Ghosts

[Shiny]

Apparently a lot of old 'haunted' houses, which supposedly have ghosts and paranormal activity have high levels of carbon monoxide due to old or faulty gas piping, and appliances. Carbon monoxide poisoning brings on feelings of dread and fear, confusion, hallucinations (aural and visual) and well as dizziness and nausea. I'll see if I find a source, but I believe I read this on a Cracked artlicle. Seems like a very reasonable explanation to me for a lot of the 'ghost' activity.

[Giordano]

One's a fool to disclaim things out of his experience. There's so many people dead serious about encounters with ghosts and aliens, I can't say they're false simply due modern science and social skepticism. Something is driving them forward, who are we the non-experienced to decide?

[Assume Nothing]

Belief in Ghosts would be a violation of Occam's razor - it assumes the existence of Ghosts in the first place, which we have zero data/evidence for. There's very plausible alternate explanations, so what gives the ghost argument any more bearing?

 

Personal experience is insufficient - it's not discounted because personal experience has to do with 'deadly serious encounters', rather - it's discounted because it fails to deliver what it should to classify as credible evidence.

 

@Kimberly - Do you honestly think my personal experience in the matter would be of any relevance at all? Do you honestly think my experience in it would change the truth value of 'the existence of Ghosts' at all? What difference does it make? Has there been any conclusive study that goes beyond the pseudo-science of 'ghost-busting'?

 

To ascribe the unknown to superstitious phenomena like 'ghosts' would be similar to ascribing the unknown to a non-existent deity. It's fruitless.

 

Your vain attempts of oh-so-infallible arguments are nothing more than a poorly composed straw-man and personal attacks. The hilarity of that is self-evident. Try again.

Edited February 27, 2012 by Randox
Any issue with moderating actions belongs in a private message

[Dizzle229]

Apparently a lot of old 'haunted' houses, which supposedly have ghosts and paranormal activity have high levels of carbon monoxide due to old or faulty gas piping, and appliances. Carbon monoxide poisoning brings on feelings of dread and fear, confusion, hallucinations (aural and visual) and well as dizziness and nausea. I'll see if I find a source, but I believe I read this on a Cracked artlicle. Seems like a very reasonable explanation to me for a lot of the 'ghost' activity.

I've read that article, it was pretty good.

 

I generally only think of video/thermal/EVP as actual evidence, which must then tested until you have no idea, at which point it can be labelled potential evidence.

 

One of the usual "personal experiences" that I have a big problem with (haven't read the article since it was posted, this may actually be on there) is the "I woke up and couldn't move, then saw things." Sounds WAY too much like sleep paralysis to be taken seriously.

 

For the people that dismiss it as "everything has an explanation, therefore no ghosts", not disagreeing with the statement that everything has a reason, but the whole "ghost" phenomenon does not have to be "supernatural". In fact, as I said in the main post, I think that by definition, if something exists, then it is not supernatural. I also think that if there is such a thing as a ghost, that we have no idea what it actually IS, and, as was said before, nothing can actually be considered a science until such a time when we know MUCH more, if that time comes at all.

 

Although I am convinced from what I've seen that there's something to it though, I don't consider it unreasonable that some people don't buy it.

[Jonanananas]

There are no ghosts, there is an explanation for everything.

 

Have you ever listened to EVP's you've recorded yourself and hear clear-speaking voices? I have. Give me the explanation for a little girl's voice on the digital recorder when there is no one in the house under 20, and no other female in the home besides myself.

 

I don't believe every case is a case of ghosts or any sort of paranormal activity. But I don't blindly deny their existence...or even the chance of it. Reason should be promoted--always look first for an explanation. But sometimes there just aren't any. And yes, while we might later find the scientific reasoning for them, it's kind of hard to imagine science explaining away things like EVPs.

 

Well I personally haven't...but it could e.g. be that the microphone by chance happens to resonate to a certain wavelength and some radiostation was sending at that exact wavelength. My sister once was able to listen to russish radio through her guitar amp. Could be just one explanation. Even if it's wrong - Just because something seems impossible at first doesn't mean there's no explanation to it, it's just harder to find.

 

Besides, there is a logical reason that ghosts can't exist: Our universe is based on certain laws. These laws can be studied and make it possible for us to build machinery and stuff(e.g. like you need relativity to have a working navi). If ghosts existed, it would mean there are no laws at all, which would make our current world impossible, or it would defy those laws, which again would mean that we're completely wrong about our (scientific) view of the world which would basically again make our current world impossible.

 

edit: to dizzle: Of course "ghost phenomenon" can exist. But they're not ghosts, or to make it more clear, paranormal activites. There's an explanation for everything, it just may be hard to find. If there's an explanation for it, it's not paranormal. Most of it just goes back to the power of the mind to create convinving halluzinations.

Oh and things like the same halluzination by two people are possible, no problem. There's something that triggers a hallucination in your mind, and if you share the same experience/whatever it is, the same thing(idk, a small noise you hear unconsciously) can trigger the same, or rather, an almost identical halluzination.

[Dizzle229]

 

edit: to dizzle: Of course "ghost phenomenon" can exist. But they're not ghosts, or to make it more clear, paranormal activites. There's an explanation for everything, it just may be hard to find. If there's an explanation for it, it's not paranormal. Most of it just goes back to the power of the mind to create convinving halluzinations.

Oh and things like the same halluzination by two people are possible, no problem. There's something that triggers a hallucination in your mind, and if you share the same experience/whatever it is, the same thing(idk, a small noise you hear unconsciously) can trigger the same, or rather, an almost identical halluzination.

 

edit: to dizzle: Of course "ghost phenomenon" can exist. But they're not ghosts, or to make it more clear, paranormal activites.

 

Doesn't this just fall into the category of "supernatural" when you say "paranormal"? As I've said, I believe the ghost phenomenon can exist AND be a perfectly natural thing that can eventually be studied, just one that we haven't been able to yet.

 

There's an explanation for everything, it just may be hard to find.

 

No argument here, that can be said for my point of view as well.

 

Oh and things like the same halluzination by two people are possible, no problem. There's something that triggers a hallucination in your mind, and if you share the same experience/whatever it is, the same thing(idk, a small noise you hear unconsciously) can trigger the same, or rather, an almost identical halluzination.

 

And shouldn't we be studying the how and why of the specifics of this? I'm still looking to for an explanation for video and EVP that we CAN'T find alternate explanations for. These things that we can't explain are what the "ghost" phenomenon is (most personal experiences are probably NOT this, or at least can't be reliably called this), but in order to get any further, we need to think about what exactly the ghost phenomenon is.

 

For example, most people that believe in ghosts believe that they are the souls of the dead coming back to earth. This is an assumption.

An "apparition" caught on a thermal camera, which experts have attempted and failed to replicate, is an observation.

(for the above example, I mean thermal "ghost" images in general, not a specific one)

 

The observation of course, DOES have an explanation, as anything, understood or otherwise, must. We just need to find it.

 

A discussion on OT, imagine that. It's been a while :razz:

[Jonanananas]

Uh...well I agree with you lol. That's pretty much what I wanted to say :thumbup:

 

(Regarding they first sentence: I meant they're *not* paranormal/supernatural things)

[Randox]

Just a thought, but science has a long and proud tradition of being terrifyingly wrong. The thing is, you keep building theories that explain everything you understand about the universe as you currently know it, and then you go with that until you find something that doesn't fit, then you refine your theories and make them better. Look at the evolution of the model of the atom. Each one of those was considered to be a valid explanation in its own day, and every one of them before the quantum model are flat out wrong. We have discovered a few phenomenon that either do, or almost certainly do, violate the way we understand the universe right now, and it doesn't help that we know for certain our current understanding is incomplete because no one has been able to marry relativity (which is required for our universe to operate as we know it, so far as we can tell), with quantum mechanics. Heck, we still don't know how freaking gravity works. The other 3 fundamental forces have all been discovered (as in their carrier particles), but the carriers for gravity have yet to be found. Then we have neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light, something which shouldn't be possible, and which could potentially violate causality by allowing us to send messages a short ways backward in time.

 

Not an argument that ghosts are real, and if they are, I expect not in the way we understand them. Just that there are phenomenon in this world that are beyond our current level of understanding, either due to spiting in the face of established fact (faster than light neutrinos), or because they are exceptionally hard to study for whatever reason (ball lightning, which might actually be more than one thing). There are several things left that we already know should exist, such as gravitrons, that we currently lack the ability to find, and I wouldn't be surprised if the next big revision in our understanding of the universe leads us to a whole bunch of things we never even thought to look for.

 

I just don't think there is much point in assuming we really truly understand how the universe actually works, seeing as we have been proving ourselves wrong on that front for thousands of years now. I mean yes, we obviously understand it well enough to do some pretty incredible things using that knowledge, but that doesn't mean our understanding is complete at all. It just means its complete enough to do whatever it is we are currently doing.

[RpgGamer]

 

 

GHOSTS

[The Dark Lord]

Then we have neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light, something which shouldn't be possible, and which could potentially violate causality by allowing us to send messages a short ways backward in time.

 

WRONG.

[Assume Nothing]

Just a thought, but science has a long and proud tradition of being terrifyingly wrong.

 

[...]

 

I just don't think there is much point in assuming we really truly understand how the universe actually works, seeing as we have been proving ourselves wrong on that front for thousands of years now.

 

Science is like the ocean. It's moving, changing, all-encompassing. It draws its data from findings, numbers, and other such devices that's quantifiable/measurable. The numbers don't lie - rather, we misinterpret them, often. Why? Because humanity is predisposed to doing so, especially when it comes to a controversial, highly emotional subjects.

 

Your little statement about science being wrong does not give the 'ghosts exist' theory any more weight, like the way that it doesn't give religious 'faith' any more weight. We don't truly understand the Universe - that's the beauty of science; to unravel as much as we can. Is it too much to accept that we can't always explain everything immediately, given our limited resources?

 

The objective ought to be learning about what we don't know, as opposed to attributing it to superstition like 'Ghosts', or 'God'. One day, we might even explain why we came up with such ridiculous ideas in the first place.

[Randox]

Then we have neutrinos that travel faster than the speed of light, something which shouldn't be possible, and which could potentially violate causality by allowing us to send messages a short ways backward in time.

 

WRONG.

Possibly. I guess they have found some problems with the equipment that did the test. I guess we'll find out in may when they repeat the experiment. Unless you meant the time travel thing, which is of course only theory based on relativity, though since if it's proved true in the re-test, its already violating it, so the prediction about time travel might not hold up anyway.

 

Just a thought, but science has a long and proud tradition of being terrifyingly wrong.

 

[...]

 

I just don't think there is much point in assuming we really truly understand how the universe actually works, seeing as we have been proving ourselves wrong on that front for thousands of years now.

 

Science is like the ocean. It's moving, changing, all-encompassing. It draws its data from findings, numbers, and other such devices that's quantifiable/measurable. The numbers don't lie - rather, we misinterpret them, often. Why? Because humanity is predisposed to doing so, especially when it comes to a controversial, highly emotional subjects.

 

Your little statement about science being wrong does not give the 'ghosts exist' theory any more weight, like the way that it doesn't give religious 'faith' any more weight. We don't truly understand the Universe - that's the beauty of science; to unravel as much as we can. Is it too much to accept that we can't always explain everything immediately, given our limited resources?

 

The objective ought to be learning about what we don't know, as opposed to attributing it to superstition like 'Ghosts', or 'God'. One day, we might even explain why we came up with such ridiculous ideas in the first place.

 

My point wasn't to lend weight to the ghosts exist. My point was there is no point assuming science knows everything, because its a sure bet that it doesn't, and there's even a chance that in a century or two, people will look back on our understanding of the universe and laugh at how wrong we we're.

[Assume Nothing]

If that's the case, then the claim is redundant. What benefit do we get out of asserting that science doesn't know everything, when that's already established to be the case?

 

Semi relevant: Mysterious answers to mysterious questions

[Jonanananas]

Well, it depends what you think of as "ghosts". Imo, if there is a scientific explanation for them, even if we don't have it right now, it's not a ghost. A ghost will always be supernatural. And even if we by far do not know everything yet, there are some things we can exclude with relative certainty. E.g. the memory of dead people being able to live on. Doesn't make it absolutely impossible of course, just very unlikely.

 

 

And I disagree with science being terribly wrong a lot. We are far from the whole truth of the universe, but in most cases what you say was "wrong" is merely an approximation of the truth. The atom models were just that - models. Of course opinions differ on this, but imo it's obvious that we just use the best explanation we currently have to work with, even if we're wrong. Einstein was wrong, and I'm not thinking of those neutrinos here. Quantum mechanics surely is wrong as well. It doesn't matter. It's the best approximation to the truth we currently have and it's what we work with. It's what explains our universe the best.

[Randox]

Well, it depends what you think of as "ghosts". Imo, if there is a scientific explanation for them, even if we don't have it right now, it's not a ghost. A ghost will always be supernatural. And even if we by far do not know everything yet, there are some things we can exclude with relative certainty. E.g. the memory of dead people being able to live on. Doesn't make it absolutely impossible of course, just very unlikely.

 

 

And I disagree with science being terribly wrong a lot. We are far from the whole truth of the universe, but in most cases what you say was "wrong" is merely an approximation of the truth. The atom models were just that - models. Of course opinions differ on this, but imo it's obvious that we just use the best explanation we currently have to work with, even if we're wrong. Einstein was wrong, and I'm not thinking of those neutrinos here. Quantum mechanics surely is wrong as well. It doesn't matter. It's the best approximation to the truth we currently have and it's what we work with. It's what explains our universe the best.

 

I have to say I agree with the ghosts always being super natural. It's almost a word that just describes certain phenomenon that we don't understand. Once we know whats going on, it gets a new label.

 

And yes, they are approximations of the truth. I guess my stance is a result of running into people who are absolutely sure that certain things are right. And that's great as long as all the evidence fits your understanding, but it leads to people excluding contradictory data because they can't fathom or accept that there current understanding of the world is incomplete. So wrong in so far as not the real truth; incomplete or simplified knowledge.

[das]

I do believe that it's possible for ghosts and sports to exist. The argument of ghosts being unproven by science is valid howeve: I find it fascinating so many cultures from the bible (same which makes references to evil spirts and even though its not the same as the topic -for the Holy Ghost) to ancient Egypt. Many phenomena have went unexplained to this day -so much like an atheist cannot prove god doesn't exist to a christian can anyone really expect science to disprove a ghost to those who believe in the supernatural? It takes faith to believe in a n entity you've never seen regardless.

[Assume Nothing]

It depends how we're defining the phenomena of 'ghosts'. If we're defining it to be 'super-natural/paranormal' - it cannot be proven by its very own definition. It's also unfalsifiable, given that it's impossible to prove their non-existence unless we have a good way to determine whether they do (which, arguably, requires the knowledge of its existence before such a device could be made, leading to a vicious circle).

 

On the contrary, if we're defining it to be the phenomena of consciousness existing after death - it may be more easily falsifiable therefore more meaningful to test and determine.

 

The unexplained nature of these purported phenomenas does not make them any more credible than any other absurd, unsubstantiated assertion. What we don't know doesn't equate to what ought to be attributed to a fabricated phenomena.

 

The burden of proof is on you. It would be a violation of Occam's razor to assert that Ghosts do exist (for certainty, within our observable universe).

[The Dark Lord]

I do believe that it's possible for ... sports to exist.

 

As do I.

[Dizzle229]

It depends how we're defining the phenomena of 'ghosts'. If we're defining it to be 'super-natural/paranormal' - it cannot be proven by its very own definition.

This is what I've been trying to say, except not only would "paranormal" not be provable, but it should be impossible by its very own definition. Then again, I suppose if it wasn't provable by our means, to say it's impossible is a little strange, now that you put it like that.