I Heard My Father's 'Ghost' Yesterday.

[Jim B.]

I was lying in bed yesterday. And since I had nothing to do that day, I didn't realize how late it was getting. Then I heard coming from my father's old bedroom a voice saying "Jamie?" (my family calls me "Jamie"). At first, I didn't even realize who it was. And as I said, it sounded like it was coming from the other room.

Little background. My beloved father died about a year ago. And I was hearing his voice every now and then. In life, he was typically more of an early bird than me. So it was not uncommon for me to hear him calling me from the other room. Interestingly enough, I do not believe in an afterlife or "real" ghosts. But I have heard of ghost phenomenon. And I do think some the stories are amazing and even striking.

Actually, I was talking with one of my doctors about this not too long ago. And he said it is not uncommon to hear or see a departed love one. It is just a normal part of the grieving process. It is only a concern if you become frightened by it, or if it persists. But as I said, it sounded like it was coming from the other room. How could a temporary illusion?/hallucination? sound like it was coming from the other room? And plus, to reiterate, I didn't even realize how late it was. Could my subconscious mind know this, even if I didn't?

Anyways, this threat is also dedicated to the phenomenon of so-called ghosts. Please feel free to add any input (as I said, I don't even believe in ghosts, real ones at least).

:)

[Jim B.]

I would just briefly add, there is a reason why I put this in GD instead of MPSIMS. I want to start a serious debate about my experience, and ghost phenomenon in general. If you don't have a serious debate to add, consider not even posting:).

[Marley23]

I'm sorry for your loss. As far the debate topic goes, I don't think the fact that the voice seemed to be coming from another room indicates anything- why wouldn't you be able to hallucinate something like that?

[Mangetout]

How could a temporary illusion?/hallucination? sound like it was coming from the other room?If it was a hallucination, there's really no limitation on how it could be perceived, as it's only got to press the right combination of buttons in your brain.

(Without any disrespect intended) the above is analogous to asking "How can a hallucinatory elephant be pink?". Hallucinatory phenomena can be anything.

[BigT]

Our minds get stuck into a pattern, and will construct information based on only a limited amount of input. You most likely heard some sound from the other room, and it sounded enough like your dad calling you that your brain constructed it, not quite used to the fact that your dad couldn't have been calling you.

It happens all the time, but it's worse during the grieving process because you are spending more time thinking about that person, so your mind is more likely to jump to conclusions that involve him.

In fact, I hesitate to call such phenomena "hallucinations."

[kanicbird]

Just because you don't believe they exists doesn't mean that they don't exist. Their existence is quite independent on your beliefs on it.

But there is a pattern your mind remembers of him. Your mind knows exactly how to recreate it as it has experienced it before. Perhaps something is activating that memory, the question is why, what is brought to mind about that voice. Not so much of memories of your pop but what about that type of calling, what does that mean to you when he called you like that.

[Paranoid Randroid]

If it was a hallucination, there's really no limitation on how it could be perceived, as it's only got to press the right combination of buttons in your brain.

That’s true, although some kinds of hallucination are vastly more probable than others. The brain seems pretty capable of constructing something like a voice from another room; but if Jim B. had interacted with his father, fully-formed and standing right in front of him for an extended period, it would be considerably more baffling.

Anyway, I don’t believe in ghosts or spirits either. Nevertheless I’ve glimpsed a few weird things, once a face in the window, another time a man leaning up against a car, both experiences fleeting. These carried no emotional attachment so their impact was minimal — but my otherwise reasonable mother had the experience of my deceased father approaching and comforting her while she cried — and there’s simply no convincing her it wasn’t real. (Not that one should try very hard with that sort of thing.)

What’s all this mean in the final accounting? Dunno. I don’t think I would react to hearing my father’s voice by doubting my thoroughly nonspiritual convictions, but how could I tell without going through it?

[74westy]

I was lying in bed yesterday. And since I had nothing to do that day, I didn't realize how late it was getting.

