Ghosts and other Paranormalities

[David Jamieson]

IMO, the issue is dismissing something outright simply because there may be no evidence for it, especially when we have not set out definite parameters for evidence.

I would think that would be a combination of senses and direct observation wouldn't you?

I mean, as an example, we find planets in other solar systems through observation, use of mathematical skills, hypothesis and finally experiments that prove or disprove.

I think the parameters of what constitutes "evidence" are available readily. It's why you could say "that man killed my dog" but if you have no record of purchasing a dog, no one has ever seen you with a dog, and there is no body of the dog then you cannot bear witness against a person for lack of evidence. In essence, evidence is that which is used to prove or disprove something and if neither can be done, it must be relegated to the subjective position of speculation, conjecture or belief.

[Lucas]

i don't claim that my experience was a ghost. but to this day i have yet to find an explanation as to how that baby moved. completely impossible for it to move itself. cant even walk, let alone climb. maybe the more 'rational' explanation is that a baby moving ninja stopped by the house. it would have to be some sort of ninja because he would have to have entered on a second story window with a sheer climb, because the steps leading up stairs shoot off from the living room, where we were sitting. there was without a doubt, no people in that house besides us.

i'd love to hear some theories though. lay it on me!

[Syn7]

Maybe it wasn't really a baby! Or maybe the baby is the ninja.



BOOM, I just blew your mind!!!

[Lucas]

MY MIND HAS BEEN BLOWN!!!!

to me ghosts, aliens, angels, gods, god, heaven, hell, etc. are all on a level playing field with each other. IMO i dont see any way i can believe in anyone unproven aspect over another. to me you either believe in the possibility or you dont. i do believe that anything is possible. after all what would a ghost be besides another form of energy. energy in many forms is a proven thing. so its not so far fetched to think that the energy that sustains us, when our bodies no longer can hold it, transforms in more than one way.

actually it makes more sense that the transferance and transformation of that energy would not consistently occur the exact same way every single time. that is against the way of nature itself.

[Syn7]

Maybe if we can define consciousness, then we can move on to what happens to it when the brain stops working.

Maybe we don't actually think, maybe we just think we think and really when we are thinking it's a predetermined thought created by our physical reality.

Hold on... lemme get some drugs, I'm sure I can figure this one out!!!

[Lucas]

lol drugs.

I decided a long time ago not to put much energy into it. As really, I don't care all that much. Either i'll learn more when i pass on, or I wont.

All I know is i'm really going to miss lucious booty when im dead, so I hope there is some of that later on.

[SoCo KungFu]

That's fine, but it doesn't change the fact that the assertion may still be correct and we have dismissed based on a perceive bias that comes from an "incomplete understanding" of what we call "reality".


The wright brothers asserted that man could fly and up until the day they did, that asserted that without any evidence and , according to the "Hitchens razor", they are to be dismissed without any need for evidence to dismiss them.
Which many did, to which they were ALL proved wrong.

My point is to dismiss any assertion based on the fact that it lacks or has no evidence should ONLY be applied to things that CAN be evidenced.
Those things that can't be "evidenced"should NOT be dismissed per say BUT we should keep a very healthy sense of "doubt".

I think that the only time we can make "absolute" judgment calls such is outright dismissals is when something has been proven to be "not so" OR when we have a complete and full-proof understanding of how ALL the universe works.

Logically, if this were the case (its not) then yes it would be proper to dismiss the Wright brothers without evidence. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, without evidence there is no logically defensible reason to believe a claim. To do so puts you at a far greater risk of accepting mutually contradictory conclusions. This is exactly what we see with religion and science (aka God of the gaps and all that jazz).

But, luckily for the Wright's, we had plenty of evidence that man could fly. Birds evolved long before man, the evidence of flight was here long before we came around. Kites have been flying in China for how long? All that was required was putting reasoning to work, understanding angle of attack and airflow to create lift. Simple physics. This wasn't without evidence, it was driven by observation!

To your second part. No, that's logically fallacious. In fact, any claim that CAN'T be evidenced, should not even be given the time of day. Its cliche, but this is exactly the point of Huxley's space teapot. You are logically backing yourself into a corner. Either you then accept all claims without evidence or you're engaging in hypocrisy. Without evidence, you have no basis for determining which claims are more valid than others. Again, insert any monotheism (not to bash religion again, its just an easy example).

And frankly, these supernatural explanations are not just intellectually, but spiritually devoid. Where is the imagination? This isn't a question for you, just rhetoric. But do you know how many points of incident light are in a photo or video feed like the ones getting posted here lately? Every single surface in an image is reflecting that light (that's why its in the image to begin with). So, we are going to neglect to question each and every one of the millions of incident rays in favor of something so juvenile as ghosts or aliens?

Talk about boring. An interesting story? How about how the very principle used in taking these photos (reflection and refraction of light), which seem so simple, are the very same concepts researchers use to map the galaxies. We use the same warping of light rays, the same technology in your hands (granted much more elaborate) to age the universe back to the big bang. Its the same bending and stretching of wavelengths that gives us red shift and lets us know that not only is the universe expanding, but doing so at increasing acceleration. Now that is an imaginative story. And yet people here are wasting their time chasing ghosts.....and they call me spiritually empty. Laughable.

[sanjuro_ronin]

Logically, if this were the case (its not) then yes it would be proper to dismiss the Wright brothers without evidence. It doesn't matter what the actual facts are, without evidence there is no logically defensible reason to believe a claim. To do so puts you at a far greater risk of accepting mutually contradictory conclusions. This is exactly what we see with religion and science (aka God of the gaps and all that jazz).

