IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 2 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Naturally, the answer is "ghosts".
It's far more likely, of course, that all known laws of physics were breached and an event took place which has never, ever been repeated in any lab, anywhere, than there be some perfectly natural cause unknown to you.

You're a rational man, Skip. Why do you have this blind spot? Why can you apply Occam's razor everywhere else but not here?

The nonsense lies in your assertion that an entity existing beyond the bounds of our universe but which can interact with it chucked a jar across the room.

During dinner.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New ROFL
Not trying to convince you.

I saw.

My family saw it.

We had to clean it up.

It was only one of many incidents.

Some were images of people.

Some were voices heard.

Some were experienced by people that had no idea the place was haunted.

So yeah, the coincidence of things moving about in full sight, with voices and images of people in 19th century dress, says "ghosts".

You say Occam's Razor, and it makes me laugh. You say that, but you would find it less complex to imagine all sorts of 'natural' reasons and wild coincidences - without any evidence to the contrary - to fit these phenomena into a framework that you have faith is complete?

I have no such illusions, and illusion it is.

Because, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, fits into the same weight range as a duck, and lays eggs that produce ducklings, I think the label 'duck' probably applies.

Would it make you feel better to apply another set of scientific-sounding labels? Go ahead! I just don't need that sort of 'comfort'.

Now - do I claim to know the nature of these things, why they appear, or how they fit into the natural order? Nope.

Do I claim they don't exist because it's not scientifically politic, do I disbelieve evidence (pottery shards) and reliable eyewitnesses because it doesn't fit into a framework I already know is at the very least incomplete? Also nope.

Do I get a chuckle when you claim I have a 'blind spot'?

*chuckle*

Again - I don't ask that you or anyone here 'believe in ghosts'. Nor do I expect it. I'm not some kind of psychic evangelist. You asked a question at the top of the thread; I answered.

'nuff said.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Re: ROFL
Not trying to convince you.

Maybe you're not trying to convince me.
I saw.

You saw something.
My family saw it.

As above.
We had to clean it up.

As above.
It was only one of many incidents.

As above.
Some were images of people.

Imagination.
Some were voices heard.

Imagination.
Some were experienced by people that had no idea the place was haunted.

They had an idea. It's amazing what you can pick up subliminally.
So yeah, the coincidence of things moving about in full sight, with voices and images of people in 19th century dress, says "ghosts".

No, it doesn't. It says "group hallucination".
You say Occam's Razor, and it makes me laugh. You say that, but you would find it less complex to imagine all sorts of 'natural' reasons and wild coincidences - without any evidence to the contrary - to fit these phenomena into a framework that you have faith is complete?

It is less complex. "Ghosts" sounds less complex, but it really isn't; it requires our view of the world to be so wrong and so broken that, given the fact that we can do reliable quantum cryptography now, I don't think it is.
I have no such illusions, and illusion it is.

If you say so. Cute phrase, but no dice.
Because, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, fits into the same weight range as a duck, and lays eggs that produce ducklings, I think the label 'duck' probably applies.

Unless, of course, it's not a duck and you've just been backfitting the "evidence" to suit your preconceptions, which is where most/all paranormal research and observation ends up.
Would it make you feel better to apply another set of scientific-sounding labels? Go ahead! I just don't need that sort of 'comfort'.


Now - do I claim to know the nature of these things, why they appear, or how they fit into the natural order? Nope.

Yes, you do. "Ghosts!"
Do I claim they don't exist because it's not scientifically politic, do I disbelieve evidence (pottery shards) and reliable eyewitnesses because it doesn't fit into a framework I already know is at the very least incomplete? Also nope.

The pottery shards are not evidence of "ghosts". They are evidence that a jar existed, and that it is now broken - nothing more. Your analysis is flawed and designed to fit a pre-chosen conclusion.
Do I get a chuckle when you claim I have a 'blind spot'?

You probably do, because on this point, you're wrong.
*chuckle*

*snigger*
Again - I don't ask that you or anyone here 'believe in ghosts'. Nor do I expect it. I'm not some kind of psychic evangelist. You asked a question at the top of the thread; I answered.

