I Want To Believe

[psyche101]

Just now, SeekTruth said:

Can you put your thoughts into your own words? I'm here for a discussion.

The first link is an excellent discussion in itself. I suggest you at least peruse it.

The mind is the brain, and the brain is made of atoms. We know how atoms work. And they work in such a way that when you die there is no way for the information that is "you" to persist after death. If there was a force that interacted with our brain, we could detect it. If it was too weak to detect, it would not be capable of maintaining the complex structure of the neural connections. 

Entropy and thermodynamics are a great place for you to familiarise yourself into the real answers regarding life after death concepts. They explain quite clearly how the energy in your body is produced (tiny ion pumps on your nervous system) which thermodynamics then converts and releases as heat upon death. There is no lost energy, no lost atoms, everything in your body is accounted for at death. 

Life for after death isn't happening because it can't. That's s just not how the universe works, and it's not how we are made. We have an expiry date. Everything does.

[onlookerofmayhem]

7 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

How can non-physical entities be active on the physical plane? Not sure how that makes sense.

There is no such thing as a non-physical entity. You are correct. It makes no sense unless you invent a bunch of imaginary things for it to be. Such as the entity is from a different plane of existence or a different dimension. Excuses that will be used to make it sound plausible when in fact it just using words improperly. Beware when the word quantum gets thrown out there too.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I agree with and follow that statement myself.

I have never directly seen a ghost in my life with my own two eyes. I believe in the existence of ghosts beyond reasonable doubt though from the quantity, quality and consistency of the logic and evidence. 

What logic?

Anecdotes are not evidence. They are anecdotes.

You have well proven that you do not research these subjects at all. The recent Pixie thread I feel exposed your true agenda. 

[SeekTruth]

2 minutes ago, Kaikou said:

All of these recordings took place in locations where I was the only one preset over several different devices.
The top one was not just recorded on a device, but heard in realtime from behind me (It wasn't even something that I set out to catch).
 

I'm not really familiar with what you are talking about. What devices are you referring to?

[SeekTruth]

8 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Generally the most popular theory is that entities can draw energy from the physical plane (leave cold spots, drain batteries, etcetera) and produce short burst activity. I can not tell you the details of how this is done but the key point is that observation can precede full understanding in science.

The belief in ghosts is often associated with higher planes of nature (etheric, astral) that are in dimensions beyond the reach of our physical senses. We also have psychic senses that may detect some of these things directly.

If ghostly phenomenon operates on the physical plane, why conclude they are non-physical? What evidence is there that they are non-physical?

[SeekTruth]

Psyche101,
 

Quote

The first link is an excellent discussion in itself. I suggest you at least peruse it.

Ok, will do.

 

Quote

The mind is the brain

How do you know there is nothing more to mind than brain? 

Quote

and the brain is made of atoms. We know how atoms work. And they work in such a way that when you die there is no way for the information that is "you" to persist after death.

This is to assume that the information that comprises the mind (or, self, if you will) is reducible to the atoms in the brain. Why should this assumption be made?
 

Quote

If there was a force that interacted with our brain, we could detect it. If it was too weak to detect, it would not be capable of maintaining the complex structure of the neural connections. 

OK, I don't doubt that the structure of neural connections is maintained by a detectable force. But why should it be assumed that consciousness is reducible to said force and the neural connections it maintains?

Quote

Entropy and thermodynamics are a great place for you to familiarise yourself into the real answers regarding life after death concepts. They explain quite clearly how the energy in your body is produced (tiny ion pumps on your nervous system) which thermodynamics then converts and releases as heat upon death. There is no lost energy, no lost atoms, everything in your body is accounted for at death. 

And yet we are stuck with the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Quote

Life for after death isn't happening because it can't. That's s just not how the universe works, and it's not how we are made.

I question the claim that we have sufficient scientific knowledge to conclusively make such a statement.

 

Quote

We have an expiry date. Everything does.

Do the laws of physics have an expiration date?

 

Thanks for the chat. I hope you don't mind a chess game.

[papageorge1]

4 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

If ghostly phenomenon operates on the physical plane, why conclude they are non-physical? What evidence is there that they are non-physical?

Well as I said my belief in ghosts comes from observation not theory. Stage 2 is theory. By far the most reasonable theory is that there are planes of reality beyond our three-dimensional physical plane of our physical senses and instruments. There are many teachers/seers of Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other esoteric traditions that tell us what they claim to observe with their psychic senses and the nature of the beyond the physical.

[SeekTruth]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

Well as I said my belief in ghosts comes from observation not theory. Stage 2 is theory. By far the most reasonable theory is that there are planes of reality beyond our three-dimensional physical plane of our physical senses and instruments. There are many teachers/seers of Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other esoteric traditions that tell us what they claim to observe with their psychic senses and the nature of the beyond the physical.

OK, Could you please offer a working definition of what you mean by "physical?"  Thanks.

[papageorge1]

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

What logic?

Anecdotes are not evidence. They are anecdotes.

You have well proven that you do not research these subjects at all. The recent Pixie thread I feel exposed your true agenda. 

