The Supernatural

[Political_Chucky]

I was just wondering what people thought about ghosts, "black magic" or even concerning the Ouija board. A couple of my friends have been messing with that Ouija and supposibly they are all freaked out cause I guess the thing was moving by itself and they had made it purely out of paper.... I don't know if its true or not since I wasn't there, but that sounds pretty interesting. Your thoughts? :unsure:

[Comrade J]

Ouija boards work through the ideomotor effect, which is basically involuntary movement that you're not conscious of doing yourself. For instance, when you reach to pick something up, your mind is conscious of this as you thought "I need to pick this object up," whereas with a ouija board, the brain stimulates the muscle to move without 'informing' the conscious/thinking part of your mind.
And that's not a theory, it has been proven.

As for seeing ghosts and stuff, look at it this way. What is more logical, that people occasionally hallucinate things for whatever reason, or the detached souls of dead people are wandering around...?

An interesting article on some theories about ghosts -


Two ingenious hypotheses about why we experience ghosts have appeared recently. While these may explain some aspect of some ghostly experience, they do not present an all-embracing explanation for the whole range of apparitional phenomena.

The first theory is from Peter Brugger, a Swiss euro-scientist from Zurich, who asserts that ghosts, doppelgangers and out-of-body experiences can be explained as phantom sensations like a phantom limb, spread to the whole body. Phantom limbs - the feeling that an amputated limb still exists - are experienced when the part of the brain that normally senses the limb loses those signals.

Seeing one's double (often apparently as a mirror image) may be the result of damage to visual areas of the brain that affect the way the body is sensed.Damage to the parital lobes, which distinguish between body and surrounding space, may result in the feeling that one's double is present, though invisible. Mr.Brugger suggests that out-of-body experiences may be explained by excitability of the temporal lobes”.Furthermore “Ghosts are probably nothing more but also nothing less than phantoms of the body.”

The second theory comes from Vic Tandy, computer expert, who about three years ago, was working late one night in a laboratory with a reputation for being haunted.He developed a cold sweat and a feeling of depression and of being watched. Then an indistinct grey figure appeared on the periphery of his vision. When he turned to look, it vanished.

The following morning, Mr. Tandy, a fencing enthusiast, was modifying one of his foils and left the blade clamped in a vice while he went in search of oil.Returning he noticed the blade vibrating wildly and suspected that inaudible low frequency sounds were the cause. Tests revealed a standing wave trapped in the laboratory, reaching a peak next to his desk.It was caused by a new extractor fan, which was making the air vibrate at 18.9Hz (cycles per second).

Infrasound around this frequency has been linked to hyper- ventilation, triggering nausea, fear and anxiety; the human eyeball has a resonant frequency of 18Hz, at which it starts to vibrate in sympathy to infrasound, causing a blurring of vision.Under these conditions an object or small movement in the periphery of one's vision can lead to a ghost-like experience.

Full article (http://www.psychicworld.net/EVP5.htm)

[apathy maybe]

I tend to agree with (heck I completely agree with) the materialist sentiments expressed above.

Mr Hume, that famous Scottish philosopher wrote an interesting thing on miracles (called, would you believe, On Miracles (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hume-miracles.html)). In it he basically describes why you shouldn't believe in miracles, though the argument applies to all other "supernatural" events.

It is only short and I recomend you read it all.

The argument basically goes, it is more probable that a person is being deceived (intentionally or not) or hallucinating, then actually seeing a miracle happen. I could if I had a film camera, take a picture of a "ghost". It involves double exposure. Set up the camera on a tripod. Get someone to wear white clothing and sit in a chair. (Adjust the camera settings as you should, don't ask me how.) Take a picture. Get the person to move, cover the bottom half of the camera lens (and adjust the camera settings again if needed) and take another picture (without moving the camera). Done. You now have a picture of a ghost.

[RevMARKSman]

The first theory is from Peter Brugger, a Swiss euro-scientist from Zurich, who asserts that ghosts, doppelgangers and out-of-body experiences can be explained as phantom sensations like a phantom limb, spread to the whole body. Phantom limbs - the feeling that an amputated limb still exists - are experienced when the part of the brain that normally senses the limb loses those signals.

I saw a documentary on this in which some guy was involved in a motorcycle accident. His left hand was cut off at the wrist, while it was still in a very tight fist. He felt his nails digging into his nonexistent hand all the time, until he put his right hand (as a fist) into a box with a mirror in it and slowly unclenched it, giving sensory data to the brain that the "left hand" was no longer in a fist. It worked after many repetitions and he no longer felt the phantom hand.

[ichneumon]

i don't believe in any of that stuff - but it keeps on happening. it's annoying, frankly. last night it was elves - there were two elves in the ice cream shop. they looked 15, it was 11pm, one was probably female, i'm not sure about the other, and they were acting like they'd never seen ice cream before ("wow!, that's SOOO good - this is a FUN game!."). after they left, the counter-guy looked at me and said, "what was that?" and i said, "elves" and he said "that's exactly what i was thinking. wtf?"

