Kammer
|
Re: Basically
May 18, 2004, 09:33
|
Is that double post supposed to be funny FW?
:-)#
K x
|
Kammer
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 09:40
|
I'm saddened to hear all this talk about ghosts and the like. It's all a bit far fetched.
Why would humans or anything else leave a 'recording' of having been in a specific place? We're just meaningless blobs of water. All this talk of TV and cassette recorders is missing the point a bit (IMHO).
Why is it that people usually see ghosts of humans (or sometimes dogs and cats)? It's because that's the most fundamental thing our brain is wired to interpret. Like 'deja vu' we get it wrong sometimes, and we 'see' stuff that isn't there.
Anyone who's dropped acid (not that I'm condoning that sort of thing) would be able to describe some pretty vivid visual effects that were real enough to them.
K x
|
nigelswift
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 09:59
|
Having spent all my life thinking like Steve, and saying things like you say - "we're all meaningless blobs of water" I'm now having second thoughts and wondering if I entirely grasped the full meaning of the universe!
Our view is currently based on early twenty first century science which, on a longer view, is probably pitifully underdeveloped. I saw a TV programme about Time and String Theory. One speculation is that there may be as many as 34 dimensions. Disappearing farmers may have multiple exit strategies. I'm not saying I believe it, or don't, or that I understand it. Just that the logical standpoint, in an infinite universe, is extreme intellectual humbleness.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Basically
May 18, 2004, 10:17
|
|
My connection was lost and for some reason when it came back the page refreshed. Odd one innit. I personally found it very unlikely that 2 minutes had passed between the connex being lost and regaining it.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 10:20
|
"Like 'deja vu' we get it wrong sometimes, and we 'see' stuff that isn't there."
Isn't it there? Can you prove that or is that just a theory? Can you prove that we get it wrong? I don't know of a single scientist researching deja vu that can prove what causes it. There are some very valid theories, such as bypassing of short-term memory into long-term memory, but none of them can be proved.
|
Kammer
|
Re: Basically
May 18, 2004, 10:23
|
I thought you were being funny (what with the way things get recorded, and looped back).
;-)#
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 10:37
|
>> Why would humans or anything else leave a 'recording' of having been in a specific place? We're just meaningless
>> blobs of water. All this talk of TV and cassette recorders is missing the point a bit (IMHO).
It depends upon your interpretation of 'ghosts'. If you think of them as being the spirit of a dead person come back to haunt you then I agree that the term is tosh. If you look at a TV picture and realise that what you are seeing is a projection of something that is no longer there and no longer exists then what you are seeing is a 'ghost' of what you are being shown. It is not missing the point but making it entirely in this context.
We are not just blobs of meaningless water though are we. We are very sophisticated electrical devices - as is all life. We are powered and controlled with electricity. If something electrical passes through a magnetic of electrical field it will cause a reaction. Why people and cats/dogs? perhaps they have sufficient electrical pattern to cause the recording to happen.
>> Anyone who's dropped acid (not that I'm condoning that sort of thing) would be able to describe some pretty
>> vivid visual effects that were real enough to them.
Been there, done that, tie-dyed the t-shirt and I would heartily recommend it to anyone to which it would cause no medical harm :-)
I am in no way saying that I believe any of this to be true. <b>I do know that I can not catagorically say that it is not true though</b>. Having realised that some forms of dowsing have a good scientific basis, which 30 years ago woud not have been available to me (please ignore that I would only have been 6 years old :-), I feel I can't just dismiss an idea on the grounds that I can't see a scientific explanation. One day a solid explanation will come along that will prove or disprove it. Until then I will look at everything, but will still react to anyone saying that something is fact based on a few observations and a desire to sell a book :-)
|
Kammer
|
I know I'm right
May 18, 2004, 10:37
|
I take your point FW, and yes 'reality' is a slippery beast, but you'd have to agree that your farmer chappy was absent from the physical world when you got to the place where you'd 'seen' him.
If he wasn't physical (i.e. an object that's tangible to the human senses or measurable with some sort of fancy device used by scientists) then he was either,
a) An illusion
b) Something that we can't yet measure
I know I'm going over old ground here, but bear with me.
If it was (a) then you were just misinterpreting stimulus to your brain. Not surprising really, in an environment that is so devoid of people. Seems pretty normal to me.
If it was (b) then 'nature' or 'physics' have something up their sleeve which we don't know about. In itself not unlikely, but, why a person? Why not a fish (presumably the location you were in was at some stage under water)? Why not a tree, or a spider or a sabre toothed tiger (nobody ever sees ghosts of sabre toothed tigers)? Don't you think it's weird that most people who have encountered this type of thing have seen a person?
This all makes me think that (a) is by far the most likely.
K x
PS. I'm Simon, not Steve (not that it matters Neil).
;-)#
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Basically
May 18, 2004, 10:38
|
If only I was that clever ....
:-)
|
Kammer
|
OK, so I'm only 99% right.
May 18, 2004, 10:41
|
Dowsing - Yes, that actually works, and it's electromagnetic. But it's a long way from holographic projections of people from the past. Dowsing happens in real time (except the Ley Line type which is bollox).
I love cynicism!
:-)#
K x
|
