Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * - - 2 votes

Response to "no scientific evidence" of ghost


  • Please log in to reply
356 replies to this topic

#181    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 05 November 2013 - 03:23 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 05 November 2013 - 07:07 AM, said:

I don't see that you've addressed my view about the difference in the level of proof needed because of the difference in metaphysical consequences.  Did you understand the point or should I elaborate?
What consequences? There are a vast amount of strange and fantastic consequences associated with physicalism as well. Including duplicate lives in other universes. The likely hood of Borg like super entities, awakened galaxies etc etc. metaphysical consequences are no more fantastic..

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#182    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 05 November 2013 - 05:39 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 05 November 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

People like aquates and frank think they know so much about how their minds and inner worlds work, a transparent spirit of one of their own relatives could stand right in front of them, slap them across the face, wave and scream that their are real, and they still would think they are suffering from something that's not real.

Probably.  Which, of course, means absolutely nothing in regards as to whether it is real.  Much like your claim that people like me wouldn't acknowledge its existence does not mean it is actually real.

Although I do find it amusing that you believe having a transparent spirit having a hissy fit somehow lends it more reality than simply seeing a ghostly outline in a dark house.  It does fit in well, though, with your basic premise that science somehow doesn't recognize emotional content, and therefore a spirit engaged in an emotional reaction should be more detectable than one which doesn't, even if it doesn't actually make any logical sense.

Whether I believe the spirit is real or not depends less on whether it is trying to slap me and more on whether it can identify itself in such a manner that a spirit created by my mind could not.

Quote

This is born from a kind of fundamentalism built on a physical premis, and the marginalization of human experience.

Most of us like to call it "experience".

Quote

The illogic being that just because people can go crazy or do hallucinate things that all things falling outside of the accepted premis must fall into those category's.

See, thing of it is that just because you refer to someone as a "fundamentalist", and claim that they only believe that that there is one single explanation for anything...

It doesn't actually make it so.

If anything, that sort of assumption, that anyone who doesn't agree with what you are saying must be part of another, pre-defined, group which is automatically assumed to believe X and to be closed off to anything else...well, wouldn't that be a rather blatant case of bias, right there?  That mindset where if you don't believe what I believe, then you must be wrong/bias/close-minded?

It hasn't occurred to you that people could simply disagree with you and still be intelligent, open-minded, individuals?  Or are the only people allowed in that category the ones who agree 100% with what you believe?


#183    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 05 November 2013 - 08:25 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 05 November 2013 - 05:39 PM, said:



Probably.  Which, of course, means absolutely nothing in regards as to whether it is real.  Much like your claim that people like me wouldn't acknowledge its existence does not mean it is actually real.

Although I do find it amusing that you believe having a transparent spirit having a hissy fit somehow lends it more reality than simply seeing a ghostly outline in a dark house.  It does fit in well, though, with your basic premise that science somehow doesn't recognize emotional content, and therefore a spirit engaged in an emotional reaction should be more detectable than one which doesn't, even if it doesn't actually make any logical sense.

Whether I believe the spirit is real or not depends less on whether it is trying to slap me and more on whether it can identify itself in such a manner that a spirit created by my mind could not.



Most of us like to call it "experience".



See, thing of it is that just because you refer to someone as a "fundamentalist", and claim that they only believe that that there is one single explanation for anything...

It doesn't actually make it so.

If anything, that sort of assumption, that anyone who doesn't agree with what you are saying must be part of another, pre-defined, group which is automatically assumed to believe X and to be closed off to anything else...well, wouldn't that be a rather blatant case of bias, right there?  That mindset where if you don't believe what I believe, then you must be wrong/bias/close-minded?

It hasn't occurred to you that people could simply disagree with you and still be intelligent, open-minded, individuals?  Or are the only people allowed in that category the ones who agree 100% with what you believe?

Of course it dosnt, but It defiantly makes it more probable.

It has nothing to do with the emotional content :( it has to do with the clarity of the interaction. That was the point. A dark figure down the hallway opens itself up much more to misinterpretation. You know this. That's why I created that example. But I'm glad you agreed that you probably would still cling to your bias. That's ok ... Forgive my lak of passive voice when writing. I actually think it takes a strong thoughtful person to cling to their principles in the face of such evidence.

The truth of course is the everything you experience is created by your mind. But if we shred our respective bias, 'experience' is perfectly capable of showing you that something like a spirit slapping you, dragging you out of bed, or cuddling with you on your sofa, is just as real as these words you are reading on your computer screen.  Cant you see that denying your experiences and verifications is the true delusion?

