What it would be like to be a ghost

[papageorge1]

41 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I disagree with your boiling down, and you kinda indicate why here.  The first question, even in your view here, is 'does the evidence support the idea that ghosts are real'. That's really about the only important question actually.

You seem to be agreeing and disagreeing in a confusing way. It appears we agree on what the first important question is as far as I can see. I've given my answer. 

43 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Once proven yes then we can get into whether they go through materialization stages and if there's spectral energy and all that, but that's secondary to the big question.  My earlier mention of the theories on the link was to point out how empty they were; 'ghosts are magic' and 'ghosts are holographic projections from aliens' explains all ghost sightings and theories as well as 'ghosts have spectral energy', and they are both equally evidenced by absolutely nothing.

At this time any possible explanation for real ghosts would seemingly have to include something you would pejoratively call 'magical'.

As I said from esoteric sources there is more detail on how these ghostly things occur, but you would hand wave it off as too magical. If one is a 'Yes' to the first question then, yes, something you would pejoratively call 'magical' is indeed also real.

So, I am not following what your objection is.

[Antigonos]

4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The quantity. quality and consistency of evidence (IMO) has made me a 'Yes' beyond reasonable doubt. 

 

 

You’re always barfing up this meaningless phrase yet every time I try to have a discussion with you about what books, authors and famous cases you’re familiar with in an attempt to gauge your actual knowledge level you always deflect, ignore, dismiss with vague comments, pretend you don’t understand  or run away like you did last time when I attempted to discuss well known historical haunted house cases. This is obviously because the truth is you’re not very well read on this topic,  because this is a form of faith with you but you want to give the impression that your conclusions are balanced and logical when they are anything but.

Edited July 19 by Antigonos

[papageorge1]

3 minutes ago, Antigonos said:

You’re always barfing up this meaningless phrase yet every time I try to have a discussion with you about what books, authors and famous cases you’re familiar with in an attempt to gauge your actual knowledge level you always deflect, ignore, dismiss with vague comments, pretend you don’t understand  or run away. This is obviously because the truth is you’re not very well read on this topic,  because this is a form of faith with you but you want to give the impression that your conclusions are balanced and logical when they are anything but.

How would one present thousands and thousands of accumulated sources, items and anecdotes in a reply post?

It is the accumulation of compelling things that led to my position.

 

[XenoFish]

56 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

How would one present thousands and thousands of accumulated sources, items and anecdotes in a reply post?

It is the accumulation of compelling things that led to my position.

How many of these 'sources' are just repeats? I'd guess most of them. 

[the13bats]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

As I said to another poster above:

Well, the first question is 'are ghosts and poltergeist phenomena ever objectively real?'. If you say ‘No’ then no further theories are needed. If you answer ’Yes’ then something must exist that is really ‘out there’ to mainstream science.

Drop bear, you can't pidgon hole a person idk if ghosts and poltergeist phenomenon happens because those things exist or not because there is zero supporting evidence that they do and plenty that they do not I still don't slam a door closed like you true believers I'm open for any presentation of supporting evidence.

[papageorge1]

12 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Drop bear, you can't pidgon hole a person idk if ghosts and poltergeist phenomenon happens because those things exist or not because there is zero supporting evidence that they do and plenty that they do not I still don't slam a door closed like you true believers I'm open for any presentation of supporting evidence.

Then you are a 'Maybe' on that first question.

I am a 'Yes', so it is time for me to consider explanatory models.

[openozy]

10 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Sure but those are both physical. It's only an illusion if someone is thinking that a rainbow is something more solid.

Maybe ghosts are only seen when a mix of elements come together?

[Dejarma]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Then you are a 'Maybe' on that first question.

I am a 'Yes', so it is time for me to consider explanatory models.

because of your experiences you know it's all real, yes?

Technically, logically, rationally you know all you're doing is telling a story-- you know that don't you I'm sure.

How would you go about proving to those who have had no experiences that it's real?

Because 100/ 200 thousand years (debatable) of modern man has yet to prove anything supernatural exists.

Does this FACT not make you at least consider that maybe you've got it wrong? Just out of interest

[Dejarma]

12 minutes ago, openozy said:

Maybe ghosts are only seen when a mix of elements come together?

yep= atmospheric videotaping 

[papageorge1]

15 hours ago, Dejarma said:

because of your experiences you know it's all real, yes?

Technically, logically, rationally you know all you're doing is telling a story-- you know that don't you I'm sure.

How would you go about proving to those who have had no experiences that it's real?

First of all, it's not my few personal experiences that convinced me. It's the quantity, quality and consistency of what can be extrapolated to billions of experiences by people of which after decades I've probably heard a good thousand.

At this point it is more logic than personal experience that has convinced me.

15 hours ago, Dejarma said:

Because 100/ 200 thousand years (debatable) of modern man has yet to prove anything supernatural exists.

Does this FACT not make you at least consider that maybe you've got it wrong? Just out of interest

No, because the source of paranormal phenomena is posited to be not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments (perhaps extra-dimensional?). So, when these entities find a mechanism to interact with the physical world, we should have baffling events with no cause proven,  And that's exactly what we have in the quantity, quality and consistency of the so-called paranormal.

[Dejarma]

59 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

First of all, it's not my few personal experiences that convinced me. It's the quantity, quality and consistency of what can be extrapolated to billions of experiences by people of which after decades I've probably heard a good thousand.

At this point it is more logic than personal experience that has convinced me.

No, because the source of paranormal phenomena is posited to be not directly detectable by the physical senses and instruments (perhaps extra-dimensional?). So, when these entities find a mechanism to interact with the physical world, we should have baffling events with no cause proven,  And that's exactly what we have in the quantity, quality and consistency of the so-called paranormal.

fair enough-- you could be right paps.. who really knows... i don't that's for sure 😉

[papageorge1]

23 minutes ago, Dejarma said:

fair enough-- you could be right paps.. who really knows... i don't that's for sure 😉

@Dejarma  it looks like someone hacked your account.

[XenoFish]

On 7/19/2024 at 8:11 PM, openozy said:

Maybe ghosts are only seen when a mix of elements come together?

If what I've heard is correct, hallucinogens can make people see all kinds of stuff that isn't there. 

[openozy]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

If what I've heard is correct, hallucinogens can make people see all kinds of stuff that isn't there. 

Do you reckon mold spores from old buildings could be tripping out the Ghost Hunters? Not that they need drugs I feel.

[XenoFish]

52 minutes ago, openozy said:

Do you reckon mold spores from old buildings could be tripping out the Ghost Hunters? Not that they need drugs I feel.

Quite possible. Link

The effects of both the mold and mindset/expectations could possibly create a ghost sighting.

[openozy]

7 hours ago, XenoFish said:

Quite possible. Link

The effects of both the mold and mindset/expectations could possibly create a ghost sighting.

We may have just solved the mystery to everything paranormal, half the site can shut down now, lol.

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 7/19/2024 at 3:36 PM, papageorge1 said:

At this time any possible explanation for real ghosts would seemingly have to include something you would pejoratively call 'magical'.

What's pejorative about it?  Why is 'ghosts materialize by casting magic spells' pejorative and 'ghosts expend tremendous amounts of spectral energy in order to materialize' isn't?  It's a competing theory, one of thousands, go ahead and refute it and tell me the weakness in the magic spells explanation versus the spectral energy explanation, or any other explanation?

On 7/19/2024 at 3:36 PM, papageorge1 said:

As I said from esoteric sources there is more detail on how these ghostly things occur, but you would hand wave it off as too magical.

There's nothing to hand-wave, hand-waving is for when one wants to distract from something.  I would probably disregard your esoteric stories (not 'sources') because they have no evidence to support them.  

On 7/19/2024 at 3:36 PM, papageorge1 said:

So, I am not following what your objection is.

I didn't object I'm just noting how pointless it is.  I can dream up all kinds of competing evidence-free scenarios to 'spectral energy' because that also has no evidence for it.  What is the difference in the case for spectral energy versus aliens using holographic projection technology, is one a stronger theory than the other, does one have better evidence? (note I asked for differences in 'the case', not what papa merely believes or trusts, etc, which is irrelevant)  

[+Liquid Gardens]

On 7/19/2024 at 8:11 PM, openozy said:

Maybe ghosts are only seen when a mix of elements come together?

Sure, maybe anything since we've freed ourselves from needing to have any evidence and are just imagining.  Maybe people misinterpret or misremember what they experience sometimes, that's about the only explanation that does have a lot of evidence for it.

[openozy]

54 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Maybe people misinterpret or misremember what they experience sometimes, that's about the only explanation that does have a lot of evidence for it.

Could you show me the evidence for that?

[+Liquid Gardens]

34 minutes ago, openozy said:

Could you show me the evidence for that?

https://opentextbc.ca/introductiontopsychology/chapter/4-5-accuracy-and-inaccuracy-in-perception/#:~:text=Although our perception is very,exist or that is incorrect.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4679162/

"Despite what many people believe, memory is not a repository of past experiences but a dynamic mechanism that ensures the stability and coherence of the self across situations. In recent decades, researchers have documented the striking limitations and plasticity of memories. Today, scholars recognize that memories are reconstructive rather than reproductive. Rarely, if ever, are memories exact replicas of the past.1,2 Instead, memories are often stitched together into plausible—but not necessarily accurate—narratives based on beliefs, feelings, intuitions, guesses, and memory fragments."

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

What's pejorative about it?  Why is 'ghosts materialize by casting magic spells' pejorative and 'ghosts expend tremendous amounts of spectral energy in order to materialize' isn't?  It's a competing theory, one of thousands, go ahead and refute it and tell me the weakness in the magic spells explanation versus the spectral energy explanation, or any other explanation?

There's nothing to hand-wave, hand-waving is for when one wants to distract from something.  I would probably disregard your esoteric stories (not 'sources') because they have no evidence to support them.  

I didn't object I'm just noting how pointless it is.  I can dream up all kinds of competing evidence-free scenarios to 'spectral energy' because that also has no evidence for it.  What is the difference in the case for spectral energy versus aliens using holographic projection technology, is one a stronger theory than the other, does one have better evidence? (note I asked for differences in 'the case', not what papa merely believes or trusts, etc, which is irrelevant)  

Well, now our difference distills down to respect for explanatory sources. I respect and consider those sages/masters/clairvoyants/psychics that (allegedly) perceive beyond the physical and can tell us more about these baffling anecdotal events.

Perhaps you'll counter with 'empirically verify to me that their explanations are superior to unicorn magicians doing it all'. Nobody can do that as the source of the phenomena is posited to not be directly detectable by the gross physical senses.

So, it is logically fine to label it all a mystery. Personally, I've seen way enough to believe many sages/masters/clairvoyants/psychics are on the same page and do perceive beyond what my physical senses can perceive. Their observation of these things has formed my lead explanatory theory for understanding the paranormal to the point where I know of no competing understanding to consider. 

And it is not 'faith' but the end result of rational consideration.

 

 

[XenoFish]

Yep, all in people's heads. Imaginary specters and delusions of demons. 

[preacherman76]

Soon as I read the title to this thread I instantly went back to my first ever astral projection. 
 

I walked from my bedroom to my living room. A bit overwhelmed by what was happening I put my hand down to lean on my couch. My hand went right through it. 
 

I remember thinking right then, this is what it’s like to be a ghost. I’ve had similar experiences a few times during a projection reaching for a door knob. Again hand went right through it. 
 

Then after laughing at myself, I had to will myself through the door, instead of opening it. Very ghost like, in the traditional sense. 
 

Guess that’s as close to being a ghost as I will ever come to in this lifetime. 

[preacherman76]

24 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Yep, all in people's heads. Imaginary specters and delusions of demons. 

I don’t know which theory is more scary. That I’ve heard, well, for lack of a better term, ghosts.

Or that I was suffering a delusion. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, now our difference distills down to respect for explanatory sources.

No, although that's a little hand-wavey.  It is, as I repeat over and over, about what evidence the explanatory sources can offer.  Your respect for sages and psychics is of course not evidence, it's just another claim to provide evidence for: 'are sages and psychics interacting with anything paranormal?'.  You are totally free to just skip over these questions since you cannot answer them and instead act like whatever conclusion you've reached about that and whether there's anything to the paranormal is the 'first' question.  But again that's the only question that really matters.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Perhaps you'll counter with 'empirically verify to me that their explanations are superior to unicorn magicians doing it all'. Nobody can do that as the source of the phenomena is posited to not be directly detectable by the gross physical senses.

Great, then you understand my point that offering up explanations for the assumed existence of the paranormal is pointless.  You can't answer why spectral energy or whatever you believe is better evidenced than aliens or magic or many other things we can dream up.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

And it is not 'faith' but the end result of rational consideration.

Doubtful.  If this was true you could explain how the evidence favors one explanation over another, since you can't the rational conclusion would normally be 'I don't know'.  We don't have really any evidence to evaluate period on this, we don't even have any good evidence for the existence of what you are trying to explain, so looks pretty 'faithful' to me.