Ghosts

[Korytco]

Another brilliant mind who believes ghosts are tricks and deceptions, I have truly been damned by being a witness to the paranormal. I fear even challenging your post , not because I can not win but because brilliant, logical men will not let me. I would not believe it myself unless I had experienced the same exact experiences as someone who could honestly claim that he has seen a ghost.

 

[der Astronom]

You will first have to ask yourself if what you have experienced is a consequence of what really happened, and you are not simply viewing things from only one angle of it, which means you have an incomplete picture of what actually happened, and that what you saw is not something you saw with your emotions, but something you actually saw happening. That's sometimes hard to tell though because certain people mix reality with their emotions and confuse the two.

People do make mistakes because their emotions lead them to jump to the wrong conclusions.

To be absolutely sure you did see a ghost would mean you would have to eliminate all possibilities of any kinds of deceptions or tricks.

 

[Dean Winchester]

Perhaps sometimes the desire to see these things is what causes our brain to create some sort of illusion, an alternate reality of what is truly happening, therefore manipulating the elements of our imagination to succeed in the creation of such vision.

For example, we can't control our reality and the fear of not being able to do anything to change that fact causes us to distort our own reality itself.

 

[Korytco]

You will first have to ask yourself if what you have experienced is a consequence of what really happened, and you are not simply viewing things from only one angle of it, which means you have an incomplete picture of what actually happened, and that what you saw is not something you saw with your emotions, but something you actually saw happening. That's sometimes hard to tell though because certain people mix reality with their emotions and confuse the two.

People do make mistakes because their emotions lead them to jump to the wrong conclusions.

To be absolutely sure you did see a ghost would mean you would have to eliminate all possibilities of any kinds of deceptions or tricks.

Fair enough as a possibility but how about the possibility of a hypothesis and if I am right ? Emotion is not always bad, many great discoveries were made because of emotions. I disagree that I must be certain of speculation to speculate , and have to chose the more popular of the puppet feed choices. That is not necessarily right, logical perhaps but maybe rational.

As someone who has experienced these things, it feels rational to atleast look for proof and it harms no one. I recommend you try EVP a few times, who knows maybe you will get lucky.

You are a very smart man but unlike you I think that what exists after life is paranormal . I look for the evidence and you say its a waste of time but have you ever tried it for your self or do your emotions prevent you from doing so?

 

[der Astronom]

If I have observed the said scene with more than one person, it might be a bit more possible to know who's emotions are getting in the way, and who might actually be seeing what actually happened. But I guess it's impossible to see things without at least a little bit of emotion, and nobody actually knows what happened--which is probably why scientists always want to be able to repeat what they see over and over again. The views may change, but the reality does not. Although when I say the emotions are the problem, I was more concerned about them leading people to jumping to conclusions too early, instead of considering other options. I once read in a book that it saves people in certain situations because you don't have time to think, but in others, it is entirely inadequate and inappropriate. Particularly if it's concerning what actually happened and what didn't.

It is more meaningful to be right when your hypothesis is backed with evidence than to be right out of pure luck or chance--what can be learned out of being "right" because you made a guess based on little more than emotions? When you have made a hypothesis out of reason, you have thought out something, had evidence for it, and can explain the entire thing in much detail.

 

[Korytco]

If I have observed the said scene with more than one person, it might be a bit more possible to know who's emotions are getting in the way, and who might actually be seeing what actually happened.

Not necessarily true, what if I am under going certain conditions than the person next to me and I see it for whatever reasons , but they do not ? What if biologically speaking there is a certain element that allows me to see these things? Even if in groups and someone sees, or thinks he knows the answer, if he is the only one that does not make him wrong.

Was the guy who said the earth is round wrong? He was surrounded by people who saw the Earth and did not see it as round.

But I guess it's impossible to see things without at least a little bit of emotion, and nobody actually knows what happened--which is probably why scientists always want to be able to repeat what they see over and over again.

Not every hypothesis can be tested conventionally every time it is tested.

