| | |||||||
| Register | FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
| Psychic & Paranormal Psi skills, psychic energy, dreams, lucid dreaming, astral projection, paranormal phenomena, non-physical entities, extraterrestrials, channeling, mediumship, clairvoyance, clairaudience, clairsentience, claircognizance |
|
Welcome to the Personal Development for Smart People Forums, the place for lively, intelligent discussion of all personal growth issues -- physical, mental, financial, social, emotional, spiritual, and more. You're currently viewing as a guest, which gives you limited read-only access. By joining our free community, you'll be able to post your own messages, access many members-only features, see the new messages posted since your last visit, and of course remove this header message. Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please join today. If you arrived here from a search engine, you may want to explore the main site first, which includes hundreds of deep and insightful articles on a variety of personal development topics. |
| | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| |||
| If you clicked on this topic, then I assure you, it is worthwhile to hear me out. Before I say anything else, I would just like to establish myself as a senior physics and mathematics major (oh boy, this silly skeptic is just so ignorant, it's not even worth continuing). If this changes your mind, please at least finish this paragraph. Otherwise, (if you do not feel like reading it), you can go ahead and skip to after the "====". This is not meant as an approach that changes your belief. The title, regardless of my firm conviction in its validity (at least, for now, writing down my ideas and discussing it will help me see how I really feel), is nevertheless, still my opinion (and a fancy way to catch your attention ==== Oops, my post is over 10,000 characters. I'll continue in the next post, and I'll make one more after that to reserve myself 30,000 characters. Last edited by TechnoGuyRob : 11-08-2006 at 04:12 AM. |
| |||
| Continuation of the above post. I will be relying on the following axioms. Reasoning for using each axiom is highlighted in italics. You don't need to read the italic text if you fully agree with the axiom.
Notice that by accepting these axioms, we are surrendering the colloquial definition of "ghost", and using a more general description. Let me provide an analogy to illustrate why this does not invalidate our logic. If one wanted to prove the area of a rectangle with sides of length A and B is A*B, then this does not invalidate that the area of a square with sides of length A and A is A*A; the rectangle is merely a generalization. Our definition of ghost encompasses humans on Earth, aliens (non-Earth inhabiting entities capable of deliberate communication), and our usual definition of "supernatural" creatures. While aliens satisfy axiom 2.2 (the second defining property of a "ghost"), so far we haven't found any that actually engaged the capability (assuming you didn't get abducted Alright, I spent a considerable amount of time writing and thinking this out (well, thinking out how to phrase exactly what I want to say). I'm going to finish later, but if anyone finds any severe contradictions in my axioms (that don't rely on deep onthological questioning that's left to bored philosophers), please inform me now so I can fix them. Last edited by TechnoGuyRob : 11-08-2006 at 04:16 AM. |
| |||
| Continuation of the above post. Here's a little informal sample to what arguments I claim (I will, of course, think them through carefully and formalize them): If a ghost is composed in any way of physical particles, then it must obey physical laws, which leads to some contradictions. For example, if a camera can capture it or a human can "understand" it (or somehow communicate with it or vice versa), then that means it needs some significant amount of hadrons to emit the necessary bosons to transmit all that information (you couldn't otherwise have an "intelligent" entity)! But, if that is true, then that would mean it would be physically measurable using tools. Bosons have supposedly been detected (e.g., electromagnetic readings), but even if they have, there must have been hadrons that triggered those readings, but nobody has yet claimed to detect the presence of a "ghost"'s mass. If, on the other hand, if it does not follow our physical principles, then a ghost must still be able to communicate information (by axiom 2.2). If it doesn't follow physical principles, then those supposed "electromagnetic" (and other) "readings" must be false, and any claimed "photographs". Also, note that Earth is traveling at 300,000 miles an hour around the sun, and faster around the Galaxy, so even in some kind of identically "parallel" universe, a ghost would have to keep up with that, because if it didn't follow our laws, it wouldn't obey gravity (it wouldn't emit gravitons), which means it couldn't take advantage of the inertia! There's lots of holes in here, but I will attempt to fill them up to my best capability once I formalize it. Last edited by TechnoGuyRob : 11-08-2006 at 04:12 AM. |
| |||
| Thanks for the post, Rob. Way too long and technical though for me to wade through it tonight. Might give it a whirl after some coffee in the morning... |
| |||
| Quote:
__________________ Martial Arts for Personal Development Blog |
| |||
| So far, so good--you've got me interested! My biggest problem is with the definition here: Quote:
First of all, the definition of "observer" gets a bit muddled up here. In your example, you were talking about an atom in a chair. Here, you don't state, but strongly imply that the observer is conscious (e.g. through the use of the word "imaginary"). Even the example of the atoms is dubious because they are made up of component parts (i.e. many observers at once). Putting that aside, let me make a handful of assorted points:
Note: I can be a bit... picky. Don't let it get to you. Also, I probably wouldn't have said much, except you literally asked for it, and this kind of discussion fascinates me. Your article was great--I'd love to see more! Good job! -- Daniel Terhorst |
| |||
| If the universe is indeed an objective place that exists independent of our thoughts and consciousness, then Rob's points all have merit. But they pre-suppose the existence of an objective universe, which by itself is an unprovable assumption. Consequently, everything based on the objective model must remain in doubt because the foundation is merely an educated guess. And in fact there are many today who feel it's an inaccurate one, myself included. When you have direct personal experience that contradicts the notion of objective reality, it can be very unsettling at first, but then you come to realize that we live in a far more wondrous place than previously imagined, and that's when things begin to get interesting.
__________________ Steve Pavlina www.StevePavlina.com Pre-order Personal Development for Smart People (shipping Oct 15, 2008) |
| |||
| I'm with Steve on this one, I have to say your points are correct and totally valid. IN AN OBJECTIVE UNIVERSE. IF however the universe is subjective, then your points are total rubbish to anyone other than yourself.
__________________ I dare do all that may become a man; Who dares do more is none. - MACBETH |
| |||
| First of all, even scientists have begun to admit the possibility of other planes of existence. Like parallel universes. I don't know if it was Sagan or Hawkins who talked of the Warp Plane, the plane where things that are impossible in the physical plane would be indeed possible. And that wouldn't only mean travelling faster than light speed, but also staying conscious after your physical body is dead. I didn't say this: scientists did. Mind you, I took great pains in trying to conjugate spirituality with science. I cannot reject science, because it damn works. It's useful. Funny thing is, once you investigate about the paranormal enough, you find that the paranormal is NOT against science... It's a not-yet-discovered part of science. In Warp plane, things that are impossible in physical plane would be possible. And science considers the possibility of other planes of existence. As for me, the day science can explain why in ouija sessions, the force of gravity is totally and absolutely ignored by wooden furniture with no propulsion machinery attached at all... that day Science will be able to convince me it's all mythical. Wooden chairs don't fly. Wooden chairs should obey the law of gravity. Wooden chairs could not be affected by strong magnetic forces... Only reason I found that a wooden chair would fly was the result of the ouija session. With no drugs, alcohol or mind illnesses involved, the only reasonable thing to deduce is that "something" acted upon the chair, and that "something" did not obey the laws of physics. As we know them so far, of course. We will probably understand them some day |
| |||
| Flying chairs are great, aren't they? Well, Rob, you're basically you're trying to disprove, or at the very least redefine, something millions of people have experienced throughout history. Now, I'm a big fan of the lens analogy. Your beliefs act as a lens. Your rather long post really only makes sense when viewed thru the Objective Lens. Barring that, there are sub-lenses inside of that. Lenses like Belief in the Paranormal. Your argument is weak because of a common problem, assumptions. Here is where it falls apart for me: Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Andreas : 11-06-2006 at 01:11 PM. |
| |||
| Or of just raw experience. (Maybe this is what you mean by "mysteries.")
__________________ Every thing is always in sync, even if it doesn't seem like it. I find I can tell that my spiritual side is working well when I notice the synchronicities everywhere! -- Court |
| |||
| EDIT: I am not talking about supernatural phenomena in general in this topic, just about, well, "ghosts" (see axiom 2 Thank you so much everybody! Some fully excellent comments, tons of things I didn't think about. I'm already grinding my brain to reconcile, and I'll be making modifications to my axioms later today. Daniel: You are correct. My definition of "observer" is horridly flimsy (there is none, in fact). Steve and Akashic_Librarian: A very fine point! I'm pretty sure I can adapt to it. I'll see. Zach: Why not? The only "religion" or "spiritually" we are accustomed with is that which affects humans, am I correct? Hence, humans (in a sense) invented--or rather, initiated--"religion" and "spiritually". Even if supernatural phenomena "exist", if there were no humans to "consciously" perceive them, and those phenomena did not affect the universe, then they might as well not have been "initiated" or "happening" in our universe. Natsu: I'm not trying to disagree or "disprove" that. My axioms take into account multiple realities/universes. Also, ouija doesn't relate to what I'm rationalizing (see axiom 2). Andreas: Regardless of any "Lens"es, there is still some instance when supernatural consciousness/thinking is "transferred" to our physical reality (see rationale for axiom 1). I don't think it will invalidate my argument. Also, I agree with you that--much like Daniel noted--axiom 2.1 is ill-shaped. Thanks again everyone! I'll see if I can integrate your ideas so that the axioms still cover them, but also allow for the arguments I plan to make. Sometimes, I just wish science was advanced to the point where it could map out every brain component's exact function so we could know once and for all if there is some information being transmitted from somewhere else. Last edited by TechnoGuyRob : 11-06-2006 at 01:38 PM. |
| |||
| Quote:
However, I get the feeling that once we get to that point, we'll have even more confusion.
__________________ Every thing is always in sync, even if it doesn't seem like it. I find I can tell that my spiritual side is working well when I notice the synchronicities everywhere! -- Court |
| |||
| They do have a lot of friction between them. However, I think that's the work. We try align our observations (which is all science is, really, a fancy systematized way of observing and creating patterns out of those observations) with our inner work. It's difficult, but somehow I feel it's worth it.
__________________ Every thing is always in sync, even if it doesn't seem like it. I find I can tell that my spiritual side is working well when I notice the synchronicities everywhere! -- Court |
| |||
| At this point I feel compelled to define a few words we're throwing around here. I hope you like the OED. And ironically enough this is my 42nd post. Quote:
Quote:
|