If it acts like a duck and looks like a duck, then I have no other framework but to call it a duck. there are various kinds of ducks, there or 28 kinds living in North America alone. There are also various levels of duckness. Some birds like geese have a lot of similar traits as ducks. So I'd have to say duck like or I might say ducks or goose like.

For me, people mired in physical philosophy are fundamentalists because it seems that in their minds there can be nothing other. Despite the evidence. Much like other kinds of fundamentalists.   I only have words to go on to express the grouping and likeness of such thought processes.

It occurs to me all the time, my friend. And you mistake my assertiveness for aggressiveness. You know that old cognitive problem of misinterpretation ;)  I was taught in school to write in active voice. It puts people off sometimes. In fact I consider yourself and others that I debate quit open and intelligent, real fundis I barely bother with anymore.  just don't expect me to not hammer my points. Infact the reason I even engage people like yourself is because I believe fundamentally you will accept reason even if you disagree with it. Or at least I hope you will. If course being the person on the fringe it's an uphill battle. But trust me its fun for me. I'm surrounded by children 95% of my life, and this may be the only adult interaction I get in a day. Arguing with my wife is not so fun:(

And for the record, I have never met people that agree 100% with me.... Not even myself ;)

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#184    sinewave

sinewave

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,102 posts
  • Joined:23 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Midwest

  • Belief proves nothing. Show me the science.

Posted 06 November 2013 - 04:57 AM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 05 November 2013 - 03:00 PM, said:

Indeed.. I'm glad you recognize that last part.. Most don't.

It's not totally "out of the question" that spirits might exist either... This is the whole point. When you simply "relegate" it to belief and turn your head to the mountains of evidence your are participating in extreme bias. There are people that no more believe in spirits than you believe in a ham sandwich. Why? Because they interact with that reality on regular basis.  It's not anecdotal to a great base of humanity. As I have mentioned before science has nothing to say on the matter, and I have also mentioned before science is only capable of uncovering a certain bit of reality. Some people like what science has accomplished soooo much, they want to base their entire world view in its philosophical premis. Ok, good for them, but the success of science does not invalidate other world views or even phenomenon outside of its premies.

People like aquates and frank think they know so much about how their minds and inner worlds work, a transparent spirit of one of their own relatives could stand right in front of them, slap them across the face, wave and scream that their are real, and they still would think they are suffering from something that's not real. This is born from a kind of fundamentalism built on a physical premis, and the marginalization of human experience. The illogic being that just because people can go crazy or do hallucinate things that all things falling outside of the accepted premis must fall into those category's.

Look its not my argument. As I have mentioned Carl Jung wrote about the marginalization of Human experience and its fallacious and even dangerous nature.

I wouldn't really want my doctor using the "accept all evidence approach" and deliver a shaman instead of antibiotics.  Just saying.  :)

I am not saying ghosts are not possible just that no one has shown otherwise and the methods employed so far to expose them are very poorly designed and executed but some call it science.

Edited by sinewave, 06 November 2013 - 05:01 AM.


#185    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 November 2013 - 05:40 AM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 05 November 2013 - 08:25 PM, said:

Of course it dosnt, but It defiantly makes it more probable.

Wait...calling me a fundamentalist and saying I only believe in one explanation makes what more probable?  They existence of an hysterical spirit?

Quote

It has nothing to do with the emotional content :( it has to do with the clarity of the interaction. That was the point. A dark figure down the hallway opens itself up much more to misinterpretation. You know this. That's why I created that example.

Well, that's you.  To me, a cool breeze as an immaterial hand brushes across my face or a dark figure in a spooky corridor are pretty much in the same category of clarity, ranging from a pleasantly scary thrill to a "WTH are we doing in this spooky house, Scoob?".  A voice screaming at me would cause me much greater alarm, and I suspect my first reaction would be to frantically look around for whomever was making the noise.

As for standing in front of me and waving their hands, being that they are transparent, it is largely a moot point.  If them doing this for you makes for a much clearer interaction, more power to you.  For me, the entire episode consists of "I heard voices.  I think it was my aunt.  She sounded p***ed."

Quote

But I'm glad you agreed that you probably would still cling to your bias. That's ok ... Forgive my lak of passive voice when writing. I actually think it takes a strong thoughtful person to cling to their principles in the face of such evidence.

How much strength does it take to decide what people who don't agree with you must think and process the world around them, and decide they must not be as open-minded and perceptive as you are?