[Wozza]

There is nothing supernatural, everything has an explanation and is within the generally accepted laws of science.

"Ghosts" and other supernatural beings etc cannot exist UNLESS, you believe in a god or some other higher being, and then im sure you can convince yourself that an imaginative being exists.
Woz.

[seraphim]

I believe that Ghosts are a result of Lambda waves emmited from the brain. For example if somone dies in a forest the trauma causes the waves emmited from the brain to be stored in the wood of the trees. A little like how a computer stores information on a silicon chip. If many years later somone is walking through the same forest and they're feeling a little anxious (it's dark, your in a forest) the brain can inadvertantly tap into the stored information and produce what they would deam to be a ghost.

[razboz]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 11:48 am
I believe that Ghosts are a result of Lambda waves emmited from the brain. For example if somone dies in a forest the trauma causes the waves emmited from the brain to be stored in the wood of the trees. A little like how a computer stores information on a silicon chip. If many years later somone is walking through the same forest and they're feeling a little anxious (it's dark, your in a forest) the brain can inadvertantly tap into the stored information and produce what they would deam to be a ghost.
What evidence do you have for this? Just because it sounds like a good idea its actually true. For example if i think that it makes sense that gnomes should be stealing my socks, you would surely just say im untidy and keep losing (which is the case). So when you say that brain waves stored in trees cause "ghost" sightings i say its simpler (and more scintifically proven) to say these people are just hallucinating due to fear or adrnaline.

[ichneumon]

There is nothing supernatural, everything has an explanation and is within the generally accepted laws of science.

what laws? list them. semantics, again.

[Jazzratt]

Yes, there is an explanation for the supernatural:

Gullibility and blind faith.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16, 2007 03:00 pm

There is nothing supernatural, everything has an explanation and is within the generally accepted laws of science.

what laws? list them. semantics, again.
I find it funny how often theists use that cop-out. "Oh shit, those words you said totally disproved my position. Damn semantics!"

There is nothing supernatural. Everything that can scientifically be shown to exist is, by definition, natural. And everything that can't scientifically be shown to exist, well, there's no possible way we could have reliable evidence that it does exist, because otherwise it would be natural. And if we don't have any reliable evidence to back up these extraordinary claims, we can dismiss them until we do, in which case we will incorporate the claims into our understanding of the natural world.

The supernatural does not exist. If it does, show me the evidence, and explain to me how something could produce reliable evidence in the natural world and yet not be a natural phenomenon itself.

[RedAnarchist]

I've often seen the supernatural as a pile of crap. Most "supernatural" events have perfectly rational explanations. For instance, "orbs" are actually just dirt on the lens or a light reflecting on the lens. And for the small number that cannot be fully explained rationally, they are usually fakes.

Some of the worst believers in the supernatural are those who claim to be mediums and psychics. These frauds are like clergymen, exploiting the naive by pretending to know someone's future or having contact with someone who is dead. Most, if not all of the time, any information is given to the psychic/medium from the person themselves, but they don't realise that.

A belief in the supernatural is naive and illogical, IMO.

[ichneumon]

There is nothing supernatural. Everything that can scientifically be shown to exist is, by definition, natural. And everything that can't scientifically be shown to exist, well, there's no possible way we could have reliable evidence that it does exist, because otherwise it would be natural. And if we don't have any reliable evidence to back up these extraordinary claims, we can dismiss them until we do, in which case we will incorporate the claims into our understanding of the natural world.

i'm not a theist. so, science explains every phenomenon in the universe? the book is written and closed, all is understood? not by half. "supernatural" means outside the current limits of human understanding - and there will ALWAYS be such things. there are even mathematical proofs of this. science is not omniscient - in fact, it's a VERY limited understanding of our local bit of space-time, subject to frequent revisions.

what i mean by "semantics" is that if, tomorrow, there were proof and theory to explain telepathy, you'd just say "oh, it's natural" whereas it was supernatural nonsense the day before. nothing about the universe has changed, only your labels for it. that's a game, and it's meaningless. the universe is unproblematic, human understanding of it is inherently limited. our understanding changes, the universe does not.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:45 pm
"supernatural" means outside the current limits of human understanding
No, that's wrong, and that false premise is leading you to false conclusions.

"Supernatural" doesn't mean outside the current limits of human understanding, it means outside the limits of all rational understanding. There are plenty of natural phenomena that we don't fully understand due to a simple lack of information. BUT the possibility exists that if we can obtain that missing information, our understanding will be increased; therefore those things are not supernatural.

To be supernatural, something has to be impossible to understand, even given perfect information of reality.


what i mean by "semantics" is that if, tomorrow, there were proof and theory to explain telepathy, you'd just say "oh, it's natural" whereas it was supernatural nonsense the day before.

What you say is true, but the probability of that happening is vanshingly remote, and, as it stands today, there is no theory or proof; therefore, it's a reasonably certain probability that telepathy is in fact supernatural nonsense.

I am always willing to be proven wrong, of course.

