Post #279,770
3/27/07 1:44:06 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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||]
|
Post #279,778
3/27/07 3:16:36 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
*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. |
|
Post #279,800
3/27/07 5:16:43 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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||]
|
Post #279,811
3/27/07 5:38:20 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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. |
|
Post #279,798
3/27/07 4:56:20 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
Ah, your faith is touching . . .
. . but it will be betrayed.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #279,801
3/27/07 5:16:58 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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||]
|
Post #279,849
3/28/07 12:58:07 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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]
|
Post #279,860
3/28/07 9:07:35 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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||]
|
Post #279,863
3/28/07 9:47:12 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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]
|
Post #279,865
3/28/07 10:08:42 AM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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||]
|
Post #279,875
3/28/07 12:45:03 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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]
|
Post #279,877
3/28/07 1:10:15 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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
|
Post #279,878
3/28/07 1:17:15 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
<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||]
|
Post #279,884
3/28/07 2:12:04 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
And, you do :)
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #279,880
3/28/07 1:42:08 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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.
|
Post #280,472
4/3/07 3:33:00 PM
|
![New](/static/images/lrpd.gif)
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)
|