Auditory hallucinations are commonly associated with being on the verge of sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)

[pulykamell]

Auditory hallucinations are commonly associated with being on the verge of sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)

I used to get auditory hallucinations in college a small handful of times, usually after a very stressful period stayed up studying late or finishing a paper before the morning deadline. I would hit the sack overtired, and before I drifted into sleep, I'd be able to conjure up auditory hallucinations. It was one of the the coolest things I have ever experienced. It was not like imagining a song in your head. It was like having headphones on and truly and really hearing the music. An incredible sensation. At the time, I was much more active musically than I am now, so a song fragment I was working on would start playing in my head, completely orchestrated, and finish itself! A bizarre sensation to say the least. It was like listening to the radio play your song and being excited to hear how it evolves and resolves.

Unfortunately, being on the very edge of sleep, it was difficult to keep this state for more than five minutes or so before either drifting off into sleep, or excitedly waking to try to remember as much of what your subconscious composed as your could. I wish I were able to control these auditory hallucinations and have them happen at will.

[fumster]

Just because you don't believe they exists doesn't mean that they don't exist. Their existence is quite independent on your beliefs on it.And just because lots of people believe in something doesn't mean it exists; existence is quite independent of your beliefs.

[SpoilerVirgin]

Auditory hallucinations are commonly associated with being on the verge of sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)I experience frequent hypnagogic hallucinations, although mine are visual rather than auditory. I have seen a large vase of flowers by my bedside, a video camera mounted in the corner of my ceiling, and actual "ghosts", most memorably a little girl in a white nightgown who was glowing with an eerie light. They are fascinating, but evidence of the wonders of the human brain rather than anything paranormal.

In Judaism we say that the deceased still "live on in the hearts of those who cherish their memory." Your father is living on, if only through the memory of him that remains with you.

[Paranoid Randroid]

Auditory hallucinations are commonly associated with being on the verge of sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)

This is true. I too have heard voices just as I fall asleep, but they’re usually incoherent and since I know exactly what’s going on I hardly even make a note of it. (I also “trip” pretty frequently, jolting me awake, which is terribly annoying.)

[mishagoe]

There are plenty of people reporting these types of experiences. So they clearly are a real phenomenon and deserve to be taken seriously as such. Unfortunately, they are experiental and subjective, not verifiable by anyone outside of the experience. We have not been able to measure and collect independent physical data of these experiences, at least not any outside of the physical brain states. This means that one could argue they are simply tricks of the mind, and while that explanation appeals to many, is still not confirmation that these experiences are anything other than what they are reported to be, namely an experience of a deceased relative or friend appearing and talking to us.

[Marley23]

There are plenty of people reporting these types of experiences. So they clearly are a real phenomenon and deserve to be taken seriously as such.
It's not in dispute that a lot of people think this is what's happening to them. That doesn't make ghosts a credible explanation.

[DianaG]

Auditory hallucinations are commonly associated with being on the verge of sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)
Bingo. I often hear my mother calling to me to wake up in the morning. She's not dead.

[mishagoe]

It's not in dispute that a lot of people think this is what's happening to them. That doesn't make ghosts a credible explanation.

That woud be true if you believe subjective experiences are strictly and in all cases of a type less real than objectively verifiable phenomenon. This is a subjective experience, it is what it is experienced to be, that is until we find a way to measure the physical aspects of the phenomenon (assuming that is possible).

[Marley23]

That woud be true if you believe subjective experiences are strictly and in all cases of a type less real than objectively verifiable phenomenon. This is a subjective experience, it is what it is experienced to be, that is until we find a way to measure the physical aspects of the phenomenon (assuming that is possible).
What? Either it's ghosts or it isn't.

[Yllaria]

Our minds get stuck into a pattern, and will construct information based on only a limited amount of input. . . . , I hesitate to call such phenomena "hallucinations."

I think this is the core of it. Our brains smooth out information gaps by filling in what they're used to. We don't see the blind spot caused by the optic nerves divng through our retinas. We don't see the world moving when we move our eyes.

I once saw, out of the corner of my eye, a small neon sign that wasn't there in a window. I was driving my parents around town, looking for an insurance office. They had the address, but couldn't see the number anywhere. I said, no problem, we just passed it, I saw the sign.

They hadn't seen any sign. Are you sure? I'm sure I saw the sign. And what will we lose circling the block? By the numbers, we're obviously close.

