The existence of ghosts and spirits

[Conager]

Yeah, I know a guy who has benign visual and auditory hallucinations. Probably more common than you think.

Very good point.

Also, nevermind mold on rye and deliberate intoxicationwith known, psychoactive substances, just variations in blood sugar can cause some pretty weird effects. Think about how many people have hyper or hypoglycemia and diabetes.

Aside from actual noctambulism and sommambulism, we all have shades of in between wakefulness and slumber.

Weirdest experience I ever had with that was while I was going eight miles an hour up a long ramp in a mine with those surging, low rpm diesel murmers inducing sleep while extremely exhausted forcing my eyes to stay open. I suddenly became aware that I was dreaming while consciously holding my eyes open. I could see but I couldn't react until I forced myself awake. I was drifting right into the oncoming lane and could not do anything about it.

Most accidents happen between 3 and 4 am just like that, but minus the awareness. Another common cause is a sleepy driver stops pressing the accelerator going uphill and cannot figure out why he is rolling backwards.

 

[Conager]

I have written several ghost stories. My ghosts can appear and apparently become solid for sex, not necessarily at the same time.

Years ago, during a Halloween weekend at a 14th-century youth hostel, I acted as a ghost in the attics. But I'm not sure whether those present were more frightened by me or by the 'genuine' ghosts - there were three sets of them.

1. The early 19th-century headless coachman outside who lost his head to a low lying branch and was crushed under the rear wheels of his coach.

2. The maid whipped to death in the kitchen in the 18th-century.

3. The younger son of a previous owner who was killed in the 17th-century during an irregular duel with a neighbour for seducing the neighbour's wife. The neighbour had to flee to France to avoid prosecution.

All three were usually only sound effects but some people claimed to have seen the coachman's accident. All three incidents actually happened but whether there were ghosts, or just overactive imaginations fuelled by too much local cider?

A maid whipped in the kitchen, not quite to death, sounds kinda hot.

 

[oggbashan]

A maid whipped in the kitchen, not quite to death, sounds kinda hot.

Apparently her screams were bloodcurdling.

I didn't hear them. I was too busy dragging my chains across the attic floor.

 

[LupusDei]

I do believe in, let's say, spirits. Just, something out there we can't detect with current electromagnetic technology, or even not quite at all, but otherwise not all that unlike all the other life we live with, just perhaps different. (You know, urban landscape and residential housing is quite rich ecosystem, especially after the dark.)

I personally don't really believe in "typical" ghosts despite I have had a couple of experiences and even although the quasi-religious system I'm subscribing for does, in a way, believe in what could be said to be ghosts.

(Well, the understanding is, that when a person dies, the soul goes to, well, another plane of experience (where it may or may not join one of various forces that have limited, mostly
ideological, influence back in this plane), but a "ghost" [velis] remain behind, to slowly fade into nothingness, with may take from hours to centuries; but it's not something that actually exists or can be observed in normal circumstances outside of rituals devoted to honour those ancestral spirits anyway, and not that any definitive communication would be possible even then. So yeah, it's all mental, and kind of complicated. And on top of it I think ancient Egyptians where up for something with the notion that soul is something one has to grow and train in their lifetime, not a given by default.)

In the communal appartment we had too rooms in while my sister and I went to school, there was something living in the hallway near the kitchen stairs entrance, the space everyone was commuting through. It wasn't a human grade, rather a pet, an animal, or some lesser free spirit, and I wouldn't characterize it as bening, although it didn't quite bother anyone. It just was very uncomfortable feeling, and a few times I saw, nothing definitive, but something, jumping away in a hurry (kinda, dog-sized, but very nimble and blurry). Mostly everyone of residents admitted they have had felt the uncomfortable presence of it. Hallucinations? Reinforced biases? Maybe, it wasn't very friendly space, kind of by definition.