The views may change, but the reality does not. Although when I say the emotions are the problem, I was more concerned about them leading people to jumping to conclusions too early, instead of considering other options. I once read in a book that it saves people in certain situations because you don't have time to think, but in others, it is entirely inadequate and inappropriate. Particularly if it's concerning what actually happened and what didn't.
You wont ever consider the paranormal though, you can not consider it last if you ever want it to be science or look to see if it can be explained with science, you need to bring it to reality and look for the science of the bodies energy and explanations for things that are claiming to be seen , in photos, experience, videos, and everything else about.
It is more meaningful to be right when your hypothesis is backed with evidence than to be right out of pure luck or chance--what can be learned out of being "right" because you made a guess based on little more than emotions? When you have made a hypothesis out of reason, you have thought out something, had evidence for it, and can explain the entire thing in much detail.

Who is to say that I do not try to? Even if not a ghost there is some answer to it. If I say it is emotions it dead ends there.
There are other possibilities. No change is meaningless, it answers nothing but what we already know too many arrogantly assume knowledge can not be changed or expanded. There is evidence, there is theories.

Even if in groups and someone sees, or thinks he knows the answer, if he is the only one that does not make him wrong.

Was the guy who said the earth is round wrong? He was surrounded by people who saw the Earth and did not see it as round.

 

[der Astronom]

Not necessarily true, what if I am under going certain conditions than the person next to me and I see it for whatever reasons , but they do not ? What if biologically speaking there is a certain element that allows me to see these things? Even if in groups and someone sees, or thinks he knows the answer, if he is the only one that does not make him wrong.

That's the reason it helps to have other people around because they might not be seeing what you're seeing, and it means that there is an inconsistency in what's actually being observed and what you seem to see--the fact that there is an apparent contradiction means that either what I saw actually happened, or what the other person saw is what actually happened, or neither of us really saw what was happening. Either way, it is important that these kinds of situations be repeated. It may be easier to obtain more information if these situations could be repeated. The paranormal, if you wish to call them, are as they are because it was not entirely possible to repeat these situations or set them up in such a way they could be studied by science, which is why general sciences don't make comments on them. Please remember that there are certain cases where scientists or other people are able to figure out what happened, and other cases where there isn't enough information, and no one can accurately say what actually happened.

Not every hypothesis can be tested conventionally every time it is tested.

And the ones that can't are not conclusive. It makes no statement about whether or not ghosts actually exist, and if you say they do, it is a belief; nothing more.

You wont ever consider the paranormal though, you can not consider it last if you ever want it to be science or look to see if it can be explained with science, you need to bring it to reality and look for the science of the bodies energy and explanations for things that are claiming to be seen , in photos, experience, videos, and everything else about.

Well, the paranormal does dwell on things for which there are few evidences, and there are few enough that it doesn't match the criteria of what science is. That's simply all. The problem with relating experience with science is that experience is largely subjective, and science doesn't deal with that exactly, unless you're looking at psychology, but it's not about what people experience, but why. It's simply too difficult to conclude anything off of "evidence" that is entirely subjective like hearsay or experience. As for the photos and videos, there must be careful consideration into when the photos and videos were taken, whether or not they were frauds, and the circumstances in which they were taken (ie, a "red" eye is simply a defect in the picture due to lens glare, and not because the person was "possessed" or some other subjective reason.)

Who is to say that I do not try to? Even if not a ghost there is some answer to it. If I say it is emotions it dead ends there.
There are other possibilities. No change is meaningless, it answers nothing but what we already no too many arrogantly assume knowledge can not changed or expanded. There is evidence, there is theories.

No, I'm not saying there is never an answer to it, only with the given objective evidences and interpretations, it is impossible to make any valid conclusion off of it. I am not saying our knowledge of it will never change or expand, but it must be considered whether or not such an event can be repeated within a reasonable amount of time, in our lives, in a century, in all of humanity, or even at all.

Even if in groups and someone sees, or thinks he knows the answer, if he is the only one that does not make him wrong.

Of course. A person who is more rational in thinking among a group of other people who are more easily persuaded by emotions has an easier time seeing and accepting what actually happened than being deluded by what they want to see.

Was the guy who said the earth is round wrong? He was surrounded by people who saw the Earth and did not see it as round.

