Ghost?...... Do you believe?

[Southern Discomfort]

I'm on the side of believe it's more fake than it is true.

 

[apt-get]

There's no need to be sorry, but perhaps you could enlighten us as to what you mean by the expression "reliable evidence" within this specific context. I happen to believe personal testimony if it is provided by someone I know and trust, but this isn't considered to be "scientific", so... an impasse is reached, or the experience that is recounted is simply dismissed out of hand.

Reliable evidence includes something that's reproducible and verifiable. Firsthand experience and personal testimony is actually pretty terrible evidence because humans have logs of cognitive biases, often stuff like confirmation bias, and human brains are really crappy at storing data. Like, really bad. Imagine if you bought a hard drive and whenever it recalled your documents, everything was either different, slightly scrambled, completely scrambled, or files just ended up missing. The human brain is kind of like that, except brains don't really recall memories, they reconstruct them, and they can often add in or leave out details to make a story fit. Eyewitness is unreliable from a scientific perspective.

That hasn't been my experience with "sceptics". You must be an exception to this rule then.

Most skeptics get impatient after hearing the same bad arguments millions of times. There's a point when that happens and all you have the energy to say is "this is obvious ********."

"Reasoned away" sounds suspiciously like "explained away" (ex. every U.F.O. sighting is either swamp gas or a weather balloon, and every person who has ever had a near-death experience was simply suffering from anoxia).

I mean exactly that (explained away). Speaking of NDE's, it's pretty much well accepted by neuroscientists that consciousness is a byproduct of brain chemistry. It's far more likely that the brain is under a lot of stress in that type of situation and weird brain chemistry produces strange and bizarre effects on conscious experience than there's some immaterial realm that's being accessed. For starters, out-of-body experiences can be created in lab settings under controlled conditions. The notion of an immortal soul also doesn't make sense in terms of physics that's well known and tightly constrained, meaning it would cause existing experiments to see different results than what they do. As for UFO's, speaking from an engineering perspective and from a perspective knowing how special relativity works, it's far more likely that UFO's (also note what the U in UFO stands for) are from terrestrial sources that are hard for laypeople to distinctly identify.

 

[garnetflower13]

I wonder why it is that when someone brings up the topic of ghosts or the paranormal, that there will inevitably be others that think that it is something that one chooses to believe in. Either one has experienced something or one has not. Those who have, are not initiates into the belief of ghosts, but simply have experienced something beyond their understanding. The other thing that puzzles me is the fact that there are those who attempt to use science to explain such phenomena. It is like using science to be able to tell if someone is in love or something. You can't prove that someone is in love; they just know that they are. Even more oddly, no one seems to disbelieve someone who says that they are in love! They are not demanded to give proof or evidence. But when someone shares a paranormal experience, they are immediately doubted.

This truly baffles me. No offense is intended to anyone here.

 

[robertsomerville]

Yeah. Ghosts are real.

 

[Bellatrix]

Reliable evidence includes something that's reproducible and verifiable. Firsthand experience and personal testimony is actually pretty terrible evidence because humans have logs of cognitive biases, often stuff like confirmation bias, and human brains are really crappy at storing data. Like, really bad. Imagine if you bought a hard drive and whenever it recalled your documents, everything was either different, slightly scrambled, completely scrambled, or files just ended up missing. The human brain is kind of like that, except brains don't really recall memories, they reconstruct them, and they can often add in or leave out details to make a story fit. Eyewitness is unreliable from a scientific perspective.

No, I don't agree with any of this, because you're basically saying that if something cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, in the manner in which you lay out here, it effectively didn't happen (even though it did). You also don't seem to comprehend the fact that the methodology you hold in such regard here has certain limitations that are required to be taken into consideration in order for it to work the way it does, and which are based upon certain metaphysical presuppositions (ex. materialism, existence of objective reality et cetera), which guarantees that anything that is truly supernatural will not be seen by those who think that science can explain anything and everything (which is the philosophy of logical positivism).

Most sceptics get impatient after hearing the same bad arguments millions of times. There's a point when that happens and all you have the energy to say is "this is obvious ********."

