Rosemary Ellen Guiley

[Randall]

... if a person on the level of brain greene or lisa randell (spl?) came out with a mathmatical equation that made paranormal explanations a plausible answer...something on the level of einsteins explanation on gravity which from what I understand wasn't proven until two years ago but accepted as probable in the accompanying years would any of you guys be more open to it (paranormal explanations)

Math is an abstract way of expressing certain ideas and/or observations, and because math can be complex, the average person feels they are in no position to challenge it. Therefore if some expert mathematician says something is mathematically possible, people tend to forget that abstract does not = real and they take it for granted that it's actually possible. They overlook disclaimers like "I'm not saying this is actually possible" or "if we could do such and such", and overlook just how big these "ifs" are, and that they're usually ideas taken to absurd extremes to accommodate some pop-science theory or another that will get the ratings.

However it's not necessary to know how to do the calculations to understand whether or not the math applies. All that is required is an understanding of what the ideas and/or observations are, and a basic understanding of the analogy being made by the mathematical expression. When we have that understanding we can see how absurd some math is ( or isn't ). One of the most relevant illustrations of how absurd it is to believe that numbers = reality is the famous line in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, " The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything = 42." It's not much different than answering the question, "Is time travel possible by answering "Ω ~ R x Σ".

 

[Muadib]

Douglas Adams really was a genius, I especially enjoy what has come to be known as Puddle Theory. It's basically a satire of the Fine-tuned Universe argument for supernatural creationism. Adams said:

"... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

If you've never read any of his books you are definitely missing out.

 

[TalkingMeatSuit]

Citing word definitions and Wikipedia pages isn't going to convince a "nuts and bolts" person into a "believer" or vice versa. In the end folks are going to believe what they want to believe. I don't recall any Facebook political debates ever ending with someone switching parties; the same pattern holds for this chasm in the para community. Either way, it all makes for good entertainment and mind-stretching.

 

[Infolad1]

Math is an abstract way of expressing certain ideas and/or observations, and because math can be complex, the average person feels they are in no position to challenge it. Therefore if some expert mathematician says something is mathematically possible, people tend to forget that abstract does not = real and they take it for granted that it's actually possible. They overlook disclaimers like "I'm not saying this is actually possible" or "if we could do such and such", and overlook just how big these "ifs" are, and that they're usually ideas taken to absurd extremes to accommodate some pop-science theory or another that will get the ratings.

However it's not necessary to know how to do the calculations to understand whether or not the math applies. All that is required is an understanding of what the ideas and/or observations are, and a basic understanding of the analogy being made by the mathematical expression. When we have that understanding we can see how absurd some math is ( or isn't ). One of the most relevant illustrations of how absurd it is to believe that numbers = reality is the famous line in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, " The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything = 42." It's not much different than answering the question, "Is time travel possible by answering "Ω ~ R x Σ".

"Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) said, "The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth." Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences."Benjamin Peirce (1809–1880) called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions." David Hilbert said of mathematics: "We are not speaking here of arbitrariness in any sense. Mathematics is not like a game whose tasks are determined by arbitrarily stipulated rules. Rather, it is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise." Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." French mathematician Claire Voisin states "There is creative drive in mathematics, it's all about movement trying to express itself."

Mathematics is the fundamental language of the universe. Regardless of some of it being speculative, or abstract. To say otherwise isn't very scientific.

Mr. Adams was a very clever man. Mabye it does all add up to 42. That would be hilarious.

"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

 

[RobDel]

Pardon me guys, If I may cut in for a second. I'm watching this new show "Monsters and Mysteries in America" And guess who's head pops up, Rosemary Ellen Guiley. It's entertaining and has good production quality, kind of like MonsterQuest but without the scientific analysis. Has anyone heard of a "Sheepsquatch"? I have to admit, I did giggle when she used the term.
Here's a link to show clips:
Destination America "Monsters and Mysteries in America: Sheepsquatch Attack"

 

[Infolad1]

Citing word definitions and Wikipedia pages isn't going to convince a "nuts and bolts" person into a "believer" or vice versa. In the end folks are going to believe what they want to believe. I don't recall any Facebook political debates ever ending with someone switching parties; the same pattern holds for this chasm in the para community. Either way, it all makes for good entertainment and mind-stretching.

I'm actually not trying to convince anyone of anything, just for the reasons you cite. When I officially started on this journey over 20 years ago, a lot of people's insights
and assistance helped me along the way. I always said that I would return the favor to others sincerely seeking answers. So my comments, links, etc. are for those that are looking for a direct, reproducible way (with physical effects) to verifying a number of phenomena. Also to show that the western paradigm isn't nearly as complete as some would think, and that a lot could be solved by studying various ancient cultures, and applying what works.

Clear nomenclature is very important in understanding anything, with usage of incorrect terms being the source of much mischief, and confusion.

Belief is incredibly dangerous in this context. Believe nothing. When we say we believe something, what we're actually saying is we don't know.
Men have killed each other for ages over belief. When it come to the important things in life, you'd better know.

One of the things I do is Gong-Fu, in particular Internal arts like Tai Chi Quan, Qigong, & Neigong. I teach and practice it. I did an Iron body/Iron Crotch Qigong demo a couple of years back in front of a crowd of 200 people at a health expo. My Sifu and I had people come up on stage to verify that I was doing what they saw. The next day, a friend of mine came up to me, and told me a number of people said it was fake. They refused to accept what they saw in person. Even when it's happening in front of them, people believe what they want to believe. I can attest to that.

I'm about what works. Everything I talk about I research, test, and verify to my satisfaction. I've taught it to others, and they've verified it. At this point in my life, I don't need approval or validation from others. I know what I do works. It just takes a long time, and hard work (the Gong in Gong-fu) to verify a lot of it, and most people,
especially in current society, don't have the time or patience to do it. Or they blow it off with a snarky remark.

But you're right, it all makes for good entertainment and mind-stretching.

 

[Infolad1]

Douglas Adams really was a genius, I especially enjoy what has come to be known as Puddle Theory. It's basically a satire of the Fine-tuned Universe argument for supernatural creationism. Adams said:

"... imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in, fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be all right, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise."

If you've never read any of his books you are definitely missing out.

The puddle didn't disappear, it just went to a higher state of existence, it'll be back next puddle, forgetting all that happened before

I feel a Talking Heads moment coming on:

 

[Angel of Ioren]

Thanks for the finger-wagging lecture about this thread on this week's episode Chris... So REG should be help-up because she's shoehorning a cultural entity into explanations of unknown phenomena?

 

[Wade]

Math is an abstract way of expressing certain ideas and/or observations, and because math can be complex, the average person feels they are in no position to challenge it. Therefore if some expert mathematician says something is mathematically possible, people tend to forget that abstract does not = real and they take it for granted that it's actually possible. They overlook disclaimers like "I'm not saying this is actually possible" or "if we could do such and such", and overlook just how big these "ifs" are, and that they're usually ideas taken to absurd extremes to accommodate some pop-science theory or another that will get the ratings.

However it's not necessary to know how to do the calculations to understand whether or not the math applies. All that is required is an understanding of what the ideas and/or observations are, and a basic understanding of the analogy being made by the mathematical expression. When we have that understanding we can see how absurd some math is ( or isn't ). One of the most relevant illustrations of how absurd it is to believe that numbers = reality is the famous line in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, " The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, The Universe, and Everything = 42." It's not much different than answering the question, "Is time travel possible by answering "Ω ~ R x Σ".

Thanks for all the dish

Don't bother I'll say it...uuuuuugghh

 

[SonofaSkunk]

Concerning this episode. I didn't like the subject and didn't agree with the guest's theories. Therefore, I turned it off and went to bed.

 

[starise]

These discussions might be a different recipe but the ingredients in the dish remain fairly consistent.

