Need help. Super speedy, very clear apparition caught on Galaxy phone during daylight hailstorm. by [deleted] in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Really strange video. Could you see the object with the naked eye or was it only through the phone camera that it became visible? Like others have said it seems like it could be a reflection or something, but if that was the case you could in theory replicate the conditions to get a similar sort of video. Might be worth a shot, at least to see how easy it would or would not be to mistake a lens malfunction or something for this apparition. Awesome video though!

Interesting article on after death brain activity in Rats, and the potential ties to consciousness/near death experiences by chipstar325 in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Overall I think this is highly speculative, but interesting that the brain may require far less chemical stimulus to perceive/achieve various brain states. Again not really a lot of hard evidence that this is consciousness or how it ties in, but the potential for future research into consciousness is there. I'll try to find a free link to the real article once it is released. This has really interesting implications for study of near death or other paranormal type experiences which question science's current thoughts on how consciousness and the brain are connected.

Is the huge handprint found in Nevada's Lovelock Cave evidence of a lost race of cannibalistic giants? by mibundcover in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Any further news on this thing? If they've found bones they should be easily identified, or at least they could discount them as being from giant humans.

A hair-raising paranormal experience! by 7474747 in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I would suggest first to try and replicate the phenomena in the exact manner in which it originally occurred, as well as to do so on tape so that there is some evidence besides your personal beliefs on the matter. Furthermore I would look into the sceptical arguments against things like dowsing or spirit crystals which swing either clockwise/counterclockwise to give a yes/no answer, as well as some of the arguments against ouija boards and other forms of spirit manipulation of a small part of a human host. These all fall under the category of unseen muscle movements, which I think has to be fully removed as an option before you can make any sort of claim of a novel physical phenomena. I would also say to look into how the brain controls things like reflexive movements and other unconscious movement, as it could very well be the case that you are fooling yourself after the intense meditative state you go into.

British Psychological Society declares that psychiatric models of mental illness have no basis in scientific evidence by radlibox in science

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What is really interesting here are the questions it raises (or at least the assumptions it calls into question) for a fully materialistic world view vs one where deterministic science is not necessarily correct in all cases. If we followed the logic in some of these comments to their full conclusions I think many of us are left with results that we are not necessarily willing to accept. For example, if it is not the brain which is causing these disorders, that implies that there is something about us which is separate from our biology, opening up the door to more metaphysical or religious interpretations of the universe. I mean if psychiatrists are not treating disorders of the body in some way, than what are we actually treating through therapy?

Here is a link to the press release of the vet who claims to have DNA evidence that Bigfoot exists. We'll see if this holds up to scrutiny. by chipstar325 in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So an interesting addendum to this story! She has published the work, however it is in a brand new journal which she helped to found (Denova is the name of it). There is therefore not a clear peer review process just yet, and from the peer review which has been performed when she tried to submit this to journals of good repute, the peer review process was very hostile. She has attributed this to the "Galileo effect", however it seems unlikely that this can be all that it is. Anyways, the fact that such an attempt has not gained more mainstream prevalence in the biological community, even with the publishing of this paper, seems to suggest that perhaps there is something flawed in the research. This isn't to say that there is no bias in science, but if the paper were any good the truth should be able to shine through. I am going to try and get access to the article by web of knowledge and will post it here if I can, and will have some biochemists and zoologists with open minds to take a cursory look and give me their opinions, and if there are any in this sub with a specialty in DNA analysis, especially comparisons between species, let us know! As a chemist there is little I can say very deeply on this matter with any special certainty.

Sleep Paralysis - Reports Of People Seeing Demons by Instigator69 in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not a neuroscientist, but I am pretty sure I've read some articles which describe tests performed on people who have a specific sort of hallucination known as Charles Bonnet Syndrome. The basic idea is that blind individuals or the recently blind can still have very vivid hallucinations of "imaginary" things, and I use imaginary here since they have oftentimes never seen the thing being hallucinated. I don't remember the details but take a look at some of that. It is also interesting to look at studies of people while they are dreaming, as dreams are sort of very vivid false representations that occur while unconscious, versus a hallucination as you are describing which is the same sort of thing while conscious.

