Switch Theme:

Ghosts, hauntings, etc. are not real. Official dakka critical thinking thread.  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Ghosts are currently unknown things, hence are attributed with all sorts of weird things.


Ghosts are currently non-existent. There is no reason to believe they are real.


Ok, cool story. We done here?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 04:56:09


We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

My terminology may be incorrect, but this seems like Empiricism vs... other.

Empiricists want to be able to measure, experience, and observe reality. If they can’t, it doesn’t exist. Taken to an extreme, a *belief* develops that if it hasn’t been found it *cant* exist. Something I disagree with.

Theists believe in deity/deities, and don’t need Empirical proof. Atheists believe there are NOT deity/deities because there is no Emperical proof.

Agnostics do NOT believe in either direction. Lacking Emperical proof makes us doubt the existence of deities. But we also realize that a negative can not be proven, so it is possible proof exists but we haven’t found it. To us, reasonable doubt does not deny possibility.

Which, in my opinion, is the crux of this discussion. Either you don’t need proof, need proof, or are doubtful but open to the possibility.

(With the exception of people that feel they’ve experienced supernatural phenomenon directly. They could feel they have Empirical proof, though it would be difficult to share that proof with others.)
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




If it can't be shared, it is useless as proof.

Belief is equally pointless. If something is real, belief isn't required. If it isn't real, belief is foolish and useless. The best you can hope for are fairy tales, which attempt to provide entertainment and instruction in social norms, and the fact that they're about non-existent entities doesn't matter. [Though the standard variations on 'Kids, don't go into the woods or you'll get lost and die' is a bit repetitive]

Practical Example:
Take a table: put a glass of water on it, and no matter how indifferent you are to the table, you don't get glass and water all over the floor.

Now imagine a table, believe in it as hard as you can. Put a glass of water on it, enjoy cleaning up wet shards of glass.

----
A corollary you left out of agnosticism: something you can't know because something isn't provable and has no demonstrable effect on the world, doesn't, by definition, matter to the world. If despite all absurdity, ghosts exist, but all they can do is hang about in attics making spooky noises, their existence is trivial, and they might as well not exist. It makes no difference either way.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 06:04:54


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

If it can’t be shared, it can still be proof for the observer.

Regarding the table experiment, try this instead. Close your eyes, walk around at random. Believe as hard as you want that there is no ground in front of you, and you’re about to walk off a cliff. You’ll (probably) find that, despite your lack of ability to observe the ground, without proof of its existence, it is there nonetheless.

While agnosticism is not a belief, Nihilism is, and I believe in that. One tennet is that existence is absurd. There is no meaning (except what an individual decides for them self) so notions like Ghosts existing is by nature absurd. Human existence is absurd, why wouldn’t our ghosts be?

(PS: I strongly doubt ghosts exist, but it’s possible.)

   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 Azreal13 wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Ghosts are currently unknown things, hence are attributed with all sorts of weird things.


Ghosts are currently non-existent. There is no reason to believe they are real.


Ok, cool story. We done here?


Only if you are going to admit there is no reason to suspect ghosts exist. It is all word of mouth or folktales. It would be like believing vampires are real or Santa is out there breaking in to houses.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 greatbigtree wrote:
(PS: I strongly doubt ghosts exist, but it’s possible.)



How do you know that it's possible?
   
Made in au
Grizzled Space Wolves Great Wolf





epronovost wrote:
 greatbigtree wrote:
(PS: I strongly doubt ghosts exist, but it’s possible.)



How do you know that it's possible?
How do you know that it's not possible?
   
Made in us
Terrifying Doombull




 greatbigtree wrote:
If it can’t be shared, it can still be proof for the observer.

Great, but that doesn't help ghost proselytizers convince others. For that you need scam shows like 'ghost hunters' and the like, with wacky edits, background sound effects and bad logic about how a lack of anything definitive 'leaves the possibilities open'

Regarding the table experiment, try this instead. Close your eyes, walk around at random. Believe as hard as you want that there is no ground in front of you, and you’re about to walk off a cliff. You’ll (probably) find that, despite your lack of ability to observe the ground, without proof of its existence, it is there nonetheless.


You're standing on the ground. You have plenty of proof of its existence, and unless you have no sense of touch in your legs/feet, sufficient observation of it.
While that experiment demonstrates the futility of belief, you've got too many extraneous factors tainting it, including: objective existence of the ground, experience with walking on the ground, lack of cliffs in the general area, and everything you can see before you close your eyes. There is never a real question of whether the ground is there or not. With the table example, you could at least have people blindfold you and move furniture around (small end tables at the least), and set up even more testable variables.

I very much doubt that someone blind from birth doubts the existence of the ground, just because they can't see it. They're more worried about people leaving objects to trip over.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Ghosts are currently unknown things, hence are attributed with all sorts of weird things.


Ghosts are currently non-existent. There is no reason to believe they are real.


Ok, cool story. We done here?


Only if you are going to admit there is no reason to suspect ghosts exist. It is all word of mouth or folktales. It would be like believing vampires are real or Santa is out there breaking in to houses.


I'll happily admit that I believe ghosts to be as real as vampires.

Of course, vampires are an example of something real that was attributed mystical abilities until increased scientific understanding was able to demonstrate that a rare genetic condition, particularly prevalent in Eastern Europe, gave people many of the characteristics of vampirism, up to and including aversion to garlic and haemophagia.

So, something mundane that was believed to be supernatural by people until scientific understanding advanced sufficiently to explain it? Sounds exactly like the point I was making.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




AllSeeingSkink wrote:
epronovost wrote:
 greatbigtree wrote:
(PS: I strongly doubt ghosts exist, but it’s possible.)



How do you know that it's possible?
How do you know that it's not possible?


I've already explained that several times.

I'll give you the cryptid example to illustrate what I mean.

In the jungles of central and South America there is a 13 meters long snake whose scale are colored like a rainbow and have a shimmering effect except on its head which is a pitch black. It has sharp fangs for a snake, but isn't venemous. It kills its prey through suffocation like pythons. It can live close to a century. It mostly hunt in shallow water during the day, using light reflection on the water as cover (hence its strange and vivid color pattern). They are only a handful of specimen still alive.

That's a total invention, but such a creature has a very small chance of actually existing. I absolutly don't believe it does, but there is a little possibility it does. I know this because we haven't explored all the jungles of central and South America and we discover frequently new species in the region each year or so. While the longest and largest modern snake ever measured was around 11 meters, fossiles and simple calculus tells us that a snake of 13 meters long or more is possible and could find food reliably in such an ecosystem. Similar animals have existed and do exists on our planet. Snakes can display amazing color pattern or a wide diversity. It's extremely unlikely since we have explored the region and this is a very large animal. We never found any bodies of snake that could match such a description. Such a snake would be in direct competitition with the anaconda for prey and hunting grounds as both snake share the same kind of territory and prey. It's unlikely we would have discovered one without hte other or even that a stable ecological zone would harbor to predetator of that size and with the same style after millions of years of competition (it's probable that in such a case one specie would have supplanted the other). That makes my imaginary snake a possibility since, while implausible, it's within the realm of known possibility. Ghosts as they are commonly understood (AKA minds of dead humans still capable operating) are not. We have never even observed anything close to such a phenomenon anywhere at any time. Ghosts are a fabulation. We can imagine them, but before we actually encounter a phenomenon that's closely related for example another kind of undead for example or a bodyless creature capable of something comparable to human cognition and perception, they are just that, fabulations of our mind. They aren't possible. They are conceivable.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 18:36:25


 
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

 Azreal13 wrote:
 Manchu wrote:
To the contrary, “ghost” is a purely literary concept. Its only dimension is metaphorical. The mistake you, and many others, make is a trick of language, like a paradox; something that can exist only as a matter of syntax, and has no corresponding material reality. This quality is exactly what keeps “ghosts” relevant in the literalistic, materialist “modern” world, while so much else of the former, magical world has faded away.


Unless you simply accept that "ghosts" could be an actual, material occurrence without being a manifestation of a dead person.

Trying to argue that there's a thing that isn't a ghost because what we call ghosts are, and can only be, an idea that a spirit of a dead person can sometimes appear in this reality seems somewhat redundant as words only mean what we agree they mean in the first place.

The nature of what constitutes a ghost hasn't moved on simply because those who believe they've witnessed one don't have a credible real world concept they can point to and say "this is what I experienced, how odd that people used to think these were dead people."

Anyone can say they don't exist, but for someone who sincerely believes they've experienced something with no agenda, you're going to have to offer a credible alternative. Also, by credible alternative, I don't mean stacking unlikely event upon unlikely event on top of one another until the odds of it being an actual manifestation of a dead person seem the greater.


Well, no, that's not accurate. There are plenty of credible, plausible concepts that explain "ghosts" in the sense of "someone had an experience, which they then conceptualize as an encounter with a spirit", they're just not ones people choose to entertain because nobody likes to believe that their "experience" was a fiction created by their own brain as a result of misfiring startle responses or mental illness or social pressure.

The fact they're unwilling to entertain them, however, doesn't invalidate them.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
epronovost wrote:
 greatbigtree wrote:
Neurobiology, if I’m not mistaken, studies the functions of the brain, not the creation of the mind.


The two are the same things. The mind is the brain, the brain is the mind. If you alter the brain, you alter the mind. There is no mind without brain. Neurobiology tells you what your mind is made off and how it works. Of course neurobiology is interested in the mind learning how it works, that's its reason for existence.

No, the mind and the brain are not the same thing. The relation between the mind and the brain is one of the major issues and problems in cognitive neuroscience. Most scholars in that field operate on the hypothesis that the mind is a creation of our brain, but this hypothesis so far has been very difficult to proof and may in fact be impossible to proof. This is because cognitive neuroscientists can for example correlate certain states of the mind with certain patterns of brain activity, but they can not proof that the brain activity was the cause of the state of mind. And one of the most important scientific principles is that correlation does not imply causation.


Another of the most important scientific principles is parsimony. Correlation does not imply causation, but the "the mind is an emergent process arising from the physical substrate of the brain" hypothesis is just that, a hypothesis, a reasoned explanation of the observed evidence that makes testable claims with as few assumptions as possible. The "the brain is just the receiver for the soul's remote control" claim is an entirely unnecessary additional layer of complexity that isn't supported by the evidence, isn't even implied by the evidence, and cannot be considered a valid hypothesis because its proponents cannot even put forward a basic concept of how their soul/separate mind exists and functions, let alone propose an experiment that could prove their claim.

I could write a long, verbose essay detailing my proposal that the brain is actually merely the three-dimensional shadow of our actual brains, which exist in a seventeen-dimensional space where everything is cheese, and it would have exactly as much validity as the "brain is just an RC receiver" concept.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 19:01:44


I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

Yes, there are plenty of plausible ideas that explain elements of ghosts, but as a phenomena they're a whole suite of experiences from noises to sightings to movement of objects to something as nebulous as 'feelings.'

Trouble is, those plausible ideas often only explain one thing, or a thing in a certain instance but not necessarily another. That's when you get into realms of the implausible stacking I was talking about. "It was a rat." "It was a rat carrying a magnet." "It was a drunk rat carrying a magnet and wearing clogs."

Then the so called "rational" explanation starts to sound even more unlikely than the paranormal one.

I'm certain the majority are mundane, but I'm equally sure that there's some elements which currently sit in a gap in our knowledge.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 18:58:35


We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in nl
Stone Bonkers Fabricator General




We'll find out soon enough eh.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes, there are plenty of plausible ideas that explain elements of ghosts, but as a phenomena they're a whole suite of experiences from noises to sightings to movement of objects to something as nebulous as 'feelings.'

Trouble is, those plausible ideas often only explain one thing, or a thing in a certain instance but not necessarily another. That's when you get into realms of the implausible stacking I was talking about. "It was a rat." "It was a rat carrying a magnet." "It was a drunk rat carrying a magnet and wearing clogs."

Then the so called "rational" explanation starts to sound even more unlikely than the paranormal one.

I'm certain the majority are mundane, but I'm equally sure that there's some elements which currently sit in a gap in our knowledge.


Or, they are in fact all explained quite nicely by the basic three I listed and simple random occurrences. No need for magnets, or drunk rats dancing in clogs, just a basic mundane happening like a cold draft or a wobbly table, and a whole wadge of unconsciously-invented nonsense that someone's primitive ape-brain has convinced itself really totes actually happened at the same time, but in reality did not.

I need to acquire plastic Skavenslaves, can you help?
I have a blog now, evidently. Featuring the Alternative Mordheim Model Megalist.

"Your society's broken, so who should we blame? Should we blame the rich, powerful people who caused it? No, lets blame the people with no power and no money and those immigrants who don't even have the vote. Yea, it must be their fething fault." - Iain M Banks
-----
"The language of modern British politics is meant to sound benign. But words do not mean what they seem to mean. 'Reform' actually means 'cut' or 'end'. 'Flexibility' really means 'exploit'. 'Prudence' really means 'don't invest'. And 'efficient'? That means whatever you want it to mean, usually 'cut'. All really mean 'keep wages low for the masses, taxes low for the rich, profits high for the corporations, and accept the decline in public services and amenities this will cause'." - Robin McAlpine from Common Weal 
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

 Azreal13 wrote:
Yes, there are plenty of plausible ideas that explain elements of ghosts, but as a phenomena they're a whole suite of experiences from noises to sightings to movement of objects to something as nebulous as 'feelings.'

Trouble is, those plausible ideas often only explain one thing, or a thing in a certain instance but not necessarily another. That's when you get into realms of the implausible stacking I was talking about. "It was a rat." "It was a rat carrying a magnet." "It was a drunk rat carrying a magnet and wearing clogs."

Then the so called "rational" explanation starts to sound even more unlikely than the paranormal one.

I'm certain the majority are mundane, but I'm equally sure that there's some elements which currently sit in a gap in our knowledge.


But however absurd that plausible idea may be, there’s no reason a ‘ghost’ is more plausible. The problem with ghosts and suchlike is that there’s no corroborative evidence whatsoever. It’s literally a made up idea that supposedly addresses certain fairly mundane observations. It’s no more an explanation than anything else made up without any proof.

“There was a bump. We don’t know specifically what it was. It was a ghost/alien/invisible man”

The problem with this ghost explanation is that the person claiming it starts with a baseless conclusion and then attempts to get the facts to fit, and falsely claims their explanation makes more sense that some other fiction. No one ever looked at some unknown phenomena and concluded it was most likely a ghost in an unbiased manner, people who claim ghosts causing something are always desperate to make the facts fit their pet fantasy. They probably can’t accept that the world isn’t as interesting as they want it to be, or they have issues about needing the comfort of an afterlife. It’s like conspiracy theorists can’t deal with actual history, it always need to be ‘more interesting than the truth. And like some people claiming ghosts are real, they have this big headed delusion they are more clever and insightful than actual historians just because they don’t reject cuckoo theories without basis in historical fact. Back to ghost supporters, “It was a ghost” is never the most likely explanation. This is why no two alien encounters are the same, yet “aliens” are trotted out again and again to explain some unusual event involving some lights or unexplained object.

Ghosts, like aliens, are whatever you want them to be. Whatever the phenomena, the story will change to fit. They can’t be seen, except when they can’t, the can talk to people or sometimes can’t see them, they can move through walls, but push things around, they can’t be detected, other than when they can’t, etc. This is why skeptics can’t supposedly ‘poke holes’ in the ghost theory, it just gets changed all the time to fit the circumstances of a particular ‘sighting’.

If ghosts are real you’d expect some consistency in their properties, like all real world physical phenomena, yet accounts wildly differ.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 19:23:39


 
   
Made in gb
[SWAP SHOP MOD]
Killer Klaivex







For all that people insist that there is no corroborative evidence; how many of us here have actually bothered to attempt a rational investigation for ourselves? Even on the most basic level of looking into what research papers might be available?

I often wonder if perhaps those of us who disbelieve firmly automatically discount without investigating because it sounds ludicrous; whilst the ones who do bother usually have something to prove and therefore are completely unreliable. I've always liked Eric Dingwall's line:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Dingwall
After sixty years' experience and personal acquaintance with most of the leading parapsychologists of that period I do not think I could name half a dozen whom I could call objective students who honestly wished to discover the truth. The great majority wanted to prove something or other: They wanted the phenomena into which they were inquiring to serve some purpose in supporting preconceived theories of their own.


If there is anything to the supernatural; the fact that mostly only the manipulative, mad, and the credulous spend time upon it would certainly serve to cloak any actual discoveries that might exist to be made.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/04 19:29:56



 
   
Made in gb
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair





Beijing

I looked at some fairly odd things at Uni but don’t recall anything about ghosts. I was genuinely interested in cattle maulings as evidence for escaped large cats living in the UK but didn’t turn up a lot.

If I was at Uni again, given the several reported in the local paper, I’d have actually done my own research. Do some interviews and get some pictures. It would be like the Welsh X-Files.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/04 19:43:45


 
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

I'm kinda spent with the whole circular ghosts thing, but I can happily move on to the subject of large cats in the U.K.

I live literally minutes away from the farm that was the main focus of Exmoor Beast kills in the 80s. The one that actually had the military out trying to catch it, in fact my father spent several nights out with them himself, the farmer being a personal friend meaning the desire to help and the curiosity was deemed worth skipping a nights sleep.

I've never seen an animal, but I have seen a sheep, that 12 hours previously had been wondering around doing sheepy things, lying in the middle of a field with most of the flesh down one side missing, including the skull which to all intents and purposes looked like it had been licked clean. Some 30+ years later that image is still with me.

There was also a friend of the family who lived in a cottage adjacent to the same farm who did see an animal. An ex army major who grew up in the country side, there's zero reason to doubt his motives or his ability to identify a fox or a badger.

But based solely on my own experience, there is simply no native predator that could do that to an adult ewe. It was simply a large unknown carnivore or human intervention. I can't see any other possibilities, and I do struggle with the idea of hoaxes when in order to carry them out they'd need to be sophisticated enough to evade a number of soldiers armed with night vision gear all looking for them.

We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@ Epronovost: The reason it is a possibility, is that it can't be eliminated. Finite mathematics (probabilities) requires that all possibilities be accounted for. Even if a person were able to actively disprove all accounts of paranormal phenomenon, it does not mean they're not there. Just that there is a non-zero chance of it existing, though it has not been found. For example, if one were to flip a small circular disk with a flat face on the circumference, onto a functionally flat surface, there is a remote possibility it will come to rest on it's edge, not on a face. Even if the odds of that happening are a billion to one, it could happen. So even if I flip a small circular disk a billion times and it never lands on the edge, that doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it hasn't yet. Even if a billion (or more!) accounts of paranormal activities were proven to be mundane, the next account could be real.

It is possible, although I think unlikely.


@ Voss: Should a person disregard their personal experience simply because they can't prove it to another? I enjoy living, but I can't prove it to you. Should I become miserable, because I can't prove my happiness?


@ Yodhrin: You propose an Empirical response. It can't be measured, it can't be tested, it doesn't exist. Yet you also know that you can't prove a negative. Someone's belief in the supernatural doesn't require Empirical proof. Frankly, why would a believer care that you don't believe? They may make seemingly irrational choices, but they are in charge of their own lives, and are free to do as they choose. It doesn't need to make sense. People invest significant time attempting to disprove that which can't be disproved by arguing on the internet with total randos. That is irrational behaviour. What benefit could it serve the arguer? The smug feeling of attempting the impossible? (Can't prove a negative. It is logically impossible.)

As I've previously mentioned, this is less an argument about a subject as it is about the approach to the unknown. Belief, Disbelief, and Reasonable Doubt. From a pure logic standpoint, believing in possibilities, regardless of how remote, is sensible. Living and making decisions based on an unlikely event occurring can be beneficial. I never plan on getting in a car accident, but I still put a seatbelt on when I get in a car. While I've never experienced a car accident directly, I surmise they're unpleasant experiences and wearing a seatbelt reduces the probability of critical injury, should such an unlikely event occur. It is in my best interest to believe in the possibility of an unlikely event occurring and acting accordingly... just in case it does!

No harm befalls someone, that I'm aware of, due to the belief in an existence of ghosts or other paranormal phenomenon. If I went to someone's house and they had cloves of garlic by the door... no harm to me. If someone paints a circle of protection around their home to keep nasty spirits away, good for them! Want to put up a dream catcher to keep away nightmares? Go for it! Have a lucky rabbit's foot? Didn't do the rabbit much good and he had four... but all the power to you. Gross. Don't touch me with that thing.

Yes, people may waste their money on "ghost hunting" equipment. People waste money at casinos every day, and ghost hunting at least gets people out of their houses. I waste my money on plastic soldiers. I have a friend that wastes his money on off-road vehicles. My youngest son has about 1000 toy cars. He could Scrooge McDuck in the damned things but he'd buy more if we let him. I'm not hurt for my hobbies, he's not hurt for his, and Ghost Hunters, assuming they aren't arrested for trespassing, aren't hurt for theirs.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 greatbigtree wrote:
@ Epronovost: The reason it is a possibility, is that it can't be eliminated. Finite mathematics (probabilities) requires that all possibilities be accounted for. Even if a person were able to actively disprove all accounts of paranormal phenomenon, it does not mean they're not there. Just that there is a non-zero chance of it existing, though it has not been found. For example, if one were to flip a small circular disk with a flat face on the circumference, onto a functionally flat surface, there is a remote possibility it will come to rest on it's edge, not on a face. Even if the odds of that happening are a billion to one, it could happen. So even if I flip a small circular disk a billion times and it never lands on the edge, that doesn't mean it can't happen, just that it hasn't yet. Even if a billion (or more!) accounts of paranormal activities were proven to be mundane, the next account could be real.

It is possible, although I think unlikely.


It's possible, albeit extraordinarly unlikely, for flat sided, perfectly balanced disk to land on its side instead than on one of its face thanks to basic understanding of movement mechanic on Earth. On what basis are you saying that ghosts could exist?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/05 00:46:23


 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

Hmmm... If something is *not* impossible, it is by definition possible.

It is impossible to prove a negative. Since we can not eliminate the possibility that they exist (it is *not* impossible) then the possibility (no matter how unlikely) that Ghosts exist continues.

I’m trying to imagine a scenario to explain, so here goes.

I go into space. I find a way to make an impenetrable empty box. Not empty, EMPTY. Completely devoid of anything inside. No light, subatomic particles, matter, anti-matter. Truly and utterly devoid of anything inside.

How could I prove it? If we open the box, things will get in. Light (photons) for example. It’s impenetrable, so we can’t x-ray it, and even if we could, that would mean x-rays would be in there and through attempting to prove the nothingness would destroy it. Nothingness can’t be proven. All we can prove is that we can’t find things in a given space. Even if I honestly believe there’s nothing in the box, I couldn’t prove it. Anything I’d use to check the nothing would be something!

But the nothing could exist, but only until examined. Schrodinger’s Nothing box. Ghosts could exist simply because we can’t prove they don’t.

And yes. Ad Absurdum gremlins could be the cause of mechanical failures. Unicorns might fart rainbows. The Hairy Potato novels might be autobiographical recountings of a real wizard given to a homeless lady as a ghost writer. Ghosts may exist. Reasonable doubt can be damnably unreasonable. Possibility is a crazy thing, and it can be kind of maddening.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 greatbigtree wrote:
Hmmm... If something is *not* impossible, it is by definition possible.

It is impossible to prove a negative. Since we can not eliminate the possibility that they exist (it is *not* impossible) then the possibility (no matter how unlikely) that Ghosts exist continues.


Since it's impossible to prove a negative (unless someone has evidence of abscence, which we do in that case), the burden of proof lies on the positive claim ghosts can exists (based on what do you say they could exist, not that they do, that they could). A thing isn't possible because you can fabulate it.

PS: for your box experiment, we could never know for sure if you had succeeded, but we could at least tell you if it's within the realm of possibility by analysing your methodology.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/05 02:19:11


 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

I really do feel like I’m not getting through to you.

There is no onus to prove *possibility*. Possibilities don’t exist because I imagine them. Possibilities exist that I can’t imagine. Possibilities are the potential *truths* of the universe as yet undiscovered.

I don’t know how to put it other ways. To me, the universe is. There are things I know, things I believe, things I think. There are sooooo many possibilities that I can’t eliminate. And since they can’t be eliminated as possibilities, they continue as possibilities.

What evidence of absence do you possess that I can’t dismiss by saying, “Maybe you’re not searching in the right way?” If I search for sound using my eyes, I won’t see it. If I try to taste using my fingers, it won’t work. Does that mean the sought items do not exist?


PS: The whole point is that I can’t prove the truth of the Nothingness. We can determine possibility (Hella remote. True nothingness may be the final uncertainty in the Universe) of the Nothingness, but it can’t be proven. It would simply be a possibility. Either it is nothing, or it is not. Either there’s a ghost in there, or there’s not. We could substitute any *idea* for the word ghost.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/05 02:38:17


 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




 greatbigtree wrote:
I really do feel like I’m not getting through to you.


Me neither. I feel like actually genuinly believe that everything is possible even if that's not the case. We can't even say that everything is conceivable due to the limitations of our minds.

There is no onus to prove *possibility*


Of course there is an onus to prove something is possible since some things are impossible. A possibility is something that can happen given some circumstances or that could happen given some circumstances. Some cryptid for example are possible while others aren't. For example you can't say there is a height leg laser dog that lives exclusively in my basement since I don't have a basement. This creature is impossible since I don't have a basement. That's evidence of abscence. One of the condition for that cryptid creature is impossible, thus the whole creature is impossible. Ghosts are in the same boat. Several of the aspects defining them are impossible in the same way a creature with sole ecological niche being my basement is impossible.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/05 03:23:07


 
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 Azreal13 wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
 Azreal13 wrote:
Ghosts are currently unknown things, hence are attributed with all sorts of weird things.


Ghosts are currently non-existent. There is no reason to believe they are real.


Ok, cool story. We done here?


Only if you are going to admit there is no reason to suspect ghosts exist. It is all word of mouth or folktales. It would be like believing vampires are real or Santa is out there breaking in to houses.


I'll happily admit that I believe ghosts to be as real as vampires.

Of course, vampires are an example of something real that was attributed mystical abilities until increased scientific understanding was able to demonstrate that a rare genetic condition, particularly prevalent in Eastern Europe, gave people many of the characteristics of vampirism, up to and including aversion to garlic and haemophagia.

So, something mundane that was believed to be supernatural by people until scientific understanding advanced sufficiently to explain it? Sounds exactly like the point I was making.


Oh cool, you went with eastern european vampires and not any of the other vampires from other mythos! How did the soul eating vampires of Japan come to be? How about the flesh eaters of western Asia?

Also, that is 100% untrue about Vampires! It was rising from the grave(burying living people) that made the myth of Vampires so prevalent in Europe! Holy cow.
   
Made in gb
The Daemon Possessing Fulgrim's Body





Devon, UK

It is a rare disease that is said to originate from the intermarriages of the European nobility.


https://rare-diseases-conditions.knoji.com/porphyria-the-vampire-disease-that-started-the-legend/

Sure, I just plucked it all from thin air.

I went with European vampires because I'm happier commenting on things I have some prior knowledge on, unlike the Oriental stuff which I'm less up to speed on. Perhaps try it?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/05 04:48:14


We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark

The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.

The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox

Ask me about
Barnstaple Slayers Club 
   
Made in us
The Conquerer






Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios

The "rising from the grave" bit probably merged with the collective tales about the very real disease into a cohesive mythological compilation of "European Vampires".

Even today, every now and then you have people mistakenly pronounced dead by a doctor, only to wake up in the morgue later. Prior to modern medicine, this probably happened a lot more often. And since they tended to bury the dead fairly soon, you'd end up with a fair number of people getting buried alive. Some of whom might be fortunate enough to be buried shallow enough to dig themselves out. This gives you fodder for people rising from the dead.

Its known that if someone was suspected to be a Vampire, they would have bricks stuffed in their mouth when they were buried. Its thought this arose from people digging up the corpse of a suspect Vampire and seeing blood/bile oozing from the desceased's mouth, and thinking they were rising at night to feed. Which led to stuffing bricks into the believed Vampire's mouth. This also dovetales with any stories of people rising from the dead thanks to being buried alive.

Combine this with Porphyria and you end up with the Vampire as we know it today.

Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines

Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.

MURICA!!! IN SPESS!!! 
   
Made in ca
Junior Officer with Laspistol





London, Ontario

@ Epronovost

Honestly? I believe that nothing is impossible. You could fire any manner of non-sense at me and I’d acknowledge that while incredibly unlikely, it is possible. My mind is blown wide open when it comes to the possibilities of the universe.

To take your leg-high laser dog example...

You’re a rando on the internet. It is *possible* that you’re lying about not having a basement. People are weird.

Maybe you have a dog, and maybe you taped a laser pointer to his head, because it would be cruel and funny.

Maybe you keep it in the basement you lied about not having. In which case it’s possible you have a leg-high laser dog that lives in your basement. Quite frankly, that’s way more likely than ghosts.


Please don’t take that as an ad-hominem attack. I have no reason to believe that’s *probable*. Possible? Humans are capable of much stranger things.

Again, this comes back to my opposition to Empiricism as a philosophy. The tendency to dismiss as impossible that which is incredibly unlikely. Our existence could be a fictional universe in which we’re Matrix-style plugged in for a weekend getaway vacation. Live a lifetime in 48 hours!

I could be in a coma and this is all imagined. You could be in a coma and I might be a figment of your imagination.

This existence could be analogous to Purgatory and we live and die and live again to “improve” our souls so we can climb the figurative or literal mountain. If so I’m screwed because I like it here and I’m going to be a while.

So given the potential of your example being possible even if this is “base reality”... yes. That is indeed possible. Existence is absurd and so is everything in it.
   
Made in us
Proud Triarch Praetorian





 Azreal13 wrote:
It is a rare disease that is said to originate from the intermarriages of the European nobility.


https://rare-diseases-conditions.knoji.com/porphyria-the-vampire-disease-that-started-the-legend/

Sure, I just plucked it all from thin air.

I went with European vampires because I'm happier commenting on things I have some prior knowledge on, unlike the Oriental stuff which I'm less up to speed on. Perhaps try it?


That is a myth. More to the point, a very very recent myth you have fallen for.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1321/did-vampires-suffer-from-the-disease-porphyria-or-not/

In 1985 biochemist David Dolphin proposed that the vampires of folklore may actually have been people suffering from porphyria, a group of rare, largely hereditary blood diseases. According to the Times account of his remarks:

(1) Porphyria victims are extraordinarily sensitive to sunlight. Even mild exposure can cause severe disfigurement. Facial skin may scar, the nose and fingers may fall off, and the lips and gums may become so taut that the teeth project like fangs.

(2) To avoid sunlight, people with serious cases of porphyria go out only at night, just like Dracula.

(3) Today porphyria can be treated with injections of blood products. Centuries ago, porphyria victims might have sought to treat themselves by drinking blood.

(4) Porphyria is inherited, but the symptoms may not manifest themselves until brought on by stress. Suppose a sibling with an active case of the disease bites you to quench his thirst for blood. Très stressful, non? Suddenly your own latent porphyria goes critical and you start growing fangs too.

(5) Garlic contains a chemical that worsens porphyria symptoms, causing sufferers to avoid it. Just like vampires.

Great story, eh? The media, including me, went nuts, and today everybody “knows” that porphyria patients are vampires — to the distress of people who actually have these diseases.

Just one problem. People with porphyria aren’t vampires, and there’s no reason to think that the vampires of folklore had the disease (or existed at all). To respond point by point:

(1) Porphyria comprises seven separate disorders. Skin problems are a fairly common symptom, but only the rarest form — congenital erythropoietic porphyria — causes severe disfigurement. Just 200 cases of this disease have been diagnosed, surely too few to account for the widespread belief in vampires. In any case, alleged vampires exhumed in the 18th century typically weren’t disfigured but appeared as they had in life (except for being dead, of course).

(2) The idea that vampires abhor sunlight was an invention of fiction writers. In Europe during the 18th and 19th centuries, vampires were sometimes reported to have been sighted during the day. Bram Stoker’s Dracula was deathly pale, but folkloric vampires, in the Balkans anyway, were said to be ruddy-faced due to blood consumption.

(3) Porphyria victims don’t crave blood. Drinking blood will not alleviate their symptoms, nor has there ever been a general belief that it would. The blood chemicals porphyria victims need do not survive digestion.

(4) In light of the preceding, the scenario described in point #4 above is unlikely.

(5) No one has proved that garlic worsens porphyria.

Professor Dolphin never published a formal paper describing his theory. When I phoned, he didn’t wish to speak to me and would say only that “it was just speculation” and that “I haven’t worked in this area for many years.”

The practice of trying to match diseases with well-known figures in history or folklore has a long and not entirely reputable history. (Porphyria, for one, has also been blamed for werewolves.) Maybe next time we’ll know better.


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2398345/

Ooh, there is another link for you! Seriously.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/05 06:00:58


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Dreadwinter wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Ghosts may not exist but the machine elves definitely do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine#Reported_encounters_with_external_entities

Reported encounters with external entities[edit]
Entities perceived during DMT inebriation have been represented in diverse forms of psychedelic art.[20] The term Machine Elf was coined by ethnobotanist Terence McKenna for the entities he encountered in DMT "hyperspace", also using terms like fractal elves, or self-transforming machine elves.[21][22] McKenna first encountered the "machine elves" after smoking DMT in Berkeley in 1965. His subsequent speculations regarding the hyperdimensional space in which they were encountered, has inspired a great many artists and musicians, and the meaning of DMT entities has been a subject of considerable debate among participants in a networked cultural underground, enthused by McKenna's effusive accounts of DMT hyperspace.[23] Cliff Pickover has also written about the "machine elf" experience, in the book Sex, Drugs, Einstein, & Elves,[7] while Rick Strassman notes many similarities between self-reports of his DMT study participants' encounters with these "entities", and mythological descriptions of figures such as Chayot Ha Kodesh in Ancient religions, including both angels and demons.[24] Strassman also argues for a similarity in his study participants' descriptions of mechanized wheels, gears and machinery in these encounters, with those described in visions of encounters with the Living Creatures and Ophanim of the Hebrew Bible, noting they may stem from a common neuropsychopharmacological experience.[24]
Strassman argues that the more positive of the "external entities" encountered in DMT experiences should be understood as analogous to certain forms of angels:

The medieval Jewish philosophers whom I rely upon for understanding the Hebrew Bible text and its concept of prophecy portray angels as God's intermediaries. That is, they perform a certain function for God. Within the context of my DMT research, I believe that the beings that volunteers see could be conceived of as angelic - that is, previously invisible, incorporeal spiritual forces that are engarbed or enclothed in a particular form - determined by the psychological and spiritual development of the volunteers - bringing a particular message or experience to that volunteer.[25]

