What percentage of Americans believe in ghosts?

[zoobyshoe]

Well...you believe that you are healthy! You also believe in the laws of physics and that you are a member of PF.

For this not to be true, then this world would have to be a dream to you, you are actually lying in a hospital bed asleep and in bad condition, not an owner of a computer, and living in a world where there is a completely new set of physical laws.

Generally, if you don't believe in anything, you are medically brain dead.

The Norwegian meant something religious or paranormal.

 

[EL]

Well...you believe that you are healthy! You also believe in the laws of physics and that you are a member of PF.

No, I accept the fact that I'm healthy. I accept the fact that the laws of physics work well. I accept the fact that I am a member of PF.
Facts are supported by (scientific) evidence. Belief is not.

Generally, if you don't believe in anything, you are medically brain dead.

Thanks, I'll remember that one!

 

[Bombini]

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged (my father dropped me on the floor long time ago xD). This threads name is "do you believe in ghosts?". I just showed my opinion. AND even some of the greatest minds of the world were religious as can be. So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

 

[rewebster]

Bombini----you're part of a Mensa experiment

 

[EL]

So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

I'll go for the "get a life"-option then.

 

[Moridin]

Well...you believe that you are healthy! You also believe in the laws of physics and that you are a member of PF.

Belief can both mean 'conviction/accept thing with evidence' and 'accept things without evidence'.

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged

Well, cognitive hallucinations are nothing strange - people get it all the time.

 

[EL]

Belief can both mean 'conviction/accept thing with evidence' and 'accept things without evidence'.

And since there are no (scientific) evidence for ghosts, a belief in them certainly belongs to the second class.

 

[Math Jeans]

No, I accept the fact that I'm healthy. I accept the fact that the laws of physics work well. I accept the fact that I am a member of PF.
Facts are supported by (scientific) evidence. Belief is not.

Ok. Let me phrase it this way. You can change the meaning of belief to acceptance in any form if this is true.

If you believe that Santa exists, then you can say that you accept that Santa exists.

If that cannot be rephrased, then you (who claims not to believe in anything), could then say that you believe in Santa's non-existance.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged (my father dropped me on the floor long time ago xD). This threads name is "do you believe in ghosts?". I just showed my opinion. AND even some of the greatest minds of the world were religious as can be. So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

Any teasing aside, if you're interested in science you need to be able to examine any extraordinary belief like this and ask yourself why you believe it and if there's any real evidence to support the belief.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, cognitive hallucinations are nothing strange - people get it all the time.

What's a "cognitive" hallucination?

 

[Huckleberry]

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged (my father dropped me on the floor long time ago xD). This threads name is "do you believe in ghosts?". I just showed my opinion. AND even some of the greatest minds of the world were religious as can be. So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

Relax. There are facts and there are many ways to interpret them. Even people whos job it is to understand these things don't always agree. Nor can anyone claim that their understanding is complete. A single new fact could have implications that change how all the others are interpreted. Some people believe in fantastic potential outside our current understanding and others do not. The world needs all types imo, but EL and others are right to say that belief in ghosts is not scientific. There are no reproducible data or testable theories and many of the claims of ghosts defy the current understanding of nature.

A little light-hearted teasing should probably be expected. After all, you are in a physics forum. I'm sure many of the spiritual great minds that contributed to science had to deal with the occassional ribbing also. Don't worry, it won't be allowed to get out of hand by you or anyone. Nobody here can remove your choice from you against your will.

 

[Moridin]

If you believe that Santa exists, then you can say that you accept that Santa exists.

If that cannot be rephrased, then you (who claims not to believe in anything), could then say that you believe in Santa's non-existance.

You are making a fallacy called an equivocation fallacy, where you attempt to claim that a word, that has to separate, distinct definitions, do not.

Example:

'Either we hang together, or we hang separately'.

Hang in the first mention means 'to cooperate', while the second hang refers to a method of execution.

The same goes for the term 'Belief'. The standard definition says that if you believe someone, you are convicted of it. It is about where you would bet your money on. Another definition, popularized by religion is belief as the 'faith in something that cannot be supported by evidence' or 'accept something to be dogmatically true without evidence'.

EL certainly have convictions, but probably does not accept something as absolute truth without evidence. The statement:

'Supernaturalists believe in the supernatural and scientists believe in science' (for a lack of better terms) thus makes the appeal to the same sort of fallacy. Sure, both of them have convictions, but only supernaturalists accept things as true without evidence.

