F Y R E 13 R A N D

kyupol
However, the point is, how did this medicine-woman know all this info?

Well, do her a favor and ask her to demonstrate her ability to James Randi. If she passes a controlled scientific test of her power, she'll win a cool ONE MILLION DOLLARS. I can't imagine a reason she wouldn't want to get paid that much for something that can be done so easily, right?

http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html [randi.org]

Surprised at you. ;) You should know that having to demonstrate a spirit (or psychic talent) power before those who don't believe magically makes the spirits shut up (or the psychic power suddenly stop functioning)

It is only before the credulous and the gullible that these powers flourish. It stinks because all my life I've wanted to experience phenomena that I can't explain. Instead all I have are a long string of coincidences that are well within the realm of probability and once past my own wish to believe are readily explained.

You see all the "specific" information a guide gives you are the things generalities and specifics that any well-experienced social worker or psychologist could have given you. But they don't have spirit guides just lots of expereince with inter and intra-personal relationships which fit into predictable and well-documented patterns. I know the mental health professionals in my life aren't psychic and yet they can deduce so many specifics about my my life and relationships. Are they following mystical spirit guides? Nope, just experience and training. And people are easy to induce and deduce lots of specifics about, Sherlock Holmes' talents are readily gained by those who want them and don't involve anything supernatural just careful observation. :)

... if psychic abilities do not work, why does the CIA and other military and police organizations in the world routinely deal with psychics?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kX2es7XGsuA

And ever heard of the first earth battalion?
http://www.firstearthbattalion.com/

Also, why do the elite of the world get into things like astrology and do rituals like in the Bohemian Grove?

Go watch Order of Death and Dark Secrets of the Bohemian Grove by Alex Jones that proves that rituals get conducted in the Bohemian Grove.

If you listen to the Alex Jones show, he never talks about aliens or gets into religion (except on very rare occasions when he admits he's a Christian) and all that.

Why do those in high places get into "the occult" if its all bonkers? Dont tell me they're stupid (true to an extent for their frontmen politicians and heads of corporations). If they're so stupid, why are they in control? Hmmm...

Just because someone is in a position of authority doesn't mean that they don't believe in weird things. The majority of biology teachers in the USA don't believe in evolution but do believe in ghosts! It's only the backbone of all biological study. That's like being a physicist who doesnt' hold with gravity but believes in perpetual motion machines.

The Intelligence community has investigated the occult in the hope that they might discover something useful and often they can use that knowledge for disinformation because so many do believe in it. The Imperial Russian Secret Police didn't believe in a Jewish Conspriacy to take over the world when they plagarized the Protocals of the Elders of Zion.

After all the Brits played upon the Nazis belief in horoscopes and Nostradamus in WWII but they didn't regard Aleister Crowley as anything more than an old eccentric. ;)

Tantz Aerine
I also think that since our brains are part of this universe, developed and evolved in it, if our minds can conceive of something, there is a good chance that this something exists in some shape or form. Maybe not as flamboyant as we may imagine it, but in essence.

Either your conclusion is too vague (indicated by your adding "in some shape or form" to this something that is supposed to exist), rendering it pretty empty (thus including ghosts just as it includes Optimus Prime), or it's quite narrow ("Optimus Prime exists because I can conceive of him" ), in which case it certainly doesn't follow from your premises.

Tantz Aerine
I have had experiences indicating that there is consciousness beyond death. Whether though that would qualify as a ghost is debatable. Others have seen people looking pretty much flesh and blood, thinking them alive, only to be informed they were newly departed. Information one couldn't have known has been passed by someone who is deceased in dreams or during waking.

We should take a hint from the fact that most (if not all) of these experiences are highly subjective. However, science needs objective experiences - experiences which can be repeated under controlled conditions. You may be able to trigger certain of these experiences under controlled conditions, but that just goes to show they are psychological mechanisms, and not hinting at the existence of ghosts, or souls without bodies ("consciousness beyond death" ), or something like that.

A few years ago, I spent some time with someone who actually believed in the existence of angels. Someone who believed that they were constantly around, that they're protecting us (or not, if you don't deserve it :P), that she could see them, etc. Of course, I'm like NO WAY! :P But once I'd ask questions, or we'd delve into details, it would become more and more apparent that she'd use metaphoric language: She'd describe psychological phenomena which are pretty common-place, but would cloud them in some strange language postulating angels. So, my belief is that it's similar with ghosts: If the people who had these experiences commonly associated with supernatural occurences would describe their experiences in a very detailed way, these would of course resemble fairly normal psychological, subjective, everyday experiences. But once they "zoom out", so to speak, and use generalizing terms to describe their world view, they'd introduce weird entities (ghosts, aliens, auras, karma, angels, God, etc.) for no apparent reason. So, while I'm inclined to say, well, then we're basically on the same page on this - because you're talking about experiences I can relate to and which everyone would make at some point - I'm also extremely frustrated that they have to talk about weird entities all the time :P

(I'm not talking about unusual experiences like near-death experiences etc., in which I believe it's fairly well established that an area in our brain - colloquially referred to as the "reward center" - goes into overdrive and transports us to some ultra-serene state of being.)

With my windows shut and front and back door locked, 12:00 am midnight, and something slams on my bedroom door.I wouldve heard someone coming into my house or breaking in. who did it?

AwesomeStudios
With my windows shut and front and back door locked, 12:00 am midnight, and something slams on my bedroom door.I wouldve heard someone coming into my house or breaking in. who did it?

sounds like somebody's watchin' you ...

Aside from the ectoplasm, 5 senses, and the numerous other explanations in this thread from a scientific perspective, there's also the existence of non-baryonic matter (matter that isn't primarily made of mass; can be neutrenos or free electrons, or completely exotic matter such as dark matter or suppersymmetric particles, both of which kind of play into the ectoplasm and dimension-bleedthrough theories that have already been proposed). The other I've come across is the idea that matter is somehow phased or "oriented" in a certain way; i.e. all the matter that we can perceive or interact with is facing a single "direction" (The term is used rather loosely). But the idea is that if you reorient the matter of a body into a different direction, say opposite of its original, it becomes invisible or cannot react with matter of a different orientation. Maybe this would kind of explain some sightings; perhaps particles in matter are shifting at random between different directions, and we're seeing/hearing or otherwise sensing them at points when their particles are oriented in the "right" direction.

Abt_Nihil
Either your conclusion is too vague (indicated by your adding "in some shape or form" to this something that is supposed to exist), rendering it pretty empty (thus including ghosts just as it includes Optimus Prime), or it's quite narrow ("Optimus Prime exists because I can conceive of him" ), in which case it certainly doesn't follow from your premises.

Come, come- I did make a distinction by referring to the tooth fairy. I specifically remember doing so!

Of course I don't mean about human CONSTRUCTS that are definitely part of human production, invention and general output. I am talking about what we can conceive of the cosmos. That of course needs clarification and discussion but definitely the point is that while it's certainly naive to expect shackle-juggling ghosts, it's equally naive to think that the CONCEPT of a ghost (non-material conscious existence) is impossible to exist.

Of course one should wait for tangible proof or at least good enough indication of it (lion tracks instead of a lion) before going on to acknowledge as much. But while waiting for something like that, I find humans are too small to be able to rule on what exists and doesn't in the cosmos, when they can't make heads or tails of a bumblebee flight before studying it for several years.

I know you can see what I mean :)

Tantz Aerine
We should take a hint from the fact that most (if not all) of these experiences are highly subjective. However, science needs objective experiences - experiences which can be repeated under controlled conditions. You may be able to trigger certain of these experiences under controlled conditions, but that just goes to show they are psychological mechanisms, and not hinting at the existence of ghosts, or souls without bodies ("consciousness beyond death" ), or something like that.

Science is science ONLY when it keeps in mind it may not have the MEANS to get the tangible experience/proof it requires instead of its representatives acting like they don't need it.

Otherwise we don't have scientists, but another form of priesthood.

A few years ago, I spent some time with someone who actually believed in the existence of angels. ... So, while I'm inclined to say, well, then we're basically on the same page on this - because you're talking about experiences I can relate to and which everyone would make at some point - I'm also extremely frustrated that they have to talk about weird entities all the time :P

May I ask you a personal question? Would you be disappointed or frightened if you became witness to one such entity, supposing it existed? (like a ghost or an angel)

Otherwise, I can understand the problem and such people can become very tiring and even ridiculous.

Even if there exist, these entities are beyond the human senses' limits and thus we aren't required to know/interact/occupy ourselves with them.

