The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
HM wrote:
> The thing with the paranormal is that any evidence obtained will
> instantly be dismissed by close-minded non-believers and even if
> everyone involved in obtaining it swears the absolute truth of
> the circumstances it was obtained in, not everyone will believe
> it. You can quote me with this (even though I am an open-minded
> skeptic) "There will never be conclusive evidence of the
> paranormal".
I would argue that anything which 'exists' whether in our world, a parallel plain or something non-corporal or whatever spirits actually are CAN be measured. It's just that we do not have the instruments to measure it properly or the understanding of what the 'spirits' are to measure then accurately at the moment.
If they DON'T exist then, yes, then you could say you would never have conclusive proof because they just don't exist and it's harder to prove the non-existence of something than the existence of it unless you know for sure what the object you're focusing on actually is.
So I'd never say that we will never tell as if you do believe there is something tangible out there causing these phenomena then that will (eventually) be measurable.
> The thing with the paranormal is that any evidence obtained will
> instantly be dismissed by close-minded non-believers and even if
> everyone involved in obtaining it swears the absolute truth of
> the circumstances it was obtained in, not everyone will believe
> it. You can quote me with this (even though I am an open-minded
> skeptic) "There will never be conclusive evidence of the
> paranormal".
I would argue that anything which 'exists' whether in our world, a parallel plain or something non-corporal or whatever spirits actually are CAN be measured. It's just that we do not have the instruments to measure it properly or the understanding of what the 'spirits' are to measure then accurately at the moment.
If they DON'T exist then, yes, then you could say you would never have conclusive proof because they just don't exist and it's harder to prove the non-existence of something than the existence of it unless you know for sure what the object you're focusing on actually is.
So I'd never say that we will never tell as if you do believe there is something tangible out there causing these phenomena then that will (eventually) be measurable.
Although the appearence of things when sleeping can be down to the sleep paralysis explanations, there is a state of mind called the "hypnagogic state", which is the period between wake and sleep. Lots of research has been carried out during this time (reference from "Beyond the Occult" by Colin Wilson) and it is the state in which a person is the most psychically aware.
It is possible under this idea that "things" can be seen. As for my view, it is still a very debateable subject and as I've not read any official report notes surrounding it I still am forming my own thoughts on the matter.
I have had personal experiences in this state (I use a brainwave generator to produce binaural beats that drop me to a sleepy state) and have heard voices, had the bed move and even what may have been the start of astral projection (still, not sure what it was, but it felt really weird). All could be just psychological side-effects of altering the state of mind, or something spiritual could be taking place. Nobody really knows the answer!
I have recently been channelling away from ghost research and more towards that of psychics (not mediums though) as I do find it interesting, but so far I haven't received anything concrete.
The thing with the paranormal is that any evidence obtained will instantly be dismissed by close-minded non-believers and even if everyone involved in obtaining it swears the absolute truth of the circumstances it was obtained in, not everyone will believe it. You can quote me with this (even though I am an open-minded skeptic) "There will never be conclusive evidence of the paranormal".
It is possible under this idea that "things" can be seen. As for my view, it is still a very debateable subject and as I've not read any official report notes surrounding it I still am forming my own thoughts on the matter.
I have had personal experiences in this state (I use a brainwave generator to produce binaural beats that drop me to a sleepy state) and have heard voices, had the bed move and even what may have been the start of astral projection (still, not sure what it was, but it felt really weird). All could be just psychological side-effects of altering the state of mind, or something spiritual could be taking place. Nobody really knows the answer!
I have recently been channelling away from ghost research and more towards that of psychics (not mediums though) as I do find it interesting, but so far I haven't received anything concrete.
The thing with the paranormal is that any evidence obtained will instantly be dismissed by close-minded non-believers and even if everyone involved in obtaining it swears the absolute truth of the circumstances it was obtained in, not everyone will believe it. You can quote me with this (even though I am an open-minded skeptic) "There will never be conclusive evidence of the paranormal".
I think this thread has made me have another "sleepy" experience, although it only seems to happen when I'm away from home sleeping in another place.
Last night I was watching the Liverpool match lying on the bed and nodded off during the first half, woke up and a human like black figure moved across the room and vanished, bit wierd this one as it's the first time it's happened when it's been daylight.
Again if it had happened when I'd been fully awake it would have been more plausible, but I think it has to be down to falling asleep / waking up hypnosis sort of state.
Last night I was watching the Liverpool match lying on the bed and nodded off during the first half, woke up and a human like black figure moved across the room and vanished, bit wierd this one as it's the first time it's happened when it's been daylight.
Again if it had happened when I'd been fully awake it would have been more plausible, but I think it has to be down to falling asleep / waking up hypnosis sort of state.
No, I didn't mention proof.
Chris understood. We as humans tend to view ourselves as being above the inanimate world because we have that something extra and it is common to invoke god to explain why. Hardcore religious people will say existence of anything is proof of god, but other people who still profess belief in god will retreat from that view and just include either life in general or human intelligence.
If the piece of software (or robot if you like, Chris) I described was created, and was constructed from inanimate parts operating only in accordance with laws we've long understood to be unintelligent, and was an obvious product of incremental growth and application of unintelligent concepts, either one must reject that piece of AI as being equivalent to a human mind, or one must accept that past the existence of the universe in the first place, there is nothing inherently special about being a living human vs being a rock (a third alternative is that the robot somehow inherited a soul, or whatever, as soon as it became conscious, but I'm not sure anyone would argue this).
I don't think the former option is particularly sound because the only defence I can see for elevating humans in the first place is that we aren't just inanimate objects. As soon as you can replicate this artificially, it's no longer so special or inexplicable.
It wouldn't prove that god doesn't exist or that we weren't created by god, it just (in tandem with evolution) shows a plausible alternative. And as it hasn't happened yet anyway, it's only a thought experiment.
Chris understood. We as humans tend to view ourselves as being above the inanimate world because we have that something extra and it is common to invoke god to explain why. Hardcore religious people will say existence of anything is proof of god, but other people who still profess belief in god will retreat from that view and just include either life in general or human intelligence.
If the piece of software (or robot if you like, Chris) I described was created, and was constructed from inanimate parts operating only in accordance with laws we've long understood to be unintelligent, and was an obvious product of incremental growth and application of unintelligent concepts, either one must reject that piece of AI as being equivalent to a human mind, or one must accept that past the existence of the universe in the first place, there is nothing inherently special about being a living human vs being a rock (a third alternative is that the robot somehow inherited a soul, or whatever, as soon as it became conscious, but I'm not sure anyone would argue this).
I don't think the former option is particularly sound because the only defence I can see for elevating humans in the first place is that we aren't just inanimate objects. As soon as you can replicate this artificially, it's no longer so special or inexplicable.
It wouldn't prove that god doesn't exist or that we weren't created by god, it just (in tandem with evolution) shows a plausible alternative. And as it hasn't happened yet anyway, it's only a thought experiment.
@Bob- that was incredible :P I understood it aswell! :D
@pb I think he's saying that us humans consider ourselves pretty darn special, especially the christian ones. But by creating highly intelligent AI, it would be difficult to distinguish what makes us so different to the man made creation. We are we pretty certain a robot can't have a soul, so maybe human's don't have a soul. We are in someway similar to robots. Some would argue that robots can't truly feel emotion, that it's just their parts that enable them to recreate emotions. But the same could be applied to a human.
It doesn't necessarily discard the existence of a greater hierarchy, in fact we did abit of this in our RE class when covering the design argument. To add a whole other spectrum into the works, you could argue that things didn't evolve and we adjusted to them over time, but that the world was designed to work as it does, in the same way that the robot is designed to work.
@pb I think he's saying that us humans consider ourselves pretty darn special, especially the christian ones. But by creating highly intelligent AI, it would be difficult to distinguish what makes us so different to the man made creation. We are we pretty certain a robot can't have a soul, so maybe human's don't have a soul. We are in someway similar to robots. Some would argue that robots can't truly feel emotion, that it's just their parts that enable them to recreate emotions. But the same could be applied to a human.
It doesn't necessarily discard the existence of a greater hierarchy, in fact we did abit of this in our RE class when covering the design argument. To add a whole other spectrum into the works, you could argue that things didn't evolve and we adjusted to them over time, but that the world was designed to work as it does, in the same way that the robot is designed to work.
So what you're saying is that if you create something to act like us it proves we were not initially part of an overall plan of a creator?
I fail to see where science and 'religion', if you want to call belief in a God without belief in any specific organisation that, don't work together, the two are not incompatible and certainly aren't the opposite of each other.
I fail to see where science and 'religion', if you want to call belief in a God without belief in any specific organisation that, don't work together, the two are not incompatible and certainly aren't the opposite of each other.
I think calling it theory is a bit generous. This post is a slight topic shift, but it's on the same track so I hope you don't mind
If you both accept evolution and you believe that life probably started off in the first place not by just magically springing into existence from nothing, but by a gradual incrementation in complexity from a set of chemical reactions to something very slightly more, then the idea of an afterlife relies on some fairly massive assertions. Namely that our consciousness is somehow independent from our physical brain and the evolutionary process must have worked in tandem with this cosmic repository of intelligent consciousness.
I can appreciate that consciousness is fairly strange and it is tempting to create explanations to outsource the problems to something we're all familiar with and accept as being inexplicable (i.e. a soul, or equivalent), thereby removing the whole thing from the 'problem domain', but I think it's jumping the gun somewhat. The human brain is incredibly complex and nobody has much idea at all how it actually works. Why is it more tempting to consider undetectable mystical forces than to believe everything that relates to being human and being conscious does indeed exist only in the physical matter within our head?
I have a (serious) question to those of you who believe that conscious existence is separable from physical matter: if it was practically possible* to bring into existence an entirely artificial 'being' (i.e. a very advanced piece of AI) which appeared to be able to think and claimed to be able to (and was programmed to) feel instincts and emotions, would you think its feelings were less real than those of a human?
I suspect that people who believe there's something else will say that this piece of AI would be missing that crucial detail and everything it experienced was just a result of artificial programming responding to artificial sensors, and not equivalent to a human at all. But to me, that's exactly what a human is; a very complex physical network of sensors and hard coded responses.
on topic: no I don't believe in ghosts ;)
*and I believe it is possible, just not yet practical
If you both accept evolution and you believe that life probably started off in the first place not by just magically springing into existence from nothing, but by a gradual incrementation in complexity from a set of chemical reactions to something very slightly more, then the idea of an afterlife relies on some fairly massive assertions. Namely that our consciousness is somehow independent from our physical brain and the evolutionary process must have worked in tandem with this cosmic repository of intelligent consciousness.
I can appreciate that consciousness is fairly strange and it is tempting to create explanations to outsource the problems to something we're all familiar with and accept as being inexplicable (i.e. a soul, or equivalent), thereby removing the whole thing from the 'problem domain', but I think it's jumping the gun somewhat. The human brain is incredibly complex and nobody has much idea at all how it actually works. Why is it more tempting to consider undetectable mystical forces than to believe everything that relates to being human and being conscious does indeed exist only in the physical matter within our head?
I have a (serious) question to those of you who believe that conscious existence is separable from physical matter: if it was practically possible* to bring into existence an entirely artificial 'being' (i.e. a very advanced piece of AI) which appeared to be able to think and claimed to be able to (and was programmed to) feel instincts and emotions, would you think its feelings were less real than those of a human?
I suspect that people who believe there's something else will say that this piece of AI would be missing that crucial detail and everything it experienced was just a result of artificial programming responding to artificial sensors, and not equivalent to a human at all. But to me, that's exactly what a human is; a very complex physical network of sensors and hard coded responses.
on topic: no I don't believe in ghosts ;)
*and I believe it is possible, just not yet practical
Who says we will have looks at all (albeit when they appear to us they look like you remember them).
Perhaps it could all be relative and you see them how you remember them, whereas their parents see them as when they themselves dies etc.
Perhaps it could all be relative and you see them how you remember them, whereas their parents see them as when they themselves dies etc.
Smedders wrote:
> If there is a Heaven what form do you take, IE is it the form
> when you die or can you choose any form?
>
> If say you died at the same age as your grandmother would you
> both be that age in Heaven, or if say your grandmother died at 30
> and you died at 100 would you look 70 years older than her?
The general idea is that you don't have a physical body or any connection to physical attributes as we do on Earth, so age etc doesn't matter.
I think the other question that is always asked is if you were married twice because your first partner died then who would you be with in the afterlife, but the answer is the same, you have no connection physical or emotional to your life on Earth.
Of course, that's all just theory and relies on a belief in the afterlife in the first place but seems to make sense to me.
> If there is a Heaven what form do you take, IE is it the form
> when you die or can you choose any form?
>
> If say you died at the same age as your grandmother would you
> both be that age in Heaven, or if say your grandmother died at 30
> and you died at 100 would you look 70 years older than her?
The general idea is that you don't have a physical body or any connection to physical attributes as we do on Earth, so age etc doesn't matter.
I think the other question that is always asked is if you were married twice because your first partner died then who would you be with in the afterlife, but the answer is the same, you have no connection physical or emotional to your life on Earth.
Of course, that's all just theory and relies on a belief in the afterlife in the first place but seems to make sense to me.
I believe there is something after this life but what that is who knows?
If there is a Heaven what form do you take, IE is it the form when you die or can you choose any form?
If say you died at the same age as your grandmother would you both be that age in Heaven, or if say your grandmother died at 30 and you died at 100 would you look 70 years older than her?
This is kind of tied into the big bang theory thread as if this is true what physical matter was there before then, and if this was the start of time what was occuring before then?
These are probably questions we'll never answer before we manage to make ourselves extinct.
If there is a Heaven what form do you take, IE is it the form when you die or can you choose any form?
If say you died at the same age as your grandmother would you both be that age in Heaven, or if say your grandmother died at 30 and you died at 100 would you look 70 years older than her?
This is kind of tied into the big bang theory thread as if this is true what physical matter was there before then, and if this was the start of time what was occuring before then?
These are probably questions we'll never answer before we manage to make ourselves extinct.
Page: