The existence of ghosts and spirits

[dolf]

Those programs... There's actually one where the people recorded the screaming woman in the woods near their house. It was a fox. Unmistakable sound. Someone on the production team must surely have known this, but it was left in to freak out the gullible.

 

[oggbashan]

Pluckley: Britains most haunted viallage

https://youtu.be/ksnCoGbz_cs

https://youtu.be/a3FjlvxJ5sw

 

[LupusDei]

The thing is we're talking about "evidence" of something that transcends human knowledge and experience. Whether it's merely an interesting physics phenomenon or not isn't the point. The point is that it exists.

Wow, lol. That's such a low bar it's underground, or are you re-enacting nineteenth century end of science sentiment?

Is there out there things we don't know? Certainly!

However, compare those two statements:
1) certain stones may accidentally record holograms
2) there's lost souls wandering around

What is the critical difference between them? The first doesn't involve elements of faith and offer methods of test. And here we arrive at your core fault of thinking patterns: claims that can't be falsified has no merit in disciplined thinking.

 

[stickygirl]

Every action in the universe relies on the transference of energy as described by the laws of thermodynamics. For something to happen, energy is required. When we are dead, there is no residual energy left ( maybe our body biodegrading ) so there can be no actions: no movement; no thought; no imprinting our personalities or experiences into solid rock or even video tape.

If there are woolly white balls of energy caught on a mechanical device, check the device, the environment, the goofball tv producer but I can guarantee it is not dead Aunt Isobel come back with a message. Dead is dead.

All good fun though, but like horoscopes, complete baloney

 

[HisArpy]

Wow, lol. That's such a low bar it's underground, or are you re-enacting nineteenth century end of science sentiment?

Is there out there things we don't know? Certainly!

However, compare those two statements:
1) certain stones may accidentally record holograms
2) there's lost souls wandering around

What is the critical difference between them? The first doesn't involve elements of faith and offer methods of test. And here we arrive at your core fault of thinking patterns: claims that can't be falsified has no merit in disciplined thinking.

I'm not saying the 2 are the exactly the same.

I'm saying that the physics of rocks first recording and later releasing sounds is a phenomenon we don't understand. Physics says that there has to be some sort of energy transfer in order to do that.

What energy? Where did it come from? What about the energy required to replay the captured sound? Where is that coming from?

From there, the "static ghosts" that replay a single event repeatedly have the same physics issue with needing some sort of energy to be able to do it.

So, while the 2 things are "different" on the surface, the physics appears to be the same. And, again, the fact that we can record the sounds from the rocks indicates that there IS some sort of "ghost phenomenon" going on.

 

[HisArpy]

Oh FFS! You don't think those could easily be faked? It would be very easy to do. I trust those recordings like I trust most things claimed on the net. Were they examined by experts and verified? No? Why not? If they're real they should be able to stand up to that kind of scrutiny.
Also why would some ghost on a civil war battle field be playing Yankee Doodle? Dixie maybe, Battle Hymn of the Republic possibly, a battle cadence yes but Yankee Doodle?

You can point to all these you want and it means jack if they haven't been examined and verified. This is the problem with things like this,"My brother's friends, cousins, sister saw one and made a fuzzy out of focus photo of it so I know it's true!

You are engaged in advanced confirmation bias. You pick out anything that might possibly support your belief, even if it's so fabulously contrived.

Comshaw

Of course they can be faked. That's not the issue.

The issue is; what if the recordings AREN'T "fakes"? We KNOW FOR A FACT that a pub wall in the UK produces audible sound that can be recorded. It's not fake, the wall actually produces sounds that appear to be captures of past sounds and conversations of people.

The Gettysburg recordings appear to be the same sort of thing. Are the specific ones I linked to fake? I don't know. What I do know is that we have GENUINE recordings that aren't fakes. I linked to other recordings which appear to produce what many people have independently claimed to have heard, yet you dismiss ALL of it.

Disbelief is fine. Fanatical disbelief that denies science and fact is a cult mentality. True science attempts to discover the reasons behind what is happening.

 

[Comshaw]

Of course they can be faked. That's not the issue.

