Science Vs Paranormality

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Any more believers willing to argue against my point, I'm yet to defend it to a genuine excuse thus far?

I cant really make out the difference between what you were suggesting and oen was saying with this:

I was mearly stating that belief in religion is much the same as belief in the paranormal

the same reply should suit both?:

paranormal and religion arent and shouldnt be linked considering we as yet a) dont know if 'hte paranormal' is anything more than imagination and b) if it is actually real then theres as much chance (if not a much better chance) the paranormal is a mixture of natural occurences we as yet dont understand.

... so i think we're still at square 1. plus also consider many believe in the paranormal due to a personal experience of some kind. the religious equivilant of such a personal experience would be if jebus popped down and threw a few miracles around the place in person. belief in one isnt anything like belief in the other imo

without the realms of science, it cannot be analysed, and can only be treated with the same respect as the Toothfairy

no - it means its currently outside the realms of science - just like certain parts of modern day science were 100 years ago (back to that 'learning' thing that science is so fond of doing). You are making the assumption that it "can only be treated with the same respect as the Toothfairy" and thats all it is - your assumption Im afraid.

fokker

That is a little narrow minded. We, through evolution have enough cognitive ability to comprehend complex phenomena in reality. In a sense, you are correct in that a Law is simply "Words"...which describe a meaning of reality in a general sense. Nonetheless these words hold true. Just because we concluded the meaning from our head, doesn't mean there's anything beyond this. We are intelligent enough beings to know in the 21st Century what holds true and what doesn't. These "Laws" are simply a precise description of nature, and by the way, Laws are always mathematical models (Thus the Theory of Evolution can never become a Law), therefore regardless of experiments, the maths adds up, and complex maths as well. Computers can now generate such calculations at phenomenal speeds using these laws. So yes, the laws are what we generated from our intellect through natural selection, but that doesn't demean them in the slightest, what they stand for holds true.

I am narrowminded because i dont agree with your assumption that everything is ruled by some rules? I think you are the narrowminded here, thinking that all is just a mathematical model. Computers do what they are programmed to do, they cant proof anything at all. Programmed as an extension of certain theories, they ofcourse will produce results within the limits of these theories. And therefore cant be used to say anything outside these limits. Wether they exist or not.

Mathematical models are symbolic descriptions, they are no reality on themselves, and certainly never meant as such.

How can you be sure that the universe obeys laws at all, and if so, that these laws are the only laws and on top of that can be known to us humans? As I said before, mankind repeatedly through history was convinced to have found the truth, to have discovered the laws of the universe. The greeks, the alchemists, Newton, and now the new rationalists. (Still unanswered: how can it be that ppl who so much believe in ratio, get so emotiuonal when you doubt their fundamentalists view on things?)

You always demand proof for everything, where is your proof for this axioma? Because in your rational thinking, the absence of proof cant be put aside as 'sth which will be dealt with later', no, it is just absence of proof.

Speculations on ghosts are therefore just as much speculations as your opinion that there exist things like absolute laws.

Philosophers make a big deal out of every question. I don't take them seriously. The only truth in reality is Science based. The truths outside of this are what you could call "Moral Truths".

Science is a product of philosophy. Philosophy should prevent people to think they already know everything there is to know.

I mean that I'm humble in relation to reality and what we know about it, not paranormal idiocy.

These words themselves deny the necesary objectivity of science. So this is just an emotional and personal statement, nothing more

fokker

iamhunted wrote: »

thats probably the most open minded and true skeptic statement Ive read so far in the Skeptics Corner. And I agree with you totally.

Thank you.
But i am not a skeptic. At least not more towards paranormalities than towards a fundamenlist approach of science.

fokker

Lucas, lets get a little deeper in these scientific laws.
Do you agree with me that au fond these laws all are based on the principle of causality?
Like 'when A happens, it always causes B to happen'.
And that laws therefore define the relation between two happenings, expressed in space and time.

In case you dont agree fully on this, pls tell me how you see it.

