Paranormal stuff

[Bothnia Minor]

I wasn't saying that, I was saying that "we don't" or "possibly can't" was stupid

We don't live in a world where there are supernatural paranormal events. We live in a world that can (either at present or in the future assuming we don't blow ourselves up first) be explained scientifically. That doesn't mean there aren't mysteries.

EDIT: yup

[Demen]

Spirits, for one yes.

What is a "spirit"?

Why do you feel so inclined to destroy their beliefs?


Keep your damned opinons to your self. I don't believe in ghosts either, but that certainly isn't a sophisticated attitude.

[Farnhamia]

So one person says that rutabagas taste good and other people say liver is delicious, some people swear up and down that roses smell nice and others are sure that marijuana smells terrible... I can't agree on any of those things.

I'm not able to experience those tastes or smells from the other people's perspective. Their brain is supposedly (if materialist empiricism is correct) receiving the same information that my brain ought to receive when I place the appropriate liver particles on my same sense receptor/ input device/ my tongue. The fact that we don't seem to be experiencing the same taste makes me wonder whether what I see as blue is experienced the same way as anybody else seeing that color. Sure, there may be a light wave length that we've agreed on as being blue but I don't actually know what that looks like to you. Other animals (i.e. Platypus) are able to sense electromagnetic changes (and induction in those fields) from moving items. As we don't have a sense receptor for that, they receive the information in a way that as humans we can't really comprehend experiencing...

The question then is, are we actually experiencing the same world at the same time at all (person to person, never mind person to platypus) or do we just have enough similarities in our "worlds" that we can agree on a fairly wide range of things? Because if the second option is the case (which it may or may not be) it may be possible that paranormal activities are absent in one person's "world" and yet in another person's these paranormal activities may be normal...

Yes I realize that this was a nearly meaningless comment/ everybody has wondered about that from time to time and it doesn't prove or disprove anything at all...

You do experience the same taste. The other guy just likes it, whereas you don't. That doesn't make the taste different. The platypus, the electric eel, the pit viper, all with their differently configured sensoria, don't experience a different world than we do, they experience different aspects of the same world we all inhabit. Perhaps we can't comprehend experiencing those aspects first hand, with "built-in" equipment, but nowadays, with technology, I daresay we could construct a very decent facsimile.

[Farnhamia]

What is a "spirit"?

Why do you feel so inclined to destroy their beliefs?


Keep your damned opinons to your self. I don't believe in ghosts either, but that certainly isn't a sophisticated attitude.

Why? It's not unreasonable to ask what a person means when they say "spirit."

[Demen]

Why do you feel so inclined to destroy their beliefs?


Keep your damned opinons to your self. I don't believe in ghosts either, but that certainly isn't a sophisticated attitude.

Why? It's not unreasonable to ask what a person means when they say "spirit."

I do hereby curse the quote button and all entitled to it...



I actually was referring to all of his posts in the beginning, which most basically belittled their beliefs.

[Dakini]

We don't live in a world where there are supernatural paranormal events. We live in a world that can (either at present or in the future assuming we don't blow ourselves up first) be explained scientifically. That doesn't mean there aren't mysteries.

EDIT: yup

So you're in agreement that there are no paranormal or supernatural phenomena and nothing that can't eventually be explained by natural means?

[Farnhamia]

Why? It's not unreasonable to ask what a person means when they say "spirit."

I do hereby curse the quote button and all entitled to it...



I actually was referring to all of his posts in the beginning, which most basically belittled their beliefs.

Ah. Well, you may hold your own beliefs but you are not automatically entitled to respect for them from others. I don't know that UT was being impolite.

[Bothnia Minor]

EDIT: yup

So you're in agreement that there are no paranormal or supernatural phenomena and nothing that can't eventually be explained by natural means?

ALRIGHT, I believe that there are paranormal (as in presently unexplainable) things that DO and CAN occur, I do believe they can be explained scientifically (whether now or later) I will say I believe that "spirits" are more than just some type of force or person in a bedsheet but something more than that =mystery that can or possibly will be explained either now or later.