The issue is; what if the recordings AREN'T "fakes"? We KNOW FOR A FACT that a pub wall in the UK produces audible sound that can be recorded. It's not fake, the wall actually produces sounds that appear to be captures of past sounds and conversations of people.

The Gettysburg recordings appear to be the same sort of thing. Are the specific ones I linked to fake? I don't know. What I do know is that we have GENUINE recordings that aren't fakes. I linked to other recordings which appear to produce what many people have independently claimed to have heard, yet you dismiss ALL of it.

Disbelief is fine. Fanatical disbelief that denies science and fact is a cult mentality. True science attempts to discover the reasons behind what is happening.

What if they aren't fake? You're trying to foist off a what if as a fact? And you linked me to recordings for which you aren't sure of the authenticity? Are you really trying to convince me that what you say is true with this kind of shoddy evidence? Offering "proof" that may or may not be a fake?

You have genuine recordings that aren't fake? And they have been verified by experts to be neither fake nor an explainable anomaly? If not, why not? As I've stated numerous times, anything claimed as fact should be able to stand the light of intense scrutiny. If it can't, if the proponents refuse to let it, it can't be considered as fact.

As far as the wall in the pub, point me in a direction where I can study the evidence presented.

Your last paragraph is totally and utterly true. True science does try to discover what is as opposed to what we want it to be. Those discoveries though must be factual. To that end everything that is claimed to be, must be tested, scrutinized, poked, prodded and dissected until there is little doubt of the veracity of what is. That is why most scientist submit any discoveries that make for peer review, so that their peers can ascertain the accuracy and truth of their work. A set of shoddy recordings claiming to show ghosts doesn't stand up to scientific methodology.

You are also correct in your statement about disbelief, but you fail to complete that thought. Disbelief in the face of factual, incontrovertible evidence is fanatical disbelief. The polar opposite is fanatical belief without any concrete factual basis. One is as devoid of intellectually honesty as the other.

You have no proof that you can supply (so far) of the existence of ghosts. What you have is a bunch of "maybe" "possible" and "it could be". That's called a working hypothesis, not proof.

Science doesn't care what you believe. If you have what you think are ghost recordings, submit them to some scientist for evaluation. Prove it, then you can come back here and give us low brow doubters a "I told you so". Until then, until you adhere to scientific protocol and have them reviewed and authenticated, all you have is a bunch of recording with some sounds that could be singing crickets.

There very well may be time portals through which we see glimpses of the past, glimpses that are tagged as "ghosts". Until such time as there is concrete proof of anything along those lines, verified, authenticated proof of sounds and shadowy figures, which has never been offered by anyone, I'll doubt there are such things.

Comshaw

 

[stickygirl]

Of course they can be faked. That's not the issue.

The issue is; what if the recordings AREN'T "fakes"? We KNOW FOR A FACT that a pub wall in the UK produces audible sound that can be recorded. It's not fake, the wall actually produces sounds that appear to be captures of past sounds and conversations of people.

When people in the UK burned mobile phone masts because they'd heard 5G caused coronavirus, we had an idiot daytime tv presenter say "Well science can't prove it doesn't cause coronavirus, so..." You're talking the same brand of fuckwittery.

'What if corn-circles are caused by aliens?' what if what if... Your pub wall sounds are exactly the same: intended as a joke and you're playing Devil's advocate ( badly ) because you love to look of your own typing.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

Something about this thread reminds me of this scene from Better Call Saul.

https://youtu.be/rreFXFnlKO4

 

[HisArpy]

You are also correct in your statement about disbelief, but you fail to complete that thought. Disbelief in the face of factual, incontrovertible evidence is fanatical disbelief. The polar opposite is fanatical belief without any concrete factual basis. One is as devoid of intellectually honesty as the other.

You have no proof that you can supply (so far) of the existence of ghosts. What you have is a bunch of "maybe" "possible" and "it could be". That's called a working hypothesis, not proof.

Science doesn't care what you believe. If you have what you think are ghost recordings, submit them to some scientist for evaluation. Prove it, then you can come back here and give us low brow doubters a "I told you so". Until then, until you adhere to scientific protocol and have them reviewed and authenticated, all you have is a bunch of recording with some sounds that could be singing crickets.

There very well may be time portals through which we see glimpses of the past, glimpses that are tagged as "ghosts". Until such time as there is concrete proof of anything along those lines, verified, authenticated proof of sounds and shadowy figures, which has never been offered by anyone, I'll doubt there are such things.

Comshaw

That's not the way working hypotheses are formulated or tested.

I provide the hypothesis and the supporting theory / evidentiary basis behind it. YOU'RE tasked with either proving it false or true.

So far what I'm seeing is a lot of piss and wind but no proof that the hypothesis is false other than you saying you don't believe what is offered in support.

That's not the way it works.

 

[MartinHeidegger]

That's not the way working hypotheses are formulated or tested.

I provide the hypothesis and the supporting theory / evidentiary basis behind it. YOU'RE tasked with either proving it false or true.

So far what I'm seeing is a lot of piss and wind but no proof that the hypothesis is false other than you saying you don't believe what is offered in support.

That's not the way it works.

Lolwut.

 

[HisArpy]

When people in the UK burned mobile phone masts because they'd heard 5G caused coronavirus, we had an idiot daytime tv presenter say "Well science can't prove it doesn't cause coronavirus, so..." You're talking the same brand of fuckwittery.

'What if corn-circles are caused by aliens?' what if what if... Your pub wall sounds are exactly the same: intended as a joke and you're playing Devil's advocate ( badly ) because you love to look of your own typing.

Interesting point of view you have on this. BTW, no one is chastising you for not believing.

 

[Comshaw]

That's not the way working hypotheses are formulated or tested.

I provide the hypothesis and the supporting theory / evidentiary basis behind it. YOU'RE tasked with either proving it false or true.

So far what I'm seeing is a lot of piss and wind but no proof that the hypothesis is false other than you saying you don't believe what is offered in support.

That's not the way it works.

Are you so desperate to defend your claim that you are insisting I prove a negative? I can't ever prove it false. Ever. How am I to do that? If you had a modicum of scientific understanding you would know that. But you could prove what you say it true, yet you haven't and so far can't.

I do not believe what you have offered in support because the only evidence, videos from youtube, even you admit could be faked. So how am to believe something that even you don't? The rest of what you have offered is your opinion and IS NOT PROOF OF YOUR ASSERTION THAT GHOST EXIST.

All you're doing is digging a deeper hole for yourself and proving nothing more than you have no idea how science works.

Comshaw

 

[Sean]

That's not the way working hypotheses are formulated or tested.

I provide the hypothesis and the supporting theory / evidentiary basis behind it. YOU'RE tasked with either proving it false or true.

So far what I'm seeing is a lot of piss and wind but no proof that the hypothesis is false other than you saying you don't believe what is offered in support.

That's not the way it works.

Science isn't really your thing, is it Tim?

 

[Comshaw]

That's not the way working hypotheses are formulated or tested.

I provide the hypothesis and the supporting theory / evidentiary basis behind it. YOU'RE tasked with either proving it false or true.

So far what I'm seeing is a lot of piss and wind but no proof that the hypothesis is false other than you saying you don't believe what is offered in support.

That's not the way it works.

I had to address this idiotic statement. Working hypothesis ALWAYS start with a "what if". From there evidence is gathered to try to prove it. During the process it's either proven to be so, or no proof is found to support the original hypothesis.

Here's the dictionary definition of a hypothesis which bears out exactly what I said.

1)a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2)a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
3)a mere assumption or guess.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/hypothesis

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

Interesting point of view you have on this. BTW, no one is chastising you for not believing.

I take this as a snide remark on those who disagree with you. No one, let me repeat that, NO ONE is chastising you for believing in ghost. Well, at least not me. You are being chastised for trying to use false, unsubstantiated data that even you admit could be faked, to support your belief, while claiming it as "scientific proof" and accusing those who point that out as being unscientific and fanatical disbelievers.

Yea I think you need to stop, regroup and take stock of what is and ain't.


Comshaw