You could say that a guy standing on a wide open field or flat plain or on a ship in the middle of the sea has an easier time observing a round earth than a guy standing in a village or other crowded places filled with buildings, who can't accurately make out the real shape of the earth, particularly when it's uneven.

However, one need not actually see the shape of the Earth to know that it is round, much like you don't need to ask who saw the murderer in order to know who the murderer is--the mere observation of the projection of the Earth's shadow on the moon shows that the Earth is round. There are also other cases, not unlike a crime where people believe, or rather, are misled by their own interpretation of the evidence to think that a particular person is a murderer, when they are merely being framed.

 

[Korytco]

That's the reason it helps to have other people around because they might not be seeing what you're seeing, and it means that there is an inconsistency in what's actually being observed and what you seem to see--the fact that there is an apparent contradiction means that either what I saw actually happened, or what the other person saw is what actually happened, or neither of us really saw what was happening. Either way, it is important that these kinds of situations be repeated. It may be easier to obtain more information if these situations could be repeated. The paranormal, if you wish to call them, are as they are because it was not entirely possible to repeat these situations or set them up in such a way they could be studied by science, which is why general sciences don't make comments on them. Please remember that there are certain cases where scientists or other people are able to figure out what happened, and other cases where there isn't enough information, and no one can accurately say what actually happened.

An explanation does not mean it is the only explanation though.


And the ones that can't are not conclusive. It makes no statement about whether or not ghosts actually exist, and if you say they do, it is a belief; nothing more.

It becomes theory then. As any respectable scientist should accept it as by now.



Well, the paranormal does dwell on things for which there are few evidences, and there are few enough that it doesn't match the criteria of what science is. That's simply all. The problem with relating experience with science is that experience is largely subjective, and science doesn't deal with that exactly, unless you're looking at psychology, but it's not about what people experience, but why. It's simply too difficult to conclude anything off of "evidence" that is entirely subjective like hearsay or experience. As for the photos and videos, there must be careful consideration into when the photos and videos were taken, whether or not they were frauds, and the circumstances in which they were taken (ie, a "red" eye is simply a defect in the picture due to lens glare, and not because the person was "possessed" or some other subjective reason.)

Yes Yes but science can explain everything even things that it is scientifically not.


No, I'm not saying there is never an answer to it, only with the given objective evidences and interpretations, it is impossible to make any valid conclusion off of it. I am not saying our knowledge of it will never change or expand, but it must be considered whether or not such an event can be repeated within a reasonable amount of time, in our lives, in a century, in all of humanity, or even at all.

Our science might be just as much as a illusion and day dream as the belief.





Of course. A person who is more rational in thinking among a group of other people who are more easily persuaded by emotions has an easier time seeing and accepting what actually happened than being deluded by what they want to see.

Do not need to be rational most great discoveries are discovered by mistake not rationality . I am still rational, I am trying to prove it.



You could say that a guy standing on a wide open field or flat plain or on a ship in the middle of the sea has an easier time observing a round earth than a guy standing in a village or other crowded places filled with buildings, who can't accurately make out the real shape of the earth, particularly when it's uneven.

Perhaps where I stood was a paranormal ship per say ?

However, one need not actually see the shape of the Earth to know that it is round, much like you don't need to ask who saw the murderer in order to know who the murderer is--the mere observation of the projection of the Earth's shadow on the moon shows that the Earth is round. There are also other cases, not unlike a crime where people believe, or rather, are misled by their own interpretation of the evidence to think that a particular person is a murderer, when they are merely being framed. Not all vision is with your eyes . some sight comes from within and simply due to observation of brilliance. To discover is not always to state.

This can go on forever.

 

[der Astronom]

An explanation does not mean it is the only explanation though.

No, of course not, but there is only one reality I'm aware of.

It becomes theory then. As any respectable scientist should accept it as by now.

There's a difference between a scientific theory and a casually named theory though. A theory based solely off of belief is not scientific, and a scientific theory actually has loads of evidence, data, reports, experiments, discussion and information about it. In fact, a scientific theory is well documented and objective. If you have nothing but belief to base your theory off of it, is not really theory, but a hypothesis.

