My Ghost Story

[Jodie]

Understood and agreed. My point being that Jodie's insistence on the only explanation being that she has gotten to you, if sincere, is evidence of the attention-seeking hypothesis and, if feigned, is evidence of the gaming hypothesis. There may be something else, but I don't see it.

The fact that you two keep it going is more to the point than my responses. I let it go until it was brought up again, and that is the "something else" neither of you are seeing.

Now I must depart for the evening, I need to get situated for Project Runway.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?
...

It is not actually shown a dream actually had a prophetic nature. Once you can remedy that, you'd have something to talk about.

 

[JayUtah]

The fact that you two keep it going is more to the point than my responses.

More to what point?

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?


--snip--

Others will deal with the science stuff; I haven't the time right now except to say that quantum physics and mechanical physics (by which I take it you mean Newtonian) are not, as you say, diametrically opposed. That's not to say they are reconciled, but diametrically opposed they are not.

On the prophetic nature of the dream, there are several possible explanations, none of which can be applied without a verification of what you actually dreamt followed by a verification of what actually happened.

You would do better to lay out both of those specifically and then tell us how you ruled out the other normal explanations. I'm sure you know what at least most of them are.

The fact that you two keep it going is more to the point than my responses. I let it go until it was brought up again, and that is the "something else" neither of you are seeing.

This is what, my fourth post on the topic? That's really going at it, yes, of course.

I go back to my original (recently) post about you floundering. This is more of it.

 

[JayUtah]

It's because one can't replicate what one doesn't understand.

Sure, but then why invoke it? Artificial intelligence doesn't have anything to do with any other part of your claim. It conveys the impression that you're just scrambling for whatever seems tangentially relevant, without really understanding what you're looking at.

How would you explain the prophetic nature of the dream?

First you have to prove it was prophetic.

I've based my premise on what science states is possible...

Call a spade a spade. You're speculating. That's fine, but it's not probative.

 

[JayUtah]

I let it go until it was brought up again...

No. You brought it up again out of the blue in post 437 after I had already clarified myself and the subject had been dropped for quite some time. Garrette was responding to your resurrection of it. Unless you plan to continue your martyrdom, I suggest you stop being artificially butthurt by an offhand comment and address the substance of the debate.

 

[Donn]

Jodie has rung gamer alarms in other threads (bigfoot, iirc).

She never changes her approach and it just unspools an endless litany: It seems like a genuine interest and proximity to "Aha!", but it won't arrive. There's always a twist, a reset, an ignore, an act.

See also Jabba. Posters like these have succeeded in their goal: they drive people away. I am rarely here now.

 

[Garrette]

Jodie has rung gamer alarms in other threads (bigfoot, iirc).

She never changes her approach and it just unspools an endless litany: It seems like a genuine interest and proximity to "Aha!", but it won't arrive. There's always a twist, a reset, an ignore, an act.

See also Jabba. Posters like these have succeeded in their goal: they drive people away. I am rarely here now.

Jabba is one of those I had in mind when I wrote the post about people not having been challenged before. There are others, but they rarely stick around as long. Jabba, I think, hasn't been challenged because until recently he stayed in friendly territory and because his family mostly nodded their heads at "Gramps' eccentricities."

Jodie, I think, is a bit more interesting in that I think she really hasn't been challenged on stuff like her dream and consciousness beliefs and that she also games. The balance of the two changes between topics, but both appear to be there.

It would be simply amusing were it not for the frequent interjections of true nastiness such as the business with The Shrike, the truth of which is obvious yet regarding which she continues to claim he was in the wrong.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

You'ld first have to establish that there was something to catch before you could try to define what part of the brain or process made it a type of receiver.

No, I wouldn't. It's your claim, you the burden of proof lies on you.

The film was an example to illustrate the concept that the multidimensional theories suggest, not provide evidence. The books by Lewis Carroll were used to explain why I was interested after over hearing discussions about other dimensions as a child.

No, at least not the way I read it. You posited your theory of multidimensional consciousness before you admitted it was based on a film.

This is what you said about Alice in Wonderland:

[A]s a child, I reread "Alice in Wonderland" and "Alice Through The Looking Glass" hoping to find clues on how to get to these other places.

Sounds like you were looking for evidence to me.
Did you read dlorde's linked article? This is what looking for evidence is actually about: examining all sides of any discussion.
Alas, given what you say next, you probably haven't read it and, even if you had, it wouldn't have made any difference:

It will take more than "there is no evidence" to convince me that I'm wrong

Even with what follows in that sentence, which I have snipped for clarity, that pretty much sums up your attitude, and is very much in line with what other posters have been saying to you. You have a predetermined conclusion, and nothing will shake it.
That's fine, but, as JayUtah said, don't pretend this is science. If you want to go down that path, you will have to answer another point I made, that you seem to have carefully sidestepped:
If what you claim is true, it would mean upturning every advance on scientific endeavour in this field. How could such a revelation be possible?

 

[Jodie]

Glad to hear you enjoy them, and it is entirely possible I am wrong, but I am not ready to discard the hypothesis yet.

For starters, I don't completely buy that you have not been emotional or upset. You react as if being personally attacked. Moreover, you repeatedly accuse those who question you of being upset or offended. It's a projection sort of thing that I'm seeing.

Rude behavior indicates that there is some kind of passion behind it, there might be multiple motives for why someone would do that. Historically, I'm not bothered by someone disagreeing with me but there is no excuse for being hateful about it. However, I have no problem returning the favor if provoked. I usually only experience that in the bigfoot threads. The take home lesson from that is to spend more time enjoying the rest of the forum.

Excellent. Completely irrelevant, but excellent.


Depends on your motives and on what you get out of it. You would hardly be the first to keep coming back in spite of being challenged. For some, it is being challenged that is their reason for coming.

I enjoy certain topics like this, that's my only motive. There are some here that use this forum as a means to take out their frustrations on others but I'm not one of them. I live alone and I miss my family because you can't really find too many people here in the south that would even know what you were talking about if you tried to start a conversation about a multidimensional universe. Most women my age in my immediate area want to talk about their kids, grandkids, church, recipes, and pampered chef parties.

Possible but completely unsubstantiated. More likely is that his actually rather limited swearing is a combination of his personal style and his frustration at what amount to your non-answers.

I'ld be more sympathetic if I hadn't already repeatedly stated that this is all supposition on my part. I stepped outside of the forum culture to speculate about how multidimensional reality might support non corporeal consciousness, nothing about that justifies the kind of knee jerk responses I got from a few people here. There are no rules that forbid this kind of discussion. No one is forced to respond if they find what I post to be distasteful.

That's the case for everyone. So far your choices have been not to respond substantively. You have certainly responded at length but not substantively and not coherently.

Because it's not a fully formed idea, part of the discussion here helps to refine and redefine some of the concepts. If you want to know what's wrong with a plan, idea, or concept don't go to the yes man to get honest feedback.


Cool. Seriously.

That is actually a rather large emotional attachment, and it is echoed in the subject of your dream. It is also indicative that your understanding of the topics is fairly limited.

As is most of the participant's understanding in this thread. There are a handful here on the forum that work in a field involving physics, but then there are others that simply reject the hypotheses I embrace for various reasons that have about as much understanding of the mathematics involved as I do. We have to rely on the experts interpretations' of the research to decide what we support. Saying something isn't so because there is no evidence to support a hypothesis that we haven't been able to test yet isn't a very good argument to dismiss the idea. That would be more of an emotional response than a truly logical one IMO.

 

[Jodie]

My point is you expect someone to prove you wrong. You must prove you're right.

Flatly saying something isn't possible isn't productive if you can't elaborate on why, that's what I'm looking for. There is nothing about what I'm saying that can be proven and it would be unrealistic of you to expect that. The demand to prove that I'm right is a means to derail the discussion.

 

[Axxman300]

It isn't the physical world, that's the whole point. Neither are those other dimensions that are curled up and entwined with our physical reality. If we exist in the 1st 4 dimensions why would we assume it ends there?

That's the problem, we live in the physical world. We have a mind housed inside an amazing and complex brain. Until we've figured out how the brain work we shouldn't be speculating on other dimesions.

I did mention ghosts. I think it was in response to one of your posts earlier. If you were a ghost hunter then you ought to be familiar with the theory of what causes poltergeist activity. Did you ever encounter a case like that during one of your hunts?

I'm familiar with at least three concepts. None of them are consistent nor repeatable. That's a huge red flag.

I've only had one thing happen and it didn't tie into any of the popular poltergeist theories. Since it only happened once and I can't explain it the event goes into "I don't know" file, not the "Ghosts are real" file (currently empty).

My theory is similar but it doesn't hinge on the psychological aspects so much.

Again, huge red flag. You can't take the psychological aspects out of the paranormal any more than you can with any other issue involving humans (war, police work, stress, etc). So much hinges on perception. Innocent men have gone to prison and executed based on perception and prejudices.

If what I think is true about our multidimensional world then consciousness might form a type of conduit for the activity to manifest.

The problem as I see it is that your multidimensional work is based on cocktail party quantum physics and not the hard stuff. I'm not qualified to evaluate the hard stuff, but those who are got all excited about the Higgs-Boson particle and all the stuff they're doing with the Hadron Collider because that's where the pointy end of physics is happening ( there and labs like it). Lots of head scratching and chin rubbing as they did through the data and make evaluations. They'll be busy for decades applying the findings to known physics and then arguing over the findings and so on.

Some of those scientists are searching for dimensional data from this work, and it will be a long time before they can even postulate a coherent thesis (I could be wrong, some guy might pop up next week with a paper that I can't read). That's where the science is.

More importantly, if I was to lodge a thesis about ghosts it would center around very physical processes of this world, including the brain.

 

[JayUtah]

Flatly saying something isn't possible...

Cite the post where I have done that.

There is nothing about what I'm saying that can be proven and it would be unrealistic of you to expect that.

Nonsense. You ask me to explain the allegedly prophetic nature of your dream. Yet you know you can't prove it was prophetic. You come to a forum of skeptics and float speculation, calling it science. This isn't your first thread. You must know you'd be asked for evidence. Who's the one being unrealistic here?

The demand to prove that I'm right is a means to derail the discussion.

No, it's a means to place the burden of proof appropriately where it belongs. If you demand an explanation for "prophecy," first prove it was prophetic. If you seek to explain your experience via multidimensional consciousness, you bear that burden.

 

[Jodie]

No, I wouldn't. It's your claim, you the burden of proof lies on you.

As I said, it's speculation, demanding proof is a means of derailing the conversation.

No, at least not the way I read it. You posited your theory of multidimensional consciousness before you admitted it was based on a film.

The film was to demonstrate what I was thinking. My idea has evolved over time from reading several books designed for the layman regarding theoretical physics, my discussions with Dr. Meythalyer when I worked on a brain injury unit, and the research that UAB was doing at the time. I've continued reading research regarding consciousness which lead to the AI research.

This is what you said about Alice in Wonderland:


Sounds like you were looking for evidence to me.
Did you read dlorde's linked article? This is what looking for evidence is actually about: examining all sides of any discussion.
Alas, given what you say next, you probably haven't read it and, even if you had, it wouldn't have made any difference:

Evidence from a child's perspective. I was trying to come to assimilate with what I overheard from my father and his colleague's discussions with the only example I had at the time. Sure, my 8 year old self was looking for some kind of way to travel to these other dimensions. I haven't read Dlorde's article yet, it'll have to wait until tomorrow when I'll be less likely to be interrupted by work.

Even with what follows in that sentence, which I have snipped for clarity, that pretty much sums up your attitude, and is very much in line with what other posters have been saying to you. You have a predetermined conclusion, and nothing will shake it.
That's fine, but, as JayUtah said, don't pretend this is science. If you want to go down that path, you will have to answer another point I made, that you seem to have carefully sidestepped:
If what you claim is true, it would mean upturning every advance on scientific endeavour in this field. How could such a revelation be possible?

Establishing that these dimensions exist and that they work in an integrated manner would be the first step, we are a very long way from that, and many times physicists spend years looking for conclusions that end up being wrong. This might be one of them too. My idea that non corporeal consciousness that spans multiple dimensions explains how we exist in reality is an idea based on an untested hypothesis, but it is based on science.

 

[JayUtah]

I'ld be more sympathetic if I hadn't already repeatedly stated that this is all supposition on my part.

But let one of us say that and you remind us your claim is "based on science." What are your critics to do if you can't even make up your mind yourself whether your claim should be evaluated scientifically?

There are no rules that forbid this kind of discussion. No one is forced to respond if they find what I post to be distasteful.

There are no rules forbidding the kind of response you're getting. And no one is forced to remain silent if they disagree with you.

Because it's not a fully formed idea, part of the discussion here helps to refine and redefine some of the concepts. If you want to know what's wrong with a plan, idea, or concept don't go to the yes man to get honest feedback.

But you are largely ignoring the feedback, and going to great lengths to convey the impression that none of it is honest. As has been said by several people, you seem to have come here with a preconceived notion in which you remain fairly entrenched.

 

[JayUtah]

As I said, it's speculation, demanding proof is a means of derailing the conversation.

If you invoke science to support your speculation, asking for evidence is never a derailment.

 

[Jodie]

Sure, but then why invoke it? Artificial intelligence doesn't have anything to do with any other part of your claim. It conveys the impression that you're just scrambling for whatever seems tangentially relevant, without really understanding what you're looking at.

Based on your questions, I'm not sure how much you've read to judge whether AI research is applicable to consciousness research. It is depending on what kind of functions you want your AI to accomplish.

rst you have to prove it was prophetic.

Everything said came true 30 years later.

Call a spade a spade. You're speculating. That's fine, but it's not probative.

Ive stated repeatedly that this was speculation.


I need to run, got a delivery, I'll pick up the conversation tomorrow.

 

[JayUtah]

Based on your questions, I'm not sure how much you've read to judge whether AI research is applicable to consciousness research.

I have a degree in computer science, and I also used to teach it at the University of Utah. I build and use thousand-CPU computer systems to do a variety of science and engineering tasks, many of which would be classified as artificial intelligence.

What are your qualifications in that area?

Ive stated repeatedly that this was speculation.

Will you admit here and now, once and for all, that your claim is not a viable scientific theory?

 

[JayUtah]

Everything said came true 30 years later.

Prove it.

 

[Pixel42]

Prove it.

Here's something I posted on another thread yesterday which may help to get Jodie started:

In order to show that dreams are precognitive it is necessary to

(a) establish criteria for how close a match counts as a hit

(b) reliably estimate the hit rate that would be expected by chance

(c) show that the actual hit rate is significantly greater than that chance hit rate

For a single undocumented anecdote the alternative explanations I listed back in post #345 will always be more plausible.