[Dakini]

So you're in agreement that there are no paranormal or supernatural phenomena and nothing that can't eventually be explained by natural means?

ALRIGHT, I believe that there are paranormal (as in presently unexplainable) things that DO and CAN occur, I do believe they can be explained scientifically (whether now or later) I will say I believe that "spirits" are more than just some type of force or person in a bedsheet but something more than that =mystery that can or possibly will be explained either now or later.

I'm not sure what you mean by spirits being "more than just some type of force"?

[Bothnia Minor]

ALRIGHT, I believe that there are paranormal (as in presently unexplainable) things that DO and CAN occur, I do believe they can be explained scientifically (whether now or later) I will say I believe that "spirits" are more than just some type of force or person in a bedsheet but something more than that =mystery that can or possibly will be explained either now or later.

I'm not sure what you mean by spirits being "more than just some type of force"?

I was going to say energy, but I wasn't for sure if that would be correct.

EDIT: thats what they say they're made of right? And when I say that I mean just something that goes bump in the night, lurks around, kiddy ghost story type stuff.

[Shnercropolis]

No I don't believe in anything paranormal.

^this^

[Dakini]

I'm not sure what you mean by spirits being "more than just some type of force"?

I was going to say energy, but I wasn't for sure if that would be correct.

EDIT: thats what they say they're made of right?

How should I know? I don't believe in spirits. There isn't any actual evidence for them, just people shaking cameras with bogus instruments and spooky lighting. It probably depends who you ask on that though. Paranormal "researchers" tend to have inconsistent opinions on these sorts of things.

[Unhealthy2]

So one person says that rutabagas taste good and other people say liver is delicious, some people swear up and down that roses smell nice and others are sure that marijuana smells terrible... I can't agree on any of those things.

I'm not able to experience those tastes or smells from the other people's perspective. Their brain is supposedly (if materialist empiricism is correct) receiving the same information that my brain ought to receive when I place the appropriate liver particles on my same sense receptor/ input device/ my tongue. The fact that we don't seem to be experiencing the same taste makes me wonder whether what I see as blue is experienced the same way as anybody else seeing that color. Sure, there may be a light wave length that we've agreed on as being blue but I don't actually know what that looks like to you. Other animals (i.e. Platypus) are able to sense electromagnetic changes (and induction in those fields) from moving items. As we don't have a sense receptor for that, they receive the information in a way that as humans we can't really comprehend experiencing...

The question then is, are we actually experiencing the same world at the same time at all (person to person, never mind person to platypus) or do we just have enough similarities in our "worlds" that we can agree on a fairly wide range of things? Because if the second option is the case (which it may or may not be) it may be possible that paranormal activities are absent in one person's "world" and yet in another person's these paranormal activities may be normal...

Yes I realize that this was a nearly meaningless comment/ everybody has wondered about that from time to time and it doesn't prove or disprove anything at all...

Ludwig Wittgenstein has written and talked extensively about this issue of "not feeling other's pain." His answer is very complex and very interesting. I suggest you read about Wittgenstein's "private language argument," and also read about "Wittgenstein and solipsism."

You may come to find, after reading this and many other things from him, that many so-called "unsolvable" philosophical problems actually arise from a misuse of language. It's quite liberating to realize that many "unanswered" and "unanswerable" questions have no answer because they don't necessarily make sense to begin with.

[Venti Americanos]

So one person says that rutabagas taste good and other people say liver is delicious, some people swear up and down that roses smell nice and others are sure that marijuana smells terrible... I can't agree on any of those things.

I'm not able to experience those tastes or smells from the other people's perspective. Their brain is supposedly (if materialist empiricism is correct) receiving the same information that my brain ought to receive when I place the appropriate liver particles on my same sense receptor/ input device/ my tongue. The fact that we don't seem to be experiencing the same taste makes me wonder whether what I see as blue is experienced the same way as anybody else seeing that color. Sure, there may be a light wave length that we've agreed on as being blue but I don't actually know what that looks like to you. Other animals (i.e. Platypus) are able to sense electromagnetic changes (and induction in those fields) from moving items. As we don't have a sense receptor for that, they receive the information in a way that as humans we can't really comprehend experiencing...