Quote

The truth of course is the everything you experience is created by your mind. But if we shred our respective bias, 'experience' is perfectly capable of showing you that something like a spirit slapping you, dragging you out of bed, or cuddling with you on your sofa, is just as real as these words you are reading on your computer screen.  Cant you see that denying your experiences and verifications is the true delusion

No, I really can't.  See, it is absolutely true that the mind doesn't know the difference between a spirit girlfriend who wants quality time, an imaginary girlfriend, and a real flesh and blood one.  As you say, all data is interpreted by the mind.  Whether your girlfriend exists or whether you imagined her up, the brain is going to record the event the exact same way.

This does not, however, make the actual subject of the event "real".  Either your girlfriend is real, and either has a body or is a spirit, or she is imaginary.  It doesn't matter whether you accept it or deny it, the ultimate reality is going to be one of those two options.  I won't be able to tell the difference; if my brain is convinced Jane is real, then I will see, hear, feel, and cuddle with Jane.  Even when my friend shows me a secret video of me watching "She's all that!" while whispering sweet nothings into the ear of my couch pillow, my first reaction will be to claim he is delusional for not believing in my girlfriend (followed closely by a demand to know just how many secret cameras he has in my apartment.  Like I said, experience).

This is why objective verification is so important.  You act as if the sole purpose of it was to deny the existence of the immaterial.  The actual purpose of it is to remove a variable which we already know to exist.  The human mind has the ability to make up things that are not really there;  We know this, as a fact, and we can replicate this at will.  It is a significant variable, and in any attempt to show that something is actually there, it would be absolutely silly to not remove a variable that has been shown to be specifically responsible for people thinking something is there.

It is a little bit like putting a kettle on the stove, focusing on it, and claiming the water boiled due to your psychic abilities;  You should not be surprised if someone asks whether you checked to make sure the stove was off.

Quote

If it acts like a duck and looks like a duck, then I have no other framework but to call it a duck. there are various kinds of ducks, there or 28 kinds living in North America alone. There are also various levels of duckness. Some birds like geese have a lot of similar traits as ducks. So I'd have to say duck like or I might say ducks or goose like.

And no one would think twice about it.  Because ducks have been shown to objectively exist.  Their existence is not reliant on anecdotal evidence.  No one has any reason to believe that you didn't see a duck.

Now, if you run out of your room yelling that a duck attacked you while you were on the computer, this would cause a bit more controversy.  At this point, a cursory investigation would have to be made and assuming the duck isn't sitting there making it easy for us, we would have no choice but to look for circumstantial evidence, evidence we know should be there had a duck actually been in the room.

If absolutely no evidence is found, we would have to consider that perhaps you were not attacked by a duck.

Quote

For me, people mired in physical philosophy are fundamentalists because it seems that in their minds there can be nothing other. Despite the evidence. Much like other kinds of fundamentalists.   I only have words to go on to express the grouping and likeness of such thought processes.

Has it occurred to you, instead of assuming you understand how they think, to actually ask them questions and learn from them how they think?

Quote

It occurs to me all the time, my friend. And you mistake my assertiveness for aggressiveness.

Nonsense.  I am open-minded about such things.  I simply attributed both to you.  Nothing wrong with that.  I myself am both assertive and aggressive.

Quote

You know that old cognitive problem of misinterpretation ;)  I was taught in school to write in active voice. It puts people off sometimes. In fact I consider yourself and others that I debate quit open and intelligent, real fundis I barely bother with anymore.  just don't expect me to not hammer my points. Infact the reason I even engage people like yourself is because I believe fundamentally you will accept reason even if you disagree with it. Or at least I hope you will. If course being the person on the fringe it's an uphill battle. But trust me its fun for me. I'm surrounded by children 95% of my life, and this may be the only adult interaction I get in a day. Arguing with my wife is not so fun:(

And for the record, I have never met people that agree 100% with me.... Not even myself ;)

It isn't you aggression or your assertiveness that is the problem.  It is your assumption that you know what other people are thinking, followed by the judgement you make based on your assumptions, all the while topping the whole mess with a healthy spread of ironic obliviousness.

In other words:
  • Claiming that someone thinks in one particular way without actually verifying it,
  • Referring to people who think in that way as being close-minded without actually supporting that conclusion,
  • Making blanket assumptions about an entire group of people, how they behave, what they believe, etc, even when you have been directly told this is not how they behave or believe...
This doesn't make you either open-minded or unbiased.  Holding a differing opinion of mine in regards to an analytic process does not, in any way, translate to academic, social, or intellectual, neutrality.  You don't get to be on top just by claiming that I am at the bottom.  You do have to actually prove your case to be the stronger.