You do understand the semantic difference between belief as a conviction and belief as the a priori acceptance of something without evidence? There are good reasons for believing in something and then there are bad reasons for believing in something.

 

[Moridin]

What's a "cognitive" hallucination?

Not sure. Sounded on the top of my head like a term that I could use

 

[EL]

Ok. Let me phrase it this way. You can change the meaning of belief to acceptance in any form if this is true.

No, what I am saying is that I accept facts. Facts are backed up by scientific evidence. A "belief" is acceptance without requiring any evidence.

 

[Huckleberry]

Do you know for a fact that the next time you get in your car you will arrive safely at your destination, or do you just believe it? Is there scientific evidence that proves that your parents love you? If there is, have you seen it? How do you decide if a person is attractive to you or not, or is every person equally appealing? You don't have a single opinion of the world that you can't show scientific evidence to back it up? That's kind of creepy to me.

Fact is a hefty word. It implies existence, reality, truth. I'm not even sure that we can know such things. I think maybe the best we can do is use evidence to imply fact. The next fact we discover could change how we perceive the last one. The reality isn't changing, but our perception of it can. This happens often when we learn something new and apply it to the rest of our understanding. Evidence is not always correct and intuition is not always wrong. Granted, the tried and true is the safer bet, but that isn't always an option.

There are good reasons for believing in something and then there are bad reasons for believing in something.

There are facts and there are opinions. This is your opinion. I guess it depends on how you define good and bad. Good luck getting everyone to agree on that.

edit - these look like cases of logic vs. intuition to me, and not everyone is built the same way when it comes to these things. I don't believe that one is inherently better than the other.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not sure. Sounded on the top of my head like a term that I could use

Hallucinations are primarily sensory. I can't think of anything that might properly be called a "cognitive" hallucination. Anything that might be a candidate already comes under the heading of a "delusion": a false belief.

To the extent an hallucination is an experience erroneously triggered from within the brain as opposed to a reaction to external stimuli it is probably possible to speak of an "emotional" hallucination. This happens in simple partial seizures where a strong emotion is triggered from within having nothing whatever to do with anything in the environment. Common simple partials involving emotion are rage, fear/dread, and euphoria/ecstacy and the garden variety deja vu, the intense feeling that things are much more familiar than you know them to actually be.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Do you know for a fact that the next time you get in your car you will arrive safely at your destination, or do you just believe it? Is there scientific evidence that proves that your parents love you? If there is, have you seen it? How do you decide if a person is attractive to you or not, or is every person equally appealing? You don't have a single opinion of the world that you can't show scientific evidence to back it up? That's kind of creepy to me.

Fact is a hefty word. It implies existence, reality, truth. I'm not even sure that we can know such things. I think maybe the best we can do is use evidence to imply fact. The next fact we discover could change how we perceive the last one. The reality isn't changing, but our perception of it can. This happens often when we learn something new and apply it to the rest of our understanding. Evidence is not always correct and intuition is not always wrong. Granted, the tried and true is the safer bet, but that isn't always an option.

There are facts and there are opinions. This is your opinion. I guess it depends on how you define good and bad. Good luck getting everyone to agree on that.

edit - these look like cases of logic vs. intuition to me, and not everyone is built the same way when it comes to these things. I don't believe that one is inherently better than the other.

Huck, did you see this video:

 

[Evo]

Hallucinations are primarily sensory. I can't think of anything that might properly be called a "cognitive" hallucination. Anything that might be a candidate already comes under the heading of a "delusion": a false belief.

It may not be a term, but I'd call a "cognitive" hallucination one where you are aware that you are having a hallucination and know it's not real.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It may not be a term, but I'd call a "cognitive" hallucination one where you are aware that you are having a hallucination and know it's not real.

When that happens psychiatrists just say the person has "insight". It's a term meaning the patient is pretty much aware there's something wrong with their mind. There is a guy who hangs out at the cafe who constantly hears voices, but he has "insight" that they're not real, and he ignores them as best he can. He keeps an ipod with ear buds around to drown them out, but when he gets into a good conversation with the real people there the voices fade away and he can fully participate.

I have also heard the term "non-psychotic hallucinations" applied to situations where the person never had any doubt but that they were seeing things that weren't there. This can happen with certain eye diseases.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huck, did you see this video:

I hadn't seen this video before, but I did see the one you posted of the invisible man. They are very interesting videos. Do you know if the subjects in these videos were conditioned prior to taping? The effect of Derren Browns suggestions seem incredible. I think the subjects may have been affected so profoundly because they were prepared to listen to him, whereas if a person came to them on the street they perhaps would not give much consideration to what he was saying.

