a flying car. It's like a plan without wings!"
Children who have not yet set mental limits on what it possible see things in a startlingly different way from us. They don't assume that something is impossible because of something they heard. Kids believe what they experience, whether it's a flying car, a monster in a movie, or something from Lost in Space.
I got your back, my friend. There. 667 is better than 666.
(I am not remotely superstitious)
Children who have not yet set mental limits on what it possible see things in a startlingly different way from us. They don't assume that something is impossible because of something they heard. Kids believe what they experience, whether it's a flying car, a monster in a movie, or something from Lost in Space.
I got your back, my friend. There. 667 is better than 666.
(I am not remotely superstitious)
The many worlds interpretation is based off repeated observation however, not unrepeatable anecdotes. This is the difference between the two.
Why not? You've said yourself that the counter-intuitive model of physics we've developed is based on observation and experiment. These experiments can be replicated by anyone with the equipment. The fantastical theories and beliefs which come up never seem to have such evidence, and often can never provide a way for the event to be repeated. Being skeptical about such things is reasonable - I could make all sorts of claims but without evidence they can, and should, be written off.
Granted - that's why we've developed the technology. The more fantastical stories that are often spouted generally have clear physical effects described, yet these can never be repeated. Now it's possible that this is because years of training and study are needed, or a particular set of very rare and unusual circumstances, but it's more likely that the event has been misunderstood. I'm always happy to change my mind - I'd love for magic to exist - but I'm not going to do so without some evidence.
Why not? You've said yourself that the counter-intuitive model of physics we've developed is based on observation and experiment. These experiments can be replicated by anyone with the equipment. The fantastical theories and beliefs which come up never seem to have such evidence, and often can never provide a way for the event to be repeated. Being skeptical about such things is reasonable - I could make all sorts of claims but without evidence they can, and should, be written off.
Granted - that's why we've developed the technology. The more fantastical stories that are often spouted generally have clear physical effects described, yet these can never be repeated. Now it's possible that this is because years of training and study are needed, or a particular set of very rare and unusual circumstances, but it's more likely that the event has been misunderstood. I'm always happy to change my mind - I'd love for magic to exist - but I'm not going to do so without some evidence.
Patrick, I agree and support your view. My wife and i are regularly discuss this train of thought. However there is more evidence to support imagination, emotion, environmental bias or even just religion that explain sightings than the actual potential of paranormal activity. Whilst it is romantic to believe that what people see may be multi dimensional glimses into another universe, i'm not entirely sure we could perceive anything of that nature; I would imagine it is as lost to us as the IR or UV ends of the light spectrum.
Patrick i'm not offended homie They were just playing around with my cactus posts and I played with them. Just going along with the jokes. No big deal. the cactus jokes were funny btw =] Its all in fun, they werent really trying to hurt me cause i said I'm spiritual and i don't dismiss the idea of paranormal ghosts and stuff.
and well, Ok then, I'm gonna be serious about how i really know how long penetration in cats lasts. I been a cat lover since - well probably since i came out the uterus. I always read about cats and i have lot of cat books and watched tv shows about cats. So I know quite a bit about them.
and speaking of ghosts -
The Real Ghostbusters intro - YouTube
LOL, sometimes i miss the 80's.
and well, Ok then, I'm gonna be serious about how i really know how long penetration in cats lasts. I been a cat lover since - well probably since i came out the uterus. I always read about cats and i have lot of cat books and watched tv shows about cats. So I know quite a bit about them.
and speaking of ghosts -
The Real Ghostbusters intro - YouTube
LOL, sometimes i miss the 80's.
Hi, LilBunnyRabbit
(cute name, btw )
I'll try to be more brief next time, my friend. I don't want to occupy all your time with replying to long posts
That is very true. The example I gave was analogous to observing something whether scientifically or otherwise and eventually coming to a conclusion that was not at all obvious in the first place. Possibly even considered impossible.