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

the religious equivilant of such a personal experience would be if jebus popped down and threw a few miracles around the place in person. belief in one isnt anything like belief in the other imo

The reason I equate religion with paranormal is because both (at this point in time) are absent of evidence and require faith to believe in them. You have faith that paranormal activity exists in exactly the same was as you would with archangels of Jesus. They are not equatable on other levels of course, but on the belief in something with clear absence of evidence, while the "evidence" is based on second hand accounts, I believe puts them in the same category in certain respects.

fokker wrote: »

How can you be sure that the universe obeys laws at all, and if so, that these laws are the only laws and on top of that can be known to us humans? As I said before, mankind repeatedly through history was convinced to have found the truth, to have discovered the laws of the universe. The greeks, the alchemists, Newton, and now the new rationalists.

First of all, the people before the Greeks, like the Mesopotamians and Babylonians gathered through evidence based research some very good science. However the limits they came to were explained by a God or some other supernatural power. Now that we are becoming more and more rational in our approaches and there is less questions that paranormal/religious can hide behind, it's only a matter of time before we answer the ultimate questions. Rationalists today don't claim to find the truth, we claim that there is a rational explanation for everything that doesn't require the supernatural.

Like I said before, Laws are constructs of the human mind and our way of organizing the various principles of the Universe. But that is no way to demean them as untrue or anything of the kind. Through the laws that we have at the moment (bearing in mind what I defined Law as above) we can categorically say that the Universe COULD NOT have come into existence with an energy level greater than it began with. You suggest it can.

You also contradict yourself yet again. If there are "other levels of explanation" that our outside the human comprehension, we wouldn't be able to "tune into" them as you claim they are "outside" our mindset and conscious ability. You can't have it both ways! It's supernatural and unnatural.

(Still unanswered: how can it be that ppl who so much believe in ratio, get so emotiuonal when you doubt their fundamentalists view on things? Maybe you've had bad experiences but when I discuss this matter with people, I certainly don't get excited or emotional. I've yet to meet someone who had. Don't tar everyone with the same brush please.)

Speculations on ghosts are therefore just as much speculations as your opinion that there exist things like absolute laws.

Wrong. Speculations on Ghosts is as equal as a child's speculation in the truth to the Tooth Fairy. The Laws I can state, are true as proven by our advanced civilization that could only have grown if it were for these.

Science is a product of philosophy. Philosophy should prevent people to think they already know everything there is to know.

It may have been a product thousands of years ago. But now we have rational approaches to science which cannot be compared to philosophy. It's similar to the divergence of Pharmacy and Medicine which were considered 1 at one point, but diversified and couldn't possibly be compared at the moment.

fokker wrote: »

Lucas, lets get a little deeper in these scientific laws.
Do you agree with me that au fond these laws all are based on the principle of causality?
Like 'when A happens, it always causes B to happen'.
And that laws therefore define the relation between two happenings, expressed in space and time.

In case you dont agree fully on this, pls tell me how you see it.

I think you are referring to the methods by which certain principles are obtained. Don't forget that Laws are mathematical models and not purely experimental in a laboratory. If you take the Law of Conservation of Mass which I've referenced a myriad of times throughout this thread.

The Mass of a closed system will remain constant regardless of the processes which act inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be re-arranged.

Now I'm not a Physicist, so they would be able to explain this principle and its certainty better than me. However this is not a causality. It's a statement of mathematical proof, and derivations are the only things you cannot disprove, however you claim special knowledge in being able to do such a thing.

I'd like to know; what access to extra-sensory knowledge do you have that for some reason I cannot obtain? If you cannot answer this, on what basis do you claim such statements? Thus, is it a matter of faith i.e Absence of evidence, just a blind-faith attitude that it could exist and cannot be disproved.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

The reason I equate religion with paranormal is because both (at this point in time) are absent of evidence and require faith to believe in them.

belief and faith are needed all the time. to trust someone you have to have belief or faith in them. to think something is going to work you need to have a belief that it will or have faith in the fact it will. plus a lot of science is theoretical and some parts are hotly debated due to the absence of evidence. i agree with fokker in that you vison of what is and what isnt seems to be a tad limited by the technicalities of what science says you can see.

iamhunted

Wrong. Speculations on Ghosts is as equal as a child's speculation in the truth to the Tooth Fairy. The Laws I can state, are true as proven by our advanced civilization that could only have grown if it were for these.

