| User | Post |
|
10:47 am
June 29, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
A well written response. Unfortunately…you acquired two yellow cards, not just one. So not only do you get the red card and the ejection…but I get a penalty shot. Allow me to explain…
First yellow card- You're still separating ghosts from "time slips." This was not the original intent of the poster in this thread or overall in the paranormal community. I completely understand what you're saying and how you're using it. My argument is that it's not being used in the same way by them. The concept of time slips isn't an alternate theory to what ghosts are, it really becomes a bizarre and very poor explanation for them as counter-intuitive as that actually is. They typically don't think it through that the people wouldn't actually be dead so technically they wouldn't be ghosts. That little twist is lost upon them.
This is why the argument drifts off into craziness…as in explaining one unproven concept with another.
Second yellow card- The concept of the time slip, as I understand it, does not involve parallel universes, multiverses, MWI (many-worlds interpretation), M-theory, chaotic inflation theory, or whatever else. It appears to be a straight "travel through time" type of thing. You or I just trying to wrap our heads around the concept may use those terms…BUT…that is not apart of the crazy that are "time slips."
From what I can gather and looking at the greatest examples (the ladies at Versailles and the Vanishing Hotel) this is more of a literary concept for science fiction as opposed to anything remotely related to science. I mean, we're talking about people actually interacting with these time slips; talking with people, using objects, even eating dinner! I mean…that's the level of craziness that this concept involves.
As a skeptic, one should consider all concepts or possible explanations. This particular concept simply does not warrant further investigation or consideration. It's great for story time…but for anything else…it's simply make-believe.
With the two yellow cards, Nosfer receives the dreaded red card. Protesting and using profanities in several different languages…he exits from the pitch. Revenant lining up for his penalty kick starts to perform the completely inappropriate yet oddly captivating "robot" dance to distract the goalkeeper. Revenant suddenly shoots and…
GOOOOOAAAAAAALLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Team USA – A striker. My kingdom for a striker… )
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
12:15 pm
June 29, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
Well I'm not speaking for the original poster but I'm speaking in general terms of what a "haunting" might be. Whether or not other "groups" ascribe to the same thought-pattern, or a slightly different thought-pattern on the subject does not really matter. Fact is that all are unproven whether it be dead person's energy, someone from 1942, or someone from the next universe over.
I recall during the Whispers episode (the princess talking in the room) there were many discussions, some of which I took part in, that were of the type that this was not a "ghost" (whatever that really is) at all but some sort of hiccup in space or time. A dead person's energy (a classic ghost) was actually a ways down the list as far as explanations and was SEPARATE from the explanation of a time rip…so not all lump the two into the same basket. I recall not making the suggestion of another universe but rather maybe there was some interference on the frequency and some sort of radio/tv signal was being captured. In other words, I started with the more plausible explanation lol, though I could not prove it…could find no movie scripts etc that matched any of the lines or anything like that.
Bottomline is that all these unproven things can be put forward as an explanation for some unknown sighting. Why is saying it "is a ghost" more palatable than saying "it is a hiccup in space and/or time"? What about the "ghost" explanation is so much more believable and acceptable than it being two universes contacting briefly?
The first yellow card as you define it above seems to be for not thinking the same way as a large percentage (not all, mind you) of the paranormal community and not really having anything to do with the explanation put forward. That's an unwarranted yellow card and should really be a green one for being able to think for oneself rather than parroting the partyline :)
I'll gladly take the yellow for putting forth the idea of the parallel universe as an explanation for some unknown :) [it wouldn't be my first suggestion as an explanation, believe me!] But that's about all the penalty that is justified.
And I guess finally, if there is no ready explanation for what Yakov saw, you have to start some where…posit a parallel universe and then take the next steps which is to set about proving or disproving it. That should be worth more than just relying on the "it's a ghost" cop-out and then no real efforts to prove anything.
As a skeptic, one should consider all concepts or possible explanations. This particular concept simply does not warrant further investigation or consideration.
Doing that really should warrant the biggest red card of them all. A concept or explanation has been dismissed for no other reason than "It's silly"
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
1:40 pm
June 29, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Nosfer shockingly said: "Doing that really should warrant the biggest red card of them all. A concept or explanation has been dismissed for no other reason than "It's silly."
Yes, I have dismissed a concept or explanation for no other reason than "it's silly." Why? Because my dog told me that it's silly. Should that concept or explanation also have equal weight in our reality? Should we truly take the time and investigate whether or not my dog can speak English, form sentences, and communicate its thoughts in this manner? Where do we draw the line with utter nonsense? There is not a shred of evidence that "time slips" occur. There is not a shred of evidence that something like that can even exist. The "personal experiences" are absolutely rubbish. So…yeah, it's silly and should be dismissed until or unless anything of substantial interest occurs. I just don't have that much time to consider everyone dreams and make-believe journeys where buildings disappear and reappear and one can have tea with people of yesteryear.
Nosfer said: "The first yellow card as you define it above seems to be for not thinking the same way as a large percentage (not all, mind you) of the paranormal community and not really having anything to do with the explanation put forward. That's an unwarranted yellow card and should really be a green one for being able to think for oneself rather than parroting the partyline.  "
What? I think we're entering into the grammatical stand-off that we had over UFO's. You're taking UFO, again, to be anything that's unidentified and up in the air (a time slip being simply a synonym for parallel universes or whatever). I'm taking the UFO's, again, to be the generally accepted concept of alien spacecraft (a time slip not being associated with science but a time-traveling paranormal phenomena in which people, in their own words, have interacted with ghosts).
It's not a case of "being able to think for oneself rather than parroting the partyline." It's acknowledging the general belief held by a particular community. For example, say a tire iron falls from a plane and lands in a primitive village. That village sees it fall and land. They believe that it's a weapon from their gods for them to fend off evil spirits. Everyone in the village accepts this. You come along and…thinking for yourself…say "No, that's just a tire iron." In their community, you are wrong.
Back to our argument…you are assigning new meanings to a paranormal concept which are not generally held. Since the concept first popped on a GHI show, I researched it. At that time, there were no scientific terms attached to it. None are needed. A time slip or a weapon to fend off evil spirits is just nonsense or a simple tire iron. No need to go on.
Nosfer said: "Why is saying it "is a ghost" more palatable than saying "it is a hiccup in space and/or time"? What about the "ghost" explanation is so much more believable and acceptable than it being two universes contacting briefly?"
Well…I never said anything like that, but I'll answer anyway. A "hiccup" in space and/or time…when we begin to intelligently discuss such things, we almost always end up talking about black holes. Why? Because to do anything fancy-schmancy with space and time, one can reasonably agree that one would need a great deal of energy. A boat-load of energy. You know, the type that a black hole would generate. The type of energy that would rip the Earth apart. That kind of energy. So…that becomes problematic for someone to "time warp" back in time and have dinner at a hotel (one the greatest eye-witness accounts of a time slip).
Two universes contacting briefly? If another universe did exist…what are the odds that it would follow the same laws of physics? Why would it? One can argue that universes "contacting briefly" might turn out to be a very, very bad thing. As in cataclysmic. No one can confirm or deny this. I'm just saying that the concept is very unlikely…and really, an extremely far stretching explanation for "ghosts."
So why is the concept of ghosts "more palatable" than time slips and parallel universes? Because the concept of ghosts generally doesn't include destroying the Earth and the universe as we know it. Talking mist and moving chairs is one thing. Ripping apart our planet…that's something else entirely…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
2:35 pm
June 29, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
Yes, I have dismissed a concept or explanation for no other reason than "it's silly."