Such open-mindedness. There are bad arguments for all sorts of things that "sceptics" generally accept - for example, the (purely philosophical) notion of the "multiverse", and the (again, purely philosophical) idea that if science can't demonstrate the existence of something then it doesn't exist. I mean, it's one thing to recognise that the scientific method has its proper place in life, but quite another to base one's entire life around it.

I mean exactly that (explained away). Speaking of NDE's, it's pretty much well accepted by neuroscientists that consciousness is a byproduct of brain chemistry. It's far more likely that the brain is under a lot of stress in that type of situation and weird brain chemistry produces strange and bizarre effects on conscious experience than there's some immaterial realm that's being accessed. For starters, out-of-body experiences can be created in lab settings under controlled conditions. The notion of an immortal soul also doesn't make sense in terms of physics that's well known and tightly constrained, meaning it would cause existing experiments to see different results than what they do. As for UFO's, speaking from an engineering perspective and from a perspective knowing how special relativity works, it's far more likely that UFO's (also note what the U in UFO stands for) are from terrestrial sources that are hard for laypeople to distinctly identify.

I myself have never seen a U.F.O. (and yes, I DO know what the 'U' stands for, thank you very much), but I'm not dismissive of those who claim they have. The same goes for ghosts or anything else that scientists don't currently accept. That's not to say I believe every such story, but I don't just (lazily, in my view) casually dismiss them either. Such claims require the willingness to entertain the possibility that maybe there is more to reality than just what we, with our five senses, can detect. The truth of the matter is that we really don't know all that much about even the material universe we live in, never mind anything else that may, or may not, lie beyond it. Who are we to say that certain things can't be real just because our current understanding of reality does not allow it?

The belief that brain chemistry can account for consciousness is just - I have to say it - bunk. Now, I don't think that debates are actually allowed here at "Aspies Central", so I won't say anything more about this apart from mention the fact that many, if not most, of the claims that one comes across in popular science magazines about phenomena like this are, to put it mildly, nothing more than sensationalistic, media-generated misinformation that is used to reinforce the views of their niche market readers. "Science Daily"? "Scientific American"? Sure, they're not biased at all (at least you didn't mention or link to that dreadful "New Scientist" magazine, so that's a point in your favour I guess).

 

[apt-get]

No, I don't agree with any of this, because you're basically saying that if something cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, in the manner in which you lay out here, it effectively didn't happen (even though it did). You also don't seem to comprehend the fact that the methodology you hold in such regard here has certain limitations that are required to be taken into consideration in order for it to work the way it does, and which are based upon certain metaphysical presuppositions (ex. materialism, existence of objective reality et cetera), which guarantees that anything that is truly supernatural will not be seen by those who think that science can explain anything and everything (which is the philosophy of logical positivism).

Just because science assumes materialism doesn't necessarily have to mean that materialism actually is true. I mean, the point of science is to break one's own assumptions and to discover new things beyond them. Of course, reliable evidence is required for that, and no, eyewitness evidence is not reliable for reasons I've already stated. Whether or not there's immaterial stuff has nothing to do with whether or not eyewitness evidence can be trusted. How human brains record and recall what they see is actually quite interesting and is something worthy of investigation.

Of course I recognize that certain methods have limitations, and if you think I don't, you've missed the entire point of what I've said. Because of limitations, only certain types of evidence can be accepted as reliable. I build scientific instruments for a living, so I know a lot about limitations of science. Regardless, the scientific method is by far the most reliable method for uncovering new knowledge about the universe.

Such open-mindedness. There are bad arguments for all sorts of things that "sceptics" generally accept - for example, the (purely philosophical) notion of the "multiverse", and the (again, purely philosophical) idea that if science can't demonstrate the existence of something then it doesn't exist. I mean, it's one thing to recognise that the scientific method has its proper place in life, but quite another to base one's entire life around it.

The multiverse is something that arises from mathematics regarding cosmology, and lots of scientists (myself included) aren't exactly on board with it because it's not testable. Skeptics don't generally accept the multiverse, because of the inability to observe it. Of course, theoretical cosmologists can still explore the mathematical implications of known observations and see what it might uncover.

Also, saying that "if science can't demonstrate it, then it doesn't exist" is a pretty bad misrepresentation of science.