That place was a second or third tier yard-side two bedroom one bathroom flat with office and a maid's room in a between the wars built apartment block for ministry of finance clerks, divided for state rent to three unrelated families during Soviet times (it went back to single user in 1996). The original planning was a bit pompous, 12 feet ornamented ceiling and all, but rather good and functional. As far soviet communal flats go, this one was rather well planned and relatively comfortable as well. We with sister lived in what was once intended to be the office, our parents in the living room, and we had the main entrance hallway as a kind of third room and kitchenette, as only we used that entrance. The original extra high double door between the living and dining rooms was blocked and the end of dining room split off to create a narrow dark hallway re-connecting kitchen entrance hallway with a new small door in the corner of the living room. Second family occupied rest of the dining room and kid's bedroom with had a new side door connecting those, and the third lived in the master bedroom and also had the tiny maid's room behind the kitchen as additional space. Everyone used the same kitchen, with was thankfully large, the bathroom and separate toilet that all connected to same inner hallway with master bedroom, kid's bedroom, and kitchen stairway entrance; irregular elongated windowless space with 8 doors in total, and a resident ghost.

 

[HisArpy]

"No valid evidence" isn't a theory, it's a state of verification. You either have evidence, which makes it fact supporting a theory, or you have no valid evidence for an unsubstantiated theory.

As far as your last statement, of course it did not account for bacterial or viral injections in the pre-moddern era. At the time humans though most of that was either caused by god(s) or some other un-associated reason. It wasn't until science grew to a point where we discovered and understood the microscopic world that we discovered the connection, much like the line of inquiry into hallucinations that may point to the observance of ghosts.

Comshaw

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[domroger]

Never seen them ,but I have heard strange noises and seen objects move without anyone near them .Most of these events occurred when alone on night duty ,so they could be put down to sleep deprivation ,but it has happened during the day as well .although not for a few years .

 

[Comshaw]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

You've said that before and tend to repeat it likes it's gospel. Like before I will point out that it is a parsed, cherry picked statement. Let me repeat, verbatim what I said:

"absence of proof is not proof of absence." is the biggest piece of cherry picking I've seen yet. While you are correct that it isn't proof of absence, neither is it proof of existence. It stands firmly in the realm of Schrodinger's cat. Until such time as it is proven to exist, it can be thought of as both existing and not, which ever you wish to believe. And so we circle back to the premise that a belief can be anything you wish it to be, for it requires no proof.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Hey, according to your "math" if you get exposed to the Wuhan, China Coronavirus you have a one in five chance of finding out for yourself.

There is pretty good literature on the idea that one's expectations has a significant effect on mortality, so don't let me disabuse you of your fears.

It astounds me that you appear to have neither the mental acuity or capacity to follow the line of a discussion. You might want to stop, go back and check the links I provided in that conversation to see that it wasn't my "math" you seem to take issue with but the CDC's. Please try to verify what you say to keep up with the conversation.

As far as my expectations: I'll live till I die. I've stumbled close to that edge more then once in my life so I know it can take us at any time. It will happen when it happens.

The incidence of UFO sightings and the general descriptions parallel with science fiction releases. People see what they have been conditioned to expect to see. Humans are terrible eyewitnesses, but they are the best species we have for the job.

UFO's and ghost are two separate things. There is evidence, some posted recently by the Navy, that substantiates there is something (and to be clear I'm not claiming it's flying little green men) that has been spotted on many occasions. The acronym UFO is just that, an Unidentified Flying Object. They don't know exactly what it was, but have hard proof it does exist, unlike ghosts.

No they didn't. They didn't have the tools to see bacteria and viruses, nor were they certain about vectors and transmission, but they were aware of both scientific method, not much different than we have today, the concept of naturally occurring diseases from physical causes and the tramsmissibility thereof.

Their hypothesis may not have always borne out, and their corresponding treatments were not very effective, but there is nothing about "modern" humans more curious or smarter than ancient times. Humans are humans. Every generation thinks of itself as smarter and more evolved than the last generation and evolution does not work on anything close to a time table like that.

Leaches and bloodletting are not great treatments, (except rarely when they are) but it shows both their awareness of natural causative processes, and their knowledge of blood-borne diseases.

So the "scientific method" they used would account for the millions of lives lost because they thought the black plague was "Gods Will"?

"People in the Medieval Times thought the Black Death was a punishment from God for their sins. People prayed and asked for forgiveness from God. One group went as far as to travel from town to town, whipping themselves and others, all the while chanting prayers to God. These were called 'flagellants'."

https://allaboutblackdeath.weebly.com/causes---facts-and-myths.html

Leaches and bloodletting were employed as curative, but their knowledge of "...natural causative processes, and their knowledge of blood-borne diseases" was so rudimentary as to be almost nonexistent and much more dangerous then curative.

