BootsnAll Travel Community

quote:

Originally posted by imposter:
I'm sorry to hear you interpret me as being condescending. I'm simply trying to be as precise and clear as possible in my explanations.

you have quite an unusual way of being "clear" and "precise."

quote:

So you think science NOW is intellectual wankery? I don't understand. Science is a concept independent of time. May I ask again directly, on what grounds do you base this opinion? Are you referring to particular topics or scientists? It seems a rather sweeping statement to make.

and yet science makes progress over... time. science independent of time would mean all of its information would be accessable at this point, entirely "correct," and without the need for science itself. science as a concept is faultless, but concepts and practices are very different. the practice of science now is intellectual wankery, the concept of science is spot on. can we be done with semantics, or do you still have questions?

quote:

Science is only an approximation, so in your black and white sense, yes, it is all "wrong". We observe an effect, make a hypothesis as to its cause, usually proposing a theoretical theory, measure the effect, and see if our theory can sufficiently explain our measurements *and predict all future measurements*. If it doesn't, we revise our theory. If evidence later arises that conflicts with our theory, we rethink and expand our theory to encompass that evidence. We gain a better approximation.

i would never say all science is "wrong." simply that it must ALWAYS be taken into consideration that what is "known" could be, and very likely is, "faulty."

quote:

The theory of aerodynamics helps us put planes into the air. Like any scientific theory, it is a theoretical scientific approximation to an observed effect. In your world, it is "wrong". Perhaps you should stop taking planes?

do not say what "is" and "isnt" in my world, its very unscientific. why should i stop taking planes? you are saying it like i think all science is wrong, and everything it attempts to explain is some other kind of "reality." even if i believed aerodynamics was wrong, planes would still fly, wouldnt they? do i need science to see that they do? do i need science to explain my reflection in the water for it to exist?

quote:

An open mind is essential - but it gets us nowhere on its own. An open mind is not a framework for explaining the unexplained. You need EVIDENCE gathered from a controlled environment. This concept underpins our whole society, from medical drug trials to the law courts.

past events do not precognize future events. a trend is only a trend until it stops. to use past information as simply 'past information' is a bit more accurate than using it to predict what is real and what isnt. it seems a lot of what we are speaking of is based on what exists now, and how it exists now. "lack of evidence is not lack of proof"

quote:

My intentions for this thread are purely to make people question "unexplained" things. When we, for example, hear about a Nepalese boy who claims to have not eaten or drank for six years, should we keep an open mind and believe him to be Buddha? Or should we keep an open mind, observe his claim in a controlled enviroment, and see if he can demonstrate his ability, and if so, then claim him to be Buddha?

The former approach is faith. The latter is science.

do his abilities prescribe what others are capable of? my belief, in buddhist terms, is that he IS buddha. this is only because, in buddhism, EVERY-THING is buddha. with this individual, i cant say whether his feats are real or not, but it is entirely inconsequential.

as the post above me states, not everything is testable in a controlled environment.

quote:

PS, on this subject. I was interested to hear the independent scientific team were denied access to Buddha Boy. It speaks volumes.

it says they were denied access. it could be for a multitude of reasons, even if one is stated over the other.

you almost seem to want to prove me wrong on something, or convince me of something other than what i experience. is this correct?

quote:

can we be done with semantics, or do you still have questions?

Just the one I've asked you directly twice now but you've managed to avoid both times - on what grounds do you base your opinion of science now being "intellectual wankery"?

I've seen many people - mainly creationists - use the "but it's only a theory" argument to attempt to undermine science. I don't believe this is your motivation for bringing it up; nevertheless, I wonder why you have, since every scientist worth his or her salt would agree with you and I that known science is an "approximation" (potentially "faulty" in your terms). Additionally, they would hold that the scientific approach itself is the only valid method for investigating the universe - and the unexplained.

quote:

past events do not precognize future events. a trend is only a trend until it stops. to use past information as simply 'past information' is a bit more accurate than using it to predict what is real and what isnt. it seems a lot of what we are speaking of is based on what exists now, and how it exists now. "lack of evidence is not lack of proof"

I'm afraid I don't understand any of this, or its relevance to anything

quote:

with this individual, i cant say whether his feats are real or not, but it is entirely inconsequential.

It's inconsequential? Well I think it's of great consequence to this discussion: it's a tangible, recent case of the "unexplained", a perfect example to demonstrate the different stances people take to the "unexplained".

Some people (not you) would believe this Buddha Boy by his word and proclaim him supernatural. Utter faith.

You, it seems, "cannot say whether his feats are real or not" - fair enough. But don't you crave to know the truth?

I, on the other hand, would naturally tend to question his claim. What evidence is there for it? (None but personal testimoniy). I would fully support an unbiased, independent scientific team to observe him day and night for a long period of time ("controlled environment" was the wrong phrase, but nevertheless science DOES apply in this case, it is possible to design a test to verify his claims without disrupting his behaviour) - and if he is still alive and healthy after a few months with no sign of eating or drinking, then we can conclude he is supernatural.

And so I maintain this last path is the only logical way to approach, verify and explain the "unexplained".

i have no grounds, only my opinion. ive put it out there, you disagree, lets be done with it. i have no interest in convincing you of anything i say. the way you experience the world is the way you experience the world. it is as valid as my own experience, despite it being different. i know my perspective relatively well, and i will put out there what i have "discovered" knowing full well i may be wrong. you can take that information and use it, or disregard it entirely. that is up to you.

if you dont understand what i say, how can you speak of its relevance?

to prove buddha boy as false would simply prove buddha boy as false. such abilities are very real. whether or not he "has" them is inconsequential to whether or not it is possible.

with the human mind, we can use it as a tool, or let it control us. sports, martial arts, etc. are all controllable programming. most dont even know why they believe what they believe other than its what they have believed and have come to believe. most do not know why they get angry at things, or sad, or why they feel totally empty and alone.

"youre just a simple logic provoked to release its temper"

extra points to who can identify where that came from Its a good quote, and most operate on a preconceived notion of how they will react in any given situation based on past events. this can happen automatically, or under control. most humans are not at the point where there actions are under their control, and act automatically to every given scenario (an exaggerated example: if someone hits someone else, the one who was hit will be angry. most likely without even knowing why, they will simply react).

science must be put into practice by humans, and will be limited by our capabilities (senses, comprehension). science is used to explain what we experience, but when we start basing what we experience on science, then there is a problem. we, quite simply, are not capable of perceiving every-thing that occurs around us. in fact, it is a FRACTION of what transpires. the first filter is our direct physical limitations, the second is what our mind decides to toss out or send through to our awareness. what we can discover through science is limited by what we are willing to experience;

when we are operating on reaction only, we have no control over what is negated. this programming is called by many to be the "ego," "personality," etc. Neural pathways tend to grow closer together as they react in the same way more than once (habits,personality,ego). once awareness of actions (mindfullness) comes into play, those gaps start to spread apart. allowing for more parts of the mind/brain to be used.

for many, what they experience is entirely derivative of what they have experienced. the mind/personality will always go in the same direction.

where am i going with this? like i said, human science is limited by the human mind. and while it is an amazing work, the mind is not omniscient. if science hasnt explained it, and something "else" has, then that must be taken into consideration. to disregard such information merely because "the great science" hasnt explained it, is an... interesting choice.

science knows no more of what we experience than anything else. it puts limitations, numbers, and theories in place of things that already exist. it is all out there, to be experienced, but many say that if science disapproves, then it is false. science has been, and will always be, wrong about certain things. religion has been, and will always be, wrong about certain things. this is because it says "this, not that" or "that, not this." when in actuality, it is all connected far beyond what we realize. it is the price we pay being finite; all of our progress and acheivements are rendered such as well.

to always operate on logic is like saying you understand everything, and that your way of deduction is infallible. i know i have been wrong in even my most "logical" moments, i will not speak for you...

This time I understood the whole of your post!

quote:

such abilities are very real

HOW do you know this? Have you experienced them?! Don't you understand that claims without evidence are worthless?

Leprechauns are very real as well... I've seen them...

You paint science as being limited by our senses and minds. Whilst true, of course, we've pushed that limitation pretty damn far; we can detect galaxies on the edge of the universe as well as the smallest elementary particles. Not a bad effort for a few tonnes of grey matter and some peepers, eh?

quote:

if science hasnt explained it, and something "else" has, then that must be taken into consideration.

What "else" has "explained" anything that science hasn't? I'd like a direct example. And in what sense do you mean "taken into consideration"? By what process would you analyse and validate the alternative claim?

One of the great scientific mysteries is why two masses are attracted to each other. We observe its effect daily - gravity - and can map a pretty accurate theory to it, demonstrated by sending spaceships to distant planets. BUT we just don't understand WHY two masses are attracted. Science doesn't have an answer yet.

I have an explanation. I think big invisible leprechauns are pushing all the masses in the universe together. We can't see them, can't measure them. Science hasn't explained this mystery, but I have. By your reasoning, as something which explains an effect science can't, it should be "taken into consideration". It could be possible, couldn't it? Don't you agree? You can't prove my theory wrong...

quote:

to disregard such information merely because "the great science" hasnt explained it, is an... interesting choice

We DON'T disregard my Leprechaun Gravity Theory on the grounds that science hasn't explained it! We disregard it because it is COMPLETELY GROUNDLESS! Has ZERO evidence supporting it!

Operating on logic is NOT saying you understand everything. Your claim is incorrect. It is merely the best way to proceed in order to increase the amount of information we have about the universe.

quote:

Originally posted by imposter:
This time I understood the whole of your post!

good! i have been known to have communication issues

quote:

HOW do you know this? Have you experienced them?! Don't you understand that claims without evidence are worthless?

i have experienced some very interesting things in my life, and plan on experiencing more. when you say "have you experienced them?" what exactly is "them" referring to?

ALL claims had no evidence at one point, it builds up.

quote:

Leprechauns are very real as well... I've seen them...

You paint science as being limited by our senses and minds. Whilst true, of course, we've pushed that limitation pretty damn far; we can detect galaxies on the edge of the universe as well as the smallest elementary particles. Not a bad effort for a few tonnes of grey matter and some peepers, eh?

we have pushed it far, i agree, but i also believe what is beyond that limitation is more than what is within.

i do not believe there is a static world out there that we all simply experience differently. each reality combines to make up the whole, its organic and ever changing. if you have seen leprechauns, then you have seen them. im guessing you are kidding around with it, but it seems so many question their reality on the basis of what others experience.

quote:

What "else" has "explained" anything that science hasn't? I'd like a direct example. And in what sense do you mean "taken into consideration"? By what process would you analyse and validate the alternative claim?

religion. faith. there have been amazing things that have come through religion, though they are mostly disregarded due to lack of "evidence." its the faith that we cant know everything, no matter how hard we try, and the acceptance of that. i do not necessarily agree with religions, or anything that explains the limitless in limited terms (which is what words are). i believe what is beyond my understanding is far more than what is within. evidence is nice, i will never deny that. but if im faced with 100 people telling me something that directly contradicts my experience, and one person telling me something that agrees, i wouldnt disregard it due to it being only one person instead of one hundred (lack of evidence).

quote:

One of the great scientific mysteries is why two masses are attracted to each other. We observe its effect daily - gravity - and can map a pretty accurate theory to it, demonstrated by sending spaceships to distant planets. BUT we just don't understand WHY two masses are attracted. Science doesn't have an answer yet.

I have an explanation. I think big invisible leprechauns are pushing all the masses in the universe together. We can't see them, can't measure them. Science hasn't explained this mystery, but I have. By your reasoning, as something which explains an effect science can't, it should be "taken into consideration". It could be possible, couldn't it? Don't you agree? You can't prove my theory wrong...

it truly is entirely possible.

quote:

We DON'T disregard my Leprechaun Gravity Theory on the grounds that science hasn't explained it! We disregard it because it is COMPLETELY GROUNDLESS! Has ZERO evidence supporting it!

Operating on logic is NOT saying you understand everything. Your claim is incorrect. It is merely the best way to proceed in order to increase the amount of information we have about the universe.

i think this is a core disagreement. i vehemently believe there is more beyond our logic than within.

quote:

when you say "have you experienced them?" what exactly is "them" referring to?

I was referring to the supernatural abilities of Buddha Boy, which you simply stated as being "very real". I wondered how you came to this conclusion - if you perhaps had experienced such supernatural abilities first hand to be so sure?

quote:

ALL claims had no evidence at one point, it builds up.

Evidence cannot build up unless you establish an independent critical framework for evaluating that evidence! And since you postulate the scientific method may not be valid to apply to the unknown, and fail to offer any alternative framework save for "an open mind", then all we are left with is "anything is possible." Which can't be proven wrong, but is absolutely USELESS at getting to the bottom of anything. If anything is possible, then ghosts COULD be dead souls, sure. OR they COULD be figments of the imagination. OR they COULD be leprechauns playing tricks on us. OR they COULD be the spiritual essence of strong cheeses. It truly is entirely possible, right?

quote:

i vehemently believe there is more beyond our logic than within.

I'm sorry, but this is vague waffle. Beyond logic? What, you mean there is "TRUE", "FALSE" and "SOMETHING ELSE"? And within what, exactly?

quote:

Originally posted by imposter:
I was referring to the supernatural abilities of Buddha Boy, which you simply stated as being "very real". I wondered how you came to this conclusion - if you perhaps had experienced such supernatural abilities first hand to be so sure?

yes i have, though at this point, i am sure it will detract credibility rather than give it, so i will refrain. ive posted a few of the things ive experienced in other threads though.

quote:

Evidence cannot build up unless you establish an independent critical framework for evaluating that evidence! And since you postulate the scientific method may not be valid to apply to the unknown, and fail to offer any alternative framework save for "an open mind", then all we are left with is "anything is possible." Which can't be proven wrong, but is absolutely USELESS at getting to the bottom of anything. If anything is possible, then ghosts COULD be dead souls, sure. OR they COULD be figments of the imagination. OR they COULD be leprechauns playing tricks on us. OR they COULD be the spiritual essence of strong cheeses. It truly is entirely possible, right?

yes, it could be any of those. and i have certainly met cheeses that at least SEEM to have some sort of spiritual essence... if not a "demonic aura" hahah. either way, the explanation for these things does not change what is trying to be explained. that "thing" out there that we want within our understanding represents itself truthfully, but many believe it must be within their understanding to exist. and for our experienced "reality" that has some base. when you look in the mirror, do you need to know the "scientific" basis for "exactly" what is happening for it to exist? I do not offer explanations for such things, other than the fact they "are," on some level, "existant." our mind system is not necessarily in a position to judge what "is" and what "isnt." This is based on the thinking that if it can be questioned, it exists. what level it exists "on" is largely irrelevant, though that is for reasons we must all come to ourselves.

quote:

I'm sorry, but this is vague waffle. Beyond logic? What, you mean there is "TRUE", "FALSE" and "SOMETHING ELSE"? And within what, exactly?

YES, there is a true, a false, and the fact they define one another. You take away truth, nothing can be false. You take away the concept of false, then nothing can be conceptually true. within what? within our understanding. there is more out there that CANT be figured out by us, than things that CAN be figured out by us. Most of these things we do not even perceive as part of "reality," if at all. if you want "proof" of this, look at the ability of animals. in so many ways they experience things we could never imagine, simply because our senses and abilities are inherently limited (this, IMO, is by choice. once again i will defer to other posts i have made. basically, we choose what we experience, on many levels and at many points in "time"). A cheetah experiences what its like to run, of his own power, at great speeds. a snake experiences what it is like to "see" heat. we see these things as "lacking" in us, and we can build devices to perceive them. but it is simply not the same. the snake experiences that vision constantly, but when we look into a thermal camera, we view it as "different." We can see through other things experiences where we are limited, but only in comparison to other things. They are limited as well, and the things neither they nor we experience in our current senses and abilities, are great. logically, there is no logical way to go about experiencing those things unexperienced. logic is an excellent TOOL, but when it is used to define "reality" individually (and frequently individuals expect others to experience the same "reality"), it is limiting.

if you want a word for it, many call it "god." though i hesitate to explain it other than through vagueness. that is because words are so limiting, and this is something that is limitless and beyond concept.

really though, whats up with the food?

pudding...
cheese...
waffles...

i gotta eat!

Now i know this has got into a heated argument but can anyone throw light on these experiences:

Some houses throw bad vibes, sometimes emit a nasty smell - it seems to say, stay away.

Have you noticed this during house hunting? Other houses seem to smile and say welcome. Eerie but true, it is like the walls and empty spaces speak.

Oh definitely.. I've been to houses that made me nervous although I couldn't really understand why. But also, I think some houses just need to be lived in, especially if they haven't been lived in for many years.

I once visited this really old house in the Philippines (I forget the name of the town but it's an old heritage town). The family that I was travelling with were really freaked out because it had so much history. Didn't help that it also had giant mirrors on the walls and many old family photos scattered around. They ended up sharing the rooms because they were so spooked that I had a room to myself. I wasn't freaked out at all however. I personally felt that the house had a very friendly vibe. Slept really well those nights.

yes

I went on a Ghost Tour with a company that operates in the UK...it was an all night thing in the middle of winter at an old house...

It was amazing...we didn't see any apparitions as such but there was lots of moving shadows and noises being made that had to have come from "other wordly people"...

I would definitely do it again, and it wasn't expensive at all...

I would prefer it in the Winter as it tends to get darker here...

I don't believe in gods, devils, demons, angels, afterlife, ghosts, reincarnation, heaven, hell, ... I believe there's a logical explanation for everything and that the rest is just pure coincidence. So I refuse to believe that there's such things like ghosts. Being gothic myself, I'd love a 'haunted hostel' though

quote:

Originally posted by Dustyshoes:
Now i know this has got into a heated argument but can anyone throw light on these experiences:

Some houses throw bad vibes, sometimes emit a nasty smell - it seems to say, stay away.

i actually think it was quite a fun discussion, perspectives, you know?

every-thing is energy, and despite the common idea that things that arent breathing are totally without life, houses are an intelligent collection of molecules like the rest of us

from what ive run into, those vibes come from pretty much the same sources as people. you feel a bad vibe from a person, its usually because they want no contact with anyone. id say its the same with a house; it simply doesnt want to be lived in. Some houses like to scare, some love to welcome with open arms and acceptance. ah, the parallels and paradoxes of life, eh?

I was in this one house in maine when i was in my mid-teens, and i was just getting a very nasty, disconcerting vibe the entire time i was there. The people i was with (best friend and his little brother) were feeling the same thing too. The final straw was, i was taking a drink from a glass in the bathroom and decided to set the cup down (not abnormal). the second i set it down, it moved to the right ~two feet. I checked under the glass to see if it had been levitated by water, but no such luck. still no explanation, and still ranking number 2 on my list of places ill never go again. especially since my friends grandmother (whom we were staying with) was a royal bitch. she had expected us to work for her, all day every day doing absolutely -everything- she wanted. we were all under the impression that we were going on a vacation, and treated it thusly, haha. i thanked her for the housing though! may have been the house, may have been the occupant. either way...

I have experienced symptoms of a 'spirit' being near. For weeks, the door to my room opened by itself, turned by itself at night. things made sounds in the chimney. Everyone heard that. Then I unlocked a chest in the attic, since it was the only thing that had changed before the events happened. All stopped.

I forgot about this for a while. A friend of mine said he had the ability to call ghosts. I doubted him. He said he'd try. Next think you know, the temperature in our room dropped about 30 degrees, even under our covers. It was biarre, and I was glad when it was over.

Was it a ghost? No idea, but classic symptoms were displayed.