Are ghosts real?

[RAMOSS]

Grip didn't attribute his experience to a 'ghost encounter', so you have built a straw man right there. But again I ask you for proof of what you are saying. Prove to me that he did not experience what he said he experienced or his interpretation of it was irrational. Prove to me that when hundreds of people testify that they have experienced such encounters that Occam's Razor does not apply and the simplest solution is that there is some phenomenon that causes such experiences.

This absurd (and irrational) demand for proof--something that would get you laughed off the podium in a formal debate--can cut both ways.

He FELT the presence of his dead mother. Sounds like a ghost to me.. spirit of the dead, etc etc etc.. what ever you want to call it.

Oh, and I am sure he had the experience. What I doubt is his ability to show it is other than a self generated feeling that originates entirely inside the brain without any external stimulus. So, you can stop building your straw man right then and there.

The fact is when it comes to feeling the spirit of the deceased, we have evidence people have emotions and memories. What we don't have is a mechanism for a 'spirit' from the dead. Since we have a mechanism for emotions and hallucinations, and we have no theoretical mechanism for a spirit of the dead to be able to test, then it is irrational to assume something that is not testable and not probable, or explainable. this is particularly true since there is no way to show objectively that his experience was outside himself.

If you , or anyone else, can come up with a proposed mechanism for spirits of the dead, and a way to indenpendely test and measure the possiblity, then it won't be totally irrational, but until then, it is. That isn't to say it isn't a powerful emotional experience, it just can be show to be real.

Come up with a way to test for it, then that interpretation wont neccessarily be irrational , but until then.. it is.

 

[AlbqOwl]

He FELT the presence of his dead mother. Sounds like a ghost to me.. spirit of the dead, etc etc etc.. what ever you want to call it.

Oh, and I am sure he had the experience. What I doubt is his ability to show it is other than a self generated feeling that originates entirely inside the brain without any external stimulus. So, you can stop building your straw man right then and there.

The fact is when it comes to feeling the spirit of the deceased, we have evidence people have emotions and memories. What we don't have is a mechanism for a 'spirit' from the dead. Since we have a mechanism for emotions and hallucinations, and we have no theoretical mechanism for a spirit of the dead to be able to test, then it is irrational to assume something that is not testable and not probable, or explainable. this is particularly true since there is no way to show objectively that his experience was outside himself.

If you , or anyone else, can come up with a proposed mechanism for spirits of the dead, and a way to indenpendely test and measure the possiblity, then it won't be totally irrational, but until then, it is. That isn't to say it isn't a powerful emotional experience, it just can be show to be real.

Come up with a way to test for it, then that interpretation wont neccessarily be irrational , but until then.. it is.

So if he can test his experience to verify his interpretation--not that he gave one--he only related what he experienced--then you should be able to test your opinion that it is irrational should you not? So would you please do that and show your proof?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

and that you haven't shown cause and effect.

Of what exactly?

 

[RAMOSS]

So if he can test his experience to verify his interpretation--not that he gave one--he only related what he experienced--then you should be able to test your opinion that it is irrational should you not? So would you please do that and show your proof?

Yes, I can. If I can test for it, it's not irrational. If I can't, it is irrational. Or, is that too complicated for you?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I don't believe I touted any credible sources. I only mentioned that there is no reason to disbelieve them until there is evidence they are wrong. Moving the goal posts again?

Thats right you only shared your opinion, you didnt actually enter into a debate with me.

I will declare myself the winner of this debate with you since you mischaracterized what I said and refuse to recant or rebut that you mischaracterized what I said. But I do think if you expect everybody who gives testimony of an experience to prove he/she had the experience or shut up, that should certainly also be the requirement for the one who suggests they are lying or delusional. Wouldn't you agree? Do have a nice day.

You are a legend.


And thanx I am having a mighty fine day.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Of what exactly?

Oy vey!

Of the changes in the brain causing the experience of paranormal activity.

Isn't that what we've been talking about?