[ichneumon]

No, that's wrong, and that false premise is leading you to false conclusions.

"Supernatural" doesn't mean outside the current limits of human understanding, it means outside the limits of all rational understanding. There are plenty of natural phenomena that we don't fully understand due to a simple lack of information. BUT the possibility exists that if we can obtain that missing information, our understanding will be increased; therefore those things are not supernatural.

To be supernatural, something has to be impossible to understand, even given perfect information of reality.

all understanding? whose? compared to who? god's? is perfect information of reality possible? when? that just does not fly. understanding is human understanding. since we have absolutely no understanding of "all rational understanding" AND NEVER WILL, the whole idea is meaningless. you're saying that "supernatural" is something that an omniscient intelligence doesn't understand, which is by definition impossible and thus meaningless semantics. again.

basically, omniscience is not possible, the universe is not self aware ergo there will always be things that exist that have no rational explanation.

[Eleutherios]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 02:45 pm
i'm not a theist. so, science explains every phenomenon in the universe? the book is written and closed, all is understood? not by half.
I never said that science knows everything. But if something is supernatural, it has to be immune from any kind of scientific understanding for all eternity, i.e. there is no possible way to understand it scientifically.

"supernatural" means outside the current limits of human understanding - and there will ALWAYS be such things. there are even mathematical proofs of this. science is not omniscient - in fact, it's a VERY limited understanding of our local bit of space-time, subject to frequent revisions.

So...dark matter is supernatural because it is outside the current limits of human understanding?

what i mean by "semantics" is that if, tomorrow, there were proof and theory to explain telepathy, you'd just say "oh, it's natural" whereas it was supernatural nonsense the day before. nothing about the universe has changed, only your labels for it. that's a game, and it's meaningless. the universe is unproblematic, human understanding of it is inherently limited. our understanding changes, the universe does not.
If telepathy exists, then there must be some natural mechanism by which it works. There is no such thing as the supernatural, and nothing supernatural could be shown to exist. All that can be shown to exist (including telepathy, if it's real) is undeniably natural. The fact that we are not omniscient does not prove the existence of the supernatural, nor does it give us any reason to take the idea seriously.

[ichneumon]

I never said that science knows everything. But if something is supernatural, it has to be immune from any kind of scientific understanding for all eternity, i.e. there is no possible way to understand it scientifically.

"nothing can remain immune to scientific understanding for all eternity" IS A STATEMENT OF FAITH. why is that not clear to you? how can you possibly know that any given event or thing can or cannot be understood scientifically in the fullness of time without faith? i don't know that, because i don't have faith, therefore, it is possible that there are things permanently outside of human understanding. frankly, it even seems likely. nor do i suppose that scientific understanding is somehow independent of intelligence. *people* understand things. the history of our race has been a struggle to understand the supernatural and MAKE IT NATURAL.


If telepathy exists, then there must be some natural mechanism by which it works. There is no such thing as the supernatural, and nothing supernatural could be shown to exist. All that can be shown to exist (including telepathy, if it's real) is undeniably natural. The fact that we are not omniscient does not prove the existence of the supernatural, nor does it give us any reason to take the idea seriously.

completely mindless circular definitions. "supernatural is nonnatural, there is nothing outside of nature, therefore the supernatural does not exist" is fine as a word game, but it does not therefore follow that any phenomenon described in the vernacular as "supernatural" such as ghosts and telepathy, does not exist. it just means that ghosts are either natural or don't exist, without making any positive statement towards either end.

[Eleutherios]

"nothing can remain immune to scientific understanding for all eternity" IS A STATEMENT OF FAITH. why is that not clear to you? how can you possibly know that any given event or thing can or cannot be understood scientifically in the fullness of time without faith? i don't know that, because i don't have faith, therefore, it is possible that there are things permanently outside of human understanding. frankly, it even seems likely. nor do i suppose that scientific understanding is somehow independent of intelligence. *people* understand things. the history of our race has been a struggle to understand the supernatural and MAKE IT NATURAL.
Christ, stop putting words in my mouth. I never said that science is going to understand everything there is to know. I said that anything which exists must be, in principle, observable and measurable. We're never going to know the path of every photon in the universe, or the exact location of every atom, but every photon and every atom exists because it is potentially observable and measurable. An untestable God is not potentially observable or measurable, and according to many believers in the supernatural, neither are other supernatural things like ghosts, demons and qi energy. If these things are not detectable in any way, shape or form, in any part of the universe, then the term we use for things like that is "non-existent".

completely mindless circular definitions. "supernatural is nonnatural, there is nothing outside of nature, therefore the supernatural does not exist" is fine as a word game, but it does not therefore follow that any phenomenon described in the vernacular as "supernatural" such as ghosts and telepathy, does not exist. it just means that ghosts are either natural or don't exist, without making any positive statement towards either end.
Right. Ghosts are either natural or they don't exist. If they do exist, there must be some observable evidence for their existence somewhere in the universe. It is therefore up to the proponent of the ghost hypothesis to provide the extraordinary evidence to back up the extraordinary claims. Until that happens, we can safely ignore it.

