Can ghosts be proven to exist or not?

[junglebeast]

Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

Because "having a model of itself" doesn't mean anything. A robot with 4 legs could have a CPU storing a virtual model of itself represented by some virtual representation of vertices, edges, and velocities. Or that model of itself could be represented more simply by a vector of 3 values representing the position of the robot. Or it could be a single boolean value indicating when the robot is turned on or not. It's meaningless.

Surely, adding a piece of code as simple as:

bool turned_on;

does not endow a robot with self awareness.

 

[Anticitizen]

Those are the words used because we don't have any others to offer.

How does a word carry any significance at all here? What matters are the claimed phenomena.

Because if they exist, they are part of the natural world.

'Nothing unreal exists.'

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Because if they exist, they are part of the natural world.

'Nothing unreal exists.'

That is precisesly the point that I was making. "Supernatural" and "paranormal" are merely words used to describe claimed phenomena that seemingly can't be explained.

 

[Count Iblis]

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved without consciousness.

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

 

[atyy]

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

But how do you know you are not conscious? By introspection?

 

[junglebeast]

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

Ok, I admit that not all behaviors could be explained by an unconscious organism -- specifically those behaviors which are a result of being curious about one's own consciousness.

When I said that evolution could explain all human actions, I was thinking about actions that are useful to survival and reproduction, as well as a lot of other stuff like emotions and religion.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved...

... this would abuse the system so that it was no longer beneficial to the whole.

All entities that survive for very long obviously act in their own favor whether they are conscious or not, yes, but the question is: would self preserving behaviors in non-self-aware humans take the same form they do in self-aware humans? Your argument is that they probably would, based on the fact that our behaviors seem to serve us pretty well. However, I think self awareness has lead to a lot of completely unnecessary and circuitous behaviors that require self awareness to sustain and which would, in reality, not be selected in zombie people. The necessary baseline for survival of the species is probably represented by primate groups, and I can't imagine any mutations more sophisticated than that happening for the zombies, given their lack of awareness. Take religion: where on Earth would a mutation come from that instructed the zombie to refrain from work every seventh day and engage in appeals and supplications to an entity it could not sense in any way? You have to have awareness for something that peculiar and specific to happen.

All the examples you give of things that might perform complex, human-like thinking, are machines, which have been designed and programmed by self aware humans to mimic self aware humans. A computer can be programmed to do this, a computer can be programmed to do that, all without self awareness. That is a meaningless example when it is self-aware beings who are creating the instructions for it based on their own self-aware behaviors. The mutation or series of mutations that would cause untaught, spontaneous imitation of self-aware behaviors with all its extraneous pyramid building, crop circle hoaxing, pop music, wars, foot binding, surfing, gladiator contests, romance novels, gambling, drinking and pot smoking, schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorders, organized crime, flagpole sitting and bungee jumping, etc in the absence of a model for those behaviors are beyond my imagining. You're suggesting something impossibly byzantine and convoluted.

Contradiction: the brain is a neural network which can learn, but it was not programmed by human beings.

By "neural network" I was referring to one of the various computer programs in that category which are, of course, unaware, but are alleged to mimic various learning and thought processes of the human brain.

The human brain is, in fact, 'programmed' by human beings: parents, teachers, peers. You didn't, for example, arrive at the English language accidentally on your own.

That's an interesting story, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

Doctor X entered, occasionally, into a zombie-like state where most of his self awareness was non-operational. He was, as you predict, able to perform complex tasks, BUT only because those had been learned during periods of self awareness and were stored in his procedural memory.

I think that the fact that we did evolve self awareness, which I see as neither a benefit nor a burden,...

You don't see it as a benefit? Would you give it up without a second thought? What difference would there be between an unconscious life, and death?

indicates that it was a side effect that came along with something that was beneficial. Specifically, I think that somehow the structure that was evolved to give us such good cognitive abilities incidentally also gave us self awareness.

I disagree because self awareness is an obvious extension of awareness of the environment and things in it, and greater awareness of the environment, and of yourself as an element in it, would constitute an obvious advantage that would get selected.

An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

All good questions.

I think that awareness is probably suspected to be a dynamic process. It's not the particular atoms present, per se, but about the more macroscopic behavior of a very specific kind of cell. I don't remember the thread, or who said it, but someone here raised the point that quantum physics doesn't predict any organic life, much less consciousness.

In a gross way the answer is already there: it is simply a property of the things involved that when they interact with each other in this way, under these circumstances, awareness results. We don't know which elements and aspects of these interactions are the salient ones, the ones that might be abstracted to create an artificial awareness, but obviously they are present in whatever is happening in the brain:

The study of the causes of things must be preceded by the study of things caused.

http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2766.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

It's been clear to me for some time that junglebeast is a neural network someone programmed to argue matters of consciousness and set loose here for kicks.

 

[junglebeast]

would self preserving behaviors in non-self-aware humans take the same form they do in self-aware humans? Your argument is that they probably would, based on the fact that our behaviors seem to serve us pretty well. However, I think self awareness has lead to a lot of completely unnecessary and circuitous behaviors that require self awareness to sustain and which would, in reality, not be selected in zombie people.

You're probably right that some circuitous behaviors would not have been selected for without self awareness. I'm not going to count "going to church" because this is a social custom not an evolved trait, but social customs do have the potential to induce natural selection. However, are any of those circuitous behaviors actually beneficial to survival or reproduction? It seems the answer is no, and that would confirm my point -- if all the characteristics essential to reproduction could have evolved without self awareness, and self awareness itself only caused additional circuitous behaviors to be selected for, then what was the selective pressure for self awareness?

quote]All the examples you give of things that might perform complex, human-like thinking, are machines, which have been designed and programmed by self aware humans to mimic self aware humans. ...You're suggesting something impossibly byzantine and convoluted. [/quote]

You completely missed the point I was making: if we can create a machine that is not self aware and is capable of performing certain actions which have obvious benefit to survival (such as planning or "thinking" ahead in order to act in a seemingly intelligent way), then it must be possible for those actions to evolve in a non-self aware organism, because they have a selective pressure and can be achieved without self awareness. It is completely irrelevant to the point that they were designed by a human...

You have swayed me on the point that some actions are a consequence of self-awareness, so I'm not going to argue that "all" human behaviors can be explained by natural selection of non-self aware beings -- but it still seems that the ones which are important to survival can be explained that way.

Doctor X entered, occasionally, into a zombie-like state where most of his self awareness was non-operational. He was, as you predict, able to perform complex tasks, BUT only because those had been learned during periods of self awareness and were stored in his procedural memory.

We've already discussed that point, and I've pointed out that assuming that complex tasks cannot be performed without consciousness in an arbitrary life form just because that appears to be the case in humans is to make the err of "affirming the consequent." Furthermore I've pointed out abstract methodologies which could be used to program a machine with the abilities to perform complex learning and thinking tasks so this does not seem like a great mystery.

You don't see it as a benefit? Would you give it up without a second thought? What difference would there be between an unconscious life, and death?

For us, "death" is equal to permanent loss of consciousness. It also appears to be the case that humans are not capable of the same level of complex thought while we are unconscious -- but this does not prove that consciousness is necessary for complex thought in general! It only proves that our brains evolved to depend on consciousness for complex thought.

I disagree because self awareness is an obvious extension of awareness of the environment and things in it, and greater awareness of the environment, and of yourself as an element in it, would constitute an obvious advantage that would get selected.

There are two definitions for "awareness" -- on the one hand, we have a completely elusive definition for our mental awareness which I have trouble defining. It seems something magical. On the other hand, we have a very easy to define practical side of awareness: simply having knowledge relating to one's surroundings. A non-self-aware being could still have senses that detect the environment, it could still have a virtual model of itself in relation to the environment, and it could still react in a way that uses all that information to its advantage. It seems that all of the definably useful characteristics of self-awareness could easily be given to something non-self-aware. The only difference is that while it was doing these things, it would lack that certain "magical" aspect that humans have. So in other words, a non "self-aware" being could still have all the same knowledge (accessible data) pertaining to itself and its surroundings.

I think that awareness is probably suspected to be a dynamic process. It's not the particular atoms present, per se, but about the more macroscopic behavior of a very specific kind of cell. I don't remember the thread, or who said it, but someone here raised the point that quantum physics doesn't predict any organic life, much less consciousness.