The office was there. The sign wasn't. When I mentioned it to the agent, he said there used to be one, but it was out for repair. I had never been aware of seeing the sign, but had driven down that street many times. Apparently that was enough to be subconsciously aware of it and for my mind to fill it in. I don't think that the sign was dead and I was seeing its ghost.

[mishagoe]

What? Either it's ghosts or it isn't.

Ok, and for you it is definitely "not ghosts" i.e. not real in anyway and for me it is possibly something real.

[Paranoid Randroid]

That woud be true if you believe subjective experiences are strictly and in all cases of a type less real than objectively verifiable phenomenon. This is a subjective experience, it is what it is experienced to be, that is until we find a way to measure the physical aspects of the phenomenon (assuming that is possible).

Why should that be the case? No one doubts that people have the subjective experience of seeing and hearing things that couldn’t physically be there, interacting with deceased loved ones, or hovering over their operating table before traversing a tunnel of light. (Or whatever.) These experiences are undoubtedly “real” in some sense. But by what principle of scientific enquiry should be assume one possible explanation (that they are what they appear to be) when other explanations perform just as well but much more closely match up with our background knowledge?

[John DiFool]

Bingo. I often hear my mother calling to me to wake up in the morning. She's not dead.

I heard a gunshot right when I was waking up the other day.

[Marley23]

Ok, and for you it is definitely "not ghosts" i.e. not real in anyway and for me it is possibly something real.
What does that have to do with subjective experiences and verifiability? I agree there is "something real" in that Jim B. definitely felt something happened, and lots of people have had similar experiences. The question is what happened. The plausible explanation is that he thought he heard something, but it wasn't a ghost talking to him. That's not an issue of subjectivity and objectivity and verifiability and what's "more real" and whatever you were trying to say. It's that ghosts don't exist.

[pulykamell]

Ok, and for you it is definitely "not ghosts" i.e. not real in anyway and for me it is possibly something real.

See, I used to believe in the supernatural to some extent, but when I finally experienced auditory hallucinations, sleep paralysis, and the such, it seemed more plausible to me to lump all those sorts of experiences under "tricks of the brain" rather than dividing them into "tricks of the brain" and "possibly real supernatural phenomenon" when the feeling of the two experiences was identical. Why should I think one is mental and the other supernatural, and how would I know the difference?

[SiXSwordS]

How could a temporary illusion?/hallucination? sound like it was coming from the other room?

Anecdote:
For whatever reason, I have been experiencing auditory illusions frequently for two or three weeks. In one case I distinctly heard the doorbell and was about to get up to see who it could be before I realized it was the wrong doorbell.

I moved recently and the doorbell I "heard" was the doorbell from my previous place. It sounded exactly right for my old place.

[mishagoe]

No one doubts that people have the subjective experience of seeing and hearing things that couldn’t physically be there, interacting with deceased loved ones, or hovering over their operating table before traversing a tunnel of light. (Or whatever.) These experiences are undoubtedly “real” in some sense. But by what principle of scientific enquiry should be assume one possible explanation (that they are what they appear to be) when other explanations perform just as well but much more closely match up with our background knowledge?

Becaue when you agree they are "undoubtedly "real" you mean real as in "couldn't physically be there".

Your background knowledge is bascially this contradiction, so it should not be surprising that you tend towards epxlanations of the type "not physically real".

Therefore since it is not really real, it must be hallucination or the brain filling in bits and pieces it expects, so then it must be real in the special sense that it isn't real in the world but an artifact of the brain's representation of the world.

Except of course the brain's representation of the world is in the world, so by definition is real at least as far as the physical neural activations of the brain network, irrespective of the content, i.e. the subjective mental experience.

So you must at minimum be saying there is an aspect to mental experience that while grounded and correlated in the physicallity of the brain, is for all intends and purposes, interchangeable and non-speciifc and can be correlated with any other substitutable sujective mental experience. In other words, there is an aspect to reality that is wholly subjective and cannot be specifically linked to an objective phenomenon.

You accept that but you don't accept ghosts. I don't get the difference.

[Sailboat]

This means that one could argue they are simply tricks of the mind, and while that explanation appeals to many, is still not confirmation that these experiences are anything other than what they are reported to be, namely an experience of a deceased relative or friend appearing and talking to us.