Yes Yes but science can explain everything even things that it is scientifically not.

Actually, that's not true at all. It's a misconception that science can explain "everything", but in fact, science is defined as a specific study that relates to things that are observable, objective, measurable and repeatable. It can't simply be any study done off of anything if done carefully.

Our science might be just as much as a illusion and day dream as the belief.

Perhaps, but science doesn't particularly concern itself with whether or not the nature that we are studying is "real" or false--only that it is observable and measurable. Whether or not what science studies is real or false is an entirely different topic not related to science. But because my existence as a biological human being is no more physical or less measurable or observable than any other scientific study and is completely a part of the natural phenomenon that science is a part of, I don't consider myself any more or less of an illusion than the rest of the natural world.

Do not need to be rational most great discoveries are discovered by mistake not rationality . I am still rational, I am trying to prove it.

It is not the discovery that is rational or irrational, but that they work on the basis of rationality. In other words, you can tell the difference between an accidental discovery, a fraud, and someone plain freaking out.

Perhaps where I stood was a paranormal ship per say ?

Is every ship a "paranormal" ship?

It's not like that was the only way of determining the shape of the earth anyways.

This can go on forever.

Isn't that more enjoyable?

 

[Korytco]

No, of course not, but there is only one reality I'm aware of.


Yes, that you are aware of but reality is shared.

Just because it is not reality to you does not mean it is not reality.

You need to be convinced but what if that is just arrogance ?


There's a difference between a scientific theory and a casually named theory though. A theory based solely off of belief is not scientific, and a scientific theory actually has loads of evidence, data, reports, experiments, discussion and information about it. In fact, a scientific theory is well documented and objective. If you have nothing but belief to base your theory off of it, is not really theory, but a hypothesis.

There is science out there though, we are not all crazed loons starving for someone to believe us, we are trying with science some of us.



Actually, that's not true at all. It's a misconception that science can explain "everything", but in fact, science is defined as a specific study that relates to things that are observable, objective, measurable and repeatable. It can't simply be any study done off of anything if done carefully.

Everything is observable as soon as you can put an opinion to it, everything is objective as soon as it is an opinion, and every result is measurable as soon as it is challenged with a repeatable hypothesis . There can be an explanation to anything .



Perhaps, but science doesn't particularly concern itself with whether or not the nature that we are studying is "real" or false--only that it is observable and measurable. Whether or not what science studies is real or false is an entirely different topic not related to science.

So you can not prove if the paranormal is real of false so why not look for evidence on both sides to measure? Both you have to actually look for it in both sides.

But because my existence as a biological human being is no more physical or less measurable or observable than any other scientific study and is completely a part of the natural phenomenon that science is a part of, I don't consider myself any more or less of an illusion than the rest of the natural world.

The natural and normal world, but this is paranormal science, it is not entirely comparable.



It is not the discovery that is rational or irrational, but that they work on the basis of rationality. In other words, you can tell the difference between an accidental discovery, a fraud, and someone plain freaking out.

No you can assume but that proves nothing.



Is every ship a "paranormal" ship?

It's not like that was the only way of determining the shape of the earth anyways.



Isn't that more enjoyable?

I REPLIED TO THIS IN HIS QUOTE .

 

[der Astronom]

Yes, that you are aware of but reality is shared.

Just because it is not reality to you does not mean it is not reality.

You need to be convinced but what if that is just arrogance ?

I cannot know what other people claim their "reality" is, whether it's a reality they saw while drunk and deluded, or while they were sober, or high strung with emotions, or any other state of the human mind. Is it arrogance to claim a reality that I'm aware of that I'm not able to know other people's realities? The only "reality" that is shared among everyone is the one that everyone experiences that is the same. Otherwise, there is no consistency.

There is science out there though, we are not all crazed loons starving for someone to believe us, we are trying with science some of us.

No, but you can say nothing until there is more evidence. At least you can acknowledge that science is a continuous discovery, and not a tool that is meant to tell us everything. Only that we might discover more in the future than we might have now. But this still tells us nothing about what we might know.