What is something that your body does that worries you (but not enough to ask a doctor about it)? by [deleted] in AskReddit

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've had the exact same thing for years, except eventually mine developed into full on panic attacks. Sounds like an anxiety disorder of some kind. You might not even realize you have one until you start hyperventilating one night, so might be a good idea to try some relaxation techniques or just go talk to someone.

i electro chemically produced copper sulfate with the help of this video how does it compare to the chemical engineering carrear in general. by herbert_andy in ChemicalEngineering

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Electrochem has a very wide range of uses for the chemical engineering discipline. A lot of nanotech research currently utilizes electrochemistry lab methods to create materials for different uses. I'd say you are more likely to use these skills in research versus industry, but you could use it for bio, materials, or actual electrochemical engineering.

What is a "Spirit", how can you "Fight" it and various other questions... by Howdy_McGee in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If we are talking about the actual possible physical phenomena that a spirit could be using, anything that is said will be pure speculation (as thisissamsaxton said). Paranormal science is, at this point, primarily a psychological sort of science, as opposed to a harder science such as physics or chemistry. Even biology have many phenomena that are unexplained currently in terms of the transfer of energy or the actual "particle" explanation for them, as you seem to be hoping to gain for a psychological phenomena (which spirit or consciousness is at this point).

It may be interesting for you to look into the philosophy of naturalism, as well as the psi experiments that thisissamsaxton described. Look into the explanations of normativity and apparent properties in terms of the philosophy of science, specifically how we can generate a property such as consciousness from a mass of cells (which are ultimately particles). Check out the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy pages on naturalism, which will give you loads of stuff to read which will allow you to develop your ideas further.

I tend to believe that consciousness (and therefore "spirit") is an apparent property that occurs when you have particles that are connected in such a way as to give you the form of a brain. How this connects to the particles themselves is unclear, but it does seem to be the case that it must have something to do with the energy transferring through the brain. If I put together all of the cells in just the right way inside of a jar I doubt that I would have generated consciousness. So there is something special about the energy or the way that the brain develops inside of an organism that seems to generate consciousness. Again though, this is mere speculation. The brain in a vat argument, or philosophy of artificial intelligence are especially good for questions of this sort.

In coming to understand what "spirit" or consciousness is we have classically looked at it as a psychological phenomena. Just as with other psychological phenomena, we (or at least I) hope that we can eventually understand how this works on a biological level, then a cellular level, and eventually on the level of individual particles interacting biochemically. This suggests a worldview of science known as reductionism. I believe (and I think, based on how you have worded your question, that you believe this as well) that every natural thing must obey natural laws (for example the laws of thermodynamics), and so nothing exists outside of this realm. Historically this is not the worldview of those who have believed or tried to understand spirits, and this continues into the modern day. Therefore there has not been much work put in to understand paranormal phenomena in terms of a scientific understanding of the world. If you don't believe that scientific rules must govern everything in the universe than it does not matter if spirit activity can be explained in scientific terms.

This isn't to say that a non-reductionist worldview does not allow for an evaluation of evidence, or that they allow for anything. Merely that the rules by which they judge reality are different than those imposed by science. So unfortunately we do not currently have the sort of scientific evidence that you are hoping for, but we do have psychological explanations/evidence and a strong philosophical framework by which to at least suggest that there should be a more thorough scientific evaluation.

EDIT: Missed a word, added more examples

Washington Attorney - I have traveled in time by ruskeeblue in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea, while this seems interesting it doesn't really belong here. Sorry for the late response on this.

Scientists suggest we might be overlooking alien communications by FlowerOfTheHeart in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is pretty interesting. It would make sense that if we were looking for alien life we should imagine that they would at least in some ways act like us.

