Where do you fit in as a believer or skeptic?

[trainedobserver]

A good video on how the brain physically transmits and processes information inside the neural network.

 

[Jeff Davis]

The only way "EVERYTHING" in science is open to revision is if the laws of physics in the universe change in the future, which although possible, doesn't change the fact that until then, many things in science have been proven. For example, in the science of astronomy, it has been proven that the Sun is a star and that the Earth is a planet and that it and other planets orbit the Sun, which in turn is part of a much larger collection of stars called a galaxy; and that is only a miniscule fraction of the things that science has proven. And simply because it's "open to revision" at some point in the future, like when the Earth is swallowed up by the Sun isn't relevant to the fact that it's been proven in the here and now. I honestly don't know where you come up with these specious statements. This one also has little or no relevance to the post you quoted. So what's the point you're trying to make ( if any )?

Of course, I agree completely. I am only coming at this from the perspective that all proofs pretty much have to remain open to revision just to be included logically in the scientific process. I could not agree more. As far as I am concerned, ultimately, there are some matters that I cannot EVER see as being revised.

 

[Jeff Davis]

I agree science is still trying to catch up.

Obviously much of science can be proved to some extent and these precedents have been the steps that we move up on in terms of scientific explanation. It could be that the methods used in the past in order to "prove" something are later found to be suspect even though these same steps helped mankind to get to a breakthough. I think going back and making corrections to past inaccuracies are the health of any scientific endeavor. The problem is that when a scientist makes a determination and his findings are written into text books, and especially when he has the support of his peers, it seems almost impossible to get the idea changed. Let's face it, one role of a professor is to publish. Not always for the sake of advancement. They need to publish in order to remain viable. I'm thankful for the professors and scientists but I can also see holes in the this approach to advancement.

Do you think science has the ability to give meaning to life? In my opinion science can give better understanding but not really meaning. So does the pursuit of ultimate understanding guarantee meaning? I would argue no. If this were true then only some people could attain meaning and purpose. Why? because if the concepts were above the IQ of the average Joe then they couldn't grasp them. I think all human beings have a purpose and can have meaning in life. Thankfully we are designed to have meaning and purpose even if we don't have full understanding. I think that belief in a deity stems from this innate understanding, an instinctual understanding on the metaphysical level that there is more and we are part of that more. Just because our scientific understanding hasn't arrived there yet doesn't discount it. From the time we are born we are gathering understanding of our surroundings, the point being it's all working now whether we understand it or not. So which is more important to belief or non- belief - having more understanding or having more purpose? If you base all of your belief on your human ability to understand you will be sorely disappointed. One of the greatest leaps in human understanding is to know how little we actually understand. Hypothesis, conjecture and theory don't count.

Maybe there really are people out there that are simply logs with brains. I don't really believe that but ufology and trainedobserver come close .

The problem sometimes lies in making the question and then demanding the answer, or creating the answer for the question. Case in point- The Bible doesn't attempt to tell you how old the universe is. It states events. It isn't a book made for scientific explanation. Someone created the answer-(the Bible tells us how old the universe is.) Really? I don't read that. Someone says creation is exacly 6000 years old. They created yet another answer. I don't really know exactly, the Bible doesn't say exactly, but if you pose an exact answer some scientist somewhere might try to validate it. There are accomidating alternate explanations to that question that in no way invalidate the book.

Should science be trendy? It would seem that it goes with the most popular ideas of the day. And a person would put their total trust in something like this?

Believe you me, when it comes to empirical science, I can be one biased and extremely pessimistic individual. Here's the odd part. I am starting to understand this quite clearly with respect to just me. For me, it's cultural bias, most namely in the form of corrupt capitalism. I don't want to get into it here, but believe it or not, capitalism was patterned after nature. It's strictly a survival of the fittest game. The reason for the cultural bias IMO is the extreme corruption of this process by our wonderful government which is filled with self serving thieves and opportunists. This has tainted science immeasurably. No one trusts anything in this country anymore. Biased and influenced corruptly from the start, it promotes an exclusion of many FAR more important areas of research in the name of someone (a monetarily empowered control group) getting rich on top of grant money. That's not capitalism in the least. It's a criminal manipulation of capitalism in the guise of human interest.

Constantly, scientific discoveries are made that should knock the scientific community dead on it's ass. 85% of these discoveries get 's swept under the woo woo rug by those in a position to aid controlling the situation to serve their own committee's professional interests. Many times just to keep their own threatened science agendas afloat and for no other reason.

Science has been turned into just another American hotbed of corruption.

 

[Randall]

... The reason for the cultural bias IMO is the extreme corruption of this process by our wonderful government which is filled with self serving thieves and opportunists. This has tainted science immeasurably.

Though true to an extent, I think "immeasurably" is a gross exaggeration.

... Constantly, scientific discoveries are made that should knock the scientific community dead on it's ass.

Please provide an example of a genuine scientific discovery that you think applies to the above claim.

... 85% of these discoveries get 's swept under the woo woo rug by those in a position to aid controlling the situation to serve their own committee's professional interests. Many times just to keep their own threatened science agendas afloat and for no other reason.

Please provide an example of a genuine scientific discovery that you think applies to the above claim.

... Science has been turned into just another American hotbed of corruption.

Though true to an extent, I think "hotbed" is an exaggeration. Science goes on all over the world, and although science is affected, the problem isn't science itself so much as the world that goes on around it. On that note I think it may not be such an exaggeration to say that the world in general is a hotbed of corruption. Although, there is still hope ( or maybe I'm just deluded about that ).

 

[trainedobserver]

Here is something else to consider. The human mind only presents reality in a 3 dimensional model, yet the human brain (as well as the rest of us) is made of multidimensional matter existing in 10 or 11 dimensions (I can never keep track the number) which amazingly probably do not include the 3 unique dimensions generated by the brain for the representational model. That's a kick in the pants. Are there connections and relationships that are imperceptible to the human organism either perceptually or cognitively? It seems that the way we are put together demands that it must be so. We are isolated from experiencing the real universe by our very design. What did U.G. say ...Oh yeah. Give up.

 

[Tyger]

Sometimes figuring out reality can feel like this on a good day. If anything, the God I know has one heckuvva sense of humor. *insert picture of laughing buddha* Nothing like a good laugh to set the universe straight!

Penn and Teller Fool Us - Mark Shortland
LINK:

I include this only because it's so much fun....though it reminds me of going up for one's orals....'pay no attention to the man behind the curtain'......

Easily the funniest magic trick I've ever seen - Penn and Teller
LINK:

 

[Randall]

Here is something else to consider. The human mind only presents reality in a 3 dimensional model, yet the human brain (as well as the rest of us) is made of multidimensional matter existing in 10 or 11 dimensions (I can never keep track the number) which amazingly probably do not include the 3 unique dimensions generated by the brain for the representational model. That's a kick in the pants. Are there connections and relationships that are imperceptible to the human organism either perceptually or cognitively? It seems that the way we are put together demands that it must be so. We are isolated from experiencing the real universe by our very design. What did U.G. say ...Oh yeah. Give up.

Just a caution on all those "extra dimensions". From everything I can tell they're not the same kind of objectively real dimensions that we experience in real life, but mathematical constructs designed to balance out incoherencies in certain mathematical models drawn by subatomic physicists. In other words, they've never been detected in reality and are purely hypothetical. However as is common with pop-science, we'll often hear these ideas promoted as if they're established facts.

But the real reality is that pop-science media likes to emphasize far out ideas in way that will generate a "Wow Factor", and one of the ways is to leave out information that will detract from the wow factor and use fancy graphics to boost it while bamboozling the audience into thinking that because it's science, it must be true. Personally, I don't see how these multiple dimensions can be any more possible in reality than Escher's staircase. Remember you can draw anything with numbers just like you can with art. Both are abstract forms of expression. Both can reflect reality very accurately, and both can create fiction that seems real.