Everything is observable as soon as you can put an opinion to it, everything is objective as soon as it is an opinion, and every result is measurable as soon as it is challenged with a repeatable hypothesis . There can be an explanation to anything .

I am speaking of "observable" in the sense of a natural, physical observation that anyone can see. So if you're the only person who can see it, and everyone else can't (possibly because you're in a state of high emotions, drunk, or not some other natural state) it's not natural or "observable" in the scientific sense. An opinion, furthermore, is not objective, but subjective as it tells us nothing except how you feel, not necessarily what actually did happen, and constitutes no knowledge that everyone else can universally acknowledge to. And since they can't, there is no consistency. A result is measurable physically as well, is well consistent, and you can make many data tables off of it--in other words, what you're trying to measure is physical and meaningful, and you cannot determine that without any kind of physical observation. All this has been done to show that the study we are doing in question is physical and natural, and if it is neither of these things, it is not science.

So you can not prove if the paranormal is real of false so why not look for evidence on both sides to measure? Both you have to actually look for it in both sides.

I did not explicitly say that the paranormal is "false", only that it lacks much empirical evidence to make any valid conclusion off of--all I've been saying for the entire time is that it's inconclusive, and one can say nothing about it. However, I do not choose to believe in things that are not confirmed, so I simply state that as my criteria for what I believe and what I don't believe in, which explains why I do not believe in ghosts. You are free to disagree, but you will have to admit that because nobody has a conclusion on whether or not ghosts exist, anyone who suggests they exist or don't exist is making a subjective opinion or belief, and holds no water universally.

The natural and normal world, but this is paranormal science, it is not entirely comparable.

Thanks for admitting that general sciences has nothing to do with paranormal "sciences".

No you can assume but that proves nothing.

It is no assumption that anyone knows the difference between an accidental discovery, a fraud, and someone freaking out. An accidental discovery, even if accidental, leads to more experiments, reports, data, and information that becomes well documented, and may lead to scientific fact. A fraud becomes inconsistent, and other evidences later show that the evidence was mistaken for a fraud. People freaking out is quite obvious from noticing the expressions on their faces. Furthermore, medicine has advanced to the point where we are able to detect and measure the chemical levels in the brain and other parts of the body to determine what kind of state the person was in when they saw what they saw. These are not assumptions; these are physical evidences.

 

[Korytco]

I am sick of word wall battles. Truth is no one really knows everyone assumes. I do not care how smart anyone is until they are knowledgeable neither side can be won.

The only thing I will agree on is that this can go on forever until proven either way. I know what I saw and I was not emotional . Your emotional theories may go somewhere some day but not every damn paranormal event can be explained with emotions. You seem to consider psychological tricky too much and not even of the side presented to skeptics by true paranormal scientist . Yes I said it and if you disagree it exists argue with these people and not me

http://www.google.com/search?num=10...ial&hs=PVT&q="paranormal+science"&btnG=Search

 

[der Astronom]

I'm sorry if it made it seem like I said all cases of paranormal science is people seeing things with emotions, but there are other cases where evidence shows that what you saw was not actually what you saw. For example, if someone said they saw a man walking by who seemed to be 180cm in height, they could be wrong if the person they saw was walking on top of a curb, and was, in fact, only 170cm in height. The only reason he hadn't noticed that would be because of a large crowd that prevents people from seeing what the man is standing on. If you jumped to such a conclusion, you would not have been able to see what actually happened.

Or in another case, a person reports having seen a man wearing a black shirt, but in fact, his shirt was green, and the only reason it appeared black was because he was wearing sunglasses.

In either case, emotions aren't at fault, but it is a delusion not much different from a magic trick.

 

[Korytco]

Intelligent people do not believe in ghosts, I do not consider myself to be unintelligent for believing though.

Of course I said this so I believe in it all together.

PEACE

 

[der Astronom]

I never said you were unintelligent for believing in them. I state my posts as reasons for why I choose not to believe, and none of us are stupid just for not being able to figure out a magic trick.

 

[Korytco]

I never said you were unintelligent for believing in them. I state my posts as reasons for why I choose not to believe, and none of us are stupid just for not being able to figure out a magic trick.

Yes , I admit it is magic, I am just glad to see I am not considered foolish for trying to figure it out. Perhaps I am siding too much because of emotion as you have been telling me.

Damn it, I can not always be right, da. LOL, of course, it is time I stop trying to prove Im smart and to just act smart. So, I was wrong. My emotions do give me some bias, and yes perhaps if I was more rational before our conversation could have been more convincing, thanks for the help.

I still want to believe but it is wanting to believe , it is not believing because there is nothing factual to believe in. Proper yes because of emotions that is all though.

I search for an explanation but it may not be right. I just got a bit feed up, I made 2 busy threads and when my eyes started to water from replying too much I just lost my cool.

 

[der Astronom]

That's okay; it happens. I guess I could stand to be nicer too though because I'm insensitive, and simply state my ideas in a blunt manner sometimes.

You are what you are, but I don't make comments about the intelligence of my debaters because it's unprofessional. I'm sorry if you felt I said that, but it's not the first time it's happened.

Yes, there's a difference in believing something, wanting it to be true, and something actually being true. Whichever you choose to base what you believe in, whether reality or a lie is entirely up to you. But I don't like to criticize people for their choices because it's not my life I'm living, so long as I'm allowed to choose what I wish to believe as well.

 

[Dean Winchester]

That's okay; it happens. I guess I could stand to be nicer too though because I'm insensitive, and simply state my ideas in a blunt manner sometimes.

You are what you are, but I don't make comments about the intelligence of my debaters because it's unprofessional. I'm sorry if you felt I said that, but it's not the first time it's happened.

Yes, there's a difference in believing something, wanting it to be true, and something actually being true. Whichever you choose to base what you believe in, whether reality or a lie is entirely up to you. But I don't like to criticize people for their choices because it's not my life I'm living, so long as I'm allowed to choose what I wish to believe as well.

Not to mention that is not ethical as well. Yes the purpose of debates is to be able to share our points of view and finally come up to a reasonable explanation based on what we've commented. For example, the existence of "ghosts" and any "paranormal" activities can not be ultimately proven, but at the same time it can't be bluntly disproved as well. There are theories, which suggest that these apparitions can be the reactions of our consciousness to specific amount of energy phenomenons, and that there's a way to measure such levels or energy. I am not entirely sure of that being truth, but then again I don't have the necessary proof to counter that statement and consider it as a lie.

There are always two sides of a coin: truth and lie, life and death, good and evil, etc. Neither is the answer, and both are truth, yet the true answer lies on the edge of the coin, which is obtainable once we find out how to truly understand the knowledge we have gathered.

Now I'll rest. I need to recharge my brain for the next replies of the members.

 

[Rezonate]

No I do not believe in ghosts. Demons? Angels? Yes. If you wish for me to elaborate I will but if not I will just leave it at that.

 

[Cardinal Copia]

Yes, I do believe in ghosts. I also believe in life after death, heaven/hell, spiritual stuff like that. I 100% believe that the apartment we lived in when I was a child was haunted. It was around 1:30 pm and it was just me and my older brother there. My mom had left and went to take my dad lunch when he was on his lunch break. Anyways, we were sitting upstairs playing Tomb Raider 3 and taking turns with the levels. The way our apartment was setup is that you have the living room, the kitchen, then there's a staircase in the living room that goes upstairs. Directly across from the stairs was a closet, directly to the left of the stairs was my parents room, our bathroom was diagonally across(think of the time 10:10 on a clock), then beside the closet was our room. Our bedroom that we shared sat directly above the kitchen so you heard everything that happened down there.
Out of nowhere as we were playing, we heard chairs moving. We looked at each other and just ignored it and continued playing. We then heard chairs moving again. So we decided that we'd go downstairs and see what the noise was. And seriously, with 100% honesty our chairs were moved and got rearranged. It was just us there. Nobody else. Just me and my brother and we were in the same room.

I've also heard stories from my mom about stuff she encountered, I've stayed at friends houses that had ghost related stuff happen, so yes I absolutely believe in ghosts.