So far in both of the videos Derren has made suggestions that his subjects are particularly vulnerable to. The film student believed the reenactment of the invisible man and the faith medicine woman believed in the power of the voodoo doll. Other people would have different vulnerabilities depending on their philosophies, including scientific people. I think all that is necessary to be vulnerable to this type of influence is the inability to question the tenets of one's own philosophy.

Why did you show this to me in particular?

 

[Huckleberry]

Wow, this is the coolest video game ever! Real, live zombie shoot 'em ups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRAcajFte0&NR=1

Something seems amiss here. Derren implies that he and his team are waiting for a random person to play the game. Then the screen is flashed in some way as to induce a trance-like state in the player while those watching remain unaffected. Then Darren walks in and puts his hands on the players head and drags him away right in front of his friends. They allow this to happen without question or complaint. Then the player is placed in a mock up stage of the video game and given a fake gun. He is woken up and actor zombies begin to approach him. It's a very interesting reaction, but not too unbelievable considering this guy supposedly has no idea how he got here or why.

Someone could have gotten hurt making this if it was real. What would happen if the player had decided to use the butt of his gun against some approaching zombie actor. What if he hurt himself? It seems unethical, even illegal to do something like this to a person without their prior consent. Did the owner of the video arcade know what Derren planned for the patrons? I have difficulty believing Derren's short films are not staged.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I hadn't seen this video before, but I did see the one you posted of the invisible man. They are very interesting videos. Do you know if the subjects in these videos were conditioned prior to taping?

In a lot of cases they're "primed" but he seems to include that when he does it. They are certainly screened for suggestibility. I imagine he may also have to try a particular thing on a few people before he gets a really good tape.

The effect of Derren Browns suggestions seem incredible. I think the subjects may have been affected so profoundly because they were prepared to listen to him, whereas if a person came to them on the street they perhaps would not give much consideration to what he was saying.
Derren has made suggestions that his subjects are particularly vulnerable to. The film student believed the reenactment of the invisible man and the faith medicine woman believed in the power of the voodoo doll. Other people would have different vulnerabilities depending on their philosophies, including scientific people. I think all that is necessary to be vulnerable to this type of influence is the inability to question the tenets of one's own philosophy.

As a matter of fact, though, he does stuff to people on the street quite a bit because he can instantly prepare someone to listen to him: he can establish rapport very fast with almost anyone. He can also misdirect people's attention like no magician I've ever seen.

Why did you show this to me in particular?

I think your thoughts on facts and beliefs indicate that you are very suggestible and might easily be paralyzed with a voodoo doll.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Wow, this is the coolest video game ever! Real, live zombie shoot 'em ups.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjRAcajFte0&NR=1

Something seems amiss here. Derren implies that he and his team are waiting for a random person to play the game. Then the screen is flashed in some way as to induce a trance-like state in the player while those watching remain unaffected. Then Darren walks in and puts his hands on the players head and drags him away right in front of his friends. They allow this to happen without question or complaint. Then the player is placed in a mock up stage of the video game and given a fake gun. He is woken up and actor zombies begin to approach him. It's a very interesting reaction, but not too unbelievable considering this guy supposedly has no idea how he got here or why.

Someone could have gotten hurt making this if it was real. What would happen if the player had decided to use the butt of his gun against some approaching zombie actor. What if he hurt himself? It seems unethical, even illegal to do something like this to a person without their prior consent. Did the owner of the video arcade know what Derren planned for the patrons? I have difficulty believing Derren's short films are not staged.

I can't believe the guy was totally random either. I'm sure he agreed to appear on the show and signed waivers, but did not know how or when Derren Brown was going to strike. There is another Derren Brown episode where a huge elaborate thing like this is staged and he makes it clear the subject has agreed to being ambushed at some indeterminate point in the future without knowing how or when. The "friends" of the video player clearly herded the guy into the place and they probably even hyped the new zombie game to him.

edit: Regarding "The Invisible Man", this was possible under these circumstances not because the guy was a film student but because he was normally very suggestible. Brown could have made himself invisible to anyone that suggestible with no more trouble than what you saw. He really pushed the poor guy over the edge by caressing his hands, which must have been very unnerving, and by staring steadily and firmly into his eyes while he rattled on about how sometimes you lose your keys or a pen or something, and you can't find it even though it's right in front of your face but for some reason you just can't see me. This is an example of "alert hypnosis", I believe, in which the person's critical faculties are bypassed, not by deep relaxation, but by distracting them with something while you slip the suggestion in in an apparently rambling monolog they're not paying much attention to.

 

[Moridin]

Do you know for a fact that the next time you get in your car you will arrive safely at your destination, or do you just believe it? Is there scientific evidence that proves that your parents love you? If there is, have you seen it? How do you decide if a person is attractive to you or not, or is every person equally appealing? You don't have a single opinion of the world that you can't show scientific evidence to back it up? That's kind of creepy to me.

Actually, you can. That is an estimation based on the available scientific evidence, such as number of deaths / time interval in the traffic, condition of roads, time of day, weather, your health and tiredness etc. Your brain is constantly making updates on estimations and simulations of the future, even when you are not consciously thinking of it. When it comes to love, there are all sorts of evidence, such as hints, tone of voice, touch, speech etc. When it comes to attraction, it is chemical reactions in the brain. This is certainly epistemological justification.

Opinions of the world that cannot be supported by evidence is false belief. Human brains do accumulate scientific evidence constantly and make simulations and updates on how things actually are.

Fact is a hefty word. It implies existence, reality, truth. I'm not even sure that we can know such things. I think maybe the best we can do is use evidence to imply fact. The next fact we discover could change how we perceive the last one. The reality isn't changing, but our perception of it can. This happens often when we learn something new and apply it to the rest of our understanding. Evidence is not always correct and intuition is not always wrong. Granted, the tried and true is the safer bet, but that isn't always an option.

Fact is exactly the appropriate word. No, it does not suggest metaphysical justification, but science operates independent of metaphysics. According to National Academies of Science, a scientific fact is "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." You are confusion the term 'theory', with 'facts'. Facts rarely change, theoretical explanations do.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309064066&page=2

Evidence is always correct, because if it isn't correct, then it isn't evidence. I do not personally know of a single event where intuition has been better than evidence where they have been different.

There are facts and there are opinions. This is your opinion. I guess it depends on how you define good and bad. Good luck getting everyone to agree on that.

edit - these look like cases of logic vs. intuition to me, and not everyone is built the same way when it comes to these things. I don't believe that one is inherently better than the other.

When someone does not agree with presented evidence, they usually resort to 'Well, that is only your opinion'. There are evidence-based reasons for believing in something, and there are non-evidence-based reasons for believing in something. Evidence-based reasons have clearly been demonstrated to be superior because it works better.

Which of the following do you think is the better explanation? The following are articles that, say, appeared in the quarterly review of biology (not really; only for our discussion):

Special Issue: What Killed The Dinosaurs?

- Iridium layer at the K-T boundary of potassium argon dated crater in Yucatan, Mexico indicate that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs (standard scientific paper presenting evidence)
- The president of the Royal Society have been vouched safe a strong inner conviction that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs.
- It has been privately revealed to Professor Huxdale that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs.
- Professor Haultly was brought up to have the total and unquestioning faith that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs.
- Professor Hawking has promulgated an official dogma binding on all loyal Hawkingsians that an asteroid killed the Dinosaurs.

Surely, you must acknowledge that there is only one of these that have any relevance at all to what killed the dinosaurs?

 

[Huckleberry]

Evidence requires interpretations. Therein lies room for errors in judgement. If evidence does not imply some proof then it is not evidence. To believe that evidence is always correct is to believe that the interpretation is always correct. That is false.

In the dinosaur case I would prefer the explanation in the scientific paper. I would not assume it was true beyond questioning; a fact. The evidence is not opinion, but someones interpretation of it is. Evidence does not support facts. Facts support evidence. Facts do not change based on our perceptions. The evidence that leads to the interpretation of the fact sometimes does. What in science is undeniable? To accept science as an undeniable truth is just another kind of dogmatic belief.

Do animals make estimations based on scientific fact? Did people before science was developed? Have the mechanics of emotion and attraction and estimations changed so much since then? If someone throws a ball to you do you consciously calculate velocity and gravity and air resistance before positioning your hand, or do you catch it in much the same manner as would the family dog?

