I had a freaky experience last night...

[Recursive Logic]

didn't u just say it's a technology institute?

maybe it's a hoax made by one of those engineering students to laugh a little

 

[Recursive Logic]

hehe

 

[ginkgothian]

Who you're gonna call...? LOL

Sounds very spooky indeed....

Did you say you're studying journalism? Maybe a good story to get attention from newspapers or TV stations

 

[Rusty]

No-one makes a fool out of the machine Rusty.

Okay, that's hilarious then.

 

[NaTaSMAI]

Grr, I had a nice reply typed out, but it wouldn't let me post.

Anyway, I've had some strange things happen to me that I shruged off as my imagination and hallcincations from being sick. My parents, and I have no reason to doubt them, claim to have heard/felt some weird things when I was away. Also, our cat talks to pictures of the "virgin" Mary. But who knows.....

 

[Wandrail]

after reading twice what you wrote - adding some punctuation - it isn't clear to me why you should consider the possibility of the existance of something not scientifically proven. i mean, the flood might have removed some blue men from our planet, but i'm not going to admit the possibility of their existance.
and i've heard about some pseudo scientific theories about how your position in relation with some imaginary lines drawn on the surface of the earth can influence your mind in a good or bad way, but all that has be proven wrong. and all the rest is not scientific enough.

in case i mis-interpreted your thought, or there is something i don't know (likely), i beg your pardon.

Haha! Leave me alone, I was drinking! It impairs motor skills necessary to typing, not to mention thinking necessary to proper grammar. I'm not saying I believe in shite like psychic phenomena and things like ghosts, I'm just not totally writing everything that has not been reproduced in a laboratory off. The word 'scientific' I think is thrown around a bit too much in trying to validate and invalidate things, because popularly held scientific theories are often times proven wrong, or hell, science likes holding numerous conflicting opinions about any one thing at the same time anyhow. What I was talking about I don't necessarily believe, but find it interesting to think about. I do believe in a cataclysmic flood, I don't think the flandrian drift explains the worldwide accounts of it from varying cultures, not to mention the cities being discovered underwater that are being dated to possibly 10-15000 years old. I don't jump to conclusions about the foggier stuff like whether or not the human brain was capable of more fantastic feats, or whether angels really came down and had children or genetically manipulated people to created these nephilim, titans, Gods and such - I just think its interesting as hell to consider. Mainstream science championed for years the notion of trans-species evolution, but it has never been evidenced in nature, and for the most part is no longer considered a solid theory (although those who still think its true are subject to less scrutiny than any creationist). I was taught that man evolved from the chimpanzee in school,and that is totally unscientific, but it is considered "scientific" because its accepted in the right circles. Its politics and agendas, not open discourse or a trade of thoughts and ideas. So when someone starts talking about whetehr or not something is scientific in relation to something that's at least got enough to it to be tantalizing, regardless how fantastic it may seem, red flags go off for me that its just one of those...reflex actions of the more institutionalized scientific school of thought. Limiting yourself to only what you can place under your microscope is like only viewing the world through that tiny dot of light at the end. Stars may be above your head, but because you can't pull them down and apart, you'll never see them and as far as you're concerned they don't exist - when you see 'em you'll believe 'em - until then, the consideration itself is a waste of time. The problem is that despite how big our egos get, we're just people, and our power is small, really, in the scope of this impossibly perfect machine of balance called the universe. We get a bit big for our britches, I think, and decide we know everything, and that deprives us of knowing so much...shit I gotta go to work!

 

[Theredintheskyisours]

I read half of that and then gave up on your reply hehe! That's one damn long post!

Do I believe in apparitions? I really actually don't know. I've never actually had an experiance with an ghost before, but I do still think it is quite possible for the phenomenon to be true. I really don't know what to take of Machine's initial post, whether he's pulling our chain, telling the truth, or someone playing a hoax on Machine. But, I think that's very interesting none the less.

 

[mourningstar]

The word 'scientific' I think is thrown around a bit too much in trying to validate and invalidate things, because popularly held scientific theories are often times proven wrong

that most certainly happens. that's why we call them "theories" and not "truth".

i'm not going in detail through what karl popper thought, this is not the place, but i agree with him when he claimed that what demarcates what's scientific and what is not is the possibility of being proven wrong (the pythagorean theorem is therefore scientific: if we find a rectangular triangle for which the theorem doesn’t work, we’ve proven it wrong. the same cannot be done with the theories about god's existence, for instance).

science likes holding numerous conflicting opinions about any one thing at the same time anyhow.

i wouldn't consider it a bad thing, since it's one of the things which allow its progression. and again, "opinions" can be conflicting; the problem would be to have two opposite things both considered to be a law.