#186    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,373 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 06 November 2013 - 05:42 AM

The thing about hallucinations that convinces me they are not real is that I have to do special things, like take certain pain relievers or meditate certain way or go without sleep, to have them.  That tells me they are me and not "real," and I long ago gave up experimenting like that.

By the way, such hallucinations, at least for me, do not consist of my dead mother slapping me on the face.  The most I ever got from her was an enigmatic and self-serving statement from a lamp saying, "You can have anything you want."  Nonsense, but something my ever-wishful subconscious might produce.  Most hallucinations do not involve people, but just visions of places -- nice, pleasant, safe places.


#187    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 06 November 2013 - 03:49 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 06 November 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:



Wait...calling me a fundamentalist and saying I only believe in one explanation makes what more probable?  They existence of an hysterical spirit?



Well, that's you.  To me, a cool breeze as an immaterial hand brushes across my face or a dark figure in a spooky corridor are pretty much in the same category of clarity, ranging from a pleasantly scary thrill to a "WTH are we doing in this spooky house, Scoob?".  A voice screaming at me would cause me much greater alarm, and I suspect my first reaction would be to frantically look around for whomever was making the noise.

As for standing in front of me and waving their hands, being that they are transparent, it is largely a moot point.  If them doing this for you makes for a much clearer interaction, more power to you.  For me, the entire episode consists of "I heard voices.  I think it was my aunt.  She sounded p***ed."



How much strength does it take to decide what people who don't agree with you must think and process the world around them, and decide they must not be as open-minded and perceptive as you are?



No, I really can't.  See, it is absolutely true that the mind doesn't know the difference between a spirit girlfriend who wants quality time, an imaginary girlfriend, and a real flesh and blood one.  As you say, all data is interpreted by the mind.  Whether your girlfriend exists or whether you imagined her up, the brain is going to record the event the exact same way.

This does not, however, make the actual subject of the event "real".  Either your girlfriend is real, and either has a body or is a spirit, or she is imaginary.  It doesn't matter whether you accept it or deny it, the ultimate reality is going to be one of those two options.  I won't be able to tell the difference; if my brain is convinced Jane is real, then I will see, hear, feel, and cuddle with Jane.  Even when my friend shows me a secret video of me watching "She's all that!" while whispering sweet nothings into the ear of my couch pillow, my first reaction will be to claim he is delusional for not believing in my girlfriend (followed closely by a demand to know just how many secret cameras he has in my apartment.  Like I said, experience).

This is why objective verification is so important.  You act as if the sole purpose of it was to deny the existence of the immaterial.  The actual purpose of it is to remove a variable which we already know to exist.  The human mind has the ability to make up things that are not really there;  We know this, as a fact, and we can replicate this at will.  It is a significant variable, and in any attempt to show that something is actually there, it would be absolutely silly to not remove a variable that has been shown to be specifically responsible for people thinking something is there.

It is a little bit like putting a kettle on the stove, focusing on it, and claiming the water boiled due to your psychic abilities;  You should not be surprised if someone asks whether you checked to make sure the stove was off.



And no one would think twice about it.  Because ducks have been shown to objectively exist.  Their existence is not reliant on anecdotal evidence.  No one has any reason to believe that you didn't see a duck.

Now, if you run out of your room yelling that a duck attacked you while you were on the computer, this would cause a bit more controversy.  At this point, a cursory investigation would have to be made and assuming the duck isn't sitting there making it easy for us, we would have no choice but to look for circumstantial evidence, evidence we know should be there had a duck actually been in the room.

If absolutely no evidence is found, we would have to consider that perhaps you were not attacked by a duck.



Has it occurred to you, instead of assuming you understand how they think, to actually ask them questions and learn from them how they think?



Nonsense.  I am open-minded about such things.  I simply attributed both to you.  Nothing wrong with that.  I myself am both assertive and aggressive.



It isn't you aggression or your assertiveness that is the problem.  It is your assumption that you know what other people are thinking, followed by the judgement you make based on your assumptions, all the while topping the whole mess with a healthy spread of ironic obliviousness.

