Do you believe in ghosts?

[Lestat]

Poll question: Do you believe in ghosts?

I'm watching a show on the SciFi channel (Yes...that's all that's on) right now, and it's about ghost stories and "proof" that there are ghosts. I, however, still remain a skeptic.

How about you?

[GreenPartyVoter]

1. I believe in them because I believe

we have souls.

[Lestat]

2. A part of me believes that we have souls...

but a part of me remains skeptical about that.

I dunno. :shrug:

[Zolok]

60. Don't believe in them...

because what self respecting soul having realized immortality would want to linger in this filthy dirty power worshipping world?

www.chimesatmidnight.blogspot.com

[qwertyMike]

95. I used to have no opinion either way

Until I experienced them starting about age 17.
You won't experience them in dense urbal areas I believe.
Too much background noise both externally and internally.

I am generally a skeptic BTW, but I'm open to being 'shown'. UFO's for example, nothing yet.

[Dookus]

103. nah

but you WILL experience them in "herbal" areas, if ya know what I mean.

[truthspeaker]

3. Nope, when we're dead, we're dead.

Human consciousness cannot exist without a brain to produce it.

[Lestat]

4. That we know of...

[truthspeaker]

10. that's sort of like saying

"You can't move your fingers if your hand is cut off ... that we know of."

We know consciousness arises from the brain. We know damage to the brain affects consciousness and personality. There is no indication that consciousness can somehow exist independent of a human brain.

[Lestat]

14. See...the weird thing is...

is that we hardly know anything about the brain. How could scientists know that consciousness cannot exist outside of our brains?

[truthspeaker]

19. Actually we know a fair amount about the brain

(although there's a lot we don't know). Consciousness seems to arise in the frontal lobes.

[Speck Tater]

22. If I smash the radio, the music stops.. Thus...

the music originates in the radio.

Clearly that line of reasoning is not universally true. Therefore it cannot be used to "proved" that consciousness originates in the brain. The brain could well be the interface organ between consciousness and the physical instrumentality of the body.

There is no evidence one way or the other to suggest that consciousness is an epiphenomenon of physicality rather than something as basic and elemental as energy and time. In point of fact transcendental monism provides a number of intriguing hypotheses to explain some of the most puzzling mysteries left unexplained by materialistic monism. Materialism is not the only viable metaphysical framework within which science can be conducted.

[truthspeaker]

27. But you can detect the radio waves being picked up by the radio.

Also, if you alter the radio, you don't change the tune. But if you alter the brain, you can change personality and consciousness.

[Speck Tater]

38. Any analogy can be bent beyond its breaking point

but that does not necessarily invalidate the analogy.

If the radio is altered the quality of the sound may well change, even when the tune remains the same. The sound may become muddled or scratchy. If the right portion of the radio is altered the tune may change because you've tuned to another station.

Yes, we can detect the radio waves. With ANOTHER radio. What instrument is required to interface with elemental consciousness? Obviously a biological brain performs that function, but what else might do it? We don't know. But absence of evidence does not constitute evidence of absence. And if consciousness is elemental then it is NOT made of energy or matter, and cannot be detect by looking for energy or matter.

[truthspeaker]

45. Elemental, huh? EVERYTHING is made of energy or matter.

We have never, ever, detected anything not made out of energy or matter.

[Speck Tater]

49. That's an intersting hypothesis.

Everything is made out of energy and matter. But it has not been proven, only assumed. It's called "materialistic monism." There are alternative, and equally compelling metaphysical systems. Myself, I favor either some modified form of dualism or transcendental monism.

The real problem is that a scientific education does not normally include the philosophy of science. Thus certain hyposteses and ssumptions are taught to young scientists as if they were established facts, when in truth they are not facts at all.

Even in grad school I heard nothing about the philosophy of science until I struck up a deep and long-term friendship with a post-doc from the philosophy department who really opened my eyes to what I hadn't been taught about science by the school of engineering.

[truthspeaker]

50. Name one observed thing not made out of energy and matter

Just one.

[qazplm]

52. I can name one

Carrot-tops career. It's unnatural!

Seriously though, gravity MIGHT be a candidate, but your point is well taken, to suggest that there is something that exists out outside of matter and energy in the universe requires a HECK of a lot of evidence.

[Vladimir]

159. Gravity

is material in the same sense as any other physical theory, i.e. it acts on matter. It may or may not be an exchange interaction of course - i.e. it may or may not operate by the exchange of matter between the particles involved (as every other physical theory does) - the gravion has in any case not yet been found.

[Speck Tater]

56. Consciousness.

That's the hypothesis, at least.

For that matter, information can be encoded ON matter, or IN energy, but the information itself is neither matter nor energy.

But the problem with your question is that you are asking, implicitly, for me to name some physical thing not made of matter or enegry. So you've framed the terms of the question in such a way as to make it impossible to answer. If a thing is not energy or matter then it is not physical.

[truthspeaker]

57. OK, name something that's not physical.

Information is physical. Neuroscience highly suggests that consciousness is physical. So your hypothesizing that something exists, and getting on my case because I can't prove it doesn't. I can't prove there isn't an invisible pink unicorn on Titan, but I'm pretty sure there isn't.

[Speck Tater]

68. hehe.

Inform,ation is physical? Rally.

Show me an information.

You can't. Information is NOT physical, not has any reputable scientist ever claimed that it is. Informatioin is encoded in various physical ways, but the information itself is NOT physical.

I can write Moby Dick on toilet paper with a crayon, or inside a computer chip with electrons, on on the surface of a dvd as puts and bumps, or on an electromagnetic wave broadcast into space.

In every case, the matter or enegry is different, but the information "Call me Ishmael..." reamins unchanged in evey instantiation of that information. The information itself is NOT physical, only a given instantiaion is physical.

Failure to get your head around that concept is going to hold you back from understanding why materialsim fails, and why more physicists are looking at alternatives to materialistic monism.

[qazplm]

71. Actually it is

information is only information if there is someone there to decode it. Writing Moby Dick on a piece of paper isnt information to a dog, its only information to a human. And then, its only information if that human can see it, and read it, and has it saved in their brain as information.

Which means even information is physical because it depends upon having the appropriate neuronal capacity to exist.

[Squeegee]

145. Information Theory, learn about it first.

Show me an information.

The physical unit of information is entropy. It defines what information is and what it isn't. It's everywhere, just look outside your window and you'll see it.

... but the information itself is NOT physical ...

The thoughts that form the basis of semantics and meaning are defined by the language, environment, and culture in which one lives and is very much dependent on the physical world. Language itself is merely a set of symbols that impart meaning (i.e. label) for things and actions that exist in the physical world and are imparted to you through interactions with it. For instance the English phrase "Call me Ishmael..." has no meaning to someone who speaks Arabic or Klingon. Also, if Moby Dick were translated to every language on Earth, subtlety would lost for most of the languages that have no cultural or environmental reference frame. To Mongolians who have no history or seafaring or have never seen a whale and have no words to describe them, much of this story would be difficult if not impossible to understand without lots of pictures and explanation, and even then it would not have the same 'meaning' that it does for your average English speaking American or Brit. Again, all this relates back to the physical world with which one is acquainted that vary dramatically between cultures and locale.

Now beyond all that. Information has certain physical limitations. For instance, the symbolic thoughts in your head, perhaps stored as weighted electrical signals at various synapses in your brain, require the physical neural network of your physical brain to exist. To transmit this information requires you to speak, speaking requires sound waves moving through the air. The propagation of 'thought' can only travel at the speed of sound, in this case. It also requires a listener who knows the language and cultural references required to derive meaning from these sound waves. Yet again, very physical.

Failure to get your head around that concept is going to hold you back from understanding why materialsim fails, and why more physicists are looking at alternatives to materialistic monism.

Since most physicists don't get into metaphysics, this is very dubious assertion. Even if this were possible, I don't see any proof that physicists are abandoning the Scientific Method in favor of some faith-based metaphysical system as a replacement. However, if you have evidence of such a thing, please provide it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

154. You are confusing two different things

The thoughts that form the basis of semantics and meaning are defined by the language, environment, and culture in which one lives and is very much dependent on the physical world.

'information' is not a synonym for 'thought'.

[Squeegee]

161. Really?

Are you going to argue that thought is not information contained in the brain?

[Feanorcurufinwe]

162. Really.

Are you going to argue that thought is not information contained in the brain?

Why would I argue the position you want me to argue? If you want to talk to yourself, lock yourself in a closet and go for it.



What I stated is: 'information' is not a synonym for 'thought'.




Before you go too far down your path of fallacious reasoning, consider this:

All chickens are birds. Logically, that does not lead to the conclusion that all birds are chickens.

Similarly, some thoughts contain information. Logically, that does not lead to the conclusion that all information is thought.

[Squeegee]

177. Back up

Before you go too far down your path of fallacious reasoning...

You seem to be jumping to conclusions.

Similarly, some thoughts contain information. Logically, that does not lead to the conclusion that all information is thought.

I personally don't see the how the statement I made that "thoughts that form the basis of meaning" is in anyway saying that "information is thought" in the sense that information can only exist in the context of the human psyche. I am sorry if I somehow lead you to this conclusion, it was not meant to.

I will state again that symbolic thoughts contain information acquired through interaction with the environment. The meaning of these thoughts are therefore bound to ones experiences with the culture, language, etc. into which one is raised. All of this very much a physical process.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

179. I don't see anything in your post that disputes what I said.

One more time, what I said was, 'information' is not a synonym for 'thought'.


I personally don't see the how the statement I made that "thoughts that form the basis of meaning" is in anyway saying that "information is thought" in the sense that information can only exist in the context of the human psyche. I am sorry if I somehow lead you to this conclusion, it was not meant to.


OK, you acknowledge that information can exist outside the context of the human psyche. So when we use the term 'information', we are not necessarily talking about 'thoughts'. Therefore a discussion of whether or not 'thoughts' are physical will not lead us to a conclusion about whether or not 'information' is physical.




