On a similar note to ghosts.

I saw one of the X-Men on a children’s funfair ride.

Storm in a teacup.

😀 silly boy

Problem is you have assumed we survive death, there is another world and some of us can cross it. All of those are pretty big leaps.

The “Good News” 😉 is that we do, there is and access has been granted to all, not to some. It all becomes a personal choice to make.

I doubt the existence of ghosts but fail to explain a figure that walked right in front of me in my house a few weeks ago (in broad daylight) and a ouija board experience 30 years ago. But I have always felt that this is not something to be messed around with.

Science <— ❓ —> God (no one creator God but yes there are ghosts)
(Carbon)<— ❓ —> (eternal soul)
(annihilationism) <— ❓ —> (eternalism)

Both are extreme views or annihilatic views so the answer is somewhere in between in the ❓ .

😆

The “Good News” is that we do, there is and access has been granted to all, not to some. It all becomes a personal choice to make.

Oh tell me more – perhaps in a new thread 😉

Its not for me to tell you – its for you to decide. Once you overcome that, the rest is easy.

[But for personal reasons] I will refrain from a new thread on this – at least until after Wednesday.

My parents are very religious and don’t believe in sex before marriage so my sisters at the time boyfriend (now fiancé) was sleeping in her bed (she was in with my other sister) when he felt someone dragging him out of the double bed he claims to have been sleeping in the middle of. He ended up on the floor, quite shook up.
There is a plaque in the garden of the house my parents rent as a remembrance type dealy to Granny Pat, the old lady who lived in that room for a few years when ill health took hold and then died in that room too.
Possibly he just rolled out of bed but why would he insist he was dragged out? I reckon he fell out of bed but it still begs the question why would he make something like that up. Nothing like that ever happened to my sister when she was in there for 4 years.
*Cue “Eerie Indiana” music*

Drac – Moderator

Calm down dear it’s just a ghost story.

Why do you say this? Cougar said I was being hostile. I said I was trying not to be, and then explained why I had felt somewhat miffed. Quite reasonable IMO.

As for the mouse theory. Sorry but it isn’t even remotely plausible. Mice smell. They have little scratchy claws for a start, the the sensation I felt was certainly not scratchy. If it had run onto my arm it would have realised I was a potential preditor and it would have been frightened, it might have squeaked in fright, it would certainly have stopped in it’s tracks and turned around (at which point it’s little claws would have scratched me). It would have made a sound. Where did it go? And I stand by my contention that Scraps would have gone crazy, he’s a Jack Russell. No way was it a mouse or any other animal.

Hey, I got straight up and put the light on to look for an answer. I looked for something which might have fallen, blown, swayed or caused a draft across my skin. Nothing. Nah, it was Sam, his soul was leaving. The following day his body was cremated and that was an end in the physical and spiritual worlds. Time to grieve, be sad, then remember the good times and soon to move on and take on another rescue – Missy the Crazy-in-Head Dobermann.

What Tazzymtb said about science.

And what teamhurtmore said about an experience with a ouija board. Me too, 43 years ago, with two contemporaries. It scared the three of us sh1tless. I haven’t messed around with it since. Really, truly, frightening.

Your blind adherence to “science says so, so it must be true” is just as flawed…

I’m not sure whether you can’t read, just can’t understand what you read, or deliberately chose not to.

I don’t place blind faith in science. Scientific fact is ever changing, ever evolving, and often proven wrong. I merely pointed out that your statement

We both know however that “science” is our best guess based on available data, which is again based upon observation, perception and cognitive reasoning so it is just as fallible as any other hypothesis.

Is absolute bollox for the reasons I stated. It is not ‘just as fallible’. Fallible, yes. But not ‘just as fallible’.

Is absolute bollox for the reasons I stated

nice to see you are working hard on reasoned arguments and backing it up with data.

As i said “just as fallible” and have given clear examples where peer review is not only under question as a failing process, but where established journals and peer review have clearly and to the detriment of society wilfully ignored data as it didn’t fit with the established dogma at the cost on billions of pounds being wasted when it could have been used to support more robust and beneficial science. This to me is just as fallible as believing in magical sky pixies or ghosts.

if however you can explain to me where the variance in fallibility occurs and at what predetermined level of misjudgement/error/can’t be arsed to look etc.. we should be aiming before as a goal that would be rather jolly and spiffing.

Of course there are ghosts but there are no creator God nor all knowing science. 🙄

Why do you say this? Cougar said I was being hostile. I said I was trying not to be, and then explained why I had felt somewhat miffed. Quite reasonable IMO.

It’s a joke I wasn’t being serious.

Sorry but it isn’t even remotely plausible. Mice smell.

Well I’m convinced it was your ghost dog how could I’ve thought it could possibly been anything else at all.

nice to see you are working hard on reasoned arguments and backing it up with data

you want data whilst arguing that science is flawed – why do you want flawed dat

His argument is perfectly reasonable it is fallable just not as fallible

You may possibly be generalising your experience to all areas of science. It was not like that when i was [ nearly ] one. It was very open to anyone with data

This to me is just as fallible as believing in magical sky pixies or ghosts.

then you are wrong. A belief that god made the world because it is in a book is just as fallible as the scientific explanations of how we got here….be have yerself fella.

as for what we are aiming for

“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.”
? Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo

One day scientists may find a way of measuring these phenomenon, that would be great, really exciting.