What I was talking about I don't necessarily believe, but find it interesting to think about.

but yes, yes, it's interesting, and we're here talking about it. but that's pretty much the time and the attention i'm giving to it.

Limiting yourself to only what you can place under your microscope is like only viewing the world through that tiny dot of light at the end.

no, sir. don't get me wrong, i don't over-analyse everything, when i look into my boyfriend's eyes i don't ask myself how my brain can chemically make me feel love. but i do think i need some parameters to decide what i can consider meaningful and what is not. otherwise it's a mess. this doesn't mean i drool whenever i hear the word "positivism".

Stars may be above your head, but because you can't pull them down and apart, you'll never see them and as far as you're concerned they don't exist - when you see 'em you'll believe 'em - until then, the consideration itself is a waste of time.

mmmh, it's thanks to astronomy that i know that stars exist, what they're made of and such. but probably i didn't get what you mean.







some time ago, i woke up one morning and i found two pictures, with their frames, one on the other on the rug beside my bed.

of course i must have dreamt something involving those pictures or have experienced a form or sleepwalking, taking them off the wall and putting them on the floor.

i have the feeling someone here would have blamed it on some ghosts, probably claiming that a painter had been killed here where my house is.



whatever




edit: someone's trying to sabotage me. my post was all black!

 

[Wandrail]

that most certainly happens. that's why we call them "theories" and not "truth".

i'm not going in detail through what karl popper thought, this is not the place, but i agree with him when he claimed that what demarcates what's scientific and what is not is the possibility of being proven wrong (the pythagorean theorem is therefore scientific: if we find a rectangular triangle for which the theorem doesn’t work, we’ve proven it wrong. the same cannot be done with the theories about god's existence, for instance).

Correct, correct, and I'm not one of these people who believes in looking into black mirrors and reflecting negative energy and all kinds of new age hokum, I am a rational person. I'm just saying that while what can be proved and recreated is obviously, scientifically, and unequivocably true, things that have not been or cannot be proven by means of observation or experimentation at this time or perhaps ever are not untrue, and certainly not unimportant - although importance is pretty relative. I personally think that videotapes of mysteriously closing doors and anecdotal evidence of ghosts and sasquatches are worthless and do not bring me to believe on iota in either - or UFOs or any of that - but as I said I do have beliefs and opinions that some would find as controversial, so I'm just being even-handed here with the matter at hand.

no, sir. don't get me wrong, i don't over-analyse everything, when i look into my boyfriend's eyes i don't ask myself how my brain can chemically make me feel love. but i do think i need some parameters to decide what i can consider meaningful and what is not. otherwise it's a mess. this doesn't mean i drool whenever i hear the word "positivism".

mmmh, it's thanks to astronomy that i know that stars exist, what they're made of and such. but probably i didn't get what you mean.

Yes, but lets say for instance, you can't prove there is a God so you figure its either an idiotic crutch used by primitive people who didn't understand their surroundings to explain everything so they feel better, or figure there's just not enough to prove or disprove it, so why worry. Then we die and see Christ, or a big wolf flies out of the sky and fire rains down and its ragnarok or something - doesn't matter which or what, im just using religion as a reference. The point is that anything that is true is true regardless of whether or not a methodology exists to test it. If someone limits their consideration only to what they can prove, excluding things that have not been shown to be untrue they are really limiting themselves, unless as a species we've gotten so bigheaded that we believe that questions we have answered are so much greater and important than those left unanswered. Perhaps a religious context is a bit too uncomfortable for this group. Another example is that the earliest signs of advanced human habitation are the civilizations of the harappan and the sumerians. While little is known about the former, the latter seems to appear out of nowhere with a written language, clear cut laws, sciences - even schools. Despite this, no research has been done into this culture's accounts of civilization that was destroyed by a cataclysm - now lying beneath water- from which they received their knowledge, in a story that is exactly like that of Noah. The mainstream scientific community at any mention of pre-sumerian - especially submerged - cities balks to the point of ridicule. Its just that sitting off the coasts of Cuba, Japan, India and Alexandria are anomalies that are turning out to be just that - judging theoretically by water levels and other preliminary measurements, some of these may date a full 5,000 years or more earlier than anything we know of. It is difficult to get money to research these sites even though these stand to be history altering finds, much of 'science' while slowly being forced to acknowledge that it should at least be looked into are going kicking and screaming. It always seems to go that way with anything that might be interpreted in any sort of 'biblical' fashion. The same thing happened with the discovery of the biblical city of Jericho - discovered by following clues in the bible and other ancient documents. I agree with your definition of what is scientific, I'm just saying that its folly to only lend credence to what you absolutely know. Yay! My first way-too-long post since returning!

some time ago, i woke up one morning and i found two pictures, with their frames, one on the other on the rug beside my bed.

of course i must have dreamt something involving those pictures or have experienced a form or sleepwalking, taking them off the wall and putting them on the floor.

i have the feeling someone here would have blamed it on some ghosts, probably claiming that a painter had been killed here where my house is.

