Science would have to entertain the hypothesis. — unenlightened

Contrary to popular opinion, I think science is very liberal with which hypotheses it entertains. What better example is there than quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is arguably weirder than ghosts and astrology - yet it's accepted by the scientific establishment because, unlike ghosts and astrology, it made predictions and those predictions were verified. So however weird quantum mechanics is, it earned its place at the table.

Ghosts or astrology aren't too weird for scientists to take them seriously.

He's suggesting people who don't believe in ghosts can't see them, — flannel jesus

Yes, this is basically my point.

I reject the hypothesis that you can only see x if you believe in x. — flannel jesus

But we are not debating about x or a random subject... We are debating about ghosts, and I previously said that these entities are dependent upon us. That's why I claim that, whereas I can see a ghost because I believe in it, I doubt a non-believer will make the effort to believe that there can actually be a ghost in the corridor.

how do ghosts, or the photons they reflect, know what you believe? Seems like your theory also requires telepathy

That's pretty much the issue, one can't say that what a person experiences is false, for they experienced it. Of course the ontology of such a situation is not going to be settled by a personal experience.



Then you fall under the category of people who believe in ghosts. They would be real to you, but this would not serve to establish them as existing in the world, right.

Now you have to establish, if your belief in ghosts is naturalistic, that is caused by something in nature. Or is it supernatural, which complicates the picture considerably.



I did not know that. Huh. It's an interesting fact.

I was merely propelled to start a topic about this because I was reading a novel about 17th century England, in which people had to wrestle with the new science, and old superstitions.

But as a child, I do remember having slight "ghostly" experiences, which just completely disappeared once I learned more about how the world works.

Me, I don't know if there were ghosts there, but it really wasn't hard to believe it in that environment. Partially because of the sense of the past and of premature and violent deaths. It was much easier to believe it there than in the brash newness of Australia where I come from. We're not old enough to be haunted. — Wayfarer

Similar stuff going on when I visited the East Coast of the USA.

A friend of mine, also from there but hasn't been in a long time said the same as I - we are sceptics and understand the basic 'facts' that pit against the possibility of these kind of phenomena.

But we both, and his father (who finds this type of thing fully risible, and not worth being polite about) were harshly emotionally stuck by something within the grounds of Plantations around Georgia/St Simons/Jekyll and then at Gettysburg. Something hangs in the air. And whether we bring it with us, it is shared, and explains a lot about hte conviction people walk away from those experiences with - particularly as they tend to group up (flat-earthers, is a great example).

I make no comment on what that something actually is. I just find this a very interesting phenomena that doesn't seem tied to one's pre-existing state of mind.

But given that such things were universal, say, in the Middle Ages, then it seems to me as if we are inclined to interpret such data consistently in a specific way, such as seeing ghosts or spirits as opposed to unicorns, in terms if repeated experiences. — Manuel

That follows in as much as in a culture where the idea of ghosts and spirts are accepted as real and are culturally important, you're going to see way more of them.

Reminds me of people who have religious visions of saints or of gods. People generally have visions of the saints and gods that are part of their own culture. I'd be more convinced if Mary appeared to people in Punjab. Or if a Hindu deity appeared to a Southern Baptist in Georgia.

I've never heard 'ghosts are only visible to believers' until now. — flannel jesus

That was a standard claim I used to hear amongst New Age types. You don't see them because 'you're a crass materialist who lacks sensitivity' or 'you are a skeptic and so are nto receptive'. I think this romantic approach to occult matters is still popular.

Contrary to popular opinion, I think science is very liberal with which hypotheses it entertains. — flannel jesus

Which science?
A lot of narrative sciences are completely incapable (probably, funding reasons) to entertain hypotheses not prima facie overwhelmingly likely to be true, in my experience.

Hard sciences, though, can at the very least in discussion be more liberal. Then again, Avi Loeb hasn't exactly been treated 'well'.

That was a standard claim I used to hear amongst New Age types. You don't see them because 'you're a crass materialist who lacks sensitivity' or 'you are a skeptic and so are nto receptive'. I think this romantic approach to occult matters is still popular. — Tom Storm

Very much is. The idea that you have to develop a 'sense' for extra-sensory phenomena is both preposterous, and the most common defense to being proven wrong when you claim special identity.

That follows in as much as in a culture where the idea of ghosts and spirts are accepted as real and are culturally important, you're going to see way more of them.

Reminds me of people who have religious visions of saints or of gods. People generally have visions of the saints and gods that are part of their own culture. I'd be more convinced if Mary appeared to people in Punjab. Or if a Hindu deity appeared to a Southern Baptist in Georgia. — Tom Storm

That's true and it would be pretty strong evidence if we saw Jesus figures consistently appear in Buddhists temples, or the other way around.

These tend to be kind of, without meaning to demean the term, more primitive experiences quite literally. People tend to experience the kind of stuff they are inundated with while growing up.

What's curios to me is that many people, not all, could be put in such a state of mind given specific circumstances, say, being in a cult or being constantly barraged with people saying and believing in these things. But what accounts for this?

Is it just that we experience things to some extent due to cultural circumstances?

One would have to see if such claims would happen to most scientists. Probably not. It's a puzzling topic...

But what accounts for this? — Manuel

Sunk-cost fallacy.

Coming to terms with your entire milieu being wrong is painful, and avoiding it seems standard. This applies equally to thinking Horoscopes represent something not derived from your own mind, and being an asshole.

That was a standard claim I used to hear amongst New Age types. You don't see them because 'you're a crass materialist who lacks sensitivity' or 'you are a skeptic and so are nto receptive'. I think this romantic approach to occult matters is still popular. — Tom Storm

:up:

Which science? — AmadeusD

Well my example was from physics

how do ghosts, or the photons they reflect, know what you believe? — flannel jesus

How does pepper know your taste? How does light know your vision? Etc.

Again, I think you are not trying to understand my argument because you focus on a pure scientific approach. As I already discussed with Manuel, it is not hard to believe in ghosts. They can exist in whatever we consider reality. Here is where the problem goes to. The concept of reality is different. You reject their possible existence because they do not have photons which are perceptible to our senses.

But, what if I say that I actually saw a ghost once. You will claim that I am a liar or a stupid head, but the ghost still exists in my world and reality. Why do I have to take into account the photons at all? Why does the ghost need to exist in your world to be proven? What if I can see ghosts, but you don't? Etc.

If you have to find an explanation for a ghost you saw, that's fine, you still saw it. — flannel jesus

Nonsense. You saw something, but not a ghost. "It's a ghost." is the explanation, to which one finds an alternative - just a hologram, trick of the light, too much mushroom tea.

What, sunk cost fallacy for people who have become accustomed to believe in such things and now see evidence showing them they are wrong? In that case, I agree with you.

What about cases in which you don't have a person who believes strongly either for or against ghosts or spirits, but has a strong experience of them, would that be sunk cost too?

I know empirical evidence would be helpful here, I'm just thinking out loud

the ghost still exists in my world and reality. — javi2541997

No, it doesn't. The experience exists, of a non-existent ghost. That is, if you accept that abstract objects don't obtain.
If you do, sure, I'll take it. But that's, imo, a very much massaged use of the word.

they do not have photons which are perceptible to our senses.

But, what if I say that I actually saw a ghost once. — javi2541997

You say it's not perceptible to our senses,

And then say you saw it.

I can't make heads or tails of these claims. They're all over the place

would that be sunk cost too? — Manuel

From experience: Moments where I have, apparently, seen or experienced something extravagant, anti-physics, telepathic etc.. it is very hard to drop the moment of intense speciality of being "the one" who experienced something extra-sensory, or special, or beyond normal experience. EVeryone wants to be special. Once your inner person has latched on to the experience, I think it's very hard to let go of it.

Francis Collins would be an example there. His experience was powerful, and I imagine, he has since been trying to support the initial emotional response with theology, rather than the opposite. It was 'spontaneous'.

You are twisting my quotes. Pretty bad. Please, read carefully what I answered to you. It is clear that I was referring to you about the non-receiver of the photons of ghosts. You cut and copy a quote which does not follow what I explained. Take it seriously, or it is enough for me to keep debating with you.

True, there is that tendency among people who wish to maintain that they are uniquely unique, in this experiential respect.

I'd only quibble that I think all of us have had at one time or another a "special experience", which is beyond normal experience. But that doesn't make one gifted or transcendent. I suppose what would be strange is to live an entire life and to have never had a particularly strange or powerful experience.

It doesn't serve to prove anything.

The experience exists. — AmadeusD

Interesting. You can't experience death consciously. Does death exist?

I don't think it was a twist, I quoted your words directly and I didn't have to twist them, they don't make sense to me as they are

You are a liar. The real quote is:

You reject their possible existence because they do not have photons which are perceptible to our senses. — javi2541997

But you cropped it in the middle with the aim of showing that I was contradictory or nonsense. Our discussion is over. You are not honest.

@Manuel

haunted minds, not haunted houses — Tom Storm

:up:

Re: "spirit" (that which breathes, or breaths / voices / winds) & "ghost" (i.e. traum or geist ... dream or in/of the mind ... daimon, etc); also: from acculturation, "believing is seeing" :eyes: :pray:

↪Wayfarer You'd think, given the atrocities committed against the aborigines by the white settlers, that their ghosts, if there were such actual entities, would haunt us plenty. — Janus

:up: :up:

that quote doesn't make sense unless you believe they don't reflect photons. I never said they didn't.

That's not a bad way to put it actually.

It does sound strange though to say, "I thought I saw a ghost, but I actually saw some strange lights in human form."

But still, good way to frame it.

Everyone else experiences your death, so on this account yes. But it was a throwaway descriptive take on something that is clearly mind-dependent. Death is clearly not.

I don't think you should say you saw a ghost because what you saw is doubtfully a ghost.

You might say though that you are influenced by the ghosts of your ancestors. Those are the ghosts I believe in.

Is it just that we experience things to some extent due to cultural circumstances? — Manuel

Consider this essay. Morphic fields, and morphic resonance, even though generally (and angrily) rejected by mainstream science, at least provide a potential medium for the transmission of what is perceived as ghosts.

You'd think, given the atrocities committed against the aborigines by the white settlers, that their ghosts, if there were such actual entities, would haunt us plenty. — Janus

Well, if that's what ghosts do--haunt, that is, because of the wrongs done to them. Many of the "ghost stories" we find in the writings of ancient Greeks and Romans involve the ghosts of those who didn't receive the appropriate burial rituals, for one reason or other. They'd haunt until their bodies were found and given their burial rights, at which time the hauntings would stop. Hauntings for the purpose of torturing those who did the ghost wrong while alive are fairly rare, and then it's often the Furies who torment the wrongdoer at the behest of the dead or just because what was done annoyed them. Ghosts also were encountered when the living went to the Underworld for one reason or another, like Ulysses, or in dreams. There are a few revenge hauntings I can think of orchestrated by a ghost, but surprisingly few, relatively speaking.

No doubt there's been a study of some kind devoted to what ghosts were thought to do by different cultures throughout history.

One of the 'six realms' into which humans may be reborn in Buddhist cultures is the realm of the hungry ghosts - these are the spirits of people who in life were greedy, envious, jealous or selfish. The hungry ghost's existence is characterised by inextinguishable craving which can never be satisfied, so they are depicted with large bellies and thin necks, forever searching for a sustenance they can never obtain.