great show/interview 12-2-07

[glenn40]

hello,
really enjoyed the interview with Larry last night. You guys are really strong on the UFO guests and topics, i really appreciated the choice of guest and subject. thanks
G

 

[Miah]

David sounded like he was speaking from a distance, or into a can. Audio issue.

 

[David Biedny]

David sounded like he was speaking from a distance, or into a can. Audio issue.

Indeed, I was using the built-in speaker on my MacBook Pro, as I was in Buenos Aires at the time. I didn't have my higher-quality microphone with me...

 

[Frootloop]

Im mid-way through the show at the moment, and while I admire what Larry Flaxman and his bunch are doing, I have to wonder whether taking a totally scientific approach to such issues isnt cutting out a whole wedge of phenomena. Sure, you drop most of the "human" equasion by using scientific instruments, but youre also bound by the limitations of the equipment used those are of course built on known science. Throwing a whole load of tech at such an issue will only explain part of it in my opinion, but its a darn good start

 

[schticknz]

Im mid-way through the show at the moment, and while I admire what Larry Flaxman and his bunch are doing, I have to wonder whether taking a totally scientific approach to such issues isnt cutting out a whole wedge of phenomena. Sure, you drop most of the "human" equasion by using scientific instruments, but youre also bound by the limitations of the equipment used those are of course built on known science. Throwing a whole load of tech at such an issue will only explain part of it in my opinion, but its a darn good start

I haven't listened to this weeks episode yet but the same thing is mentioned in "Hunt for the Skinwalker". The NIDS team took a purely scientific approach and ended up with ... diddlee squat (if thats how you spell it) after something like a decade (give or take a year) of taking data.

Actually from what I gleaned from the book they weren't on the ranch purely 24/7 ... guess they had important day jobs or something. I think a purely dedicated approach i.e. put a team in position, fully funded with whatever equipment they wanted, and purely focussed on observations, taking data etc would have been better. Even bring in a few fringe people to help out (John Hutchison is a case in point) ... maybe a few reputable (if there are any :-D) psychics ... no stone should be left unturned when looking into these kinds of phenomena. The purely scientific approach (a good base to start with) is in my opinion way too rigid.

 

[Frootloop]

There were apparently physical effects produced which destroyed cameras and such. What effects were visable were "just off camera" also. Do a search on you-tube, theres a bit of info in a multi part interview on there.

 

[Frootloop]

Just a side note, "George the Animal Steele" Is one hairy, scary dude..... i so wish i hadnt googled his name

 

[schticknz]

There were apparently physical effects produced which destroyed cameras and such. What effects were visable were "just off camera" also. Do a search on you-tube, theres a bit of info in a multi part interview on there.

You're right ... although i do like the case where three cameras had their power lines (i think it was) torn to shreds and although a camera was pointing at the exact area where this took place, it picked up nothing ... zilch ... not a sausage. Very very odd.

p.s. thanks ... i shall indeed check out the tube that is you :-D

 

[BrandonD]

Hi, just finished the most recent episode and wanted to add some comments on the subject of Persinger's "god helmet".

In my opinion, the effects people experience under the influence of this helmet have no relevance to the experience of ufos and paranormal phenomena. This is similar to my position regarding the subject of sleep paralysis.

Here are a few reasons for my opinion: Firstly, temporal relation does nothing to explain the causal relationship between two events. In other words, proving that 2 phenomena happen at the same time does not explain what their relationship is to one another. Armed with temporal relationship alone, one could argue that opening the front door "created" the guests who now stand in my apartment.

These scientists who try to "debunk" paranormal experiences have only the data of temporal relationships, and so they fill in the blanks in between in order to buttress our current world-view.

And yet, EVEN if it turns out that this helmet is in fact the direct cause for the artificial experience of ethereal presences, this still does nothing to prove that other people's experiences without the helmet are the result of similar artificial stimulation.

Arguing that one method for invoking an experience is the explanation behind all varieties of that experience would be akin to saying that because one can be chemically induced to laugh, there are no such things as jokes.

 

[Mothra]

I've noticed something on the Paracast and I'm not sure if it happens on other shows (cause I don't listen to them), but a guest will come on that is talking about a subject, usually a crowded field like Ghost hunting and UFOs and proclaim that EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING IT WRONG.

I mean I tune them out right there. Listen the paranormal is outside the boundaries of conventional science. There are no Meters or magical devices that can scientifically provide the data and reporting needed for evidence to ghosts and UFOs. On Ghost Hunters they don't use EMF detectors to find ghosts. Usually they are searching for high emfs to account for people's physical reactions to their environment. They debunk a lot of stuff, they have also gotten some amazing EVP's. Nobody is an expert in the field of the paranormal. There are lots of great ideas and theorys but when you get down to it thats all they are, Ideas and therorys

 

[CapnG]

Arguing that one method for invoking an experience is the explanation behind all varieties of that experience would be akin to saying that because one can be chemically induced to laugh, there are no such things as jokes.

