- #71
zoobyshoe
- 6,510
- 1,290
What have you seen?sepfield said:i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened
What have you seen?sepfield said:i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened
junglebeast said:I think you should NEVER make the mistake of forgetting ALL the lessons we've learned about what is and is not physically possible, because what you THINK you see is not always what really happened...vision is largely an active hallucination in which your brain interprets often unreliable signals that you then perceive with confidence. It's much more likely that a person just interpreted evidence in the wrong way. So in summary, you should ALWAYS trust that scientifically proven things are correct, and NEVER put your full trust into hearsay, perception, or improbable things that you just want to believe because they would make life more interesting.
Is this a yes or a no? I am not asking if you can prove anything, just what you believe deep down.sepfield said:-so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors
What I am asking is whether you believe the apparitions people see are in any way externally stimulated by authentic non-corporeal entities of any description, as opposed to being hallucinations: erroneous triggering of sensory reactions from within the brain.but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost??
Yes, but what IS your opinion? As I said, I'm not asking for proof, just gut level belief. For example here's mine: on a gut level I believe in something you could call telepathy.sepfield said:I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion
and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum
call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )
Sorry, you're missing my point. I'm not talking about ghosts here, I'm talking about what you are expecting from science. Science does not seek proof. What science seeks is a preponderance of evidence etc. etc.fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not modelsScientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.
For the record, I worded it carefully to avoid saying you have never been exposed to it, I'd suspected you were aware of the scientific method. Indeed, that is what makes me wonder why you would say such ignorant things as you did. Do you wish to retract them?oh please - don't start insulting meYou really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".
Why would you raise an argument that you don't hold? If you don't think this way and I don't think this way, why bring it up at all? You're trolling for a reaction.- ( i am not some dewy eyed grad student you know ) i am fully AWARE of the scientific method - i am also aware of a lot of "proponents " who claim to use it and also claim they are right and i and others are wrong - frequently ,
Who assumed it was the correct answer? Stop putting words in my mouth.Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.
oh occam's razor - the simplest solution's always the best ( and yes i do deliberately misquote ) - because something seems to fit - don't always assume that it IS the answer - assumption as it is said "is the mother of all c**k ups ! - and i know this through practical experience out in the real world - and assumptions can cost lives
And bang. You've laid your hand on the table. (I should have just skipped down to here)i prefer "right" answers - theories are fine - but proof positive is what stands up in a court of law . ( unless you have a good lawyer )
You're not a proponent of the scientific method, you're a faith believer.
Ohhh... That's why you're misrepresenting the scientific method and why you're hinting at examples of bad apple scientists who tarnish it's name. (It is only becoming apparent as I read your posts in reverse order.) You're against the scientific method. You seek "Right" versus "wrong".
This is all smoke-screen.sepfield said:I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion
and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum
call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )
The patronizing tone you've used throughout (tut tut, etc.)sepfield said:ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now
I don't know, you're the one who believes there are "right" answers out there. The rest of us have only science and logic to guide us.sepfield said:and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??
This is the obvious advantage of fence-sitting. No need to restate it.sepfield said:and as to fence sitting ( from another poster ) - the great virtue of sitting on fences is that when either side come up with a convincing argument which is logical and fits the known facts - or better provides proof one way or another - the sitter of fences can then jump down ,one side or another - and i think if you all have actually read my posts - then you can see which way i have my legs dangling over
Proof that ghosts don't exist
Count Iblis said:What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.
Count Iblis said:What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.
Ivan Seeking said:What? Are you assuming that not only do ghosts exist, but also that we have scientific evidence of such? One assumption does not necessarily lead to the other.
Many people will tell you that they know for a fact that there are unexplained things that we call ghosts.
Count Iblis said:No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).
This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.junglebeast said:My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous? Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.
Count Iblis said:What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.
zoobyshoe said:This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.
Count Iblis said:What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.
junglebeast said:Unless there is an innate desire in all of us that makes us want to be somewhat unique...in which case, it can be used to explain all of the followers of those who are truly eccentric, because being a follower makes them (in their minds) one of the "few" who know...or part of the "in" group. It's also much easier to believe in something as a follower because then you're latching onto a pre-established idea and you can use the other followers to back up your own faith, allowing a completely eccentric idea to grow through a population exponentially. Sounds like a pretty typical social phenomenon...
Count Iblis said:No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).
Anticitizen said:While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge.
Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy,
yet somehow reflect or even emit light...
sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs...
able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality.
If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.
junglebeast said:My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous?
Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.
Edit: Ivan, that's not how I interpreted the Count's post at all...I think he was just making a point that that ghosts would lose their interest if they were real. I don't think he was proposing that they are actually real.
Ivan Seeking said:The exception: Not all phenomenon become mundain. Rogue waves are still not entirely understood; ball lightning and Earth lights are a mystery. From what I can see, ball lightning is a complete mystery.
All good points.Anticitizen said:While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge. Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy, yet somehow reflect or even emit light... sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs... able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality. If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.
zoobyshoe said:In other reports, as with apparently human shapes appearing in photographs, if it can't be seen with the naked eye, by what "light" does it affect photographic processes? What do we know of that can't be seen with the naked eye, but which can be photographed? Here we have high voltage electric fields, and X-rays, but then you have to propose a speculative mechanism for how these sources of energy might arise and then contain themselves to project a humanoid form that mysteriously appears when the film is developed or the image later viewed.
Why do you assume that telepathy requires some "magical spiritual force"? You should probably withhold judgement on this until you know more about what he is claiming.junglebeast said:...didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy?
Ivan Seeking said:Who says it is a creature? You?
On what do you base this statement?
Show me one example of someone claiming that a "ghost" reflects light.
Next, if you can find one, show me the evidence that this is somehow related to other claims of light-emitting phenomena - that they are the same claim.
Please show me some examples.
Speakers make sounds and magnets can move objects. Which of these is a biological entity?
Not just a new discovery; a new discovery that specifically invalidates a prior belief.So a new discovery means that all that came before is false? That is not a scientific attitude. That is a faith-based belief.
You can certainly debunk any report of telepathy I make. There are probably a dozen rational alternate causes that could be suggested to explain any instance of it I have experienced. When I say I "believe" in it, I am more or less merely reporting a gut level, knee-jerk reaction I have whenever one of these incidents occurs. I think that, if I said I did not believe in it during a lie detector test that answer would register as a lie: it's a deep level automatic reaction, not the end product of informed analysis. That says something about me and nothing at all about telepathy.junglebeast said:But then again, didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy? And if you can debunk ghosts on the grounds of the scientific method, then why not telepathy?
I haven't read any studies like that, but I often wonder to what extent we can be directly physiologically affected by another's presence. When we talk about the "vibes" that people give off we mean their body language, facial expressions, the quality of their movements, the tone of their voice. If A sits next to B can A entrain B into his brain wave pattern by force of the above mentioned "vibes"? I can't help but think it often happens. It's clear that certain people elicit certain moods from us and that we prefer some people to others citing the effect they have on us.DaveC426913 said:Why do you assume that telepathy requires some "magical spiritual force"? You should probably withhold judgement on this until you know more about what he is claiming.
As a whimsical example: Perhaps he has access to some obscure studies that show how alpha brain waves can affect other people at very short distances. That requires no magical spiritual or mysterious forces.
I'm not saying he's right, or that he even has a leg to stand on, just that your judgment seems premature.
zoobyshoe said:She turned to me then, and mouthed the words "Thank you!" Then went back to helping the guy in front of me.
Needless to say, I was startled and felt my face turned red.
It seems at times to me that the intention to do or say something is mysteriously perceived by the other person as actually having been done or said. Not quite telepathy, but something that can convincingly present as telepathy. It doesn't require that we be linked by some "magical, spiritual force," just that the ability to read body language, facial expressions, the meaning of movements, is a great deal more precise and subtle than we might suppose,
Even if she was well aware of me staring with a look of approbation for her appearance on my face, which I don't doubt, it would still be highly peculiar for her to stop what she was doing and mouth the words "Thank you!" It's way too specific to what I was thinking: "My God! What a sweet face!" and the timing of that thought.junglebeast said:Well, you're right I do have a rational explanation for that: girls are so hyper sensitive to being gawked at that they almost have a sixth sense for noticing when it happens. She was probably just glad that you preferred staring at her face than her boobs!
From the sounds of it, you might have been pretty obvious about it, and even if she wasn't looking directly at you, it's not hard to notice being stared at out of your peripheral vision.
I usually qualify "telepathy" with "or something that convincingly presents as telepathy". The point is, it always seems more uncanny than mere body language reading, while being less impressive than long distance telegraphy of distress signals, as you often hear about in stories: "I had a weird feeling he was in pain. I don't know why. Then the phone rang, and it was the police saying he'd been in a car crash!"Well, I certainly can't argue with that...but I think it's a bit misleading to refer to it as telepathy.
What is your explanation for the strippers thinking they'd been touched, and knowing the number of times he almost touched them? Suppose they heard his jacket rustling. Why did they then feel a physical touch?I don't think it would be impossible to build a biological sensor for detecting and interpreting brain waves, I just don't see any evidence that humans have such a sense...and if they did, it would surely be limited to extremely short ranges due to wave interference and signal decay, which would make it either impractical or redundant in comparison to vocalization.
zoobyshoe said:What is your explanation for the strippers thinking they'd been touched, and knowing the number of times he almost touched them? Suppose they heard his jacket rustling. Why did they then feel a physical touch?
Currently, there is no scientific evidence that definitively proves the existence of ghosts. While some people claim to have experienced paranormal activity, these experiences are subjective and cannot be replicated in controlled experiments.
Reports and sightings of ghosts are often based on personal beliefs and cultural influences, rather than scientific evidence. It is also important to consider that many supposed sightings can be explained by natural or psychological factors.
There have been some scientific studies on paranormal phenomena, but they have not provided conclusive evidence of ghosts. Many of these studies have been criticized for their methodology and lack of replicability.
While there are devices and tools that claim to detect ghosts, there is no scientific proof that they are actually detecting paranormal activity. These devices often rely on pseudoscientific principles and can be easily influenced by environmental factors.
Belief in ghosts is often rooted in cultural and religious beliefs, personal experiences, and the desire to believe in an afterlife. Additionally, the unknown and unexplainable can be intriguing and can lead people to believe in the existence of ghosts.