But, luckily for the Wright's, we had plenty of evidence that man could fly. Birds evolved long before man, the evidence of flight was here long before we came around. Kites have been flying in China for how long? All that was required was putting reasoning to work, understanding angle of attack and airflow to create lift. Simple physics. This wasn't without evidence, it was driven by observation!

To your second part. No, that's logically fallacious. In fact, any claim that CAN'T be evidenced, should not even be given the time of day. Its cliche, but this is exactly the point of Huxley's space teapot. You are logically backing yourself into a corner. Either you then accept all claims without evidence or you're engaging in hypocrisy. Without evidence, you have no basis for determining which claims are more valid than others. Again, insert any monotheism (not to bash religion again, its just an easy example).

And frankly, these supernatural explanations are not just intellectually, but spiritually devoid. Where is the imagination? This isn't a question for you, just rhetoric. But do you know how many points of incident light are in a photo or video feed like the ones getting posted here lately? Every single surface in an image is reflecting that light (that's why its in the image to begin with). So, we are going to neglect to question each and every one of the millions of incident rays in favor of something so juvenile as ghosts or aliens?

Talk about boring. An interesting story? How about how the very principle used in taking these photos (reflection and refraction of light), which seem so simple, are the very same concepts researchers use to map the galaxies. We use the same warping of light rays, the same technology in your hands (granted much more elaborate) to age the universe back to the big bang. Its the same bending and stretching of wavelengths that gives us red shift and lets us know that not only is the universe expanding, but doing so at increasing acceleration. Now that is an imaginative story. And yet people here are wasting their time chasing ghosts.....and they call me spiritually empty. Laughable.

Now, apply that to the MA and enjoy.
LOL !

[sanjuro_ronin]

So I ask this:
Is personal experience a valid form of evidence?

[David Jamieson]

So I ask this:
Is personal experience a valid form of evidence?

In my opinion, no. At least not if you want others to be convinced.
Personal experience is just that, personal.

You bet application to MA is called for when it comes to evidence.
If this site has taught us anything, it's that!

[Lucas]

I think personal experience only matters if you have a method of being able to share that with someone else. Which in most cases, is not possible. However throughout time there have been cases of mass experience. However all we have left in todays world is the records of such events. So looking back most people see these recordings and are not able to justify any type of belief based on the past. If 1000 people all experienced a phenomenon 70 years ago, and at that time no one in that group had a single doubt as to what was witnessed/experienced, that belief stays with them. As time goes forward, people are unwilling or unable to justify having the same belief based on someone elses experience, even if its an entire village. There is always going to be a stronger case to dismiss something, that there will be to solidify the existance of what may have taken place.

[Jimbo]

I think personal experience only matters if you have a method of being able to share that with someone else. Which in most cases, is not possible. However throughout time there have been cases of mass experience. However all we have left in todays world is the records of such events. So looking back most people see these recordings and are not able to justify any type of belief based on the past. If 1000 people all experienced a phenomenon 70 years ago, and at that time no one in that group had a single doubt as to what was witnessed/experienced, that belief stays with them. As time goes forward, people are unwilling or unable to justify having the same belief based on someone elses experience, even if its an entire village. There is always going to be a stronger case to dismiss something, that there will be to solidify the existance of what may have taken place.

This is a good point.

In the end, there are many things that are only experienced personally. All things do not repeat themselves on cue like a performing seal at the zoo. Yes, there are things that require repeatable proof, but to try to corral all things into that category when not everything works that way is unrealistic.

I think we also get hung up on words. "Paranormal,""ghost," "spirit," etc., elicit an immediate, knee-jerk negative reaction out of some people, whereas if there were a more "acceptable" scientific term for it, then the issue would probably not be seen as much of an issue.

The unfortunate thing is when some people say, "If only everyone else would see the world the way it is (meaning the way I do), then all would be right, and the world would be without retards." That's making a sweeping judgment of people without knowing the facts or the people themselves. What you "know" about them is some words typed and posted on the Internet. Yet I also wouldn't go the other way and refer to non-believers/non-experiences as spiritually devoid. Firstly, because
their beliefs are their business as are mine.

One of the mistakes skeptics make is to assume that because someone claims "paranormal" experiences they somehow lack critical thinking abilities, and go for the "tin foil hats", or that they are gullible to every little thing. They come across as pi$$ed off that everyone isn't like they are. And this isn't narcissistic and condescending? "They believe in A; therefore, that means they believe in XYZ." "They mustn't discuss such things because it annoys the hell out of me and is leading to global decadence."

[KungfuCasting]

I can make something similar with a green screen and after effects.
by making the person small blurry and transparant.

But I believe there are other beings that we can not see, but I think this one might be edited.

[hskwarrior]

Yet I also wouldn't go the other way and refer to non-believers/non-experiences as spiritually devoid.

LOL. I'm just talking sh1t to the non believers. i don't care if they believe or not because they will know one day. like i keep saying, what i've experienced was meant for me. everything i've experienced turned out to be very real and i've never thought something was real and it never happened. in most cases, i think just like them. I also know that there is more to existence than what science can explain.

we all have the abilities. most just ignore it or shut it down completely or just pass it off as coincidence. it's their ego's that stand in the way of truth.

[Syn7]

So I ask this:
Is personal experience a valid form of evidence?

Absolutely not. Unless it's demonstrable, that is. If you can repeat your specific personal experience under controls so that everyone else has the same personal experience, then that's a lil different.