The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Do you believe in ghosts?
I believe in ghosts but I'm not convinced that 'ghosts' are neccessarily the spirits of the dead.
Consider the possibility of alternate dimensions/parallel universes, or whatever you want to call them and that time is the fourth dimension, then isn't it possible for time to sometimes 'cross over' into other dimensions and that people are in fact seeing echoes in time whenever we hear about these 'ghost stories'?
Since we're on the subject, does anyone have any ghost stories of their own?
I believe in ghosts but I'm not convinced that 'ghosts' are neccessarily the spirits of the dead.
Consider the possibility of alternate dimensions/parallel universes, or whatever you want to call them and that time is the fourth dimension, then isn't it possible for time to sometimes 'cross over' into other dimensions and that people are in fact seeing echoes in time whenever we hear about these 'ghost stories'?
Since we're on the subject, does anyone have any ghost stories of their own?
Page:
Derren in the new James Randi basically.
HM wrote:
> pb wrote:
> If you go to a 'haunting' with one set vision you will often
> find things that match your own belief/understanding of events.
> It is important, therefore, to have no pre-conception and be
> open
> to any possibilities.
>
> It's always tricky to try and hold your back your own beliefs
> during an investigation. The best thing is to remain objective,
> keep open to all ideas and look at the event at all angles.
>
> That is one reason I dislike the way Derryn Brown works. He
> makes his money recreating paranormal phenomena by using science
> (his ways may create the effect, but his way isn't the only way -
> there are many ways to crack a nut!). He therefore, although
> claiming to want to believe, is so closed when ever questioned on
> the subject.
How exactly is a refusal to seriously entertain an idea in absence of any convincing evidence for it 'closed [minded]'? Is it closed minded to not believe in Thor, Ra, the tooth fairy, or the cosmic teapot? Unless Derren (or anyone) has ever been presented with anything resembling convincing evidence (which seems unlikely given its apparent sparsity) then it's just a lazy ad hominem to call them closed to these things.
> pb wrote:
> If you go to a 'haunting' with one set vision you will often
> find things that match your own belief/understanding of events.
> It is important, therefore, to have no pre-conception and be
> open
> to any possibilities.
>
> It's always tricky to try and hold your back your own beliefs
> during an investigation. The best thing is to remain objective,
> keep open to all ideas and look at the event at all angles.
>
> That is one reason I dislike the way Derryn Brown works. He
> makes his money recreating paranormal phenomena by using science
> (his ways may create the effect, but his way isn't the only way -
> there are many ways to crack a nut!). He therefore, although
> claiming to want to believe, is so closed when ever questioned on
> the subject.
How exactly is a refusal to seriously entertain an idea in absence of any convincing evidence for it 'closed [minded]'? Is it closed minded to not believe in Thor, Ra, the tooth fairy, or the cosmic teapot? Unless Derren (or anyone) has ever been presented with anything resembling convincing evidence (which seems unlikely given its apparent sparsity) then it's just a lazy ad hominem to call them closed to these things.
It's open minded to believe that there may be an explanation beyond our current scientific understanding that will one day become science. I'd say phrases like para-psychology and paranormal actually get in the way of this idea.
If you go in assuming it IS something paranormal then this is just as closed minded as if you go in assuming it's something currently explainable.
However, if you then go in and use current scientific understanding and instrumentation to try and get readings or evidence to support any physical connection this isn't being closed minded as long as you support the theory that there may be something beyond current understanding.
If tomorrow 'spirits' were found to exist because they were echoes of another dimension we would have measurements and this would form part of our scientific understanding of the world, but you can't get to this stage unless you entertain the idea that there are alternatives to established science as it stands today.
If you go in assuming it IS something paranormal then this is just as closed minded as if you go in assuming it's something currently explainable.
However, if you then go in and use current scientific understanding and instrumentation to try and get readings or evidence to support any physical connection this isn't being closed minded as long as you support the theory that there may be something beyond current understanding.
If tomorrow 'spirits' were found to exist because they were echoes of another dimension we would have measurements and this would form part of our scientific understanding of the world, but you can't get to this stage unless you entertain the idea that there are alternatives to established science as it stands today.
Despite not believing in the paranormal myself, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. What Jason was trying to point out is that wether you're skeptical or wether you believe in it, it's irrelevant, the point is to see what happens, and investigate what you can about it. You can't just say "Well there's obviously a rational explanation" in the same way that you can't just say "Oh, it's definitely that ghost we've been told about". An open mind doesn't mean a mind that believes in anything, an open mind is willing to analyze what they see, come to a conclusion, and move on. What have your own beliefs got to do with it?
pb wrote:
> If you go in assuming it IS something paranormal then this is
> just as closed minded as if you go in assuming it's something
> currently explainable.
This is an important point to make. I have worked with people that assume every little thing is a spirit or a ghost, when it is obvious that it isn't. They are as tricky as the other extreme.
I've never seen a Bugatti Veyron (other than on TV). As I have never seen it with my eyes, heard it with my ears or touched it with my hands, how can I be certain to its existence other than to be open to the talk about it among my friends and the images I have seen of it on TV being real.
You may think I'm daft comparing these events to an object that (well I assume) exists. But if you think about it, ghosts are snapped on camera, talked about in books and magazines and have a lot of people that have experienced things along those lines. I'm open to the Veyron existing based on the media I am presented with.
And I'm sure events of paranormal phenomena are more common than the Veyron...
*note, I am not being paid to sponsor any product here...I just picked something rare that I could use as an example.
EDIT: Derryn and the like dismiss evidence on face value and do not aim to see if it could be collected in a different way or a way to help prove the evidence's credibility. That's why he just says "it's nothing" and walks away. Honestly, if he was more open, he'd look for evidence himself.
> If you go in assuming it IS something paranormal then this is
> just as closed minded as if you go in assuming it's something
> currently explainable.
This is an important point to make. I have worked with people that assume every little thing is a spirit or a ghost, when it is obvious that it isn't. They are as tricky as the other extreme.
I've never seen a Bugatti Veyron (other than on TV). As I have never seen it with my eyes, heard it with my ears or touched it with my hands, how can I be certain to its existence other than to be open to the talk about it among my friends and the images I have seen of it on TV being real.
You may think I'm daft comparing these events to an object that (well I assume) exists. But if you think about it, ghosts are snapped on camera, talked about in books and magazines and have a lot of people that have experienced things along those lines. I'm open to the Veyron existing based on the media I am presented with.
And I'm sure events of paranormal phenomena are more common than the Veyron...
*note, I am not being paid to sponsor any product here...I just picked something rare that I could use as an example.
EDIT: Derryn and the like dismiss evidence on face value and do not aim to see if it could be collected in a different way or a way to help prove the evidence's credibility. That's why he just says "it's nothing" and walks away. Honestly, if he was more open, he'd look for evidence himself.
But this idea of 'equality', that all outcomes are equiprobable, worthy of equal consideration, 'open mindedness', etc, is without basis, and promotes bad science right from the start. The class of scientific investigation under which the paranormal would fall has of key importance the idea of falsifiability. An idea (hypothesis) becomes a bit more than an idea only after a serious attempt to show it's without any real merit. If it and its evidence stands up to criticism then there might be something in it. On the other hand, if the evidence has to be defended from falsification attempts by meta-arguments, e.g. calling its criticisers 'closed', then it's just not very convincing.
Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how science works and nobody's found a better way of advancing human knowledge. The burden of proof and Occam's razor makes the sceptic's position perfectly justifiable.
Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how science works and nobody's found a better way of advancing human knowledge. The burden of proof and Occam's razor makes the sceptic's position perfectly justifiable.
Can't say I understood that :P
I'm skeptical about the existence of the paranormal, but my view is each to their own. If people want to believe in it all, that's fine, I can't disprove the existence. If people choose to be skeptical like myself, that's fine because nobody can fully prove the existence of the paranormal (so far). Maybe there are ghosts that I've been ignoring all these years, but it doesn't change my view of things.
I'm skeptical about the existence of the paranormal, but my view is each to their own. If people want to believe in it all, that's fine, I can't disprove the existence. If people choose to be skeptical like myself, that's fine because nobody can fully prove the existence of the paranormal (so far). Maybe there are ghosts that I've been ignoring all these years, but it doesn't change my view of things.
Bob_The_Moose wrote:
> But this idea of 'equality', that all outcomes are equiprobable,
> worthy of equal consideration, 'open mindedness', etc, is without
> basis, and promotes bad science right from the start. The class
> of scientific investigation under which the paranormal would fall
> has of key importance the idea of falsifiability. An idea
> (hypothesis) becomes a bit more than an idea only after a serious
> attempt to show it's without any real merit. If it and its
> evidence stands up to criticism then there might be something in
> it. On the other hand, if the evidence has to be defended from
> falsification attempts by meta-arguments, e.g. calling its
> criticisers 'closed', then it's just not very convincing.
>
> Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how science works and
> nobody's found a better way of advancing human knowledge. The
> burden of proof and Occam's razor makes the sceptic's position
> perfectly justifiable.
I fully agree with what you're trying to say, but it means that a sceptic must be sceptical about everything and anything without reasonable proof. As it stands, if there is a scientific explanation for something (ie: something explained by our current understanding of science) then it will be proved, but if no evidence can be found for the event then we have to assume that something else causes it, which doesn't have to mean something Paranormal in the way some people think of the phrase, but certainly something 'outside-of-the-norm' in that it may be proved later to be something normal once we have understanding and scientific proof of it.
The way of thinking I am arguing against is that something outside of our current scientific knowledge cannot possibly exist. I know that's not where you were going and obviously science would not progress unless new experiments were done in 'unknown' or fringe science, and of course the inclusion of the happy accident that science has relied on for all these years to produce new theory and fact.
> But this idea of 'equality', that all outcomes are equiprobable,
> worthy of equal consideration, 'open mindedness', etc, is without
> basis, and promotes bad science right from the start. The class
> of scientific investigation under which the paranormal would fall
> has of key importance the idea of falsifiability. An idea
> (hypothesis) becomes a bit more than an idea only after a serious
> attempt to show it's without any real merit. If it and its
> evidence stands up to criticism then there might be something in
> it. On the other hand, if the evidence has to be defended from
> falsification attempts by meta-arguments, e.g. calling its
> criticisers 'closed', then it's just not very convincing.
>
> Sorry if you don't like it, but that's how science works and
> nobody's found a better way of advancing human knowledge. The
> burden of proof and Occam's razor makes the sceptic's position
> perfectly justifiable.
I fully agree with what you're trying to say, but it means that a sceptic must be sceptical about everything and anything without reasonable proof. As it stands, if there is a scientific explanation for something (ie: something explained by our current understanding of science) then it will be proved, but if no evidence can be found for the event then we have to assume that something else causes it, which doesn't have to mean something Paranormal in the way some people think of the phrase, but certainly something 'outside-of-the-norm' in that it may be proved later to be something normal once we have understanding and scientific proof of it.
The way of thinking I am arguing against is that something outside of our current scientific knowledge cannot possibly exist. I know that's not where you were going and obviously science would not progress unless new experiments were done in 'unknown' or fringe science, and of course the inclusion of the happy accident that science has relied on for all these years to produce new theory and fact.
Bob_the_Moose wrote:
> On the other hand, if the evidence has to be defended from
> falsification attempts by meta-arguments, e.g. calling its
> criticisers 'closed', then it's just not very convincing.
But at the same time most criticisers call us mad and stupid for even attempting to look for anything that is searching for explanations for the events witnessed. Constant "you faked it", "it was a wiring fault" or "you imagined it" is a rubbish argument to take against it.
True matrixing happens. True programs such as Most Haunted fabricate events (entertainment show...money money money...) and lots of people make huge amounts of money providing the fear factor for people. It can be a big money-making business!
But to those that have experienced things that are beyond comprehension (hearing and feeling people walk around you in the dark, even though you can physically see and know nobody is there), having things move on their own accord (no real reasons behind it) and also having physical marks on your body from events where you have been "attacked" by something that isn't there. I want to find the science behind it, not just say it was ghost that did it.
Things that cannot be easily explained DO happen. I will argue that fact until I die. But you have to be open to the idea that you won't get an answer and science at the current level will not be able to explain all of them. It could be entities of unknown origin. It could be glitches in the matrix-like universe or it could be something science hasn't discovered yet.
EDIT: Drawing further on pb's post, the Kraken was a mythical creature and a big topic in the cryptozoology field. People were though to be crazy in believing in it and the people that saw it even more so. Science has since made the discovery of the Giant Squid - which the description has matched the Kraken almost exactly. So there is a given example of something that has featured in the paranormal field and has since had science prove it being there. If science had just said they were all idiots and postponed their studies into trying to find it, this creature never may have been found.
I think I'm going to leave this conversation now as everything that needs to be said has been said. The argument will always be there, even if science proves or disproves the events that I have witnessed. There will be NO piece of evidence that fully proves or disproves all aspects of the paranormal and I'm sure there will be arguments in each field on both sides of the fence.
I can safely say for those that do not like my hobby of trying to get my head around the strange events I have witnessed by providing arguments for and against the event being of paranormal reason do not have to read my website. I also don't want to be labelled as a believer or non-believer. I want the truth and I only share my team's findings because most people have at least a passing interest in the paranormal field.
> On the other hand, if the evidence has to be defended from
> falsification attempts by meta-arguments, e.g. calling its
> criticisers 'closed', then it's just not very convincing.
But at the same time most criticisers call us mad and stupid for even attempting to look for anything that is searching for explanations for the events witnessed. Constant "you faked it", "it was a wiring fault" or "you imagined it" is a rubbish argument to take against it.
True matrixing happens. True programs such as Most Haunted fabricate events (entertainment show...money money money...) and lots of people make huge amounts of money providing the fear factor for people. It can be a big money-making business!
But to those that have experienced things that are beyond comprehension (hearing and feeling people walk around you in the dark, even though you can physically see and know nobody is there), having things move on their own accord (no real reasons behind it) and also having physical marks on your body from events where you have been "attacked" by something that isn't there. I want to find the science behind it, not just say it was ghost that did it.
Things that cannot be easily explained DO happen. I will argue that fact until I die. But you have to be open to the idea that you won't get an answer and science at the current level will not be able to explain all of them. It could be entities of unknown origin. It could be glitches in the matrix-like universe or it could be something science hasn't discovered yet.
EDIT: Drawing further on pb's post, the Kraken was a mythical creature and a big topic in the cryptozoology field. People were though to be crazy in believing in it and the people that saw it even more so. Science has since made the discovery of the Giant Squid - which the description has matched the Kraken almost exactly. So there is a given example of something that has featured in the paranormal field and has since had science prove it being there. If science had just said they were all idiots and postponed their studies into trying to find it, this creature never may have been found.
I think I'm going to leave this conversation now as everything that needs to be said has been said. The argument will always be there, even if science proves or disproves the events that I have witnessed. There will be NO piece of evidence that fully proves or disproves all aspects of the paranormal and I'm sure there will be arguments in each field on both sides of the fence.
I can safely say for those that do not like my hobby of trying to get my head around the strange events I have witnessed by providing arguments for and against the event being of paranormal reason do not have to read my website. I also don't want to be labelled as a believer or non-believer. I want the truth and I only share my team's findings because most people have at least a passing interest in the paranormal field.
With all the talk of Sleep Paralysis over the last couple of weeks, I've been expecting to wake up some night to find me looking at some sort of freaky shadows, figures or what have you. Last night I woke suddenly and saw a shape right in front of my face and jumped a mile.
Don't get exited though, it wasn't anything paranormal, it was my little 2 year old daughter who decided to come through to the room and stand right by me, so when I woke she was right by my face, so when I jumped she bolted straight out the room too because I gave her such a fright. It was a shame, but funny looking back on it now.
:)
Don't get exited though, it wasn't anything paranormal, it was my little 2 year old daughter who decided to come through to the room and stand right by me, so when I woke she was right by my face, so when I jumped she bolted straight out the room too because I gave her such a fright. It was a shame, but funny looking back on it now.
:)
Page: