Dubstepforum.com

RandoRando wrote:If ghost dont exist, explain the millions of videos and pictures of them...maybe its just the word "ghost" that gets too people..

what if i put it this way, we all know energy cannot be created or destroyed, so when you die where does your energy go?

if extremely giant balls of fire are in the sky, 9 other extremly huge planets that are just made of gas that human beings cannot go on, and one million billion other stars and solar systems in this galaxy, yes GALAXY,


..why cant unmanifested energy, or other intelligent lifeforms to exist?

i cant understand people who think that we are the only intelligent lifeforms in existnce, when we havent even grazed the surface of this giant fucking universe that we are just a tiny little speck of...

What he had discovered, aside from an awesome new way to torture interns, was infrasound. It's noise at a low enough frequency that you don't consciously hear it, but your ears still sense it. The process of receiving sensory input without your conscious mind understanding where it's coming from wreaks havoc with your emotions. Specifically, researchers found that sounds between 7 and 19 Hz it could induce fear, dread or panic.

therapist wrote:Oh, so we could have stopped this when I said it's a negligible chance. If you'd just said "yeah they could exist, but it's less likely than superman/spiderman/batman existing" I would have thought fair enough.

therapist wrote:How the fuck can anyone think there's any slight chance ghosts are real?

hugh wrote:

d-T-r wrote:i think he's referring to your 'spirit' or 'soul' or the seat of your consciousness.

consciousness and it's distribution is something we 'know' very little about. Of course it's good practice to use logic in the process of elimination of what 'is', but if the logic was biased to begin with, as will the conclusion be.

not believing in something is fine, but not believing and not investigating it fully isn't going to help much. even if you come to the conlusion you began with , its better to throw yourself into it to find out.

We've learnt a lot over the last 10 thousand years or so too feel the permission to make assumptions based on previously 'known' concepts, but to assert a definitive view-point on something as dynamic and mulit-faced as 'energy' and the consciousness that sprung from within it ,from just 1 singular vantage point, is to jump the universal gun just a bit.

What are you on about? Noone is even talking about what constitutes or enables conciousness. Writing in riddles and weird prose doesn't make anything you are saying have any validity
The "multifaced" nature of energy? Care to elaborate what you mean here? We never just lose energy randomly to unknown circumstances so I don't understand why you think we have something "missing" there. Conservation is always explicable.
It's actually ridiculously hard to follow what you are saying, what do you mean by 1 singular vantage point? Our dimensions? Or do you not actually mean anything by it and now you are going to jump on whatever random idea pops into your head (heck I just gave you one...)

Personally, I just believe conciousness is the manifestation of the logic gates in our mind, which are self referential. I don't think our mind is too different from the way binary is converted into code and text, just that it does it a lot more efficiently and to a much greater level of complexity. It's not that difficult to make a "self aware" A.I. thesedays, however the AI we create is not based on biological mathematical concepts but on physical mathematical concepts. It has conciousness in some sense.

d-T-r wrote:

hugh wrote:

d-T-r wrote:i think he's referring to your 'spirit' or 'soul' or the seat of your consciousness.

consciousness and it's distribution is something we 'know' very little about. Of course it's good practice to use logic in the process of elimination of what 'is', but if the logic was biased to begin with, as will the conclusion be.

not believing in something is fine, but not believing and not investigating it fully isn't going to help much. even if you come to the conlusion you began with , its better to throw yourself into it to find out.

We've learnt a lot over the last 10 thousand years or so too feel the permission to make assumptions based on previously 'known' concepts, but to assert a definitive view-point on something as dynamic and mulit-faced as 'energy' and the consciousness that sprung from within it ,from just 1 singular vantage point, is to jump the universal gun just a bit.

What are you on about? Noone is even talking about what constitutes or enables conciousness. Writing in riddles and weird prose doesn't make anything you are saying have any validity
The "multifaced" nature of energy? Care to elaborate what you mean here? We never just lose energy randomly to unknown circumstances so I don't understand why you think we have something "missing" there. Conservation is always explicable.
It's actually ridiculously hard to follow what you are saying, what do you mean by 1 singular vantage point? Our dimensions? Or do you not actually mean anything by it and now you are going to jump on whatever random idea pops into your head (heck I just gave you one...)

Personally, I just believe conciousness is the manifestation of the logic gates in our mind, which are self referential. I don't think our mind is too different from the way binary is converted into code and text, just that it does it a lot more efficiently and to a much greater level of complexity. It's not that difficult to make a "self aware" A.I. thesedays, however the AI we create is not based on biological mathematical concepts but on physical mathematical concepts. It has conciousness in some sense.

chill, mate.

the thread's about ghosts and aliens. these are enabled by consciousness. born through and perceived by it.

i'm not deliberately trying to write in riddles or prose either so if it came across that way to you, then i apologize for your confusion.

and maybe multi-faced wasnt the best term to use right now .I meant the full spectrum of energy that is manifest as the known and unknown universe. the difference between the known and the unknown, is obviously huge ,so i was highlighting just how little we really know and are able to perceive (even with current levels of science) and collerating that with the ammount of concrete assumptions we make and label as certain. To assume such a definitive view point on something you have no real certainty to prove ,or disprove is in a sense, 'invalid' to begin with. Basically what cityzen has been saying.

d-T-r wrote:its a good thing there's no statisticians here then i guess.

hugh wrote:part of my pharmaceutical chemistry degree.

raboonthebaboon wrote:

hugh wrote:part of my pharmaceutical chemistry degree.

ahhh i see

raboonthebaboon wrote:

hugh wrote:part of my pharmaceutical chemistry degree.

ahhh i see

Mr Hyde wrote:

raboonthebaboon wrote:

hugh wrote:part of my pharmaceutical chemistry degree.

ahhh i see

yet again the big pharma companies and their nwo cover up tactics!

d-T-r wrote:

raboonthebaboon wrote:

hugh wrote:part of my pharmaceutical chemistry degree.

ahhh i see

only just noticed the chemistry part. Even if someone doesnt' feel the need to try DMT themselves, at least look into the scientific studies of it, and it's properties and i'm sure at the very least, any concrete viewpoints (on things like the soul/'ghosts'/aliens/after-life) will have their foundations tested.

cityzen wrote:

therapist wrote:Oh, so we could have stopped this when I said it's a negligible chance. If you'd just said "yeah they could exist, but it's less likely than superman/spiderman/batman existing" I would have thought fair enough.

So you agree that this

therapist wrote:How the fuck can anyone think there's any slight chance ghosts are real?

is a deeply flawed question. Good. Now we've got somewhere.
Sorry you feel condescended to but if I have to explain logic to you as if I was speaking to a child (and for all I know I am. This is the internet after all) then I have no problem with that. I'm not sure you have any grasp of Zen but helping to emancipate each other from our self imposed prisons is something we should all aspire to do. That's all I was ever trying to do with you.

Genevieve wrote:

d-T-r wrote:

raboonthebaboon wrote:

hugh wrote:part of my pharmaceutical chemistry degree.

ahhh i see

only just noticed the chemistry part. Even if someone doesnt' feel the need to try DMT themselves, at least look into the scientific studies of it, and it's properties and i'm sure at the very least, any concrete viewpoints (on things like the soul/'ghosts'/aliens/after-life) will have their foundations tested.

Why? DMT trips are subjective eye-witness experiences. They don't test anything, it just proves that substance A makes subject B feel like X.

therapist wrote:You've 'picked up' on that subtle bit of hyperbole in my first post, yes, now we've truly got somewhere. That's what all this pompous bullshit was about? I wasn't in a prison, I just don't believe in ghosts. Clever metaphor though.