If ghosts are a real natural phenomenon, and sufficient scientific evidence can be given for their existence, I will change my mind. I am not claiming absolute certainty, because I don't claim absolute certainty about anything. Anybody who thinks rationally must be open to new hypotheses and must admit that their current knowledge may not be completely accurate. Sure, I suppose every hypothesis is potentially true, but we have to have some way of sorting out the good hypotheses from the ones which are probably false. That's what science does.

I think there are much more reasonable explanations for the purported evidence for ghosts that believers bring to the table. I think, from a scientific perspective, that the ghost hypothesis is completely inadequate to explain anything we have observed, and thus I reject it. Scientifically rejecting a hypothesis is not saying that you know with 100% certainty that it is false; rather, it is saying that the hypothesis is so extraordinarily unlikely that it's not worthy of serious consideration until some extraordinary evidence comes to the table that forces us to reconsider it.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Ichneumon"+--> ("Ichneumon")"nothing can remain immune to scientific understanding for all eternity" IS A STATEMENT OF FAITH.[/b]No, it is a statement of deduction. Assuming we lived in a vacuum for all of eternity, the Human mind had no limit to the complexity of it's understanding, and we had some instrument of recording limitless amounts of information, eventually there would come a time that our knowledge of the universe would be complete. It doesn't take any more faith to say this than it does to state a bottle will fill with water given the right time and resources. Likewise there will come a time where all data that can be gathered will be gathered. I don't pretend this is anytime soon, or even likely (I find it more likely we will blow ourselves up) but given the chance, there is a time and place for everything.


"Eleutherios"
Right. Ghosts are either natural or they don't exist. If they do exist, there must be some observable evidence for their existence somewhere in the universe. It is therefore up to the proponent of the ghost hypothesis to provide the extraordinary evidence to back up the extraordinary claims. Until that happens, we can safely ignore it.Correct, proponents of the ghost hypothesis have to provide evidence for our belief before it can be credited as a rational hypothesis; this however does not discount the power of firsthand experience. I have had more than one encounter with unexplainable (to me, anyway) apparitions, some of which have been experienced with other people. Until I am proven to be mad, or delusional; firsthand experience is enough to give me reason to believe in ghosts. That said, it is preposterous to call a ghost sighting supernatural. The entire point of supernatural experience is that you cannot prove it, as with faith, it is helpful in non-scientific arguments, but past that it just makes you look like a dolt.

[ichneumon]

No, it is a statement of deduction. Assuming we lived in a vacuum for all of eternity, the Human mind had no limit to the complexity of it's understanding, and we had some instrument of recording limitless amounts of information, eventually there would come a time that our knowledge of the universe would be complete

uh, none of the things you assume are true or could even possibly be true....


That said, it is preposterous to call a ghost sighting supernatural. The entire point of supernatural experience is that you cannot prove it, as with faith, it is helpful in non-scientific arguments, but past that it just makes you look like a dolt.

i simply define supernatural as something outside the limits of scientific explanation. said science exists inside human minds and is subject to the limits of (extended) senses and reasoning capacity, and it's not possible to predict what will be understood in the future, of even if there will be a future of science. defining "supernatural" as "nonexistent" is useless - it is much more useful to have a word to describe things that seem to exist in some fashion (ie, either ghosts exists or the phenomenon of seeing ghosts exists, as it has always been and continues to happen) but have not been explained or do not fit with current scientific reasoning.

[pusher robot]

it is much more useful to have a word to describe things that seem to exist in some fashion (ie, either ghosts exists or the phenomenon of seeing ghosts exists, as it has always been and continues to happen) but have not been explained or do not fit with current scientific reasoning.

There is such a word. Such things are called "unexplained" or possibly "mysteries." Such a word implies that there IS an explanation, but that we just don't know what that explanation is yet. Things that are supernatural are things that cannot ever be explained because they are not bound by natural law, whatever that natural law might be, and thus have NO explanation whatsoever.

Saying anything we don't currently understand is "supernatural" is cognitively disabled.

[ichneumon]

Things that are supernatural are things that cannot ever be explained because they are not bound by natural law, whatever that natural law might be, and thus have NO explanation whatsoever.

exactly - you don't know. no one does. no one can predict what can and can't be explained. you cannot look at a currently unexplainable phenomenon and say "this will or will not be understood". that's mindless. you seem to assume some sort of objective omniscient point of view *exists*, whereas i don't. this i suspect is part of postmodernism. you divide the world into THIS and THAT, i look at the boundary and see that it's not real. you also seem to assume that "natural law" has some kind of independent existence, which i find bizarre. "natural laws" are a model that human consciousness uses to examine reality.

[pusher robot]

"natural law" has some kind of independent existence, which i find bizarre. "natural laws" are a model that human consciousness uses to examine reality.