You are right; being skeptical is good. But I think that many people who believe themselves to be healthily skeptical are actually overly skeptical and closed minded.
Why not? I don't understand your question. What leads physicist to believe in multiple parallel universes is the observation of electrons only. Without the observation of electrons, they would have had to figure it out from a different source or not figured it out all. It's an example, though. Simply an analogy. The key is that without the proper quantitative measuring equipment that could be used to observe the electrons, these observations would never have been made and never have been verified and explored.
My main point is this: perhaps we have not yet developed the quantitative measurement machines capable of capturing information from (yet) unknown sources. Perhaps these things that are so confusing (like UFOs) are only confusing because we don't yet have the technology to reach out and to define them. To quantify them and classify them. That's all I'm saying. Electrons are only an example...
Of course not. I wouldn't expect you to change your mind without evidence. And really, it's not what I'm asking anyone to do. All I'm saying is don't dismiss possible explanations because they don't match everything that is currently known about the subject. In my opinion, the best thought process for when someone tells you a crazy theory is: 1) Assuming that it's true, how would it work? 2) How radically different is that from what I currently know and are there any connections with things I don't know? and 3) If it passes the first two conditions, I'll put into the I'll keep it in the back of my mind stack. If it doesn't, it goes into the "to reconsider at future date stack".
Not everyone has to think like that, but I don't want to accidentally limit my thinking because of an assumption or narrow mindedness (not saying that you're like that, btw).
I agree somewhat, but with the increasing level of proficiency in computer graphics it's hard to prove a photo or video's legitimacy. I also agree that one shouldn't automatically assume that it's supernatural. I'd agree with anyone saying that one shouldn't assume! I would approve of analyzing the experience and exploring every option, no matter how crazy it at first appears. That could include supernatural explanations, but since supernatural activities are by nature (definition) "beyond scientific measurement or understanding" it would be a bit pointless.
100% true, but the secrets we have unlocked thus far have asked many more questions than we have yet answered.
No, I disagree with your definitions.
I think being open minded is being willing to examine and consider the evidence for any position that is not your own. In other words, not being afraid of contradiction or challenges. Being really open minded might even include actively seeking redefinition of one's beliefs and actively comparing/contrasting them with other's beliefs.
Being closed minded is refusing to examine and consider the evidence for positions not your own.
But in these fantastical cases there are plenty of mundane explanations. You're going straight for the fantastical, and ignoring the mundane because it contradicts the person's beliefs.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
"That's a ghost." ... really? That's not at all what I said. I didn't say that the explanation was supernatural. How could I say that when my "motto" is that there is always something more to learn and "anything" is possible. I refuse to write it off as anything, although I will say that I am inclined to believe one thing over another.
The problem is when a person sees something that looks like a ghost (may be one, may be a small cloud of dust, could be a combination of light and a bush, whatever) and automatically says, "That's ANYTHING but a ghost," instead of "What could that be? What is it made of? Is it physical? etc." The true scientist doesn't care about whether what he or she is observing is contradictory to what contemporary science has documented. All he or she cares about is quantifying and classifying everything.
Hi, SpikeD
I'm glad we agree For the record, I don't believe that people are glimpsing into other universes when they experiences such things.
Just for the record
@Blade - I'm glad you're not offended. I didn't join in for that reason, though.
(cute name, btw )
I'll try to be more brief next time, my friend. I don't want to occupy all your time with replying to long posts
That is very true. The example I gave was analogous to observing something whether scientifically or otherwise and eventually coming to a conclusion that was not at all obvious in the first place. Possibly even considered impossible.
You are right; being skeptical is good. But I think that many people who believe themselves to be healthily skeptical are actually overly skeptical and closed minded.
Why not? I don't understand your question. What leads physicist to believe in multiple parallel universes is the observation of electrons only. Without the observation of electrons, they would have had to figure it out from a different source or not figured it out all. It's an example, though. Simply an analogy. The key is that without the proper quantitative measuring equipment that could be used to observe the electrons, these observations would never have been made and never have been verified and explored.