From your point of view…or from your frame of reference, I'm sure they WERE silly. The villager's you speak of also dismissed me because the concept of a tire iron was foreign, something they were unable to grasp, perhaps even silly. But they were wrong. When no one is willing to think outside the village, progress halts. Anything other than a geocentric universe was considered silly at one point in time. Absurd, in fact, I mean just look, the sun goes around US! Geez, can you believe the nonsense these Coperincans are floating around :)
There is not a shred of evidence that ghosts exist, either, yet we are considering and discussing them quite merrily. Why do we not just say, "Ghosts are silly" and shut down the site? I think it is not so much because the universe _might_ disappear if it contacted a second theoretical universe but rather because the concept is too recent compared to the concept of ghosts. It's territory that is more unfamiliar and thus it's not as comfortable an area.
Similar to the UFO thread, I am not HollyDolly but rather speaking for myself. I am putting my thoughts on the subject, not those of some other author or poster as I cannot speak for them, so naturally what I say is going to have my own "bent" to it. Recall that "other dimensions" was also listed in the litany…perhaps just another name/description for a "parallel" universe? Timeslips? Well, I do see experiments being conducted (legit experiments) regarding time, and at a greater level or number than I see mainstream scientists considering the ghost possibility.
It's not a case of "being able to think for oneself rather than parroting the partyline." It's acknowledging the general belief held by a particular community. For example, say a tire iron falls from a plane and lands in a primitive village. That village sees it fall and land. They believe that it's a weapon from their gods for them to fend off evil spirits. Everyone in the village accepts this. You come along and…thinking for yourself…say "No, that's just a tire iron." In their community, you are wrong.
In this case, the general belief held by a particular community IS the "partyline" And in the case of the tire iron, I'm thinking for myself and rejecting the partyline. To that community, I am wrong, but I am, in fact, right. So if I put forth parallel universe in opposition to ghost as an explantion for the shadowy figure, am I wrong in the eyes of the paranormal community? Who made them the ultimate in deciding what is right? Yes, I could be wrong from their frame of reference and limited willingness to think outside the village, but I might turn out to actually be right. Or it could turn out to just be Herve Villechaize in a very odd cape.
Back to our argument…you are assigning new meanings to a paranormal concept which are not generally held. Since the concept first popped on a GHI show, I researched it. At that time, there were no scientific terms attached to it. None are needed. A time slip or a weapon to fend off evil spirits is just nonsense or a simple tire iron. No need to go on.
But is it wrong to assign new meanings or interpretations of a paranormal happening besides "Gh-gh-gh-ooosttt" :) Does there need to be a scientific term applied to something before it can exist? Paranormal does not mean ghosts. It CAN, but ghosts are simply a subset of the paranormal. If we cling steadfast to the current concepts…whither goeth progress and knowledge? As for it "first popping up on GHI" I don't know that that is the case, perhaps true as far as ghost hunting show go, but then they are not the be all and end all. Do you recall which particular episode? I don't recall, other than the Singapore Syndrome or something like that…I suspect that isn't the one you are referring to, though? I know the Mount Washington discussion was in probably early 2008 and that was not the first time I'd heard such alternative explanations for the phenomenon bantered about in the community as "ghosts".
Universes contacting briefly might turn out to be a very, very bad thing. Yes…they _might_ Do we know? One could also argue that there might be this cool rainbow-like color where they interacted :) Two bubbles can contact and separate without either popping. Or what if they did not contact but interacted in such a way that the fuller brush salesman from the other universe was just briefly visible? You know…got REALLY close and you just get this smudgy form because someone forgot to clean the window at the edge of the universe. I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here, you understand, but otherwise this place would get boring :) I'm sure other explanations can be offered for things, but I would rather put something on the back burner and look at other possibilities first than to just say, that's just plain silly, I _will not_ consider it.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
6:28 pm
June 29, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
First yellow card- You're still separating ghosts from "time slips." This was not the original intent of the poster in this thread or overall in the paranormal community. I completely understand what you're saying and how you're using it. My argument is that it's not being used in the same way by them. The concept of time slips isn't an alternate theory to what ghosts are, it really becomes a bizarre and very poor explanation for them as counter-intuitive as that actually is. They typically don't think it through that the people wouldn't actually be dead so technically they wouldn't be ghosts. That little twist is lost upon them.