I dunno if that argument is entirely legitemate. If one is chemically induced into laughter, then how is that fundamentally different from a joke? The same areas of the brain were stimulated and the outcome was the same, only the method of stimulus delivery was different. So, while not really saying "There's no such thing as jokes" the concept of a joke itself becomes less significant.

That said, I don't quite agree with Persinger's A=B conclusions vis-a-vis the god helmet. I believe there would have to be some pretty damned rare circumstances to co-relate a person sitting in a lab, in the dark, in a chair, whose brain is being bombarded with well targetted beams of energy with say, a sane, sober person walking down a street in broad daylight seeing a UFO. The two don't gel.

I would suggest instead that Persinger's reseach gives us another level of negatives. Right now in the UFO field for example, we can safely assume that 90-95% of sightings are incorrect, mistakes or hoaxed, leaving an assumed core of 5% "genuine" sightings. With Persinger's stuff, we can probably crop that down to more around the 2% margin. Still a very real level of unexplained activity, with serious implications but definately needle-in-a-haystack stuff. Which is probably as it should be.

 

[Aaron LeClair]

I dunno if that argument is entirely legitemate. If one is chemically induced into laughter, then how is that fundamentally different from a joke?

It's like having a grey give you an orgasm, over a pretty girl.

 

[BrandonD]

I dunno if that argument is entirely legitemate. If one is chemically induced into laughter, then how is that fundamentally different from a joke? The same areas of the brain were stimulated and the outcome was the same, only the method of stimulus delivery was different. So, while not really saying "There's no such thing as jokes" the concept of a joke itself becomes less significant.

This is such a weird and non black-and-white subject that it's one of my favorites.

Consider this:

If a person does not get the joke, then he does not laugh. So clearly neither the sounds nor the words themselves the cause of the laughter. It is the collective meaning. Following this train of thought, it is clear that absolutely nothing in the physical world is the cause of the laughter. It all takes place in that weird ethereal realm known as the mind.

So how then can materiality alone explain the joke? Did the shockwave of the man's words fly through the medium of the air and strike the listener's brain in his "laugh zone"?

Doubtful. To me it is more likely that the instigation of laughter took place entirely in the mind (which is still a complete unknown), and the brain effects in the observable world were just derivatives of this mind invocation of the laughter.

I wrote a short story about this once, about how a foreign visitor to America couldn't tell the difference between a comedian and a magician because they both were able to directly affect other people without coming into any sort of physical contact with them.

 

[CapnG]

So how then can materiality alone explain the joke? Did the shockwave of the man's words fly through the medium of the air and strike the listener's brain in his "laugh zone"?

Well, yes actually. Although I don't know myself, I'm certain there is probably an area(or several areas) in the brain where activity corresponds to what we call humour. You could easily perform an experiment by slapping someone into an MRI and showing them successively funnier pictures followed by a short sequence of horrid or tragic pictures. Materiality instantly displayed in living colour.

This myth that we still don't know what's going on the brain is just silly. We may not be able to read the "code" of the brain's "programming" just yet but great strides have been made in the field of good old fashioned, cause and effect research. Dismissing those achievements is somewhat counter-productive.

That's why I'm convinced Persinger's on to something, I just think his contention that his findings can explain away all paranormal phenomena is a bit far reaching.

What I find more intersting to an extent though is the resistance people have to the notion that indeed, this could all be in our heads. Seems to me they're frightened by the idea of a mundane world occaisionally disrupted by mental malfunction. It's a curious pas de deux: debunkers who vehimently deny any and ALL paranormal activity as anything but error, hoax or imagination and believers who refuse to except the notion they could simply be mistaken and/or nuts. Guys like Flaxman and his team form a vital bridge between those extremes by being serious-minded while remaining open.

 

[BrandonD]

Well, yes actually. Although I don't know myself, I'm certain there is probably an area(or several areas) in the brain where activity corresponds to what we call humour. You could easily perform an experiment by slapping someone into an MRI and showing them successively funnier pictures followed by a short sequence of horrid or tragic pictures. Materiality instantly displayed in living colour.

I think that you might not have actually read my earlier posts, so I'll repeat the statement I've been saying in each one: Temporal relationship does not explain causal relationship. This applies to your example above, and every other one that you've given thus far. They are all only temporally related, because when it comes to consciousness and mind-related subjects, that is as far as science's almighty arm is able to grasp.

This myth that we still don't know what's going on the brain is just silly.
That's why I'm convinced Persinger's on to something, I just think his contention that his findings can explain away all paranormal phenomena is a bit far reaching.

