What utter nonsense. The only 'belief' - if you want to call it that - is in the scientific method and in generating testable hypotheses. I do not need to believe in dowsing, or be skeptical of it, to conduct a test looking into it.Originally Posted by ghosthunterbebunker
I agree many people do get confused over the term 'skeptical'. What alot of people really mean is "I'm not a nutter....honest...."The boy's on the ghosthunter
show also claimed to be skeptical, but believe in ghosts.
Why should you go anywhere to disprove anything? That would be unscientific. You should investgiate it to generate well thought out, reasonable conclusions and theories for the experiences. The conclusions most consistent with the best quality evidence / reasons will be most likely to be correct.....but I am not going ghost hunting just to disprove it.
Not true. Logically of course anything is possible - but scientifically, only a few things are probable - so your use of the term 'real possibility' is unfounded and incorrect. You do not have to take a position at all. However, you do need to think about your reasoning, logic and methods to make sure you are on firm ground.You have to believe even if your claiming to be a skeptic, that the ghost
is a real possiblity.
A skeptic would say something like; "well if x is true then y and / or z should be possible"
But this does not mean the skeptic believes x is true merely by testing it.
I remember a TV programme about ghosts and such, narrated by one of the actor Fox Brothers, James or Edward. Don't know if it was the one who "got religion" at some point. Perhaps because I suspected it was the Godly brother, I wasn't going to watch the show, expecting it to be woo-woo stuff. But I watched the last few minutes and was chastened. There was a case where people working in a lab were experiencing a horrid sense of threat, convinced something was creeping up behind them. It turned out to be the strip lighting, which was giving out a very low buzz, almost below the range of normal hearing, and this was screwing up people's nervous systems somehow. I wish I'd watched the whole programme.
That would be the late vic tandys work, I believe it was a fan though not a light that was producing the infrasound harmonics.
Let me begin by saying the following is by no means being forwarded as fact. It is my opinion, my experience and my deduction with as little of my illusion as can be helped.
When death occurs the event we observe is seperation. The seperating of matter from the rest of what we are, there being no one good word for, the rest of what we are. In life we entrench ourselves in the material, never having eyes but for light. When the union of life breaks all paths are rent, leaving a personality/mind with no source of emotion. As it is with all other things such a mind, at this point entity might serve, would suffer entropy eventually dissipating into the air of our earth. Unless this entity discovers the dead art of vampirism that is. By learning how to elicit an emotional response from the living it may be possible to maintain ones existance. Whilst we are alive 'Where ever our attention goes our energy flows.'
If emotional energy gleaned from the living is an entities prime sorce of substance, it would be fairly logical to assume such an entity would covet the energy it already has. Using subtle suggestion and nerve stimulation to circumvent the walls of belief and catylise a response funded entirely by the living person whom is having a super natural experience.
What I am taking great lengths to say is this, it may be that when a person sees a ghost they are manifesting the vision themselves, but this in itself can not disprove the existance of ghosts.
Bob
I would advise some skepticism towards the effects of true-infrasound on perception....and particularly the evidence recruited by Tandy in support of the argument.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?The seperating of matter from the rest of what we are, there being no one good word for, the rest of what we are.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?
In life we entrench ourselves in the material, never having eyes but for light.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?When the union of life breaks all paths are rent, leaving a personality/mind with no source of emotion.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?As it is with all other things such a mind, at this point entity might serve, would suffer entropy eventually dissipating into the air of our earth.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?By learning how to elicit an emotional response from the living it may be possible to maintain ones existance.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?Whilst we are alive 'Where ever our attention goes our energy flows.'
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?If emotional energy gleaned from the living is an entities prime sorce of substance, it would be fairly logical to assume such an entity would covet the energy it already has.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?Using subtle suggestion and nerve stimulation to circumvent the walls of belief and catylise a response funded entirely by the living person whom is having a super natural experience....
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?What I am taking great lengths to say is this, it may be that when a person sees a ghost they are manifesting the vision themselves, but this in itself can not disprove the existance of ghosts.
This is good, you make me so happy. It seems as though you are asking me to write you a book. Was I really being that vague or is there some other piont you would like to make? I kinda thought you might bridge the gaps yourselves. Have I sparked a raw nerve or keen interest here. I didn't come here to climb your walls but if thats whats on offer I'll have a go. Read it a few more times, you might warm up to it. I'll have another read of the quotes you picked out and see if I can elaborate
I thought I was quite clear - I dont understand what you mean and need you to be much more specific. Was this in anyway unclear?
..and here lies the problem.....I kinda thought you might bridge the gaps yourselves.
ExcellentI'll have another read of the quotes you picked out and see if I can elaborate
when death occurs the event we observe is seperation.
What I mean here Doc is that while we are alive our minds and bodies are conected and when we die they are not. And it is this seperated state we find peoples bodies in and declare them dead. Although the body still exists it is nolonger connected to what we call life. It has become inanimate, disconnected or seperated from the life it lived.
There being no one good word for the rest of what we are.
Imagine there's a living person sitting next to a corpse. Now give me one good word that describes all that is different between the two and I'll use it to describe what more we are than the matter of our bodies. You are doing youself a great disservice by saying you don't understand this stuff.
We entrench our selves in the material, never having eyes but for the light.
In this statement I agree with you Doc. Its not specific and I haven't made my meaning clear. Undestanding this takes a willingness to accept there are things your eyes can not see, after that no explanation ought be required.
Entropy
Come on Doc, its a basic and fundamental principle of our universe, look it up. Energy must be spent, Yes?
Where ever our attention goes our energy flows
By thinking of me you are making a gift to me. What you put thought into you are putting yourself into. These are the specifics Doc. How may we clutch water besides freezing it, and in freezing water how may we grasp the dynamics of fluid motion?
Not a very good way to start, huh?
I apologise to DrB and any other offended party for the way I responded to your inquisition. I didn't get any more specific in my responses. I think I was bewildered because I hadn't expected such a sudden and drawn reply. I'm a bit new to the forum experience, so I might just sit back and watch for awhile to see how its done.
How can something that no longer exists be connected to anything or indeed be seperated from it? I think the term 'separated' is unhelpful as it assumes both entities still exist - but have been 'seperated' from each other.
If I turn a light off in the room it does not become separated from the light....the light merely no longer exists.
Last edited by Dr B; 1st February 2008 at 10:35 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks