Kozmik_Ken
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 10:42
|
I'm sure that there's plenty that we don't understand on earth and in the universe.
Now, I'm not saying that I believe in ghosts, UFOs or the like.... n' I like to see proof of something with my own eyes before I consider something even vaguely possible, but I think it's important that we don't allow our 21st century arrogance to convince us that we have all the answers. We think that because we have science, we have solved the riddles of the universe... but in reality, the more we discover, the less we realise we know.
I mean, farmers have set-aside subsidies.... so if they have worked out a way to be paid for not growing anything, it's not surprising that they may have figured out the afterlife too!!!
|
FourWinds
|
Re: I know I'm right
May 18, 2004, 10:45
|
"In itself not unlikely, but, why a person? Why not a fish (presumably the location you were in was at some stage under water)?"
If the mechanism does work by certain geological conditions such as a stream running below a fault-line or similar this would explain the absence of fish ghosts.
"Why not a tree, or a spider or a sabre toothed tiger (nobody ever sees ghosts of sabre toothed tigers)? "
The above would not however explain the absence of sabre-toothed tigers :-) A desperate man would grasp at some kind of 'life-time' for the recording to last. I think Lethbridge places the emplanting of such recorded images being triggered by strong emotion such as terror, overwhelming joy etc as being responsible. These strong emotions create certain patterns in brain activity which alter our magnetic field - people do say they can "sense" fear in someone. How? - and it is this change which is recorded. I reserve comment on that :-)
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 10:47
|
"I think it's important that we don't allow our 21st century arrogance to convince us that we have all the answers."
A great way of putting it. I've been very guilty of that in the past.
|
Steve Gray
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 11:48
|
"Suppose someone came to you with a device that appeared to react to something, but none of the scientific instruments known to you registered it. Would you accept its presence?"
What am I supposed to accept the presence of?
The device - yes, I can see it.
The reaction - yes, I can observe it.
The "something" - well, in order to observe a reaction as anything other than random I would also have to be able to make some observation or verification of the "somthing", so I don't really understand the question.
If we take dowsing as an example, I can see the reaction of the twig and if I can dig down and find water (or whatever) and if this happens with sufficent statistical significance then even though I don't undertand how it happens I have to accept the phenomenon as real.
|
FourWinds
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 12:15
|
"If we take dowsing as an example, I can see the reaction of the twig and if I can dig down and find water (or whatever) and if this happens with sufficent statistical significance then even though I don't undertand how it happens I have to accept the phenomenon as real."
That answers the (badly put) question.
|
Kammer
|
Re: I know I'm right
May 18, 2004, 12:33
|
Now you're saying sabre toothed tigers never got scared.
:-)#
|
Kammer
|
Re: Yes, but...
May 18, 2004, 12:43
|
The Victorians thought that they had reached the pinnacle of human achievement.
They were soooo arrogant. It's only now that we've reached the pinnacle of human achievement (silly Victorians).
I'm still not sold on the 'tape recording' theory though. I used to believe in ghosts, God, Jesus etc. Gradually I realised that it was largely bunk. The last thing to go (after Jesus then God) were the ghosts. First off I realised there *is* no after-life, so how can the dead return. That left me with the 'tape recording' theory, which is a lot more convincing than the argument for Jesus being divine, but a lot less convincing than my belief that smacking myself over the head with a blunt object will hurt.
I have to admit that freaky things do happen, but I always come back to the human brain as the likely culprit.
K x
|
cHARLIE
|
4 Winds......
May 18, 2004, 12:48
|
......... U are not alone I have seen such tings too ... and we are cosmic and strange ........ and something other than just fleshy organic beings!
Very interesting post there Thanks dudes and 4 winds fer having the balls to admit U saw summat a bit odd! I believe you saw what you saw dude.
(((yaLi)))
............now where did I hide those fecken micro dots back in 1989?
|
Kammer
|
Re: The weekend
May 18, 2004, 12:52
|
Went to see a standing stone that wasn't there.
:-(#
|
FourWinds
|
Re: I know I'm right
May 18, 2004, 13:02
|
No I ain't! and you know it :-)
What I was saying is that the engrams (is that the right word) produced when a sabre-toothed tiger is scared could be different to those of a human when scared. The effect may be different.
I find it all a bit far-fetched too, but I find myself needing to find some explanation for what I saw. If I'd caught a glimpse of something out of the corner of my eye then I would have dismissed it with ease. However, having watched the figure approach me for what must have been a minute or so I can not accept that it was any sort of 'trick of the light'.
I know I'll never really know, but you gotta admit this is one hell of an interesting thread :-)
|