In other words:
  • Claiming that someone thinks in one particular way without actually verifying it,
  • Referring to people who think in that way as being close-minded without actually supporting that conclusion,
  • Making blanket assumptions about an entire group of people, how they behave, what they believe, etc, even when you have been directly told this is not how they behave or believe...
This doesn't make you either open-minded or unbiased.  Holding a differing opinion of mine in regards to an analytic process does not, in any way, translate to academic, social, or intellectual, neutrality.  You don't get to be on top just by claiming that I am at the bottom.  You do have to actually prove your case to be the stronger.
Actually people start arguing about arguing and make it personal when thy are running out of things to argue about. I'm not going to grill every person on every forum about what they think. You say what you think if you want me to know it. If you don't like being compared to a fundamentalist then speak up why, but that may or may not change what I think on the matter.

As to spirit girl friends. Your assumption and a large falacy in skeptical rhetoric is the assumption that because the mind can make something up means that everytime something dosnt fall within normal parameters it must be one of these instances. This is born of the kind of fundamentalism I was speaking about and is quite illogical. ---Your spirit girl friend can't possibly be a spirit because there are no such things as spirits, and only physical objectivly verifiable things exist because there is no non-physical reality-- petitio principii.

Just because something can happen does not mean that it does. This is the same fallacious argument attempted by people to invalidate NDEs. An induced experience has says nothing about the natural occurance of an experience. If the smell of flowers is reproduced because a brain surgon manipulates my brain in a lab, this certainly does not mean that flowers do not exist.

Edited by White Crane Feather, 06 November 2013 - 03:51 PM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#188    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 November 2013 - 04:28 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 06 November 2013 - 03:49 PM, said:

Actually people start arguing about arguing and make it personal when thy are running out of things to argue about.

Yes, we know why you started making references to fundamentalists and denialists.  That is neither here nor there.

Quote

I'm not going to grill every person on every forum about what they think. You say what you think if you want me to know it. If you don't like being compared to a fundamentalist then speak up why, but that may or may not change what I think on the matter.

I...I just wrote a huge post on why judging someone as a fundamentalist is wrong...

And, I mean, I even broke it down into the fallacies of judgement, of logic, and even of reason.  I even bullet pointed the last...

You quoted the post.  Didn't you see any of it?  Why didn't you address anything that was written in direct response to the points you brought up?

Quote

As to spirit girl friends. Your assumption and a large falacy in skeptical rhetoric is the assumption that because the mind can make something up means that everytime something dosnt fall within normal parameters it must be one of these instances.

Hmm...Wow...

You really didn't read the post at all.

This from the guy who posted a gif of someone slamming their face unto a table.

Quote

This is born of the kind of fundamentalism I was speaking about and is quite illogical. ---Your spirit girl friend can't possibly be a spirit because there are no such things as spirits, and only physical objectivly verifiable things exist because there is no non-physical reality-- petitio principii.

Look...if all you are going to do is make up what you believe I am saying instead of actually reading what I am saying, there is little purpose to continuing this.

All I can do is point out how I specifically stated several times now, that when you get to the point that you have already convinced yourself that you know what other people are thinking and saying to the point that you utterly ignore what they are actually thinking and saying, you have pretty much become the thing you are arguing against.

Quote

Just because something can happen does not mean that it does.  This is the same fallacious argument attempted by people to invalidate NDEs. An induced experience has says nothing about the natural occurance of an experience. If the smell of flowers is reproduced because a brain surgon manipulates my brain in a lab, this certainly does not mean that flowers do not exist.

Agreed.  Similarly, just because you say something is so, does not mean it is.  However, if we can show that something has the greatest likelihood of being so (like, say, using a bell curve to show probability), and additionally show an absence of data we would expect to appear had a given phenomena actually occurred (of the "dog that didn't bark" variety), and on top of that show an alternatively that not only has happened, has been shown to happen on a regular basis, and has every reason of being a suspected variable in what did happen, then perhaps there is reason to consider it a significant factor in the investigation.  Just like ball lightning.  After all, if it quacks like a duck, etc, etc.


#189    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,503 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 06 November 2013 - 06:43 PM

View Postaquatus1, on 06 November 2013 - 04:28 PM, said:



Yes, we know why you started making references to fundamentalists and denialists.  That is neither here nor there.



I...I just wrote a huge post on why judging someone as a fundamentalist is wrong...

And, I mean, I even broke it down into the fallacies of judgement, of logic, and even of reason.  I even bullet pointed the last...

You quoted the post.  Didn't you see any of it?  Why didn't you address anything that was written in direct response to the points you brought up?



Hmm...Wow...

You really didn't read the post at all.

This from the guy who posted a gif of someone slamming their face unto a table.



Look...if all you are going to do is make up what you believe I am saying instead of actually reading what I am saying, there is little purpose to continuing this.

