|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 24, 2014 19:23:43 GMT -5
Some do indeed argue that, Dan, but I feel prompted to point out that there are far more people claiming they have seen ghosts than people claiming they have seen coelacanths. Yet only the latter managed to give evidence of it. Not a logical proof either way, but it raises the question "why are ghosts so darn hard to catch even when you're looking for them"? Perhaps it's because what we're using to look for them is no better than what ghost hunters in the 19th century used. Fancy things like REM Pod EMF Detectors might be as useless as bicycle peddles on a wheelchair. And yet level-headed people back then saw...or sensed them too. How could they know they saw or sensed a ghost if nobody can say what a ghost is, since no ghost has ever been studied? That level-headed people have seen things they could not easily identify, I have no problem with. That what they saw reminded them of creatures from popular culture is also the stuff of psychology 101 (have you noticed how people don't see sulfur-smelling hairy devils anymore? Now they see grey-skinned aliens. It's the collective unconscious providing simple answers to puzzling questions like " what the hell was that?") Back when spiritism was a big thing, even people like the very rational Arthur Conan Doyle got into it (the last Professor Challenger adventure is particularly painful to read because of that...) And back in those days, if we judge from what level-headed people said, many were the mediums who could make tables move and cause gobs of ectoplasm to manifest themselves. Strangely enough, these things don't work anymore... or at least they never do in controlled conditions. In seances, I suspect the Victorian crowd was excited by the possibilities of the spirit world (and justifiably so, I would say, because the idea of it is cool as hell) and saw what it wanted to see. In cases of spurious sightings, people saw something that their cultural background identified as a ghost, and concluded it must be a ghost. Why complicate things, why can't it really be a ghost? one may ask. After all, sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. But how is "it's a ghost" a better explanation than "it's the telepathic image of a ghost sent by space aliens"? Or "it's a unicorn magically disguised as a ghost?" Since neither ghosts, unicorns nor aliens can be formally disproven to exist, but that neither has a better claim to existence than the others, I think the best explanation to such a sighting is "I don't know what that was". The idea of spirits surviving the death of the brain is very neat, but since it lacks both evidence and a way to explain how it would be possible, the burden of proof does not lie with the skeptics. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 19:31:27 GMT -5
Shriekback never had a song called "Ghosts," AFAIK ... No, but they did say that everybody's happy when the dead come home. A song I happen to dearly love. Bonus points for badwolf! |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 24, 2014 21:24:58 GMT -5
A song I happen to dearly love. Always cool to find someone else who knows Shriekback! |
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Nov 26, 2014 3:35:45 GMT -5
I voted BS. If ghosts were real, we'd see them all the time and have demonstrable proof. I don't think it works that way. Bernadette, for example, claims she saw an apparition of Mary while crowds which grew to 20,000 looked on and saw nothing. Should she have been sent to Arkham Asylum? Only if Mary was telling her to kill... |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 8:51:25 GMT -5
Mary tells me to kill all the time.
So far I've resisted.
|
|
|
|
Post by dupersuper on Nov 27, 2014 5:11:04 GMT -5
...and we all thank you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2014 19:01:28 GMT -5
How could they know they saw or sensed a ghost if nobody can say what a ghost is, since no ghost has ever been studied? That level-headed people have seen things they could not easily identify, I have no problem with. Would you rather those things be classed as 'unknowns'? Because some of them share characteristics attributed to ghostly phenomenon. What would you describe what Ish saw? It wasn't a jolly old fat guy in a red suit, so that rules out Santa. It wasn't a lanky humanoid object with an oversized head and large black eyes, so that rules out E.T. It wasn't a horse with a horn on its head. Why does 'ghost' not fit the description? |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 28, 2014 6:49:24 GMT -5
How could they know they saw or sensed a ghost if nobody can say what a ghost is, since no ghost has ever been studied? That level-headed people have seen things they could not easily identify, I have no problem with. Would you rather those things be classed as 'unknowns'? Because some of them share characteristics attributed to ghostly phenomenon. What would you describe what Ish saw? It wasn't a jolly old fat guy in a red suit, so that rules out Santa. It wasn't a lanky humanoid object with an oversized head and large black eyes, so that rules out E.T. It wasn't a horse with a horn on its head. Why does 'ghost' not fit the description? Quite simply because "ghost" is a term associated with culturally-defined characteristics, just like the ones you give for Santa or E.T. However, appearances can be deceiving when no actual control is possible. I did see a jolly fat man in a red suit yesterday at the shopping mall. Last Halloween I did see little people with grey faces and bulging black eyes. Should I have concluded that Santa exists and that aliens walk among us? Of course not, based on prior knowledge (people disguise themselves as Santa during the holiday season, and dress up as aliens -among others- on Halloween). Plus, there is no objective evidence that Santa and aliens actually exist. Based on similar prior knowledge I would expect a paid-for medium to produce impressive effects during an uncontrolled seance in a dimly-lit room, just as I would expect it for any type of show. Customers would be very unhappy indeed if a medium didn't manage a table to turn a little or for some chilly breeze to make the curtains move. For actual, non-staged observations of not readily-explained phenomena, "Unknown" is indeed much better than "ghost", because the term does not give the observation any level of unwarranted certainty. It also does not require that we postulate the existence of some "psychic" world for which there is no objective evidence. It's like a UFO: the term does not mean "alien spaceship", it means "something that flies and that we can't identify right now". It doesn't mean it doesn't exist; just that it's unwarranted to give it a certain identity before making sure. |
|
|
|
Post by Ish Kabbible on Nov 28, 2014 11:04:28 GMT -5
All I can say is I know what my friend and I experienced together that night many years ago and it was something that can only be described as supernatural.
I do believe that what falls into the supernatural realm has its own set of rules. Its part of a system as well, something that our science has not explored. But together they are part of the mechanics of the universes. They might be as different as air and water but they coincide
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2014 11:56:30 GMT -5
All things being equal (not, of course, that they are), if given a choice between a view of reality that allows for the unknown & the unknowable & an opposing view in which possibilities are prosaically confined to laboratory results & computer models, I do believe I prefer the former.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Nov 28, 2014 12:01:46 GMT -5
All things being equal (not, of course, that they are), if given a choice between a view of reality that allows for the unknown & the unknowable & an opposing view in which possibilities are prosaically confined to laboratory results & computer models, I do believe I prefer the former. The model that RR has put forward does allow for the unknown and the unknowable though, so I'm not sure if the distinction you're making has much bearing on what's being said. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 28, 2014 12:09:49 GMT -5
All I can say is I know what my friend and I experienced together that night many years ago and it was something that can only be described as supernatural. I do believe that what falls into the supernatural realm has its own set of rules. Its part of a system as well, something that our science has not explored. But together they are part of the mechanics of the universes. They might be as different as air and water but they coincide I think it was Paradox who had a really mysterious observation to report, years ago: someone clearly appearing at a window on the second floor of an abandoned, ruined house… that didn't even have a second floor anymore! Nobody should have been able to appear at that window. Plus it was at night and I think the figure was clearly visible. Spooky as hell! I have no explanation for the observation. Any conjecture I might have would be just that, a conjecture. I do not doubt the veracity of the report. On the other hand, saying "it's supernatural" instead of "I can't explain it" seems to me an unjustified logical shortcut, because there are any number of mundane ways to explain certain things that look impossible. How would "it was a ghost" be more rational than "it was an elaborate hoax", for example? Remember, we have ample documented reports of elaborate hoaxes, but no documented reports of ghosts. Elaborate mundane explanations often sound too complicated when compared to simpler explanations -even ones involving new physical laws. Yet it is more likely that a strong premonition that comes true is a case of coincidence than a case of ESP; more likely that a Bigfoot seen by an entire family is a guy in a suit than an actual undiscovered primate, and more likely that the time my mother woke up, convinced that Death was coming for her own ailing mother and having to push her back, was a case of an extended worry-induced dream than an actual visitation by the Reaper*. As for a different system that is not explored by science but that is part of the mechanism of the universe, well… It sounds interesting, but without trying to be glib I think we're back to unicorn territory, here. Can't prove it doesn't exist, can't find evidence that it does. With the added point that we don't need it to exist to explain what we observe, unlike, say, gravity or the germ theory of disease. (What you and your friend experienced is certainly making me curious, though! But I won't pry  ). * An actual story, and if there's someone who doesn't indulge in woo it's my mother. |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 28, 2014 12:14:48 GMT -5
All things being equal (not, of course, that they are), if given a choice between a view of reality that allows for the unknown & the unknowable & an opposing view in which possibilities are prosaically confined to laboratory results & computer models, I do believe I prefer the former. But that's not how it is at all. The real world is loaded with wonder. That's what keeps us reaching out, rather than stagnating. There will always be things unknown, and possibly unknowable as well. That doesn't mean we should stop trying to learn. |
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Nov 28, 2014 12:17:23 GMT -5
All things being equal (not, of course, that they are), if given a choice between a view of reality that allows for the unknown & the unknowable & an opposing view in which possibilities are prosaically confined to laboratory results & computer models, I do believe I prefer the former. The model that RR has put forward does allow for the unknown and the unknowable though, so I'm not sure if the distinction you're making has much bearing on what's being said. Of course! The scientific model is the one with open borders: the one that accepts that some stuff is not explained. Putting a sticker saying "it's a ghost" on something is not opening possibilities, it's restricting them to a single, unsubstantiated and culturally-defined identity. Isn't it more interesting to admit we have no idea what that spook is, and try to discover and understand what it is for real? |
|
|
|
Post by badwolf on Nov 28, 2014 12:24:11 GMT -5
I think it was Paradox who had a really mysterious observation to report, years ago: someone clearly appearing at a window on the second floor of an abandoned, ruined house… that didn't even have a second floor anymore! Nobody should have been able to appear at that window. Plus it was at night and I think the figure was clearly visible. Spooky as hell! I have no explanation for the observation. Any conjecture I might have would be just that, a conjecture. I do not doubt the veracity of the report. On the other hand, saying "it's supernatural" instead of "I can't explain it" seems to me an unjustified logical shortcut, because there are any number of mundane ways to explain certain things that look impossible. I think a large part of explaining things like this is that humans are "wired" to see patterns, particularly faces. And sometimes we see it for a moment and then can't see it again if we try, so it seems to disappear. The above incident could have been something as simple as dirt on the window, a flaw in the glass, a combination of moonlight and shadow, anything really. Probably not an intentional hoax, more a random conjunction of varying elements at the right time. |
|
).