The question then is, are we actually experiencing the same world at the same time at all (person to person, never mind person to platypus) or do we just have enough similarities in our "worlds" that we can agree on a fairly wide range of things? Because if the second option is the case (which it may or may not be) it may be possible that paranormal activities are absent in one person's "world" and yet in another person's these paranormal activities may be normal...

Yes I realize that this was a nearly meaningless comment/ everybody has wondered about that from time to time and it doesn't prove or disprove anything at all...

You do experience the same taste. The other guy just likes it, whereas you don't. That doesn't make the taste different. The platypus, the electric eel, the pit viper, all with their differently configured sensoria, don't experience a different world than we do, they experience different aspects of the same world we all inhabit. Perhaps we can't comprehend experiencing those aspects first hand, with "built-in" equipment, but nowadays, with technology, I daresay we could construct a very decent facsimile.

You're correct about preference not necessarily demonstrating difference. We don't know for certain whether it's just preference or the actual experience that's different though. We are both human, have the same nutritional requirements and roughly the same size and number of taste-buds so, aside from specific personal trauma what reason is there for different preferences? Again, I wouldn't say that proves anything at all... and now we're getting far away from the topic of paranormal stuff.

As for the sensory facsimile we are still receiving the information through our own senses and can only really guess. It still doesn't mean that we actually live in different worlds it's just an idea/ kind of a very simple thought experiment. People are so hung up on their science and education that they don't realize that those things are based on certain philosophical systems (and not always the same systems, as I hinted at in an extremely long blurb yesterday) and largely because of that they aren't able to comprehend any other options... Meanwhile debates continue within the philosophic circles on which the sciences base their assertion of positively "knowing".

I don't really believe in the paranormal but that's my opinion and I couldn't really argue against it without being satisfied that I'm definitely experiencing the same world in the same way as the person reporting it.

[Bothnia Minor]

I was going to say energy, but I wasn't for sure if that would be correct.

EDIT: thats what they say they're made of right?

How should I know? I don't believe in spirits. There isn't any actual evidence for them, just people shaking cameras with bogus instruments and spooky lighting. It probably depends who you ask on that though. Paranormal "researchers" tend to have inconsistent opinions on these sorts of things.

I see, I'm just saying I think their more than just the typical "ghost" but they're something much more complex (if they exist)

[Venti Americanos]

Ludwig Wittgenstein has written and talked extensively about this issue of "not feeling other's pain." His answer is very complex and very interesting. I suggest you read about Wittgenstein's "private language argument," and also read about "Wittgenstein and solipsism."

You may come to find, after reading this and many other things from him, that many so-called "unsolvable" philosophical problems actually arise from a misuse of language. It's quite liberating to realize that many "unanswered" and "unanswerable" questions have no answer because they don't necessarily make sense to begin with.

I've read some Wittgenstein, it's not bad and I didn't say that the problems aren't solvable at all. Wittgenstein isn't exactly the last word on the subject either though, as I mention debates continue and positivist esp. logical positivist views have often been rejected since. Plus let's face it the guy drove himself completely mad. (not that being mad is bad)

[Unhealthy2]

I was going to say energy, but I wasn't for sure if that would be correct.

EDIT: thats what they say they're made of right? And when I say that I mean just something that goes bump in the night, lurks around, kiddy ghost story type stuff.

The problem with the word "energy" is that almost everyone uses it wrong, and yes, many physicists trying to popularize relativity are somewhat to blame.

"Energy" is not a substance. It's not a "thing." It's of a class of physical quantities called "state functions," because it tells you something about the state of a system. Energy is just the quantity of work that a system is capable of doing.

Let's explain:

1. Sound is not energy. Sound is compressions and rarefactions in the air. Sound is longitudinal pressure waves in a medium. However, that's not energy. Sound is not energy. Rather, sound HAS energy.

2. Light is not energy. Light is transverse (ignore TE and TM waves) periodic oscillations in perpendicular electric and magnetic fields. It is not energy, it HAS energy.

