The Paranormal

[Serebii]

If we just ignored things without evidence, very few of the scientific theories that ended up with some of the great discoveries in the 20th and 21st century would have happened.

 

Ideas based on hunches are quite common...brilliance comes not from following the path, but from having an idea and THEN finding that it works.

 

You cannot dismiss things solely based on no evidence. Evidence against it? Sure. No evidence either way? No.

 

And as I said, what is perceived as ghosts, if real, may not be the souls of the deceased, but could be anything...extra dimensional beings, lizard people...anything.

[Diageo]

Well Paranormal, by definition says, something which can't be explained by science. This goes into magic and religion category, as well as things that we are not technologically advanced enough to understand. But if anything is visible to the naked human eye, then it should be able to be measured, reflect light, video recorded, etc.

[ReZourceman]

Thats the spirit!

[Diageo]

If we just ignored things without evidence, very few of the scientific theories that ended up with some of the great discoveries in the 20th and 21st century would have happened.

 

Ideas based on hunches are quite common...brilliance comes not from following the path, but from having an idea and THEN finding that it works.

 

You cannot dismiss things solely based on no evidence. Evidence against it? Sure. No evidence either way? No.

 

And as I said, what is perceived as ghosts, if real, may not be the souls of the deceased, but could be anything...extra dimensional beings, lizard people...anything.

There is evidence against it. We know people have delusions, hallucinate and attribute anything weird they see as paranormal.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

And as I said, what is perceived as ghosts, if real, may not be the souls of the deceased, but could be anything...extra dimensional beings, lizard people...anything.

 

The question is: Are any of the theories we have plausible? Or is it more plausible that we are dealing with misinterpretations due to our brains having been exposed to so many stories about the paranormal?

[heroicjanitor]

Yes but have you seen what these spirits are doing? Messing with pots and pans and slamming doors and making spooky noises. There is no way an interdimensional being came all the way here just to do that.

[Serebii]

There is evidence against it. We know people have delusions, hallucinate and attribute anything weird they see as paranormal.

That's not evidence. That is what is classed as circumstancial evidence and should not be admissable

 

Without figures (I'm too lazy to check), let's assume that the majority of the people who see ghosts suffer various hallucinations. Could that be the cause of the visions? Perhaps. Or, could it be that they have a mutation in the brain that allows them to see into another dimension and see beings inhabiting that dimension that runs in conjunction with ours

 

Yes but have you seen what these spirits are doing? Messing with pots and pans and slamming doors and making spooky noises. There is no way an interdimensional being came all the way here just to do that.

Or is there?

 

I'm sure rats would say that about the giants that suddenly place them in mazes

[Diageo]

An undetected mutation in our brain that changes the structure of our eyes to allow us to see into other dimensions, only at very specific times?

 

Clearly what is more plausible, said mutation, or that these people were hallucinating?

[Serebii]

We know so little about how the brain works. You can't just dismiss it.

[Diageo]

Yes but we know how our eye works, and no mutation has ever been found.

[Serebii]

Yes but we know how our eye works, and no mutation has ever been found.

The eyes aren't what cause hallucinations. The brain is. Any and all hallucinations are usually classed as a chemical imbalance in the brain.

 

If, and I stress the word if, the things people class as ghosts aren't ghosts but are things inhabiting another dimension, it is highly possible that a chemical imbalance in the brain could allow for the ability to see things beyond the current visual spectrum in the human eye.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

We know so little about how the brain works. You can't just dismiss it.

 

Also: Why should we even entertain the notion to begin with? Let's imagine for a moment that ghost stories and the like didn't exist. Would we even begin to look for out-of-the-ordinary explanations for whatever experiences people might have? Would we even think of them as paranormal experiences?

[Diageo]

The eye can't give a signal to the brain to see into other dimensions. We know the capabilities and frequency of light involved. Cones and rods accept and code light of only a certain frequency.

 

And if they could accept light of a different frequency, then it would show up in the eye.

 

Also: Why should we even entertain the notion to begin with? Let's imagine for a moment that ghost stories and the like didn't exist. Would we even begin to look for out-of-the-ordinary explanations for whatever experiences people might have? Would we even think of them as paranormal experiences?

Of course we wouldn't.

[Serebii]

The eye can't give a signal to the brain to see into other dimensions. We know the capabilities and frequency of light involved. Cones and rods accept and code light of only a certain frequency.

 

And if they could accept light of a different frequency, then it would show up in the eye.