This is why the argument drifts off into craziness…as in explaining one unproven concept with another.
I can see now a bit where this went astray…you're projecting the beliefs of the overall paranormal community onto my "argument" but their belief/stance is not mine. This is kinda where the UFO thread went wrong, I felt that I was arguing on behalf of a few authors rather than myself! :) Yes, _I AM_ separating ghosts from time slips, alternate universes or what-have-yous. (Somehow I actually got penalized for that?) But I can do that because I'm the one discussing this. I don't care what the "overall paranormal community" believes. Although, as I said, some members of that community were discussing parallel universe/timeslip as an alternative explanation for a ghost (the person seen was a living being in these discussions, NOT a ghost) So it's not the ENTIRE paranormal community who would think that it's a timeslip bringing a ghost into this timeframe or a parallel universe that lets a ghost from another dimension be seen by us…rather it was a LIVING PERSON.
The argument does drift off into craziness when you start stacking up unprovens to explain other unprovens. I would agree with you there. But, that is NOT what I, the discusser here, am doing. I am putting forth one, and only one, unproven in my example. Just like Jason did with his ghost theory when he helped out Mr Jones in Scene, er, Post 38 (Scene 24, or rather Post 24 wasn't an appropriate reference lol) He offered ONE unproven (a ghost) as the explanation. Nosfer the helpful, though someone eccentric physicist, offered ONE unproven (the parallel universe) as the explanation.
And just for the record…explaining one unproven concept…such as ghosts and residual hauntings with another unproven concept…such as time slips…puts one's argument on very thin and treacherous ice.
In your statement above you say explaining one unproven concept with another unproven concept. By explaining the concept, you are offering an explanation for it, not necessarily saying it's a ghost in the timeslip or in the other universe. It's like early man hearing thunder and Caveman A saying it is the sun hitting the earth when it falls. Caveman B says no, it's actually the moon god cracking his knuckles. Both concepts are unproven, but Caveman B is not explaining the sun hitting the earth in terms of a moon god's knuckles, he is offering just another explanation for thunder and may not even acknowledge that the sun touches the earth. Just like I may not believe in ghosts when I offer the parallel universe idea as an explanation for an unknown figure.
The "one unproven concept with another unproven concept" analogy here would be if Caveman B explained the reason for the sun falling by saying that the moon pushed it down when it was grumpy. Now you have two wild thoughts.
That's the way I take the term "explaining" Offering an alternative answer so that, INSTEAD of a ghost, you have [insert other unproven concept] If I'm going to be able to discuss something, I have to be able to do it as MYSELF, not be constrained so as to be a representative of another poster or the "overall paranormal community" which I am surely not qualified to be for many reasons :)
If your view is that it's [alternative universe or what have you] not being used in the same way by them ie, that they are NOT separating the ghost from the timeslip or the alternate or the parallel universe but using both together, then I think we are (like ultimately in the UFO thread) on the same page (or at least in the same book) and I'm just seeing myself as the strawman of the "overall paranormal community" so that the ghost within another universe theory can be deflated as a double unproven rather than being allowed to discuss my actual view of it, or really what was originally my Devil's Advocate View of it.
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
|
11:51 pm
June 29, 2010
|
Learjet
| | Australia | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1122 |
|
|
Revenant said:
The "personal experiences" are absolutely rubbish.
Hold the bus! Not so fast, since this is really all we've got. Each experience needs to be examined case by case for credibility, rather than flushing the lot. Although I've been doing a lot of mental flushing myself lately lol.