People are not entirely logical creatures. We are also intuitive. All healthy people perform actions independent of reasoning processes, probably more often than we realize. Just because the science exists does not mean that we are consciously aware of it. I also doubt that scientific evidence is unconscious. So whatever it is that allows us to function in daily life is not scientific evidence. That just explains how. It doesn't provide the mechanism that makes it possible.

Anyway, that's my belief. Others are free to accept whatever they wish.

 

[Huckleberry]

I think your thoughts on facts and beliefs indicate that you are very suggestible and might easily be paralyzed with a voodoo doll.

That's what I thought you were getting at. It's not surprising that I'm not comfortable with the idea, but I appreciate your honest opinion. I'm also a bit curious. What was it about my thoughts that indicated to you that I may be highly suggestible?

send me a message if you like. I don't think a response needs to be posted here.

 

[Moridin]

Evidence requires interpretations. Therein lies room for errors in judgement. If evidence does not imply some proof then it is not evidence. To believe that evidence is always correct is to believe that the interpretation is always correct. That is false.

I agree that it is possible to interpret the evidence incorrectly. That is why science has this amazing thing called repeatability and self-correction.

In the dinosaur case I would prefer the explanation in the scientific paper. I would not assume it was true beyond questioning; a fact.

The fact in this scenario would be 'dinosaurs are extinct'. A theory is a theoretical explanatory model hence the 'indicate'.

In the dinosaur case I would prefer the explanation in the scientific paper.

According to your logic, that would be an entirely unjustified choice, correct? Why isn't the others valid then?

Evidence does not support facts. Facts support evidence.

Not quite. Evidence/Facts support scientific theories because the models can explain it and make testable predictions. Facts/Evidence is the same thing.

Do animals make estimations based on scientific fact? Did people before science was developed?

Yes. Science is simply the human activity of explaining facts with methodological naturalism (+ some more technical things that isn't necessary for the discussion).

Have the mechanics of emotion and attraction and estimations changed so much since then?

Enormously. Think human culture and the evidence that can be gathered from it.

If someone throws a ball to you do you consciously calculate velocity and gravity and air resistance before positioning your hand, or do you catch it in much the same manner as would the family dog?[/quote]

Only because your brain has decided that such a calculation is unnecessary. You can reach the same conclusion with less information. When a ball comes towards you, your eyes register the distance between you and the ball, its size, its apparent mass and cultural settings (someone is trying to hurt you, you are playing a game etc.) and your brain makes the inference to the best decision. Such reaction is not a conscious reaction by the way, but rests entirely on evidence. The dog's brain undergoes much the same process, only human brains are more advanced.

People are not entirely logical creatures. We are also intuitive.

The thing is that there is probably no fundamental difference between the two. Intuition is merely primitive logic.

So whatever it is that allows us to function in daily life is not scientific evidence. That just explains how. It doesn't provide the mechanism that makes it possible.

I think that is superstitious thinking. Think of your brain as a computer, using input to make output. Do you know what to think of before you think on it? Do you know what to say in a conversation before you say it?

 

[Huckleberry]

Fact is exactly the appropriate word. No, it does not suggest metaphysical justification, but science operates independent of metaphysics. According to National Academies of Science, a scientific fact is "In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as "true." Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow." You are confusion the term 'theory', with 'facts'. Facts rarely change, theoretical explanations do.

Okay, I see a lot of our dispute is coming from the definition of fact. I was considering fact to be something that exists in reality independent of human conceptions, an unequivocal truth of nature. A scientific fact is a concept that is practical and accepted as a true representation of reality based on confirmed observations. That makes a world of difference in how I interpret your text, but I still believe it is wise to be cautious not to confuse the model with the reality.

In the dinosaur case I would prefer the explanation in the scientific paper.

According to your logic, that would be an entirely unjustified choice, correct? Why isn't the others valid then?

I'm not taking an opposite opinion here. I'm not just trying to be contrary. I think reason is a valuable asset to humanity, just not the only one. The good money is that the scientific evidence is correct and that, from the list of options, it's conclusion will likely most resemble truth. Since all the other beliefs led to the same conclusion they were either very intuitive or very lucky. I see no reason to invalidate a correct result, especially if they could repeat it.

 

[zoobyshoe]

That's what I thought you were getting at. It's not surprising that I'm not comfortable with the idea, but I appreciate your honest opinion.

You're not comfortable with the thought you might be highly suggestible, or not comfortable with the thought that I think you are?

 

[Huckleberry]

You're not comfortable with the thought you might be highly suggestible, or not comfortable with the thought that I think you are?

I suppose both are true.