Yeah, I think people just jump at the chance to feel like something exciting has happened to them, livens things up, you know. I've had people tell me to my face, people I know very well, that they've had a call from a dead relative or seen an actual ghost and...you know, I don't think they're necessarily lying to me, but I sure as hell don't buy it! Whatever, indeed. I don't disagree with you necessarily, on the record - but I like the conversation!

 

[rahvin]

i'm not going in detail through what karl popper thought, this is not the place, but i agree with him when he claimed that what demarcates what's scientific and what is not is the possibility of being proven wrong (the pythagorean theorem is therefore scientific: if we find a rectangular triangle for which the theorem doesn’t work, we’ve proven it wrong. the same cannot be done with the theories about god's existence, for instance).

i'm not going in detail through what popper thought either, because it will likely give me a terrible headache and i have one already, but i must say that commendable as his theories might be, they are a scientist's view on religious issues and - in my humble opinion - tend to confuse religion with superstition. for a believer (which as you well know i'm not, so this isn't a question of standing my ground) the existence of god and his intervention on reality (i.e. the laws of physics) cannot be compared to dead children playing hide-and-seek with their dead puppies inside some institution's premises. the latter is a matter of unexplained events whose basis lies in "energies" whose origin is unknown, while the former is a (hopefully) consistent explanation of reality and what lies behind it. therefore i can accept popper shrugging in the face of ghosts and apparitions because, well, what can you say about something that eludes testing and verifiable proofs of any kind? but it's not the same with god and his merry little helpers, whose existence is seen as both a spiritual and rational starting point for reality and scientific method to even subsist (subliminal propaganda, right? ). a believer would likely contend, for instance, that if we find a rectangular triangle for which the theorem doesn't work, we have just proven that god exists.

of course i must have dreamt something involving those pictures or have experienced a form or sleepwalking, taking them off the wall and putting them on the floor.

i fail to see how the former could have been the cause for pictures to move from the wall to the floor but i trust either you or karl popper know many things that are way above my head, as in fact is often the case.

I'm just saying that while what can be proved and recreated is obviously, scientifically, and unequivocably true,

it's not. it's generally accepted as true, which means we simplify our lives by assuming that pictures hanging from a wall do not start walking around sorting through the porn magazines you keep hidden in your drawers, because through decades of lab testing specifically designed to check and observe the behaviour of framed pictures the world over, they have never shown the tiniest sign of being inclined to amble about the house at night. we do lack some universal, all-encompassing knowledge about it, and we always will, so we choose the likeliest rules because they seem to suit us just fine. in much the same way, ghosts are generally accepted as not true. this is not a matter of putting anything under the microscope, but choosing what set of rules it is more convenient to apply to reality so that it seemingly works smoothly. we can toy around with the idea of dead babies haunting populated areas with their host of hounds from hell, but unless we start believing, it's fantasy and bedtime stories. i find it funny once in a while, but looking into the eyes of my teddy bear without investigating what makes me feel love for him is much more rewarding an activity for me.

 

[rahvin]

But in anyway, it's definitely a Stephen King material.

i'm not sure, there seems to be a considerable shortage of middle-aged security guards getting head from their slightly freakish middle-age lovers in the locker room...

 

[rahvin]

How romantic...

i thought it was your opinion that i always am.

 

[Profanity]

So did I.

 

[rahvin]

So did I.

you mean you:
- think i'm always a romantic
- were convinced hearse thinks i'm always a romantic
- believe in ghosts
- got head in a locker room at the institute of technology (and in that case, was it a lab test?)
- read stephen king
- are a hippo
- all of the above?

 

[xenophobe]

you mean you:
- think i'm always a romantic
- were convinced hearse thinks i'm always a romantic
- believe in ghosts
- got head in a locker room at the institute of technology (and in that case, was it a lab test?)
- read stephen king
- are a hippo
- all of the above?

OMG!!! Funniest thing ever!!

 

[rahvin]

Yes, it was funny, but the funniest thing ever?

will you let me enjoy my three minutes of fame thank you very much?!

 

[mourningstar]

Then we die and see Christ, or a big wolf flies out of the sky and fire rains down and its ragnarok or something

the possibilities i'll find that when i die are the same that i'll find a big smurf - let's say the one with the glasses, i used to find him funny. when i'll see christ, or whatever, i might say "i'm sorry, but i'm just human. you should have given me a proof, now you can't complain". oh, yeah, he's supposed to know what i'm thinking.


jokes aside, it seems to me you're pointing out occasions where science didn't reach a conclusion to prove how it can be shortsighted sometimes. of course it's far from having all the answers, i'm not saying it's unerring, just that it seems to be useful to explain what's around me better than other things, so i'm sticking to it.
and in the kind of experiences we're talking about (ESP), science isn't just looking away, there are people controlling statements about ghosts or encounters with ufo's. and as long as the proofs brought by people who claim they've met a ghost are as reliable as me piloting a plane, i'm not going to be satisfied with it.

it's funny, just last night, before going to sleep under my new-age pyramid *clown* i read some pages of "dancing naked in the mind field", the autobiography of kary mullis, who won the nobel prize for chemistry for the PCR. in a chapter i read he was narrating how he might have been kidnapped by aliens (he doesn't say that word - but he describes a fluorescent and talking little animal); he does not remember anything of that night, but that's the conclusion he reaches given some premises. so we have a scientist who's open minded enough to (other than to take drugs, lol) admit certain possibilities.

I don't disagree with you necessarily, on the record - but I like the conversation!

cheers


oh, on a side note: since you live in atlanta.... have you ever seen lilitu live?

but it's not the same with god and his merry little helpers, whose existence is seen as both a spiritual and rational starting point for reality and scientific method to even subsist

what i was saying in the bit you quoted was, simply, that one can't use the fact some scientific theories have been proven wrong to discredit science itself. the line about god was something i added, as an example of a non scientific theory. if i wanted to bury god i would have suggested russell.

i fail to see how the former could have been the cause for pictures to move from the wall to the floor

i might have dreamt i was moving those pictures and done it for real, exactly like my mother when she was a little girl and dreamt about using the toilet :Spin:

 

[rahvin]

when i'll see christ, or whatever, i might say "i'm sorry, but i'm just human. you should have given me a proof, now you can't complain". oh, yeah, he's supposed to know what i'm thinking.

i don't think jesus christ is supposed to be there, unless you're assuming he would enjoy the show of you second-guessing gods and accusing them of "complaining".
i'd go for "hey man, looks i screwed up big time, huh?". neater and it might make him laugh.

what i was saying in the bit you quoted was, simply, that one can't use the fact some scientific theories have been proven wrong to discredit science itself. the line about god was something i added, as an example of a non scientific theory. if i wanted to bury god i would have suggested russell.

you're already doing enough unspeakable things to god by calling him out on his whining habits, i assure you.

i might have dreamt i was moving those pictures and done it for real, exactly like my mother when she was a little girl and dreamt about using the toilet :Spin:

...and then found it on her bedroom floor in the morning. yes. i can see it now.

 

[Wandrail]

jokes aside, it seems to me you're pointing out occasions where science didn't reach a conclusion to prove how it can be shortsighted sometimes. of course it's far from having all the answers, i'm not saying it's unerring, just that it seems to be useful to explain what's around me better than other things, so i'm sticking to it.

Well, of course it is, and i'll stick to it as well, although I won't allow it to make me overly cynical about things I have reason to believe in though no definite proof about. I also like things that are pleasing to the imagination though those are just considerations and not beliefs - I don't believe that Cuchullain lived and was this great warrior who killed armies all by himself, or the account in Greek annals that at one of the Olympic games a dude leaped through the air so high and far that when he landed his legs were shattered, but the idea that it could have happened is something that's pleasing to me in a time where everything is so ordinary and categorized and limited. That's all. I know where the line is drawn between this stuff.

so we have a scientist who's open minded enough to (other than to take drugs, lol) admit certain possibilities.

Sounds like a loony - and I think you just solved his mystery for him (drugs). I for one don't believe there is 'extra-terrestrial' life. See? I'm not Mulder or anything here...

oh, on a side note: since you live in atlanta.... have you ever seen lilitu live?

You know, I haven't but i've meant to...ugh...them and Ender's Game (endersgametheband.com) they're both great bands ina city that doesn't seem to be much of a home for this type of music. Could be changing though...and I hope so, because I need to find a drummer!

 

[Profanity]

Interesting.