All I can do is point out how I specifically stated several times now, that when you get to the point that you have already convinced yourself that you know what other people are thinking and saying to the point that you utterly ignore what they are actually thinking and saying, you have pretty much become the thing you are arguing against.



Agreed.  Similarly, just because you say something is so, does not mean it is.  However, if we can show that something has the greatest likelihood of being so (like, say, using a bell curve to show probability), and additionally show an absence of data we would expect to appear had a given phenomena actually occurred (of the "dog that didn't bark" variety), and on top of that show an alternatively that not only has happened, has been shown to happen on a regular basis, and has every reason of being a suspected variable in what did happen, then perhaps there is reason to consider it a significant factor in the investigation.  Just like ball lightning.  After all, if it quacks like a duck, etc, etc.
I post from an iPhone, I don't have the energy to address things you write that are irrelevant or when you insist on arguing about arguing. I understood and read everything you said and I am attempting to stay with material instead of dealing with emotions and incrudality. I'm not ignoring anything. This is what an ethics professor I once had called "the professors huff". It's a claim that the other person is not listening or ignoring by the simple fact of disagreeing.

Ill say it again in a different way. Attempting to discern the reality of a thing that is apart of a non physical reality by looking for a physical signature is simply silly. It's assuming your bias. This is what bible fundis do. There can be nothing outside of the Bible. There can be nothing outside of our methodologies.  

Yes a bell curve. I believed  I addressed that. It's perfectly fine to say that statistics show us that this event most likely falls within this range. But this is also an assumption. In physics, if I walk toword a wall the greater bulk of the bell curve will have me running into it; However, we know for a fact that it is possible that I will pop up on the other side... Even the other side of the universe. The probability can be calculated. This is because the fringe edge of the bell curve of the probability distrubution defining where im at extends through the wall. No where in science are you supposed to look at where the bulk of your probability lies and completely disregard the margins. If it were not a reality, the sun would not shine.

Of course we are talking about human experiences not quantum uncertainty. Judging the reality of a spiritual type reality based on picking and choosing variables and assuming all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve is simply assuming. You want the dog to bark and it is, the only problem is that you are deaf. Why are you ( I'm speaking about a general "you")  deaf? It's because like ball lightning we are evaluating anecdotes, but you have already thrown out anecdotes as evidence, so the logic now becomes ----these anecdotes most likely fall within this range of explanation, but those outside of that range can't be considered authentic because they are anecdotes.----like ball lightning  the person on the fringe cannot produce anything physical so they are now silent.

Look, I'm not saying anyone should simply believe because Somone says that something happened to them. Only recognize that that a non physical reality is going to have a very difficult time leaving physical evidence. And securing proof is nearly impossible with science because it is necessarily built on physical philosophy.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#190    soulseeker

soulseeker

    Astral Projection

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 626 posts
  • Joined:01 Mar 2009
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Michigan

  • All things are possible and impossible...science can prove how... but not why...

Posted 06 November 2013 - 08:43 PM

People were once referred to as insane for believing the world was round because there was no scientific proof...science is always changing and growing. When some super intelligent geek :geek:  invents a ghost capturing camera ill show you proof.

I would like to bring attention to the newest member of the endangered species list: Common Sense.

#191    aquatus1

aquatus1

    Forum Divinity

  • 19,484 posts
  • Joined:05 Mar 2004
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 06 November 2013 - 09:58 PM

View PostWhite Crane Feather, on 06 November 2013 - 06:43 PM, said:

I post from an iPhone, I don't have the energy to address things you write that are irrelevant or when you insist on arguing about arguing.

You don't get to drop things on the table and then pretend they are irrelevant when they get responded to.  If you had stuck to the interpretation of the bell curve and the relevance of margins, there we would have stayed.  YOU decided to expand into posting about how not agreeing with what you were saying was a sign of how close-minded they were.  Don't expect to define other people incorrectly and have them stay quiet about it.

Quote

I understood and read everything you said and I am attempting to stay with material instead of dealing with emotions and incrudality.

Then stop repeating the irrelevant and incorrect conclusions you have decided on regarding physical evidence.

Quote

I'm not ignoring anything. This is what an ethics professor I once had called "the professors huff". It's a claim that the other person is not listening or ignoring by the simple fact of disagreeing.