I find things that have been explained are still as wonder-ful, amazing, awe-some, as before. Like the wonder of reproduction, we understand it, but it’s still amazing, a miracle.

I’m still trying to work out how your mouse (or bat) moved the free-standing mirror and the tumble dryer. 😆

I once saw a highwayman on a 29’er

Was he dandy?

beaker2135 – Member

None believer here. In my experience it is the living you have to watch out for, the dead have never hurt anybody

😀

then you are wrong. A belief that god made the world because it is in a book is just as fallible as the scientific explanations of how we got here….be have yerself fella.

ahhhh dear old junky… dogmas favourite friend. You see I would never be arrogant enough to assume my way was right. I’m (as explained an earlier post) just postulating on the perception that science is right without questioning it when it is a new and total minority view with regards to the population of the world and history and spirit and soul and art and love. There is no scientific need for art or music or love, yet we crave it maybe, just maybe, we are more than just science.

and i still love you even when you are mr grumpy pants

I felt a bit cross because people say it’s a stretch for me to suggest some kind of unusual energy, but quite believable to suggest a mouse? Scrappy would have gone crazy if there was a mouse in the room.

Aside from the fact that mice actually demonstrably exist; it seems odd to be cross at me that I didn’t take into consideration during my suggestions (which you asked for) a dog in the room that you’d never mentioned. Or at least, if you had, I’d missed that.

There are more unanswered questions in the mouse/bat scenario yet people cling to this. Fear perhaps? Fear that there IS something we don’t know about – and worse – that we can’t control?

Fear? Gods no. I was a paid-up subscriber of The Unexplained magazine for yonks, I’d desperately love for any of this this to be true. My scepticism is born from a genuine passion, interest and fascination with the supernatural, and investigations thereof.

In the religious debates here I’m often on the back foot to an extent in that my knowledge is basic; to wit, I welcome intelligent discussion as it furthers my understanding. Conversely, when it comes to random supernatural stuff I’ve done a lot more legwork to look into it so I’m on much more comfortable ground.

—

Mice smell. They have little scratchy claws for a start, the the sensation I felt was certainly not scratchy.

Mice smell when they’re dead, but not noticeably so when they’re alive IME. Also, they might well have ‘little scratchy claws’ but when one ran over me in the middle of the night a few years ago it didn’t feel scratchy at all, felt like tiny little kitty paws.

There is no scientific need for art or music or love, yet we crave it maybe, just maybe, we are more than just science.

There has to be a ‘scientific need for art, music, and love’. It has obviously provided an evolutionary advantage as it is prevalent in all human societies.

Whether it provides greater social cohesion, or simply a greater determination to live, it clearly has a scientific need/advantage.

Tazzy > you seem to be confusing process with implementation.

The scientific process is solid. The fact that we lack the resources / inclination to always properly apply it does not undermine that. Plenty of companies have vested interests, which doesn’t help. (I really should read Goldacre’s Bad Pharma at some point)

There has to be a ‘scientific need for art, music, and love’. It has obviously provided an evolutionary advantage as it is prevalent in all human socities.

if it provided evolutionary advantage then it wouldn’t be present in all society. Only those that are dominant as the society without it would have been out competed.

Considering most early art was linked to religion that surely means that “god” created it as god is everywhere where as “science” is a new construct of man?

if it provided evolutionary advantage then it wouldn’t be present in all society. Only those that are dominant as the society without it would have been out competed.

Sorry you’re quite right – I should have stated “all existing and all known societies”

Those societies which failed to embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace.

The scientific process is solid

well solid-ish. At the end of the day it is still based on human observation which is based upon perception, which based differing human physiology and upon context and development of that persons cognitive and perceptual buffers, which is totally individual.

the best we can say is that good science is broadly consensual.

good science will always question and review and re-assesses what we tend to get is non scientists spouting sound bites and putting more certainty on outcomes and more faith in the process than is actually wise.

Maybe the society without it has already been outcompeted and died out long ago. It is merely present in all current/recent human societies not necessarily all societies ever.
.
(EDIT) what ernie just said

Those societies which failed embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace.

no they didn’t there are fine examples of neanderthal art, even apes paint for pleasure in captivity. Is that a scientific need to suddenly communicate or evolve?

anyway as i said early on, I’m as thick as fk, so thanks for taking the time to read and hopefully help me work through my very basic understanding of things.

“Those societies which failed embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace.”

no they didn’t there are fine examples of neanderthal art, even apes paint for pleasure in captivity.

And ? Neanderthals obviously embraced art. Where’s the bit where I claimed they hadn’t ?

My point is there must be an evolutionary advantage to art, ie a scientific need.