The existence and proliferation of organic life is certainly representable and explainable within the quantum physics model. Perhaps this person was referring to the ambiguous origin of the first life forms on Earth. On that subject, I have read Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe", and the auto catalytic set theory that he proposes gives very straight forward logical explanations for how DNA itself would have evolved with high probability.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Basically everything you are saying boils down to expressions of awe:

An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

...on the one hand, we have a completely elusive definition for our mental awareness which I have trouble defining. It seems something magical.

Everyone who thinks about it is equally awed: There is no ready, apparent explanation. At this time.

However, and regardless, and back to the topic of ghosts, from my extensive reading about the selective deficits caused by brain pathologies, and the sometimes concomitant disinhibitions, it is beyond doubt that consciousness arises from the activities of brain cells. When that activity is suppressed, altered, or hyperactivated so are the aspects of consciousness arising from those activities. I don't see any suggestion of any new form of energy with its own conservation laws that would survive death. And I don't see any need to propose mystical mechanisms for consciousness.

On that subject, I have read Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe", and the auto catalytic set theory that he proposes gives very straight forward logical explanations for how DNA itself would have evolved with high probability.

What is relevant here is that he didn't predict DNA before it was discovered, he found a math to explain it after the fact of discovery. The math and physics that explain consciousness won't happen until after we pinpoint those aspects of brain activity that can't be done away with, which we're sure are the sine qua non of consciousness.

 

[WhoWee]

If one priest reported seeing an angel, and another reported seeing a ghost...which report would be considered more creditable?

Likewise, if two aethiests made the same reports...which report would be considered more creditable?

My guess is one priest would be dismissed as promoting an agenda regarding the angel...and the ghost story would be debated. The aethiests would experience the opposite reaction.

I know an accountant who bought a log cabin outside of Nashville, on the edge of a famous Civil War battlefield. The cabin was reportedly owned by Andrew Jackson and was very well constructed...thick walls, dark and a little damp. There is an southern plantation type home alongside and the local women reportedly watched the Civil War battle from the second story balcony.

I visited the cabin, but wasn't eager to spend a night The accountant (and his family) absolutely swear there is a ghost of a woman that lives there. They claim she visits quite often. Apparently they aren't afraid and as far as I know they still live there.

Who knows?

 

[NWH]

One thing I would question would by why my conscious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions until observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

 

[zoobyshoe]

One thing I would question would by why my conscious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions until observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

Quantum Physics is the new Magic. In less than a century people will be chanting incantations and dancing around statues of Niels Bohr.

 

[c12_z]

When I said that evolution could explain all human actions, I was thinking about actions that are useful to survival and reproduction, as well as a lot of other stuff like emotions and religion.

It could be said that self-awareness is an actively beneficial trait: it tends to imbue an elevated sense of importance to yourself and your species, and, I'd say give any previously present curiosity a far greater potency than before. I'd think the effect on looking after oneself on the individual level would remain basically unaffected, but I'd think an overall positive effect on species survival could be considered possible. This elevated sense of importance of species is going to cause a greater working together to look after each other, combined with an increased to desire to gain explanations for why things are how they are.

This is speculative, of course, but I think it has a bit more to it than the idea that self-awareness is just there and hasn't had any noticeable impact on our behaviours and developments. To be frank, I find the idea that self-awareness has no impact at all on our development as species, in terms of reproduction, and all that, is tremendously hard to credit much.

Ok, I admit that not all behaviors could be explained by an unconscious organism -- specifically those behaviors which are a result of being curious about one's own consciousness.

So, all our behaviours can be explained explained outwith self-awareness except for those which can't? I'd agree, but I'd figure it kinda screws your argument over (big time).