I believe in having an open mind. However, one should be careful that one's mind isn't so open that one's brains fall out.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New *shrug* whatever.
Not trying to shake your reality, friend.

Like I said - you'd rather shrug off evidence as 'imagination', and invent things you have no evidence of occurring to keep your core beliefs from being shaken. S'alright. It's human.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New You have no evidence.
At all. Zip. Nada.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Uh huh. Whatever. Don't blow a fuse.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Ah, your faith is touching . . .
. . but it will be betrayed.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Will it?
When?


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Oh, you'll know.
It'll be when you have to spout this "rationality" stuff at yourself to convince yourself your faith is true.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.
I have no faith.


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New you have as much faith as the rest of us by yer standard
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New That's quite right.
No, wait.

The other thing.

"Wrong."


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New Every logical argument . . .
. . traced far enough back will be found based on a premise that is not itself supported by logic. You have simply buried your premises under so many layers of "facts" you hope you will never have to face them.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New However.
There is a difference between intuition and superstition. The Choice Axiom, for instance, without which much of mathematics disappears, is (at least in practice) accepted without proof. Even in the presence of Zorn's lemma which is vastly less intuitive than the Choice Axiom, but which has been shown to be equivalent. But acceptance of the Choice Axiom without proof is completely different from binding one's self to superstitous nonsense about ghosts, holy or otherwise.
bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell
New <homer>
Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
</homer>


Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
[link|http://kevan.org/brain.cgi?pwhysall|A better terminal emulator]
[image|http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h262/pwhysall/Misc/saveus.png|0|Darwinia||]
New And, you do :)
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New Sure.
Just like if you look at things closely enough you see that stuff is really mostly nothing - e.g. [link|http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/scanning-tunneling-microscopes.html|I'm not touching this keyboard], the electron wave functions that are part of "me" are repelling the electron wave functions of this keyboard thingy. Rutherford showed that atoms are [link|http://www.chemsoc.org/timeline/pages/1911.html|mostly empty space].

You're right that it's hard, and perhaps impossible, to construct a logical framework that doesn't involve some basic assumptions. An important one in our understanding of the universe is that the same physical laws apply everywhere. We have no way to prove that, but assume it to construct a framework to understand our surroundings. So far, it has been a pretty good assumption.

As you say, it's important to realize the limitations of our understanding, but to argue (as some - not here - do) that because we can't prove everything we can't prove anything is sophistry.

Cheers,
Scott.
New You also have no evidence.
Which wins?


(Hint: In America, the tie goes to the runner...)
jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)
New sorry, thats anecdotal evidence :-)
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New Could have been infrasound, perhaps.
[link|http://www.ghostexperiment.co.uk/theories-infra.html|The Ghost Experiment].

There are lots of things that can affect us, and our surroundings, that we aren't consciously sensitive to.

Cheers,
Scott.
New It could have been
a family of midget stage magicians living in the walls, too. *grin*

So.

Let's see.

Mass hallucinations. (no evidence, but always handy when you want to discount something)

Infrasound. (no evidence)

Subconcious communications (that were oddly specific) to people that didn't know anything about
the history of the place. (no evidence even possible)

Maybe a small localized yet violent earthquake that only affected the cookie jar, and other pieces of furniture at various times, too? (that was NOT the only incident). *chuckle* (no evidence that thats any more likely than 'ghosts')

When do these amazingly unlikely events, joined together, become less likely than the midgets, eh?

IMO, these 'explanations' are reaching, especially since there is NO evidence supporting any of those explanations.

Truly, I don't mean to offend the sensibilities of those that feel we know almost everything about reality, but I do kind of find these kinds of 'explanations' to be amusing.

Now. Was it the manifestation of dead people? Some kind of weird echo across time? Midget stage magicians? Dunno. Quite likely something altogether different. I'm pretty sure that throwing away data (and data it is, to me, even though it's just anecdotal, to you) because it leads to uncomfortable conclusions isn't scientific, though. Hey! Maybe 'string theory' can explain it! *chuckle*

I was just answering a question, and now you know why I believe in ghosts, even if I don't claim to understand their nature.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New I'm not doubting what you saw.
Only providing a possible physical explanation. My bias is to look for things like that when I see or hear about things I can't explain.

