Thinks'a'lot

_____________________________

If you were to know me personally, I would hazard a guess that you would think my magazine subscriptions bizarre - not that I read Bizarre (much too crass) - but I am more inclined to the more alternative thoughts and opinions that people lay grace to paper.

For example, I read a most intriguing article the other day about the Phelps' Family and how they had reasoned that Obama was the anti-Christ (and, thusly, the world would end soon, that is if God doesn’t 'tarry) - apparently, just after he was elected, they watched him on TV and... They just KNEW he was the anti-Christ. And from that day forth...

You get the idea? Not that I agree with most of the views I read: I do it purely to experience something new; to try to ascertain the answer WHY somebody would think that way.

For the Phelps'... it is simple - an abusive father. A Patriarch who ruled with a rod of iron and installed an AWEsome fear within his children.

I digress though. Sitting in the paper rack of my coffee table, you are more likely to find the latest issue of Fortean Times or Paranormal Magazine than you would... Men’s Health and... I dunno... gay porn?

I was reading a very long (seven fucking pages) laughable article on Bram Stoker (and how he came about with his Dracula book) which was accompanied with really bizarre pictures of a woman (headshot) who was drooling blood and had a bite mark on her neck. They were not even good pictures, she looked about 45 trying to be 35 - I digress again though! - The article was by some amazingly pretentious chap (whose name I have forgotten) and... Well, he didn’t tell us anything that hasn’t already been written about Bram Stoker.

"I was looking for connections to Bram Stoker and Freemasonry - turns out he wasn’t a member... or was he and it’s all a big conspiracy?" - As you can imagine, it was truly gripping stuff.

I doubt anybody would care if Mr Stoker was a Freemason though... and if they did well... he's kind of dead now (Or is he? WhooooOooOoOoOo!) And is less than forthcoming about his experiences about it.

So what was the point of this seven pages article (which summarized the book itself for 3 pages!)? "We already knew pretty much everything but here it is again JUST INCASE!"

They pay people for that. I sit here giving out spiel in my blog for free and this chap is making a mint giving out spiel in magazines. How is that fair?

The Conscience Question

___________________________________

As if to boil the blood of anybody who is currently struggling with debt, scientists have discovered exactly what women find attractive when men dance.
Are you ready for this people? Millions of pounds/dollars have been poured into scientific (I use this term loosely) research to discover that women find men attractive when they can dance... in time and to a beat.

*Tumbleweed*

I’ll leave that little bit of groundbreaking scientific research with you but feel free to silently rage with me.

On to more pressing matters:

Could the human soul – the very part of us that defines and makes us what we are – be transferable? Either between synthetic machinery OR a physical body?

The human brain – however mysterious it may be – is still just one big data-storage device; albeit a biological storage device. So what is to say that you couldn’t transfer one storage device to another body?

Consider the implications of doing so, both medical and ethical:

You’re in a coma but your mind is still very active, the person in the bed next to you is brain-dead but their body is very healthy. How do you proceed?
The Hippocratic Oath should at least offer the answer to that question from a purely medical stand-point but what about the ethical implications of swapping bodies in order to survive?

It could be argued that the person in the bed next to you has effectively died – but on the other hand, you would be consciously inhabiting their body so technically they would be alive to an extent. Does this mean you would become them?

In my personal opinion, the answer to that would be no.
If the human conscience (aka soul) is merely biological energy that is processed by the brain, then being brain-dead would effectively mean your soul has left your body. Hence there should be no ethical implications; much as there is not when we swap a kidney or a lung.

However, this is not the case. As human beings we rely on our senses to interpret the world around us, so John Doe walking down the street in Jane Doe’s old body would cause quite a stir – and not because of the sexuality implications – the emotional welfare of not only Jane Doe’s family would have to be taken into consideration also (It is her... but it is not?) but John Doe and his family himself. For example: Would John Doe (now in Jane Doe’s body) be able to find true love? What about his mental and emotional state at now being a woman? How would his friends and family react? Would he ever be able to find a life-partner and settle down?
This is assuming male – female transference is possible (and vice-versa) – would gender/sexual identity be an issue?

So does this mean that our human vanity would prevent us from undertaking (possible) future body swaps? A man walking down the street as a woman now-a-days still manages to raise an eyebrow or too. But in consideration; that is about 1000 eyebrows less than just 50 years ago. So would that mean in the future we will be more inclined to not just donate organs when we die, but (should we die of brain death) to donate our entire bodies too?

Consider the more immediate cosmetic implications: would we really be willing to carry the moral burden for the body we have always wanted?

Approach this very idea from a more scientific and sinister way: could body/memory transfer be as simple as pointing a device at your destination and flicking a switch?
If you have ever seen the TV programme by Joss Whedon called Dolls House – more specifically the episode entitled “Epitaph One” – you will understand what I am talking about.
As the brain is a collection of memories and knowledge – two things we can now share freely on the internet – wouldn’t it just be possible to download and store those memories on some external source?
I personally doubt it as all data degrades with enough time, but consider the implications of being able to do so and maintain it. Effectively you could live forever, a collection of thoughts, feelings and knowledge until downloaded into a new body.

Could mankind be trusted with such a technological advancement though? Joss Whedon (seriously, watch Dolls House!) and I am inclined to agree with his take on the subject. I won’t ruin it for you, it is one of the better episodes of the series, but suffice it to say we abuse the power to body-swap mercilessly.

So what do you think? Dance moves aside - Body swapping in order to save lives; would it cause more problems than it could solve?

The Ghost Hunting Dilemma (pt 2)

________________________________

Wow. When writing my last entry, I did not expect the amount of feedback I received. At all. (Could at least some of you please sign up to follow my blog so it is easier to keep track of you?)

_______________________________________

It would seem (again) that I need to clarify a few issues that I left open on the subject which I am more than willing to do. At the same time however, comments have been disabled until I sift through most of the irrelevant ones.

(Maria Joyobia asks: )

Isn’t your blog post/article a direct attack of Clairvoyance, mediumship and spiritualism as a whole? 

___

Not at all! Again, I am a very open-minded sceptic on these issues, but for every good apple in the barrel there are two bad ones: not every clairvoyant/medium/psychic is going to be genuine. A sad but true fact.
Add to this also that during the course of (what should be) a purely scientific investigation into the cause of the paranormal activity, the parapsychologist is relying on the conjecture of somebody who claims to hear/see the spirits and apparitions at this time. This cannot be proven or disproven – the parapsychologist is documenting speculation as evidence.

(Middletonfairy says: )

I take offence with your last post – I work in parapsychology and have never used the services of a clairvoyant/medium – not every parapsychologist is like the ones you see on TV!

___

I know little about this field of scientific study and I am sure there are parapsychologists out there that do not do this during their investigations so please, do not assume I am generalising the entire field of parapsychology.

I do however believe that the parapsychologists who do use these methods throw reasonable doubt onto parapsychology as a scientific study.

(Abstractdesignation asks: )

Saying you believe in ghosts, why wouldn’t you believe in a greater force that puts them there? You say it would be insulting for a medium to say a prayer for a spirit and send them into the light; why?

___

Open-minded sceptic; I believe there are things in this world that we cannot explain yet, but I would not associate my personal belief with any kind of faith in the subject. After all, it is me knowing as a fact “There are things in this world we can’t explain yet!” not me thinking “There MUST BE things in this world we can’t explain yet!”

That being said, I am willing to stretch my imagination to the possibility that ghosts do actually exist (for this exercise).

Consider that your soul is disembodied; you are walking around the same world you used to know and love but you have can have little interaction with it because you are essentially pure energy.

Here are your variables. I am forcing these on your imagination so you can understand my point of view:

• The most you can interact with in this world is by making a few stray noises here and there and slightly changing the temperature.
• You are not religious. At all.
• You desperately want your family and friends to know that you are (in another form) still around.

Now keeping all this in mind, a film crew show up; they have brought along with them a gentlemen who believes himself to be able to talk to the dead but actually he cannot, although, he has managed to research some of your background and the background of your home via Facebook and Wikipedia.

This ghost hunting team begin to ask you questions. Obviously, you cannot answer them and they receive no obvious paranormal activity. They then try to antagonise and provoke you by calling you names and using personal information so they can get response. Obviously, you cannot respond to them.

Ask yourself now how this is making you feel. You cannot give them what they require, they are trying harder and basically verbally abusing you and you cannot retaliate or respond at all.

Now, whilst keeping all that in mind, imagine that the team are wrapping up the investigation and they ask the medium to say a religious prayer in order to send you on your way, leaving you hanging around (probably) in a worse emotional state than you were before whilst at the same time easing their conscience as they can say “We helped that spirit”.

Remember: you are not religious and this medium has lied telling the investigators that you have moved onto a better place. How has this experience made you feel?

(Zakiepatakie asks: )

Would you really care (as a ghost) if somebody had promised to help you and didn’t? Who is to say life after death is sentient?

___

Who is to say it isn’t? If clairvoyants, mediums and psychics are to be believed, then the “Ghost/Spirit” of the dead person is speaking to/through them and trying to pass on messages to their families. That being the case, you would have to know (as a ghost) that this person has the ability to hear “Ghosts/Spirits” – essentially, you have just had a thought process – we think, therefore we are.

That being the case, why wouldn’t we be offended, upset or emotionally perturbed if a bad ghost hunting group - using a bad medium - came along and did this to us? We would be offended, upset and/or emotionally perturbed if a camera crew came to our houses whilst we were alive and did this to our faces – why does being dead (and a ghost) suddenly change the rules for social etiquette?

(Garygibbs asks: )

So you’re basically saying we should not hunt for evidence of life after death?

___

No. We are by our own existence curious creatures. We should know what happens to us after death, it is our fundamental right to know as it happens to all of us, but we are approaching from an extreme angle.

Somewhere along the line, as science has stepped in to investigate, we have seemingly lost our respect for the dead. Weather consciously or not – and maybe out of frustration – rather than investigate and communicate in a more respectable and tactful way, we have resorted to conjecture form Spiritualists, provocation from investigators searching for EVP and forced religious and spiritual ideology (what good is there in saying a prayer on behalf of somebody who is not at all religious and in order to move them on?)

To clarify, I am not denying the existence of a higher power guiding us at all (I am trying to be as objective as possible here) but at the same time, keeping in mind our understandings of life and the universe,  how can we be sure that a higher power is responsible for ghosts/spirits? What if it is just natural energy that exists out of our audio and spectral range?

Parapsychology should not cater to (any) religious ideology at all. Objective scientific study is the only way parapsychology as a whole can move forward.

I hope this has clarified some points from my previous blog post. I’m interested on your take of things. What is your opinion?