Fab4Runner;1280874 wrote:That's not working for me.

Yeah, it was this..http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2ldvkJE281r4e39ro1_500.jpg

Apparently it's too pornish for this site and wouldn't let me put it on here.

Drugs are bad, m'kay?

I have no reason to believe (or not believe) in ghosts. So I don't really believe one way or the other. But as someone else said, I'm intrigued by ghost stories. I think it's very possible, but I've never seen anything myself.

Belly35;1279424 wrote:You camp one night on the Battle Field of Gettsburg or even walk it once you will become a believer.

This. Holy hell. My visit to The Battle Field in Gettysburg was one of the coolest and most frightening experiences of my life.

Trueblue23;1282368 wrote:This. Holy hell. My visit to The Battle Field in Gettysburg was one of the coolest and most frightening experiences of my life.

I think I might head there in a weekend or 2 and do the ghost hunting thing. It is one freaky town.

justincredible;1280703 wrote:lol, what? Did I miss something?

Apparently you missed Ernest doing a piss-poor attempt at a joke based on a completely unrelated thing said by Tiernan on another thread.

As for me and ghosts, sadly no...

Closest thing I can think of was more of a sleep thing from back before I lost weight. I'd occasionally enter this stage either before or after REM sleep where I couldn't move (because from what I read, your body "paralyzes" you when you're in REM sleep so you can't hurt yourself by moving during vivid dreams) and there'd be auditory/visual hallucinations where I'd feel surrounded by this sense of dread and that something supernatural and demonic was around me.

Actually kind of sad I haven't had those in a while. Made things more interesting. Sleep's been kind of boring without my imaginary demons...

Trueblue23;1282368 wrote:This. Holy hell. My visit to The Battle Field in Gettysburg was one of the coolest and most frightening experiences of my life.

Well, c'mon man. Share.

Talking to an old buddy last night I was telling him about how this thread reminded me of an old Boy Scout camping trip 40 some yrs ago and he said "hey dumbass we didn't camp at Gettysburg it was Antietam." But still didn't see any ghosts.

Have you asked LJ to help? I believe he is an expert in Paranormal activity, if not, I am positive he is friends with someone that is an expert in that field of study.

thePITman;1281605 wrote:I have no reason to believe (or not believe) in ghosts. So I don't really believe one way or the other. But as someone else said, I'm intrigued by ghost stories. I think it's very possible, but I've never seen anything myself.

Lack of evidence is certainly a reason to not believe something.

I believe in the paranormal. I've had a few experiences.

When I was 11, my Grandma passed away after a long battle with cancer. She had spent basically the last few months of her life in her condo, and wasn't really able to leave. On the day that she passed, all of my family came over for dinner with my Grandpa. They lived on the lowest level of the condo and were basically underground except for a small portion near the ceiling. They had a few small windows that were above grade, and my Grandma hung a wind chime in the one window in the living room. We were all sitting in the living room after dinner and the wind chime started going crazy. After a few minutes of the chime clanging, my Grandpa says, "Jesus Christ, Jeanne! We get it! You're here!" The chime stopped immediately. It was the creepiest thing I have ever seen and I immediately started crying.

My wife and I spent the night at the Mansfield prison for one of their ghost hunts. We caught a weird thing on the voice recorder. My wife was standing in a cell by herself while I and a few people we met that night stood outside. From our perspective outside the cell, nothing happened. My wife was just asking all kinds of questions, and started asking questions because the tour guide told us that the prison was segregated. She asked, "Are you an older man? Are you younger? Are you black? Are you white?" She finally says that nothing is happening and we should move on. We decided to listen to the recording before we moved on to the next spot and at one point you hear footsteps walking down the walkway and coming into the room. When my wife says, "Are you white" you can hear a voice say, "No." It was pretty freaky to listen to and my wife wanted to get out of the cell right away.

I believe in non-physical existence, but by definition, they aren't sensed empirically ... because they're non-physical.

O-Trap;1284212 wrote:I believe in non-physical existence, but by definition, they aren't sensed empirically ... because they're non-physical.

We've discussed this like 32 times before but I can never remember the answer (probably why I ask repeatedly), what metric/logic is your belief in non-physical existence based upon? And if it isn't sensed empirically then how is it sensed since the act of acknowledging/sensing something is something which can be measured.

I Wear Pants;1284217 wrote:We've discussed this like 32 times before but I can never remember the answer (probably why I ask repeatedly), what metric/logic is your belief in non-physical existence based upon? And if it isn't sensed empirically then how is it sensed since the act of acknowledging/sensing something is something which can be measured.

I disagree with that, mostly because I reject the assumption that something we believe we measure is, in fact, any more iron-clad. Cogito ergo sum, if you will, and beyond that, we pick what we can sense with some level of arbitrary discernment.