My search-fu seems to be broken, so I'm sorry if this is repetitive (or if it's not the same version I told before several years ago. I haven't thought about it recently so [link|http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19325961.400-future-recall-your-mind-can-slip-through-time.html|this version may be different]).

Once in late winter I was in a class in an old building. The steam heat was on full blast and the windows were open. It was a boring lecture, so I was daydreaming. Late afternoon light was streaming through the window. When I looked straight ahead, everything looked normal. But there was a guy sitting in a desk in the sunlight and he looked like he was on fire when seen with my peripheral vision! I looked at him directly and didn't see the effect. It was only when I used my peripheral vision.

The heat rising from the hot radiators explains the shimmering, but what about the red color? It wasn't simply the sunlight - the light wasn't the same color.

I told a friend about it and he said he thought it was an illusion that was an artifact of our peripheral vision having [link|http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html|different color sensitivity] than the center of our visual field.

If I were a superstitious person, I would have thought that I was seeing his future or something. I don't believe that. :-)

Obviously, I wasn't there - I don't know what was going on in your house. I do know that [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_Laws|Newton's Laws] have worked pretty well for explaining physical phenomena for several hundred years so I'm not willing to give them up without a fight.

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.
New Oh, I applaud skepticism.
After all - the phenomena we witnessed over the years (and which hasn't happened in over 10 years) was neither predictable nor controllable. Not something that lends itself to testing. I find the various tv shows on hauntings to be really funny, actually. Seems like people are just spooking themselves, more often than not.

Influences on the brain could account for most of the 'sightings' that people have had at the farm over the years, I suppose - it's the physical, and sometimes violent manifestations thats the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. It's hard to argue with it when inanimate objects move - sometimes quickly, and sometimes destructively right in front of multiple witnesses.

Again - I'm not looking for believers - or to convert people to being believers. Just saying why I believe.

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New might have been electronic field fluctuations
from the particle accelerator you built in the barn
thanx,
bill
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]
New That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!
New Heheh.
We built the particle accelerator at the school. Between 2 classrooms and the main hallway. Under the gas pipes. 2MeV using a 6' Vandegraff for the charge differential...

*grin*

Imric's Tips for Living
  • Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
  • Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
  • Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.


Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
 
 
New Oh ye of little nonfaithlessness..
You walk right over, sightlessly
(what I'd deem..one of the best simple replies to such a simplistic Question-posed-as/Assertion)
-- The Bard's perfectly valid, utterly concise, Universally-useful: encapsulation.

Simpler yet, for the overcaffeinated(?)

Life is an illusion.

Nothing 'out there' Exists [for thee] unless.. unless..
*It* 'exists' >within thy jelloware<. PERIOD.
Thou art Leibnitz ... watching that movie projector in that dark 'room'
(and, as a perk: he was creating 'philosophy courses' for legions of academic mindsets as surely would run with it..)

Here's an example, (if you really Don't Get *It*, still)

"Being Partkdolg Duty"

Pure bafflegab in *Your* mentation -
A useful 'reminder' in the mentation de Moi.
It exists-Not in your 'mentation' !!
Yet... it IS.





Please, Peter - mechanics, molecular physics, heat and sound cha cha cha
(Also the title of a physics textbook by.. Sears IIRC?)
are about the limited, the Mechanical, the CPA POV: wherein, only Things are imagined to be 'real'.

We 'are' simmering roiling cauldrons of variegated autonomic *chemical* processes!
[Too..]
But That is [Also..] not *ALL* that 'we' 'are', you cabbage!