 

[sepfield]

hi all - ah been down this road a few times - some interesting points been raised - as tangents to the OP

so let's look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ?? - is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you can't , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

now if we base this on "probability " then the probability is that NEITHER of the above scenarios are true and in fact you would be right

BUT you CAN NOT prove that I ACTUALLY typed this post - as you where not here to witness the act of ME ( sepfield ) doing this - what you SEE is the result of SOMEONE posting this post BUT YOU CAN NOT prove it was me - you can reasonably ASSUME this to be the case - but IS this proof ??

so how do we PROVE that a person DID NOT see a ghost ( basing his report on the commonly ACCEPTED definition of such phenomena ) - WE CAN NOT we are not he /her - we can not honestly say that that particular person did not witness something - because we can not see through their eyes - and receive the stimulus that they perceive from THEIR brain , they COULD be the only person in the whole world WHO CAN see ghosts , SCIENCE can not dismiss this POSSIBILITY , for if it dismisses this POSSIBILITY ,however remote , then it is setting itself up as the ULTIMATE arbiter of ALL THINGS - vis PLAYING GOD ( but we won't get int a debate about his or her existence just yet )

so in my view PROOF is at BEST a common CONSENSIS that something is so - it however is not however the begin all and end all

so to sum up - we can NOT prove that ghosts ( whatever they may or may not be - but accepting the commonly accepted definition that they are NOT mortal/human etc , )DO NOT exist - and NEITHER can we prove they DO exist either !

we base a LOT of what we do or don't "believe " to be true on mass consensus - and also what others teach us or "proclaim " to be the truth because they have PhD, or some such , or they are alleged "experts " in the field

but ARE THEY ?? - after all most of what we are taught is only "perceived wisdom " - passed down by others who "perceive " it to be the truth or fact or whatever you want to call it

as the old song go's "it AIN'T necessarily so ! "

right you may attack sepfield as you see fit - i am well used to that

 

[zoobyshoe]

hi all - ah been down this road a few times...

...as you see fit - i am well used to that

Do you believe in ghosts?

 

[DaveC426913]

so let's look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ??

Scientifically: 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.

- is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

You 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".

try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you can't , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

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.

It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

 

[sepfield]

Scientifically: 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.

fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models



You 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".


oh please - don't start insulting me - ( 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 ,



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


It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.


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 )

that's life



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

oh gosh though i had won one then -and now you gone and spoilt it :rofl:

OK being a bit mean to you here - yes i do appreciate what you are saying and i have had these arguments many times - and in many ways you are right - BUT what i am saying to you is this , NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , 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 - and even a couple of very skilled forensic scientists have been baffled

that's why we have a little thing called a verdict of "misadventure" in our legal system here in the UK - in layman's terms it means "despite all the experts - they don't know what killed them "

( i used to be in the fire and rescue game - just so's you know )

 

[junglebeast]

NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method ,

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.

 

[sepfield]

Do you believe in ghosts?

naughty , that's like asking do i believe in god ??

to answer that i will say this :

i have never SEEN an actual fully materialised ghost - i have seen what i THINK was a partly materialised animal "ghost" ,phantom, shade , or whatever on a couple of occasions - basing this on the fact that my old cat has been deceased for some time , i do not have any other cats here , and i don't "think" i am loosing the plot ( this of course is always open to conjecture )

and i have seen other things that remain "inexplicable "

but do I "believe" in ghosts ?? - i don't have any evidence to suggest they DON'T EXIST ,in some form - and neither do i have any cast iron ,stand up in court evidence to say they do -so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost ?? it is easy to use the term loosely to describe what if you have studied the phenomena , of the "paranormal" what is a VERY broad spectrum of " possibilities "

let me state for the record here that i "believe " that 99% of what is "reported" as paranormal phenomena is little more than class 1A BS , driven by in part , motive , ( money , fame, etc ) and more so by the c**p put out on TV about the subject

BUT i do NOT dismiss ALL cases - as there are some that do still need answers - but they are as RARE as hens teeth ( imho)

 

[zoobyshoe]

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]

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.

selective quoting - tut tut .

the incident i mentioned had "scientists" with vast experience and the back up of the forensic service baffled - ( obviously i can't go into detail as that would not respect the deceased ) - but never the less it did happen - and is a matter of court record + numerous witnesses to the outcome of the incident all of whom are level headed professionals with in many cases years of experience in a variety of scenarios and disciplines

so you tell me given the "evidence " ( vis the crash killed 4 people ) and also the FACT that scientific analysis of the scene , the vehicle , the road surface and many other factors all said " this should NOT have been the outcome " - how come it did ??

there is no black and white - sometimes even the experts go away scratching their heads !

like wise i have attended accidents where people have survived against all logic and odds ( given the scenario )

guess one just has to put it down to the possibility that we ALL have a day to die - and it was just not theirs ??

some times - ( just occasionally ) - outcomes defy ALL logic - and we may have to accept that we JUST don't have an answer as to WHY

 

[zoobyshoe]

-so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors

Is this a yes or a no? I am not asking if you can prove anything, just what you believe deep down.

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost??

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.

 

[sepfield]

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 )

 

[zoobyshoe]

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 )

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.

 

[DaveC426913]

Scientifically: 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.

fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models

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.

I'm demonstrating that your premise is wrong - well, it's the OP's premise that's wrong.
I'm pretty sure we established satisfactorily in the course of this thread that proof of non-existence of something is unreasonable and faulty. You;ve come a little late to the table.

You 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".

oh please - don't start insulting me

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?

- ( 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 ,

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.

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

Who assumed it was the correct answer? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I made no assumptions about what is correct.

...You are not discussing this with me, you are discussing it with a puppet that you've painted to look like me, and putting words in its mouth.

If you wish to refute something in a discussion, refute the things that are actually being said.

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 )

And bang. You've laid your hand on the table. (I should have just skipped down to here)

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".

 

[DaveC426913]

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 )

This is all smoke-screen.
No one claims to be an expert (except the experts)
All of us might be wrong. All of us might be delusional.

You are fence-sitting.



Put it this way: Which one will you put your money on?

 

[sepfield]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now - as i have stated several times - i am giving a person opinion - i do not assume the arrogant position of saying that i KNOW one way or another -( and that is an honest answer) and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

one could argue that blind faith in the tenants of science is akin to blind faith in the word of religion - ( neither of which i subscribe to BTW )

and why Dave c are you taking this so personally ?? - i have no beef with you what so ever - so why are you trying to say that i am ??

i am mearly trying to point out that neither science nor "faith" as you put it have ALL the answers to everything - and that there are some things that remain "inexplicable " at this juncture - and also in a round about way - that PROOF , absolute and irrevocable proof is a difficult one to achieve ( but i think we agree on that )

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

no more than i expected though - so i will say no more on this - and then someone can accuse me of running away from the argument

like i said - been here before - strange sense of dejaview - creeping in

( i leave the stage open so those who wish can get the "final word in - and i guarantee there will be those who will wish to - go on for once prove me wrong )

 

[Dadface]

There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio than are etc.

 

[DaveC426913]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now

The patronizing tone you've used throughout (tut tut, etc.)
is equally as hostile, it's just passive aggressive. You're trying to convince yourself you're above being challenged.

Being able to predict your opponent's behaviour does not give you a superior edge. It's a technique that indicates you're uncomfortable argiung the issue at-hand (the utility of science in finding answers) and are more comfortable having a meta-discussion (a discussion about the discussion.) It is a form of straw man.

and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

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.

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

This is the obvious advantage of fence-sitting. No need to restate it.

The problem is you're argung merely academically, you don't hold the power of your convictions. Everytime one of your statements is challenged, you'll merely wag you finger and point out that you haven't taken a stand on the issue. As you have been doing.


If you're bowing out, then we can get back on track as to the discussion about proof of ghosts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's stay on topic. No more personal comments please.

 

[Count Iblis]

Proof that ghosts don't exist

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]

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.

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.

 

[junglebeast]

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.

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.

 

[Count Iblis]

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.

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).

 

[junglebeast]

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).

What?

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

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.

 

[Anticitizen]

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.

 

[atyy]

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.

But by this definition ghosts can't exist - except in quantum field theory.

 

[junglebeast]

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.

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...

 

[atyy]

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.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2399?

 

[zoobyshoe]

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...

Off the top of my head I'd say there are two kinds of "followers" 1.) the kind you describe, who follow because it makes them feel special, which would apply to, say, Charles Manson's "family", and 2.) people who are just plain suggestible and don't seem able to resist anyone with a strong personality. The "Moonies" were mostly like this: very, very passive people who had a difficult time figuring out what life was about and what they should be doing. The followers of David Koresch and Jim Jones were probably also mostly the second kind and their near total dependence on being told what was right by others was evidenced by their ultimate agreement to kill themselves when told to do so. In the latter case compliance is secured by squelching any notions of individual "specialness"; they should obey because they can't see the big picture and wouldn't understand it if they did, sort of argument.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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).

How precisely do you define "ghost"? Your entire argument assumes that we have a precise definition, when in fact what we find is a wide variety of reported phenomena that people lump together as if one. So, for starters, there is no reason to assume that one phenomenon has anything to do with the next except that they are declared to be "ghosts" based on popular notions of what that means.

Next, if you want to object on a physical basis, then you have to take one case at a time. To lump them all together as if one because it suits your objection is false logic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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.

Who says it is a creature? You?

Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy,

On what do you base this statement?

yet somehow reflect or even emit light...

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.

sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs...

Please show me some examples.

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.

Speakers make sounds and magnets can move objects. Which of these is a biological entity?

If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.

So a new discovery means that all that came before is false? That is not a scientific attitude. That is a faith-based belief.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

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?

You may be one of the only people who has ever visited this forum who correctly [with one exception] makes this point. In fact, what I think is operating here [the denial process] is human frailty and ego - the need to believe that we understand everything.

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.

As soon as we saw Jules Verne's "milky sea" on satellite, like magic, we could suddenly imagine an explanation for it. But we don't really know the cause. We are just guessing.

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.

While I agree that this does happen, I completely disagree that it is true in all or even most cases. And beyond that, no one claiming to see ghosts or aliens or would be unique. At least millions of people have claimed to observe ghostly apparitions. As for aliens, while the claim is not as common, plenty of people have claimed to see them as well.

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.

We were making assumptions. I was just trying to understand the nature and logical consistency of the assumptions made.

 

[junglebeast]

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.

Well I wasn't saying that we have complete explanations for all phenomena, but pointing out that the only phenomena that capture our imaginations are those which he haven't been able to explain yet. After explaining the phenomena, it's like trying to rip a toy out of the hands of a child. People don't want to lose those things that capture their imagination, so they find ways to argue that the legends are still true, even after the original evidence for the legend has been explained.

 

[zoobyshoe]

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.

All good points.

If it can be seen walking through walls, suggesting it is not composed of matter, why would it also reflect, or otherwise emit, visible light? What do we know of which can simultaneously be seen with the naked eye and also have no interaction with matter?

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.

In yet other circumstances, as with "poltergeists", if it can interact with air to produce sound, or interact with matter to move objects, why is it not then also visible to the naked eye? Gasses escaping from a pressurized situation, or released in explosions, are not visible to the naked eye, and can produce sound and could move objects, but you'd have to account for random pressurization in the absence of a container, or random, well-adjusted explosions that stack furniture, turn light switches on and off, and perform other apparently deliberate, controlled movements of objects.

I'd say the proposition of an entity that fits any of these scenarios is inconsistent with established physics, yes.

 

[junglebeast]

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.

Indeed, it's pretty much a waste of time to seriously entertain the concept of a ghost for any believer in the scientific method, so it's not surprising this thread has been so off-topic -- it's pretty much a "sausage fest" of non-believers. 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?

 

[DaveC426913]

...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?

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.

 

[Anticitizen]

Who says it is a creature? You?

I'm going by the definition of the word 'ghost'. As in, spirit, spectre, whatever.

On what do you base this statement?

The fact that ghosts are, by definition, noncorporeal.

Show me one example of someone claiming that a "ghost" reflects light.

Anything visible is either reflecting or emitting 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.

Don't really know what you're asking, here. 'Claims of light-emitting phenomena'?

Please show me some examples.

It's one of the most common 'ghost sighting' claims. 'When I took this photograph of the graveyard, there was nobody here, but when I developed the film, you can see the shadow of a person floating above a grave', etc.

Speakers make sounds and magnets can move objects. Which of these is a biological entity?

Ah, I see... you seem to think that I'm discounting all claims of unexplained phenomena. I'm not. I'm arguing that the idea of a 'ghost', as per definition, would be incompatible with what we know about science.

So a new discovery means that all that came before is false? That is not a scientific attitude. That is a faith-based belief.

Not just a new discovery; a new discovery that specifically invalidates a prior belief.

By the way, breaking up the post like this is maddening, as context is quickly lost.