 

[trainedobserver]

You're right about extra dimensions belonging the iffy and puzzling world of theoretical quantum mechanics. Which, I do not claim to have much of a clue about.

 

[Randall]

You're right about extra dimensions belonging the iffy and puzzling world of theoretical quantum mechanics. Which, I do not claim to have much of a clue about.

Here's a little rant to help you get a grip on the idea. You probably already know this, but you'd be surprised how many people don't. So this is mainly for them. First of all when most people hear the word "quantum" their brain becomes filled with fog and they start seeing things in the mist that imparts quantum physicists with superhuman mystical powers beyond their comprehension. The reality however is that the word "quantum" comes from the word "quanta" which is simply a "unit" of something. In the case of quantum physics these units a the smallest building blocks that we can detect and/or theorize as existing as part of what constitutes our universe, hence a single block is a single quanta, and many blocks form a quantum ( plural of quanta ).

The second issue is that the math that describes the relationships between quanta is an abstract representation. It is therefore not reality. The Escher analogy I alluded to in my previous post is a perfectly valid example of how an abstract idea can seem possible, when in fact it's not. However this isn't to take QP all too lightly either. The more that scientists experiment with particle accelerators, the more they learn about what goes on way down there. Thirdly, scientists aren't always philosophers. In fact they're sometimes known to scoff at philosophy even though it's an integral part of their heritage. That and the difficulty in translating what they do into everyday language results in us being told errors as to what is really possible or going on.

Fortunately for us however, one doesn't have to be able to do the math to detect problems with what we're being told. We can often use basic logic and philosophical reasoning. This is how it's possible to identify the problem with using the word "dimension". For the physicists it's a convenience term to describe an abstract mathematical concept. I say "convenience term" because when I've heard scientists trying to explain these hypothetical dimensions, they say they're only applicable on an extremely small scale within specific situations. This is a dead giveaway that what they're talking about cannot possibly be other dimensions in the way we normally define them ( length, width, height, and possibly time ), because the very nature of such dimensions requires that they co exist simultaneously everywhere. This might take some reflection to grasp, but it's not too hard if you try.

Consequently, if what these scientists think is happening is really happening, it's not actually other dimensions, but interactions with another universe, possibly the universe out side the realm we're in that we call our own universe, that is being described. In the computational model we might think of this as analogous to the boundary between the hardware that runs the system and the virtual environment it creates. On a hard disk for example this boundary layer is a magnetic field between the rotating disk and the head. Data is transmitted back and forth through this tiny space in and out of the virtual world created by the machine. So from our perspective inside the virtual realm, the field seems to warp geometrically out of this universe and into another "dimension" ( hence the convenience term ).

Then again, these so-called dimensions may only be mathematical constructs with no bearing on reality that lead us to create false models, just like the old geocentric models of the universe. We don't know yet. But I still find it fascinating to contemplate once in a while.

 

[Oakenwulf]

I put in a informed believer.... Though I do side with some skepticism, not to mock or burn down any paranormal thought or event, but to prove it exists and is out there. I want to prove it so bad, I want to make sure what I'm dealing with is a ghost come back from the grave and not a tree branch knocking on a house wall, or evidence of a actual creature from another realm is walking around and not some spoof. Its difficult and sucks sometimes when there can be a explanation but I'm always reading and rereading the facts on some cases and examples that there may be some hope or evidence or trend that can be pointed out that was skipped. Example would be that picture I posted of the skeleton man and or hag. People were trying to see the face and some said it was only noise due to the bad iphone camera shot. I'm still studying that picture because who knows maybe that bad shot could outline something that was missed that could be put down fast just because it was a bad taken image, Its a unsolved mystery to me still but its neither a actual yay or nay yet.

 

[Randall]

I put in a informed believer.... Though I do side with some skepticism, not to mock or burn down any paranormal thought or event, but to prove it exists and is out there. I want to prove it so bad, I want to make sure what I'm dealing with is a ghost come back from the grave and not a tree branch knocking on a house wall, or evidence of a actual creature from another realm is walking around and not some spoof ...