This seems like a misapplication of the principle of parsimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_parsimony) to me.

I get the sense, from talking to people, that it's the beloved returning as ghosts explanation that "appeals to many," not the "tricks of the mind" explanation.

And by your argument, I have to be right, since I feel that way. There's no confirmation that my experience is anything other than what I report it to be.

[mishagoe]

This seems like a misapplication of the principle of parsimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_parsimony) to me.

I get the sense, from talking to people, that it's the beloved returning as ghosts explanation that "appeals to many," not the "tricks of the mind" explanation.

And by your argument, I have to be right, since I feel that way. There's no confirmation that my experience is anything other than what I report it to be.

Beloved and appealing it what sense though? It may be appealing to people because it is parsimonious with their experience.

[Marley23]

Beloved and appealing it what sense though?
In the sense that people who are dead stay present and death isn't the end of your conscious existence.

It may be appealing to people because it is parsimonious with their experience.
That's not what parsimony means or how it works.

[Hampshire]

The human mind works in such a way that it is always trying to make sense of what it perceives by filling in the blanks of what's missing to make sense out of it based on past patterns and memories.
When we see an outline made of dots forming a shape like a star our brain thinks "star" even though all we are really seeing is some dots.
When you see an elephant through a picket fence your mind is smart enough to see an entire elephant even though you are only seeing 50% of it. It's filling in those blanks based on past memories.
And all this filling in of blanks is not limited to images. It's sounds, smells, tastes, tactile cues.
So if you hear a sound that's unidentifiable your mind is going to try to match it up with something it can identify even with all the missing information. An odd noise of "a...e" suddenly gets filled in as "Jamie!"
I get an odd phenomenon every morning when I turn the shower on. Something about the noise of the water in the pipes behind the wall my mind fills in as child screeching outside in the back yard. The first few times it shook me and I had to go look for myself.

[florez]

If you heard your beloved father's voice and it brought comfort or joy to you, than who cares about the rational
reason. You heard it, and you did not have to share it with us, but you did. I believe things like this can happen and do happen more often than we will ever know of.

[mishagoe]

That's not what parsimony means or how it works.

This is what it means (not my definition, plugged from the web)

Parsimony is a method for choosing the simplest explanation among a variety of possible explanations for phenomena when decisive evidence is unavailable.

Would you not agree that the set of "possible explanations" from which the selection is made is what is debatable here?

[Sailboat]

This is what it means (not my definition, plugged from the web)

Parsimony is a method for choosing the simplest explanation among a variety of possible explanations for phenomena when decisive evidence is unavailable.

Would you not agree that the set of "possible explanations" from which the selection is made is what is debatable here?

And returning from the dead is a simpler explanation than someone misinterpreting sensory input? A world where people are infallible but physics makes mistakes?

[Marley23]

Parsimony is a method for choosing the simplest explanation among a variety of possible explanations for phenomena when decisive evidence is unavailable.
And there's no such thing as "parsimonious with their experience." We don't live in separate worlds where different explanations are parsimonious to different people. The explanation that Jim B. had a hypnagogic hallucination, for example, is more parsimonious than an explanation that involves ghosts or souls or ESP that work through unexplained means. That's true for everyone. I think everyone understands that sometimes things feel creepy or weird and the most reasonable explanation doesn't always make our doubts go away. But that doesn't mean that ghosts become the most logical explanation.

[MLS]

The human mind works in such a way that it is always trying to make sense of what it perceives by filling in the blanks of what's missing to make sense out of it based on past patterns and memories.
When we see an outline made of dots forming a shape like a star our brain thinks "star" even though all we are really seeing is some dots.
When you see an elephant through a picket fence your mind is smart enough to see an entire elephant even though you are only seeing 50% of it. It's filling in those blanks based on past memories.
And all this filling in of blanks is not limited to images. It's sounds, smells, tastes, tactile cues.
So if you hear a sound that's unidentifiable your mind is going to try to match it up with something it can identify even with all the missing information. An odd noise of "a...e" suddenly gets filled in as "Jamie!"
I get an odd phenomenon every morning when I turn the shower on. Something about the noise of the water in the pipes behind the wall my mind fills in as child screeching outside in the back yard. The first few times it shook me and I had to go look for myself.
This.

The human mind is excellent at finding patterns, sometimes even when there aren't any. A person I know was under a great deal of stress, and also has bipolar disorder. She reported hearing things that weren't there, as if a radio were playing in the next room, or people talking, although neither was true. Her doctor explained that in her stressful and manic state, her senses were very hyper-acute, and her brain was frantically trying to make sense of it all.

I've had the experience of feeling the presence of someone who's gone. I was probably thinking about them in "background processing" a good deal of the time, and sometimes my mind happened to hit a mental replay button on a real experience.

If it's comforting, and you like to believe that the person is really still there with you, it's no harm done IMHO. [Of course if they tell you that it's important to bury a hatchet in your next door neighbor please ignore that part.]

[Czarcasm]

This is what it means (not my definition, plugged from the web)

Parsimony is a method for choosing the simplest explanation among a variety of possible explanations for phenomena when decisive evidence is unavailable.

Would you not agree that the set of "possible explanations" from which the selection is made is what is debatable here?Your mistake is in your list of "possible" explanations, because you've chosen to include things we don't know are possible. I can come up with solid and verifiable evidence that hallucinations exist. Can you come up with solid and verifiable evidence for the existence of ghosts? If you still insist despite the total lack of evidence to keep ghosts on your list of possibilities, why do you not include time travelers, Loki the Trickster, bleeding from an alternate universe, or the cat practicing her ventriloquism equally among your list of possibilities?

[Kobal2]

Bingo. I often hear my mother calling to me to wake up in the morning. She's not dead.

I had the same problem throughout high school and college. Moving out cured it.

[mishagoe]

And there's no such thing as "parsimonious with their experience." We don't live in separate worlds where different explanations are parsimonious to different people.

Clearly we do, because we do have competing explanations and theories with their champions as the best one that fits all the facts. There is generally room for debate with most ideas, even if I grant that theories such as Evolution are beyond debatable, but much more is debatable than not.

The explanation that Jim B. had a hypnagogic hallucination, for example, is more parsimonious than an explanation that involves ghosts or souls or ESP that work through unexplained means. That's true for everyone.

Only if you exclude the subject's own report that it was indeed the spirit/soul/whatever of the dear departed. You have to make the prior assumption that subject can't be trusted to have had a real experience indicative of something that actually happened in the manner reported.

[/QUOTE] I think everyone understands that sometimes things feel creepy or weird and the most reasonable explanation doesn't always make our doubts go away. But that doesn't mean that ghosts become the most logical explanation.[/QUOTE]

Feelings of creepy and weird doesn't enter into it. What does enter into it is what
kinds of constraints we place around the "allowable" context within which we allow ourselve to close out the explanation of the phenomenon. Your explanation is a fairly good one and won't get many arguments. However, it has to rely on undermining the actual phenomenon: this reported phenomenon is not the reported phenomenon, it's something else, it is in fact this substitute experience as in,
my dead father speaking was really the next door neighbor cryiing out in his sleep. Perfectly reasonable to say that, it could have been, but you haven't shown it to be what actuallly happened. You are simply proposing it as the most likely an explanation of that type because it is parsimonous with what you assume is possible to happen.

[Marley23]

Perfectly reasonable to say that, it could have been, but you haven't shown it to be what actuallly happened. You are simply proposing it as the most likely an explanation of that type because it is parsimonous with what you assume is possible to happen.
It's not just an assumption.

[Chronos]

I often have audio hallucinations while I'm falling asleep, most often voices of people I'm very familiar with like my mom or sister. Who are both still alive and healthy. I'm sure that, after they die, I'll still have such hallucinations. But I think it's pretty safe to say that the ones before death are basically the same as the ones after death, and if the ones before death aren't ghosts, neither are the after-death ones.

For the record, by the way, I'm quite aware while I'm having them that they are in fact hallucinations, and they never seem to say anything of any real significance, so I'm not particularly worried about them.

[Trinopus]

I have a history of strong olfactory hallucinations... Basically, if I smell something really strong -- cat poop at a friend's house, gunpowder at a shooting range, etc. -- then the odor persists, in my mind, long after it has actually faded away entirely. I will keep smelling it, and it seems as real as anything -- but no one else can.