 

 

Of course we wouldn't.

While we know a lot of how the eye works, we don't know completely what it can take in. How would we know if it can take in visual evidence of particles from another dimension? Or if the molecules they're made of are phased 180 degrees out of our normal visual spectrum.

 

All we can tell is what the eye can take in based on what we know, not all of what it can and cannot without being able to test.

[Diageo]

In humans, there are three types of cones, maximally sensitive to long-wavelength, medium-wavelength, and short-wavelength light. There is no evidence of any other wavelengths that we are able to pick up. If you say that we could have something there to see into other dimensions is on the same vein as ghosts in the first place. Sure we could have anything in our eyes or even noses, maybe the air transcribes light differently in different places in the universe. All these random theories have no evidence behind them, no plausibility, so we are back to the same argument in the first place.

 

The most plausible conclusion is that all ghost sightings are either hallucinations or lack of understanding. Which is what we do with science, go for the most plausible conclusion.

 

For all we know there could be a witch making these appear to mess with our heads, there is no evidence against that either, so does that mean we should even consider the theory. Of course not.

[Serebii]

There is no evidence of any other wavelengths that we are able to pick up.

 

You just proved my point with this.

 

We have no way to know with our current level of knowledge. All I'm saying is that it is possible. Open your mind up. Stop taking everything we "know" as absolute fact. Science, understanding, pretty much everything cannot advance if we just take everything people state through observations and tests as PURE fact. There are loads of mitigating factors. This is why most scientific theories end up being classed as true and then disproven within 50 years.

[Diageo]

I am very willing to change my perception of fact, when I am given a reason to do so. But you have not. You just say, it could be there. I'm not going to believe everything that could be there. That's too many things.

[Serebii]

I'm a scientist. My entire philosophy is to question and to think "What if?" To think of the possibilities and how they may or may not be possible.

 

However, dismissing the possibility that things may not be as you have taught is foolish.

[Diageo]

Yes but there are too many what if's, and there are many more plausible and useful what ifs.

 

I have recognised the fact that ghosts might exist, I've said it many times. I'm am telling you there is no point, because you are not going to take the time to look through all of them, so why not look at the more plausible ones instead?

 

And it's "thought", Mr Scientist. :p

 

Out of curiousity, what part of science are you in?

[Serebii]

I'm not a practicing scientist. I'm a Pokémon webmaster, remember. However, I've always been adept at physics and I keep watch on all the happenings on it. I'd love to be properly in the field doing stuff, but I fucked up stuff at GCSE level and went on a diploma instead of A levels and I'm, frankly, too lazy to go back and fix that.

 

Anyway, I was just saying that there are plausible explanations for these things that would explain them as being real as opposed to figments of other people's minds.

[Diageo]

If you say gullible out loud slow enough, it looks like you're saying 'elephant.'

 

P.S. This thread is where I go when I'm feeling sad and need a laugh.

 

We are alike in this way.

I hope you're not laughing at me.

 

 

Anyway Serebii, let's look at it this way.

Let's suppose a man hears voices and sees a ghost, and the ghost tells him to kill someone, so he goes and does it. He is arrested and put to trial.

You are the judge, he has confessed of the murder and says a ghost told him to do it. What would you do?

A) Send him to prison, he is lying.

B) Send him to a mental institution, where he may be cured of his mental disorder.

C) Take his vision as plausible and either let him free, or take him into a laboratory setting where you can research his claims further.

 

What would you realistically do?

[Ramar]

I hope you're not laughing at me.

 

 

Anyway Serebii, let's look at it this way.

Let's suppose a man hears voices and sees a ghost, and the ghost tells him to kill someone, so he goes and does it. He is arrested and put to trial.

You are the judge, he has confessed of the murder and says a ghost told him to do it. What would you do?

A) Send him to prison, he is lying.

B) Send him to a mental institution, where he may be cured of his mental disorder.

C) Take his vision as plausible and either let him free, or take him into a laboratory setting where you can research his claims further.

 

What would you realistically do?

 

Send him down for murder. Pretty obvious outcome.

[Diageo]

Do you mean send him to prison, or is this some sort of clever quip I'm not getting.

[Grazza]

Quite simply, a crime's a crime. He's demonstrated a level of insanity/evil by killing someone, not by claiming to see a ghost.

[Diageo]

But what if the ghost used his power to move objects, as they appear to have to scare people, to push the man into killing the other person?