EPTA ghost is a non-physical human or animal figure. There are many popular misconceptions out there about ghosts, eg that ghosts are related to the spirit world.
On arbitrary human constructs - Page 8
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
BillyGee
United Kingdom6 Posts
A ghost is a non-physical human or animal figure. There are many popular misconceptions out there about ghosts, eg that ghosts are related to the spirit world. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:14 BillyGee wrote: I should point out ahead of time that I used to be a paranormal investigator - never a professional mind you, more a student of the field, so I kind of know what I am talking about when it comes to ghosts. I haven't seen one myself but then again many biologists haven't seen certain rare birds but they know they exist. I have detected presences and witnessed halos on many occasions. A ghost is a non-physical human or animal figure. There are many popular misconceptions out there about ghosts, eg that ghosts are related to the spirit world. How do you detect presences? What is a "presence"? What is a halo? What is a "figure"? How does it differ from a human being or animal that isn't a ghost? What does it mean for something to be non-physical? | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:14 BillyGee wrote: I should point out ahead of time that I used to be a paranormal investigator - never a professional mind you, more a student of the field, so I kind of know what I am talking about when it comes to ghosts. I haven't seen one myself but then again many biologists haven't seen certain rare birds but they know they exist. I have detected presences and witnessed halos on many occasions. A ghost is a non-physical human or animal figure. There are many popular misconceptions out there about ghosts, eg that ghosts are related to the spirit world. If something is non-physical how can you detect it with physical apparatus? | ||
|
radscorpion9
Canada2252 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:07 Shiori wrote: I think you can explain them in two ways: firstly, define what a ghost actually is. This usually helps us narrow down whether there are similarities across cultures or whether things that have huge differences are being treated as the same for the sake of advancing a point of view. Secondly, I would argue that it is a universal human phenomenon to fear death and to dwell on those who die, particularly if you're close to them or happen to know who they are (e.g. if they're famous/important). These things, combined with sleep paralysis, auditory hallucinations, optical illusions, and confirmation bias can, I'd argue, explain a great deal of ghost-related cases. You'd also think that if ghosts were all over the place we'd sooner or later end up with one showing up completely well-defined in front of a crowd of people, or speaking with someone in an obvious way and giving them inexplicable knowledge, or being caught unambiguously on film all the time, since everyone has a camera these days. I think the problem is that those types of phenomena are really hard to capture and replicate in a reliable manner. There are quite a few ghost hunting shows, and some that just investigate the paranormal, in which the participants record videos that stump experts, but since its not proof positive its not good enough. For example in one of the shows called "Destination Truth" with Josh Gates, one of his crewmembers was trying to communicate with spirits in some abandoned ruin when all of a sudden he felt like he was being choked. Afterwards they put the camera on his throat and saw the sharp red marks indicating pressure. When they brought back this video evidence the experts were confused as to how this could happen naturally or accidentally. But after that nothing happens. They just leave it at "unusual incident" and move on because they can't really prove anything with what was given according to rigorous scientific standards. But to me, I would question whether such a high level of rigour is truly necessary to at least suspect that something unusual is going on that is paranormal, and the ghost story seems like the simplest option of all the different types of paranormal events. Maybe I'm gullible but I'm not sure we really *need* triple blind studies repeated ten times to start believing that something weird is going on or that ghosts might be real. It could all be an elaborate hoax of course, but they'd have to be pretty amazing actors! | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
Hearsay and claims are not evidence. How do you explain ghosts then? you can't just say they aren't real because people have seen them all over the world. If they were made up by historians then we'd only expect to see ghosts in the english speaking world but they are seen all over the world even in japan. I mean don't get me wrong I am skeptical of things like god and UFOs but ghosts and polterguyts seem too widespread and physical to be put down purely to imagination. I don't explain ghosts because I don't think they exist. We'll seek an explanation when we will have proof of their existence. Again, hearsay, flashes on a photography, etc, are no proof. Human really like to interpret what they see to fit some of their beliefs. As for ghosts or spirits being wide spread in cultures, how is that even an argument. Death is something present in every culture as far as I know... doesn't take much to spread the idea of souls/spirits. But I'll leave the fine details to a archaeologist for that. I should probably mention that TV shows prey on the gullible and yeah you should not take anything shown there for granted. Otherwise Chris Angel is a real sorcerer, we have been visited by demons and aliens and Dolphins are the guardian of the earth. | ||
|
BillyGee
United Kingdom6 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:21 Roe wrote: If something is non-physical how can you detect it with physical apparatus? It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote: It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known. It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:51 Roe wrote: It doesn't "detect" love, it creates love. It is indeed a physical apparatus. The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 08 2013 08:48 Shiori wrote: The brain no more creates love than it creates the number 4 or the universe it perceives. Not sure what your point is | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 08 2013 09:44 Shiori wrote: The number 4 is non-physical. It is an abstraction that would exist whether or not entities were around to think about it. It existed before the human race ever did, and before the Earth did. Similarly, all of our empirical research about the brain being a physical object is itself perceived (i.e. "created") by the brain which renders your entire line of argument circular. I think the brain is a physical apparatus, but to say that the brain "creates" love is like saying that the brain "creates" the number 4. It doesn't; it just comprehends/experiences/apprehends those things. (I mean love as a noun, not the oxytocin release). The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:37 BillyGee wrote: It depends on what you mean by physical apparatus. Is the brain a physical apparatus? Yet it can detect love which is non-physical. Look I am not pretending to have all the answers, the scientific study of the paranormal wouldn't exist if all the answers were already known. I believe that if enough people see/experience an event that there is a better explanation than "they're just imagining it." But... Just because a person anecdotally sees/experiences an event does not mean that event is real. There being enough evidence for person A does not mean person B is convinced. | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
On July 08 2013 06:14 BillyGee wrote: I should point out ahead of time that I used to be a paranormal investigator - never a professional mind you, more a student of the field, so I kind of know what I am talking about when it comes to ghosts. I haven't seen one myself but then again many biologists haven't seen certain rare birds but they know they exist. I have detected presences and witnessed halos on many occasions. A ghost is a non-physical human or animal figure. There are many popular misconceptions out there about ghosts, eg that ghosts are related to the spirit world. There is a major difference between a biologist not seeing a bird in person and someone believing in ghosts. There are actual photographs of birds. There are videos of them in the wild and records of examinations. There is zero evidence of ghosts that passes any sort of scientific rigor at all. I would love to just have no idea what I'm talking about, so if you could refer me to evidence of ghosts that isn't bullshit I'd love to see it. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 08 2013 11:25 ZackAttack wrote: There is a major difference between a biologist not seeing a bird in person and someone believing in ghosts. There are actual photographs of birds. There are videos of them in the wild and records of examinations. There is zero evidence of ghosts that passes any sort of scientific rigor at all. I would love to just have no idea what I'm talking about, so if you could refer me to evidence of ghosts that isn't bullshit I'd love to see it. Anecdotal evidence is good enough to form a hypothesis. Though not good enough to prove a hypothesis, saying "oy, they be shit tonne of people who think they've seen ghosts" is a good enough reason to study them. Remember, there are witness testimonies, "photographs", sensor readings, etc... Darwin didn't need to "see" evolution to form a theory on it. Nor do we need to "see" evolution to know it happens. But yes, until we see some kind of tangible proof that is repeatable--nothing is proven/disproven. But to say that there is ZERO evidence is a bit silly. The evidence hasn't lead to anything (yet) but to say it doesn't exist is to keep your head in the sand. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 08 2013 11:15 Thieving Magpie wrote: The empirical nature of 4 is technically still under contention. Some mathematicians say we simply perceive of the concept of 4 as a way to communicate ideas and concepts. Other mathematicians say that 4 is a real thing that is present in the world whether or not someone sees it. Its not really a slam dunk kind of thing.... It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
On July 08 2013 11:29 Thieving Magpie wrote: Anecdotal evidence is good enough to form a hypothesis. Though not good enough to prove a hypothesis, saying "oy, they be shit tonne of people who think they've seen ghosts" is a good enough reason to study them. Remember, there are witness testimonies, "photographs", sensor readings, etc... Darwin didn't need to "see" evolution to form a theory on it. Nor do we need to "see" evolution to know it happens. But yes, until we see some kind of tangible proof that is repeatable--nothing is proven/disproven. But to say that there is ZERO evidence is a bit silly. The evidence hasn't lead to anything (yet) but to say it doesn't exist is to keep your head in the sand. Come on man, I know we seem to disagree about everything but you cannot seriously be defending ghost sightings. A bunch of anecdotal stories, blurry pictures, and "instrument readings" are terrible evidence that could mean anything. Most of those other things are a lot simpler that the convoluted ghost explanation. These things maybe be evidence, but evidence as bad as the evidence for ghosts might as well be no evidence at all. I am not saying it shouldn't be studied, but there has been a lot of studying for a long time and nothing good has come of it yet. Every instance of a ghost has come right out of someones imagination. I would also like to know how a physical instrument can detect a "non-physical" being. | ||
|
Roe
Canada6002 Posts
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote: It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). It's pretty undoubted that we create the notions in our head. The number 4 is just a symbol that represents instances we've observed. (Within its own system math/logic is nice and tight, it's when you apply it to the real world you get into the problems of perfect forms). If there is some "four" out there in "reality", I don't see how we could approach it. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 08 2013 12:12 Roe wrote: It's pretty undoubted that we create the notions in our head. The number 4 is just a symbol that represents instances we've observed. (Within its own system math/logic is nice and tight, it's when you apply it to the real world you get into the problems of perfect forms). If there is some "four" out there in "reality", I don't see how we could approach it. We don't approach it. It's a number. It's immaterial because it's an abstraction. It doesn't exist in any particular place. It's just a rule of reality, much in the same way that the law of non-contradiction is just a rule of reality. The rule of non-contradiction in logic was true even before someone thought of it; it just didn't have a name, but it was still the case that things couldn't have P and not P at the same time. There doesn't need to actually be a physical manifestation of a perfect form for the abstract concept to refer to something which is not contingent on physicality. The "number 4" is obviously a symbol which corresponds to some value we're using to describe a particular quality, but that quality is not a symbol; it's just called a symbol in our language and in the language of thought. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 08 2013 12:00 ZackAttack wrote: Come on man, I know we seem to disagree about everything but you cannot seriously be defending ghost sightings. A bunch of anecdotal stories, blurry pictures, and "instrument readings" are terrible evidence that could mean anything. Most of those other things are a lot simpler that the convoluted ghost explanation. These things maybe be evidence, but evidence as bad as the evidence for ghosts might as well be no evidence at all. I am not saying it shouldn't be studied, but there has been a lot of studying for a long time and nothing good has come of it yet. Every instance of a ghost has come right out of someones imagination. I would also like to know how a physical instrument can detect a "non-physical" being. I'm not disagreeing about your disbelief in ghosts. I'm disagreeing with the reason you make for not believing in them. Saying you don't like the evidence is silly--evidence is simply that, evidence. I dislike the lack of results. My problem is not that some dude in a creaky house has some kind of doodad that detects whatever--my problem is their lack of findings. Maybe someday they'll figure out how to measure it, maybe they never will. Saying their evidence doesn't count because its not the evidence you yourself would be studying is closed minded. I might think that some blurry photograph is insufficient evidence; but blurry pictures is all a lot of astronomers get a lot of the times. Researchers don't get to cherry pick what counts as evidence and what doesn't. They take what is measurable and study it. And if all you have is blurry pictures and bad testimony--then that's what you run with. You and I *think* it won't amount to much; much like most research leads don't amount to much. I might think him a sucker for believing some dude who might or might not be lying. But I don't want to say his passion for research and knowledge I meaningless just because I dislike his methods. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On July 08 2013 11:31 Shiori wrote: It doesn't really matter. The number four refers to some abstraction. Whether or not "fourness" actually exists physically doesn't really matter, because it clearly has absolutely no definitional attachment to physicality anymore than logic itself has any confinement to physicality (i.e. that is why logic would be true in all possible worlds). I don't think you realize that you're agreeing with him.... The clutch of the argument is asking whether a number is something we observe (4 balls) or something we conceive (balls, there are 4 of them) If the number is not hinged on reality--then we are arbitrarily conceiving it. If the number is hinged on reality--then we are merely observing its existence. He's saying we conceive of the concept of the number 4 and we use that concept to talk about the number. What you initially said was that 4 hinged on reality, as in 4 is something out there to find and if we never found more than 3 of anything we would never have conceived of the number 4. | ||
| ||
