What it would be like to be a ghost

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, Hankenhunter said:

Quality, and quantity can be can be attributed to a great many things. For someone as experienced as you to use it here in a pejorative way is frankly disappointing. 

The truth is often disappointing.

[Hankenhunter]

36 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's totally fine, I don't want you to recount anything, but you of course are not alone in these experiences.  I've had them too, mine are equally as precious to me, but I didn't conclude there's something supernatural going on partly because I don't think I'm immune to misperceptions and embellished memory.  Emotion of course is often cited as influencing the reliability of what we remember, perceive, and experience; that's not an opinion, it's Psychology 101.

Emotion had nothing to do with my experience. I'm not talking about my experience with my brother passing. It was much more profound.

[papageorge1]

On 7/23/2024 at 8:41 AM, Liquid Gardens said:

I know this is a pointless question with papa, but what is the very best instance or evidence for ghosts?  Papa's excuse that a full review of thousands of claims is necessary makes no sense, no other field that is actually true requires that.

There are indeed very very strong cases, but they can never be called proof because the source of the phenomena cannot be proven. There is no technology to confirm it. You can even have an unexplained very humanoid figure in a photo but all that proves at best is that you have a photo of a humanoid figure.

Say, multiple competent witnesses see what they claim to be a 'ghost'. Not 'proof' but 'all things considered what is most reasonable for me to believe?' becomes the issue. And there are thousands of such cases,

I assume these other fields you are talking about involve things posited to involve only the directly detectable. 

A ghost is posited to be a semi-materialization of something not directly detectable by the physical. Ghost investigators do observe anomalies. That's about as far as they can go with current technology.

To go further at this time, we would need to consider the insights of those claiming ESP using beyond physical sensing.

 

Edited July 24 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

There are indeed very very strong cases

You pretty much contradict this in the very same post:

Quote

 

the source of the phenomena cannot be proven.

There is no technology to confirm it.

A ghost is posited to be a semi-materialization of something not directly detectable by the physical.

 

So in the cases where we can prove the source, we have technology to confirm it, and it is detectable by the physical, is that then a 'very very very' strong case, we get to add another 'very'?  It's difficult to take your opinions on the state of the case and evidence seriously when you clearly exaggerate.  No, there are no 'very very strong cases', or you are good at not mentioning and defending them.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Say, multiple competent witnesses see what they claim to be a 'ghost'. Not 'proof' but 'all things considered what is most reasonable for me to believe?' becomes the issue. And there are thousands of such cases,

You cannot know this.  You don't know the competency of multiple witnesses in thousands of cases, in 99.9% of cases you are just reading something someone said and you believe.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

To go further at this time, we would need to consider the insights of those claiming ESP using beyond physical sensing

No that is the wrong direction, to go further you need some evidence that doesn't rely just on what people say and stories.  Until you can provide some reason and evidence to think that 'ESP using beyond physical sensing' provides legitimate 'insights' you're just adding another claim that needs to be evidenced and deepening the hole.

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You pretty much contradict this in the very same post:

So in the cases where we can prove the source, we have technology to confirm it, and it is detectable by the physical, is that then a 'very very very' strong case, we get to add another 'very'?  It's difficult to take your opinions on the state of the case and evidence seriously when you clearly exaggerate.  No, there are no 'very very strong cases', or you are good at not mentioning and defending them.

You cannot know this.  You don't know the competency of multiple witnesses in thousands of cases, in 99.9% of cases you are just reading something someone said and you believe.

No that is the wrong direction, to go further you need some evidence that doesn't rely just on what people say and stories.  Until you can provide some reason and evidence to think that 'ESP using beyond physical sensing' provides legitimate 'insights' you're just adding another claim that needs to be evidenced and deepening the hole.

Very very strong cases are based on ‘all things considered what is most reasonable to believe?’ Like a jury can determine ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

My idea is clear and if you want to dissect wording choices then I’m not very interested.

So if the source of the paranormal is indeed not directly detectable by the physical then using your reasoning nothing can ever move forward at this point in time. And actually that is fine for science.

But some of us are interested in other traditions when we believe there is overwhelming evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that dramatic things are out there beyond current science’s understanding.

I think I keep saying the same things.

[+Liquid Gardens]

30 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Very very strong cases are based on ‘all things considered what is most reasonable to believe?’ Like a jury can determine ‘beyond reasonable doubt’.

We've been over why courts are not built to deal with these questions, they determine guilt or liability not objective truths about the world. You know this because a) if you had any scientific evidence you would be trumpeting to high heaven and you wouldn't even bother to bring up juries and b) if our hypothetical jury were to determine 'beyond reasonable doubt' that ghosts don't exist, I doubt it would change your position one iota.

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

So if the source of the paranormal is indeed not directly detectable by the physical then using your reasoning nothing can ever move forward at this point in time.

If the source of the paranormal is not directly detectable by the physical then, taken literally, your evidence cannot be strong.  The only part of ghosts that is interesting is how it interacts with the physical; sightings and poltergeists moving things are physical, most ghost stories don't involve just telepathic communication or something.  You don't even know if there is anything in any of these cases that is actually 'unexplained' as opposed to being from a 'known but unidentified physical source', as well as not knowing the competency of the story tellers in almost all cases.

It is of course also true that if the paranormal is actually non-existent then nothing can ever move forward.  Which is the situation we see today, the case for the paranormal hasn't moved much over a long period of time.

46 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

But some of us are interested in other traditions when we believe there is overwhelming evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that dramatic things are out there beyond current science’s understanding.

That's fine, you can be interested in anything you'd like.  But you also make claims about there being very strong evidence and assumptions that science cannot study this and bad analogies to juries, those are fair game to dispute.

50 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think I keep saying the same things.

You do, because there's nothing new for you to really say and you avoid like the plague discussing any specific cases or objective evidence in much depth.  You say part of the reason you don't discuss specific cases and the best evidence, which of course is how we and you would normally analyze the truth of anything else, is because of this 'all things considered' approach you appeal to.  This approach is of course conveniently entirely internal and personal to you, people who believe in religious ideas that you don't believe to be true say they use this approach also, which shows how reliable you don't find it either in principle.

[XenoFish]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

Very very strong cases are based on ‘all things considered what is most reasonable to believe

The problem with this outlook is that you have zero filter. Pretty much any anecdote or completely made up story passes. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

So if the source of the paranormal is indeed not directly detectable by the physical then using your reasoning nothing can ever move forward at this point in time. And actually that is fine for science.

Then we're only left with people's imaginations. A strange sound doesn't equal ghost. Nightmare do not equal demonic attack. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

But some of us are interested in other traditions when we believe there is overwhelming evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) that dramatic things are out there beyond current science’s understanding.

I think I keep saying the same things.

The key word is Belief. You want to believe such things, you seek what confirms your beliefs and you let that anchor you down to a very narrow cognitive window. So that any counter argument or supporting evidence for something not being a haunting or aliens is completely ignored. This is why your 'papa-meter' is a great way for others to see how bias you are. You give us a percentage.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, XenoFish said:

The problem with this outlook is that you have zero filter.

Wrong. I should stop there.

[Piney]

14 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Wrong. I should stop there.

He's right.

You have zero filter and no critical thinking skills. 

[papageorge1]

11 minutes ago, Piney said:

He's right.

You have zero filter and no critical thinking skills. 

You might be wrong too....

Edited July 24 by papageorge1

[XenoFish]

43 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Wrong. I should stop there.

Unfortunately your incorrect. Considering how much you tell us how critical you think. Since your don't then you're just another true believer. Even when some of us show how a haunting is a misunderstanding or flat out a hoax, you still believe it's true. Even the recent alien thing had you adamant. Then there was the cgi fairies. You seem to want these fantasies to be real.

[the13bats]

5 hours ago, XenoFish said:

The problem with this outlook is that you have zero filter. Pretty much any anecdote or completely made up story passes. 

Then we're only left with people's imaginations. A strange sound doesn't equal ghost. Nightmare do not equal demonic attack. 

The key word is Belief. You want to believe such things, you seek what confirms your beliefs and you let that anchor you down to a very narrow cognitive window. So that any counter argument or supporting evidence for something not being a haunting or aliens is completely ignored. This is why your 'papa-meter' is a great way for others to see how bias you are. You give us a percentage.

I guess I might just be one of the most cynical skeptics on here and drop bear is likely the most blind dear true believer not just here but that I've ever met,
While you word it better I've said all that to DB and just like you saying it right now it rolls off him, he very seldom gets angry and when he does he almost never goes ad hominem I find that pretty cool.
Not so cool is when he tells a person who should get checked out by medical examinations they don't need doctors that they are experiencing paranormal.
The silly papa meter as you say giving % shows just how credious he is as it's seldom almost never that something doesn't lean paranormal.
I've come to the conclusion It's a waste of time to try to talk DB ( and other believers) To be open to other non paranormal explanations I guess the belief is something they need a comfort zone so to speak,
I admit I sometimes get envious of the pseudo comfort it seems to bring them.
Reality isn't pleasant at times it rather nasty some folks need a buffer.

[Guyver]

I hate it when people blame things on demons.  I have a brother-in-law who blames things like political events on demons.  It makes me want to scream.

[XenoFish]

41 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I hate it when people blame things on demons.  I have a brother-in-law who blames things like political events on demons.  It makes me want to scream.

Politician, demon. Not seeing a difference.

[lightly]

On 7/19/2024 at 5:11 PM, openozy said:

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

Like a rainbow?   A rainbow is physically real and an illusion, in a way?   Because ,,,a rainbow can move …by the sun moving or by us moving.  I can see it from here…but not here.   Is it gone?  Nope I just need to go back to here.  & it’s still there!   Anyway, I’ve always thought of maybe ghosts being recordings in the earth’s electric/magnetic fields, maybe being affected by the surroundings of the ghost?  An event like a ghostly ( recorded) image of someone coming out of a doorway and walking down a hall ..or through a rocky canyon..or whatever,  And people see the recorded image re-played over and over, when conditions are right!  ..something to do with the interaction of the field/s & the surroundings.    …just a goofy idea i like.         add a time fluke in with it too. 

Edited July 25 by lightly

[lightly]

On 7/24/2024 at 3:18 PM, papageorge1 said:

You might be wrong too....

Your not thinking critically and being critical are you papa?   🥰

 

6 hours ago, Guyver said:

I hate it when people blame things on demons.  I have a brother-in-law who blames things like political events on demons.  It makes me want to scream.

  You gotta forgive him Guyver,  the devil makes him do that.

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Like a rainbow?   A rainbow is physically real and an illusion, in a way?   Because ,,,a rainbow can move …by the sun moving or by us moving.  I can see it from here…but not here.   Is it gone?  Nope I just need to go back to here.  & it’s still there!   Anyway, I’ve always thought of maybe ghosts being recordings in the earth’s electric/magnetic fields, maybe being affected by the surroundings of the ghost?  An event like a ghostly ( recorded) image of someone coming out of a doorway and walking down a hall ..or through a rocky canyon..or whatever,  And people see the recorded image re-played over and over, when conditions are right!  ..something to do with the interaction of the field/s & the surroundings.    …just a goofy idea i like.         add a time fluke in with it too. 

It's a version of stone tape theory and I find it interesting yet it has a lot of holes but for me it's far more likely than spookies floating around.

If a couple guys are at the top of a sky scraper that we are standing at the base of and a car crashes three blocks away those guys can likely see it, it doesn't make them smarter than us or that they have a gift it's just from where they are they can see a bit further down the road.

[Kiwicami]

I imagine being a ghost would have you cold all the time and in darkness, maybe tormented by otherworldly beings? Demons and such. You probably wouldn't have a nice time.