Once more this is pure speculation on your part.

back to the learning thing again. 200 years ago electricity was the work of the devil. Im sure many scientists of the past have made statements like yours above on things that science eventually works out. From what I can gather, you dont seem to think science has the ability to learn - we know everything there is to know now as we are an 'advanced civilization' and therefore theres nothng more to discover. I disagree, as would most of science.

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

belief and faith are needed all the time. to trust someone you have to have belief or faith in them. to think something is going to work you need to have a belief that it will or have faith in the fact it will. plus a lot of science is theoretical and some parts are hotly debated due to the absence of evidence. i agree with fokker in that you vison of what is and what isnt seems to be a tad limited by the technicalities of what science says you can see.

Of course faith and trust are needed all the time -- however the examples you gave are REALITY examples, things we endure everyday on a regular basis. We are discussing the absence of evidence in relation to the unsupported Paranormal unlike the supported reality. Science doesn't have all the answers, but right now, I'm happy with what I know to make assumptions based on reality and not fantasy.

iamhunted wrote: »

back to the learning thing again. 200 years ago electricity was the work of the devil. Im sure many scientists of the past have made statements like yours above on things that science eventually works out. From what I can gather, you dont seem to think science has the ability to learn - we know everything there is to know now as we are an 'advanced civilization' and therefore theres nothng more to discover. I disagree, as would most of science.

Like I said above, we don't have all the answers, and science will show we probably never will - at least not in the foreseeable future. I'm glad we don't have the answers. I want to do a Ph.D and wouldn't be able to if we had all the answers

iamhunted

since we dont have all the answers, how can you be so certain the paranormal isnt going to be one of them?

Lucas10101

I'll ask you the same questions that I asked fokker above:

"I'd like to know; what access to extra-sensory knowledge do you have that for some reason I cannot obtain? If you cannot answer this, on what basis do you claim such statements? Thus, is it a matter of faith i.e Absence of evidence, just a blind-faith attitude that it could exist and cannot be disproved? Where did you get your original idea that the paranormal even exists...a second hand account?"

iamhunted

i have no extra sensory claims, and never have I made any. You seem to believe the parnormal is purely about mediums and psychics when it covers far more ranging issues.

For examples, heres an EVP we captured - listen for the laughter. Since i can say without doubt it wasnt one of the three people in the room at the time, where did the laughter come from? Is it a ghost? I cant say and I wouldnt say that it was, but its certainly something technically 'paranormal' as it couldnt have come from outside (due to its location) and didnt come from inside (plus no-one heard it at the time of recording either).

These are the kind of things we're trying to find answers to - not extra sensory perception.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Where did you get your original idea that the paranormal even exists...a second hand account?"

Youve hit the nail on the head there - if all you have is second hand accounts and no first hand experience then you'll have a hard time having a debate on the paranormal itself. For your information, i got my "original idea that the paranormal even exists" when i bought a house that was haunted and stayed haunted for a few years after until things were resolved. Long story that I wont go into as it was an experience for me but it'll only be a second hand account for anyone else.

Lucas10101

iamhunted wrote: »

i have no extra sensory claims, and never have I made any. You seem to believe the parnormal is purely about mediums and psychics when it covers far more ranging issues. I don't just mean psychics and mediums, I mean everything. But for some reason, I don't seem to have access to the wide range of knowledge believers seem to have.

For examples, heres an EVP we captured - listen for the laughter. Since i can say without doubt it wasnt one of the three people in the room at the time, where did the laughter come from? Is it a ghost? I cant say and I wouldnt say that it was, but its certainly something technically 'paranormal' as it couldnt have come from outside (due to its location) and didnt come from inside (plus no-one heard it at the time of recording either).

These are the kind of things we're trying to find answers to - not extra sensory perception.

Regarding your music file, did you only notice this sound during or after the event? If after, then most likely, there is a general explanation. If during, then it's simply because you're tuned in to every single sound...it was probably at night, something I never understood about the paranormal. ALWAYS AT NIGHT! And because you don't and NEVER will find the answer, the common route or escape route is to claim a paranormal cause. Why can't you claim "We can't explain what that noise is." rather than "It's paranormal." It's such a cop out way of explaining something given no proof has been found of paranormal activity.

iamhunted wrote: »

Youve hit the nail on the head there - if all you have is second hand accounts and no first hand experience then you'll have a hard time having a debate on the paranormal itself. For your information, i got my "original idea that the paranormal even exists" when i bought a house that was haunted and stayed haunted for a few years after until things were resolved. Long story that I wont go into as it was an experience for me but it'll only be a second hand account for anyone else.