You are correct that in certain instance bloodletting is still used for certain things today. It is the treatment for Hemochromatosis.

Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

You've said that before and tend to repeat it likes it's gospel. Like before I will point out that it is a parsed, cherry picked statement. Let me repeat, verbatim what I said:


Comshaw

Great.

Now, about that statement of yours...

Until such time as it is proven to exist, it can be thought of as both existing and not...

If it's BOTH, and we've already heard you say that they don't exist, where's your argument that ghosts do exist?

Or do you cherry pick only the half you like and dismiss the other possibility and everyone who likes that side of the equation?

As for Shroedinger and his cat... does anyone feed and water the cat? No? Well then, it's either not in the box, 'cuz wiley cat has you totally bamboozled, or it's dead.

 

[Comshaw]

Great.

Now, about that statement of yours...



If it's BOTH, and we've already heard you say that they don't exist, where's your argument that ghosts do exist?

Or do you cherry pick only the half you like and dismiss the other possibility and everyone who likes that side of the equation?

As for Shroedinger and his cat... does anyone feed and water the cat? No? Well then, it's either not in the box, 'cuz wiley cat has you totally bamboozled, or it's dead.

I believe ghosts do not exist. Why in the world should I try to make the argument they do? For me the absence of evidence (until such time as there is, if ever) is enough to believe i n the nonexistence of a phenomena, just as your "sightings" are proof to you they exist. Neither can be proven, so as I said we are left with a belief, yours and mine. And one is just as valid as the other.


Your last statement a is red herring attempt, or you really don't understand how the philosophical exercise of Schrodinger's cat works.

the original premise of the cat in the box went: a cat is sealed in a box. At some random time a vial of poison will break open killing the cat. Until such time as the box is opened the cat can be thought of as both dead and alive, with one thought being as correct as the other, until one or the other is proven by opening the box.

Now if you believe there are ghost and I believe they are a figment, until such time as the existence of ghosts are proven, we have a cat in the box and one belief is as valid as the other.

capiche?


Comshaw

 

[MartinHeidegger]

It's easy to misuse the aphorism "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." Subject to circumstance and context, as with any empirical result, absence of evidence may indeed be evidence of absence.

 

[HisArpy]

I believe ghosts do not exist. Why in the world should I try to make the argument they do? For me the absence of evidence (until such time as there is, if ever) is enough to believe i n the nonexistence of a phenomena, just as your "sightings" are proof to you they exist. Neither can be proven, so as I said we are left with a belief, yours and mine. And one is just as valid as the other.

Ah, but that is NOT what you said. You said that there can be both existence and nonexistence simultaneously.

Your last statement a is red herring attempt, or you really don't understand how the philosophical exercise of Schrodinger's cat works.

My last was humor. That you missed it isn't surprising.

the original premise of the cat in the box went: a cat is sealed in a box. At some random time a vial of poison will break open killing the cat. Until such time as the box is opened the cat can be thought of as both dead and alive, with one thought being as correct as the other, until one or the other is proven by opening the box.

Do you feed and water the cat? Remember it's a CAT - a living creature that requires food and water to survive. If no one is feeding or watering the cat, it's dead or not in the box regardless of whether the poison vial has broken or not.

If it's only a "theoretical cat" then the premise fails because the theory doesn't encompass all of the variables required to fully shape the premise.

Thus, the correct question to ask isn't whether the cat is alive or dead, it's whether it is or isn't in the box. Until you open the box, you cannot know if there's a cat in there or not. I suspect not because, wiley cat.

Now if you believe there are ghost and I believe they are a figment, until such time as the existence of ghosts are proven, we have a cat in the box and one belief is as valid as the other.

capiche?

Comshaw

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

The Schrodinger's cat paradox was proposed to illustrate the absurdities of quantum theory, in particular a certain interpretation of something called state superposition and collapse by observation, when applied to the macro world. Most physicists would say that superposition is a real phenomena. The exception being, as far as I know (there may be others) those holding to something called quantum Bayesianism. But that interpretation is antirealist, anyway.

This has nothing to do with common sense intuitions.