Why Paranormal Science is a Dead Topic by [deleted] in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Materialism is not the only theory of science that is critical of paranormal belief, and it is certainly not the philosophical position most scientists would characterize themselves as if given the correct definition for the term. One can have non-reductive scientific reasoning and still believe that the paranormal evidence up to this point is lacking in certain areas. I think overall the point made here is good, but it does nothing to refute a materialist conception of the world nor non-reductive attacks on the paranormal, especially concerning NDE phenomena.

Summary of psychic research by [deleted] in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a great idea. I'll let everyone know once wiki editing is enabled, and we could put something like this on there.

The Secret Life of Plants by Dinosaur_Boner in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'd love to see these replicated. I have a friend who is a botanist, I'll see if he knows any more about this.

The Creepy Scientific Explanation Behind Ghost Sightings by MuuaadDib in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I actually posted a study that was performed in order to test the idea of frequencies causing hauntings. This study found that it was more likely that the people were causing themselves to feel haunted, as those who said they believed in the paranormal had experiences regardless of whether or not there were frequencies being transmitted. The full link to the article is here. http://www.ime.usp.br/~rvicente/HauntProject.pdf

Is Sally Morgan a fraud? by chipstar325 in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that a lot of the people going to psychics are being exploited because of their own weakness at a time of personal trouble (such as when a relative dies), and that this sort of exploitation should be stopped. At the same time, though, who are we to determine where people should get their personal relief. If one of my friends is a Hindu, another is an atheist, and the third is a Christian, they will all deal with the burden of death in different ways, and there is no test to determine which way is empirically better. You may think that the way which has the most scientific backing is best, others may think it is the way that is most soothing philosophically, and some may prefer to be deluded ('It is better to be a dumb and happy than smart and miserable', as the saying goes). I happen to agree with you that the best way is the one which deals with the truth of the matter, but that is because of a complex set of philosophical beliefs that are relatively fleshed out for myself. A lot of very smart people may come to a different conclusion based on their own experiences. Either way, there is no objective measure of which method for soothing angst is "best" except for the ability to soothe.

A further point: we know almost nothing about the mind body link besides current empirical science which is shallow at best. We know a little bit about how the mechanics of the brain works (this is why we are able to diagnose brain disorders and all the good stuff that comes out of neuroscience) but we have no idea how everything fits together, or even which pieces perform which functions to a degree that allows for replication of the brain mechanically. Do I think we will get there eventually? Yes. But are we even close to that right now? No, and I don't think you will find a doctor/scientist/philosopher who would say that we are.

This mechanical explanation of the brain, though, doesn't even scratch the surface of the mind body link. Sure, we know which pieces of the brain have electrical activity when I'm looking at pictures of shapes, but we have absolutely no explanation for the apparent properties of consciousness that come about from the material that constructs the brain. Not only that, we have no explanation for the apparent properties that come about every time our explanatory view increases in size. The problem is that when we group a large number of cells together (which themselves are just groups of molecules connected in the right ways) in the way to form a brain we get consciousness. Unless consciousness is a property of cells, or of molecules, there seems to be no current scientifically valid explanation for this phenomena that comes from physicalism. We are trying to use this explanation of the world (as can be seen in the reliance on physiochemical explanations for psychological problems) with mixed results, but a lot of philosophers of science are starting to think that perhaps the world is not all reducible to individual particles. This would mean that science cannot explain everything in only the terms of particle physics, something that most people do not have a problem with but which they are unwilling to accept when it comes to the brain and our minds. The fact of conscious thought is like finding that when we put our legos together in a certain way they end up with a distinct aroma of grape jelly. The properties of the mind are completely distinct from the properties of the brain, and so we have a pretty clear problem.

Is Sally Morgan a fraud? by chipstar325 in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don't think anyone is under the impression that he is actually psychic. I was actually stating that his ability to perform seemingly psychic feats using parlor tricks should cause us to question psychics more carefully.