3. Matter is not energy. Matter, even matter at rest, HAS energy due to its mass. However, mass is also not energy. Mass is the inertia of a system when it's at rest* (remember that the inertia of a system increases as the velocity of the system increases). Mass is not energy. Rather, mass and energy are proportional. Increase the internal energy of a system, and its mass goes up. Increase the total mass of a system, and you increase its total energy.

4. Heat actually is energy. It is the thermal energy transferred from one body to another.

I hope this clears things up.

*In modern parlance, we use the word "mass" the same way the term "rest mass" used to be used. Now the mass refers to the inertia of the system when it's at rest.

[Unhealthy2]

I've read some Wittgenstein, it's not bad and I didn't say that the problems aren't solvable at all. Wittgenstein isn't exactly the last word on the subject either though, as I mention debates continue and positivist esp. logical positivist views have often been rejected since. Plus let's face it the guy drove himself completely mad. (not that being mad is bad)

I wouldn't call Wittgenstein a positivist. I wouldn't even call the Tractatus a positivist tome. It was influential on the positivists, but it had some important areas of disagreement with them.

I mostly agree with Wittgenstein's Tractatus, although I've somewhat modified the overall terminology and structure, and I'm definitely not a logical positivist.

[Venti Americanos]

I've read some Wittgenstein, it's not bad and I didn't say that the problems aren't solvable at all. Wittgenstein isn't exactly the last word on the subject either though, as I mention debates continue and positivist esp. logical positivist views have often been rejected since. Plus let's face it the guy drove himself completely mad. (not that being mad is bad)

I wouldn't call Wittgenstein a positivist. I wouldn't even call the Tractatus a positivist tome. It was influential on the positivists, but it had some important areas of disagreement with them.

I mostly agree with Wittgenstein's Tractatus, although I've somewhat modified the overall terminology and structure, and I'm definitely not a logical positivist.

That's fair - he wasn't a true positivist.
Nice sum up on "energy" btw - I was going to tackle it but have trouble not being evil... especially in such a delicious thread

[Unhealthy2]

That's fair - he wasn't a true positivist.

What people don't realize is that when he called things like "philosophy"* and mathematics "nonsense," he was speaking in very technical terms. He was most emphatically NOT saying that they are a waste of time, or that nothing true or important comes of them. Rather, he was saying that they were senseless in that they lacked "sense."

"Sense" is that aspect of a factual claim that allows it to point to specifics about reality (he's using the word "sense" like the way a vector has a "sense"). Since mathematical theorems are true in a tautological sense, they are necessarily true by virtue of their own structure, and so they don't actually constrain the possible realities whatsoever. It's ALWAYS the case that 2 + 2 = 4 (under the standard algebra). It's true regardless of what the universe looks like, so stating it doesn't actually say anything about the state of the world (i.e. it doesn't "point" to any specifics about reality and therefore doesn't have a "sense).

The only real statements that are without any meaning are those statements which cannot have either truth or falsehood assigned to them for various reasons. These are where many "philosophical" problems reside. Realizing that such questions aren't coherent is a big relief. Of course, it's still worthwhile to study these statements so that you know what to avoid wasting time contemplating.

*Keep in mind Wittgenstein had a very restricted definition of "philosophy." Things like whether absolute time exists, or what the implications of quantum mechanics are, or how to behave properly in this world would not be things that Wittgenstein would label as "philosophy."

Nice sum up on "energy" btw - I was going to tackle it but have trouble not being evil... especially in such a delicious thread

Thanks.

[Venti Americanos]

That's fair - he wasn't a true positivist.

What people don't realize is that when he called things like "philosophy"* and mathematics "nonsense," he was speaking in very technical terms. He was most emphatically NOT saying that they are a waste of time, or that nothing true or important comes of them. Rather, he was saying that they were senseless in that they lacked "sense."

"Sense" is that aspect of a factual claim that allows it to point to specifics about reality (he's using the word "sense" like the way a vector has a "sense"). Since mathematical theorems are true in a tautological sense, they are necessarily true by virtue of their own structure, and so they don't actually constrain the possible realities whatsoever. It's ALWAYS the case that 2 + 2 = 4 (under the standard algebra). It's true regardless of what the universe looks like, so stating it doesn't actually say anything about the state of the world (i.e. it doesn't "point" to any specifics about reality and therefore doesn't have a "sense).

The only real statements that are without any meaning are those statements which cannot have either truth or falsehood assigned to them for various reasons. These are where many "philosophical" problems arise. Realizing that such questions aren't coherent is a big relief. Of course, it's eve worthwhile to study these statements so that you know what to avoid wasting time contemplating.

*Keep in mind Wittgenstein had a very restricted definition of "philosophy." Things like whether absolute time exists, or what the implications of quantum mechanics are, or how to behave properly in this world would not be things that Wittgenstein would label as "philosophy."

Nice sum up on "energy" btw - I was going to tackle it but have trouble not being evil... especially in such a delicious thread

Thanks.

OK - I don't actually agree that 2+2=4 invariably except when explained as tautology based on the collection of nonspecific items as you basically said (which hints at unrecognized idealism in conflict with materialism but being used to support it nonetheless). The tautological phrase explaining it may not be correct/ the words and structure may not be completely incorporated (I mentioned at one point that for the numbers to be used as representations of the material world, certain concessions must be made and depending on the limits of those concessions 2+2 could actually yield a wide range of results in either phrase or function).

I do consider ethics etc. to fall under the category of philosophy by definition, in that whether provable or not, the idea of wisdom may be involved... but he was much more specific.

And now that I've completely driven off the topic I'll shut up. Thanks (but damn you - now I have to read the tractatus).

[Unhealthy2]

now I have to read the tractatus.

I don't recommend it. It's the most dry book I've ever read, next to Madame Bovary.

I have a thread on Wittgenstein. We could talk there, moving this discussion over.

[The Archregimancy]

You and Arch are the only two exceptions to my 'No funny stuff' rule about the paranormal.

Wouldn't want to upset Thrungor the Magnificent, Hoarder of Souls, or you.

Yeah, gotta keep Thrungor happy. Me, I'm easy to keep happy. Don't make sweeping generalizations and always, always put discussion material in your OP. Do that and we shall be friends.

For Thrungor is swift to anger!

Actually, I've calmed down a lot over the last few thousand years, but never forget that among my titles now is "Thrungor the Magnificent, Hoarder of Souls, Wielder of Warn Tags".

You might be surprised to learn that the Varangian Guard gave me the latter alliteratively Scandinavian title; it's not mod related. It's a long story involving Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and an incident when we were erecting his column in the hippodrome - and you thought health and safety was a modern phenomenon....

[Farnhamia]

Yeah, gotta keep Thrungor happy. Me, I'm easy to keep happy. Don't make sweeping generalizations and always, always put discussion material in your OP. Do that and we shall be friends.

For Thrungor is swift to anger!

Actually, I've calmed down a lot over the last few thousand years, but never forget that among my titles now is "Thrungor the Magnificent, Hoarder of Souls, Wielder of Warn Tags".

You might be surprised to learn that the Varangian Guard gave me the latter alliteratively Scandinavian title; it's not mod related. It's a long story involving Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus and an incident when we were erecting his column in the hippodrome - and you thought health and safety was a modern phenomenon....

Erecting the column of the Emperor in the hippodrome? You actually typed that with a straight face, Arch? And how did you get Constantine out of his library to the hippodrome, anyway?

[Volnotova]

I wasn't saying that, I was saying that "we don't" or "possibly can't" was stupid

We don't live in a world where there are supernatural paranormal events. We live in a world that can (either at present or in the future assuming we don't blow ourselves up first) be explained scientifically. That doesn't mean there aren't mysteries.

No so fast, we do not know everything about the universe yet, and if something is an unexplainable mystery then it would be foolish to say that it is not supernatural, how odd it may seem; as saying that would imply that you possess knowledge about the said thing which would mean it would not be a mystery.