Foregoing the idea that we can know (with at least some level of assurance) based on historical narratives, I believe that interaction directly with the mind would forgo any empirical observation, and I would admit that I've experienced as much.

That's in a nutshell. I don't want to hijack the thread too much.

If you're ever in the Akron area, I'll buy you a beer or three (obviously the quality stuff), and we can discuss it.

Also, I think that a level of reasoning can exist independently of empirical rules. I would contend that our very ability to discuss empiricism's validity would verify that.

Ultimately, an empirical worldview bears no more validity than any other. We assume its validity, but beyond that, it is no less circular in its defense than even the most circular non-physical view.

O-Trap;1284221 wrote:I disagree with that, mostly because I reject the assumption that something we believe we measure is, in fact, any more iron-clad. Cogito ergo sum, if you will, and beyond that, we pick what we can sense with some level of arbitrary discernment.

Foregoing the idea that we can know (with at least some level of assurance) based on historical narratives, I believe that interaction directly with the mind would forgo any empirical observation, and I would admit that I've experienced as much.

That's in a nutshell. I don't want to hijack the thread too much.

If you're ever in the Akron area, I'll buy you a beer or three (obviously the quality stuff), and we can discuss it.

I tried to go to that bar you suggested in Akron that was somewhat close to Musica but it was closed when I was there. Have to check it out next time.

O-Trap;1284223 wrote:Also, I think that a level of reasoning can exist independently of empirical rules. I would contend that our very ability to discuss empiricism's validity would verify that.

Ultimately, an empirical worldview bears no more validity than any other. We assume its validity, but beyond that, it is no more or less circular in its defense than even the most circular non-physical view.

We disagree here. We don't assume it's validity, we test it, we observe it. It's the only worldview that has shown able to foster societies and progress in anyway.

I Wear Pants;1284225 wrote:We disagree here. We don't assume it's validity, we test it, we observe it. It's the only worldview that has shown able to foster societies and progress in anyway.

We test and observe it base on its own rules. Essentially, we "prove" it by assuming its rules, and then verifying that what we observe aligns with them. In fact, it is impossible to not use circular reasoning to validate empiricism ... since empiricism suggests that the only way to prove anything is through empirical/scientific observation, proving empiricism's validity would only be possible through circular reasoning, but we both know that circular reasoning is logically fallacious.

And actually, the founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard, Pitrim Sorokin, who was not a theist, even admitted that ideational cultures (those which accept the empirical world as well as the non-empirical) always tend to outlast the sensate cultures (those which only accept the physical world ... or those who believe, as Carl Sagan put it, that the "cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be"). As such, it appears that ideational cultures foster progress and continuance in society even better than sensate ones ... at least according to Sorokin.

I Wear Pants;1284224 wrote:I tried to go to that bar you suggested in Akron that was somewhat close to Musica but it was closed when I was there. Have to check it out next time.

Boo. Next time, just PM me and let me know you're coming. I'll find a way to hook you up.

O-Trap;1284227 wrote:We test and observe it base on its own rules. Essentially, we "prove" it by assuming its rules, and then verifying that what we observe aligns with them. In fact, it is impossible to not use circular reasoning to validate empiricism ... since empiricism suggests that the only way to prove anything is through empirical/scientific observation, proving empiricism's validity would only be possible through circular reasoning, but we both know that circular reasoning is logically fallacious.

And actually, the founder of the Department of Sociology at Harvard, Pitrim Sorokin, who was not a theist, even admitted that ideational cultures (those which accept the empirical world as well as the non-empirical) always tend to outlast the sensate cultures (those which only accept the physical world ... or those who believe, as Carl Sagan put it, that the "cosmos is all there was, is, or ever will be"). As such, it appears that ideational cultures foster progress and continuance in society even better than sensate ones ... at least according to Sorokin.

I'd argue that's less because of the intrinsic character of "sensate" cultures being less accompanying to sustaining social progress and more to the fact that until recently and even today in many cultures people who subscribe to that viewpoint are murdered or tortured. Hard to build a society based on one viewpoint if people consistently murder anyone known to share it.

It's only impossible to validate empiricism if you do not accept that existence is an actual thing. And saying empiricism doesn't apply to a certain subject which is contradicted by it (supernatural stuff) is pretty convenient though I'm sure you'd find the empiric methods perfectly acceptable to build your house or heat your food or whatever.

I find it often true that the simplest explanations for things are the best and it's difficult to argue against empiricism without getting into lengthy and complicated discussions such as "but do we actually exist" and "what is real", etc. And while those are interesting conversations intellectually I think anyone who's not simply trying to have a debate will agree that yes, we do in fact exist, and yes the computers we're typing on are real. I understand how they work, and yes, I verify that they're real because I can taste, touch, hear, feel, measure, and weigh them. I do not assume there to be supernatural events or beings because I have no cause to. Any assumption that there is raises much larger questions than were had before.

Edit: It's late and I don't think the phrasing I used in the 2nd paragraph was particullarly good but I'm not likely to better it with a rewrite in my current state. I might visit it again later (read as: not likely)

I Wear Pants;1284229 wrote:It's only impossible to validate empiricism if you do not accept that existence is an actual thing. And saying empiricism doesn't apply to a certain subject which is contradicted by it (supernatural stuff) is pretty convenient though I'm sure you'd find the empiric methods perfectly acceptable to build your house or heat your food or whatever.

One doesn't need to deny existence at all in order to question empiricism. Neither Augustine nor Descartes denied existence, but both asked questions outside the bounds of empiricism.

The only way to validate empiricism is to use empiricism as the litmus test, but the problem is that you're already assuming it to be paramount to determining truth. More succinctly, empiricism is proven only by empiricism, but that line of reasoning is not valid for any other epistemological construct, so it shouldn't be held as gospel here.

And it's not convenient to suggest that empiricism cannot study the supernatural any more than it is convenient to say that one's sense of taste cannot be used to evaluate the appearance of something. If something is, by definition, not natural, it only stands to reason that it cannot be validated or invalidated by studies of natural law.

It's not convenient. It's only logical.

I Wear Pants;1284229 wrote:I find it often true that the simplest explanations for things are the best and it's difficult to argue against empiricism without getting into lengthy and complicated discussions such as "but do we actually exist" and "what is real", etc.

There is not objective litmus test for what is "simplest." In fact, Occam's Razon would suggest that we can't know truth at all if we compare it to the idea that we can know truth empirically, because for the latter, an assumption is required that we accept what we believe we sense as true.

I Wear Pants;1284229 wrote:And while those are interesting conversations intellectually I think anyone who's not simply trying to have a debate will agree that yes, we do in fact exist, and yes the computers we're typing on are real.

Only because we've been conditioned to respond this way, sure. It's the most infantile response, but I daresay that many infantile responses are not at all beneficial to better understanding the world.

I Wear Pants;1284229 wrote:I understand how they work, and yes, I verify that they're real because I can taste, touch, hear, feel, measure, and weigh them. I do not assume there to be supernatural events or beings because I have no cause to. Any assumption that there is raises much larger questions than were had before.

These are on two assumptions. #1 - That we accept the empirical world. #2 - That we ONLY accept the empirical world.

But I maintain that we have no objective reason for the two.

Ok, foregoing the empiracle arguments since that's likely to go around in circles with me stupidly rephrasing the same question expecting a different answer, how does one evaluate the existence of or happenings of a supernatural entity?

I'm simply trying to understand what the thought process is that leads to "yes, supernatural things exist" because I currently don't. Because if I accept that there could possibly be things that exist outside of the physical world/physics/whathaveyou and are therefore not empiricly testable I still don't have a reason to believe such a force or entity or whatever does actually exist. I can understand and accept that it could theoretically exist but that's still not very convincing in my opinion.

One could suggest a whole host of fantastic beings and state that they're supernatural and therefore unobservable (benevolent hitler riding a unicorn outside every 7/11 for example) but there still isn't cause for belief nor reason to think it's particularly likely.

I Wear Pants;1284238 wrote:Ok, foregoing the empiracle arguments since that's likely to go around in circles with me stupidly rephrasing the same question expecting a different answer, how does one evaluate the existence of or happenings of a supernatural entity?

I'm honestly not going to tell anyone else what they should think, you included. Please don't hear me telling you what to believe. I assure you that I am not. What I know is what I've experienced ... what I've known. There is no other verb to describe it. If there was, I'd certainly use that. The experiences I've had, I don't expect anyone to share, but I also cannot deny them. I am typically a sound, skeptical person. As such, I revere others as the same. This is based purely on experience.

In reality, so is sensate belief. Sensate belief simply limits the ways in which it can be experienced.

I Wear Pants;1284238 wrote:I'm simply trying to understand what the thought process is that leads to "yes, supernatural things exist" because I currently don't. Because if I accept that there could possibly be things that exist outside of the physical world/physics/whathaveyou and are therefore not empiricly testable I still don't have a reason to believe such a force or entity or whatever does actually exist. I can understand and accept that it could theoretically exist but that's still not very convincing in my opinion.

Honestly, I'm not convinced that that is a bad thing. I didn't find it convincing for many years. Maybe you will one day. I hope so.

I Wear Pants;1284238 wrote:One could suggest a whole host of fantastic beings and state that they're supernatural and therefore unobservable (benevolent hitler riding a unicorn outside every 7/11 for example) but there still isn't cause for belief nor reason to think it's particularly likely.

For someone who has not experienced it, I don't blame you for that view.

Would you two knock it the fuck off. We get, ur smrt.

Yes, I believe in ghosts.