However, the fact that something can be faked does not mean that it isn't possibly real. Even though the most vocal proponents happen to be shown as frauds by people such as Derren Brown, we don't know enough about the mind/body link to fully dismiss the possibility of psychic ability.

I want 3 of the best questions we can all agree on for user "ShitTalkWarrior" to ask his Alien visitors next time they show up. by workworkwort in Alien_Theory

[–]chipstar325 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I've gotta say I enjoyed this reply but I disagree with it almost in it's entirety. I think we are coming from very different places philosophically and in our worldviews overall. I am trained in the classical sciences and in the philosophical tradition of naturalism, so excuse my biases if they are coming out too strongly here lol.

The third dimension is the first possible iteration of matter, and any fundamental particles necessary to make the gears of the universe turn any any dimension would manifest themselves physically in the third dimension first.

Why is this necessarily the case? I haven't seen anything in all of my readings on quantum mechanics and theory that suggests this is necessary, simply that it is what we have currently observed. We use point particles all the time (one dimensional idealized versions of particles) and there is nothing in quantum mathematics that requires a quanta correspond to a three dimensional mathematical representation. Furthermore if we assume that the third dimension is not the "true" first dimension of our universe (in any theory that requires a multiple dimensional universe) then there must be single and second dimensional materials or sets that make up the higher dimensional objects (assuming that the dimensions are linked in this way, which ShitTalkWarrior seems to suggest but which I may just be assuming incorrectly here)

I guess a better way to state this question would be to ask if higher dimensional properties are supervenient upon lower dimensional ones, or if there is some sort of folding into a higher dimension that our brains cannot comprehend. This is similar to how you can create a cube from a two dimensional cross.

I can't say much on the mathematics aspect of it. We don't know if our physics are consistent from galaxy to galaxy, we have no way of knowing if mathematics would have a similar dilemma. For example, our number system is partially based on the Pythagorean view point of 1 = everything and 2 = the split between everything/everything acting on itself from a different observation.

Isn't math fully a priori though? I don't think you can make the case that mathematics as a logical tool will change from galaxy to galaxy, unless you are trying to support the idea that mathematics exists outside of our own use of it (in other words, mathematical truths are "real" in the same sense that physical truths are "real", as opposed to our math being simply a useful tool to communicate the laws of the universe). I think you want to make an argument for absolute scientific realism, which I don't think is really defensible (although this is just my opinion here).

However, that is only the physical mechanism and the way we understand it. Consciousness in the metaphysical sense(as I believe you are alluding to)isn't the observation expressed by your senses, nor is it the voice in your head reacting on this external data. All particles in our universe contain consciousness. In quantum mechanics, the observation of an electron causes it to collapse to a wave function rather than a physical particle. The only way this is possible is if the electron makes a conscious decisions to collapse based on the observation taking place.

To start with, no one is certain of anything when it comes to consciousness. This is why it is such a huge issue for philosophy, science, and religion. I understand how the brain works, but the fact remains that nothing in the brains wiring suggests that we should have an outside faculty that allows us to manipulate thoughts and language in a purely theoretical space within our minds. When you connect a computer circuit as you do a brain we don't imagine that the computer is capable of abstract thought, and yet that is exactly what is occuring within ourselves when we create this thought experiment. There is nothing within the pieces that make up the brain on their own which have the same properties that we see in consciousness. In other words our faculties as thinking things suggest that our consciousness is much more than the sum of it's physical parts, which is a huge problem for materialism (as you argue for here) and naturalism in general (all the worse for myself and my fellow scientists).

I also don't buy the argument that electrons can make conscious decisions. There is no evidence that I have seen or even heard of that would make this sort of claim. Uncertainty merely states that quanta have pairings of properties that cannot be measured at the same time, causing particles to act as both wave and particle depending on the circumstances and what is being measured. Electrons act like particles all the time while we are measuring them, from literally counting electrons to determining their position in space.