 

[William Rea]

Doesn't mean it doesn't either. You may have 100 UFO sightings and 99 of them are explained as natural phenomenon. With each finding the probability that the 100th sighing will also be explained as natural phenomenon increases. But if there is no explanation for that one other sighting, then the possibility for a different as yet unexplained reason for it remains open. The vast majority of 'ghost sightings' can certainly be shown to be something other than a 'ghost'. But for the substantial number of sightings for which there is no explanation, the scientific mind will hold open the possibility that they are something we cannot yet explain. The fact that 99 men lie does not mean that the 100th man is also lying. Anecdotal evidence is excellent to advise us that one explanation or situation is possible. But it is the most unreliable evidence in the world by which to judge all things or situations.

Accumulative evidence increases the odds of probability. But unless it includes all samples or examples, it cannot scientifically conclude that no anomalies exist.

I have $17million to transfer to a Western bank account, I will give you ten per cent from it if you will send me your bank details and allow me to transfer the money to you.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I pretty much only made two points originally, it was you that split them up into requests for clarification etc

That's because your "assumptions" are either inadequate, or not basic, relying on further assumptions. If you had answered the questions I asked, it would be very easy to show this. As it is, by not answering them, you make your points appear better than they are.

and, I put snips (...) where I had removed texts so there was no question of me ignoring the rest of the text.

You're right--no question. You intentionally ignored the rest. Sometimes that's fine, if you actually engage all points somewhere in your reply. But you haven't done that.

I don't do Gish Gallops so, if my responding to one point at a time really does offend you then it's probably best not to respond to my posts, isn't it?

It doesn't offend me, exactly. It convinces me you're not seriously interested in rational debate, but instead at making yourself and those whose beliefs are similar to yours more comfortable.

I will handle your responses one by one and note, I didn't get snarky about your 'Life circumstances not worth going into prevented a more timely reply' so why get snarky about mine? Asshole, much?

I don't care if you're snarky so long as you actually respond. As it is, the snarkiness in question has at least had a salutary effect on the intelligibility of your posts.

No, no, no, no, and no and if you consistently insist on creating a strawman of what I say I will put you on ignore.

I'm afraid I don't see how it's a strawman, but feel free to explain.

I apply the same standard in every case and it is up to you to provide the evidence to the same standard if you want me to accept it.

So, in fact there are no extraordinary claims, and no different standards of evidence for any claim?

You want me to accept ghosts? Produce a ghost or produce evidence that supports a ghost beyond personal revelation and eyewitness testimony

I will be happy to do so if you first show me any evidence of any kind that doesn't rely on eyewitness testimony in some important way.

the extraordinary aspect of the evidence would be that you were able to produce any at all. And before you start whining that this is requiring a different standard, I would accept the evidence to the same standard as any peer reviewed paper.

Have you ever actually looked through numbers of the proceedings of the SPI? The journal of the APA? There are plenty of peer reviewed papers about investigations into hauntings. Some turn out to be hoaxes (as the parapsychologists writing the papers themselves conclude), but some do not.

You are bordering on conspiracy theory whether you deny it or not, if you don't go there

How so?

I declared them as assumptions and asked if they are an unreasonable premise with which to start from in terms of evidential investigation; evidential investigation being my wording for that which is inferred from evidence where evidence is an observable phenomenon based in reality.

And I answered by pointing out that it isn't clear what you're saying.

If you're saying what I suspect you're saying, there are some obvious and powerful objections to your view; indeed, I'd go so far as to say that you simply cannot be correct. Again: how would one observe a fantasy? Fantasies exist, surely. So your point is incorrect.

Now, I don't know if that's the line you're taking, because up to now, at least, you have yet to clarify your position...which you could do by answering my questions.

If we don't assume that reality exist and that we can trust our senses about that reality then we might as well stop now and contemplate ourselves out of existence

Where in the world do you get that idea? How does that even connect to anything under discussion?

however, we can use models and methods of our reality to discern what we can further trust and, it turns out that models and methods that result in us being able to make reliable predictions work better than the ones that don't.

I have nothing against models, but what you've said here seems to be a tautology. Models that work better, work better.

We can also, it should be noted, discern which models are almost certainly false.

These assumptions work and, to me at least, there appears to be no immediate need to throw them out while they continue to deliver the technology that gives us the time and energy surplus to contemplate.

There it is! Yes, the reason we adopt some model or other because of the power it grants us. Not very many people understand this. As a society, we have adopted materialism mainly because as long as we think like materialists, we have some power over nature. There was a previous phase, when modern materialism was being formulated, that it was accepted among the intelligentsia for somewhat different, but equally spurious, reasons.

Note that there is no necessary connection between efficacy and reality. Ghosts may well exist but have zero marketable application. The reason we adopt a method is to allow us not to expend cognitive resources on things that aren't going to deliver the desired results. If I can, say, treat diabetes by focussing on insulin and not worrying about whether the patient's humors are out of whack, I focus on insulin. But this doesn't mean humors don't exist, or that they aren't out of whack (don't mistake me as making a positive argument for the existence of humors; it's just an example). But think that way enough, and humors are likely to seem simply unreal.

There's a lot that can be done to clean this line up, but there's not enough space to flesh out the subject in a single post.

We just need to start applying the same rigour to all our endeavours.

Really? If I write a romantic poem for my wife, I should do so with "the same rigor"? If I endeavor to wander the French Quarter of New Orleans early on an autumn morning with a sazerac in hand, I should be sure to discipline myself to do so rigorously? C'mon...

 

[William Rea]

...I don't care if you're snarky so long as you actually respond. As it is, the snarkiness in question has at least had a salutary effect on the intelligibility of your posts...

I generally don't correspond with snarky assholes that declare some kind of crappy victory on the basis of nothing. This was the only part of your response worth coming back on and it tells me what I need to know, welcome to the list, have a nice life.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I have $17million to transfer to a Western bank account, I will give you ten per cent from it if you will send me your bank details and allow me to transfer the money to you.

Just cut me a cashier's check please. I'll take care of the banking.

 

[grip]

Plato thought we did. His concept of 'intelligent design' is that the 'idea' of all things has always existed but most of the 'idea' remains obscured from our view or appears only as shadows on the wall of a cave. We know they are there but cannot quite make them out or utilize them. Once we do incorporate an 'idea' into the mind it then becomes a reality - for us. Our minds create the universe we live in.

Who knows? Maybe he was right. For sure we puny humans have only faintly scratched the surface of all there is to know. I take great comfort in believing that we aren't stuck with all the yucky and bad stuff we have to deal with, but there is better stuff out there to replace it. We just have to believe it is there enough to keep looking for it.

The temporal world may be a covering for the eternal version waiting to be revealed? Our minds are definitely an imperfect reflection of the universe. Consciousness, self awareness or personality may be an incorporeal part of our being that is being limited by the senses of the human form? I wouldn't be terribly shocked if the ultimate reality is made from the imagination or thought energy.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Yes, I can. If I can test for it, it's not irrational. If I can't, it is irrational. Or, is that too complicated for you?

Not complicated at all. But if you insist that it is irrational if somebody cannot prove what they have experienced re 'ghost' sightings or anything else, then you should be able to test and prove that it is irrational yes? Otherwise why should I accept your opinion about that? But if we go with your opinion, everything you say you have seen, thought, believed, or done is irrational because you cannot test any of it to prove that you saw, thought, believed, or did. Prove to me that you typed your post that I quoted here. How do we test that?

To close one's mind to any testimony that we do not understand or that which we do not wish to believe is not scientific.

 

[ashurbanipal]

I generally don't correspond with snarky assholes that declare some kind of crappy victory on the basis of nothing. This was the only part of your response worth coming back on and it tells me what I need to know, welcome to the list, have a nice life.

The eternal cry of those who have nothing substantive to say...

 

[DDD]

What is this silly question doing in "Philosophical Area?"

 

[AlbqOwl]

The temporal world may be a covering for the eternal version waiting to be revealed? Our minds are definitely an imperfect reflection of the universe. Consciousness, self awareness or personality may be an incorporeal part of our being that is being limited by the senses of the human form? I wouldn't be terribly shocked if the ultimate reality is made from the imagination or thought energy.

I honestly don't know but I am so absolutely convinced that there is infinitely more to know than what we know, I do try to keep an open mind about everything I don't understand. I am sure when we arrive at a point that we can look back and see what we got right and what we got wrong, we are going to have a huge laugh at ourselves at how much we got wrong.

Do I believe in ghosts? I can't say I do as I have never experienced one myself, but I have no reason to disbelieve credible people who have seen apparitions that, with no better explanation being available, they described as 'ghosts'. I don't know what they actually saw--most of THEM don't know what they actually saw--but I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve their testimony about what they saw. Do I believe all the ghost hunter television shows are the real deal? No I don't. Most seem really contrived and seem to really stretch to make something out of what is probably nothing. But I'm not ready to say it is all bunk either because I have no way to prove to myself that what they are showing is not real.

I believe you are telling it exactly like it was with the encounter with your mother. Are you interpreting what you experienced accurately? I don't know. You probably don't know. But I believe you had the experience. I have also had experiences that were quite real. Can I explain them? Nope. But they were real. Those who have the experience know the experience happened and will have an open mind. Those who do not have such an experience cannot know from personal experience. Some nevertheless have scientific minds and will be curious and open to additional information.

And some like some of our friends here will have closed minds and accuse us of being the unscientific ones.

 

[grip]

I honestly don't know but I am so absolutely convinced that there is infinitely more to know than what we know, I do try to keep an open mind about everything I don't understand. I am sure when we arrive at a point that we can look back and see what we got right and what we got wrong, we are going to have a huge laugh at ourselves at how much we got wrong.

Do I believe in ghosts? I can't say I do as I have never experienced one myself, but I have no reason to disbelieve credible people who have seen apparitions that, with no better explanation being available, they described as 'ghosts'. I don't know what they actually saw--most of THEM don't know what they actually saw--but I have absolutely no reason to disbelieve their testimony about what they saw. Do I believe all the ghost hunter television shows are the real deal? No I don't. Most seem really contrived and seem to really stretch to make something out of what is probably nothing. But I'm not ready to say it is all bunk either because I have no way to prove to myself that what they are showing is not real.

I believe you are telling it exactly like it was with the encounter with your mother. Are you interpreting what you experienced accurately? I don't know. You probably don't know. But I believe you had the experience. I have also had experiences that were quite real. Can I explain them? Nope. But they were real. Those who have the experience know the experience happened and will have an open mind. Those who do not have such an experience cannot know from personal experience. Some nevertheless have scientific minds and will be curious and open to additional information.

And some like some of our friends here will have closed minds and accuse us of being the unscientific ones.

Many people have preconceived notions, some even based on current scientific facts, that could be absolutely wrong. But they'll rarely see beyond those misconceptions, until they're willing to believe, they may have it wrong. Like you, I try to keep an open mind, even about things *I think*, I know. I don't normally believe in ghosts, witches, aliens, magic or other supernatural phenomenon that I haven't experienced, but my mom incident seemed very real. I couldn't see her, only feel her presence and I was half asleep, so there's plenty of room for it being a mind trick.

What people of science don't seem to always grasp is that I actually believe in knowledge or it's structure as the foundation for reality/nature. And when someone experiences something we haven't explained yet, that doesn't make it any less real. I believe ultimately we'll discover that conscious awareness is at the source of physical creation. Simply because that for life to come from a basically unintelligible huge mass of energy and matter doesn't make much sense to me. Somehow there must be a living thought process behind it. In our own case, before a human makes something, it has to exist in the imagination first, then we form it. And the force that imbued biological life to exist was already within nature in some unknown capacity.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Oy vey!

Of the changes in the brain causing the experience of paranormal activity.

Isn't that what we've been talking about?

I established that emotions are brain/physically based. No one established that there is any evidence of paranormal experiences whether brain based or not. I have seen people in this thread assert that people tell stories about seeing/experiencing ghosts, but it would seem that no one is brave enough to link to one of these stories about experiencing ghosts. It would be like trying to debate bigfoot but no one supporting a possibility ever presents anything that would confirm it.

So what exactly are we trying to ascribe to brain activity? You said: "the experience of paranormal activity" but what are the properties of that? What makes it paranormal how do we measure that? Remember that the paranormal is categorized as pseudoscience and that the science community doesnt take it serious. They would if it was not the result of people making excuses for things that make no rational sense. The paranormal is a constant moving of the goal posts , a attempt to make it impossibly to debunk ghosts and the rest of those things considered paranormal. Paranormal is defined as: of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena. IE the unexplainable. That which involves concepts rejected by most rational people. Its the realm in which we assign the ridiculous stories of folklore.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I established that emotions are brain/physically based. No one established that there is any evidence of paranormal experiences whether brain based or not. I have seen people in this thread assert that people tell stories about seeing/experiencing ghosts, but it would seem that no one is brave enough to link to one of these stories about experiencing ghosts. It would be like trying to debate bigfoot but no one supporting a possibility ever presents anything that would confirm it.

So what exactly are we trying to ascribe to brain activity? You said: "the experience of paranormal activity" but what are the properties of that? What makes it paranormal how do we measure that? Remember that the paranormal is categorized as pseudoscience and that the science community doesnt take it serious. They would if it was not the result of people making excuses for things that make no rational sense. The paranormal is a constant moving of the goal posts , a attempt to make it impossibly to debunk ghosts and the rest of those things considered paranormal. Paranormal is defined as: of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena. IE the unexplainable. That which involves concepts rejected by most rational people. Its the realm in which we assign the ridiculous stories of folklore.

Well, then, let's not move any goal posts. Let's just narrow down the experiences to seeing ghosts.
If it is shown that the experience of seeing ghosts is correlated with certain changes in the brain, that doesn't show that the changes in the brain cause the perception of seeing a ghost. It could be the other way around, or there might not be any direct cause and effect one way or another.

If I see a pretty girl, that is likely to be correlated with certain changes in my brain. Does that mean that pretty girls are all in my head, caused by changes within my brain? I really don't think anyone would argue that pretty girls are not real, would they?

When you think of it, how do we know that anything we see, hear, or feel is real? All we're receiving are light and sound waves being interpreted by our minds, and all of them are correlated with visible changes within the brain.

 

[grip]

I established that emotions are brain/physically based. No one established that there is any evidence of paranormal experiences whether brain based or not. I have seen people in this thread assert that people tell stories about seeing/experiencing ghosts, but it would seem that no one is brave enough to link to one of these stories about experiencing ghosts. It would be like trying to debate bigfoot but no one supporting a possibility ever presents anything that would confirm it.

So what exactly are we trying to ascribe to brain activity? You said: "the experience of paranormal activity" but what are the properties of that? What makes it paranormal how do we measure that? Remember that the paranormal is categorized as pseudoscience and that the science community doesnt take it serious. They would if it was not the result of people making excuses for things that make no rational sense. The paranormal is a constant moving of the goal posts , a attempt to make it impossibly to debunk ghosts and the rest of those things considered paranormal. Paranormal is defined as: of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation, as psychokinesis, extrasensory perception, or other purportedly supernatural phenomena. IE the unexplainable. That which involves concepts rejected by most rational people. Its the realm in which we assign the ridiculous stories of folklore.

Tell me how the retina with it's macula, rod and cones turns light stimuli into a vision via the optic nerve to the brain, so we see light reflected off physical images. How do we get 3d, spatial orientation, depth, color differentiation, focus and acuity? Even if you knew how all these things occur within the brain thru neural processes, it doesn't explain all the information that out limited senses are missing that's possibly right in front of you. Dark matter and energy are theoretically there but not perceived, so what else is there that we don't know?

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Well, then, let's not move any goal posts. Let's just narrow down the experiences to seeing ghosts.
If it is shown that the experience of seeing ghosts is correlated with certain changes in the brain, that doesn't show that the changes in the brain cause the perception of seeing a ghost. It could be the other way around, or there might not be any direct cause and effect one way or another.

If I see a pretty girl, that is likely to be correlated with certain changes in my brain. Does that mean that pretty girls are all in my head, caused by changes within my brain? I really don't think anyone would argue that pretty girls are not real, would they?

Since I did not make that argument why do you want me to defend it?

When you think of it, how do we know that anything we see, hear, or feel is real? All we're receiving are light and sound waves being interpreted by our minds, and all of them are correlated with visible changes within the brain.

I dont know perhaps we should light up a bowl and contemplate it?

 

[RAMOSS]

Not complicated at all. But if you insist that it is irrational if somebody cannot prove what they have experienced re 'ghost' sightings or anything else, then you should be able to test and prove that it is irrational yes? Otherwise why should I accept your opinion about that? But if we go with your opinion, everything you say you have seen, thought, believed, or done is irrational because you cannot test any of it to prove that you saw, thought, believed, or did. Prove to me that you typed your post that I quoted here. How do we test that?

To close one's mind to any testimony that we do not understand or that which we do not wish to believe is not scientific.

If you wish to believe the irrational, that is your business. However, the question is 'do ghosts exists'. And, upon looking at the only thing that indicates ghosts is experiences that are very likely to have other causes (such as a misinterpretation of an emotional reaction), and no way to test and falsify the experience, then it is not scientific.

There are key pieces missing to make the experience indistinguishable from wishful thinking.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

Tell me how the retina with it's macula, rod and cones turns light stimuli into a vision via the optic nerve to the brain, so we see light reflected off physical images. How do we get 3d, spatial orientation, depth, color differentiation, focus and acuity? Even if you knew how all these things occur within the brain thru neural processes, it doesn't explain all the information that out limited senses are missing that's possibly right in front of you. Dark matter and energy are theoretically there but not perceived, so what else is there that we don't know?

Perhaps you me and Dittohead should get stoned and make up some **** about it? We could come up with some really cool what if's.

Nah'... I will get stoned by myself and go play my drums, I really need to get this CD going again anyways. Once I get the drum track laid out for this song that I am working on, then I can start writing the guitar/bass track.

 

[grip]

Perhaps you me and Dittohead should get stoned and make up some **** about it? We could come up with some really cool what if's.

Nah'... I will get stoned by myself and go play my drums, I really need to get this CD going again anyways. Once I get the drum track laid out for this song that I am working on, then I can start writing the guitar/bass track.

Don't you think Newton, Einstein, Planck, Oppenheimer etc all started out with "what-if's"? You've got to mix in the imagination with science or it's like being a one legged man a butt kicking contest. :lol:

 

[AlbqOwl]

If you wish to believe the irrational, that is your business. However, the question is 'do ghosts exists'. And, upon looking at the only thing that indicates ghosts is experiences that are very likely to have other causes (such as a misinterpretation of an emotional reaction), and no way to test and falsify the experience, then it is not scientific.

There are key pieces missing to make the experience indistinguishable from wishful thinking.

If you wish to misread, misunderstand, or deliberately mischaracterize what I wish to believe, that is your prerogative. It does make you look really uneducated and foolish, however, to do that, just as your argument is unscientific and very close minded. There are no key pieces missing in honest testimony from an honest person telling it like it is for that person. But do have a nice day.

 

[RAMOSS]

If you wish to misread, misunderstand, or deliberately mischaracterize what I wish to believe, that is your prerogative. It does make you look really uneducated and foolish, however, to do that, just as your argument is unscientific and very close minded. There are no key pieces missing in honest testimony from an honest person telling it like it is for that person. But do have a nice day.

Then, show me how to distinguish this testimony from an actual encounter with an external supernatural phenomena verses a misinterpretation of either an emotional reaction, or hallucinations when coming out of sleep paralysis. Can you do that?? Can you describe the method where an experiment can be set up to eliminate those?? If so, please describe that experiment. If you can't, .. well, then there are missing pieces.