Do Ghosts Exist? My Friend Says Yes!

[FlexGunship]

You're being reasonable, but on this one alt is right... it ends up as a semantic debate to avoid talk of substance. It's maddening, but that's what happens when relatively bright people substitute the sound of their own voice for reason.

I'm know he's right, I guess I was trying to suggest a manner in which we could proceed anyway. Perhaps we could make a gentleman's agreement that individuals who ceaselessly argue semantics could be excluded from the discussion?

Arguing the nuance of a point is one thing, but repeatedly saying things like: "ghosts are just made of energy," and "you can't explain a god" don't contribute to the end product.

I've recently "finished" Karen Armstrong's book The Case for God. I put "finished" in quotes because after the third chapter of definition by negation, I gave up. There's no informational content: "God is not bound by our rules," "God is unable to be conceived of," "God cannot be thought of as a <____>." Every time an objection is raised, she simply says: "God cannot be..." or "God isn't..."

That type of discussion can be disregarded and in that manner can advance the conversation about ghosts?

Or do you still think it will turn into a battle of semantics?

 

[JaredJames]

I completely agree flex. This is a nightmare to debate for exactly the reasons you list above.

Eventually it would come down to semantics.

I've been reading through some of the Randi prize entrants and for the majority, as soon as they impose strict scientific definitions, clauses and rules on the test to be conducted they just disappear or drop out of the challenge. It is because of the blurry definitions that people can keep perpetuating the existence of such claims / beliefs. The moment you say this is X, this is Y, the claims don't stand up. Especially to the testing such as that Randi conducts.

 

[FlexGunship]

I completely agree flex. This is a nightmare to debate for exactly the reasons you list above.

Eventually it would come down to semantics.

I've been reading through some of the Randi prize entrants and for the majority, as soon as they impose strict scientific definitions, clauses and rules on the test to be conducted they just disappear or drop out of the challenge. It is because of the blurry definitions that people can keep perpetuating the existence of such claims / beliefs. The moment you say this is X, this is Y, the claims don't stand up. Especially to the testing such as that Randi conducts.

+1 for Randi. You would think that he would be the proverbial final nail in the coffin of pseudo-scientific claims, but everyone thinks they are an exception to the rule. Just another sign that we're bad at figuring stuff out until we bring the light of science to bear.

 

[JaredJames]

+1 for Randi. You would think that he would be the proverbial final nail in the coffin of pseudo-scientific claims, but everyone thinks they are an exception to the rule. Just another sign that we're bad at figuring stuff out until we bring the light of science to bear.

The simple answer is, if the claims were true someone would be $1,000,000 better off. Seeing as no one is thanks to Mr. Randi and his incredible generosity tells you all you need to know.

 

[FlexGunship]

The simple answer is, if the claims were true someone would be $1,000,000 better off. Seeing as no one is thanks to Mr. Randi and his incredible generosity tells you all you need to know.

Jared, haven't you heard? James Randi doesn't have the money, and psychics don't need it anyway. Telepaths don't believe in charity. Dowsers are all financially secure.

 

[JaredJames]

Humour again flex? Or is the Randi comment serious?

 

[FlexGunship]

Humour again flex? Or is the Randi comment serious?

Sigh... sorry. Rule number one of the interwebs is that you can't be sarcastic. James Randi and Carl Sagan are my two favorite people. Of course he has the money... he posted the account statements from Goldman Sachs.

 

[nismaratwork]

Sigh... sorry. Rule number one of the interwebs is that you can't be sarcastic. James Randi and Carl Sagan are my two favorite people. Of course he has the money... he posted the account statements from Goldman Sachs.

Randi is one of the few people I look to as a genuine hero.

 

[JaredJames]

Sigh... sorry. Rule number one of the interwebs is that you can't be sarcastic. James Randi and Carl Sagan are my two favorite people. Of course he has the money... he posted the account statements from Goldman Sachs.

I'm getting there slowly. The whole sarcasm thing is one reason I hate 'text' speak. Things said as a light hearted comment can seem so much worse than they are meant to be taken. (I try to imagine how the person I'm speaking to would say it, downside is I don't know anyone here).

Randi is one of the few people I look to as a genuine hero.

I think his whole concept is brilliant. People keep attacking him for being so strict with the rules he applies to the challenges, but the fact is if you are, for example, a dowser, you should be able to conform to any rules and still show your 'talent'. The rules may seem strict, but they're in place to ensure complete accuracy and not for them to be conned.

As for the argument "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that may well be true, but neither is it proof of existence. Which is something all these ghost / religious folks keep forgetting as they role that one out during each debate.

At this point in time, I have seen no credible evidence for ghosts. Although this may not mean they don't exist, it does mean that until something better arrives to prove it I will remain rational and not believe in ghosts.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm getting there slowly. The whole sarcasm thing is one reason I hate 'text' speak. Things said as a light hearted comment can seem so much worse than they are meant to be taken. (I try to imagine how the person I'm speaking to would say it, downside is I don't know anyone here).



I think his whole concept is brilliant. People keep attacking him for being so strict with the rules he applies to the challenges, but the fact is if you are, for example, a dowser, you should be able to conform to any rules and still show your 'talent'. The rules may seem strict, but they're in place to ensure complete accuracy and not for them to be conned.

As for the argument "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that may well be true, but neither is it proof of existence. Which is something all these ghost / religious folks keep forgetting as they role that one out during each debate.

At this point in time, I have seen no credible evidence for ghosts. Although this may not mean they don't exist, it does mean that until something better arrives to prove it I will remain rational and not believe in ghosts.

Indeed, and when you make an extraordinary claim Randi's standard isn't really that strict. A physicist goes through more to prove a concept!

 

[JaredJames]

Indeed, and when you make an extraordinary claim Randi's standard isn't really that strict. A physicist goes through more to prove a concept!

As I said above, when it comes to ghosts, people just accept shoddy testing and evidence. The need / want to believe seems to trump rational thought.

If I owned a building (a hotel for example) where people kept claiming to see a 'figure' (particularly if it's somewhere specific), the first thing I'd do is whip a camera up. Nothing too serious, but if someone makes that claim again at least you could verify it. Not full proof I know, but if anything did show up then I'd take it further and do some controlled tests.

But for some reason people just don't take this approach, they'd rather spread the stories and let people report back to them 'spooky' occurrences and accept that as definitive evidence. I wonder if it's because there'd be a rather sharp down-turn in claims? Then again I'm sure the die hard believers would be quick to put it down to ghosts not showing up on cameras or some BS like that.

 

[nismaratwork]

As I said above, when it comes to ghosts, people just accept shoddy testing and evidence. The need / want to believe seems to trump rational thought.

If I owned a building (a hotel for example) where people kept claiming to see a 'figure' (particularly if it's somewhere specific), the first thing I'd do is whip a camera up. Nothing too serious, but if someone makes that claim again at least you could verify it. Not full proof I know, but if anything did show up then I'd take it further and do some controlled tests.

But for some reason people just don't take this approach, they'd rather spread the stories and let people report back to them 'spooky' occurrences and accept that as definitive evidence. I wonder if it's because there'd be a rather sharp down-turn in claims? Then again I'm sure the die hard believers would be quick to put it down to ghosts not showing up on cameras or some BS like that.

It may sound trite, but as the X-Files poster says... "I want to believe". People want this, so they watch television shows which confirm their bias, and take actions which do the same.

 

[alt]

Surely, however, those who are interested in having the discussion must be willing to settle on a definition. The one's who quarrel over the definition are the one's least inclined to partake in the discussion.

Perhaps I'm giving the "other side" too much credit?

That's the point though - settling on the definition. A few posts up you defined 'ghost' as 'soul' which leads to a necessity to define that.

Often, I feel that if two reasonable people were to agree precisely on a definition, be it for ghosts, god, or apples, there would be no further need for discussion as the very act of pealing back the layers and eventualy aggreeing precisely on such a definition, would have resolved the issue.

 

[FlexGunship]

That's the point though - settling on the definition. A few posts up you defined 'ghost' as 'soul' which leads to a necessity to define that.

Allow me to try!

Soul: a non-material abstraction used as a metaphor for human consciousness; thought to survive the body's death in some mythologies

 

[alt]

Allow me to try!

Soul: a non-material abstraction used as a metaphor for human consciousness; thought to survive the body's death in some mythologies

Thus this threads title 'Do ghosts exist' becomes ..

'Does an abastraction used as a metaphor for consciousness exist'

Well, let's see who can tackle that !

 

[FlexGunship]

Thus this threads title 'Do ghosts exist' becomes ..

'Does an abastraction used as a metaphor for consciousness exist'

Well, let's see who can tackle that !

Okay, well, I see your point.

A soul is not "matter" by most claims... so it is non-material.
It is a single word abstraction used to define an entire concept.
It is routinely used in conversation as a metaphor for consciousness.

Does it exist? Almost certainly not, which is one reason why the ghost hypothesis is so weak.

 

[alt]

Okay, well, I see your point.

A soul is not "matter" by most claims... so it is non-material.
It is a single word abstraction used to define an entire concept.
It is routinely used in conversation as a metaphor for consciousness.

Does it exist? Almost certainly not, which is one reason why the ghost hypothesis is so weak.

Yes .. no ..

For the record, I'm a great sceptic of ghosts too - as in the popular concept of that word. But in your third, above, you've clouded th issue. I certainly believe in consciousness.

Spelling edit

 

[alt]

Okay, well, I see your point.

A soul is not "matter" by most claims... so it is non-material.
It is a single word abstraction used to define an entire concept.
It is routinely used in conversation as a metaphor for consciousness.

Does it exist? Almost certainly not, which is one reason why the ghost hypothesis is so weak.

Further, does WHAT exist ?

 

[JaredJames]

Further, does WHAT exist ?

A soul.

The whole purpose of that post was describing the soul and asking if it exists (rhetorically).

 

[FlexGunship]

Further, does WHAT exist ?

Are you kidding?! Pronouns really get you. The subject of a paragraph, after it has been established, can be referred to by a pronoun: (http://www.grammarbook.com/grammar/pronoun.asp).

This has happened in two threads now.

Okay, well, [FlexGunship] sees [alt's] point.

A soul is not "matter" by most claims... so [a soul] is non-material.
["Soul"] is a single word abstraction used to define an entire concept.
["Soul"] is routinely used in conversation as a metaphor for consciousness.

Does [the soul] exist? Almost certainly not, which is one reason why the ghost hypothesis is so weak.

As you can see, the sentence: "A soul is not "matter" by most claims..." establishes the subject of the sentence, and since a second subject (or object) has not been introduced, non-gender specific pronouns refer to it directly.

I'm not trying to be rude, but if you're having trouble following the discussion (for grammar and syntax reasons), it's probably best if you abstain from contribution.

 

[JaredJames]

For the record, I'm a great sceptic of ghosts too - as in the popular concept of that word. But in your third, above, you've clouded th issue. I certainly believe in consciousness.

"used in conversation as a metaphor for consciousness"

Just because I use Ghandi's flip flop as a metaphor for my mouth after a night out drinking, does not make my mouth Ghandi's flip flop. Neither does it prove that Ghandi's flip flop ever existed, only that the concept of said persons footwear did.

The use of it as a metaphor for consciousness simply aids in peoples understanding of what consciousness is.

I believe flex (although do correct me if I'm wrong here flex) was simply pointing out where the term soul is used and how it gets thrown around, used to cover so many bases without proper definition.

 

[alt]

"used in conversation as a metaphor for consciousness"

Just because I use Ghandi's flip flop as a metaphor for my mouth after a night out drinking, does not make my mouth Ghandi's flip flop. Neither does it prove that Ghandi's flip flop ever existed, only that the concept of said persons footwear did.

The use of it as a metaphor for consciousness simply aids in peoples understanding of what consciousness is.

I believe flex (although do correct me if I'm wrong here flex) was simply pointing out where the term soul is used and how it gets thrown around, used to cover so many bases without proper definition.

Yeah, yeah, I know - but if you read earlier, we were trying to home in on definitions. If, asked for a definition of your mouth, you wouldn't narrow it down to 'Ghandis flip flop' (whatever that is) .. would you .. ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This thread has more than run its course.