It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Pattern Behind Self-Deception

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bravo111
The False pos and false neg approach attempts to shut down and dismiss that which is the non-physical element of life, and instead explain it away as the bogey monster and a figment of ones vivid imagination.

It is simply not that black and white. The gray area is the overlap between the physical and non-physical that needs to be bridged by science, amongst many other disciplines.


"Explain it away" is different from actually explaining it. People DO believe in boogey monsters and have many figments of the imagination. This seems a fairly decent account for such things. Unless someone provides actual evidence of a boogey monster there must be an explanation for such things.

I am uncertain as to exactly what you mean when you say "non-physical".




posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock

Cause us to believe? It has never been established that such things are simply a matter of perception.

All this guy has done is to demonstrate that perception can be subjective..but he has still done so within limits and has controled and restricted the examples ect and most of that simply optical.


And actually, it has been established that at least some of these things are indeed a matter of perception (NDE's, OOBE's, sleep paralysis, etc). There are several videos online I can dig up if necessary.

More importantly, nobody has established that ghosts, aliens deities, etc actually exist. I'm not saying they aren't real but there's much pointing in the way that these things are indeed byproducts of the errors of perception.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:15 AM
link   
What if pattern-detecting has nothing to do with why people believe in such things? That they come to their conclusions based on actual experience and not some abstract reasoning as to why they believe based on seeing patterns? Does that make them liars or deluded?



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Lets look first at where we do agree.

Agree: That thought patterns such as those you have described do indeed influence a persons perception, and one can definitely have false neg and false pos scenarios.

Agree: One can definitely be influenced to perceive that which is not there, or that the brain/mind (holistically....yes vague I know) can indeed see a ghoul when indeed there is only a shadow.

But to say that this now explains most, if not all situations where people have reported spirits, ghosts, demons, entities, aliens is where I believe we disagree.

Note: I will keep saying "in my experience" to make the point that:

....an experiential/gnostic approach backed up by all the human tools of sense, perception and a minimally filtered rational logic, along with a blend of the worlds most foremost sciences is a far better approach than "i read, therefore I believe an thus it is so.

The further one moves towards specializing in a given subject, the more narrower the field of study becomes, such as the researcher/scientist you mention. I am not saying that being a "generalist" is the answer.

For example, Egyptology/Archeology (a science that is really no more than 150 years old or so, and once dominated by explorers trampling over precious discoveries and taking 50% of the findings as loot, still underpins many of today's scientific conclusions about the the history of Egypt and the pyramids) - An Egyptologist would today likely tell you that because Cheops name is on the lintel of one of the entrances to the Great Pyramid, thus this Pyramid was build by Cheops.

And yet a multi-disciplined team of scientists including Geologists that has worked in the general area will tell you that the erosion on the nearby Sphinx was caused by torrential rain beating against the side of the Sphinx for a long period of time - the last time geologists claim that such weather was present was many thousands of years prior to the Egyptologists claim as to the age of the Sphinx.
(and this is without getting into the corrupt business of university and academic grants and scientists tending not to bite the hand that feeds it)

Positions are contradictory - leading authorities in given sciences have a tendency to follow the group mind/group ego - their egos are wrapped up in and strongly identify with the group findings - or be ostracized and have funding cut off.

I am stating that all sciences contribute towards the final answers - not one single science can lead the way - it is absolute arrogance to presume otherwise and leads to a reductive religion of science that ultimately does not lend any real understanding to the true nature of the universe, physical or otherwise.

As for the non-physical - I mean all of that which exists in the ether or the multi-verse that is not physical and has yet to be determined and understood.

Thanks

Bravo



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
What if pattern-detecting has nothing to do with why people believe in such things? That they come to their conclusions based on actual experience and not some abstract reasoning as to why they believe based on seeing patterns? Does that make them liars or deluded?


I don't necessarily think that people who believe in such things are liars at all. Some experience they had caused these beliefs. The question ultimately is whether it was an objective causation or a subjective perception.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Logarock

Cause us to believe? It has never been established that such things are simply a matter of perception.

All this guy has done is to demonstrate that perception can be subjective..but he has still done so within limits and has controled and restricted the examples ect and most of that simply optical.


And actually, it has been established that at least some of these things are indeed a matter of perception (NDE's, OOBE's, sleep paralysis, etc). There are several videos online I can dig up if necessary.


They have made a good case is all. They leave out a great deal of the information present in sleep paralysis cases where paranormal activity is also present and rather make their case in an inert clinical setting.


More importantly, nobody has established that ghosts, aliens deities, etc actually exist. I'm not saying they aren't real but there's much pointing in the way that these things are indeed byproducts of the errors of perception.


You may be unfamiliar with the paranormal stidies done at Duke Univercity in the 70s and 80s.....but they ended up firing their lead reasercher becouse he concluded that such things were not a matter of perception.....yet they still or did sell his books there years after he left.

My point here is that I perceive that submitting "proof" in this field of hard skeptics is about like submitting to the inquisition. If they cant believe one of their own there is no hope the bowing before the almighty inquisition will net anything.








posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bravo111
I am stating that all sciences contribute towards the final answers - not one single science can lead the way - it is absolute arrogance to presume otherwise and leads to a reductive religion of science that ultimately does not lend any real understanding to the true nature of the universe, physical or otherwise.


Agreed 100%. I work in science. I know first hand that it takes a confluence of people from many different branches of science to discover facts. I see nothing regarding Shermer that he's a lone wolf maverick who purports his individual hypotheses as indisputable fact. He is a skeptic, encourages skepticism and review of his work.


As for the non-physical - I mean all of that which exists in the ether or the multi-verse that is not physical and has yet to be determined and understood.


I believe you speak of the things beyond the frontiers of our current knowledge. However, if we're looking to bridge those gaps between the physical and "non-physical" I believe this presentation at least addresses some of it. The term "non-physical" is a broad brush though and once it gets into areas of mystical/supernatural claims it becomes highly problematic: the claimant cannot provide objective evidence and therefore science cannot test it.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
they ended up firing their lead reasercher becouse he concluded that such things were not a matter of perception.....
My point here is that I perceive that submitting "proof" in this field of hard skeptics


If a professor at Duke concludes there is "supernatural activity" at work without proof then he's setting himself up for dismissal. It's no different than a professor concluding that god(s) is responsible for complex anomalies currently beyond our knowledge. Such claims are an avoidance of the hard work involved in finding a reasonable answer.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 11:54 AM
link   
How do you prove something non-physical in a field which, by its nature, can only consider the physical? I agree with the other poster: it's like submitting to the inquisition.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by 547000
How do you prove something non-physical in a field which, by its nature, can only consider the physical? I agree with the other poster: it's like submitting to the inquisition.


Well, apparently that non-physical thing caused some perturbation of the physical, else we'd not be able to detect it. One must be able to balance the equation. Providing proof of your claim or assertion is not "submitting to the inquisition". It's the nature of the scientific process. I'm sure the referenced researcher knew this.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:15 PM
link   
Isn't it nice to have a thread where we can agree to disagree? :-)

Yes agreed, non-physical is a very broad term - that which is supernatural is still natural. Ultimately I do believe that the word "physicality" or "existence" will end up embracing all that which is physical and non-physical.

The term "proven to EXIST" i believe is half the problem.

This is because our definition of "EXIST/EXISTENCE" is so narrow and limited and is unfortunately the defining reality and has been for most of modern science.

If we can broaden what it means to "Exist" then we can begin to capture all that has until now not fallen into the realm of modern science.

Even if we can begin to broaden "Exist" based purely upon the sheer weight of generic "supernatural" experiences known to man, then we begin to move in the right direction.

By generic supernatural experience one could take the example of:

"how many times have you thought of an individual and then a moment later they call you"?

I think we have all had this or similar happen to us, and some more than others. If this has happened (by design or not) to each of us say 10 times in a lifetime, multiplied by the population of the planet with access to a telephone or similar then the weight of evidence for this (less statistical anomalies) is staggering. So from here we can begin, but yet again we end up finding that repeatable experiments are hard, that clinical settings do not lend themselves to such issues always and the end result is explained away as having no foundation, as opposed to "lets keep digging" - what is telepathy?

I do believe that the next level of understanding of our reality(s) will be via the rupturing of our understanding of time, locality and information transfer - when this happens then Pandora's Box is truly open to an entire new wave of understanding.

Maybe the issue is not really whether something that falls outside of modern sciences understanding is true - but our ability to prove that it is true- and in this, at this stage in time and development, we are limited by our own psychology and ability to understand.

Some great scientists such as Rupert Sheldrake are certainly working in this gray area

Thanks

Bravo






[edit on 18-6-2010 by Bravo111]

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Bravo111]

[edit on 18-6-2010 by Bravo111]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by 547000
How do you prove something non-physical in a field which, by its nature, can only consider the physical? I agree with the other poster: it's like submitting to the inquisition.


Well, apparently that non-physical thing caused some perturbation of the physical, else we'd not be able to detect it. One must be able to balance the equation. Providing proof of your claim or assertion is not "submitting to the inquisition". It's the nature of the scientific process. I'm sure the referenced researcher knew this.


See, you have already determined that somehow this researcher must have crossed some sacred line in the scientific sand...that he must have broken some almighty scientific protocol.

At the time he was working on finding out why dogs sometimes act crazy when their owners are in trouble hundreds of miles away....a known phenomenon. He wasnt trying to prove they did but why.

He had also worked on a famous demon possession case that was used in part by researchers that helped making several well known movie cases.

At Duke and in the field they were able to record sounds on film...like breaking glass without any glass being broken. I have seen some of these tapes myself...of known sound without any detectable source.

Anyway this guy was one of the worlds leading authorities in this field and he says yes....there are things and forces that work without any way for science to understand how.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bravo111
"how many times have you thought of an individual and then a moment later they call you"?


That's an interesting point. Then again, how many times have you thought of an individual and they haven't called you? On the rare occasion that you think of someone and they call, the coincidence seems staggering. But what you're doing is remembering the hit and forgetting all the misses - and then assigning astonishing significance to the coincidence, even chalking it up to "telepathy". At best I would call such things a matter of great intuition. Such "telepathy" cannot be repeated in any lab setting despite numerous trials and years of research. Perhaps it has a much simpler explanation than a "non-physical" supernatural/physical event. Perhaps it's simply our subjective interpretation of a serendipitous event.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Logarock
Anyway this guy was one of the worlds leading authorities in this field and he says yes....there are things and forces that work without any way for science to understand how.


So he says.

The thing is, anyone can produce a collection of anomalies and claim that they cannot be explained in any other way than the supernatural. That's not proper research or reasoning. "It must the the devil/god/aliens" is not an acceptable answer. Also, claiming that "there's no way science can understand it" is an insulator against all due challenge. This researcher was justly dismissed.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by andy1033

But they absolutely tried to destroy my a-levels time with it, for no reason. So imagine what they are doing today, if that was 1992.


Oh Dear! That's taking 'The Dog Ate My Homework' excuse to whole new level!

IRM



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
I hear you, but lets not limit this to one "generic supernatural event type".

Agreed there are many times that one thinks of somebody and they don't call and this is a rational deduction, but it does not dismiss the original proposition, or for that matter any other of the many hundreds of generic supernatural events (a la Sheldrake for example) that could be put forth or even counter arguments to your own position.

Unfortunately reality is defined by what we perceive or not and that can be proven - Science does not really allow for that which can be perceived yet not proven and is thus shut down.

I mean you are correct in your statement that "all the time I have thought of someone and they have not called", but this is not final, and just leads to a neutralizing of the subject matter into the realms of fantasy.

The onus is put upon the experiencer to prove, whereas I personally believe that the onus (in the case of the generic/mass supernatural experiences) should be upon science to discover and ultimately prove.

I truly believe that a gullible believer is equally as dangerous as a skeptical scientist and the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Thanks

Bravo





[edit on 18-6-2010 by Bravo111]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bravo111
The onus is put upon the experiencer to prove, whereas I personally believe that the onus (in the case of the generic/mass supernatural experiences) should be upon science to discover and ultimately prove.


Science always sets out to explain anomalies such as the one we're referring to. However, such an event can easily be explained without invoking supernatural or mystical means. Remembering the hits and forgetting the misses is a common event in many branches of the "supernatural" including telepathics, psychics, astrologers, etc. Such explanations aren't very exciting though (like much of science), and those that claim a more exciting causation are called upon to verify their claims.



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Bravo111
The onus is put upon the experiencer to prove, whereas I personally believe that the onus (in the case of the generic/mass supernatural experiences) should be upon science to discover and ultimately prove.


Science always sets out to explain anomalies such as the one we're referring to. However, such an event can easily be explained without invoking supernatural or mystical means. Remembering the hits and forgetting the misses is a common event in many branches of the "supernatural" including telepathics, psychics, astrologers, etc. Such explanations aren't very exciting though (like much of science), and those that claim a more exciting causation are called upon to verify their claims.


Should the experiments at Duke with Dr. Rhine be dismissed?

or these guys....

paranormal.about.com.../XJ/Ya&zTi=1&sdn=paranormal&cdn=newsissues&tm=43&f=00&tt=14&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//www.boundaryinstitute.org/

[edit on 18-6-2010 by whaaa]



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
Should the experiments at Duke with Dr. Rhine be dismissed?


I should think not. But they must be answered with a reasonable explanation. Not "it's the supernatural, you can never test it, that settles it". Anybody can provide that answer (and many do).



posted on Jun, 18 2010 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Logarock
Anyway this guy was one of the worlds leading authorities in this field and he says yes....there are things and forces that work without any way for science to understand how.


So he says.

The thing is, anyone can produce a collection of anomalies and claim that they cannot be explained in any other way than the supernatural. That's not proper research or reasoning. "It must the the devil/god/aliens" is not an acceptable answer. Also, claiming that "there's no way science can understand it" is an insulator against all due challenge. This researcher was justly dismissed.


No he didnt say that friend....Duke university did.

Face it science and reaserch have been over thier heads in this field for years. They hate it because it will not bend to their strictures of investigation.....and we all know that eveything and eveybody should, including God himself, to this mad obsesion to stay in the box submit.

Science has failed here and thats not something that it can stand. All the toys and methods here are useless. If it cant pass through a vacuum tube or register on a meter then its just wow.....the crab boy at the circus.


This researcher was justly dismissed.



But they kept his research available and sold his books for years.


Also, claiming that "there's no way science can understand it" is an insulator against all due challenge.


No this is the lament of those that understand. Beside are you going to set thier strait faced and say that science can and now does understand everything? Look at the things science knows for a fact exsist and uses them, in the field of physics, but are still at a loss for a complete definition of its true nature.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join