What did he call the claim that the other person is not listening by pointing out an example of the person coming to a conclusion that did not follow from what was written?  Kind of like when Sinewave concluded that you had stated evidence for plasma was evidence for ghosts?  Or when you concluded that:

Quote

This does not, however, make the actual subject of the event "real".  Either your girlfriend is real, and either has a body or is a spirit, or she is imaginary.  It doesn't matter whether you accept it or deny it, the ultimate reality is going to be one of those two options.  I won't be able to tell the difference; if my brain is convinced Jane is real, then I will see, hear, feel, and cuddle with Jane.  Even when my friend shows me a secret video of me watching "She's all that!" while whispering sweet nothings into the ear of my couch pillow, my first reaction will be to claim he is delusional for not believing in my girlfriend (followed closely by a demand to know just how many secret cameras he has in my apartment.  Like I said, experience).


meant:


Quote

Your assumption and a large falacy in skeptical rhetoric is the assumption that because the mind can make something up means that everytime something dosnt fall within normal parameters it must be one of these instances.


Just because you like going to extremes doesn't mean that is what I am arguing.  I am arguing, as I have since the very beginning, that there is a reason why margins are margins, and pretending they do not represent an increasingly low probability of an occurrence will get you in just as much trouble as assuming that they do not exist at all.

That is where the argument is.  That is where it started, and that is where it should have stayed.  You began painting anyone who didn't acknowledge science ignores margins as people who believed in fundamentalist materialism, an accusation which is both unsupported and does not follow from the discussion.  If you did not want to discuss the accusation, you should not have made it to begin with, and you cannot refer to it as "arguing for the sake of arguing" if you keep bringing it up time and time again.  As I have said a few times now, you do not get to define how other people think and expect it to go unchallenged.

Quote

Ill say it again in a different way. Attempting to discern the reality of a thing that is apart of a non physical reality by looking for a physical signature is simply silly. It's assuming your bias. This is what bible fundis do. There can be nothing outside of the Bible. There can be nothing outside of our methodologies.

Well, since you are so adamant about not talking about things which are irrelevant and about arguing for the sake of arguing, I will ignore the rather blatant baiting which has leveled up from material fundamentalism to religious fundamentalism (good gravy, what next?)

In regards to actual scientific methodology, there are a series of pre-requisites that must be met by every single concept prior to being considered scientific.  And that means every single one, from the latest M-theory of physics, all the way down to the most basic Pythagorean Theorum.  These pre-requisites apply universally, and no concept is given a free pass or a grandfather, no matter how wooly some of them are ("dark matter", looking at you now).

Is there room for a new pre-requisite, on which allows for the existence of the supernatural or the paranormal as a scientific subject?  Certainly, there is.  It must, however, just like every other pre-requisite, satisfy not just the reality it moderates, but also the reality that currently exists.  In the same way that science does not reject the reality of something there is no rule demanding the rejection of, neither does science allow the rejection of the reality there are actually rules addressing.

Scientific methodology addresses the known universe, including forces that we can barely dream of, let alone actually define, let alone phenomena that occurred before we had even evolved as a proto-species, let alone phenomena that occurred before we even evolved as a planet, let alone before our galaxy even properly coalesced.  And the claim is that science refuses and rejects the notion of a few paltry human spirits wandering around?  Nonsense.  Science merely expects that proposal to meet the same standards that everything from the most basic junior high math formula to the formation of reality itself, in the most literal terms, the Big Bang, must meet.  Or at least, show why an exception should be made.

Quote

Yes a bell curve. I believed  I addressed that. It's perfectly fine to say that statistics show us that this event most likely falls within this range. But this is also an assumption.

No, it isn't an assumption.  It is an answer to a question.  The assumption is that you asked the proper question to begin with.  Don't blame the tool for the user's mistake.

Quote

In physics, if I walk toword a wall the greater bulk of the bell curve will have me running into it; However, we know for a fact that it is possible that I will pop up on the other side... Even the other side of the universe. The probability can be calculated. This is because the fringe edge of the bell curve of the probability distrubution defining where im at extends through the wall. No where in science are you supposed to look at where the bulk of your probability lies and completely disregard the margins. If it were not a reality, the sun would not shine.

Except, of course, that the probability you calculate (just how would you go about calculating that, anyway?) is greater than that of the heat death of the universe.  Does this mean science ignores that some particles of reality manage to do this?  Of course not.  They do, however, acknowledge that it is extremely tricky stuff, and go out of their way to verify the validity and credibility of their research, knowing that they will have no grounds to complain if someone points out a variable they missed even a smidgen closer (a "smidgen" being a relative measure, but in this case resulting in a dramatic change in probability) to the bell of the curve.  Their entire careers are spent working in the margins; yet your conclusion is that science ignores what they work on all their lives.

Quote

Of course we are talking about human experiences not quantum uncertainty. Judging the reality of a spiritual type reality based on picking and choosing variables and assuming all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve is simply assuming.

Except of course, that no one assumes that all experiences fall within the bulk of the bell curve, and I would ask you to either stop repeating this fallacy, or stop complaining when you are corrected on it.

Quote

You want the dog to bark and it is, the only problem is that you are deaf.

No, I am perfectly happy with the dog not barking as evidence as well.  Not all evidence has to be material, as I have said time and time again.

Quote

Why are you ( I'm speaking about a general "you")  deaf?

Because we make assumptions about the world (and people) around us?  I agree with you there.

Quote

It's because like ball lightning we are evaluating anecdotes, but you have already thrown out anecdotes as evidence, so the logic now becomes ----these anecdotes most likely fall within this range of explanation, but those outside of that range can't be considered authentic because they are anecdotes.----like ball lightning  the person on the fringe cannot produce anything physical so they are now silent.

And again, you don't have to produce something physical in order to be scientifically valid.  You just have to produce something measurable.  The entire field of electrical engineering is nothing more than math and logic, with nothing in the way of a physical result till time comes for construction of an energy device.

Quote

Look, I'm not saying anyone should simply believe because Somone says that something happened to them. Only recognize that that a non physical reality is going to have a very difficult time leaving physical evidence. And securing proof is nearly impossible with science because it is necessarily built on physical philosophy.

Do you acknowledge that absolutely no one on this thread has claimed physical evidence is the only measure of scientific credibility (except for you making the accusation)?

And furthermore, that science is not, in fact, built on a physical philosophy, considering the myriad of non-physical branches and fields within it?


#192    Angel1510

Angel1510

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portsmouth, UK

Posted 07 November 2013 - 11:29 AM

View Postsinewave, on 06 November 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

I wouldn't really want my doctor using the "accept all evidence approach" and deliver a shaman instead of antibiotics.  Just saying.  :)

I am not saying ghosts are not possible just that no one has shown otherwise and the methods employed so far to expose them are very poorly designed and executed but some call it science.

What has doctors and antibiotics got to do with ghosts?  I know you are lumping all anamolies under the same umbrella and that is just wrong.  There is a difference between claiming to see a ghost and taking some poison because someone said so.  Of course, scientific method is vital in some areas, I am not disputing that but in the case of 'ghosts', I think the tools required to prove their existence have not been discovered.


#193    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,373 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 07 November 2013 - 11:52 AM

View Postsoulseeker, on 06 November 2013 - 08:43 PM, said:

People were once referred to as insane for believing the world was round because there was no scientific proof...science is always changing and growing. When some super intelligent geek :geek:  invents a ghost capturing camera ill show you proof.
This can't go unchallenged; odds are when someone invents a ghost capturing camera it will show proof they aren't there.

I really tire of the believing the world is round bit; no "scientist," even in the ancient world, has thought the world was flat since maybe the Egyptians, and science wasn't invented them.  Science grows, largely by discarding theories that don't fit, and ghosts are probably one of these that needs to be discarded.


#194    Angel1510

Angel1510

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 81 posts
  • Joined:11 Sep 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Portsmouth, UK

Posted 07 November 2013 - 11:57 AM

View PostFrank Merton, on 07 November 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

This can't go unchallenged; odds are when someone invents a ghost capturing camera it will show proof they aren't there.

I really tire of the believing the world is round bit; no "scientist," even in the ancient world, has thought the world was flat since maybe the Egyptians, and science wasn't invented them.  Science grows, largely by discarding theories that don't fit, and ghosts are probably one of these that needs to be discarded.

Regardless of the fact you believe ghosts will probably be discarded, it does not stop millions of people believing they see them.  To many people their experiences are real and not imagined.  So whatever science can prove or can't prove, there will always be a debate.


#195    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,373 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 07 November 2013 - 12:06 PM

View PostAngel1510, on 07 November 2013 - 11:57 AM, said:

Regardless of the fact you believe ghosts will probably be discarded, it does not stop millions of people believing they see them.  To many people their experiences are real and not imagined.  So whatever science can prove or can't prove, there will always be a debate.
I have no doubt you are right.  Actually my metaphysical speculation (not worth calling a hypothesis) involves life spirits "out there," (generally lined up to go over or be reborn) but they are disembodied, which means they should not be able to be detected by any possible means, nor have any influence on us.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users