The paronormle

Post Reply New Topic

Eh, sometimes the police psychics help solve cases, sometimes they don't. If they help, what harm are they doing?

I don't personally believe it, but it'd be nice to believe in it for the sake of an additional sense of "mystery" and "wonder" to add entertainment to my life. Not that it's not exciting enough as it is, but more can't hurt, lol.

lol nope it cant oh and btw

to any random person here i got vidoes up on my youtube page about my autism there new
O.0 and i just want to see what people thing same old same old (no not really about the paronomle i brang it up but not alot no) http://www.youtube.com/user/BlackMist30 ... AIBnW9J6gc

"I'll tell you one thing about the universe, though. The universe is a pretty big place. It's bigger than anything anyone has ever dreamed of before. So if it's just us... seems like an awful waste of space. Right? "

Species on other planets wouldn't fall under the heading of "paranormal," would they?

the "Vega" sequence was lovely, and made the rest of the tale more palatable.

I liked the cubic puzzle solution. Very outside of the box thinking... or, rather, very "being the box" thinking.

My understanding is the National Security Agency (NSA) have the largest budget of any US government department and also are the only section (I could be wrong here) who are not privy to financial accountability or FOI disclosure. So yes the general public need to know how money is spent and what secret projects they are doing with other people's money.

One curious historical fact....

September 10, 2001: Rumsfeld Announces Defense Department Cannot Track $2.3 Trillion in Transactions
In a speech to the Department of Defense, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld announces that the Department of Defense “cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.” CBS later calculates that 25 percent of the yearly defense budget is unaccounted for, and quotes a long-time defense budget analyst: “[Their] numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year.” Coverage of this rather shocking story is nearly nonexistent given the events of the next day. [US DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, 9/10/2001; CBS NEWS, 1/29/2002]
http://www.historycommons.org/context.j ... ensebudget

What is curious is the biggest news scoop to hit America was surpassed - within the space of a few hours the twin towers were attacked by Al Qaeda ---September 11 2001....

http://www.drgaryschwartz.com/SAMPLE-PUBLICATIONS.html

Now I'm sure you'll attack any journal that publishes paranormal experiments even if they have a board of editors and peer reviewers from around the world. Schwartz is Havard educated holding a doctorate in Psychology, he's quite brave for sticking his neck out.

Oh and here's one on UFOs
Markowitz, W. (1967) The Physics and Metaphysics of Unidentified Flying Objects. Science. Issue number 15.

Despite the scientific validity of the paper the prestigious journal Science was inundated with more letters of complaint than it was to ever have in it's history. It along with all other top peer reviewed journals have refused to ever publish articles that are connected to either UFOs or alien abduction.

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, not the skeptic. Therefore, if the claimant cannot prove that aliens operate these "alleged" exotic craft, then it cannot be said that they do. In addition, arguments based on unfalsifyable claims are inherently weak.

I agree the burden of proof is obviously on those proposing extra-terrestrial origin.

However you may have missed the logic of the earlier debate.

A. Most scientists agree that the probability is there is intelligent life in the universe
B. But then these same scientists predict they don't have the technology to travel between stars
C. Many of these believe SETI can find messages from distant galaxies looking for signals in the radio frequency

If you believe in "A" then you don't have to be Einstein to realize that B and C are equally as invalid as the assumption that little green men abduct drunken mid-western types and steal their cattle.

Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see how "A" being true exposes "B" and "C" as false. Suppose, for the sake of discussion, there is intelligent life in the universe capabable of travelling between stars, and which can use the radio frequency for communication, but which is simply not interested in doing either of those activities. "B" and "C" would remain unproven even though "A" is true, therefore the validity of "A" makes no contribution to the validity of "B" and "C".

Yes but my point is there is general consensus in the scientific community that A is likely to be true. The probability we are the only intelligent life in the known universe is now "deemed" to be highly in-probable.

B. But what scientists then do is "assume" that since intelligent life must exist they must therefore not be capable of travelling between Galaxies...why? because we human's cant! go figure! it may appear to be a vast distances for our technology to cope with interstellar travel. But how is it our brightest minds have conjured up a limiting factor that now applies to all the entities that live out in the galaxies??

C. Finally SETI is funded to search for radio transmission. because our scientists "assume" that intelligent life "must" use radio otherwise they don;t exist? go figure! little green men a couple of hundred million light years away playing with radio-shack!

Conclusion: If A is correct then B and C must be assumptions

A neat demonstration of the limitations of strict logic. It is logically equivalent to say little green men use radio frequencies for communication and to say little green men abduct humans and perform experiments on them - both can be inferred from A, albeit without rigor. Strictly speaking, A is not really a well enough formed statement that would allow clear application of logic. The form "if A then B" doesn't even fit.

If "Most scientists agree that the probability is there is intelligent life in the universe" Then what? This statement actually implies nothing. It is equivalent to stating that the sky is blue.

You could proceed with allowing "Most scientists agree that the probability is there is intelligent life in the universe" to inform other questions. Since most scientists seem to agree on this we can then ask if intelligent life exists then how might it behave? How might it think? How might it get here? From these we can develop plausible conceptualizations and implausible ones.

Plausible:

Intelligent life would be technological (note we are talking plausibility not likelihood)
Intelligent life would use the electromagnetic spectrum for multiple purposes, including communication.

Implausible:

Aliens have traveled interstellar space and are visiting this planet. Not impossible, but certainly implausible given what we currently know of General Relativity and the challenges of interstellar travel.

Invoking vastly superior technology to allow extra-relativistic travel is the equivalent of invoking God. We can IMAGINE anything. But allocating research resources tends toward investigating the plausible.

Given limited funding, which is the more plausibly fruitful line of research - looking for radio signals from distant technological species or looking for aliens on this planet?

Well not really, If for example A was deemed false then it by default it invalidates both B and C automatically. If there is no intelligent life then what is the point of SETI and why speculate over space travel?



From a strict mathematical view you would be correct however I am using this abstract relationship in a specific context if A is true therefore B and C "could be" true. (Could be in this context is an "assumption").



You obviously have not taken into account of the "possibility" of;
- wormholes in the fabric of time
- blackholes
- indigenous non-carbon based life already here
- inter-dimensional beings able to manifest at will into our dimension
- temporal issues relating to history of life, Homo Sapiens may well be 1-2 billion yrs evolved after other beings.
- If beings had a chance to travel 1 billion years ago who is to say they have not already occupied planets in a our solar system but choose to keep themselves invisible to watch our progress like a scientist watches bugs in a test tube.

Just because we have not invented a way of travelling across space and time it doesn't require an act of god.



How about both. One thing I can tell you, since 1960 there have actually been 98 SETI projects searching for ET. Over 50 years of panning the skies looking for tell tale patterns in the EMS they have found absolutely nothing. What this tells me is that searching for EMS traces that indicate life is not a needle in a haystack but it's barking up the wrong tree.

Intelligent life in space quite obliviously doesn't use radio frequency, our descendants will be discussing what a collosal waste of time this exercise was.

Last edited by cyberdad on 24 May 2011, 2:50 am, edited 1 time in total.

I don't think that ghosts and the paranormal are "spooky people from the past"
I think that they're projections from a different universe/dimension. Look at quantum theory, it states that many universes occupy the same place, so hence now and again they can bleed into ours creating "paranormal activity."
No I don't believe in the paranormal in the true sense of the word, however weird things do happen and it would be ignorant of me to deny it.

In terms of aliens

Look at the size of the universe. I rest my case.