I used to think that such odors permeated my clothing, and this was what I was smelling. Hey, it's true of cigarette smoke... But some semi-scientific experiments have pretty well confirmed that, in some cases anyway, it's an hallucination.

[Rushgeekgirl]

I recently had this happen to me but it was my SO (or former, since we haven't been together since last July). I was also in bed and thought he was standing at the doorway calling my name. I don't recall seeing him so much as knowing he was there by the sound of his voice.

He's not dead, to clarify.

It frightened me because despite a complete non-belief in ghosts or a spiritual world it seemed VERY real, and the worst part is with him being in ICE detention I can't call him so I had to wait a week to hear his voice so I'd know he wasn't dead and I hadn't experienced a ghostly appearance. It affected me that strongly.

So I'm guessing hallucination? I told my therapist about it and she says it's actually quite common when you're experiencing the heavy stress I've been going through.

[Sitnam]

I Heard My Father's 'Ghost' Yesterday. No, you didn't.

Surely the OP doesn't expect a debate based on the parameters of his personal experience, that's what MPSIMS is for.

[Mangetout]

Did you read past the thread title?

[Paul in Qatar]

I live in the Middle East far from my family. Sometimes, as I drop off, I hear the voices of my still-living family. Living 'ghosts,' way cool.

[SiXSwordS]

I often have audio hallucinations while I'm falling asleep <snip> I'm quite aware while I'm having them that they are in fact hallucinations, and they never seem to say anything of any real significance....

Sometimes, as I drop off, I hear the voices of my still-living family. Living 'ghosts,' way cool.

For me, there is a distinction to be made between an "action-memory" or a "dream-like memory" and the emotional experience of specifically NOT knowing if it's real--if only in the moment.

For me, that's part of the hallucination (although the word hallucination doesn't seem to fit quite right).

In the anecdote I mentioned earlier, I didn't "dream" the doorbell was ringing; I "dreamt" the doorbell was ringing and that I needed to get up to go answer it and when I realized it wasn't the right sound for my doorbell I experienced a moment of "irreality"--a sense that I couldn't tell which was real and which was the "dream."

[Jenaroph]

...Except of course the brain's representation of the world is in the world, so by definition is real at least as far as the physical neural activations of the brain network, irrespective of the content, i.e. the subjective mental experience.

So you must at minimum be saying there is an aspect to mental experience that while grounded and correlated in the physicallity of the brain, is for all intends and purposes, interchangeable and non-speciifc and can be correlated with any other substitutable sujective mental experience. In other words, there is an aspect to reality that is wholly subjective and cannot be specifically linked to an objective phenomenon. Wrong. We can scan brains of people having hallucinations, which provides evidence of objective phenomena. What we can't do is measure the output of individual firing neurons in a way which would give us a look into what exactly the person is experiencing while hallucinating, or explain why. But that doesn't make it not any less a physical phenomenon, just one that is beyond our ability to measure.

Accepting the fact that there are things our brains do that we can't now measure and may never be able to measure is pretty far away from saying "Hmm, maybe ghosts exist."

Did you read past the thread title?

Yes. The rest of us are hallucinating the ongoing discussion.

[Jenaroph]

Forgot to add my own experience - I have tinnitus, and if I have to pull over for an emergency vehicle with sirens blaring, when I continue, I hear distant sirens long after it's gone. My brain reinterprets my usual ear-ringing as sirens; it's very convincing. I usually roll down the windows to listen in case another vehicle actually is coming, and the change in ambient sound will shake off the illusion.

[Mangetout]

Forgot to add my own experience - I have tinnitus, and if I have to pull over for an emergency vehicle with sirens blaring, when I continue, I hear distant sirens long after it's gone. My brain reinterprets my usual ear-ringing as sirens; it's very convincing. I usually roll down the windows to listen in case another vehicle actually is coming, and the change in ambient sound will shake off the illusion.

Kinda similar to this, on long car journeys as a child, I used to listen to the rumbling, buzzing road noise of the car and think of a song (any piece of music) - after a short while, I would hear the music picking itself out from the noise.