 

[starise]

starise said: ↑

Looks like really rapid blinking to me.I can't look her in the eyes and have enough time to see them before she blinks. I was just curious what it could be . Stoned maybe, tired is usually not super rapid blinking is it? I can't say it's nothing, might be trivial but it's something and struck me as odd. Make of it what you will I guess.​

Her contacts may be bothering her.​

Sometimes it the most obvious thing...don't know why I didn't think of that one. Maybe because I don't wear contacts...thanks.

 

[Burnt State]

I enjoyed the episode, liked listening to REG,

You deserve multiple bonus points for being a positive contrarian amidst all the noise while simultaneously using the word, 'entheogen.' Well done! Can someone give this poster a trophy?

 

[Burnt State]

I appreciate your post JD! Let's get real: Nobody has everything figured out. It's the classic "three blind men and the elephant," scenario. We're all on a path of ever-changing discovery. Me, you, REG, "Muadib," Gene, Lance, Stephen Hawking, Pope Francis, Sarah Palin... (well maybe not her ) et. all., etc... All we are able to do is take the available data, bounce it off our own experience; throw it against the wall and see what sticks. "Experience," and qualified analysis—in all its forms—should count for something, no? It sure does in my opinion. And let's not forget the added bonus of the motivation (and ability) to put it down for others to read, ponder and decide for themselves if there are kernels of truth contained within. Whatever that insight is, whether tangible or ephemeral, could very well aid our own process of discovery. Or you can choose to NOT get up2speed and decide its all just a bunch of bullpucky and join that baby outside blinking in the bathwater...

I agree with Jeff in that it's your show and you get to do what you want and promote what you want. What listeners have difficulty with, like all people who stand outside power (you as host have power/we as listeners are powerless) is hypocrisy or anything that smells like it. On one hand the show promotes the notion of asking the tough questions to separate signal from noise, yet some guests do get 'lighter' treatment perhaps out of collegial respect, friendship or whatever. This can drive some lsteners over the edge because they may sense hypocrisy, which you just might call giving a longtime researcher the respect you believe they are due. Two separate realities for two degrees of power.

However, I've seen some trends over the years. Some of the Ufological historical figures sometimes get to have their say with minimum grilling, the improbable is readily accepted and the compliments flow. I know that if you grilled everyone all the time you might not get any guests at all. So it's a balance you strike, i suppose. When folklorists are on I don't get too excited, but if a researcher is on, or someone is claiming science, then I really appreciate it when the hosts get critical.

When Nancy Talbot came on we had a backlash from the listeners for that same reason; Stanford and Phillips make me feel the same way about their unproven claims. I wish I knew different, but The Paracast doesn't always help me with this so I finally decided to go on the forum to get a more robust approach to topics and guests alike. I love the free service you provide, the new ideas i've heard and know that it can't be all things for all listeners. So bleach and autoclave aside, I like it more when there is positive, critical dialogue on the forum that works to clear the air and create a stronger signal. You control that, too.

 

[Randall]

"Galileo Galilei (1564–1642) said, "The universe cannot be read until we have learned the language and become familiar with the characters in which it is written. It is written in mathematical language, and the letters are triangles, circles and other geometrical figures, without which means it is humanly impossible to comprehend a single word. Without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth." Carl Friedrich Gauss (1777–1855) referred to mathematics as "the Queen of the Sciences."Benjamin Peirce (1809–1880) called mathematics "the science that draws necessary conclusions." David Hilbert said of mathematics: "We are not speaking here of arbitrariness in any sense. Mathematics is not like a game whose tasks are determined by arbitrarily stipulated rules. Rather, it is a conceptual system possessing internal necessity that can only be so and by no means otherwise." Albert Einstein (1879–1955) stated that "as far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." French mathematician Claire Voisin states "There is creative drive in mathematics, it's all about movement trying to express itself."

Mathematics is the fundamental language of the universe. Regardless of some of it being speculative, or abstract. To say otherwise isn't very scientific.

Mr. Adams was a very clever man. Mabye it does all add up to 42. That would be hilarious.