And ? Neanderthals obviously embraced art. Where’s the bit where I claimed they hadn’t ?

in which case we’d still have then here as well then wouldn’t we mr smarty pants as with art they wouldn’t have become extinct, if as you claim it provides an scientifically based advantage.

now “My point is there must be an evolutionary advantage to art”

is just plain supposition with no scientific evidence, it could equally be argued that art is a means of communication with god and if god liked the paintings he blessed his followers with food. which is why most theories on early cave art tend towards it as a communication with the gods and spirits to provide a bountiful hunt

so again we come full circle that people have believed and seen gods and ghosts and spirits far longer in our existence as a species than have seen an electron.

in which case we’d still have then here as well then wouldn’t we mr smarty pants as with art they wouldn’t have become extinct, if as you claim it provides an scientifically based advantage.

LOL I didn’t claim that art was the only factor which was needed to guarantee that a society was successful ! 😀

I didn’t bother reading the rest of your post beyond the sentence which referred to “mr smarty pants”,
I decided it probably wasn’t worth it.

I didn’t bother reading the rest of your post beyond the sentence which referred to “mr smarty pants”,
I decided it probably wasn’t worth it.

shame as you’d have missed this bit

so again we come full circle that people have believed and seen gods and ghosts and spirits far longer in our existence as a species than have seen an electron.

and can you honestly tell me that something like quantum field theory is any more likely than someone seeing a ghost?

it’s all made up and everyone is bloody mad I tell thee! 😀

is just plain supposition with no scientific evidence,

It is but it is also not what he said

it could equally be argued that art is a means of communication with god and if god liked the paintings he blessed his followers with food. which is why most theories on early cave art tend towards it as a communication with the gods and spirits to provide a bountiful hunt

No it could not and you know this to be a scientific FACT 😉

One of the most hilarious threads ever. 😆 I love the wrestling with rudimentary logic (‘all societies that lack art die out’ implies that ‘all societies that die out lack art’..!?).

But everyone seems to have missed this: “I felt a dog brush against my arm, and it couldn’t have been any kind of animal because the dog in the room would’ve gone nuts”! OK, I’m sure there’s a reason why the dog was ruled out, but “animals have super sensory powers” and yet the dog in the room didn’t react to a ghost in said room!?

Seriously though, surely arm outside the covers chilled slightly and got goosebumps. Or a spider or fly ran over it. Occam’s razor, innit bruv.

saw this on facebook this morning

Occam’s razor, innit bruv.

There is a razor involved? OMG we are into self harming now, it’s all getting very EMO 😀

I know the difference between spiders, flies, goosebumps, mice and drafts; and the feeling of a dog. Scrappy wouldn’t have reacted to Sam’s ‘ghost’- they were BFFs in this world.

Don’t worry, science will catch up someday. In the meantime, as I said previously, and echoed above, check out some quantum physics. It makes doggy-ghosts look positively quotidien.

I think that the vast majority of, what I shall call for brevity, ‘supernatural’ events are fake. Mistakes, hope, grief, fear, greed, dishonesty.

Leaders learned a long time ago to manipulate religious beliefs and superstitions to keep their underlings in order through fear.

Emperor Constantine (and his mum) re-wrote parts of the Christian Bible to get rid of the idea of reincarnation. They thought it would be easier to scare the populace if they (the populace) thought they only had one go at life, and if they were bad they would burn in hell for all eternity.

Landowners who wished to keep peasants off their land would certainly welcome, and probably activity promote, rumours of ghostly happenings.

The entertainment industry has made a fortune from the theme: countless films about demons, werewolves, hauntings, possessions, vampires.

But, I think, after giving it a good shake, and all the con-men and charlatans fall out, what remains are supernatural events.

I can’t do this when I think deliberately about it but, if I am vacuuming (not often!), or bike cleaning or something like that, into my head pops a thought about someone. Within a few minutes whoosh! (that’s the sound texts make when they arrive on my phone) and it’s a text from that person.

Before mobile phones were invented I could tell who was going to ring, before they rang. I quite often know things before I am told them. It used to be a bit alarming, but I’m used to it now.

I can’t do this when I think deliberately about it but, if I am vacuuming (not often!), or bike cleaning or something like that, into my head pops a thought about someone. Within a few minutes whoosh! (that’s the sound texts make when they arrive on my phone) and it’s a text from that person.

Before mobile phones were invented I could tell who was going to ring, before they rang. I quite often know things before I am told them. It used to be a bit alarming, but I’m used to it now.

That’s just a couple of examples of confirmation bias, unless of course you also recorded all the times that you though about someone and they didn’t text you, someone texted you when you hadn’t thought of them, when you got the phone call thing wrong.

It’s a remarkably easy trap to fall into.

Karinofnine – check out that PDF of the Sagan book I linked to on the previous page.

gonefishin: over 57 years? – it’s way more than a ‘couple of examples’;

It’s a remarkably easy trap to fall into.

It’s a remarkably easy answer 🙂

gofasterstripes: will do

gonefishin: over 57 years? – it’s way more than a ‘couple of examples’;

If you had all the information (including all the times you were wrong) over 57 years, it would be interesting but even then not necessarily indicative of anything extra ordinary. If you have millions of people simply guessing stuff it is likely that you would find someone who out of chance was correct far more often than they were wrong. That’s just how chance and probability works.