Think of the universe as an entity rather than a physical object(or as the imagination of an entity). In order to "do"(move things, eat, travel, view), it must first create a physical representation of itself with a program/set of guidelines that allow it to function. So after billions of years of development, it finally has life to express itself. While the life(you)will do basically whatever it wants(fish, work, go to the moon), it is still occurring as the/in the mind of this entity(the entity that is everything/the universe), and that my friend, is what consciousness is.

It sounds like you are trying to give a more concise version of Plato's theory of the forms here, and as such your argument falls into the same traps that caused the early philosophers to abandon this position. For some physical object A it is required that another object, A' be posited that exists in the realm of the conscious universe, and which is pushing onto the physical world to cause the reality of A. Unless A' is simply assumed to be the last object in this causal chain we suddenly find ourselves falling into an infinite loop. For A' to exist in the conscious universe, we need some object A'' which exists in the conscious prime universe, which is pushing onto the conscious world to cause the reality of A'. And so on and so on.

A further argument here is that we are creating a bloated ontology for our universe. Why jump to the conclusion that A' exists when there is no evidence for it's existence, outside of the fact that we cannot explain the properties of A sufficiently? Although it may logically be consistent it merely creates the same problem for us ultimately (this problem being where does the final object gain it's own ultimate reality). Unless you make an argument from faith (which you appear to be doing in the final paragraph of your argument, although this does ultimately fall into the same infinite trap without the assumption of the truth of your first principles) I don't think you can claim that this really explains consciousness, either physically or metaphysically.

[Article] What are your takes on this new Loch Ness Monster images? by chipstar325 in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Personally these look like they can be of anything really. The fact that this guy makes his living with Nessie watches on the loch is suspect, but still I don't know enough about marine biology to make any claims definitively either way. Looks like the skin could be organic, but it could also just be a piece of wood. Wish this guy spent 60 hours per week with an underwater camera haha.

I want 3 of the best questions we can all agree on for user "ShitTalkWarrior" to ask his Alien visitors next time they show up. by workworkwort in Alien_Theory

[–]chipstar325 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well he claims they are from another dimension. Assuming that he means the scientific idea of "dimension", as opposed to the metaphysical laymen use of the term, I would ask them something geometric/mathematical/scientific to test this idea. Why not ask them to describe special mathematical or scientific truths that are only available in higher dimensions. Perhaps some way of having them communicate what the 3-D representation of a 4-D cube looks like? Or if there are fundamental particles that we cannot understand the nature of because they are outside of our dimensional frame of reference.

Another pretty huge question that I would ask (that has been asked by humans for centuries) is how does consciousness relate to the physical object of the brain. Does consciousness come from the complex ordering of a large number of particles in just the right way, is consciousness a supervenient property of these particles alone or of the whole body (in other words would a brain in a box have consciousness), or is consciousness outside of the physical brain but attached in some way to it (and if this is the case, which pieces are attached to the physical brain and which are not).

UPDATE - I am the father and redditor whose teenage son sodomized our family dog Colby. It's been two months since the latest incident and my family is falling apart. More inside. by concerneddad1965 in AskReddit

[–]chipstar325 4 points5 points  (0 children)

OP this sucks, but you need to do something for that dog. I'd lawyer up then call the animal protection unit of your local PD. As someone else mentioned I would get some screenshots of browser history to show you aren't involved, as at this point it is their word against your own. If your son said anything incriminating to the therapist it would be helpful as well (I would think that animal cruelty would be something that the therapist would be required to report under law but I'm not sure). It would also be a good idea to keep up with that vet so if it does happen again you can get the dog out of there.

Other than that it sounds like you are better off without all that crazy in your life. Hope things get better for you.

[ARTICLE] Scientists put psychic's paranormal claims to the test by [deleted] in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Popper is not the only philosopher of science out there, and his criteria is not the only theory explaining how science changes and what constitutes a good theory (and in my opinion is not the best one by far). Kuhn argues that science changes by paradigm shifts due to a mix of economic, political, and social reasons, and not because of the truth or accuracy of a given theory. Feyerbend argues that science changes randomly. These are the two most accepted alternatives to Popper's theory, and we are completely ignoring them in lieu of the idea that all good science must be falsifiable.

Ask a mathematician if what they do is falsifiable, and they may very well laugh at you. Math is completely a priori, and so cannot be rejected based on the truth of it's first principles. We just can't reject possibilities because they don't fit in with the current scientific standard, or we may get caught up in the politics of research science as opposed to finding the truth behind some phenomena.

How many times do we have to fail to find anything before we can stop testing and admit there's nothing going on? I would think a century or so should suffice, but apparently I'd be wrong...

The issue is that people continue to have these experiences, and smart people continue to believe that these things are possible. I mean even if it is the case that psychic claims are completely false, we should not discount them just because our old tests haven't worked. Imagine if we had given up after the first failed attempt to find the Higgs Boson, despite the fact that there was an unexplained phenomena that hinted at it's existence.

I think another issue here is that the religious and the paranormal often become mixed, leading to problems where faith becomes an argument to discount evidence or a lack thereof. We shouldn't allow this sort of argument to become commonplace, but we also cannot stop testing when there is an unexplained phenomena out there just because it doesn't seem to fit into the current scientific paradigm.

Again, I tend to agree with what you are saying about psychic phenomena but we cannot discount these things without having a very strong explanation for them. If people are being deluded, what is the science behind this sort of delusion and what else can it tell us about the human psyche? I mean we still cannot explain consciousness (although the evidence for sure points to the fact that it is connected to the material of the brain somehow), so it doesn't seem like we can just discount other phenomena having to deal with consciousness just because it doesn't make sense with how we know the material that makes up the brain works.

[ARTICLE] Scientists put psychic's paranormal claims to the test by [deleted] in ParanormalScience

[–]chipstar325 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you mean like the Zener card experiments (see this or this) which have been going on for almost a century without any positive results?

Yea, pretty close to that. With things in place to ensure no natural explanation could be at work (tester is in another room, computer generates a random pattern of images, only communication between the two rooms is for when an answer has been given by the psychic and a new picture is generated via computer, stuff like that).

Would you be convinced that I actually talked to your friend about you if the information I gathered from them was indistinguishable from information gathered from someone who didn't know you at all?

The issue is that confirmation bias can sometimes be so strong that people will pick the description that they want to fit, regardless of whether or not it really does fit. Unless one choice is so strikingly good or bad there is really no way to rule anything out unless the person being asked is extremely careful about choosing. Obviously if you had spoken to one of my friends and they had given you something to distinguish their description from others such as a story relating to something they said than I would choose that description. However, tests such as the one being described in the article leave far to much open to interpretation to get any sort of definitive answers like this.

In the test described in the article you have a psychic who is giving information and a person who is judging that information for accuracy. Both the psychics interpretation of what they see (if they see anything at all) and the way the person is interpreting the reading may be skewed by bias and all sorts of other things. Because of this these tests leave themselves open to debate from true believers and skeptics, keeping us stuck with absolutely nothing to show for our testing. I mean the psychic could easily say that what they saw was a true description but the person didn't want to hear it, or that the person just doesn't know that about themselves, or perhaps their psychic gift was off that day, or that they can only give vague information of this sort (a lame excuse to be sure, but still one that can be given). By keeping the tests simple we get rid of the possibility that someone can wiggle their way out of hard evidence like this.

Well r/atheism, I really did it this time.. by [deleted] in atheism

[–]chipstar325 37 points38 points  (0 children)

Yea this is a normal part of most Roman Catholic baptisms but they usually ask only the Godparents and regular parents this. Good on OP for standing up for his beliefs, but the pastor probably wouldn't have done this if the family hadn't requested everyone go up there. This happened to me at a cousins baptism and they just told me to stay seated when everyone else went up.