So does anyone believe in ghosts or aliens?

[Spock]

Not entirely sure what you mean by this, Spock, as it's unclear whether you mean die and forget as something you do in life, where Wittgenstein would put it best with "Death is not an event in life", or whether you mean die and forget as in when we die we somehow continue to exists in a fashion, but without the memory of who we were. 

 

You don't forget (talking about the first case here) in a consistent fashion though, otherwise your personality would be very strangely impacted. The human sense of time is also heavily influence by measurements, routing, age and similar cases, hence you'd need to do a whole lot of forgetting for it to feel like the time disappeared.

I'm just asking the question if life shouldn't feel like a memory lapse when every memory is gone in the event of death. I'm no native speaker, I tried to express the event of forgetting because of an alcohol dosage.

 

Of course the possibility exists that we are the only ones who have developed this far, but to say that most of what we see is younger than us is simply not true. Sure, when looking at the universe we are looking back in time, but we can already see stars in (almost) every phase of their development, it's why we already know the fate of our own star. Organic molecules have also already been found aplenty in multiple places

But the Fermi Paradox describes a civilization developed farther (several star systems). I'm not saying there are no class m stars with planets older then ours, there are plenty. But gamma ray bursts where probably more likely earlier in the universe too and the number of class m stars with planets increased with time. Maybe the time at which a line of events leading to a civilization like us is probable isn't as far back as necessary.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Spock

[MonoAccipiter]

I think Spock meant "younger than us" not as having been around for a shorter span of time, but rather having existed before we came into existence (by we I assumed he meant the human race). 

 

I'm still not sure, but are you talking about looking back at life from a transcendental state? In that case I ask you this - If you forgot everything how would you remember that you forgot? The only reason something feels like there's a blank is because you have events assorted to a time structure, and there's something missing in between them. If you lose all sense of memory, I'd reckon you would also lose all sense of time.

 

 

But my question is, if something does exist and is non measurable... how will it ever influence us in any way? We as observers would be oblivious to it.

It could still be observable, even temporal, given that your idea of everything being measurable is clearly a case of inductive reasoning. By this I mean that you have observed an effect and induced an argument to support the data, which means your conclusion (i.e. everything temporal is also measurable) is probable, but not solid. The problem is that you're arguing from the presumption that the human ability to observe is reliable, something could be affecting us though we are generally oblivious to its temporal qualities. EssArrBee made a perfectly fine example about it earlier using the material dimensions.

 

I don't agree that philosophy gets easier the more intoxicated you are. It is a complicated field of study with an elaborate set of rules and guidelines, which like any science, the thing I've arguing that it is more than equal to, requires attention and comprehension to properly be divulged.

Edited March 3, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Aiyen]

Good arguments... nice new ways of looking at it, at least for me. 

 

As for the human ability to observe...I still think my previous arguments are valid. Humans do not experience most of what we observe anymore, hence we only get an abstract relationship to quite a few things.

The spectrum of light is a good example.. we can only actually experience a very very narrow part of it, and have machines for the a lot of the rest.

Does this hamper with our ability to have reliable observation abilities?  I guess I will have to accept that it does, but also think it is a limitation which can be overcome with time. The observational ability does not stay static but is ever evolving, both in the natural sense and in the abstract concepts we can understand and utilize.  

 

 

As for the intoxicated part... at least for me good company and a few beers produce much more "outside the box" thinking, than just sitting around staring at the problem! The old... you have to do something else and an idea will come to ya.

[MonoAccipiter]

We're not entirely on the same page when talking about human observation, and honestly this might be on me not using precise enough wording. What I mean by the human ability (a word I now understand can invoke the idea of capacity, or what we can and cannot, scientifically speaking, observe) to observe is more along the nature of human observation as a whole, and the properties thereof. Hence when I say that it's not necessarily reliable, I mean to suggest that there could be temporal (i.e. pertaining to the "real" world in a similar fashion to what we do) phenomenons that are inertly beyond our ability to observe. This could mean that we simply hasn't developed the tools to see them, as you have suggested, but it doesn't exclude the other possibility. Again, I don't know of a much better example than the one SRB offered earlier with the 3D and 4D beings, so I'll just point to that.

 

Very interesting topic. I don't actually get the opportunity to discuss philosophy all that often.  ::

 

I do agree that drinking helps stimulate creativity. I find it much easier to write poetry when I'm drunk, but that might just be my anxiety loosening its grip.

[z929669]

Drunk (alcohol buzzed) does not increase MY creativity at all ... Mary Jane and hallucinogenics do though ;)

 

Try writing/drawing or playing a musical instrument drunk, and then try again stoned ... big difference i think.

[TechAngel85]

Geez! I've skipped out in this topic for a few days and it's exploded. I'll have to go and read everything, but not on my phone.

 

Mary and I have a good relationship and she is often a demotivator, imo.

[MonoAccipiter]

Not surprising given that THC affects the cannabinoid receptors in the brain which in part regulate mood. There's usually a difference to the quality of output as well though, at least when it comes to writing.

[Nozzer66]

I have the attitude that I'll believe NOTHING out of hand unless I can see empirical, plausible proof.

 

So therefore I'm basically now an Agnostic, after being raised Catholic, cause I wouldn't swallow all their lines, and the priests at school didn't like me saying "prove it" all the time.

 

No one has 100% categorically proved aliens exist, no-one's 100% proved ghosts exist. 

 

Having said that, I'm not so arrogant to believe we're the only life in this galaxy, either. 

 

So basically there's my position, just to get that nailed down first. I'll read the rest of the thread now and see what I think of it all. A quick skimming showed some interesting points from what i could see.

[MonoAccipiter]

I'm an agnostic too. Was for a period of time an atheist, but dealing with depression as well as the death of an extremely close family member gave me a deeper appreciation for the place religion fills for many people, and made me doubt some of my ideas about life. For a time I was desperate to feel that this person wasn't gone, as the death had been very sudden and unjust, and read a large amount of philosophy and theology about proofs for God's existence (the Christian God, as said family member was a Christian). Sadly I did not find them to prove anything, except maybe the possibility for a higher being to exist, and as such remain in doubt about the whole affair.

[EssArrBee]

Everyone is agnostic. It's not a belief system. That is a common mistake made by many. Agnostic basically means that you don't know. No one knows. Religious people have faith that there is a god, atheists have faith that there isn't. None of them know for sure because it's unknowable. Hence, everyone is agnostic. 

 

What you really mean is that you are non-religious, like Carl Sagan. 

[Nozzer66]

What I really mean is that all religions make me equally want to vomit, so I suppose you have that point. Having said that, though...

 

Religion, in and of itself is fine. The idea that we have to have come from somewhere and just maybe there's some supreme deity is perfectly understandable, at it's essence. However, like a lot of things, when you bring human nature to bear, with our Free Will and our differences in view points, is where Religion starts to fall apart. 

 

Regards ghosts: I've seen some stuff when I've been out Urbexing that have given me pause. That I'll admit to. Still I'm coming more to the position that a lot of 'ghosts' are a product of 'suggestion'. IE, you go into an empty abandoned hospital and your mind is somehow subconciously making you think EVERY sound is a ghost. Every shadow is a possible ghost, etc. You're tricking yourself into thinking X when in the cold light of day you KNOW you'd put the circumstances together and come up with Y.

 

You're often already on edge, and that being on the edge makes you make snap judgements. Maybe not the best snap judgement nor one you'd make if given time.

 

Onto Aliens...

 

Like I mention above, I find it hard to believe we're not the only intelligent life. In a universe so vast, only ONCE there was the right situation to cause life to flicker into being? The statistics on that seem fairly hard to believe. But until I do get the proof... I'm going to stay with that sort of view. 

[Spock]

I was fairly anti religious in my youth but I think that is a mistake. Religion doesn't make better or worse people. It doesn't make smarter or less smart people. The thing to understand is the flaw in our brain. Many people require some form of shortcut to be happy with the increasingly fast and complex world around us. Be it belief in the paranormal, "thai chi" and similar stuff (which really isn't thai chi in the traditional sense), esoteric or conspiracies. It all serves the same purpose. Many humans seem to be dependent on that kind of coherency for their mental health and happiness.

The movie Transcendence is brilliant at describing how humans think (although it has weaknesses in it's narrative pacing, still highly underrated).

 

Often ideas under the influence of THC seem great at the time, but sober they are often BS. It's philosophizing under psychotic experiencing (that's what a THC high actually is). It's as sound as the next homeless babbling to himself might be philosophizing, only less psychotic.

And I'm not some kind of anti drug propagandist, I'm all for recreational drug use. I just think the underrating of the side effects of THC is dangerous (I'm a dry addict).

[MonoAccipiter]

Everyone is agnostic. It's not a belief system. That is a common mistake made by many. Agnostic basically means that you don't know. No one knows. Religious people have faith that there is a god, atheists have faith that there isn't. None of them know for sure because it's unknowable. Hence, everyone is agnostic. 

 

What you really mean is that you are non-religious, like Carl Sagan. 

Sorry, but this is completely incorrect. Agnosticism is not a "religion", no, but it is a doctrine nonetheless. It was coined by Huxley and advocated for by several philosophers pre-dating the term, and is most commonly described as neither believing or disbelieving in God. Huxley said the following: "Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus [sic] application of a single principle... the fundamental axiom of modern science... In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration... In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable." and "Agnosticism is of the essence of science, whether ancient or modern. It simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe. Consequently Agnosticism puts aside not only the greater part of popular theology, but also the greater part of anti-theology. On the whole, the "bosh" of heterodoxy is more offensive to me than that of orthodoxy, because heterodoxy professes to be guided by reason and science, and orthodoxy does not.". Know that this man was a philosopher however, and when he says it is not a creed, but a method he says so to implicate the simplicity and naturality of the approach. In later years most philosophers have defined it as a doctrine, such as Bertrand Russel who said the following: 

 

 

An agnostic thinks it impossible to know the truth in matters such as God and the future life with which Christianity and other religions are concerned. Or, if not impossible, at least impossible at the present time.

 

Are Agnostics Atheists?

 

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that we can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The Agnostic suspends judgment, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial.

 

Carl Sagan himself said the following about atheism: "An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.", clearly indicating that he believe it not to be agnostic.

 

There are people who would define themselves as agnostic theists, and agnostic atheists, but most theists or atheists are not agnostics per say.

Edited March 4, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[DoubleYou]

• I believe illegal aliens exist.
• I think ghosts may exist.
• I think extraterrestrial aliens possibly exist. 

• I believe one God exists, possibly consistent of multiple entities.
• I know I exist.
• I think you may exist.
• What I think or believe does not change whether or not any of the above do, in fact, exist.
• This is what I believe.

[Aiyen]

Ah okay, I guess that clears up a bit of my confusion as well mono! I take human ability rather literally, as what we can and cannot experience and see, either directly or indirectly. 

 

I used to have some decent Discussions about multi dimensions with a few of my professors when I was back in university. One of them used to use multiple dimensions as an argument that math could be used for amazing and wondrous ideas, well beyond our ability to observe and see. Also that it was part of the reason why math should be the language of god if such a being/entity exist. I was never enough of a linguist to really get a good standing point on that. 

I think that the argument that something beyond our ability can still be described not only using math, but it might just not be as precise. In the grand scheme of things I am not sure how precision of description matters... 

 

Overall I think I am more of an optimist.... I still think that if it is there then given enough data and bright ideas, we can determine if it is or not. The whole concept of having something be.. but not being able to see, use, do anything with it... just seems like a waste. 

 

This line of thinking is also part of why I think that cosmology was the most depressing set of courses I ever took! Everything ends badly, or we dont know for sure and never will etc etc.