My main point is this: perhaps we have not yet developed the quantitative measurement machines capable of capturing information from (yet) unknown sources. Perhaps these things that are so confusing (like UFOs) are only confusing because we don't yet have the technology to reach out and to define them. To quantify them and classify them. That's all I'm saying. Electrons are only an example...
Of course not. I wouldn't expect you to change your mind without evidence. And really, it's not what I'm asking anyone to do. All I'm saying is don't dismiss possible explanations because they don't match everything that is currently known about the subject. In my opinion, the best thought process for when someone tells you a crazy theory is: 1) Assuming that it's true, how would it work? 2) How radically different is that from what I currently know and are there any connections with things I don't know? and 3) If it passes the first two conditions, I'll put into the I'll keep it in the back of my mind stack. If it doesn't, it goes into the "to reconsider at future date stack".
Not everyone has to think like that, but I don't want to accidentally limit my thinking because of an assumption or narrow mindedness (not saying that you're like that, btw).
I agree somewhat, but with the increasing level of proficiency in computer graphics it's hard to prove a photo or video's legitimacy. I also agree that one shouldn't automatically assume that it's supernatural. I'd agree with anyone saying that one shouldn't assume! I would approve of analyzing the experience and exploring every option, no matter how crazy it at first appears. That could include supernatural explanations, but since supernatural activities are by nature (definition) "beyond scientific measurement or understanding" it would be a bit pointless.
100% true, but the secrets we have unlocked thus far have asked many more questions than we have yet answered.
No, I disagree with your definitions.
I think being open minded is being willing to examine and consider the evidence for any position that is not your own. In other words, not being afraid of contradiction or challenges. Being really open minded might even include actively seeking redefinition of one's beliefs and actively comparing/contrasting them with other's beliefs.
Being closed minded is refusing to examine and consider the evidence for positions not your own.
But in these fantastical cases there are plenty of mundane explanations. You're going straight for the fantastical, and ignoring the mundane because it contradicts the person's beliefs.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
"That's a ghost." ... really? That's not at all what I said. I didn't say that the explanation was supernatural. How could I say that when my "motto" is that there is always something more to learn and "anything" is possible. I refuse to write it off as anything, although I will say that I am inclined to believe one thing over another.
The problem is when a person sees something that looks like a ghost (may be one, may be a small cloud of dust, could be a combination of light and a bush, whatever) and automatically says, "That's ANYTHING but a ghost," instead of "What could that be? What is it made of? Is it physical? etc." The true scientist doesn't care about whether what he or she is observing is contradictory to what contemporary science has documented. All he or she cares about is quantifying and classifying everything.
Hi, SpikeD
I'm glad we agree For the record, I don't believe that people are glimpsing into other universes when they experiences such things.
Just for the record
@Blade - I'm glad you're not offended. I didn't join in for that reason, though.
DigitalDreams
New member
i might be.
sharayne_aerogirl94
New member
For my part, as I see it, in almost all cases the explanation that someone is deluded, lying, mistaken, hallucinating, dreaming, fooled, intoxicated or just plain faking it are by the far the most likely answers than "dead people somehow stay around after they are dead".
And this tends to work for many phenomena.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
I think the people that call for an "open-mind" are generally people that have already accepted something pretty far fetched or irrational and don't want to feel a bit silly for doing so.
And this tends to work for many phenomena.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and all that.
I think the people that call for an "open-mind" are generally people that have already accepted something pretty far fetched or irrational and don't want to feel a bit silly for doing so.
videokideindii
New member
If you want proof that "dead people somehow stay around after they are dead", visit a local cemetary or mausoleum. Plenty of remains there.
xweetoklover947
New member
True fact: under English Law you cannot steal a dead body, but you can steal parts of it
getLO0SE3942
New member
[No message]