 

[Conager]

It astounds me that you appear to have neither the mental acuity or capacity to follow the line of a discussion. You might want to stop, go back and check the links I provided in that conversation to see that it wasn't my "math" you seem to take issue with but the CDC's. Please try to verify what you say to keep up with the conversation.

As far as my expectations: I'll live till I die. I've stumbled close to that edge more then once in my life so I know it can take us at any time. It will happen when it happens.





UFO's and ghost are two separate things. There is evidence, some posted recently by the Navy, that substantiates there is something (and to be clear I'm not claiming it's flying little green men) that has been spotted on many occasions. The acronym UFO is just that, an Unidentified Flying Object. They don't know exactly what it was, but have hard proof it does exist, unlike ghosts.



So the "scientific method" they used would account for the millions of lives lost because they thought the black plague was "Gods Will"?

"People in the Medieval Times thought the Black Death was a punishment from God for their sins. People prayed and asked for forgiveness from God. One group went as far as to travel from town to town, whipping themselves and others, all the while chanting prayers to God. These were called 'flagellants'."

https://allaboutblackdeath.weebly.com/causes---facts-and-myths.html

Leaches and bloodletting were employed as curative, but their knowledge of "...natural causative processes, and their knowledge of blood-borne diseases" was so rudimentary as to be almost nonexistent and much more dangerous then curative.

You are correct that in certain instance bloodletting is still used for certain things today. It is the treatment for Hemochromatosis.

Comshaw

You did not claim that "some" humans and cultures were religious zealots and your anecdotes about those that were has no bearing in the discussion. The Church of Christ, Scientist members today reject medical treatments. Does that mean that Comshaw version 3030 a.d. can claim that people of 2020 believed that?

Neither youz nor your granddad's peers invented scientific method. Not having yep discovered many of the things that we now know does not mean that they were not searching the physical world for answers. The fact that many turned to religion and superstition out of frustration and limited options has nothing whatsoever to do with their innate abilities.

You're barely smarter than Luk; you are certainly not smarter than ancient physicians. You just have more knowledge then they did and that's only because the knowledge you have is common knowledge today. The common knowledge of today is built on the limited knowledge of the past.

 

[HisArpy]

The Schrodinger's cat paradox was proposed to illustrate the absurdities of quantum theory, in particular a certain interpretation of something called state superposition and collapse by observation, when applied to the macro world. Most physicists would say that superposition is a real phenomena. The exception being, as far as I know (there may be others) those holding to something called quantum Bayesianism. But that interpretation is antirealist, anyway.

This has nothing to do with common sense intuitions.

^ is overdue for a banhammering 'cuz BORING

 

[Rotadom]

There is no such thing as a ghost.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

^ is overdue for a banhammering

Take a nap.

 

[Conager]

Thanks for your eager assistance, but do you know what I could really use help with now? My boots need polishing. Get on that first, would you, "Dom?"

 

[Rotadom]

Thanks for your eager assistance, but do you know what I could really use help with now? My boots need polishing. Get on that first, would you, "Dom?"

What in the wide world of sports are you yammering about?

 

[LupusDei]

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Yes, but, logical negative is unprovable. It doesn't say anything. Impossibility to prove ghosts doesn't exist isn't any proof they do either.

Kind of, let's say, bigfoot, does it exist? Being presumably a physical animal it might even be possible to definitely disprove, but even that it is rather overwhelming task. However, the picture our existing data narrow it down is quite, well peculiar. It's unclear what it eats, how it apparently migrates thousands of miles within large areas of north America and northern and central Asia, and the population is necessarily small.

Likewise, to seriously believe in ghosts we first have identify holes in our understanding of physics. While the standard model seems to become more "airtight" by the day, there's still quite some, and always possible more out there in what we don't know that we don't know.

Then there's some phenomena on the very fringes of our ability to detect them. During the turbulent nineties when scientists had no financing and some free time, we did a bit of quite serious research on what I think is known as dowsing and/or "biolocation," water streams, leylines, that kind of stuff, down into "charged" objects. Lots of it is apparently bullshit, but there's some signal.

It's clear, it's always the user who drives the dowsing twig or rod, presumably subconsciously, and indeed there's measurable change of potential in the skin, so in theory, one could even connect trained dowsing operator to a set of instruments and chart large areas by flyover, and some such was even attempted. Whatever it is, living beings detect it, and it may be possible to detect this detection, but not the original signal, apparently. But we're doing science, repeatability is paramount.

And sure, we all have played with the dowsing twitch as kids, and it's clear that the ones it doesn't turn for just don't let it. It's state ofmind that matters, otherwise everyone can do it. And it did, indeed turn where it "should" for everyone. The test results were... too good. There should be errors right? There wasn't. And then someone had the bright idea of double-blind testing, two teams not knowing results, and lo and behold, there were the errors expected, in fact rather willd errors. But all it took was to have someone knowing what the results "should be" on the team, and it was a lock. There's some signal, but it's weaker than telepathy, with don't exist, you know. And it was where it all fell apart, because, scientific dowsing is one thing, but telepathy was something no one was really ready to touch.

One definitive take away I can say with certainty from all of that, all those supposed methods to deflect or neutralize the supposedly negative effects of "water streams" is snake oil and placebo effects, you could as reliably invent your own.

But I digress.

So, is bigfoot what we would call a ghost? And why not?

 

[HisArpy]

Yes, but, logical negative is unprovable. It doesn't say anything. Impossibility to prove ghosts doesn't exist isn't any proof they do either.

Except we do have "evidence", of a sort, that they do exist. Thus, there is no vacuity of evidence, only whether the evidence we do have is sufficiently tangible to justify the statement that; "Aye, thar be such things as ghosts".

Choosing to disbelieve the available evidence doesn't make it go away. If one wishes to debunk the evidence, the one is free to try and do so.

However, what does one do with those bits of evidence that one cannot debunk? When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

 

[Comshaw]

Ah, but that is NOT what you said. You said that there can be both existence and nonexistence simultaneously.

Parsing my statements to support your point doesn't negate what I said.

My last was humor. That you missed it isn't surprising.

It isn't all that surprising since your sense of humor is all but nonexistant.

Do you feed and water the cat? Remember it's a CAT - a living creature that requires food and water to survive. If no one is feeding or watering the cat, it's dead or not in the box regardless of whether the poison vial has broken or not.

If it's only a "theoretical cat" then the premise fails because the theory doesn't encompass all of the variables required to fully shape the premise.

Thus, the correct question to ask isn't whether the cat is alive or dead, it's whether it is or isn't in the box. Until you open the box, you cannot know if there's a cat in there or not. I suspect not because, wiley cat.

And yet again you miss the entire point of the exercise. Because of your inability to grasp it or your insistence not to matters not. You didn't and seemingly can't, or would rather post your "humor" instead of trying to understand.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Again, nor is the absence of evidence, evidence of existence. So where does that leave it? The same place I said it did. Perhaps you should try another tack?


Comshaw

 

[HisArpy]

[Again, nor is the absence of evidence, evidence of existence. So where does that leave it? The same place I said it did. Perhaps you should try another tack?


Comshaw

Except we DO have evidence.

That you choose to dismiss it doesn't mean it's not there.

 

[Comshaw]

Except we do have "evidence", of a sort, that they do exist. Thus, there is no vacuity of evidence, only whether the evidence we do have is sufficiently tangible to justify the statement that; "Aye, thar be such things as ghosts".

Choosing to disbelieve the available evidence doesn't make it go away. If one wishes to debunk the evidence, the one is free to try and do so.

However, what does one do with those bits of evidence that one cannot debunk? When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

What evidence? Where? your sightings? THe observation of others? That's your evidence? If that's your evidence, perhaps you should go back to the beginning of this thread and read the article. you know the one you haven't. If there is any other valid evidence i'd like to see it.

Comshaw

 

[LupusDei]

However, what does one do with those bits of evidence that one cannot debunk? When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

The trouble is very much right there along with the dowsing example I elaborated on, if not worse: all the evidence is subjective. Humans are terrible witnesses. Have you ever seriously explored perception? What we really see at any given time, indeed see with resolution and analysis is like, a dollar coin at arm's length. All the rest of the world's image is reconstructed from stored objects pulled out of database, to borrow IT terminology. Yes, we do detect motion, worse, motion is all we detect, not for the eye micro movements the image would fade away. And there's no guarantee any two humans see the same colors. The uncertainty in with we operate taking things for granted is astonishing.

Ghosts may well be, but be telepathically communicated hallucinations.