[openozy]

1 hour ago, Kiwicami said:

I imagine being a ghost would have you cold all the time and in darkness, maybe tormented by otherworldly beings? Demons and such. You probably wouldn't have a nice time.

So you think everyone that dies lives in eternal torment? If that's the case I can see how religions have so much power. Not buying it.

[openozy]

On 7/24/2024 at 12:27 PM, Liquid Gardens said:

That's totally fine, I don't want you to recount anything, but you of course are not alone in these experiences.  I've had them too, mine are equally as precious to me, but I didn't conclude there's something supernatural going on partly because I don't think I'm immune to misperceptions and embellished memory.

So you're a hand over Casper in a jar and I still don't believe it type of person? The problem is you just shut off your brain to the paranormal because you can't make sense of it. Good thing some scientists don't have that attitude or we would still be living in the stone age. It's called a closed mind.

[Kiwicami]

17 minutes ago, openozy said:

So you think everyone that dies lives in eternal torment? If that's the case I can see how religions have so much power. Not buying it.

No i think there's nothing after death, i'm just speculating but if there is some afterlife, i don't think everybody would be tormented. I'm not religious.

[openozy]

32 minutes ago, Kiwicami said:

No i think there's nothing after death, i'm just speculating but if there is some afterlife, i don't think everybody would be tormented. I'm not religious.

At least you aren't ruling out anything totally that isn't proven either way, that is being open and wise. I'm not religious either but I am spiritual due to what I've experienced. I think a belief or disbelief in heaven, god is going to stay that way for eternity so there is no point arguing about it. I know our spirits go somewhere, I've seen it but I'm more inclined to think our essence goes back to the universe as energy and we aren't judged.

[+Liquid Gardens]

3 hours ago, openozy said:

So you're a hand over Casper in a jar and I still don't believe it type of person?

I have no idea what you're talking about, go ahead and offer up your evidence that you believe is equivalent to 'handing over Casper in a jar'...

3 hours ago, openozy said:

The problem is you just shut off your brain to the paranormal because you can't make sense of it.

Haha, yea, what have we talked like less than 5-10 times on this site and you just know the above based on how well you know me?  Are you a telepath now? Thanks for the heads-up concerning how you come to conclusions with and without evidence, it explains a lot.

It's very easy to make sense of the paranormal:  there is no good evidence that any of it exists, and there's little reason to believe that if it were real there should not be much, much better evidence for it.  Which leaves... mostly stories.  I'm nearly positive you don't just believe all the stories you hear either without supporting evidence so let's not be hypocritical.

3 hours ago, openozy said:

Good thing some scientists don't have that attitude or we would still be living in the stone age. It's called a closed mind.

There is nothing 'closed minded' about requiring evidence for something, it's called 'rationality'.  If scientists had to take into account and waste their time testing and theorizing for every single possibility that someone can imagine or think they experienced then we'd be living in the stone age also.  The most popular explanation for a good chunk of the earth for millennia concerning the question of the diversity of life was essentially that god did it.  And for millennia that 'explanation' yielded no progress or further insights.  Once scientists dared to 'close their mind' to those kinds of mere possibilities, wow, a 'close-minded' explanation was discovered that has progressed and led to further discoveries that only reinforce it.

[openozy]

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Are you a telepath now?

Yes, always have been.

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

It's very easy to make sense of the paranormal:  there is no good evidence that any of it exists, and there's little reason to believe that if it were real there should not be much, much better evidence for it.

Lol, yeah right, the paranormal is so simple. Evidence can be facts or information, plenty of people have been hung from informers giving them up.

 

1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

There is nothing 'closed minded' about requiring evidence for something, it's called 'rationality'.

A closed minded rationality maybe, there is evidence from reports of 1/3 of the world's population that have experienced the paranormal. 

Edited July 26 by openozy

[XenoFish]

If there was legit proof of the paranormal, we wouldn't have these discussions. It would be something truly testable, repeatable, it would also change how we look at physics and the conservation of energy.