I will state again that symbolic thoughts contain information acquired through interaction with the environment. The meaning of these thoughts are therefore bound to ones experiences with the culture, language, etc. into which one is raised. All of this very much a physical process.

This is all off-topic. I'm not talking about thoughts, thinking, or thought processes. I agree that thoughts can contain information. So what? That doesn't describe any physical characteristics of information, neither does it logically lead to a conclusion that information has physical attributes. A bucket can contain water but that doesn't mean that water is a solid.

[Squeegee]

200. As I said.

OK, you acknowledge that information can exist outside the context of the human psyche.

I never said that information only exists in the human mind, I don't know where you got the idea that that's what I meant, but the point is really not worth continuing on about.

I agree that thoughts can contain information. So what? That doesn't describe any physical characteristics of information...

Since this thread was originally about thought and information, it does have bearing. Information is a form of entropy and has some physical limitations, such as how much of it can exist in a particular space at a given time, or how fast it can propagate in particular medium. This has practical application in cryptography and telecommunications. These physical properties are also used to prove or disprove certain theories in cosmology and relativistic physics. Stephen Hawking's work on Black Hole entropy is shows that information is not lost at the event horizon of a black hole. It was this work that lead to the Holographic Principal and the Holographic Universe Theory which may explain certain quantum mechanical phenomena.

Since thought is a form of information and also the product of information acquired from environment, it stands to reason that consciousness is a product of the physical world and not separate from it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

202. And as I said

this doesn't contradict what I said.


Since thought is a form of information and also the product of information acquired from environment, it stands to reason that consciousness is a product of the physical world and not separate from it.


Even if I were to agree with this conclusion, you are only talking about a specific subset of information. To apply the conclusion about the subset to the whole set is a classic example of hasty generalization.

[Vladimir]

157. Depressingly enough

many physicists are indeed abandoning materialism in favour of idealism these days, mainly due to a long-known and rather obscure problem in Quantum Mechanics relating to the 'entanglement' of quantum states. I haven't got the time to explain it here but I would direct you to:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0521334950/qid=1087664159/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/104-4563824-4915122?v=glance&s=books

Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics by Bell, which that link points to, is about THE authoritative account of the problem by one of the great theoretical minds that worked on it. Its a bit old now, but the arguments in it still stand good.

Oh an rest assured, we aren't abandoning the scientific method. The idealism involved is basically putting the laws of physics as primary, and matter a consequence of them (rather than the materialistic view, which is exactly the opposite). But we certainly ain't hunting ghosts around... ;)

[Squeegee]

201. Materialism vs. monism

This true, physicists are moving to idealism, which is unfortunate, but not unexpected due to the nature of the things being studied. Interestingly enough the "monism" part seems to continue. For instance, The Holographic Universe theory, states that subatomic particles are actually projections of a single underlying entity and solves the nagging problems of quantum entanglement. It relies on heavily on information theory and solutions to black hole entropy, but it cannot be adequately proven in a laboratory setting, so it is an idealistic approach.

[Speck Tater]

166. Straw man

you said "I don't see any proof that physicists are abandoning the Scientific Method"

Never have I a made such an absurd suggestion. Nor would I. The scientific method is the foundation of all the progress we have made. I can think of no better approach to the aquisition of knowledge.

Therefore you have claimed to hold my position up to ridicule by actually ridculing a position I have never, and would never take.

The position I am taking is that materialistic monism is not the only metaphysical system that could be assumed to underlie reality. But reagrdless of what metaphysical system is assumed, the scientific method still applies, and still remains a powerful tool. There is no reason in the world why a proponent of transcental monism could not use the scientific method as well.

You also stated: "The thoughts that form the basis of semantics and meaning are defined by the language, environment,..."

When I talk of "information", I am not talking about language. You are talking about language. That is perhaps why you are a bit confused about these concepts. You said I should learn about information theory. I taught graduate level information theory over 25 years ago.

you further stated: "For instance, the symbolic thoughts in your head, perhaps stored as weighted electrical signals at various synapses in your brain, require the physical neural network of your physical brain to exist. "

That is an assumption, not a fact. Epistemologically, you have not, and cannot provide any proof that this statement is true. I follows logically from the assumption that materialistic monism is the correct axiom set, but it does not follow from the assumption that some kind of dualism or idealism, or transcendental monism is the correct axiom set.

Again, traditional scientific training presents one set of axioms, materialistic monism, and presents that set of axioms to the student as if they were fact. Consequently the typical working scientist goes through life believing that these assumptions are facts when they are not. The problem with each and every one of your objections is that they are predicated on the truth of the materialistic monism set of axioms. That is why you don't get what I'm saying; because what I'm saying does NOT assume materialistic monism.

I'm not suggesting that scientists are turning to "mysticism", or abandoning the scientific method. I'm stating that scientists are beginning to consider alternatives to materialistic monism as the underlying metaphysical framework. The nature of your responses demonstrates that you have utter missed that key concept.

[Vladimir]

197. With regards to form and content

it is true that the content of Moby Dick remains the same regardless of the form in which it is encoded. On the other hand, each form of encoding requires a specific form of decoding in order to convey the information across - you couldn't read a DVD or scan a chip. Therefore the content is inextricably linked to the form, so while the story of Moby Dick is not physical in the same way as a book, neither does it have an obvious existence independantly of the material world. Ultimately one can say that Moby Dick was the product of a specific set of interactions of its author with his environment which caused him to think of the story and write the book; the book is an example of the use of language which while again an abstraction also cannot be said to have an existence outside material reality.

Materialism can quite comfortably accomodate abstractions, what it has more of a problem with is accomodating the laws of physics (ironically enough) - see my post #157.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

92. LOL

Information is physical.

LOL that is a pretty ridulous assertion.


How about honesty? is it physical? Spite? Are hobbits physical? What about darkness, is it physical? The absence of insight - how about that?



You yourself raised the idea of invisible pink unicorns on Titan. Is that physical? Or does it exist only as a thought-concept?

[qazplm]

96. thought concepts

arise from firing neurons, so yes, thoughts are physical too.

Even if they werent, they are abstract to the point of being useless, even if information werent physical or energy, and they are one or the other but lets assume that they arent, that does not then mean that its any evidence for spirits or ghosts or an afterlife.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

102. Circular reasoning

arise from firing neurons, so yes, thoughts are physical too.


Because they were caused by something physical, that means they are physical? Only if you accept as a premise the conclusion that you are trying to prove.

Even if they werent, they are abstract to the point of being useless, even if information werent physical or energy, and they are one or the other but lets assume that they arent, that does not then mean that its any evidence for spirits or ghosts or an afterlife.


I was challenged to name something that is not physical and I did so. I never made an assertion that I had any evidence for spirits or ghosts or an afterlife.

[qazplm]

119. effect generally

is preceeded by cause in the macroscopic world...nothing circular about that.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

132. Spare me the strawman, please

Yes cause precedes effect. However, your premise that because the cause is physical the effect necessarily is - is in fact the conclusion you are trying to prove, restated. I also don't necessarily accept your premise that things like truth, honesty or spite exist only as thought concepts and have no reality of their own. That's just one view of the world.



You haven't described any physical attributes of the things I listed because they aren't physical objects and don't have physical attributes. The fact that we are physical and can conceive of those things doesn't make them into physical objects.

[qazplm]

143. and the fact that

you keep saying they arent physical objects doesnt make them not either.

Feelings, thoughts and emotions are made up of things...neurons, electrictiy, chemicals, synapses, and hormones.

Every emotion from pleasure to love has a corresponding hormone to it...even the bonding love a mother has for a child has a corresponding hormone Oxytocin (sp?).

Just recently, changing a single gene turned male voles into loving partners to their mates instead of philanderers.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

144. Please enumerate the physical attributes of the things I listed

[qazplm]

146. I've only done so repeatedly

you just refuse to believe it.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

147. That is a false statement

You have demonstrated some poor reasoning and made some attempts to distract.


Please enumerate (list) the physical attributes of honesty.



Please enumerate (list) the physical attributes of spite.

[qazplm]

164. poor reasoning?

whatever, honesty is an EVALUATION! It's a definition. Those all flow from the brain and from neurons. If you THINK someone is being honest, or someone thinks they are being honest, it's because your neurons are in one state, and if you think someone is being dishonest it is because your neurons are in another state.

Just like I could likely program a computer to determine whether someone is being honest or not, or to lie.

Spite is an emotion. Emotions are CLEARLY biological constructs. Therefore they are physical. They are based on hormones, and the brain.

You act as if spite and honesty and other emotions or ideas are some independent things that float around. Absolutely silly.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

165. Please enumerate (list) the physical attributes of honesty.

Please enumerate (list) the physical attributes of spite.

[Vladimir]

158. Its not as obvious as you think whether

honesty is physical, unphysical or indeed if the question has any meaning at all. Firstly, we know that there is no such universal as honesty - different people if asked to say what honesty is will describe different things. This should point out to us that honesty is a desription, rather than being an event in itself. To each individual, the idea of honesty represents a way in which their brain describes certain physical events. So the physical event of a person answering a question truthfully is catalogued as an example of honesty in our brain. Now whether you want to argue that all ideas are merely a collection of neurons firing in a certain way or not, that is a different issue - but even if it was, there would be a difference between honesty and a brick house (for want of a better comparison).

[Feanorcurufinwe]

170. Did I ever say anything about something being 'obvious'? NO

And you also are trying to conflate two different things: 'honesty' and 'someone thinking about honesty'.

I am not talking about what people think, I am talking about honesty.


If you believe honesty is something physical, please enumerate some of it's physical characteristics.

[Vladimir]

173. Did I say it was physical?

I was merely explaining that what we call honesty, what you refer to when you speak of honesty, is your perception of this particular idea. As a matter of fact, I think ideas are not physical, or at least not in the sense that an electron is. But this is not to say that they have some sort of existence of their own.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

174. This discussion is about whether it is or not.

another poster made the challenge: name something that's not physical.