I myself have never seen a U.F.O. (and yes, I DO know what the 'U' stands for, thank you very much), but I'm not dismissive of those who claim they have. The same goes for ghosts or anything else that scientists don't currently accept. That's not to say I believe every such story, but I don't just (lazily, in my view) casually dismiss them either. Such claims require the willingness to entertain the possibility that maybe there is more to reality than just what we, with our five senses, can detect. The truth of the matter is that we really don't know all that much about even the material universe we live in, never mind anything else that may, or may not, lie beyond it. Who are we to say that certain things can't be real just because our current understanding of reality does not allow it?

The fact that we have limited knowledge of the material universe is precisely why I'm against considering the possibility of non-material things that can't be tested, especially when it's often the case that something weird with human observation is going on. It's not lazy to understand that eyewitness evidence for weird things is something that can't really be trusted in any rigorous way. There are lots of ideas of what things may be out there, so I only really care about the ones that can be tested. Everything else is a waste of time.

The belief that brain chemistry can account for consciousness is just - I have to say it - bunk.

No, it's really not. It's pretty much standard neuroscience. While there's a lot to learn about how the brain works, neuroscientists know enough to understand that consciousness arises from brain interactions. I'm a bit tired since I'm recovering from surgery, but I can go into it in great detail if need be.

 

[Bellatrix]

Just because science assumes materialism doesn't necessarily have to mean that materialism actually is true.

Exactly! It ASSUMES materialism, and works from there. However, (and I am not accusing you specifically of this fault, just to be clear) there are many "sceptics" I have met over the years, both online and off, who don't even realise they are making this assumption in the first place when they base their entire way of life upon it being true. Many have even come out and stated words to the effect that they believe materialism to be true because "science has established this fact". That specific claim has so many problems with it that I don't even know where to begin destroying it.

Of course I recognize that certain methods have limitations, and if you think I don't, you've missed the entire point of what I've said.

It wouldn't be the first time that I have missed the entire point of someone's argument. It doesn't happen very often, but it has happened

The multiverse is something that arises from mathematics regarding cosmology, and lots of scientists (myself included) aren't exactly on board with it because it's not testable. Skeptics don't generally accept the multiverse, because of the inability to observe it. Of course, theoretical cosmologists can still explore the mathematical implications of known observations and see what it might uncover.

Same here. It can't be tested, so how can it be science? As far as I'm concerned it isn't.

Also, saying that "if science can't demonstrate it, then it doesn't exist" is a pretty bad misrepresentation of science.

Believe it or not, many people actually have this very attitude, and that is why I brought it up in the first place.

The fact that we have limited knowledge of the material universe is precisely why I'm against considering the possibility of non-material things that can't be tested, especially when it's often the case that something weird with human observation is going on. It's not lazy to understand that eyewitness evidence for weird things is something that can't really be trusted in any rigorous way. There are lots of ideas of what things may be out there, so I only really care about the ones that can be tested. Everything else is a waste of time.

So where does this leave personal experience? If I happened to live in a society where everyone without exception was only able to see various shades of grey, with every other colour being imperceptible to them, and I were to come forward and say, "No, I see red too, and blue, yellow...", they wouldn't even know where to begin to dispute my claim, because they wouldn't even understand it (at first). When they finally got around to comprehending what it was that I was claiming, they would no doubt be extremely sceptical, and probably think I was insane (or lying, deluded...), and yet I would not be wrong to make such a claim.

"Everything else is a waste of time", you say, but can you (scientifically) demonstrate that your appreciation of the world around you is the same as everyone else's (or fundamentally different)? By this I mean what is known as qualia, or the actual first-hand appreciation of sensory experiences. I know that neuroscientists have been able to correlate certain brain-states to what people report experiencing, but the two (the neurochemistry of the brain, and the actual experience itself - ex. perceiving a certain shade of blue in an object) are clearly not the same thing, even if there is a connection between the two. There is nothing about the chemistry, electricity and a certain arrangement of gooey matter that should allow for the existence of qualia if matter and energy are all that really exist, and yet the underlying assumption that neuroscientists consistently make is that matter is all that matters.

Yes, I understand the argument that our mind, and what it does and what we experience, has been attributed to emergence; i.e. the coming together of two or more phenomena to produce something completely unexpected after combination, but whenever this actually happens in nature it is always something else that is PHYSICAL that results from such a convergence. The mind is, on the other hand, not material (as opposed to the brain), and yet people pretend that a methodology that was only ever meant to explore physical phenomena can deal with it. I don't believe it can.