That's ridiculous. The standard acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface would be 9.8 m/s² whether anyone was here to examine the fact or not. The speed of light in a vacuum would be what it is whether or not there are human units to measure it. The Earth would orbit the Sun whether or not we ever evolved, and the proof of all of this is that we have physical records of what happened long before we were ever around to examine ANY of it. These laws existed and will continue to exist completely regardless of our ability to perceive them.

YOU seem to be positing that human understanding somehow affects the existenc of things in the universe. By that standard, literally EVERYTHING is supernatural, because our believing makes it so.


you cannot look at a currently unexplainable phenomenon and say "this will or will not be understood".
That is not the question! The question is whether it could be understood if we had the necessary information. That has nothing - NOTHING - to do with whether or not it will be understood. It's like the difference between wanting to call somebody but not knowing their number, and wanting to call a fictional character.

[ichneumon]

That's ridiculous. The standard acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface would be 9.8 m/s² whether anyone was here to examine the fact or not. The speed of light in a vacuum would be what it is whether or not there are human units to measure it. The Earth would orbit the Sun whether or not we ever evolved, and the proof of all of this is that we have physical records of what happened long before we were ever around to examine ANY of it. These laws existed and will continue to exist completely regardless of our ability to perceive them.

YOU seem to be positing that human understanding somehow affects the existenc of things in the universe. By that standard, literally EVERYTHING is supernatural, because our believing makes it so.

what is a meter? a second? the universe is. it doesn't have laws. and yes, these things are meaningless without human consciousness, just as awareness is meaningless without external reality. and no, i don't believe that "objective" reality is independent of observation - it's clearly meaningless without observation, thus dependent.

this won't make any sense you to, but whatever:
Pratitya-samutpada:


This is the understanding that any phenomenon ‘exists’ only because of the ‘existence’ of other phenomena in an incredibly complex web of cause and effect covering time past, time present and time future. This concept of a web is symbolized by Indra's net, a multidimensional spider's web on which lies an infinite amount of dew drops or jewels, and in these are reflected the reflections of all the other drops of dew ad infinitum.

Stated in another way, the idea is that everything depends on everything else. For example, an human being's existence in any given moment is dependent on the conditions of everything else in the world (and indeed the universe) at that moment but, conversely, the conditions of everything in the world in that moment depend in an equally significant way on the character and condition of that human being. Everything in the universe is interconnected through the web of cause and effect so that the whole and the parts are mutually interdependent. The character and condition of entities at any given time are intimately connected with the character and condition of all other entities that superficially may appear to be unconnected or unrelated.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24, 2007 06:09 pm
what is a meter? a second? the universe is. it doesn't have laws. and yes, these things are meaningless without human consciousness, just as awareness is meaningless without external reality. and no, i don't believe that "objective" reality is independent of observation - it's clearly meaningless without observation, thus dependent.
Meaningless, yes - of course, since meaning is something only humans can create. Nonexistent, no - because existence is independent of human thought.

Let's boil this down to some simple questions.

1. Was the speed of light different, the same, or nonexistent before humans became capable of measuring it?

2. If all humans died tomorrow, would the universe cease to exist? What if all humans simply became catatonic? What if they could think but became incapable of perception?

[ichneumon]

Let's boil this down to some simple questions.

1. Was the speed of light different, the same, or nonexistent before humans became capable of measuring it?

2. If all humans died tomorrow, would the universe cease to exist? What if all humans simply became catatonic? What if they could think but became incapable of perception?

you want me to say "true" or "false". i say "unknowable". i contend that any simple answer to these questions is a statement of faith, as they are inherently unprovable.

seriously, you're asking if i believe in a subjective or objective universe, and my answer is neither. both perceiver and object are required for anything like "reality" to exist. western thought dismisses subjectivism as useless then assumes objectivism. eastern thought does not - both are unprovable and that IN AND OF ITSELF tells us the nature of reality: dependent origination. the "objective universe" can't exist meaningfully without a perceiver, nor can sentience exist without reality.

honestly, my approach doesn't make the kind of assumptions that yours does, and the fact that the resulting logic is difficult to understand is just tough.


Existence and nonexistence, taken as absolute ideas, do not apply to things as they really are. This is why the Buddha refused to agree to absolute statements about the nature of things. He saw that the absolute categories of metaphysics do not apply to things as they really are.

basically, there are no answers. it doesn't go anywhere. reality is transparent to analysis. welcome to the sound of one hand clapping. :unsure:

[pusher robot]

you want me to say "true" or "false". i say "unknowable". i contend that any simple answer to these questions is a statement of faith, as they are inherently unprovable.

But that's demonstrably incorrect. Things like this are eminently provable. For example, we now know the value of the gravitational constant. But it must
always have been so because the Earth could not have developed as it did were it not. We know that the speed of light has not changed or been affected by our existence or observation, because we are able to view light that has been in transit since long before we existed, and it shows no signs of having altered its velocity.

I am willing to accept alternative explanations or philosophies, but none that contradict what is clearly observable to any who care to look.

[Zero]

It may be junk science, but where do you place experiments that are described in docs like What The Bleep Do We Know (http://www.torrentspy.com/torrent/823178/What_the_Bleep_do_we_Know_Down_the_Rabbit_Hole)?

[kuro]

I usually try to stay away from topics like this but i feel i should contribute. Why does it have to be 'super' natural? The way I see it there are many natural human abilities yet to be proven by science, and which probably couldn't be proven in the framework of today's science anyway. This is also where Hume's work on miracles comes from.

I'm involved with things that expose me a bit more to this topic, and i find things relating to this topic have helped formulate and strengthen my views in radical politics. I can't deny these experiences and i see them as things any human has potential to do. Also, just because it relates to this; http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2002/04.18/09-tummo.html

PS:What the bleep do we know was pretty interesting! Celestine prophecy is an interesting book too

[Knight of Cydonia]

Supernatural, Ghost and other weird things like that is just the mirror image or the illusion that came from our own thoughts.

[jasmine]

That's ridiculous. The standard acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface would be 9.8 m/s² whether anyone was here to examine the fact or not. The speed of light in a vacuum would be what it is whether or not there are human units to measure it. The Earth would orbit the Sun whether or not we ever evolved, and the proof of all of this is that we have physical records of what happened long before we were ever around to examine ANY of it. These laws existed and will continue to exist completely regardless of our ability to perceive them.

No, what you are describing here is perception. Mathematics makes sense to the human species - there's absolutely no way of proving it is "objective truth", none at all. It's just our way of explaining things from our perspective. The existence of the earth, its evolution around the sun, the nice neat figures that result from this - it's all a matter of perception from our consciousness. Nothing more.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 06:36 pm

That's ridiculous. The standard acceleration due to gravity at the Earth's surface would be 9.8 m/s² whether anyone was here to examine the fact or not. The speed of light in a vacuum would be what it is whether or not there are human units to measure it. The Earth would orbit the Sun whether or not we ever evolved, and the proof of all of this is that we have physical records of what happened long before we were ever around to examine ANY of it. These laws existed and will continue to exist completely regardless of our ability to perceive them.

No, what you are describing here is perception. Mathematics makes sense to the human species - there's absolutely no way of proving it is "objective truth", none at all. It's just our way of explaining things from our perspective. The existence of the earth, its evolution around the sun, the nice neat figures that result from this - it's all a matter of perception from our consciousness. Nothing more.
This is the exact same thing as the discussion on faith. People want to pretend that they can know something for certain, and that's laughable. Nothing is certain, and all reality is judged by our perception of our senses. There is no clear line between natural and unnatural; however, certain ideas are so far from what we experience that it is more conceivable that those ideas are false.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

This is the exact same thing as the discussion on faith. People want to pretend that they can know something for certain, and that's laughable. Nothing is certain, and all reality is judged by our perception of our senses. There is no clear line between natural and unnatural; however, certain ideas are so far from what we experience that it is more conceivable that those ideas are false.

Solipsist bullshit. The universe is demonstrably seperate from human consciousness. In fact, it can be demonstrated that consciousness derives from the universe and not the other way around, and therefore the universe has a seperate existance from that of the human mind.

I have 2 coins on the table. I take another two out of my pocket and add them to the coins on the table, making five. No matter how much force of will I use, 4 coins will never become 5 unless I take another coin out of my pocket and add it to the pile.

I notice that people are perfectly willing to employ solipsist reasoning on the Platonic realms of an internet message board, but I bet that if someone owed them money they would never accept that kind of rubbish in place of payment. "I can't give you the money because you can't prove for certain that it belongs to you".

Thus solipsist wankers are hypocrites and intellectually dishonest.

[pusher robot]

No, what you are describing here is perception. Mathematics makes sense to the human species - there's absolutely no way of proving it is "objective truth", none at all.

Well, you're wrong. Our mathematical models of the universe are objectively validated by their having been followed long before there were humans around to comprehend or even observe their workings.

I mean, seriously. Do you think the speed of light in a vacuum is subjective?

[jasmine]

Well, you're wrong. Our mathematical models of the universe are objectively validated by their having been followed long before there were humans around to comprehend or even observe their workings

Who exactly "objectively validated" our theories before we were around? The mammoths? The fish?


I mean, seriously. Do you think the speed of light in a vacuum is subjective?

Light is subjective. We have eyes that react to light in a particular way - without them we wouldn't even know it was there. We have ears that react to vibrations. Without them we would be unaware of vibration.

How much more are we unaware of because our faculties are limited?

And yes, the speed of light in a vacuum is something that, if not created by the limitations of our perception, is conditioned by our limited facility to understand.

[Dean]

Originally posted by [email protected] 01, 2007 11:57 am
Solipsist bullshit. The universe is demonstrably seperate from human consciousness. In fact, it can be demonstrated that consciousness derives from the universe and not the other way around, and therefore the universe has a seperate existance from that of the human mind.
Ignorant bullshit.




I have 2 coins on the table. I take another two out of my pocket and add them to the coins on the table, making five. No matter how much force of will I use, 4 coins will never become 5 unless I take another coin out of my pocket and add it to the pile.

I notice that people are perfectly willing to employ solipsist reasoning on the Platonic realms of an internet message board, but I bet that if someone owed them money they would never accept that kind of rubbish in place of payment. "I can't give you the money because you can't prove for certain that it belongs to you".

Thus solipsist wankers are hypocrites and intellectually dishonest.
You wankers are hypocrites and intellectually dishonest - by claiming that some kind of knowledge is an ultimate truth. Sounds like the dogma to me.

[EDIT] Fuck it; I won't respond to any more of your posts until you try to have a civil discussion. I'm tired of this asinine trolling; you're just as pitiful as Jazzrat or Vinny Rafarino.

[jasmine]

I have 2 coins on the table. I take another two out of my pocket and add them to the coins on the table, making five. No matter how much force of will I use, 4 coins will never become 5 unless I take another coin out of my pocket and add it to the pile.

To contribute meaningfully to this discussion you have to have an imagination.

Numbers, didn't you know, are a human construct. The idea that something is solid, or a coin, is an expression not of "truth" but of your relationship to the object. At a sub-atomic level there is no solidity. There is mostly space. Strangely this is how we experience our universe. It is mostly dark, airless, freezing space with vast distances between the objects that we can see.

Knowledge is relative, conditional and not absolute.

[pusher robot]

Knowledge is relative, conditional and not absolute.

Reality, however, is not.

[jasmine]

Explain please.

[pusher robot]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 05:54 pm
Explain please.
"Knowledge" is the accumulation of information in a human mind. It is inherently limited by the abilities and the topology of the vessel that accumulates it. It is limited by the sensory apparatus available to it, and it is limited in capacity, and perceptual ability. We can all accept that these limitations exist, and indeed since the first information was communicated from one proto-human to another we have been constantly seeking ways to overcome these limitations.

This does not, however, change the fact that reality exists in a certain way, and that our perception of that reality, no matter how feeble and limited it may be, does not actually alter it in any way (leaving aside the issue of quantum uncertainty.)

Whether we use inches or astronomical units to express our perceptions, the speed of light in a vacuum does not change. Whether we explain the motion of the planets using mathematics or myth, it does not change the motion of the planets. Whatever the terms we use, the differences between "solid," "liquid," and "gas" are not simply arbitrary, they are based on real, objective facts of nature that would not change even is we did not exist to perceive them. They are based on our perceptions of a reality that exists totally independently of us.

[jasmine]

This does not, however, change the fact that reality exists in a certain way, and that our perception of that reality, no matter how feeble and limited it may be, does not actually alter it in any way (leaving aside the issue of quantum uncertainty.)

My point is though, how do you know this? This is your opinion, your assumption. It's an assumption most of us make. I do too, most of the time. And I'm not so sure that quantum uncertainty can so easily be left aside.


Whether we use inches or astronomical units to express our perceptions, the speed of light in a vacuum does not change. Whether we explain the motion of the planets using mathematics or myth, it does not change the motion of the planets. Whatever the terms we use, the differences between "solid," "liquid," and "gas" are not simply arbitrary, they are based on real, objective facts of nature that would not change even is we did not exist to perceive them. They are based on our perceptions of a reality that exists totally independently of us.

Possibly, it's one possible explanation. But when you dream you accept the dream as reality. You accept what you perceive as being real, solid and permanent. Maybe it's not.

Take a look at the movie Vanilla Sky (or the Spanish original 'Abre los ojos').

Quantum mechanics suggests that the laws of physics are different at the sub-atomic level, cosmologists have also suggested that the laws of physics change over time. There may be an objective reality independent of our observation but how will we ever know what it is since we only see it when we are observing, and only aprehend it via our limited senses and knowledge?

[blackstone]

alot of this proof, on both sides, doesn't prove nothing..

[pusher robot]

My point is though, how do you know this?

Because it is the only thing consistent with all known verifiable perceptions, I accept it as axiomatic. To do otherwise is to reject the validity of any perception whatsoever, and reasoning is utterly impossible.


There may be an objective reality independent of our observation but how will we ever know what it is since we only see it when we are observing, and only aprehend it via our limited senses and knowledge?

We work to expand our senses and our knowledge. It's really that simple.

[jasmine]

Because it is the only thing consistent with all known verifiable perceptions, I accept it as axiomatic. To do otherwise is to reject the validity of any perception whatsoever, and reasoning is utterly impossible.

Of course we can only reason on the basis of our perceptions. But still, it's reasoning on the basis of perception which is conditional and not absolute. We are locked in our own subjectivity and would like to think that a collective opinion (of scientists) frees us from this. But it's just our way of looking at life and death.

[La Comédie Noire]

There are fortean events I'll give you that, and we've all had those creepy walking in the woods with a group of friends when you heard somehthing weird story, but it's all pretty explainable.

I'm sympathetic to the super natural but subjects such as EVP and the Lock Ness Monster are obviously fake.

[jasmine]

There are fortean events I'll give you that, and we've all had those creepy walking in the woods with a group of friends when you heard somehthing weird story, but it's all pretty explainable.

I'm sympathetic to the super natural but subjects such as EVP and the Lock Ness Monster are obviously fake.

I've never seen the Loch Ness monster and don't expect to do so. As for EVP I don't know much about it. I'm sure people do fake a lot of this stuff.

But I'm not really talking about things that go bump in the night. I find the idea that life is a WYSIWYG experience and then you die unconvincing. Superstition is a reflection of the fact that many people feel, vaguely, incoherently, that there is more to life than they or the scientists can define. Much of it is silly, easily disproved and open to exploitation.

The universe is a bizarre place. Here we are, little creatures living on a giant rock that orbits a huge fireball, worrying about our careers, the mortgage/rent and football scores. You couldn't make this stuff up.

[Luís Henrique]

Even if there is no explanation, it doesn't mean that we are under obligation to accept any explanation offered to us:


- How do you explain the magician took a bunny from his hat?

- Er, I have no idea.

- Then you must accept that bunnies can be summoned by hocus-pocus speech.

Luís Henrique

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 03:18 pm
Of course we can only reason on the basis of our perceptions. But still, it's reasoning on the basis of perception which is conditional and not absolute. We are locked in our own subjectivity and would like to think that a collective opinion (of scientists) frees us from this. But it's just our way of looking at life and death.
We are locked into our own subjectivity and our own subjectivity tells us that we are locked into a world that exists independently of our subjectivity.

To say that the correct understanding is that we dont know anything 'for sure' is as empty as to claim that what we believe accords with an indepedently existing world....but neither is more foolish than to say that you are agnostic on the existence of an independent external world. None of these positions reflects what people actually believe, or what it is reasonable to believe. Amazing, among other things, how certain such people are that they understand enough about human understanding to say that it cannot be certain. If you are so committed to epistemological agnosticism, doubt also that you understand correctly when you conclude that understanding cannot be certain.

It is not a matter of being 'certain' of what you believe - clearly we believe what we do on the balance of probability, probability being knowledge about things we dont know fully. Its a matter of having a viable stance within the history of human understanding. A Marxist can place his/her view in the context of the historical development of understanding and conclude various things which I wont go into .... such as that our understanding of 'the universe' (Save us from that vague phrase !) is inadequate, that the ascription to our understanding of reference to an external reality that is determined by our knowledge of it creates structures/models ideas of knowledge that just dont work etc. etc.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can be impressed by the banal fact that our understanding of reality is not certain .......and draw all sorts of disproportionate conclusions from that which reflect the indignation of hubris, which reflect only the arrogance that believes, in a huff, that because we dont have the certainty we are supposedly supposed to have we should instead be certain that we are uncertain.

Get over it. Certainty hunters.....religious types in disguise.

[pusher robot]

Superstition is a reflection of the fact that many people feel, vaguely, incoherently, that there is more to life than they or the scientists can define. Much of it is silly, easily disproved and open to exploitation.

Yes, if by "much of it" you mean "all of it."

Searching For God in the Brain (http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=434D7C62-E7F2-99DF-37CC9814533B90D7)

[jasmine]

Get over it. Certainty hunters.....religious types in disguise.

I am a 'religious type' - I've never hidden that.


It is not a matter of being 'certain' of what you believe - clearly we believe what we do on the balance of probability, probability being knowledge about things we dont know fully. Its a matter of having a viable stance within the history of human understanding. A Marxist can place his/her view in the context of the historical development of understanding and conclude various things which I wont go into .... such as that our understanding of 'the universe' (Save us from that vague phrase !) is inadequate, that the ascription to our understanding of reference to an external reality that is determined by our knowledge of it creates structures/models ideas of knowledge that just dont work etc. etc.

So what you have is a context. You accept your context based on your view of the balance of probability. So most people, reasonable and unreasonable, accept a general description of external reality. The world is round, it orbits around the sun, 1 + 1 = 2 and so on. Friday evenings we go to the supermarket whilst millions die of starvation in Africa.

Your 'viable stance' exists within this common context. The particular problem a marxist has it that in the common context only an insignificant minority accept marxism and this minority cannot agree about what marxism is precisely.

Leaving that aside, at best we view the world as a species. A dog, or a fly or a rattlesnake or a bat, does not see the world as we do. This is true visually, aurally, intuitively, sensually etc. What seemingly separates us from the rest is our conciousness, our capacity to reflect, learn and communicate. But when we try to understand the world we fragment and produce a zillion different theories all of which may reflect some apsect of the elusive 'truth'.

Science is the fallback, the laws of physics. But even there the understanding shifts radically over short periods of time - the law of gravity has been completely redefined, studies of galactic dust clouds indicate that the laws of physics change over time, particles seem to travel backwards in time.

Even with the accepted 'common context' nothing is certain or nailed down. But, I repeat, this 'common context' is created by us, it's our way of viewing things with our limited senses and limited/conditioned forms of reasoning. At best it's a form of collective subjectivity.