I named honesty. That is the subject of the discussion: did I in fact name something that is not physical.



If you are agreeing with me, great.

[Vladimir]

178. For a different example,

take the laws of physics. These govern the material world; at the same time, the fact that they describe the actions of matter does not make them matter as such. So you are then left with several possible options, of which the most obvious are that:

1) The material world is primary and physical laws are an abstract way of describing its behaviour. The abstraction is a description within our brain of the material world, but has no separate existence of its own.

2) The laws of physics are primary, and matter follows as a consequence of them; hence these laws, as an idea, have an existence outside the material world. This position is now gaining some support, as a result of various issues with Quantum Mechanics (see #157)

So its quite a tricky issue.

PS With honesty, as I said before, its even more difficult because of problems of definition. I don't regard it as physical, but neither as something outside the physical world.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

180. Well, that's why I didn't choose that as an example, lol.

But along the lines you are going, I would use, let's say, Fermat's Last Theorem as an example of something that is not physical.

The equation has no solution for non-zero integers x, y, and z if n is an integer greater than 2.

[Vladimir]

181. Well maths is indeed an abstract construct

but there is a difference between an abstract construct and something which has an existence outside the material world. Maths isn't physical, but it has no existence outside our brains (or some 'hard form of information storage'). It is a framework which we have built in order to describe certain objects and operations that can be performed on them. The reason that I mentioned the laws of physics is that they are the one thing I know of which may both be an abstract idea an have a genuine existence outside the material world.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

182. I'm not so sure

that mathematics has no existence outside our brains. Addition may be a mathematical concept, but two plus two would still equal four even if there were no brains to think about it.

[Vladimir]

185. However

take Euclidean geometry as an example. This was taken as a fundemental mathematical tennant, and still is, but we eventually discovered that the world no longer behaves in this way once we go to small enough scales, or consider gravity. Equally it may be that 2+2 no longer equals four in certain other sitations.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

189. And of course

whether it is universal is immaterial to the question at hand. This whole discussion is about whether we can 'name something that isn't physical'. The thing I named in this instance being Fermat's Last Theorem.

[Vladimir]

191. I am not really arguing with you

merely trying to point out that for me, there are (at least) three classes of things:

1) The material world, as composed of the fundamental particles of nature

2) Abstract concepts which have no existence outside the material world but aren't physical in the same way that a particle is physical - i.e. mathematics, language, etc.

3) Ideas which have an existence outside the material world and independantly of it.

I would say most of what's been talked about within this thread falls into category 2 rather than 3, which is not to say that 3 is necessarily an empty set.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

192. But there is also the known and the unknown.

So in a less enlightened age, electromagnetic effects could have been perceived as not from the 'material' world but having a supernatural cause. With our knowledge we can now explain the material cause. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that our present knowledge of the world we live in is far from complete.

[Vladimir]

194. Well of course n/t

[qazplm]

58. what proof do you have that consciousness

isnt physical???

What is it after all but a process of neurons firing and communication between those neurons? Even if it werent matter, it certainly is energy as evidenced by brain waves.

[Az]

64. Lets put it this way

Consciousness arises from a process. This process occurrs within the brain and can be observed but not experienced by others. If you stop the process you stop the thoughts. We can demonstrate this be a variety of means including magnetic disruption of points in the brain.

Imagine a dance. While in motion it is a thing of beauty. A complex series of steps coordinated into an art form. When you stop dancing the process stops. The beauty is gone. The dancing is nonexistant. The brain is like a dance. While in action it is a complex and wonderful thing. Its unique structure and activities define who we are. When it stops the complexity that we are stops.

The mind is not energy. The mind is not matter. It is matter and energy dancing together. So while we cannot destroy the energy that makes up part of our mind, we can certainly disrupt the order and structure of its actions that give rise to our identity.

There is a reason we can't donate brains to others.

[Speck Tater]

73. If you stop the process, thought stops.

Where's your proof of that?

If you stop the brain process then the brain's ability to report its thoughts to the outside world certainly stop, but there is a lot of evidence that suggests that the thinking process continues unabated even after the physical brain processes stop.

The belief that thought stops when the brain stops is just another wild, usuported hypothesis favored only because it is supported by the a priori metaphysical bias inherent in materialistic monism.

And while we're at it, do take some time to research the difference between "thought" and "consciousness". Even such stellar figures as Dennett (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0316180661/qid=1087591093/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/102-3989264-3166543?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">Consciousness Explained) get pretty fuzzy in their thinking with respect to that critical distinction.

Thought is but one of the many things we can be conscious of, but thought is not the same as consciousness. Anyone who has mastered deep meditation knows that consciousness can exist without thought. I experience conscoiusness without thought for 15 or 20 minutes every evening when I meditate, but Dennett says it can't happen. What does he know? He's never seen the white crow for himself.

[qazplm]

78. I would say the proof is

we havent had a dead person do anything that would remotely make us think there is a thought process or consciousness going on.

And by dead I mean not simply heart stopping or even brain waves stopping momentarily, I mean brain is dead and done, decaying, turning into their constituent atoms, etc.

[Speck Tater]

84. "do" anything.

But don't you see that this is what Bertrand Russel called a Category Error.

You are asking to see some phsycial manifestation of a non-physical (i.e. not matter, not energy) entity. That's rather like saying that air does not exist because I can't draw a picture on it. The statement sounds like nonsense because it is nonsense. It's a category error.

There is no difference at all between your claim and my claim that smashing the radio destroys the music that was coming out of it.

And by smashing I mean not simply electrical pulses stopping or even oscilators stopping momentarily, I mean radio is dead and done, rusting, smashed into its constituent atoms, etc.

Yes, the radio is dead. I will never again hear music from that radio.

Yet, the music goes on. You're just looking for it in the wrong place. (Search "Ian Stevenson" on Amazon.com for a starting point)

Start by tracking down the real evidence that consciousness does go on.

You can't make that evidence go away by waiving your hands and spouting false analogies, no matter how strong your faith in materialism.
The evidence keeps surfacing, century after century. Denial won't make it go away. To address it you must confront it head on.

[qazplm]

89. no sorry

its not the same as saying air doesnt exist because I cant see it, because I can see it (clouds) and I can breathe it, smell it, and feel it pushing against my hand.

I am asking or ANY manisfestation that a dead brain still has a consciousness or that consciousness goes on past death.

If it does, but simply does not interact with the physical world so that we can perceive it then whats the point of having this argument? I can then similiarly assert that in the afterlife giant elephants greet us wearing bikinis, but since we cant interact with the afterlife, sorry, cant proove it to you, but its there.

You have yet to provide one shred of "real evidence" or provide even a glimpse into the "location" of consciousness. Has nothing to do with denial, I have no capital invested in there being nothing after death, in fact, quite the opposite since I like everyone else would like to hope that life goes on, unfortunately as of yet, everything I have seen indicates it doesnt, but i would love to be pleasantly proven wrong.

I will not however abandon basic logic in order to do so.

[Speck Tater]

94. Then go to amazon

or to your local library and actually READ what Ian Stevenson has to say.

AFTER you've read at least one of his books, then come back and tell me where I'm misguided. Until then there's no point i arguing with seomone who refuses to actually LOOK at the evidence first hand.

We can both sit here calling names and saying "my dad can beat up your dad" but that's pointless. I've presented you with a source you can consult for further information. Pursue it or not, but don't argue on hypotheitcial or unsupported statements of faith. Use logic, and give me citations or don't waste my time with repeated displays of denial.

end of discussion (until after you read Stevenson)
And yes, I HAVE read all the skeptical literature on the subject. I couldn't calim to be objective and logical if I had only investigated on side of the story. So by all means, do NOT abandon logic. Use it. PLEASE use it.

[qazplm]

98. if its logical

should be easy enough for you to argue it, shouldnt require me to go buy a book. Somehow, if what you say is true, I highly doubt Stevenson is the only guy in existence who has "figured it out", I have done enough of my own research in my 34 years on this subject to have accumulated enough information and have already checked out some of your links and remain unimpressed.

I HAVE investigated both sides of the story, the fact that you assume I havent because I havent come around to your way of thinking only shows your own "faith".

Give you citations of what? Again YOU are the one making the assertion, not I.

[Speck Tater]

104. Don't confuse theory with empericism

I can't "argue" observational facts "logically".

The theory follows the observation, but the observation comes first.

I can't argue in place of evidence, I can only point to the evidence.

I don't blame you for remaining skeptical. In a way I wish I could go back to being a non-belevier too. It was so much more comfortable thinking that I knew what was and was not possible, and knowing that there were no "things that go bump in the night."

I feel a lot more uncomfortable having to live with my uncertainty. But that's the way it goes.

If you're lucky you never will encounter the evidence that shatters your world view. It's a very traumatic experience, and I'm not sure I'm better off for having had the experience. Ignorance, after all, is such bliss.

[qazplm]

120. whats comfortable about it?

nothing comfortable about the idea of death being the end, forever.

what a silly idea. And you certainly are full of hubris to suggest it is I who is ignorant.

Until you quit speaking in veiled whispers, I am unimpressed by your last two sentences.

[Speck Tater]

128. I smile knowingly in your general direction.

:)

[Az]

138. Here is the problem

We know the process by which humans evolved. We know that other species are the result of this same evolutionary process. So we can examine the tapestry of earth's biological history as a series of organic processes leading to this moment and place.

Within this context let us now examine this claim that the human brain is an antena that pulls in spirits to guide bodies through. Its a bit backwards. It presumes that our brains were in fact the end goal. In fact it implies that all the paths and branches in the evolutions of species on this planet had to occurr in exactly the way it did in order to tap into these spirits wandering around in the void.

With consciousness rising from a biological physical/engergy interplay it is understandable within the context of evolution. Our minds are the result of evolution processing to this time. Our minds reflect the nature of where the journey has lead to.