Sometimes, watching both those who advocate the existence of anything from ghosts to djinns to magic and those who advocate the non-existence of those like people fighting over what is taking place on the other side of the earth and not looking to address the problems/situations they CAN resolve.

But that too is a defense mechanism.

Still, I have found that God only reveals Himself to those who try to solve the problems at hand rather than His theoretic nature, existence, etc, and whatnot.

Boy do I hear some chains being yanked right now! :D :D

Tantz Aerine
Come, come- I did make a distinction by referring to the tooth fairy. I specifically remember doing so!

I admit, it was a bit unfair, but just to drive the point home :P My point being, we don't have any good reason to assume that ghosts aren't any more or any less "constructs" than fictional characters:

Tantz Aerine
Of course I don't mean about human CONSTRUCTS that are definitely part of human production, invention and general output. I am talking about what we can conceive of the cosmos. That of course needs clarification and discussion but definitely the point is that while it's certainly naive to expect shackle-juggling ghosts, it's equally naive to think that the CONCEPT of a ghost (non-material conscious existence) is impossible to exist.

Well, first off, the CONCEPT does exist - in our minds and social practice. But the ENTITY which the concept refers to doesn't. I see two problems here: First, the concept of something which exists but is "non-material" seems contradictory to me, so throwing the predicate "conscious" into the mix doesn't make it any better. Second, I think you're suggesting a very weak argument for the existence of imagined entities.:

Tantz Aerine
Of course one should wait for tangible proof or at least good enough indication of it (lion tracks instead of a lion) before going on to acknowledge as much. But while waiting for something like that, I find humans are too small to be able to rule on what exists and doesn't in the cosmos, when they can't make heads or tails of a bumblebee flight before studying it for several years.

Sure, I don't claim to know that ghosts don't exist. What I reject is an argument like the following:

1) Some people think they can perceive ghosts.
2) We cannot rule out that ghosts exist.
C) Thus, let's not argue with people who claim that ghosts exist.

(This, of course, is very similar to some theistic positions, which probably makes the repeated use of this argument much more frustrating for anyone who doesn't like to invite strange mystical entities into his personal ontology, in the same way they would invite chairs, books, and other people into it.)
I think that (1) is equal to stating that some people have "ghost experiences". These are psychological, subjective states. So (2) doesn't even come into play - it doesn't matter that we can't rule out that ghosts exist, since (1) doesn't even suggest that ghosts exist. It suggests that people have "ghost experiences". Nothing more, nothing less. Some people think Elvis is alive. Can we rule it out? No. But we have no better reason to assume that Elvis is alive than anyone else we'd believe to be dead. It makes no sense to single out Elvis as the one who is still alive among all those who would normally be believed dead. Same thing with ghosts - we can't rule out that they exist, but we have no better reason to believe that they exist than anything else we believe not to exist. Like Optimus Prime or the tooth fairy. Ontology has to be restriced by common sense, to things and people we can see, touch and share objective information about. Because there is no non-pragmatic proof of non-existence.

Tantz Aerine
Science is science ONLY when it keeps in mind it may not have the MEANS to get the tangible experience/proof it requires instead of its representatives acting like they don't need it.

Same thing. Not having the means to disprove an entity's existence doesn't mean anything. On the other hand, not having any good reasons to accept its existence does mean a lot.

Maybe it helps to explicitly state that science does not prove or disprove the existence of entities by itself. It proves or disproves theories postulating the entities in question (at least, in an idealized scientific discourse). Entities are postulated according to considerations of theoretical practicability (or even "just" aesthetic criteria like symmetry). This is very different from postulating the existence of a chair or of another person. I'd just like to undermine the confidence that we should leave it to science to sort out what exists and what doesn't.

The underlying picture here is that we take ALL of the available experience and treat it as evidence, and then look for the theory which is best supported by it AND which best satisfies criteria of simplicity (like postulating a relatively small number of entities).

So, if something counts as experience, then science already has, as you called it, "the MEANS to get the tangible experience/proof it requires". That is why claiming that there are entities which systematically evade science is self-contradictory.

Tantz Aerine
May I ask you a personal question? Would you be disappointed or frightened if you became witness to one such entity, supposing it existed? (like a ghost or an angel)

Supposing it existed? Given everything that's been said before, I'm not sure I completely understand that conjecture. You mean, all other things being equal? Then I'd probably be frightened, but not because I'd believe what I'm seeing to be a ghost or an angel, but because I'd probably be afraid I was going mad.

Also, I don't worry about asking personal questions :P

Tantz Aerine
Even if there exist, these entities are beyond the human senses' limits and thus we aren't required to know/interact/occupy ourselves with them.

Again, pretty much self-contradictory, if you mean they are systematically (and not just pragmatically) beyond the reach of science. So, in order to make sense of "ghosts", some theories do postulate some sort of interaction. Like some of the theories about a special form of matter (which is only "semi-interactive"...?) (see Dave7's post above yours). It would still seem like a gigantic coincidence if ghosts had anything to do with some special particles. Because then, all the predicates we usually associate with ghosts (consciousness, souls, the after-life etc.), wouldn't make much sense anymore.

Tantz Aerine
Still, I have found that God only reveals Himself to those who try to solve the problems at hand rather than His theoretic nature, existence, etc, and whatnot.

Again, to me that makes sense as a metaphor... ^_^

My mum said she lived in an old house and when it was night and everybody was asleep, she heard her name twice, very clearly and in a whisper, and she was told the last girl said it was haunted as well, but you can't really trust your ears/eyes once you are scared, because your mind plays tricks.

(1) When I was a wee lad, I lived right next to a graveyard. I didn't really think about that graveyard as being haunted, but I saw "shadow people" all the time. It stopped when I moved away. But you can chalk that up to a child's imagination, I guess.

(2) Yeah, I had "sleep paralysis" 2-3x when I was living in my friend's house in NJ. It definitely is a scary experience when you wake up to find that you can't move or speak, and there seems to be a shadow sitting on your chest exerting pressure. I never really thought about it being a ghost, because I didn't experience anything else ghost-related such as a sighting. Anyways, I never had sleep paralysis ever again after I moved out of that house in NJ. That was 3 years ago.

(3) I was working closely with a dying old man for an afternoon, when I was a resident doing my Intensive Care rotation. That night, when I went to an empty clinic where I sleep (it's empty on weekends so I put a queen-sized air mattress in there... that way I don't have to put up with other ppl's beepers), I saw his "ghostly image" watching me for a split second when I opened the door. Could be just my imagination, but later I learned that he died (I was off by then), and it's around the exact time I saw him.

Could be just coincidence + my imagination, but I tend to think it's a genuine sighting. I had no fear at the time, because I thought it was just my imagination, and also he's not scary.

====================================

Overall, I do believe in ghosts. I don't believe in a Abramic God, however. Though a powerful creative entity might exist, it wouldn't be some Jova who cares about human morals.

I'll tell you what, whether or not ghosts exist, I'm absolutely fascinated by stories about them. I think part of me sort of hopes they're true. I've secretly always wished there was more to life than what science can explain.

But I don't have any experiences of my own to share... at least that I can remember.

I'm one of those people who have to see it to believe it. That's why I don't buy into that Jesus nonsense either. Back on ghosts, I find it really funny that they have all these shows like Ghost hunters. It's an hour of two possibly gay guys pretending to see and hear ghost yet no ghost is ever caught on film. 5 or 6 seasons of this BS.

Maybe ghosts just don't like gay people?

What about black people? i mean ghosts are supposed to be evil so evil and racist go together right? be like the KKK with with inbuilt sheets and hoods.


Speaking of the KKK I once met and african student called something like Kevin Keiran Karanda, no joke. I even asked him if his parent had a sick sense of humour. Turns out they had never heard of the KKK. t

I always believe that if if cannot be proven or disproven it doesn't mean it isn't there.
When the day comes that there is irrefutable proof that ghosts exist then so be it.
But until then I won't dismiss their possibility of existence.
Just like we will never find out if there is an afterlife until we get there...and then we can't come back to tell of it can we? :)

As for those near-death experiences where people claim they met the dead it could be just a delusion of their subconscious conjuring up images of their deceased friends and relatives or of well-known people as they would have liked to imagine them to be.

But others recount moments that THEY never experienced with said person and only was known by the relatives of that deceased person.

So its still all an iffy issue as to whether there are ghosts or not.

meemjar
As for those near-death experiences where people claim they met the dead it could be just a delusion of their subconscious conjuring up images of their deceased friends and relatives or of well-known people as they would have liked to imagine them to be.

But others recount moments that THEY never experienced with said person and only was known by the relatives of that deceased person.

I think a lot of that is just people reading too much into things. You can make yourself believe anything if you try hard enough. I remember when my mother came back from her coma, she had all kinds of stories about places she'd traveled while she was "out." Some of it was very specific: certain hotels in San Francisco and New Jersey, far flung places like that. Of course she may have just picked up a lot of that stuff from her job as a flight attendant... and while some of the stuff she said was uncannily accurate, a lot of it was complete nonsense... like the part where our family was on the Family Feud and we lost because or uncle bungled the Fast Money. Our uncle wasn't even in the state at the time; he was in San Diego.

My family has all sorts of stories about being half awake and seeing ghost or otherworldly visions in their sleep. I dream about naked women all the time and it doesn't mean they are actually there. I really hope there are ghosts, because when I die I'm going to haunt the Sh!t out of someone. I mean full on Poltergeist suck your kids into the TV haunting.

@ El Cid:
Your mother saw that your family was on Family Feud while she was in a coma? Was it true?
Well, even if it wasn't true, at least it showed that she dreamt while in a coma. I thought comas are supposed to be dreamless.

@ Machinehead:
Maybe hot skanky ghosts are really into you? Lucky bastard.

meemjar
I always believe that if if cannot be proven or disproven it doesn't mean it isn't there.
When the day comes that there is irrefutable proof that ghosts exist then so be it.
But until then I won't dismiss their possibility of existence.

There is an infinite amount of things whose existence cannot be disproven. And yet we make negative identity claims about them all the time. I am very proud to negate someone's or something's existence based on sheer plausibility, not on provability.
Think about all the deities which have been made up by different groups of people throughout the ages. Any single one of these deities could be "the" exclusive God, and we're all going to "His" hell because no one knows about Him.

machinehead
I dream about naked women all the time and it doesn't mean they are actually there.

Amen.

mlai
Your mother saw that your family was on Family Feud while she was in a coma? Was it true?
Well, even if it wasn't true, at least it showed that she dreamt while in a coma. I thought comas are supposed to be dreamless.

Oh, the Feud thing sooooooooo never happened! No, we were in the hospital, with her. It wasn't a "real" coma by the way; she was semi-conscious most of the time but not responsive, and muttering a lot of gibberish about Jesus and airplanes and zebras and stuff like that.

@Abt_Nihil

Like I said, I don't believe or disbelieve either way.
Whether they exist or not, I'm not gonna lose sleep over it.
:sleepy:

I am generally very open to the possibility of their being dead folks roaming the planet and being identified as ghosts. I've also grown up around a lot of supernatural things and my family has a lot of stories of hauntings. I've also had a very personal supernatural experience of my own back in junior high that turned me in to a believer. Speaking for myself, I can say for sure that there is "something else" after death and that ghosts or "shadow people" really exist.

I've tried Ouija several times and I know it works and answers questions. And I'm completely sure that nobody was cheating (if I had doubts, I wouldn't even be posting here). So that could be ghosts, why not? That ideomotor theory sounds much more shitty to me, and leaves too many loose-ends to be a good explanation; it also contradicts my experience in many ways. So ghosts is fine for me.
Anybody who claims that he knows for sure that there's no afterlife or no God is just wishful-thinking. Nobody can EVER be sure about things that escape human senses and rationality, because they're above them; their own definition excludes these things for being empirically known.
I wished that atheists stopped saying that there's no God, and assumed once and for all that they just BELIEVE there's no God. Theirs is just a belief without basis, as any religious belief, but with a negative meaning.

I'm guessing that when these atheists make assertive statements like that, they're just speaking carelessly because they assume they're talking to someone who understands it's not necessary to keep saying "I believe" when discussing their beliefs.

Some atheists are aware of that, but a lot of them speak of their beliefs as a matter of fact, grounded in rational thinking, and not in faith as it should be. I've rarely heard any atheist saying "I don't believe in God, but I respect your different beliefs", but rather "God doesn't exist, and whoever believes in God, does it out of fear". I've heard expressions like that thousands of times. They almost never acknowledge that religious beliefs could have some legitimate grounds; for them, it's all about fear, ignorance, superstition, and so on.
The same happens with ghost beliefs. Just look at the post that started this thread. The possible reasons for believing in ghosts that are listed are: fear of death, superstition, ignorance, self-delusion, and the like. The possibility that somebody could believe in ghosts because he saw or experienced something that seemed a ghost is not even considered.