I can think of at least one case in which unusual sightings from high altitude airforce and airline pilots, with only visual sightings to report, were not taken seriously until cameras with sufficient IR extension and low light sensitivity confirmed what they saw, some 40 years later.
|
|
|
|
|
12:31 pm
June 30, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Learjet said: "Each experience needs to be examined case by case for credibility, rather than flushing the lot."
Et tu, Learjet? Et tu? *sighs* You guys are killin' me…ok…
Please feel free to examine the cases at the following website. Go to another paranormal website and you'll find the same stories or stories just like it. Please point out the one that you wish to hoist to the crowd and debate over the validity of the account. Perhaps I have missed the "Rosetta Stone" of time slips. Maybe something has gotten by me. A shred of evidence may have eluded me. Enjoy…
http://uforeview.tripod.com/timeslips.html
(Interesting side-note: Notice the sheer amount of great luck in the stores? For example, the guy in the bookshop and it turns into a clothing store. I'm sure glad that all the shelving, racks, cases, and counters are all in the same exact place. I would have for someone to "materialize" into something or have something materialize into them. Great lluck that is.)
The concept of time travel isn't new. Look no further than H.G. Wells "The Time Machine" written in 1895, Mark Twain's "A Conneticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" written in 1889, and even Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol" written in 1843.
I also have nothing against the scientific pursuit of time and space and furthering our understanding of it. I would never dismiss anything of that sort.
However…these so-called "time slips" are nothing more than a literary invention and a "flight of fancy" of some people. It's make-believe. I have seen nothing associated directly with time slips to make me think otherwise. So like I said, Learjet, those personal experiences that you read…just rubbish.
@ Nosfer – You've written a novel….so…it will take a bit of time to respond…
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
1:39 pm
June 30, 2010
|
Revenant
| | Hopelessly Locked In A "Fear Cage" | |
| Lead Investigator | posts 1393 |
|
|
Ok…wow…you've written a ton. Hard to respond to it all…unless that was apart of your plan all along…
Nosfer said: "But is it wrong to assign new meanings or interpretations of a paranormal happening besides "Gh-gh-gh-ooosttt" Does there need to be a scientific term applied to something before it can exist? Paranormal does not mean ghosts. It CAN, but ghosts are simply a subset of the paranormal. If we cling steadfast to the current concepts…whither goeth progress and knowledge? As for it "first popping up on GHI" I don't know that that is the case, perhaps true as far as ghost hunting show go, but then they are not the be all and end all. Do you recall which particular episode? I don't recall, other than the Singapore Syndrome or something like that…I suspect that isn't the one you are referring to, though? I know the Mount Washington discussion was in probably early 2008 and that was not the first time I'd heard such alternative explanations for the phenomenon bantered about in the community as "ghosts."
I admit that I mispoke. When I said "first popped up" on a GHI show, I wasn't implying that the concept was new or first issued by GHI. It just marked when "I" became aware of the concept and began taking a look at it. I don't remember the particular GHI show, but I'm almost certain it was the one that also featured the "universal consciousness theory (ghosts can speak to you in the specific language that you speak because they're magically great linguists)." Then again, if you support time slips, then you must support that too…
Nosfer remarked: "I'm mostly playing Devil's Advocate here, you understand, but otherwise this place would get boring "
Yes. Great. Like it's not hard enough to just argue over what we disagree on in the first place…
Nosfer said: "Similar to the UFO thread, I am not HollyDolly but rather speaking for myself. I am putting my thoughts on the subject, not those of some other author or poster as I cannot speak for them, so naturally what I say is going to have my own "bent" to it. Recall that "other dimensions" was also listed in the litany…perhaps just another name/description for a "parallel" universe? Timeslips? Well, I do see experiments being conducted (legit experiments) regarding time, and at a greater level or number than I see mainstream scientists considering the ghost possibility."