However, Strassman's experimental participants also note that some other entities can subjectively resemble creatures more like insects and aliens.[26] As a result, Strassman writes these experiences among his experimental participants "also left me feeling confused and concerned about where the spirit molecule was leading us. It was at this point that I began to wonder if I was getting in over my head with this research."[27]
Hallucinations of strange creatures had been reported by Szara in the Journal of Mental Science (now the British Journal of Psychiatry) (1958) "Dimethyltryptamine Experiments with Psychotics", Stephen Szara described how one of his subjects under the influence of DMT had experienced "strange creatures, dwarves or something" at the beginning of a DMT trip.[28][29]
Other researchers of the entities seemingly encountered by DMT users, describe them as "entities" or "beings" in humanoid as well as animal form, with descriptions of "little people" being common (non-human gnomes, elves, imps, etc.).[30] Strassman and others have speculated that this form of hallucination may be the cause of alien abduction and extraterrestrial encounter experiences, which may occur through endogenously-occurring DMT.[31][32]
Likening them to descriptions of rattling and chattering auditory phenomenon described in encounters with the mythical Hayyoth in the Book of Ezekiel, Rick Strassman notes that participants in his studies, when reporting encounters with the alleged entities, have also described loud auditory hallucinations, such as one subject reporting typically "the elves laughing or talking at high volume, chattering, twittering".[24]


I always thought those were called Grimlins. Did old cartoons teach me wrong?

 Azreal13 wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

There are a lot of differences between undiscovered animals and fantastical creatures.


Not really, in a substantial number of cases they're synonymous.


Absolutely spot on! Remember when we hadn't discovered Mountain Gorillas? lol, we thought they could totally possess a human and consume their soul. BOY WERE WE WRONG!

Your argument is hilariously bad.


Exalted! Trying to defend the possible existence of fairy creatures with... late discovered mountain gorillas is... ambitious to say the least. LMAO!
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Strg Alt wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Prestor Jon wrote:
Ghosts may not exist but the machine elves definitely do.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine#Reported_encounters_with_external_entities

Reported encounters with external entities[edit]
Entities perceived during DMT inebriation have been represented in diverse forms of psychedelic art.[20] The term Machine Elf was coined by ethnobotanist Terence McKenna for the entities he encountered in DMT "hyperspace", also using terms like fractal elves, or self-transforming machine elves.[21][22] McKenna first encountered the "machine elves" after smoking DMT in Berkeley in 1965. His subsequent speculations regarding the hyperdimensional space in which they were encountered, has inspired a great many artists and musicians, and the meaning of DMT entities has been a subject of considerable debate among participants in a networked cultural underground, enthused by McKenna's effusive accounts of DMT hyperspace.[23] Cliff Pickover has also written about the "machine elf" experience, in the book Sex, Drugs, Einstein, & Elves,[7] while Rick Strassman notes many similarities between self-reports of his DMT study participants' encounters with these "entities", and mythological descriptions of figures such as Chayot Ha Kodesh in Ancient religions, including both angels and demons.[24] Strassman also argues for a similarity in his study participants' descriptions of mechanized wheels, gears and machinery in these encounters, with those described in visions of encounters with the Living Creatures and Ophanim of the Hebrew Bible, noting they may stem from a common neuropsychopharmacological experience.[24]
Strassman argues that the more positive of the "external entities" encountered in DMT experiences should be understood as analogous to certain forms of angels:

The medieval Jewish philosophers whom I rely upon for understanding the Hebrew Bible text and its concept of prophecy portray angels as God's intermediaries. That is, they perform a certain function for God. Within the context of my DMT research, I believe that the beings that volunteers see could be conceived of as angelic - that is, previously invisible, incorporeal spiritual forces that are engarbed or enclothed in a particular form - determined by the psychological and spiritual development of the volunteers - bringing a particular message or experience to that volunteer.[25]

However, Strassman's experimental participants also note that some other entities can subjectively resemble creatures more like insects and aliens.[26] As a result, Strassman writes these experiences among his experimental participants "also left me feeling confused and concerned about where the spirit molecule was leading us. It was at this point that I began to wonder if I was getting in over my head with this research."[27]
Hallucinations of strange creatures had been reported by Szara in the Journal of Mental Science (now the British Journal of Psychiatry) (1958) "Dimethyltryptamine Experiments with Psychotics", Stephen Szara described how one of his subjects under the influence of DMT had experienced "strange creatures, dwarves or something" at the beginning of a DMT trip.[28][29]
Other researchers of the entities seemingly encountered by DMT users, describe them as "entities" or "beings" in humanoid as well as animal form, with descriptions of "little people" being common (non-human gnomes, elves, imps, etc.).[30] Strassman and others have speculated that this form of hallucination may be the cause of alien abduction and extraterrestrial encounter experiences, which may occur through endogenously-occurring DMT.[31][32]
Likening them to descriptions of rattling and chattering auditory phenomenon described in encounters with the mythical Hayyoth in the Book of Ezekiel, Rick Strassman notes that participants in his studies, when reporting encounters with the alleged entities, have also described loud auditory hallucinations, such as one subject reporting typically "the elves laughing or talking at high volume, chattering, twittering".[24]


I always thought those were called Grimlins. Did old cartoons teach me wrong?

 Azreal13 wrote:
 Polonius wrote:

There are a lot of differences between undiscovered animals and fantastical creatures.


Not really, in a substantial number of cases they're synonymous.


Absolutely spot on! Remember when we hadn't discovered Mountain Gorillas? lol, we thought they could totally possess a human and consume their soul. BOY WERE WE WRONG!

Your argument is hilariously bad.


Exalted! Trying to defend the possible existence of fairy creatures with... late discovered mountain gorillas is... ambitious to say the least. LMAO!



We have already proven elves with jeff sessions and vampires with dick cheney, what more do you want??
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: