Ghosts

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
One of the first classes I took in college was Introductory to Psychology, and it really opens my eyes to how human brain thinks. What I didn't realize was that hypnotize work because of the one being hypnotized, and not the one performing the hypnotize. Also there are people who can and cannot be hypnotized no matter how hard they try.

If this is the case, that's very possible that depends on who you are and how your brain works, you may or may not be able to see ghosts, regardless of whether they are real or not, because of your brain.

Exactly. Thank you.

 

[Win]

Originally Posted By: d00df00d


Because, for one reason or another (I can think of several possibilities), they aren't actually interested in knowing the truth.



Nah, the truth of the matter is that the costs of such an undertaking intended to produce anything approaching evidentiary value would be absolutely staggering, with no foreseeable return on the investment, even if successful.

Only the reality TV entertainment industry would ever contemplate such a thing, and they are certainly not gathering evidence, they're just providing dubious content to fill bandwidth and sell advertising.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Win
Nah, the truth of the matter is that the costs of such an undertaking intended to produce anything approaching evidentiary value would be absolutely staggering, with no foreseeable return on the investment, even if successful.

I strongly doubt most of those folks understand what good evidence really is.

For those who do, though, I would imagine the return would be quite significant. Anyone who could provide good evidence for the existence of ghosts would be up for a Nobel Prize...

 

[Win]

A nobel prize is what - a piece of paper, the accolades of the intellectuals, and a million or million and a half cash?

It would cost that much or more, probably a lot more. And the other stuff is pretty much worthless in the real world.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Win
A nobel prize is what - a piece of paper, the accolades of the intellectuals, and a million or million and a half cash?

The prize was just one example. Someone who made a finding like that would have access to any tenured professorship they wanted. That's plenty of money and pretty much the best job security on earth. Or, they could turn it into a booming business to take advantage of the millions of people who can now validate their superstitions, and basically write their own checks. Either way, there is no shortage of incentive.

Besides, the people with the knowledge and training to prove stuff like this tend to be scientists. You may not be aware, but they generally find satisfaction in stuff like "the accolades of the intellectuals" -- not the least reason being that their careers live and die on those things.

 

[Schmoe]

But, at least now, it's so much more than simple sightings. There is audio and video evidence by some of the most respected members of our society. Just because we can't see them, doesn't mean they or "it" doesn't exist. I also don't believe that besides the usual hoaxes and forgeries, that the rest can be explained by our hallucinations or other parts of the brain that we no nothing about. There's just no way all "this" can be rationally explained.

 

[PandaBear]

If history is any indicator, there is no way to prove anything that is spiritual to exist or not.

Whenever a new discover shows up to disprove that the prior understanding of the world (i.e. it is not flat, or the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and sooner or later genetic mutation and to some extend the possibility of evolution) just pushes the boundary of what is science and what is spiritual.

Even if you can explain the big bang, the missing link between chimp and human, the DNA that gives us morality, the genes that gives people long life or not, people still believe in what they believe in and merely adjust their own explanation and boundary of their own believe. Even the most religious person on earth believe that the world is not flat and the sun doesn't revolve around the earth now.

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
If history is any indicator, there is no way to prove anything that is spiritual to exist or not.

Whenever a new discover shows up to disprove that the prior understanding of the world (i.e. it is not flat, or the sun doesn't revolve around the earth, and sooner or later genetic mutation and to some extend the possibility of evolution) just pushes the boundary of what is science and what is spiritual.

Even if you can explain the big bang, the missing link between chimp and human, the DNA that gives us morality, the genes that gives people long life or not, people still believe in what they believe in and merely adjust their own explanation and boundary of their own believe. Even the most religious person on earth believe that the world is not flat and the sun doesn't revolve around the earth now.



Now? What religions are you talking about? Buddhism? If I recall, the Chinese and Indians believed in a flat earth, some up to the 16th century. I don't know of any others, but maybe somewhere is there is obscure religion I'm not aware of.

 

[Kestas]

My head is beginning to hurt from reading this topic.

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
I also don't believe that besides the usual hoaxes and forgeries, that the rest can be explained by our hallucinations or other parts of the brain that we no nothing about. There's just no way all "this" can be rationally explained.

Why not?

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: bigmike
Now? What religions are you talking about? Buddhism? If I recall, the Chinese and Indians believed in a flat earth, some up to the 16th century. I don't know of any others, but maybe somewhere is there is obscure religion I'm not aware of.



I'm saying in general, scientific discovery pushes the boundary of religious believe (or the interpretation of such), so any goal of proving that there are or aren't any spiritual beings will never succeed. I'm not pointing to any religions in general.

 

[Gary Allan]

It's that creepy guy with that annoying "it starts with a point (thfflflflpt! arrow sound here)" thing. He kept using the term "pulling it through" to a new dimension.

They're sub-space and/or hyper space beings that are temporarily out of phase and appear within our visible spectrum.

How much simpler can I make it for you? The sightings are probably at a current or former portal site. Any 1st grade temporal mechanic can cite residual effects that surround a current or former portal site. It's no different than soil contamination at a leather tanning facility. Given the full span of temporal anomalies ..and the very nature of temporal mechanics, the conditions may be either temporary or permanent (and/or both) depending on how one looks at it.

They're mostly harmless.

 

[PandaBear]

Originally Posted By: Gary Allan
It's that creepy guy with that annoying "it starts with a point (thfflflflpt! arrow sound here)" thing. He kept using the term "pulling it through" to a new dimension.


That creepy guy doesn't know jack squat what he was talking about in terms of 10 - 11 dimensions. It is not about alternative universe but about how Physics balances its equation at sub atomic level.

 

[mechtech2]

bigmike - Do you have the ability to be neutral about math equations? How about the boiling temperature of water at STP?

Ability? It's more like you can't take a stand from lack of information. This is no credit to you.

 

[Schmoe]

There is so much we don't know and for the rest of our humble lives, we will never know. We do know that there are unexplainable "things" happening. But just for the mere fact that they are unexplainable, doesn't make it any less real. You can't rationalize unknowns with other unknowns....there just no end to it and it will all boil down to personal beliefs, in which I think this topic will ultimately be heading to as a conclusion. Even Spock had to guess from time to time...............

 

[Gary Allan]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
Even Spock had to guess from time to time...............


Why Schmoe

That's amazing!

 

[CivicFan]

 

[d00df00d]

Originally Posted By: Schmoe
There is so much we don't know and for the rest of our humble lives, we will never know. We do know that there are unexplainable "things" happening. But just for the mere fact that they are unexplainable, doesn't make it any less real. You can't rationalize unknowns with other unknowns....

All 100% true.

Your last sentence explains pretty much perfectly why there's no reason to believe in ghosts: you can't rationalize unknowns (something weird happening) with other unknowns (the supernatural).

Did you just have a change of heart, or what?

 

[97tbird]

Best "ghost" scene ever:


and a brilliant opening theme (same movie):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4RSFDoM7YM

 

[bigmike]

Originally Posted By: PandaBear
Originally Posted By: bigmike
Now? What religions are you talking about? Buddhism? If I recall, the Chinese and Indians believed in a flat earth, some up to the 16th century. I don't know of any others, but maybe somewhere is there is obscure religion I'm not aware of.



I'm saying in general, scientific discovery pushes the boundary of religious believe (or the interpretation of such), so any goal of proving that there are or aren't any spiritual beings will never succeed. I'm not pointing to any religions in general.


I don't think the world is that polar. From my own studies, I'd have to conclude that science and religion are interconnected. What we don't know is simply something yet to be discovered or explained. As I suggested in an earlier post, I have my doubts on those who claim they know everything (post-modernists) and those are the scary people in our society. Not all can be known or proven and we need to accept that, obviously, in order to understand our own limitations.

Thanks for clearing up your point - I do appreciate it.