Your own "bent?" You're completely changing the concept! Here's the definition of a time slip over at Wiki…here. Notice anything missing on the page? Like any mention of parallel universes, alternate dimensions and whatever else you were going on about. It's not there. Your "bent" is completely changing the definition. THAT'S THE WHOLE ARGUMENT! I've come out against time slips "as is." You completely change the definition and then state…and I quote "If we cling steadfast to the current concepts…whither goeth progress and knowledge?" Are you kidding me? I'm not clinging to anything. I'm saying that the concept of time slips is nonsense and you come around, change the concept and then want me to defend my argument against legitimate theories. Talk about straw man fallacies. It's not your own "bent" on time slips. You've purposely distorted and misrepresented the definition of a time slip to suit your own argument and then you want to me to defend my position. It's the very definition of the straw man fallacy. Red card, my friend…red card. 
Other than that… a point raised from this is where do we personally or collectively draw the line concerning the paranormal? Where do we "cut bait and run?" For instance, I want to ditch time slips (AS IS…*sighs*) and Nosfer obviously doesn't. What about my other examples? That ghosts are created by magical fairy dust spread by Woodland fairies? What about the one where ghosts are the tortured souls of vampires that have been physically destroyed? Where is the line? Look at UFO's. Believe there's life somewhere out in the universe? Believe that they're coming here? Believe that humans are currently in contact with 54 different species of aliens? Where is the line for skeptics?
Nosfer also said: "Universes contacting briefly might turn out to be a very, very bad thing. Yes…they _might_ Do we know? One could also argue that there might be this cool rainbow-like color where they interacted."
Maybe. Still…I think it would be very bad. All I know is what I can see and what I can conceptualize. Let's use wildlife as an example. Compare the animals and plants in the Pacific NW to the Everglades. Vastly different and separated by only a couple thousand miles. Then throw in Galapagos Island. Madagascar. A mile down in the Atlantic near a volcanic vent. On our planet, there are such vast differences. When trying to wrap my head around another universe (or more than just one)…it's just hard for me to conceptualize that that universe is going to be anything like ours. The odds that the "their" laws of physics would perfectly match our own…I can't even put a number on that. I don't know…I just keep coming back to…"Yeah…that's just not a good thing…"
|
"Skepticism is not a position, it's a process." -Dr Michael Shermer
|
|
|
2:12 pm
June 30, 2010
|
Nosfer
| | Rotaredom | |
| Moderator
| posts 2956 |
|
|
I actually made an effort to keep the post short and was a bit dismayed when I saw how long it was when I saved it! lol
You added a GHOSTS being created by fairy dust as an example. I would agree that that is an unproven concept being explained by another unproven concept. A ghost created by fairy dust. To stay as close to that as possible and have only one unproven concept would be to say that WHAT IS PERCEIVED AS A GHOST is actually fairy dust. That's the intent of my Jones example. The whole argument being that an event explained by ghost and an event explained by an alternate universe are both EACH ONLY ONE unproven concept. ONE yellow card each.
You seem to be hung up on time slips…I haven't changed any definitions and I'm not distorting any definitions :) Your list of topics included other universes or something like that and then you talked about thin ice and one unproven concept to prove another unproven concept. We were originally talking time slips, yes, but you indicated that was such nonsense that it shouldn't be considered…so in my example I went to alternate universe since you hadn't yet found that to be as absurd :) My example of helping out Yakov (where I got double carded) was to show that it was only ONE unproven concept and used the alternate universe vs "ghost" Time slips keep getting thrown back into the works and I keep trying to go back to the Jones example of a parallel universe.
Edited: That's better, that's the length I was hoping for earlier :)
|
Legal: The content of this post is copyrighted and is intended exclusively for use on skepticalviewer.com It may not be copied, distributed, or redisplayed on any other site without the express written consent of the author.
|
|
Login 
Register 
The Forum [is where Ancient Roman skeptics hang out.]
Reply to Post
Quote and Reply 
Print this Post 
Topic RSS 