The inverse suggestion is that minds existed without bodies and that the entire history of evolution on this planet had to lead to the specific recepticle in which these spirits could be housed.

Think of it this way. We can see examples of development of the mind in other species. Archeological evidence points to the development of the human brain. It is not a case of fully developed spirits suddenly finding access to receptive brains. There are degrees of intelligence that developed in our evolution.

[Speck Tater]

168. Here is the problem with the problem

Your argument doesn't work.

Assume consciousness is elemental and existed before any phsyical creatures existed.

Assume that consciousness had no way to interact with physical existence.

Assume that over time nerve networks evolved that could be slightly influenced by consciousness.

Over time such neural networks would evolve in the direction of better interaction with consciousness because ability to host consciousness would confer a survival advantage.

"Lower" creature interface more imperfectly with consciousness while "higher" beings interface more clearly with consciousness.

Nothing Darwinian argues against what I've proposed.

Again, the straw man was your statement "It is not a case of fully developed spirits suddenly finding access to receptive brains." I am not making that claim. I am claiming that it is reasonable to hypothesize that over time evolution would favor clearer, more noise-free channels of communication with elemental consciousness. There is nothing "sudden" being proposed, and there is NO claim of the existence of "spirits" being made. These are inventions of yours, not mine.

So having demolished that ridiculous statement you have made it appear that you have demolished my position when in fact you haven't even addressed my position.

[Az]

172. Flaw

There is no reason to favor developing brains if they do not function on their own.

There is no reason to establish communication with a spirit world that does not interact with the physical world other than through brains. Cart/Horse. Evolution is not going to favor something that does not lend itself to an advantage. There is no hook to leverage in an antena for spirits. There is no survival advantage to initiate this evolutionary path.

[Speck Tater]

169. Misplaced reply.

see post 168 for my reply.

[Az]

175. Perhaps you misunderstand the nature of evolution

A function will not be favored for replication unless it offers a survival advantage. In a system wherein a spirit is necissary for a consciousness to be enabled the evolutionary proecess will not favor development of the necissary structures.

You are running afoul of a logistic problem. You are presuming that creating bodies for these entities is the end goal. This is counter to what we know of evolution and natural selection. It does not build towards goals. It only supports that which helps it survive. It cannot guess ahead of its path and select an end goal.

We were not the purpose of life. There is no end goal of life. It is simply happening. We are the fortuitous benefactors of this journey. But we were not the purpose. In fact as far as evolution is concerned we are not even the most succesful. We are not the dominant biomass on the planet. Its not about us.

[Speck Tater]

171. dupe nt

[Vladimir]

160. In fact his statement is true

what was stated is that nothing has ever been observed which is not energy or matter. This is true, and trivially so, since the process of observation as performed by human beings or machines operates on matter only. Our eyes see because photons enter it, we hear because eardrums vibrate. A machine observes by interacting with the system in question - a material interaction - that's the whole point of Quantum Mechanics.

Now of course, things may well exist outside the current theories of physics, i.e. there may be different kinds of matter that we have not yet observed. It may be that idealism is correct, and that ideas are primary to matter, but that does not mean that we observe ideas. We observe matter, which may or may not be a manifestation of ideas.

[qwertyMike]

97. Are you saying ghosts are pure energy?

Works for me

[Squeegee]

115. Actually...

Matter is merely a form of energy that exhibits mass, thus everything is actually energy.

[GreenPartyVoter]

28. Good analogy. :^)

[trotsky]

82. Questions

If consciousness isn't tied to a physical brain...

Where was your consciousness before you had a brain?

Where was it when you had a brain, but were too young to be fully aware?

Where does it go when your brain ceases to function?

[smirkymonkey]

111. I completely agree with you.

I have grown very weary of materialistic/scientific arrogance.

[Lestat]

155. Amen!

[KittyWampus]

46. We Most Certainly Do NOT Know Consciousness Arises From The Brain

that is an unproven assumption.

We most certainly do not cease to exist when our body dies any more than a driver dies when he comes to his destination and gets out of the car.

By the way, damage to a car effects the way the car drives and the safetly of the driver. So your analogy is quite faulty.


Nature uses Evolution to create ever more efficient systems. And Nature created Organized Centers of Intelligence (Selves) which are capable of entering a succession of bodies and hence working on mastering the various potential arenas of Human Endeavor.

It is incrediblely inefficient to create a Self which is born and then dies having only so many years to learn all there is to learn.

The problem here is too many identify with their individual bodies.

We are not limited to this inhibited World View.

I identify my Self with the Universe. And just as the Universe continues on while the Material Bodies within it change... so do I continue on while the Body I inhabit occassionally changes.

[truthspeaker]

48. Where is your evidence for these Organized Centers of Intelligence?

[KittyWampus]

77. Well, Death Is The Absence Of An Organized Center

Is it not?

What is death but the disintegration of our bodies due to a lack of an integrating or organizing force?

What is One's Self but a Center which organizes information and uses said information to control It's Envrionment?

What is YOUR definition of Self?

Maybe we can discuss that and move on from there. :)

[Squeegee]

134. Ummm...

It is incrediblely inefficient to create a Self which is born and then dies having only so many years to learn all there is to learn.

Who ever claimed that evolution was efficient? It can lead to efficient systems, but it itself is not effiicent, it if were, then natural selection wouldn't be necessary and humans would have arisen immediately after the big bang rather than going the inffecient route of evolving over billions of years.

[Speck Tater]

16. That's an extraordinary claim. Where's your extraordinary evidence?

It is well known that it is a logical impossibility to prove a negative such as X does not exist. In no case does absence of evidence constitute evidence of absence.

Epistemologically, the statement "The afterlife does not exist" can never be anything more that a statement of faith reflecting something that is believed to be true in spite of the lack of proof.

At the very least, there is a significant body of anecdotal evidence suggestive of some type of after-death existence, and while you are free to reject whatever evidence contradicts your preconceived dogma, you cannot provide one scrap of contrary evidence to support the non-existence of heaven. The best you can do is to reject the evidence that suggests an afterlife and then claim that the lack of evidence acceptable to you somehow constitutes some kind of "negative evidence". Logically, however, that position is not tenable.

From a purely objective standpoint, belief in the existence of an afterlife and belief in the non-existence of an afterlife are equally rational since neither is backed up by any concrete proof, and since in spite of the huge body of anecdotal evidence suggestive of an afterlife, that evidence is far from convincing.

Thus, whichever position a person takes on the question, that position is taken as an article faith, not as the result of objective proof.

[truthspeaker]

29. The utter lack of evidence for an afterlife

[Speck Tater]

42. There is no lack of evidence

Especially no "utter" lack of evidence.

There is, in fact, a centuries-old collection of anecdotal evidence, and a fair amount of well researched stronger evidence.

You might start by reading some of the work of Dr. Ian Stevenson a (now retired) department chairmen and renowned professor at the University of Virginia Medical School, Department of Personalty Studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Stevenson

Or you can so a google search on afterlife or related terms.

Time and time again when skeptics are shown evidence they respond by doing two things. First they ridicule the evdence rather than addressing it rationally, and second they turn their backs on it, and by ignoring it feel justified in yet again claiming that "there is a utter lack of evidence."

Hogwash. There is more evidence any any one person could review in a lifetime of study. That argument is utterly specious and completely without justification. The only reason it is parroted as the party line by so many is that the hard core ideological skeptical fundamentalists of CSICOP keep pounding it out in their propaganda. That is their religion. They are very good at ignoring anything that contradicts their religion.

[lazarus]

72. sigh

From that Wikipedia entry:

"He is best known for collecting and meticulously researching cases of children who seem to recall past lives (spontaneously, that is, without the need for hypnosis), thereby providing some of the best available evidence suggestive of reincarnation."

Now then, to the really offensive bit of your post: Skepticism isn't a religion. To call it a religion betrays your own incomprehension of the terms being discussed, or your need to misportray those terms to cover some inadequacy in your own position.

You tell me to Google for evidence to support your own claim? Bullshit. Give me some links.

Preferably something valid, too. A peer-reviewed journal, maybe.

If there's "more evidence any any one person could review in a lifetime of study," then surely you won't be too put out to actually provide us with some.

Something that's not anecdotal would be handy, too. You know, actual evidence.

[Speck Tater]

75. Start here

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0813908728/qid=1087591544/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/102-3989264-3166543?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

I can only lead you so far. There comes a time when uyou have to decide for yourself whether you are really intersted in pursuing the eivdence.

[lazarus]

108. You haven't led me anywhere, actually

If there's so much evidence, why is the best you can come up with a book that lists anecdotes of "suggestive" cases?

You sound just like the astrologers. I have to spend lots of money, read lots of books, see lots of evidence that's conveniently not on the 'net anywhere, and that you won't post or attribute, to prove that I'm interested?

Bullshit. I asked for evidence, you provided none. You are the one not interested in pursuing the evidence, since you apparently can't even find any.

Stevenson himself states this is all anecdotal and is merely suggestive; if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing. I can provide anecdotal evidence suggestive of virtually any claim you care to posit. Anecdotal evidence is not evidence, it's anecdotes. Stories.

This is how urban legends are formed, after all. Anecdotal evidence. Until actual evidence is presented, it will be obvious who in this argument is really not "interested in pursuing the evidence."

[Speck Tater]

109. I smile enigmatically in your general direction.

:)

[lazarus]

116. As expected

Once pressed for evidence, the proponents of mysticism turn enigmatic and drop the whole topic.

[Speck Tater]

129. Once offers of evidence are spurned,

we recognize the futility of further offers of evidence and withdraw from the debate.

I know what I've experienced and you don't. I'm satisfied with leaving it at that. Thus the enigmatic smile.

[lazarus]

184. well

you made the claim that "there is more evidence any any one person could review in a lifetime of study."

When asked to produce some, the best you could come up with was 20 anecdotal stories in a book. You've suddenly changed it to be an ineffable experience.

Offer some evidence, and it will be considered. Tell stories, and they will be ignored.