No, it's really not. It's pretty much standard neuroscience. While there's a lot to learn about how the brain works, neuroscientists know enough to understand that consciousness arises from brain interactions. I'm a bit tired since I'm recovering from surgery, but I can go into it in great detail if need be.

What I said above. Surgery? Hopefully all went well with it. I've never even been inside a hospital, so I can't imagine what that must be like.

 

[apt-get]

Exactly! It ASSUMES materialism, and works from there. However, (and I am not accusing you specifically of this fault, just to be clear) there are many "sceptics" I have met over the years, both online and off, who don't even realise they are making this assumption in the first place when they base their entire way of life upon it being true. Many have even come out and stated words to the effect that they believe materialism to be true because "science has established this fact". That specific claim has so many problems with it that I don't even know where to begin destroying it.

Here's the thing about assumptions in science. New data can, in theory, break them, and scientists intentionally try to break them. Way back in the early days of physics, Newton used a type of mass for inertia and a a different type of mass for gravity. However, it's an assumption that's taken for granted that these are the same. That hasn't stopped experimental physicists from trying to test deviations between the two, and those who do that find that the assumption is observed to be true up to some extremely precise measurement error. The point is, whatever assumption I may make, there's always the possibility that it might be broken tomorrow, even if I think it's highly unlikely. In the case of materialism, I've never seen anything convincing to challenge it.

So where does this leave personal experience? If I happened to live in a society where everyone without exception was only able to see various shades of grey, with every other colour being imperceptible to them, and I were to come forward and say, "No, I see red too, and blue, yellow...", they wouldn't even know where to begin to dispute my claim, because they wouldn't even understand it (at first). When they finally got around to comprehending what it was that I was claiming, they would no doubt be extremely sceptical, and probably think I was insane (or lying, deluded...), and yet I would not be wrong to make such a claim.

Honestly, personal experience is not reliable data. It simply isn't. Brains often make mistakes both remembering and recalling events. People have cognitive biases that disable them from seeing and comprehending everything in their audio and visual fields of view. A well-known pop-science version is that one experiment where researchers asked folks to count the amount of times a group of basketball players were dribbling the ball and almost nobody saw the gorilla suit that walked through the court. The point is, similar things happen in uncontrolled settings. People miss things. Sometimes people notice patterns that aren't there, and all of what I've said is normal. When you think about how bad people are at remembering events accurately and noticing things, can you really blame me for labeling personal experience as unreliable? Human brains are not like video cameras.

Now, speaking of video cameras and data recording devices, those only record stuff as well as they can function. If you break the circuitry, you're gonna get unusable video or any other type of data. That's just how things work. So, applying that to near-death experiences, what a person might experience there can definitely be interesting or profound, but it's blatantly obvious that it can't be used as evidence of some immaterial realm, since the brain's circuitry and chemistry is in a non-functioning state. Brains also have the tendency to make up stuff to fill in gaps in memory, which is part of why memory recall is not great and not reliable. The point that I'm trying to make is that personal experience and eyewitness evidence make really bad and unconvincing evidence because the data acquisition system used is inherently unreliable.

There is nothing about the chemistry, electricity and a certain arrangement of gooey matter that should allow for the existence of qualia if matter and energy are all that really exist, and yet the underlying assumption that neuroscientists consistently make is that matter is all that matters.

That's an incredibly bold statement that I'm certain you aren't going to be able to back up. In fact, I'm going to flat out say that it's wrong, and that data exists showing that qualia can arise from physical interactions in the brain. The article I linked showed image reconstruction of how brains experience the world. It's super rudimentary, but the fact that such a thing is even possible do do can only work if consciousness is the result of brain activity. Here is an experiment where researchers are able to measure what decisions people would make before said people were even aware of making them. Here is an experiment where a researcher is able to override people's conscious control over their movements. On a fundamental level, I think the fact that experiments like those are even possible to do is incompatible with the possibility of an immaterial soul or immaterial consciousness, regardless of how much we know about how the brain works.

Yes, I understand the argument that our mind, and what it does and what we experience, has been attributed to emergence; i.e. the coming together of two or more phenomena to produce something completely unexpected after combination, but whenever this actually happens in nature it is always something else that is PHYSICAL that results from such a convergence. The mind is, on the other hand, not material (as opposed to the brain), and yet people pretend that a methodology that was only ever meant to explore physical phenomena can deal with it. I don't believe it can.

There are things that anyone who can claim the mind is non-physical need to be able to explain for me to take them seriously:

• The three experiments that I linked to above, especially the one with the decisions being detectable in the brain before they are consciously known. Explain how that is compatible with a non-physical mind. I don't think that regardless of the timing of when decisions are made, if consciousness was non-physical, that such a detection could even be made at all.
• The fact that drugs and alcohol work. If the mind is non-physical, then why would substances that induce certain physical interactions in the brain have any effect on consciousness? If consciousness is truly non-physical, then how could drugs or alcohol have possibly any effect?
• The fact that we can chemically force people to be unconscious. How do anesthetics work if the mind is non-physical.
• Why does brain injury result in alterations and damaging of consciousness?
• Why do transsexuals exist? There's a decent amount of research about how being trans is neurological in origin and that certain pre-natal hormone environments can influence such development. If the mind is non-physical, then how could any pre-natal hormone environment induce such effect and how could it be possible to detect neurological origins of transsexuality? If the mind is non-physical, then under what mechanism would cause transsexuals to exist and if souls exist, what would a "male soul" or "female soul" even mean?

There's a reason why my days of not taking dualism seriously are certainly coming to a middle.

What I said above. Surgery? Hopefully all went well with it. I've never even been inside a hospital, so I can't imagine what that must be like.

I was still on painkillers when I wrote the last message, but I'm alright now and feel great. This was my third time under the knife in the last seven months, so I'm a tough girl when it comes to that type of thing. Hopefully I don't need anything like that for a while.

 

[Bellatrix]

On a fundamental level, I think the fact that experiments like those are even possible to do is incompatible with the possibility of an immaterial soul or immaterial consciousness, regardless of how much we know about how the brain works.

Regarding the third article you linked to (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/sci...e-will-and-determinism-Im-just-a-machine.html) the point is emphasised that the person who is being subjected to the experiment in question (Professor Haggard) is simply being manipulated by his assistant, his consciousness not being responsible for his actions ( "It's not me doing that," he assures me, "it's her."), which clearly demonstrates that who a person actually is goes way beyond mere electrochemistry. He still retains his sense of self, of who he is, in spite of all else that his assistant may be doing to him, and he acknowledges this. He retains his sense of "I", and if anything experiments like this confirm the existence of (for lack of a better term) the soul.

There is also the, not insignificant, fact that the article in question lacks the kind of detail (being just a newspaper article) that would allow another researcher to actually repeat the experiment. A link is provided, but all it does is take us to a rather generic-looking website (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/icn/) and not to the actual research paper. As such I cannot take this seriously.

The other two articles are somewhat old (from 2009 and 2011), neither go into much detail, and the latter of the two was (as I recall, but I'll double-check on this) discredited. "Several seconds" prior notice of a person's intent does not, to me, seem credible, and as I recall this was one of the reasons why this study received a lot of criticism at the time of its publication.

 

[Bellatrix]

[*]The fact that drugs and alcohol work. If the mind is non-physical, then why would substances that induce certain physical interactions in the brain have any effect on consciousness? If consciousness is truly non-physical, then how could drugs or alcohol have possibly any effect?
[*]The fact that we can chemically force people to be unconscious. How do anesthetics work if the mind is non-physical.
[*]Why does brain injury result in alterations and damaging of consciousness?
[*]Why do transsexuals exist? There's a decent amount of research about how being trans is neurological in origin and that certain pre-natal hormone environments can influence such development. If the mind is non-physical, then how could any pre-natal hormone environment induce such effect and how could it be possible to detect neurological origins of transsexuality? If the mind is non-physical, then under what mechanism would cause transsexuals to exist and if souls exist, what would a "male soul" or "female soul" even mean?

Cartesian mind-body duality.

My own questions (plus a couple of points):
1. How can a person have half (or more) of their brain removed and not suffer the corresponding consequences, if our minds are actually created by the brain?
2. How do you explain the placebo effect?
3. How do you account for people with knowledge they could not possibly have, given their life history and upbringing?
4. How do you explain veridicial N.D.E.'s?
5. How do you account for the fact that we have free will?
6. The fact that we remain the person we are at each stage in life (ex. when we were 5, 15, 25...) in spite of all the physical changes that take place, and in spite of the fact that our physical selves from 7 short years ago no longer even exists, is proof enough that we are more than just our physical form.
7. First-person perspective, sense of "I". Now how can that be purely the result of physical processes?

 

[Melle]

I believe that when you die your energy and essence are released into the Universe. Like a beam of light riding on the waves of infinity. I believe that if you pass and you have a strong attachment to something, someone, or even an idea that part of your essence will linger. The more energy and the stronger the attachment could allow that energy to manifest in the physical world.

 

[Judge]

I believe that when you die your energy and essence are released into the Universe. Like a beam of light riding on the waves of infinity. I believe that if you pass and you have a strong attachment to something, someone, or even an idea that part of your essence will linger. The more energy and the stronger the attachment could allow that energy to manifest in the physical world.

Personally I think that's much of the equation in terms of differentiating an intelligent haunting from a residual haunting. Except that you have to further factor in multiplicity. Where a soul may consciously be in multiple places at the same time or otherwise where one's essence of a previous life might possibly "linger" as you say.

 

[Tom]

I would say no, except for the number of times I've been ghosted.

 

[LyricalMuse]

I think I may be haunted.

Since something happens in every house I've lived in, I tend to feel this way, too. I always felt alone with my experiences until I married my current husband who validates my experiences most of the time. (Sometimes things happen when he is not around.)

I also have children who see, hear, and/or feel the same things I do. Some have said my children must just go along with me when I tell them about my experiences. However, that could not be the case as I do not tell my children what I experience. I tell my husband, then my children will come to me and tell me about what they saw/heard/felt. There are some things I've experienced alone which are never validated. That used to bother me when I was younger but it doesn't anymore.

I'm not religious so I believe there is a scientific explanation for the things I experience. I believe this answer will be discovered in the field of quantum mechanics -- alternate realities/universes/timelines. If the scientists who study these things were taken seriously, we would already have an explanation. I often think religion hinders the study of things that are considered, by many, to be spiritual in nature. For instance, the huge fuss that was made about the Higgs boson. Lederman, in his 1993 book, never should have referred to it as The God Particle.

 

[gregmcph]

Now and again, my wife feels her deceased mother near her. To her, this is a very real thing, and I would never dare tell her that it might be just her imagination. It means too much to her.

So is that real? I have no idea. I have never felt that And she has church friends that tell her that it absolutely is real.

Maybe it is a particular mental quirk. Some people feel things like this. Some people feel "god", feel spirits. Some people, such as me, simply doesn't. And each side looks looks at the other, confused at what they see.

 

[Danno]

Personally I think a lot of the "proof" people often produce (mainly photos with unexplained shapes in them) can have more than one possible non-supernatural explanation.

Then again I've personally experienced more than enough to convince me that ghosts do exist. One of the houses I lived in growing up had a ghost cat. My Nan (who passed away 14 years ago) still makes her presence known now and then (things going missing moments after being put down, only to then reappear in the same spot as where you left them half an hour later with no other explanation... books of hers or about subjects she'd have been interested in flying 3 feet horizontally off a shelf without being touched... and general little things that in the olden days people would probably blame on pixies or sprites etc such as appliances or light switches randomly turning on/off for example). We'll get a few such occurrences in the space of an hour or so, but it will come to a stop when my Mum tells my Nan to behave!

 

[china autie]

I want to believe.

I try and try but then I just don't.

 

[inkfingers]

I definitely believe in ghosts. My dad has had several paranormal experiences, and I KNOW he is not lying about them. I can tell when he is lying because he gets a funny face, and he was dead serious when recounting these scary stories. It seems that the Filipino side of the family has been haunted, or the ghosts/spirits are drawn to my dad and his family. It is kind of creepy.

 

[Nick12]

i belive only in casper the friendly ghost

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

Ghosts and spirits really do exist. It’s just most of them don’t want to interfere with the living.