That sounds OK, but why be so set on proving it's a "ghost come back from the grave" rather than just finding out what it actually is? If you are set on proving it's some sort of disembodied consciousness, then you need to explore how that is even possible in the first place before assuming that it can be proven, and so far as I can tell, there's no substantial reason to believe a disembodied consciousness is possible, let alone provable. Mind you, there is some circumstantial evidence to support the idea that the universe is some sort of construct rather than a first order reality, in which case a lot of seemingly supernatural things, like disembodied consciousness, may be possible. But that's still a real stretch at this point.

 

[Oakenwulf]

That sounds OK, but why be so set on proving it's a "ghost come back from the grave" rather than just finding out what it actually is? If you are set on proving it's some sort of disembodied consciousness, then you need to explore how that is even possible in the first place before assuming that it can be proven, and so far as I can tell, there's no substantial reason to believe a disembodied consciousness is possible, let alone provable. Mind you, there is some circumstantial evidence to support the idea that the universe is some sort of construct rather than a first order reality, in which case a lot of seemingly supernatural things, like disembodied consciousness, may be possible. But that's still a real stretch at this point.

I agree, but somethings just cant be explained, I do look for both the ghost and what it actually is ( hoping its the ghost), the beauty of the paranormal is something things exits and just cant be explained, it wouldn't be very paranormal if we could find a explanation for it, then on some occasions why would we bum ourselves out, specially on private cases, where you experience the absolute strange and if you do find that refrigerator door to be the cause that would bum ourselves out big time, hence i said private cases, if your writing a book for scientific research Or heh, if your acting in a television show, you wouldn't want to lie about...

 

[Randall]

I agree, but somethings just cant be explained, I do look for both the ghost and what it actually is ( hoping its the ghost), the beauty of the paranormal is something things exits and just cant be explained, it wouldn't be very paranormal if we could find a explanation for it, then on some occasions why would we bum ourselves out, specially on private cases, where you experience the absolute strange and if you do find that refrigerator door to be the cause that would bum ourselves out big time, hence i said private cases, if your writing a book for scientific research Or heh, if your acting in a television show, you wouldn't want to lie about...

As most people here know, I certainly agree that strange things do happen, and have experienced enough of them myself to be 100% personally sure that's true. But the point is that one of my experiences fit the classic "it's a ghost" interpretation, and at the time, those of us involved assumed it was a ghost. But since then I've asked the question: How do we know that ghost phenomena aren't caused by some clandestine high-tech aliens who use it to study our psychological reactions? Fact is: We don't know.

We could be being led to believe that ghosts are the non-corporeal remains of formerly living humans through the use of mental and physical manipulation. This sounds almost crazy, but it's actually less crazy than thinking it's the remnants of dead people because UFOs have at least been tracked on radar and pursued by military jets. Only those who are uninformed or in denial don't accept they are real. On the other hand, what ghosts are presumed to be is based purely on interpretation of circumstantial evidence that seems to fit a pattern.

 

[Heidi Lemmer]

This is sorta along all the posts here.....for me at least....it seems like a constant debate in regards to science verses Woo, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? If we were in a courtroom, the lawyers on both sides would attempt to lay out their case using the imagination and then the science. First they would have to take the jury there, to the scene of the crime and then use science to back up their claims. If we didn't have the idea, the imagination, the theory, what would science pursue? And to what Jeff says about corruption within the field...my issue is the selectiveness of what they choose to study. Why aren't more studies done on what could be studied regarding UFO's? Soil samples, radiation, camera's set up in hot spots, physical exam's of abducties, polygraphs, etc, etc. They aren't done because government has had a huge impact on what's important and what's not. As we'll as corperations. But....get some rich dude to decide that there's a way to market the data and suddenly science is all over it. Even if Chris B manages to get camera's set up on a regular basis in his project and manages to get some awesome coverage, what can he do with it? (This isn't meant to discourage you Chris). He can write a book, we would be glad , but the public at large would be mostly unaware. This example has happened to most everyone who has spent their entire lives going over cases, interviews, traveling to sites , comparing reports with one another. They have shared this data with us and we argue it's validity, look for missteps, liars, hoaxes, holes in the data, etc. Then we say that science doesn't confirm it. How many teams of legitimate people have gone out , recorded both visual and audio of paranormal events and in the end we say, well it still can't be proven? To me, if we didn't have intuition, imagination, curiosity, the willingness to explore and examine the uncomfortable, odd, strange events that people experience daily it would be like having a leash without the dog. So while I understand the importance of choosing words carefully, sticking to what's been scientifically proven, etc , I also see validity that none of that would mean crap if it weren't for the idea that dragged the science along. These idea's are difficult to sift but sheer volume should give us some sense of direction. The UFO field has left science because is too lazy to get off it's arse and come along. It's waiting for the caviar and champagne to be served first. That's my frustration with the field.