I think you're misreading once again. I said the mind is an unknown, I never said the brain is an unknown. If you can't discern the difference than I don't know what to tell you.

What I find more intersting to an extent though is the resistance people have to the notion that indeed, this could all be in our heads. Seems to me they're frightened by the idea of a mundane world occaisionally disrupted by mental malfunction. It's a curious pas de deux: debunkers who vehimently deny any and ALL paranormal activity as anything but error, hoax or imagination and believers who refuse to except the notion they could simply be mistaken and/or nuts. Guys like Flaxman and his team form a vital bridge between those extremes by being serious-minded while remaining open.

I think you're mistaken about my position on this subject, as evidenced by your misreading of my earlier posts. I have no problem with phenomena being sourced in the material world. Give someone an aspirin and his headache goes away, and there you have it.

And I have absolutely no problem with these phenomena being "all in our heads". As if you or anyone else even knows what that phrase means.

Western culture would like us to believe that our world is mundane and understood, a position which you generally defend. This world-view is a result of arrogance, shallow thinking, and fear of the unknown, in my opinion.

Even something as "simple" as humor is a weird and bizarre mystery, if one actually stops to think about it, and doesn't take the plebeian's position that it is all already known.

 

[CapnG]

I think you're misreading once again. I said the mind is an unknown, I never said the brain is an unknown. If you can't discern the difference than I don't know what to tell you.

Misunderstanding rather than misreading, as evidenced by this. I contend that the mind is the brain and had made that assumption when reading your arguments. I see no reason to believe (and make no mistake, it is a belief) in some quasi-mystical, non-localised sub-set of "me". As far as I'm concerned, I am talking meat until someone can prove to me otherwise.

And I have absolutely no problem with these phenomena being "all in our heads". As if you or anyone else even knows what that phrase means.

Well I can't speak for anyone else but I know what means when I say it, because it's ME saying it. It means illusiary, false, artificial, unreal, imaginary, hallucinatory. In short fake, mistaken, WRONG.

Western culture would like us to believe that our world is mundane and understood, a position which you generally defend. This world-view is a result of arrogance, shallow thinking, and fear of the unknown, in my opinion.

As opposed to the opposite which is, in my opinion born of ignorance, superstition, assumption, improper observation, bad logic and plain old wishful thinking, none of which are borne out by the cold, hard, slap-in-the-face world we live in.

Even something as "simple" as humor is a weird and bizarre mystery, if one actually stops to think about it, and doesn't take the plebeian's position that it is all already known.

Humour is a marvelous thing to be sure but that doesn't make it mystical, bizarre or "special". If science cannot define it properly then it doesn't mean it can't be defined, it simply means the science isn't there yet.

 

[The Pair of Cats]

Science is the new religion. People hope that science can explain things for them when religion couldn't or they can't figure it out for themselves.People spend their lives hoping that science can explain the mysteries of their life because it's easier than actually believing in the existence in something.

If science hasn't defined it yet, it is because science has self imposed, narrow parameters to draw upon.
There are things that "science" has never been able to solve and never will.

 

[CapnG]

People spend their lives hoping that science can explain the mysteries of their life because it's easier than actually believing in the existence in something.

What a bizarre statement. It's actually much easier to just believe in something than it is to devise a hypothesis, create experiments and do research to try and see if what people believe is actually what's happening. It's called "belief" because it's not fact.

What's with this anti-science kick I wonder? I thought it was limited to the bible-belt but evidently not...

 

[Absinthe]

People spend their lives hoping that science can explain the mysteries of their life because it's easier than actually believing in the existence in something.

What a bizarre statement. It's actually much easier to just believe in something than it is to devise a hypothesis, create experiments and do research to try and see if what people believe is actually what's happening. It's called "belief" because it's not fact.

What's with this anti-science kick I wonder? I thought it was limited to the bible-belt but evidently not...

What? More bizarre than you and Brandon arguing about what part of the brain a joke or humor stimulates?

 

[The Pair of Cats]

People spend their lives hoping that science can explain the mysteries of their life because it's easier than actually believing in the existence in something.

What a bizarre statement. It's actually much easier to just believe in something than it is to devise a hypothesis, create experiments and do research to try and see if what people believe is actually what's happening. It's called "belief" because it's not fact.

What's with this anti-science kick I wonder? I thought it was limited to the bible-belt but evidently not...

Nothing bizarre about the statement at all. If you perceive it as anti-science then that's your problem.
Anyone who waits around for science to solve an experience whether it be a psychic one or the sighting of a UFO or indeed a near death experience will be waiting a long time.
Religion wanted to control people's beliefs and now people want science to solve their beliefs.