Drop some acid?
Empty mind ... and see what rushes-in to fill that void?
New You're right. There is no out there
Is there?
     Why do you believe in ghosts? - (pwhysall) - (86)
         Of course all those proofs or disproofs would fail. - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
             Sort of like proving Photography to a Blind person! -NT - (folkert)
             It's not "non-physical", though, is it? - (pwhysall)
         I grew up in a haunted house. - (imric) - (28)
             Naturally, the answer is "ghosts". - (pwhysall) - (27)
                 ROFL - (imric) - (24)
                     Re: ROFL - (pwhysall) - (15)
                         *shrug* whatever. - (imric) - (2)
                             You have no evidence. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                 Uh huh. Whatever. Don't blow a fuse. -NT - (imric)
                         Ah, your faith is touching . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (11)
                             Will it? - (pwhysall) - (10)
                                 Oh, you'll know. - (Andrew Grygus) - (9)
                                     Faith is belief in the absence of evidence. - (pwhysall) - (8)
                                         you have as much faith as the rest of us by yer standard -NT - (boxley) - (1)
                                             That's quite right. - (pwhysall)
                                         Every logical argument . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                                             However. - (mmoffitt)
                                             <homer> - (pwhysall) - (1)
                                                 And, you do :) -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
                                             Sure. - (Another Scott)
                                         You also have no evidence. - (jb4)
                     sorry, thats anecdotal evidence :-) -NT - (boxley)
                     Could have been infrasound, perhaps. - (Another Scott) - (6)
                         It could have been - (imric) - (5)
                             I'm not doubting what you saw. - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                 Oh, I applaud skepticism. - (imric) - (3)
                                     might have been electronic field fluctuations - (boxley) - (2)
                                         That's EXACTLY what I was thinking! -NT - (bionerd)
                                         Heheh. - (imric)
                 Oh ye of little nonfaithlessness.. - (Ashton) - (1)
                     You're right. There is no out there - (bionerd)
         No. - (warmachine) - (4)
             nit - (boxley) - (3)
                 How so? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2)
                     start with this link - (boxley) - (1)
                         From advanced geometry to Star Trek. - (pwhysall)
         I don't know why some people do - (Seamus)
         Whadda ya mean science doesnt support "Ghosts"? - (bionerd) - (10)
             Become one with the universe - (JayMehaffey) - (4)
                 care to prove that? - (boxley)
                 Re: Become one with the universe - (bionerd) - (2)
                     Not bad, Grasshopper - (Ashton) - (1)
                         Thanks. I'm getting there. -NT - (bionerd)
             You're falling prey to the woo-woos. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                 I dont have to prove anything - (bionerd)
             The energy dissipates as heat - (warmachine) - (2)
                 what absolute rubbish - (boxley) - (1)
                     The Mac is NOT a PC... - (pwhysall)
         pope chimes in - (boxley) - (5)
             He needs to get out more. - (Another Scott)
             And how many former popes are burning brightly there? -NT - (Andrew Grygus)
             Like he knows anything -NT - (tuberculosis) - (2)
                 he is a licensed exorcist - (boxley) - (1)
                     Those need psychiatry, not hocus pocus -NT - (tuberculosis)
         Define ghost - (orion) - (25)
             Go and investigate what entropy is... - (pwhysall) - (24)
                 Entropy means - (orion) - (23)
                     The part you seem to have missed - (JayMehaffey) - (22)
                         Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility? - (orion) - (2)
                             Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility? - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                                 Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility? - (orion)
                         Maybe not. - (Another Scott) - (18)
                             Re: Maybe not. - (orion) - (17)
                                 This requires reversing time - (warmachine) - (16)
                                     wrong idea - (boxley) - (10)
                                         It just doesn't make sense to me. - (Another Scott) - (8)
                                             Individual souls . . . - (Andrew Grygus)
                                             but I do believe I existed before birth - (boxley) - (5)
                                                 I agree - (Lily) - (4)
                                                     I wish it were so - (orion) - (3)
                                                         It absolutely is so - (Lily) - (2)
                                                             Re: It absolutely is so - (orion) - (1)
                                                                 You can. - (pwhysall)
                                             What it could be - (orion)
                                         Interesting idea - (orion)
                                     From what I heard - (orion) - (4)
                                         Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots? -NT - (pwhysall) - (3)
                                             Re: Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots? - (orion) - (2)
                                                 What "neural net"? "Recycled" how? -NT - (pwhysall)
                                                 Neural net in air? - (warmachine)
         what does Peter and Malaysian Muslims have in common? - (boxley) - (4)
             I suppose that means the're not all bad! :) - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                 Every Humanist I've heard of agrees - (JayMehaffey)
             Still banging the "science is a religion" drum, eh? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                 Im not claiming that, heh, its an measured observation -NT - (boxley)

What a cruddy, unimaginative anti-climax.
228 ms