"So long, and thanks for all the fish"

Great quotes there, and I don't dispute that mathematics is useful. Nor am I saying anything unscientific. Quite the opposite. The reason I'm saying that certain mathematical models aren't realistic is based on science and logic, not how cool it would be if we could take the math to absurd lengths.

 

[Infolad1]

Great quotes there, and I don't dispute that mathematics is useful. Nor am I saying anything unscientific. Quite the opposite. The reason I'm saying that certain mathematical models aren't realistic is based on science and logic, not how cool it would be if we could take the math to absurd lengths.

Good point. I should have been more clear, and used the term applied mathematics. You're talking about so called pure mathematics, which can get pretty out there.

This actually illustrates my earlier point about correct use of terminology. And you actually inferred that you were discussing applied mathematics when you said "it's not necessary to know how to do the calculations to understand whether or not the math applies."

I stand corrected. My apologies Sir.

 

[Randall]

Good point. I should have been more clear, and used the term applied mathematics. You're talking about so called pure mathematics, which can get pretty out there.

This actually illustrates my earlier point about correct use of terminology. And you actually inferred that you were discussing applied mathematics when you said "it's not necessary to know how to do the calculations to understand whether or not the math applies."

I stand corrected. My apologies Sir.

Hey no need for apologies . I'll clarify what I meant by that statement you quoted. Let's take a recurring theme in science:

If we understand some basic science, then we recognize it as a formula that describes how intensity is inversely proportional to the square of the distance. If we're not so good at math but still get the idea, we understand that as we move closer and closer to something, the faster and faster the intensity of that thing changes. If we're armchair scientists we recognize that this phenomenon is non-linear and applies to the intensity of light and gravitation, and some other things. We don't need to know how to do the math to know that it doesn't apply to how long it takes the Earth to rotate 180 degrees on its axis or how many days it is until Easter because those are fundamentally different concepts. Although to be fair, it might be proposed that for certain young people, the anticipation of finding some hidden chocolate is inversely proportional to the square of the time remaining until Easter morning .

 

[Infolad1]

Excellent example. And your last point is only too true

 

[starise]

I'm probably the odd ball here but I make no apologies for believing in God,angels and demons. I feel I have solid basis for this belief. The djinn.....meh, I'm not so sure.

I think it's all in the labeling like I mentioned earlier. The spirit world is likely full of a lot more than we realize. I'm not past adding some other things in there. If you followed the whole nephillim, giants thing and buy into that then the next logical idea is that even though they are dead they had souls that would presumably still be wandering around somewhere,so here is another classification of an entity. These were really bad dudes when they were living, so if they in fact carried on and are here they would be up to no good. Do animals have souls? Maybe not in the way we think of it, but if something carries on then we have another possibility there. If there is a God( I believe there is) and He made angels, then He could have made things He never told you or me about. ....so in the beginning thoughts here we have added quite a few possibilities.

Djinn?? I don't really know. The Bible and the Koran line up in a lot of what they say concerning some of the things that happened during OT times, but the Bible doesn't specifically mention Djinn. This appears to be strictly coming from other middle eastern sources. My take is that these people seen and experienced things or entities and named em' Djinn, no different than the angelic beings of the Bible.

We can't differentiate spirits like we do colors here in the physical, IMO we can't say , " Oh thats a Djinn, it has the turban on its head". Maybe I'm wrong and there really are Djinn which are nothing like bad angels but how would you prove it?

 

[Smitty in Atl.]

Hey, guys.

Late to the party, but I thought this was a very well done episode.

Specifically, Chris, I think, is a particularly adept interviewer. Never assuming the listeners know what the interviewee has years of experience in, I like that he provides context and a “thumbnail sketch” that gives us the 101 level context.

Rosemary obviously has particular subjects she gravitates towards, but don’t we all? I would love to learn more about how the djinn are related to the Nephilm. The episode where Scott Alan Roberts went into his research on these ancient biblical beings made me run, not walk, to Amazon and order his book.

Hey, Gene/Chris, how about having him back to discuss his book The Secret History of Reptilians?

Anyhow. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

You too, Gene.

Smitty