Stop. I'm sure the OP does not want to hear about your personal vendettas.

[papageorge1]

Just now, SeekTruth said:

OK, Could you please offer a working definition of what you mean by "physical?"  Thanks.

Everything around us and what we call the physical world of our physical senses and instruments. 

[SeekTruth]

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Everything around us and what we call the physical world of our physical senses and instruments. 

OK, so it seems that you are saying that ghostly phenomenon are physical but not merely physical. Is that right? Can you go into more detail as to why you believe there is a non-physical reality?

[onlookerofmayhem]

13 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

There are many teachers/seers of Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and other esoteric traditions that tell us what they claim to observe with their psychic senses and the nature of the beyond the physical.

The key word is in there is "claim" to observe beyond the physical. 

To date none of them have ever shown even the slightest reason to believe what they are claiming. 

Star Wars fanatics can claim The Force exists, but they can't demonstrate it.

 

[spartan max2]

I feel your pain brother.

[papageorge1]

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

OK, so it seems that you are saying that ghostly phenomenon are physical but not merely physical. Is that right?

Actually I am saying it is higher realms (astral, etheric) temporarily affecting the physical.

32 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

 Can you go into more detail as to why you believe there is a non-physical reality?

I kind of did that already. It is the direct observation of those with psychic clairvoyance coalesced into wisdom traditions like Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others. This to me provides the most satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena not explainable by physical science.

[SeekTruth]

45 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Actually I am saying it is higher realms (astral, etheric) temporarily affecting the physical.

I kind of did that already. It is the direct observation of those with psychic clairvoyance coalesced into wisdom traditions like Vedic (Hindu), Theosophical and others. This to me provides the most satisfactory explanation for observed phenomena not explainable by physical science.

OK, perhaps you could supply some examples of what you consider convincing evidence of psychic clairvoyance. 

Edited July 15, 2020 by SeekTruth

[psyche101]

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Psyche101,

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Ok, will do.

I find Sean Carroll's approach rather charming

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

How do you know there is nothing more to mind than brain? 

MRI's, brain surgery, Lobotomies, neural structure. Brain surgery would not be effective if the mind was not the brain. 

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

This is to assume that the information that comprises the mind (or, self, if you will) is reducible to the atoms in the brain. Why should this assumption be made?

Because those atoms create the energy required to store the information we perceive. We know for a fact this is chemical in nature, we have gone so far as to film a mouse brain chemically storing a memory. 

It's a massive structure. The chemical reactions, energy utilised and processes imaged through technology all support each other and define this structure.

I would in turn ask, why would we consider consiouness to be external an independent? What supports that idea? 

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

OK, I don't doubt that the structure of neural connections is maintained by a detectable force. But why should it be assumed that consciousness is reducible to said force and the neural connections it maintains?

It's not reduced, that's what conscience is. The billions of metal connections that make up 'you'. Basically the sum of your experiences.

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

And yet we are stuck with the Hard Problem of Consciousness.

Not really. The, attention schema theory has made great inroads to understanding consiouness and the connectome project had already created sons marvelous maps of our consciousness.

From what we have understood so far, consciousness is billions of evolved responses gathered over billions of years. A survival trait. It's how we come to be aware of our surroundings. How to avoid predators, how to seek out food, how to find or provide shelter, how to avoid poisons. 

If you think about it, that makes perfect sense. 

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

I question the claim that we have sufficient scientific knowledge to conclusively make such a statement.

It's not what we have yet to learn.

Don't get me wrong, there plenty to learn. We have much more to discover than what we already know.

It's the basics that we know are correct. The things I mentioned. Atomic structure, strong and weak forces in nature, thermodynamics.

We know these things are correct. We not only have overwhelming evidence supporting them, they support each other. If there's life after death, then pretty much everything we know, and what supports each other is wrong. Which is like saying new information in the future could make 2+2=37. We can see what that's not going to happen, at the basic level of physics that refutes life after death, it's a similar analogy.

I just can't see that happening. Can you? Is there any good reasoning that you can think of that would support such an unlikely proposition?

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Do the laws of physics have an expiration date?

They only do what we observe. So when the universe' last black hole releases the last of its Hawking radiation, there won't be anything to observe.

That's what science basically is. Not a set of rules but a record of confirmed observations that offer predictability and repeatability.

30 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

Thanks for the chat. I hope you don't mind a chess game.

 thank you good fellow. It's nice to talk to someone that actually discussed the subject sensibly. 

[XenoFish]

Just now, SeekTruth said:

OK, perhaps you could supply some examples of what you consider convincing evidence or physic clairvoyance. 

I'll make popcorn while you wait.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Stop. I'm sure the OP does not want to hear about your personal vendettas.

Asking you about the unsupported information you are again promoting is not a vendetta. It's a fair question regarding the topic. Your track record regarding valid information is extremely poor.

Edited July 15, 2020 by psyche101

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

OK, perhaps you could supply some examples of what you consider convincing evidence or physic clairvoyance. 

By convincing you probably mean physical verification of clairvoyant insight. That's almost by definition not possible. I judge from the consistency of many seers and the explanatory power these insights have for paranormal phenomena not explainable within the range of physical science. 

[SeekTruth]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

By convincing you probably mean physical verification of clairvoyant insight. That's almost by definition not possible. I judge from the consistency of many seers and the explanatory power these insights have for paranormal phenomena not explainable within the range of physical science. 

I'm not asking for an explanation of said phenomena. I'm asking for an example which you find to be convincing evidence that said phenomena exist.

[SeekTruth]

13 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 

 thank you good fellow. It's nice to talk to someone that actually discussed the subject sensibly. 

Right back at ya. I'll get back to you and respond to your points after I've finished those articles.

[XenoFish]

Here's an experiment you can try. 

Right before bed sit in the dark, eyes closed and think of someone standing beside you. Ask them in a soft voice to touch your shoulder. Ask three times and no more. Do this each night for a week. Get back to me if something happens.

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, SeekTruth said:

I'm not asking for an explanation of said phenomena. I'm asking for an example which you find to be convincing evidence that said phenomena exist.

My argument for ghosts was based on quantity, quality and consistency meaning millions of cases.

Are you looking for convincing cases like you have never heard before in all your years?

My argument was based on cumulative weight not particular cases.

 

[psyche101]

18 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My argument for ghosts was based on quantity, quality and consistency meaning millions of cases.

Are you looking for convincing cases like you have never heard before in all your years?

My argument was based on cumulative weight not particular cases.

When you said this in the bigfoot thread, you were referring to the minority of claims. So that wasn't accurate then either.

I don't believe you have investigated millions of claims. Your investigation in your Pixie thread left a great deal to be desired, and you kept trying to push an unlikely option that several posters as well as myself considered more a flamebaiting tactic.

In the end, onlookerofmayhem came up with the most likely answer, and acceptable solution. Where did the cumulative weight that you claim exists help that solution? It didn't did it. It convoluted and obscured the real answer. As you are an enemy of reason, I strongly suspect that to be your agenda. 

It's genuinely hard to consider such a broad brush claim from a poster with a track record of habitually backing the most unlikely options.

That many claims exist insists there would have to be some evidence. Claims are not evidence. They are claims. 

As such, it is ridiculous to claim logic has been applied in this instance. Logic suggests so many claims must result in some evidence. Yet there is none. Claiming science cannot measure these instances is also logically inconsistent. Science is observation. If it can be observed by normal people, then that's all that is required. 

There is no cumulative weight. That in itself is an unsupported claim. There are anecdotes which logically don't support the outcome that you are promoting.

[onlookerofmayhem]

2 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My argument for ghosts was based on quantity, quality and consistency meaning millions of cases.

Are you looking for convincing cases like you have never heard before in all your years?

My argument was based on cumulative weight not particular cases.

 

 

@SeekTruth

This is a very common response when one asks for a decent example of a psychic/paranormal event.

When examined most of the examples are either torn to shreds or can only be deemed inconclusive either way. That's why it's still debatable and there is no definitive go to examples when asked.

One of the main issues with stories is the total lack of verifiable evidence. 

I can tell you Bigfoot picked me up on a flying saucer and took me to Jupiter. My story could be super detailed and passionate and you may even think that I truly believe it happened. 

But can you really believe the story? What about if 1,000 people all told you the same thing? Bigfoot is giving tours around the solar system. I doubt most people would believe it without more evidence. 

Videos and pictures, in this day and age are beyond easy to fake well enough to fool a lot of people. That's a big factor into determining whether something really happened in the first place. 

See the pixie thread for an example of how easily some people can be fooled by basic CGI technology. 

The quality, quantity and consistency mantra is something throw out for every single paranormal thing. It is totally false. 

Quantity? Absolutely. 

Quality? Nope. That's why you can't even get one, if not the best or a few examples.

Consistency? Absolutely not. Read 1,000 ghost sighting stories. Sure there are basic similarities, but there are just as many conflicting reports and varying nature and interpretations of the events.

This is one of the flawed methodologies employed by paranormal proponents. 

"There are so many stories. They ALL can't be wrong. Something has to be going on. The nurse/police officer/pastor/credible witness said it happened and I believe them."

The bottom line is there are no really good reasons to believe these things are occurring.

It would all be common knowledge. There would be go to examples with supporting evidences. 

Not just telling you that they think it's real because they've read "millions" of claims.

How thoroughly was each case looked at?What were the details and how can any of those be confirmed?

Some people have a high gullibility level and believe everything they read. The don't even try to investigate properly. 

A large issue in ghost explanations is "other dimension" or "alternate plane" or "different frequency" claims made. They are totally misrepresenting scientific words that mean specific things and twisting them into science fiction-like descriptors. 

As psyche was explaining before we understand energy pretty well. It is detectable and demonstrable. 

If you can see a ghost that means there is some sort of light. A physical thing.

If you hear a ghost that means some kind of concentrated energy is causing the air molecules to vibrate your eardrums. Another physical thing.

How could a ghost be a non-physical entity yet interact with and affect the physical world?