[Beaker]

113. If re-incarnation is real...

does that mean that maybe I'm not really related to my parents?

[qazplm]

69. wrong

the only logical position is to decide on what you think is a line upon which you think the evidence is sufficient to prove whatever theory is being put forward.

As long as the evidence doesnt cross that line, you dont believe it, and when it does, you do.

That's not "faith", thats reason.

[Speck Tater]

81. Exactly.

I agree with that.

It's one thing to say "I do not believe in ghosts", a very logical and rational position to take until such time as one sees enough evidence to turn the tide.

But it's something very much stronger, and logically irrational to say "Ghosts do not exist". That statement cannot be supported logically, especially in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

Midway between those extremes is the statement "I believe that ghosts do not exist." That is not quite such a strong statement, but it is a statement that can never have any logical justification but can only be an article of faith.

For someone who has never personally experienced a ghost to say "I believe in ghosts" is likewise a statement of faith.

Only someone who has had personal experience with a ghost can leave out the word "believe" and say with any authority whatsoever "Ghosts are real."

To everyone else, all statements must be either confessions of lack of proof, or statements of faith.

[qazplm]

91. your arguments

are somewhat skewed towards believers.

Someone who has experienced something does not have any more of a premium on logic than someone who hasnt.

Take the tale of the blind men and the elephant, they each came up with a different description of the animal, but someone who never saw what they were actually touching, can still deduce it was an elephant by combining their stories.

So, they can each "experience" something, and yet be wrong, while the person who never experienced that same thing, be right.

People who say "I believe in ghosts" merely because they saw something they cant explain is no less a statement of faith than the caveman who saw lightning and said it was the thunder god being angry.

It's faith until enough real proof and evidence comes along to show its something more.

we know for example that strong EM fields can affect the brain, we know hallucinogens like Radon and other gases are present in the home and can affect the brain, we know that there are a myriad of psychological and chemical alterations and even physical damage that can affect the brain, even being tired, oxygen deprived or drugs can affect the brain...then there are likely things we DONT EVEN KNOW ABOUT that can affect that brain.

So how in the world can you say that simply because someone has experienced a ghost that they therefore have some "authority" on the matter. I strongly suspect that most ghost observers didnt conduct extensive scientific, biological, and psychiatric examinations of themselves and their environment to completely remove all other possibilities.

[Speck Tater]

100. You'll get no argument with that.

Let me just say that I am a very skeptical person with post graduate scientific training who tried very, very hard, for an extended period of time to fit my expreinces into a materialistic frame.

I do agree, however, that people can jump to hasty conclusions regarding their personal expriences. Here's an example from my own life.

I was standing outside the skating rink after an evening of skating waiting for my high school buddies to come outside. It was dark outside. I looked up in the sky and saw a huge silvery disk with round portholes, rotating slowly, yet remaining motionless. I was shocked at the size of the thing, and also VERY exciting because what I was looking at was unquestionably a flying saucer. But at the same time, I couldn't accept that explanation, so instead of running into the rink to tell everyone I saw a flying saucer, I watched it very carefully. It was only after several minutes that I realized that what I was looking at was a large conventional aircraft that was making a banked turn at just the right bank angle and turn radius that from my particular point of view it gave the impression that it was circular, rotating and staionary. Watching for a few minutes longer I confirmed, without any doubt, that it was nothing more than a conventional aircraft turning into the approach pattern at Van Nuys airport.

Many people, I believe, would have run inside to tell their friends of the "flying saucer" and gone through life believing that they had had a personal exprience with a UFO that proved their existence.

Since the ghost experience was in a house were I lived, and was subject to careful observation and study over a period of several years I came to the "ghost" conclusion not as a first guess, but only after proving the inadequacy of a very large number of more materialistic explanations.

Particularly hard to "explain away" were the many pieces of factual historical information about the house that were directly communicated to my by the ghost, and which I subsequently verified through outside sources.

The first such piece of information was when the first ghost told me her name. It took many days of digging and research, and finally, standing in the country records office, looking up the names of the previous owners of the house on old tract maps, I saw the name, the same identical full name given to me by the ghost, listed as the owner of the house at the turn of the century.

Do you want to know what my reaction was. I fainted. Seriously. The room went grey, my knees caved in and I fell to the floor in a dead faint. Now tell me I was anxious to believe. No, I was a staunch a materialst as could ever be, and I was most emphatically anxious NOT to beleive.

Was that radon, or swamp gas or sub-sonic ULF vibrations or EM fields? Those are all comforting hypotheses to someone who hasn't had my several years worth of direct expriences like this one. But to me they are just laughable. Those "rational" theories are so ridiculous as to be beneath contempt. I know, because I tried out every one of them before the phenomenon refused to be denied any longer.

Believe what you will, I have something more than just faith or wishful thinking to go on here.

[qazplm]

124. could have been a combination of things

coincidence, or you had prior knowledge of the owner of the house, what was the name? I would be more impressed if it were Aletia or some other weird name than Mary which is quite a common name.

Could be that you have a psychological problem, or chemical imbalance...sorry, but it certainly could be that as well.

You arent a neutral observer because you arent outside your body, and you dont seem to give a third party as of yet who witnessed this.

As I said, were I you, I likely would suspect myself or environment before ghosts.

[Speck Tater]

130. absolutely.

"I likely would suspect myself or environment before ghosts"

Ah yes. I assumed for a very long time that it me and not something objective in the environment. I was wrong.

Can I prove it to you? No. Most emphatically no.

Do I care. Also no.

Will I be allowed to say simply "I don't really care to discus this any further" or will that statement be twisted to imply that I am retreating with my tail between my legs because I have been dazzled by your superior logic?

If it makes you feel better, go ahead and lay claim to having defeated me with your dazling logic.

I still know what I know. And you still don't know what I know. So be it.

[qazplm]

142. you've got a real chip on your shoulder

I simply asked for evidence, and you refuse to provide it. It's simple as that, there is no "feeling better" involved...if you feel better after an internet discussion with a nameless faceless person you have a real set of issues in life.

[gpandas]

99. elementary , it's a matter of probability...

when we choose between two alternatives to explain that for which we have no evidence. if a man is lying in an alley with a severe head wound and and a large rock with blood and sweat on it is lying nearby, the detective thinks someone probably hit him on the head with said rock, and conducts his investigation accordingly. if the detective said that wild pigs must have flown from someone's ass and came to this alley and bit this man on the head, anyone would think he was crazy, because this has a low probability of happening. i think the probability of any person being "right" about ghosts, religion, the occult, god or no god, voodoo, esp, ouija boards,...on and on ad nauseum, is right there with the above pigs.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

5. What was it Einstein said about time not being a straight line?

That's where I see ghosts happening, when there are distortions in the fabric of the space/time continuum.

[truthspeaker]

7. If he could, Einstein's ghost would slap you for that

He was talking about subatomic particles, not ghosts.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

9. Einstein also said "energy cannot be created nor destroyed

only changed from one form to another."

[truthspeaker]

13. Right. And?

[Screaming Lord Byron]

15. I believe he also said that

we live in a three dimensional world but should be aware that there are far more dimensions than we could ever begin to comprehend.

[truthspeaker]

18. Actually he said we live in a four dimensional world.

(The fourth dimension is time; Einstein described gravity as curvature of space in that fourth dimension). Additional dimensions came later with string theory, but they are not mystical portals to other worlds, they are mathematical abstractions that may account for the behavior of subatomic particles.

[Screaming Lord Byron]

20. I've always had trouble with time as a fourth dimension, myself.

But my favourite Einstein quote is “He who cannot pause to wonder is as good as dead”

[Screaming Lord Byron]

21. Whoops. Looks like I jumped dimensions there.

[Spider Jerusalem]

195. No, he didn't.

Or, rather, if he did, it's only because Joule said it first.

And the bio-energy of a living organism is obtained through absorption of nutrients and stored as fat and muscle tissue, which energy fuels the decay process and eventually fertilises the soil and causes plants to grow...a point little appreciated by those who would cite the first law of thermodynamics as some sort of proof of continued consciousness after death.

[Vladimir]

198. LOL so true n/t

[mrboba1]

6. Sure, why not?

THat kid from the movie saw dead people, so it must be true.

Right?
Right??

[Speck Tater]

8. I was totally skeptical until I moved into a haunted house

and got up close and personal with a couple of real ghosts.

[Lestat]

12. Are you serious?

Do tell. :)

[qazplm]

17. what people think are ghosts

are simply internal or external influences that affect our brains whether it be magnetic fields or overactive imaginations.

They COULD be the process of some as yet unknown physical process, I do know that sometimes you can pick up embedded sounds from pottery that like a phonograph are "etched" into the pottery as its being made.

I highly doubt that they are "spirits". "evidence" always ends up being anecdotal, it's never captured clearly on film or videotape...you'd think, like aliens, that sooner or later, it would be.

[Book Lover]

24. So this is your extraordinary proof?

for your positive claim that ghosts (which we have not yet defined in this thread, by the way. Dead people still active? Spirits that have never known a body? Psychically-recorded traumatic deaths? I've heard of these and more as definitions for ghost) exist?

[Speck Tater]

36. Proof is something you can show to another.

What happened to me is not proof because my experience cannot be shared, after the fact, with another. It was my own personal experience.

Here's a parable to explain how I know what I know and why I can't prove it to anyone.

Fred came back from his trip to China and told John about the amazing concert he had attended where a seven-year old girl had played a Mozart violin concerto with such grace and facility that it left him literally in tears.

John, being a skeptic, replied that such a thing was not possible. To back up his claim he took a violin to 10 different elementary schools and handed it to over 100 different seven-year old girls and asked them to play a Mozart violin concerto. Every one of them failed miserably under these controlled conditions. John established beyond doubt that this claim was only anecdotal, and not replicable.

John published his report and used to it ridicule Fred's so-called China concert experience as merely anecdotal and therefore false. Fred was, he shouted from every academic forum available to him, a simpleton and a fool for being taken in by such nonsense.

Regardless of what John "proved" and what Fred failed to prove, Fred and his fellow concert goers know from their own experience what they experienced and really have no need to prove anything to Fred.

Someday Fred may have the same experience, but until he does, he will continue to scorn the experiences of others as "anecdotal", which when spoken with a cynical sneer, is meant to imply "false and either foolish or fraudulent". But never forget that ALL science begins with anecdotal observation, for what else would provide the initial impetus to hypothesize than some anecdotal experience?

[Book Lover]

37. So you have no proof

and you feel you are not required to prove your assertion to me. OK, thanks.

[Speck Tater]

47. Exactly.

Just as you have no proof of their non-existence. Thus we both believe what we believe, you based on faith is some ideological theory that assures you such things are impossible, and me based on what I have epxerienced first hand.

We are both entitled to our own particular faith. I cannot prove to you what you have not experienced for yourself and you cannot disprove to me something I HAVE experienced for myself.

That seems like a perfectly acceptable state of afairs to me. I don't need proof, and you don't want it. That's fair.

[lazarus]

74. I don't believe in ghosts

And I don't need some ideological theory to "have faith" in.

With no evidence, I will not believe.

I don't doubt that you've fooled yourself into thinking you saw something that can't be replicated or demonstrated to others. But realise that people who claim to see things that nobody else can see aren't often taken seriously outside religious or mystical circles.

Remind me to tell you about the Invisible Pink Unicorn sometime.

[qazplm]

83. you cant prove nonexistence

it logically impossible. Thats why its utterly illogical for you to continue to make the point that someone cant disprove something because it cant be done for anything.

Prove there isnt an invisible elephant typing these words right now.

If you are telling me that since no one will be able to do so that its acceptable to have faith that it is so simply because I might assert that I have experienced invisible elephants typing, well, man, then logic and reason are simply useless...because everything is believable and true so long as there is one person who says they have experienced it.

might as well get rid of that old scientific method.

[Speck Tater]

86. I agree

If I have not seen the evidence, or I have sen the evidecne and found it unconvincing I can say "I don't beleive in ghosts"

I CANNOT say "Ghosts do not exist." That statement is not justfied because you cannot prove their nonexistence.

All along THAT has been my sole point. That those who say "Ghosts do not exist" are making an unjustified statement based solely on faith.

I'm glad to see that we actually agree on this fact, beacuse even where we have seemed to disagree, apparently actually we do agree.

But let;'s not get rid of the scientific method. That's too powerful a tool to discard! But let's not pretend to be using the scientific method when we are actually making statements of faith like "Ghosts do not exist."

[qazplm]

88. I cant say

Ghosts dont exist...but what I CAN say is that ghosts likely do not exist.

That is the same reasoning I am an agnostic but not an atheist.

However, you seem to be attempting to postulate that ghosts DO exist, and thus far, you have done a very poor job of providing any evidence whatsoever.

I think when people say something "does not exist" it is shorthand for saying its very very unlikely that they dont. We all in this thread know you cant prove a negative, but when someone says "ghosts dont exists" at least someone who is arguing from a rational logical pov, I think its simply verbal shorthand for there is no proof of ghosts existing.

[Speck Tater]

105. Yes, I've done a very poor job.

In retrosepct I have been through this argument enough times over the years that I shoudl remember that I cannot prove anything to anyone.

I can really only make one statement. And it is a statememtn that cannot be contradicted simply because it makes no objective claims. That statement is:

I have had numerous personal experiences which have convinced me of the reality of ghosts.

End of statement. Because in the end, that's ALL I can EVER say on the subject. And there's no point in arguing the truth of that statement. It is true, and does not need to be proven to me, and connot be proven to anyone else.

[lazarus]

118. so it's all ineffable?

That's hilarious. What happened to the mounds of evidence that the skeptics are just dogmatically opposed to seeing? They've vanished in a mystical fog when pressed, as usual.

BTW, you can show evidence that would lead one to believe something. It's called science. Try it sometime. Works a lot better than mysticism.

(edited for a spelling error)

[BigBigBear]

59. I am a reluctant believer

but the problem with this parable is that John can get on a plane anytime, presumably, and see this 7-year-old phenom himself, because the 7-year-old exists in real time and he can see her play at her next concert.

But the ghost experience is, by its nature, unrepeatble and non-existant in real time.

The 7-year-old's abilities can be demonstrated and testable at anytime - a ghost experience cannot be, it can only be experienced on its own terms, on its own timeline, which is unpredictable and unrepeatble.

[Speck Tater]

90. Kind of like ball lightning

We can't repeat them so they can't be believed.

Oh wait, if ENOUGH people claim to have seen ball lightning, then maybe we can take them seriously.

The real question is where do you set your required level of evidence befoire you will believe, and that comes down to what do you already believe?

If you already believe in aliens visiting us in flying saucers then it might not take much evidence to convince you that they are abducting humans. On the other hand if you believe that aliens are impossible then NO amount of evidence will convince you of abductions.

If you believe that ALL consciousness arises from the physical brain then NO amount of evidence will convince you to believe something that contradicts that principle article of faith.

So how much evidence it takes depends on how strong our faith is in the assumptions and axioms we hold dear. Scientists are mostly trained to hold the assumptions of materialistic monism near and dear, and to treat these asumptions as if they are facts. (Indeed, most scientists don't even realiz that they are assumptions, not facts). Thus no amount of evidence will convince them of something which violates that faith. Thus they feel justified in denying the evidence.

But because a thing is not repeatable under laboratory conditions doesn't mean it cannot be studied. For hundreds of years there were anecdotal tales of rocks falling from the sky, yet the best scholars of the day refused to believe that meteorites were possible. That they could not exist was an article of faith that predisposed the finest scientists of the day to deny and overlook the evidence of meteorite falls.

In the same way todays finest scientists, who are no more nor less human than those who could not see meteors, cannot see the evidence of survival of consciousness because they already "know", without any proof, that such a thing must be impossible.

But just as in centuries gone by, science will, eventually, take off their blinders and actually apply the scientific method to the question. Then we will finally start learning something useful about this phenomenon. But that won't happen until the scientists take their fingers out of their ears and stop chanting "Nyah, nyah, I can't hear you" every time evidence is laid before them.

[BigBigBear]

114. Well

"But because a thing is not repeatable under laboratory conditions doesn't mean it cannot be studied."

People study palmisty, but I am unaware of any proven predictive powers to it. Percival Lowell spent years "studying" canals on Mars that didn't exist.

People used to study fairies as well, that doesn't mean they had a compelling reason to do so, at least not sufficiently compelling to convince every reasonable person they existed. The fact that a thing can be studied doesn't prove the objective reality of that thing.

As far as I know, ball lightning can be explained through fairly prosaic electromagnetic and physical theories, theories that successfully explain things we take for granted now.

But you're right; everyone needs to set their own level of credibility and belief. Personally, I am normally sympathetic with the idea of souls and survival of consciousness and memory after death, though not convinced (i.e., I still retain some fear of death) and I'm always seeking better evidence. The evidence, by my reckoning, is moderately persuasive - but I know it will always be subject to my own personal biases and fears. I don't reject it out of hand for empirical or clinical reasons, nor accept it fully based on anecdotal reasons.

And at this point, having suffered a great loss so recently, I find myself leaning skeptical, trying to compensate for emotions and grief that are liable to lead me into a precarious psychological place. I'm afraid of accepting easy answers to these questions, especially now.

[moof]

11. This is the lounge not the meeting room.

It seems odd in this day and age that people would still seriously believe in pookas.

There are no ghosts, diety or otherwise.

"This" is it make the most of it.

[Speck Tater]

25. I ask again, where is the extraordinary proof for this extraordinary claim

See my post #22 and show me where my logic is wrong.

Waving one's hands in the air and declaring a priori that such-and-such is impossible is a loooong ways from any kind of proof.

[Book Lover]

33. Where is *your* proof

for your extraordinary claim? You moved into a house and it was haunted. Any photos? Any descriptions of what happend? Any data, like temp changes over a period of time with and without ghost activity?

[Speck Tater]

53. I have no proof. Only evidence.

The biggest problem is that the whole field of study is contaminated by crackpots and frauds who make such preposterous claims that the serious investigators are too often lumped in with the kooks and dismissed out of hand.

One must be patient, persistent and discriminating to find the real evidence in the midst of all the garbage. Fake mediums and "spirit chanelers" bilk gulible fools out of their money one at a time at a "sitting", or en mass with books they've written.

Take, for example, the area of past life regression. Skeptical journalist Thomas Shroder wrote scathing exposes of a number hypnotic regressionists demostrating how sloppy their technique was and how unsupportable their claims were. Such popular books on reincarnation are pure bunk and should be ignored.

But then he set out to demolish yet another past-life researcher, Dr. Ian Stevenson at the University of Virginia. Instead of the same slipshod charlatanism he had expected, Shroder came away from the two years spent observing Dr, Stevenson and his work willing to concede that reincarnation was indeed a rational possibility. In fact, it was Dr., Stevenson's work that also impressed Carl Sagan as being worthy of serious consideration.

So it you want goo evidence, don't look for it on the paperback shelves at the supermarket, or with random web searches for "ghost" ro "afterlife". The gems of real evidence are a lot harder to find among the trash and garbage. But the evidence is there for someone who is geniunely interested in seeking it out.

[lazarus]

187. no it isn't

if the evidence was there, you'd have provided it, instead of resorting to claims of ineffability when pressed on the subject.

Admitting that reincarnation is a "rational possibility" is a far cry from admitting that reincarnation actually happens. Someone who understands science and skepticism would know this.

[Loonman]

26. Okay, professor

:eyes:

[Loonman]

23. I read a lot of that stuff

Plus I have the equipment to investigate paranormal activity.

[4_Legs_Good]

30. I'm certainly skeptical, but I think I believe

because I want to believe.

david

[johnnie]

31. There are "ghosts"

Spirits, entities whatever you want to call them. I know this beyond all doubt. But to try to prove it to someone who doesn't want to believe it...is not worth the effort.

[truthspeaker]

35. How about proving it to someone who DOES want to believe?

I'd LOVE to believe in the supernatural. But I can't, because I haven't seen any credible evidence.

[johnnie]

40. Well, the problem is

In my experience people will never believe it until they see it. My family had many experiences in the house we lived in. My father never laughed at our stories, he just remained skeptical. About 2 years ago he finally experienced things and now he is a believer.
I have talked to many people who also were skeptics until things that were beyond their scope of reality happened to them, then they changed their minds. I have never convinced anyone without them experiencing it for themselves.

[qazplm]

54. I wouldnt believe it just from seeing it

I would want to know:

1. Was there something wrong with me?

2. Was there something in the environment that made those in the area see things?

3. Was there some other thing that caused this that is simply a matter of physics and nature and not "ghosts"

I can help you "experience" a near death experience right now...just take you to the nearest test pilot centrifuge or stimulate the right part of your brain with electrodes and I can give you disembodied voices, hallucinations, and a sense of "other" without drugs.

[johnnie]

63. As I said in my original post

It isn't worth the effort. I have no reason to prove anything to anyone.

[qazplm]

80. nope

you dont, of course, we have no reason to believe you either. :)

[Speck Tater]

66. Neither would I

If "seeing" were all that happened, or even "hearing" or "touching" then I would remain skeptical. As it was, I spent weeks and weeks trying very hard to find alternatives that would let me settle back into my comfortable skepticism.

It was only after rigid materialism failed that I allowed myself to see the truth.

As for the centrifuge imitating NDE, not so, in spite of what Susan Blackmore (wrongly) claims in her skeptical books. She distorts the facts to support her preconcieved ideology.

There are a few people who have experienced both centrifuge blackout and genuine NDE. They report that while the superficial descriptions of the two events sound very similar to anyone who hasn't experienced either, to the person who has expericned both the two experiences are completely different and, subjectively, not even superficially similar.

Of course faithful preachers of the faith of scientism will never write those facts in their skeptic's bibles.

[qazplm]

76. those arent "facts"

they are opinions. If you are going to lambaste others as using poor logic, please be very circumspect in your own use of it.

I doubt very much that you were able to completely examine and address ALL possible alternatives. I strongly suspect you were UNABLE to find a possible alternative and that after what YOU felt was an exhausted search you turned to less "materialistic" explanations.

Tell ya what, you list exactly what happened to you. I bet that someone on here could come up with logical explanations that you were not able to come up with or wont be able to adequately deny are possible solutions.

I wouldnt expect someone who says they have experienced an NDE to say that the centrifuge blackout is exactly the same, because they do consist of different circumstances, chemical process, etc.

The point was, that they are similiar ENOUGH to show that we know that simple "materialistic" forces can induce those TYPE of experiences, and therefore it is, at least as far as we know now, more likely than not that other types of such experiences are also caused by "materialistic" forces.

[Speck Tater]

101. Tell you what...

I've already listed out my experiences in great detail a number of times in the 30 years since the events I'm describing happened. I have never given up looking for a ration alternative, but to date nobody has been able to suggest ANYTHING that accounts for even half of the experiences.

[qazplm]

123. well

here's your chance to get one more set of opinions, only a close minded person who HAS given up would pass up the chance.

[gpandas]

149. facts? n/t

[TrogL]

32. Could somebody please tell it to stop following me around

[nickinSTL]

34. ghosts

The fact is, there is a lot of unexplained phenomena in the world.

That science can't explain it means we don't know everything yet.

For instance, it is scientifically measurable that some people in exercises to guess what card someone is holding up do better than should statistically occur. Is it proof of ESP? We don't know.

I'm not saying there is ESP or ghosts, or what have you, I'm just saying that science does not know it all yet. Someday, these things will be explained, and the scientific cause known. Maybe ghosts, maybe ESP, maybe something we haven't thought of yet. Or maybe something really mundane.

[qazplm]

39. look

all statistics say is that on average, you should only be able to guess right so much percent of the time.

It DOES NOT say that some people will guess less, and some will guess more.

There has YET to be a scientifically validated study to prove that a single person can consistently beat chance in any manner remotely proving ESP.

I would love to believe in ghosts, magic, aliens, the afterlife, ESP, et al.

It would be fun for one, it would help this agnostic be more comfortable with the idea of what comes after life for two. But there is nothing, absolutely nothing, that I have seen thus far, that goes anywhere close to proving ghosts exist.

As for consciousness, the very fact that personality and consciousness can be EASILY changed by changing the brain suggests it is not from without the brain that consciousness arises but within. The fact that you can artificially stimulate the mind to have near death experiences, disembodied voices, and a sense of "God" with drugs and stimulation suggests those concepts may also be rooted within the brain and not come from without.

[nickinSTL]

41. sigh

Did you read my post?

I said there were statistically significant results. And, yes, I believe that there have been some people who consistently score significantly.

The problem is, the cause of the statistical anomaly is not understood.

I wasn't saying there is ESP or other supernatural occurrences, just that there are some oddities that aren't yet explained.

I did ALSO say that I'm confident they will be.

[qazplm]

43. your post was wrong

the "statisitcal significance" of those results was simply that they were higher than chance.

The results of which you speak usually are along the lines of we did a test with 5 cards, the wavy line, the box, the circle, etc...

We did a certain number in a run, maybe 100, chance says you should guess right 1/5 of the time...or 20%.

These subjects might get it right 25-30% of the time on that run.

The testers then say this is "statistically significant". The thing is, it isnt. I could have three or four runs where I am 10-20% above chance or more, but over an infinite time frame, sooner or later, I am going to have enough "bad runs" of 5-10% accuracy, that the numbers equal out.

There has been no long term study over repeated sessions that proves that there is anything close to a statistical significance...all we have so far are a few short term trials where someone did above chance and they go...see, look, here's something.

[Loonman]

44. Look at all the accounts and cases over the years

Would that many people be lying?

Most people don't report paranormal activity, because nobody wants to be thought of as crazy or delusional.

[qazplm]

51. a few are lying

most are simply victims of overactive imaginations, external forces that we and they dont understand (such as E-M fields), or something along those lines.

Hey thousands of people say they are abducted by aliens, they come up with detailed stories that are complex and rich, dont think they are lying either but also dont think thousands of people are being abducted.

[Loonman]

61. A few are

But accounts of haunts and hauntings go back to ancient Egypt.

[qazplm]

70. so what?

Many religions go back even farther, but I respectfully suggest the odds are that, even if one of them is right, all of them are not.

The ancient Egyptians also were polytheists who believed in Sun Gods...not really sure that gives them credibility.

I suspect the idea of ghosts goes back to the caveman...doesnt grant it more or less credibility though, not to me at least.

[gpandas]

152. everyone lies about other things...

why is this subject different?

[x-g.o.p.er]

55. Total non-believer until I encountered one

that was in my house. Still gives me the creeps to this day.

[Speck Tater]

62. A very simple question to all concerned:

Expert ornathologist Albert says "I have seen a white crow, therefore they exist."

Expert ornathologist Barney say "I have not seen a white crow, therefore they do not exist."

Layman Charles says "I believe Dr. Albert."

Layman David says "I believe Dr. Barney."

Expert logician Edward says "If I knew I could trust Dr. Albert I would have to believe in white crows, but since I don't know Dr. Albert personally I have to take the position that, given only one anecdotal case to go on, it is equally rational to believe in white crows as it is to disbelieve."

Who do YOU believe?

Do you see that neither Barney nor David have a leg to stand on?

Do you see that neither Albert nor Charles can "prove" anything to Barney or David?

Do you see that only Dr. Edward has taken a logically justifiable position?

The conclusion is as follows:

Anyone who has personally experienced something which convinces him of the reality of ghosts is being rational to believe in ghosts.

Anyone who has NOT experienced something which convinces him is being rational to adopt a wait-and-see approach, or do simply say "I don't know."

Anyone who has NOT personally experienced something of this nature, yet who makes the claim that ghosts certainly do NOT exist is being irrational in that such a conclusion is not justified by the facts at hand. Such a position can only be justified as a matter of faith, not as a matter of fact.

[qazplm]

67. bad logic

and bad example.

I know crows exist. I also know crows are always black. I also know that a crow being white is certainly possible because the color white is merely the absence of other colors and biology tells me its possible because I have seen it directly before.

So, it would be logical for me to say, well its certainly possible, I will take a neutral position until I can see for myself or one or the other scientists proves it to me.

However, if one of the scientists said, I have a crow, only its not alive, its dead. And yet, it can still fly around and interact with the world because it is a ghost Crow.

Well, that's not simply an ordinary claim, that's an extraordinary claim, requiring extraordinary evidence. I have never seen a dead thing still interact with the world. There have been no studies or proof given of such a thing ever happening.

So, it would be logical for me to say, that is likely not possible, I will take a negative position until someone comes along and gives me strong evidence.

To utilize your mindset would be to completely get rid of scepticism, because nearly any crockpot idea would have to be given neutral treatment since you cant disprove them generally (proving a negative being impossible).

I certainly cant disprove the idea that there is a pink invisible unicorn sitting next to me as I type this, but I dont think it logical that I have a neutral opinion on the likelihood.

[djeseru]

65. Yes, lived with a few.

Once when I was a young child, then another when living with my grandmother at the age of 10. I had thought it normal, really. Noisy at times, but nothing all that weird. I had my own personal experience, not looking to prove one thing or another.

Does this mean I earned a ration of ridicule for today?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

79. No, they're all liars. (nt)

[BigBigBear]

85. I'd recommend everyone read this

http://www.childpastlives.org/swarnlata.htm

One of Dr Ian Stevenson's most vivid reincarnation cases. Startling stuff, indeed.

Hoax?

[qazplm]

93. nothing startling to me

looks like the kid was a pre teen before anyone with a scientific background really studied it.

These kind of anecdotal evidence cases are not very compelling.

[BigBigBear]

106. So, it's entirely plausible to you

that all or most of the 2500 cases that Stevenson has studied were pre-fabricated hoaxes, carefully constructed before his investigation?

[qazplm]

121. nope

it is perfectly plausible to me that all of those cases were not about reincarnation.

Just like it's perfectly plausible to me that the TENS of thousands of cases of alien abductions are likely not really alien abductions.

And the tens of thousands of crop circles arent that.

The tens of thousands of people who believe in magic.

The tens of thousands of people who believe in El Chupacabra and say they have seen it.

(I mean seriously, I could go on and on with numbers of people who number well in excess of 2500 who beleive all sorts of things, have detailed and complex descriptions of those things rivaling what Stevenson asserts)

Are they all correct?

[BigBigBear]

125. Then they must be about something else

It isn't a question about what 2500 people believe, it's about what explanation best fits the research. Stevenson has 40 years experience to inform his opinion - how much experience in this area of inquiry informs yours?

Crop circles ARE designed impressions in crop fields, quite real - people have all sorts of explanations for them, skeptics prefer to believe they are all hoaxes. Some certainly are.

So, if you're reluctant to postulate that the account I provided is an elaborate hoax OR reincarnation, would you be willing to suggest a third possibility? Or simply discount Stevenson's guardedly derived conclusion that reincarnation may best fit the evidence as nonsense, and a more realistic explanation isn't worth the effort?

[qazplm]

127. oh good grief

Whitley Streiber has nearly a similiar amount of time experiencing alien abduction and writing about it but no I dont believe that in and of itself gives him credibiility.

Skeptics prefer to beleive crop circles are hoaxes because as far as we can tell THEY ARE!

I dont have to suggest a third possibility, I can suggest dozens of possibiliities, and there are more that likely I cant suggest but someone smarter than me can.

I suspect a few are hoaxes, a few misguided desires, a few based on mental illness or problems, a few on religious fervor, a few are just poor interpretations of data...

as you see, it can add up quickly.

ALL make much more sense and are more likely than reincarnation.

I have three options for each and every extraordinary assertion:

1. I can try and learn decades of experience for each one. (but gotta eat and have a place to live so kinda wouldnt have the time)

2. I can simply blindly believe or not believe

3. I can skeptically say, I have a baseline level of proof for which I require, if someone can come along and show me something that overcomes that, then I believe, til then, I dont.

I choose the third, and nothing about Stevenson's VERY anecdotal and unsupported by any kind of empirical evidence assertions comes close.

So yes, I find Stevenson's assertion that reincarnation best fits the evidence as nonsense if he isnt willing to concede there are more likely explanations involved when you have young impressionable kids surrounded by adults who not only believe but generally really want to believe.

I think there is not a coincidence that many of the kids who have past life beliefs grow up in homes where past lives are a part of the dominant religion. Why is it past life kids are so much more dominant in India than say Kansas?

Why are there no Virgin Mary sightings in Saudi Arabia but a ton of them in Mexico?

Why was there a delay in the UFO sighting wave in Mexico versus the US? Could it be because Mexico was a few decades behind technologically?

[BigBigBear]

136. OK

"I suspect a few are hoaxes, a few misguided desires, a few based on mental illness or problems, a few on religious fervor, a few are just poor interpretations of data..."

And Stevenson misinterpreted them all?

Whitley Streiber is a liar. I don't have to believe every postulator or researcher of the paranormal to believe a single one.

Nor do I have to disbelieve every one because some of them are fakes.

But..enough....

[qazplm]

140. Well golly yeah maybe he did

maybe he wants to believe in reincarnation, maybe he is a quack who thinks he can make a quick buck on this, maybe he is a bad scientist...

The fact that you seem to think it so incredulous is something I dont quite understand.

[lazarus]

188. Stevenson

clearly states these are anecdotal case studies "suggestive" of reincarnation. Something the mystics here are missing.

[Speck Tater]

107. It's perfectly OK for you to disbelieve reincarnation.

In your next life you probably WILL believe it. :)

[qazplm]

122. why?

My understanding of reincarnation is that you WONT believe it then either because you dont remember your past life ordinarily.

Tell ya what, if reincarnation is true, then roughly 5 billion humans are dead wrong.

If Christianity is true in its basic form, then roughly 4 billion people are dead wrong.

They all say that they have proof of a Christian God, visions of Angels, or Demons, possession, there are literally thousands of witnesses...why are they wrong and reincarnation is right?

[Speck Tater]

131. And if I tell you that I do remember some past lives...

you wuill laugh hysterically at me because I am a fool to believe such nonsense, and I will laugh hysterically at you because you are blind not to see it for yourself.

The perfect impass. We are both utterly confident that what we believe is true. Thus there is nothing more to do but to smile and move on to a more productive topic.

You smile knowingly, I smile knowingly. The only question left is who's smile is the most convincing. ;)

[qazplm]

141. nope

you are great at projecting your vision of what I think but not very good at accuracy.

The only thing I am "confident" in is that you have yet to provide any persuasive proof or evidence...and no one else has to me either.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

87. I was sceptical till I lived in a haunted house. nt

[Jake_DeLeon]

110. Yep

I'm a believer. I've had a few experiences.

[Speck Tater]

112. The "perfect" comback to skeptics.

"It's a well known fact that when people don't believe in ghosts it's because they are not psychically evolved enough to handle it yet."

:) Just kidding, of course. But it sure shuts down arguments in a hurry. :)

[Pithlet]

135. Yes,

If by "Shut Down" you mean "Add Fuel to the Flame War at DU" :)

Actually, I don't believe in ghosts because if they were around, I'd like to think I would have seen one by now. I actually think seeing a ghost would be a very cool thing. I definitely don't want to shut out that kind of experience. I've lived in very old buildings and a house that was built in the 18th century, in a very historical area. I always listened and looked for any sign that these places retained some of the spiritual leftovers of their very rich histories. Nothing :(

[gpandas]

150. i imagine it would shut down arguments...

as soon as people realize they are arguing with an idiot. :)

[bigwillq]

117. I believe but

I still haven't seen one or anything that could possibly be one. I'[m still searching though.

[quinnox]

126. I believe it is possible

And I have had a couple strange experiences, but none that have been a moment where I could say, "I saw a ghost!" or "That was a ghost" unequivocally.

I have an open mind about unexplained phenomena, and would enjoy a first hand experience, whether it would be seeing a UFO, bigfoot or whatever.

[Khephra]

133. I believe that certain events may leave a mark on the environment

That can only be seen by living beings. I believe that they leave a "mark" in time. Are ghosts souls? Nah...I just think that the universe has a memory and sometimes those memories interact with human brains.

No one thought sound or pictures could be taken. Maybe we leave "fingerprints" in time? There's nothing supernatural about that idea.

[Neshanic]

137. The mark left that I experienced made me a believer...and how.

[Khephra]

139. Oh, I don't doubt it

I've had several "ghost" experiences.

The question that remains:

Are they the manifestations of humans (or in some cases animals), or are they "recordings" in time?

Ghosts are tied into the past. It is part of their nature. I don't think there's anything actually supernatural about events leaving paths into the time stream, but only the past. Events are recorded as they happen, but I don't think we can go ahead and see what's up.

[testing123]

186. A couple of co-workers and I

Witnessed a ghost about 10 years ago and every time we get together we ask each other if we saw the ghost or was it our imagination.

7 people that witness the same thing at the same time can't be wrong.

We all saw a figure of a man walk into the warehouse that i was working at and he walked over to one of the stations, took his coat off and started working and then he turned around and walked through the wall near his station. We were all watching him because it was hot out and he had a winter coat on and something didn't look right.
We went over to the station that he was working in and we couldn't find the coat that he took off.
My hair on my arms stood straight up and I felt like I was going to pass out after it happened. I will never forget what I witnessed and neither will my coworkers.

[MrSlayer]

148. Hell no, what a bunch of crap.

There are about as many ghosts as there are fairies and elves.

[AVID]

151. Just saw "The Entity"

That was weird - NOW I am a believer

(and Barbara Hershey has nice breasts)

[gpandas]

153. believer in what, movies? i have...

been a big fan of hersheys breasts for years.

[AVID]

156. ghosts and movies (and nice breasts

[Champ]

163. I believe in the possibility

I just never seen one.

There have been many ghost sightings in this state and alot of wierd stuff went down so I definately believe in the possibility of one existing.

[Dan-W]

167. No, I don't.

I'll "believe" when I see one. Not that I want to!

[testing123]

176. Some of us have seen them

While others have not been lucky enough to have witnessed them.

I see dead people!

[Monte Carlo]

183. I've never seen one myself, but I do think there is a lot in this world...

... that lies just beyond our human perceptions, and my reasons have nothing to do with TV psychics or any of that junk.

Right now, physicists theorize that we live in an 11-dimensional universe, and they keep adding to it as necessary. Think about that - our human perceptions are trapped within a goldfish bowl, floating around in an endless ocean. There's a lot we just don't know.

[Taverner]

190. sort of - truthspeaker is right and he isn't

When we witness a "ghost" I honestly believe we are witnessing a break in the space-time continuum. Quantum physics holds that it can happen - and so what we are seeing is a point in which that "ghost's" timeline breaks into ours (or vice versa).

[Endangered Specie]

193. I cant believe how a bunch of rational liberals...

the majority believe in this supersticious nonsense. Im at a loss.

[Az]

196. There are many paths to liberal positions

Many people simply look at the conservative position and believe in their hearts that it is wrong. They find their way to the liberal position by faith.

There are also rational liberals. They look at various processes and find that liberal thinking offers the only effective way of dealing with society.

There are a host of types in between these polls. The big tent has many entrances.

[Az]

199. Actually look at the numbers again

Its tied. 57 believers. 45 nonbelievers. And 12 Skeptics.