 

[smcder]

This is sorta along all the posts here.....for me at least....it seems like a constant debate in regards to science verses Woo, which comes first, the chicken or the egg? If we were in a courtroom, the lawyers on both sides would attempt to lay out their case using the imagination and then the science. First they would have to take the jury there, to the scene of the crime and then use science to back up their claims. If we didn't have the idea, the imagination, the theory, what would science pursue? And to what Jeff says about corruption within the field...my issue is the selectiveness of what they choose to study. Why aren't more studies done on what could be studied regarding UFO's? Soil samples, radiation, camera's set up in hot spots, physical exam's of abducties, polygraphs, etc, etc. They aren't done because government has had a huge impact on what's important and what's not. As we'll as corperations. But....get some rich dude to decide that there's a way to market the data and suddenly science is all over it. Even if Chris B manages to get camera's set up on a regular basis in his project and manages to get some awesome coverage, what can he do with it? (This isn't meant to discourage you Chris). He can write a book, we would be glad , but the public at large would be mostly unaware. This example has happened to most everyone who has spent their entire lives going over cases, interviews, traveling to sites , comparing reports with one another. They have shared this data with us and we argue it's validity, look for missteps, liars, hoaxes, holes in the data, etc. Then we say that science doesn't confirm it. How many teams of legitimate people have gone out , recorded both visual and audio of paranormal events and in the end we say, well it still can't be proven? To me, if we didn't have intuition, imagination, curiosity, the willingness to explore and examine the uncomfortable, odd, strange events that people experience daily it would be like having a leash without the dog. So while I understand the importance of choosing words carefully, sticking to what's been scientifically proven, etc , I also see validity that none of that would mean crap if it weren't for the idea that dragged the science along. These idea's are difficult to sift but sheer volume should give us some sense of direction. The UFO field has left science because is too lazy to get off it's arse and come along. It's waiting for the caviar and champagne to be served first. That's my frustration with the field.

To me, if we didn't have intuition, imagination, curiosity, the willingness to explore and examine the uncomfortable, odd, strange events that people experience daily it would be like having a leash without the dog. So while I understand the importance of choosing words carefully, sticking to what's been scientifically proven, etc , I also see validity that none of that would mean crap if it weren't for the idea that dragged the science along.

well said!

the evidence is there - peer-reviewed publications on psi research (from Dean Radin's blog)

http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/evidence.htm

"So I've created a SHOW ME page with downloadable articles on psi and psi-related topics, all published in peer-reviewed journals. Most of these papers were published after the year 2000. Most report experimental studies or meta-analyses of classes of experiments. I will continue to add to this page and flesh it out, including links to recent or to especially useful ebooks. This page may eventually become annotated, then multithreaded and hyperlinked, and then morph into a Wiki."

 

[Randall]

Why aren't more studies done on what could be studied regarding UFO's? Soil samples, radiation, camera's set up in hot spots, physical exam's of abducties, polygraphs, etc, etc. They aren't done because government has had a huge impact on what's important and what's not. As we'll as corperations. But....get some rich dude to decide that there's a way to market the data and suddenly science is all over it. Even if Chris B manages to get camera's set up on a regular basis in his project and manages to get some awesome coverage, what can he do with it? (This isn't meant to discourage you Chris). He can write a book, we would be glad , but the public at large would be mostly unaware.

It's not that ufologists wouldn't like to get more information about UFOs. It's that the resources required to get more information than we already have isn't worth the investment. The Government put in over 20 years of investigation and civilians continue to do what we can, but the fact is, we've already got all the information we need from witnesses. In fact we have more than we've been able to analyze. What we don't have is an alien craft or any aliens to study. Sure there are claims that they ( whoever "they" are ) have those stashed away someplace, and maybe they do, but what good does that do the rest of us? It's not that scientists wouldn't be interested if they could get their hands on some genuine alien artifact. It's that there aren't any available for them to study, and scientists need more than campfire stories in order to do their job. Even if they believe uncle Bob's tale of alien abduction, they can't put it in a mass spectrometer.

How many teams of legitimate people have gone out , recorded both visual and audio of paranormal events and in the end we say, well it still can't be proven? To me, if we didn't have intuition, imagination, curiosity, the willingness to explore and examine the uncomfortable, odd, strange events that people experience daily it would be like having a leash without the dog. So while I understand the importance of choosing words carefully, sticking to what's been scientifically proven, etc , I also see validity that none of that would mean crap if it weren't for the idea that dragged the science along. These idea's are difficult to sift but sheer volume should give us some sense of direction.

Excellent points, which is why I maintain that science isn't the only standard by which we can judge the reality of things. I always remind people of the process of critical thinking, and that it can be just as useful for making decisions on what is reasonable to believe. There are enough of us who know from our own experience that alien visitation is real that it makes no difference what the skeptics say anyway. That doesn't mean we don't respect science. I certainly do. So do most of the other people I see posting on this forum. It just means that there is a certain segment of the population who have been exposed to sufficient proof and a certain segment who haven't, and who also deny the validity of anyone else's experience.

The UFO field has left science because is too lazy to get off it's arse and come along. It's waiting for the caviar and champagne to be served first. That's my frustration with the field.

I don't think the above is accurate. Again, those ( like myself ) who have a genuine and constructive interest simply don't have the resources, and even if we did, there's not a lot we could do with them. We don't need to prove alien visitation is real because we already know it's real. What we don't know is exactly where the aliens are from and how their technology works. We can't study that scientifically without direct access to a UFO and/or aliens. I can guarantee that if we had a saucer in our garage, we'd have scientists banging down our door ( probably along with the military ) to get their hands on it.

Last but not least, ufology also has wide reaching historical, cultural, creative, and social facets that simply don't apply to science. So it's not that ufology has "left science". It's that science can only be applied to a narrow slice of the field as a whole. That's why allegations of pseudoscience against ufology are unfounded. Ufology isn't a science unto itself, and I know of no ufologist who actually claims that it is. Before something can be labeled pseudoscience it first has to claim to be science, and then it must be shown to not follow accepted standards of scientific practise. Because it's impossible to apply physical science to the study of actual alien craft by looking at fiction, UFO festivals, mythology and so on, labeling the whole field pseudoscience is a misapplication of the term. Again, it's not that ufology has "left science", it's that ufology encompasses a much wider range of subject matter than science alone can handle.

 

[Oakenwulf]

As most people here know, I certainly agree that strange things do happen, and have experienced enough of them myself to be 100% personally sure that's true. But the point is that one of my experiences fit the classic "it's a ghost" interpretation, and at the time, those of us involved assumed it was a ghost. But since then I've asked the question: How do we know that ghost phenomena aren't caused by some clandestine high-tech aliens who use it to study our psychological reactions? Fact is: We don't know.

We could be being led to believe that ghosts are the non-corporeal remains of formerly living humans through the use of mental and physical manipulation. This sounds almost crazy, but it's actually less crazy than thinking it's the remnants of dead people because UFOs have at least been tracked on radar and pursued by military jets. Only those who are uninformed or in denial don't accept they are real. On the other hand, what ghosts are presumed to be is based purely on interpretation of circumstantial evidence that seems to fit a pattern.

No not aliens..... Djinn........mmhmmmm