Millions of people globally claim paranormal activity, yet we have no definitive videos or anything or defining imagery that wasn't forged. Strange.

fokker

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I think you are referring to the methods by which certain principles are obtained. Don't forget that Laws are mathematical models and not purely experimental in a laboratory. If you take the Law of Conservation of Mass which I've referenced a myriad of times throughout this thread.

The Mass of a closed system will remain constant regardless of the processes which act inside the system. An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created or destroyed, although it may be re-arranged.

Now I'm not a Physicist, so they would be able to explain this principle and its certainty better than me. However this is not a causality. It's a statement of mathematical proof, and derivations are the only things you cannot disprove, however you claim special knowledge in being able to do such a thing.

This absolutely is a causality. If you break a system in parts, the sum of its parts has the same weight as the total wight of the intact system, BECAUSE of that law, or better because of the notion that matter never gets lost of which that law is a way of putting it.

Btw, your example is not valid anymore since Einstein formulated the relation between energy and mass in E = mc².

And, talking of which, I am sure you know the theories of the multiple universes. Since a universe has a limited amount of particles in it, and therefore also a limited size, there must be many more universes.
Because space is endless, and the dispersion of matter in space is everywhere equal (also one of your laws).
So, given these theoretical facts, there MUST be a parallel universe somehwere, which is completely like ours. More than one even - but an infinite amount of identical universes. Because the amount of particles in our universe or hubble-space is very very big but NOT infinite, which means the number of possbible combinations is also NOT infinite. So sooner or later the same combination reoccurs.
Endless space - endless amounts of universes, with each a limited amount of particles.

Now thats a nice one

I'd like to know; what access to extra-sensory knowledge do you have that for some reason I cannot obtain? If you cannot answer this, on what basis do you claim such statements? Thus, is it a matter of faith i.e Absence of evidence, just a blind-faith attitude that it could exist and cannot be disproved.

Totally irrelevant for the discussion here

You are not prepared to believe ppl who claim to have such experiences. Why is that?
But you are prepared to accept crazy things like parallel worlds, which are so far away that it would take you millions of years traveling by the speed of light to reach the nearest one? Things which by definition never can be seen by mankind?

Now tell me, which of both (the multiple universe-theory or the paranormal claims of an individual) resembles most to a religious system?

Even a worse scenario for you might be the possibility that paranormal experiences might be a form of contact between these parallel realities; some models do in fact predict that parallel universes are around us in different dimensions, rather than millions of lightyears away.

This is what yous said yourself:

Lucas10101 wrote: »

The reason I equate religion with paranormal is because both (at this point in time) are absent of evidence and require faith to believe in them. You have faith that paranormal activity exists in exactly the same was as you would with archangels of Jesus.

You have faith that the laws exist. That is required to believe in systems of multiple universes. Because we totally cant imagine that, and will never be able to see it for real.

I dont mind this. I think this is all very interesting, and i absolutely am willing to accept the possibility that this might be true.
Which is exactly the same attitude as mine towards the paranormal.

Or maybe the paranormal is also based on some particles we dont know yet. The new ideas about the Higgins particle suggest that a lot more could be going on. It is a wonderful world we live in, it is unbelievable. much to beautiful to ridicule some ppl because their experiences dont fit your laws

We dont know it, we simply dont know it.

Read this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18825305.800
And this: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126905.100-immoral-advances-is-science-out-of-control.html -> do not play god

fokker

Back to earth

The observation is the basis of science. Science explains what we see, recognizes regularities, etc.
The observation stands above science. The observation is the source, science is from these observations deduced knowledge.

You use science to disqualify observations. That is completely the other way around. Just because science has been narrowed down to the reproducable predictable aspects of reality. Ofcourse that science cant say anything about observations different from that. Here the words of Nietzsche apply: 'one should not state on things one does not know anything about'.

fokker

iamhunted wrote: »

Youve hit the nail on the head there - if all you have is second hand accounts and no first hand experience then you'll have a hard time having a debate on the paranormal itself. For your information, i got my "original idea that the paranormal even exists" when i bought a house that was haunted and stayed haunted for a few years after until things were resolved. Long story that I wont go into as it was an experience for me but it'll only be a second hand account for anyone else.

Remarkable thing is, that when it comes to breaking down experiences like yours, the ratio-fundamentalists dont need any proof. They simply 'know' that what you heard or experienced were no ghosts or poltergeists, but whatever sounds or effects created by the house itself.

They must be paranormal themselves, to be able to say such things about ppl they never met, a house they never saw, etc.
Very unscientific

Lucas10101

...

fokker wrote: »

And, talking of which, I am sure you know the theories of the multiple universes. Since a universe has a limited amount of particles in it, and therefore also a limited size, there must be many more universes.
Because space is endless, and the dispersion of matter in space is everywhere equal (also one of your laws).
So, given these theoretical facts, there MUST be a parallel universe somehwere, which is completely like ours. More than one even - but an infinite amount of identical universes. Because the amount of particles in our universe or hubble-space is very very big but NOT infinite, which means the number of possbible combinations is also NOT infinite. So sooner or later the same combination reoccurs.
Endless space - endless amounts of universes, with each a limited amount of particles.

Please don't talk theory with me, and you've made errors in your post above, I won't talk science with a person who doesn't know what their talking about.


Totally irrelevant for the discussion here Relevant question though to Paranormal, you avoided it.

You are not prepared to believe ppl who claim to have such experiences. Why is that?
But you are prepared to accept crazy things like parallel worlds, which are so far away that it would take you millions of years traveling by the speed of light to reach the nearest one? Things which by definition never can be seen by mankind?

I never said I believed in the theory of Parallel Universes. Like I said, I'm not a Physicist, I have limited knowledge and can't base my decision until I discover more about this theory. Yet again, you've made errors in your physics statements there. I won't go into them.

Now tell me, which of both (the multiple universe-theory or the paranormal claims of an individual) resembles most to a religious system?

The multiple Universe theory. Why? Because Science can deduce it amazingly, we are not physicists so it's difficult for us to comprehend this maths and particle physics involved. A religious system is man-made and mad-made, a Parallel Universe is not man-made, you cannot compare the two.

Even a worse scenario for you might be the possibility that paranormal experiences might be a form of contact between these parallel realities; some models do in fact predict that parallel universes are around us in different dimensions, rather than millions of lightyears away.

Get your physics right! You're really digging a bigger hole for yourself...I hope you fall in and maybe the penny will drop at the same time.

This is what yous said yourself:

You have faith that the laws exist. That is required to believe in systems of multiple universes. Because we totally cant imagine that, and will never be able to see it for real.

I don't have faith. Faith is absence of evidence to lead to a belief. I don't have absence of evidence.

I dont mind this. I think this is all very interesting, and i absolutely am willing to accept the possibility that this might be true. Great!


Or maybe the paranormal is also based on some particles we dont know yet.
If it was, just discard the word Paranormal, and study physics instead.
The new ideas about the Higgins particle suggest that a lot more could be going on. It is a wonderful world we live in, it is unbelievable. much to beautiful to ridicule some ppl because their experiences dont fit your laws

Higgs Boson not Higgins...we're not playing Snooker here. Get your physics right or don't post on it. I agree it's a wonderful world...and it would be better if people didn't resort to explaining phenomena with a ridiculous idea of extra-sensory information.

Lucas10101

fokker wrote: »

Back to earth

The observation is the basis of science. Science explains what we see, recognizes regularities, etc.
The observation stands above science. The observation is the source, science is from these observations deduced knowledge.

Disappointingly, it seems you haven't thought about the content in my last 10 posts trying to refute this. I'm not going to reiterate, so please re-read and ask me another.

fokker wrote: »

Remarkable thing is, that when it comes to breaking down experiences like yours, the ratio-fundamentalists dont need any proof. They simply 'know' that what you heard or experienced were no ghosts or poltergeists, but whatever sounds or effects created by the house itself.

They must be paranormal themselves, to be able to say such things about ppl they never met, a house they never saw, etc.
Very unscientific

I don't claim to "know", I claim it's irrational, and even though the only reason MOST people believe is because millions around the world claim an experience. Experiences once passed on are exaggerated to ensure the other person believes, so it becomes a Chinese whisper story far beyond what originally it supposed to have happened.

I'll state it again. If one person believes it, they are mad. When millions believe it, it's part of society. It just so happens that millions will experience something, and because they can't explain it; Where do they turn? Oh...the answer MUST be the Paranormal...it HAS to be the Paranormal. Even though with all these millions of experiences throughout the world, NOT ONE has been shown as definitive proof. Surely with all the millions over the centuries, at least ONE...I'M JUST ASKING FOR ONE!! But no...so that's why Science says it's HIGHLY IMPROBABLE. To me, it's nearly as improbable as Noah building an Ark and putting two of every species on it. That is, a probability close to 0...but with people spouting exaggerated stories and answers, the idea of Paranormal will never leave our society.

I predict in 2100, we will be in exactly the same situation we are now. That with more millions of experiences throughout the world, not one will be documented properly so everyone can accept this phenomena. If it does come, I'll happily change my entire belief system and accept it.

So there's your answer.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Regarding your music file, did you only notice this sound during or after the event? If after, then most likely, there is a general explanation. If during, then it's simply because you're tuned in to every single sound...it was probably at night, something I never understood about the paranormal. ALWAYS AT NIGHT! And because you don't and NEVER will find the answer, the common route or escape route is to claim a paranormal cause. Why can't you claim "We can't explain what that noise is." rather than "It's paranormal." It's such a cop out way of explaining something given no proof has been found of paranormal activity.

always at night for a very very simple reason ... its way quieter at 5am than it is at 5pm. give me the general explaination as theres a laugh in that room
that no-one heard at the time, plus the room itself is virtually isolated from the outside with the nearest street about 50 meters and a few rooms away.

Throw a few general explanations my way and I'll tell you if we've covered them or not.

Millions of people globally claim paranormal activity, yet we have no definitive videos or anything or defining imagery that wasn't forged. Strange.

yeah - as strange as like the Coelacanth that we thought were extinct until someone aciddentally caught one, or the many new insects discovered each year. Strange, but strange happens.

Also - theres many videos and audio but thats all it is - something that can be easily faked so even if there is a genuine video out there theres no way to know for sure unless, again, its personal experience.

If no-one ever had these experiences and all there ever was were stories - if we simplified the 'paranormal' to that level, then you'd have a point. Otherwise though, its something you dont subscribe to as youve never experienced, as really thats the only proof. Plus it would have to be an experience you couldnt genuinely explain using logic and common sense.

Because you as yet havent experienced such a thing for yourself, then you are assuming it doesnt happen. Its not that simple.

iamhunted

fokker wrote: »

but whatever sounds or effects created by the house itself.

our house used to talk, walk up and down the hall by itself, switch on tvs and radios and take doors off their hinges. its a pity the skeptics forum didnt exist then as I could have cashed in and converted a few at the same time.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

If it was, just discard the word Paranormal, and study physics instead

there you go - good man. Thats precisely what ive been saying for most of this thread. What we now term as the paranormal, science may well int he future find out its causes. then it stops being 'paranormal' and part of science.

This wont happen if no-one takes a serious look at 'the paranormal'.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

at least ONE...I'M JUST ASKING FOR ONE!!

dont forget about a general explaination for me. I give you one evp which I cannot for the life of me work out how it happened. Forget people being anywhere in the area - we have hours of recordings from the same area where you wont hear any unexplainable outside noises ... no sounds at all and certainly no-one laughing.

So - to sum up .. an explaination that doesnt claim its a sound from someone not in the room - we have hours of recordings which show the room's natural sounds and from which we gauged the level of noise pollution - plus something that doesnt claim its someone in the room as we know for a fact it wasn't.

Seriously, go for it as I've no explaination.

Lucas10101

Regarding the night issue, I don't just mean sounds, I mean ghosts, and poltergeists as well...just remember we're most scared during the dark and with the incentive to find paranormal, it's an interesting concoction.

Regarding the Coelecanth, you can't compare that to unproven paranormal videos, as a species is a species, paranormal is not paranormal until we have some solid proof considering there's supposed to be millions of experiences and research undergone.

People will take paranormal seriously when the evidence comes along, because apparently there are millions of experiences which haven't had a shred of proof. Peoples experiences are opinion and not proof.

Well, you made my job easier regarding your music file. I think that because you admitted you only heard it upon a second hearing and you heard absolutely NOTHING during your experience. I don't believe a music file, which replicates real life could "add" this sound. Thus, I can only conclude that it's a distortion of the music file, if it were from your surroundings, you obviously picked up on it because upon a second hearing, you -want- to hear something.

Just because it sounded like a laugh -- doesn't make it an actual laugh.

Your brain simply looks for these patterns and recognized them as such. That's my explanation, which is more realistic than labeling it Paranormal.

iamhunted

so it sounds like a laugh but that doesnt mean its a laugh as our minds somehow have effected the recording to produce the sound of a laugh or the recording seems to just accidentally sound like a laugh.

you really copped out on that one really, didnt you? thats no explaination and is based on your theory that the laugh on the recording just happens to sound like a laugh.

thats a pretty lame explaination to say the least - it either is a recording of a laugh or it isnt - its very improbable that the digital recording itself made its own noise that sounds like a laugh which seems to be your explaination.

Regarding the Coelecanth, you can't compare that to unproven paranormal videos

yes you can. they were extinct so it would have been illogical that they could exist, yet they did.

iamhunted

btw - its not a music file - its an audio recording

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Regarding the night issue, I don't just mean sounds, I mean ghosts, and poltergeists as well...just remember we're most scared during the dark and with the incentive to find paranormal, it's an interesting concoction.

you'll find, if you research it a bit, that theres quite a lot of 'paranormal activity' reported in non-night-time hours.

people tend to investigate in the dark as its normally quieter being at night, plus people have a tendency to stop talking when in the dark, as well as your other sense such as hearing heighten a bit. its nothing to do with spookiness and all about better awareness.

Lucas10101

Please stop writing 3 replies for every 1 reply that I give. Just do a multi-quote or something.

Now...

Regarding my idea of laugh. It's not a cop out, if we hear a strange sound outside in our back garden, we always say "That sounds like a....."....however once we investigate and find the true cause, we laugh at how stupid we were to think it was "..."

I would be much more interested if you had pitch equipment which could show it and see if it was part of a human pitch.

Regarding your music file - I'm still going to call it that.

As for the dark issue - I think it's all too convenient that it just so happens to be silent - that just makes for more sounds and more "that sound must be paranormal" rubbish. It's a license for finding noises and trying to find an explanation, and low and behold, none is found...even though there COULD be a reasonable explanation that you didn't find, but the formidable title of Paranormal escapes out tongues once more.

Any fair minded and intelligent opinion of yours will disregard your idea that a species in nature is comparable to something yet unproven. I'm not even going to try and explain for fear of patronizing you.

iamhunted

two things

1) I'll make as many replies as I damned well wish, thank you very much. its way much clearer than quotes within quotes within quotes.

2) I realise now you really havent got a point to make and Im just wasting my time trying to debate with you considering you cant back anything you say up.

You agree that we still have a lot to learn in regards science and our environment but yet claim the paranormal is impossible as youve no experience of it - which contridicts the realisation of the learning part.

you then tell me that a recording that clearly has a laugh on it isnt real as its either the recorder making its own version of a laugh or else we only imagine we're hearing it.

whatever your explaination, it was pretty useless and leads me to believe that when you are given something that is hard to explain, you dont even try to explain it and instead come up with explainations that frankly are more unbelievable than paranormal ones.

In esscence, I dont really think you can talk on the behalf of science as your own deduction process doesnt seem to be that terribly scientific.

iamhunted

Lucas10101 wrote: »

I would be much more interested if you had pitch equipment which could show it and see if it was part of a human pitch.

that is nonsensical. if its within hearing range then its within human pitch.

what is 'pitch equipment' anyway ... you mean something to read the frequency of the signal? that wouldnt tell you anything of value Im afraid.

iamhunted

i realised i was missing the third reply

Lucas10101 wrote: »

Regarding my idea of laugh. It's not a cop out, if we hear a strange sound outside in our back garden, we always say "That sounds like a....."....however once we investigate and find the true cause, we laugh at how stupid we were to think it was "..."

which is fine if you find an explaination after investigating. you still havent supplied me with a viable explaination. the idea that the recorder made its own noise that just so happens to sound exactly like laugh doesnt wash with me. thats, as I already said, a cop out and not a suitable answer (nor a realistic one either).