Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

I tend to think that "unexplained" material phenomena occur all the time and that human subjects more often than not project a greater degree of complexity into them than is actually there. Environment and collective experience can be highly suggestive, and over time sensory perceptions can congeal into surprisingly persuasive memories.

How can objects exude morbidity or malevolence? These aren't actual essences.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

Exactly! We are talking about anecdotal evidence on physical phenomena. It's silly. Although I do think it's fun

 

[Dak]

I tend to think that "unexplained" material phenomena occur all the time and that human subjects more often than not project a greater degree of complexity into them than is actually there. Environment and collective experience can be highly suggestive, and over time sensory perceptions can congeal into surprisingly persuasive memories.

I wouldn't call the scenario a product of environment or "collective" experiment. In fact, it could be an example of the exact opposite. To compare and contrast, when my brother and I were older by probably 5+ years, we had to attend a small church out in the country with an actual small/old graveyard behind it, incidentally surrounded by woods/containing a couple trees and lit by a similar security light. No "experience" whatsoever from it. There was also another church we visited a few times in the same time frame as that experience that did have a grave yard next to it, and the church was even older and in a fair amount of dis-repair. No experience.

How can objects exude morbidity or malevolence? These aren't actual essences.

How do we know?

Exactly! We are talking about anecdotal evidence on physical phenomena. It's silly. Although I do think it's fun

All phenomena can be considered anecdotal.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

All phenomena can be considered anecdotal.

No, your casual observations or indications are anecdotal rather than empirical rigorous or scientific analysis.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wouldn't call the scenario a product of environment or "collective" experiment. In fact, it could be an example of the exact opposite. To compare and contrast, when my brother and I were older by probably 5+ years, we had to attend a small church out in the country with an actual small/old graveyard behind it, incidentally surrounded by woods/containing a couple trees and lit by a similar security light. No "experience" whatsoever from it. There was also another church we visited a few times in the same time frame as that experience that did have a grave yard next to it, and the church was even older and in a fair amount of dis-repair. No experience.

It doesn't need to be a graveyard. Playing hide and seek is incredibly suggestive; furthermore, this happened when you were less than ten years old. Your memories have had plenty of time to morph and combine.

How do we know?

Well, I think you've made this point multiple times in our own conversations. There is no essential morbidity or malevolence since any such essence must be seen to be working in its own interest; to itself, it isn't malevolent. Universalizing these concepts as real essences is simply an illusion.

 

[Dak]

It doesn't need to be a graveyard. Playing hide and seek is incredibly suggestive; furthermore, this happened when you were less than ten years old. Your memories have had plenty of time to morph and combine.

The story has remained unchanged over the years as far as I can recall, obviously distinct from whether or not was accurate. I was at least 10, yet younger than 13. Either way, I don't think age really has anything to do with it. That would assume some level of a lower threshold of suggestibility, which if we were in were the other areas containing some more suggestive physical constructions/experienced a less personally relevant phenomena, I would probably be inclined to agree in retrospect.

Well, I think you've made this point multiple times in our own conversations. There is no essential morbidity or malevolence since any such essence must be seen to be working in its own interest; to itself, it isn't malevolent. Universalizing these concepts as real essences is simply an illusion.

Right. But that doesn't change the perception/phenomena externally. Whatever "it" is giving off whatever "it" is, it's being received individually/subjectively obviously. I have to assume that my father in law was not perceiving it, but I can't know that for sure. Not to mention differences in sensitivity are not proofs against something. Some people are more aware than others, respective to many different spectrums.

 

[Einherjar86]

The story has remained unchanged over the years as far as I can recall, obviously distinct from whether or not was accurate. I was at least 10, yet younger than 13. Either way, I don't think age really has anything to do with it. That would assume some level of a lower threshold of suggestibility, which if we were in were the other areas containing some more suggestive physical constructions/experienced a less personally relevant phenomena, I would probably be inclined to agree in retrospect.

It isn't your age per se, it's the amount of time that has passed. Your memory remaining "unchanged" is something that will always seem subjectively true to you; that's how memories work. Memories aren't files that you can pull out of a drawer and verify for authenticity. They change subtly, and over years and decades these subtle changes pile up. You don't realize it; no one does. We can't remember the specifics of things that happened to us at the age of ten or thirteen by the time we're twenty-five.

Right. But that doesn't change the perception/phenomena externally. Whatever "it" is giving off whatever "it" is, it's being received individually/subjectively obviously. I have to assume that my father in law was not perceiving it, but I can't know that for sure. Not to mention differences in sensitivity are not proofs against something. Some people are more aware than others, respective to many different spectrums.

But you claim that due to incidents occurring in certain places, it will emit inherently "good" or "bad" vibes. So a place where many people were murdered were somehow gives off negative vibrations. I don't follow that logic.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

As long as you say you believe you saw this person in some form instead of knowing you did, it's all good. Either way the story you tell is compelling. I'd much rather hear it in person so you could spook me out.

 

[Dak]

It isn't your age per se, it's the amount of time that has passed. Your memory remaining "unchanged" is something that will always seem subjectively true to you; that's how memories work. Memories aren't files that you can pull out of a drawer and verify for authenticity. They change subtly, and over years and decades these subtle changes pile up. You don't realize it; no one does. We can't remember the specifics of things that happened to us at the age of ten or thirteen by the time we're twenty-five.

Not generally. But that story in particular has been told more than once, and I reference the same words/construction each time. The more often the recall/more frequent, the more likely some semblance of continuity will be retained.

I'm already familiar with the studies on the "memory" referencing recalls of recalls.

But you claim that due to incidents occurring in certain places, it will emit inherently "good" or "bad" vibes. So a place where many people were murdered were somehow gives off negative vibrations. I don't follow that logic.

Well of course we don't have to classify the drowning of children or slaughter of people as "bad". But we generally do. I perceived the vibes prior to learning it's history. Not after. That differentiation is not insignificant.

 

[Einherjar86]

Not generally. But that story in particular has been told more than once, and I reference the same words/construction each time. The more often the recall/more frequent, the more likely some semblance of continuity will be retained.

I'm already familiar with the studies on the "memory" referencing recalls of recalls.

None of that is conclusive or convincing, and there's no proof that frequent recall improves or retains a memory. Even if the story was told multiple times, there may be details that your brother disagreed on but didn't say anything, and instead adopted your own testimony. You may have done this yourself and simply forgotten. There's very little that is convincing about recall ability over such a lapse of time.

Well of course we don't have to classify the drowning of children or slaughter of people as "bad". But we generally do. I perceived the vibes prior to learning it's history. Not after. That differentiation is not insignificant.

It's insignificant because you're exploiting the history in your own way. In the aftermath of such a sensation, the history of a location served as an applicable explanation. In concurrent instances, you're already pre-programmed to associate that location with such sensations.

 

[Dak]

None of that is conclusive or convincing, and there's no proof that frequent recall improves or retains a memory. Even if the story was told multiple times, there may be details that your brother disagreed on but didn't say anything, and instead adopted your own testimony. You may have done this yourself and simply forgotten. There's very little that is convincing about recall ability over such a lapse of time.

It's insignificant because you're exploiting the history in your own way. In the aftermath of such a sensation, the history of a location served as an applicable explanation. In concurrent instances, you're already pre-programmed to associate that location with such sensations.

In both of these cases, you are appealing to arguments which in their logical conclusions may be appealed to to dismiss any evidence of anything ever, making them ultimately practically (as in literally a practical sense) useless. Humans may never be trusted to ever experience anything, nor to properly recall that which they didn't actually experience.

 

[Einherjar86]

And you're assuming your memory is perfect.

Besides, this argument isn't practically useless because I'm appealing specifically to the insufficiency of memory. Here, it's the only thing you have to support your case: there are no textual documentations, no recordings, no multiple witnesses to verify other than a family member. There's no foundation for a logical argument because there's very little, if not nothing, with which to work. In this case, the numerous (nay, infinite) material explanations for what occurred far outweigh the appeals to the supernatural, in my opinion, since they provide decisively more falsifiable/verifiable conclusions.

 

[Dak]

So what if there are no other witnesses? The same limitations that apply to me apply to them. The same goes for any sort for technological recordings, or at least the interpretations thereof.

I do apologize I do not carry a cadre with me at all times, or prior to the era of smartphones, a recording device. I do find it interesting the earnestness with which some people attack certain experience. It is similar to those who are quite nationalistic/pro military with no personal experience, when confronted with those who have been within the military and have negative sentiment.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not asking you to apologize, and I'm not criticizing you for holding the view you do. It's entirely believable that you've formed the perception you hold. Furthermore, I don't believe in ghosts or metaphysical essences or energies of this sort, so I'm naturally biased against what you're suggesting. All I'm saying is that given the circumstances of the case, it's far more likely that a totally material explanation exists for what happened. Encounters of this sort always present themselves to only one individual, or a severely limited number of individuals. If they are, in fact, real, then it doesn't make sense as to why they wouldn't appear "popularly," or among vast crowds.

What you're perceiving as an "attack" on your experience is not an attack in a pejorative or antagonistic sense, but merely a skepticism toward your interpretation of events. Without any additional points of view or documentation, it becomes entirely impossible to verify your opinion. Given the possibilities, I find it unlikely that what actually occurred in front of your eyes was a ghost or apparition, even if you experienced it as such.

 

[Dak]

It's interesting to me you don't see the logical fallacies necessary/inherent in that approach. Obviously skepticism is warranted, but to dismiss in that it *must* be explainable through some [known] other phenomena is no more or less intellectual than to assume I made contact with the Afterlife.

It's interesting that you caveat the limitation of encounter to "severely limited", which is neatly ambiguous and subjective. Many of our daily experiences are severely limited or individual, yet no one questions us if we recount the majority of these events, even though nearly (or in fact) everything is impossible to verify given the arguments/understanding about perception and memory. To appeal to the fact that many of these are "common" fails on two points:

1. An appeal to majority/tradition.
2. If our experiences/memories are highly undependable, then no matter how many experience something, it is no more or less worthy of consideration, whether experienced communally or in isolated cases.

Edit: TBC on skepticism, the last thing I should expect is for someone to come away from this discussion with the opinion that "Well goshgolly, Overwatch says he saw an apparition once so they must exist." But there's a difference between skepticism and outright rejection.

 

[Dak]

http://naturalsociety.com/harvard-study-published-federal-govt-journal-confirms-fluoride-lowers-iq/

http://naturalsociety.com/high-fructose-corn-syrup-damages-learning-abilities-memory/

What we already knew about flouride and HFCS.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's interesting to me you don't see the logical fallacies necessary/inherent in that approach. Obviously skepticism is warranted, but to dismiss in that it *must* be explainable through some [known] other phenomena is no more or less intellectual than to assume I made contact with the Afterlife.

It's interesting that you caveat the limitation of encounter to "severely limited", which is neatly ambiguous and subjective. Many of our daily experiences are severely limited or individual, yet no one questions us if we recount the majority of these events, even though nearly (or in fact) everything is impossible to verify given the arguments/understanding about perception and memory. To appeal to the fact that many of these are "common" fails on two points:

1. An appeal to majority/tradition.
2. If our experiences/memories are highly undependable, then no matter how many experience something, it is no more or less worthy of consideration, whether experienced communally or in isolated cases.

Edit: TBC on skepticism, the last thing I should expect is for someone to come away from this discussion with the opinion that "Well goshgolly, Overwatch says he saw an apparition once so they must exist." But there's a difference between skepticism and outright rejection.

There are no fallacies in what I'm saying, and your obsession with fallacies gets a bit redundant. I'm actually not making an argument about what you saw, I'm merely questioning your confidence.

Not once have I dismissed your claim outright; I'm saying that it's more likely that some material explanation exists rather than your specific interpretation of supernatural energies. I'm not dismissing anything; I'm merely trying to suggest that there are other ways to read your experience, and you seem to be downplaying them.

As far as "severely limited" goes, you're right about everyday experience; but most of the incidents/experiences that people occur are not cognitively estranging (i.e. normal activities such as going to the bathroom, eating a snack, etc.). It's entirely plausible to believe that such events occur; or rather, there is no reason to question them unless they interfere with some extraneous factor that requires clarification.

An encounter with a supernatural essence is not something that occurs on a regular basis; it is cognitively estranging, and is something that most people don't have access to as a kind of habitual occurrence. There is a far greater plausibility in questioning one's anecdotal encounter with a ghost as opposed to one's anecdotal encounter with his toilet after a night of heavy drinking.

 

[Dak]

There are no fallacies in what I'm saying, and your obsession with fallacies gets a bit redundant. I'm actually not making an argument about what you saw, I'm merely questioning your confidence.

Because they are so frequent (and yes I'm not immune either). I was/am much more confident than I would have been had my brother not corroborated what I saw, without me having to tell him what I saw first. I would assume others outside would have seen it, if they had been hiding in the same vicinity/facing that direction. Had my brother not corroborated it I would probably assume it was a figment of my imagination.

Not once have I dismissed your claim outright; I'm saying that it's more likely that some material explanation exists rather than your specific interpretation of supernatural energies. I'm not dismissing anything; I'm merely trying to suggest that there are other ways to read your experience, and you seem to be downplaying them.

As far as "severely limited" goes, you're right about everyday experience; but most of the incidents/experiences that people occur are not cognitively estranging (i.e. normal activities such as going to the bathroom, eating a snack, etc.). It's entirely plausible to believe that such events occur; or rather, there is no reason to question them unless they interfere with some extraneous factor that requires clarification.

An encounter with a supernatural essence is not something that occurs on a regular basis; it is cognitively estranging, and is something that most people don't have access to as a kind of habitual occurrence. There is a far greater plausibility in questioning one's anecdotal encounter with a ghost as opposed to one's anecdotal encounter with his toilet after a night of heavy drinking.

My point is that all of the arguments against the dependability of our memory and perception has no obvious cutoff. If no person may depend on recall or experience in one thing, then why another? If no one person's experience or memory can be dependable, why a collective of undependable experiences/recollections?

 

[Einherjar86]

The more individuals perceive an event/object/etc., the more likely it becomes that we will receive disparate accounts. Through these disparate accounts (ideally written down as soon as possible, or recorded in some way), investigators can arrive at a more concrete notion of what transpired. You're right that no one person's memory is necessarily more "correct" than another's; but this is not the point of desiring more witnesses. No one perception/recollection is more relevant or useful; but a collections of recollections, taken together, can yield more beneficial results.

I think it's highly probable that your and your brother's memories have congealed, so to speak, over time. I think your recollection of events now are relatively the same simply due to your collective sharing and indulging in the experience over time. I'm not asserting that this is true; but I definitely think it's possible, and it wouldn't be something you would be able to tell. It could have been an incredibly convincing illusion of physical light that struck you both as powerful (just as murmurations strike observers as unique and moving, but this does not make it anything more than a large collection of birds in flight), and a religious upbringing and acculturation might have contributed to a kind of communal creation of this memory.

 

[Dak]

You mean believing it wasn't possible made it more believable?