[Marley23]

Only if you exclude the subject's own report that it was indeed the spirit/soul/whatever of the dear departed.
I missed this earlier, but no, that's not what the OP is reporting. The OP is reporting hearing a noise. He's not saying with any certainty that it was the spirit of his father. He does say it sounded like his father saying his name. But as I said, you don't get to rewrite the meaning of parsimony based on the conclusion you want. Even if the OP was fairly sure of what he'd heard, it wouldn't be simpler explanation.

[mishagoe]

Wrong. We can scan brains of people having hallucinations, which provides evidence of objective phenomena. What we can't do is measure the output of individual firing neurons in a way which would give us a look into what exactly the person is experiencing while hallucinating, or explain why. But that doesn't make it not any less a physical phenomenon, just one that is beyond our ability to measure.

Yes I know we can map neural activation patterns and overal functional activation states and correlate them to the individual thinking about something, remembering something, looking at something and getting ready to act in some way. In short we can create an image of the brain and say, this is the point the subject did this or thought about that.

My point is not about that, it is about this logical error in all these counter arguments: by equating the neural activation pattern of subject hearing a dead relative speaking in the next room with subject hearing the neighbor talking loudly next door, to explain why subject couldn't possibly be experiencing a "non-real" event such as a ghost/spirit/soul, by insisting it must have been this other "real" event, you have substituted one mental content for another, calling them one and the same since by definition they must both correlate to the exact same neural activation state, i.e. the original experience reported by the subject. I don't think you can do that without also assuming that mental content is essentially substituable for any given neural activation pattern. In other words, the content is not specifically related to the the specific physical state of the brain, otherwise you could not substitute content in the way these explanations do. I.e. you must belief mental content and physical brain state are not connected, this is the mind/body duality. If you believe that why can't you believe in ghosts. You might as well.

[Czarcasm]

Yes I know we can map neural activation patterns and overal functional activation states and correlate them to the individual thinking about something, remembering something, looking at something and getting ready to act in some way. In short we can create an image of the brain and say, this is the point the subject did this or thought about that.

My point is not about that, it is about this logical error in all these counter arguments: by equating the neural activation pattern of subject hearing a dead relative speaking in the next room with subject hearing the neighbor talking loudly next door, to explain why subject couldn't possibly be experiencing a "non-real" event such as a ghost/spirit/soul, by insisting it must have been this other "real" event, you have substituted one mental content for another, calling them one and the same since by definition they must both correlate to the exact same neural activation state, i.e. the original experience reported by the subject. I don't think you can do that without also assuming that mental content is essentially substituable for any given neural activation pattern. In other words, the content is not specifically related to the the specific physical state of the brain, otherwise you could not substitute content in the way these explanations do. I.e. you must belief mental content and physical brain state are not connected, this is the mind/body duality. If you believe that why can't you believe in ghosts. You might as well.Once again, before we consider ghosts as a possibility, we should find out if ghosts are a possibility equal with the other possibilities mentioned before.
Here is direct evidence via You Tube of cat ventriloquism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3gzee1cps), which makes it a possibility to be considered. Where is your corresponding direct evidence for the existence of ghosts?

[Czarcasm]

Once again, before we consider ghosts as a possibility, we should find out if ghosts are a possibility equal with the other possibilities mentioned before.
Here is direct evidence via You Tube of cat ventriloquism (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aP3gzee1cps), which makes it a possibility to be considered. Where is your corresponding direct evidence for the existence of ghosts?Edited to add: And what is your stance for the possibility of time travelers or visitors from other dimensions being the solution?

[mishagoe]

But as I said, you don't get to rewrite the meaning of parsimony based on the conclusion you want. Even if the OP was fairly sure of what he'd heard, it wouldn't be simpler explanation.

I don't quite understand why you insist I'm trying to rewrite the meaning of parsimony, possibly I am, I don't think I am, or it may just be beyond me and you are running circles around me logically. I just think we need to be careful how tenaciously we debunk the content of personal experience. I'd like to leave the door open to the possibility that yes, things may go bump in the night. It seems though that generally the immediate reaction is to go for the "hallucination" explanation. Personal experience is everything we have in this world, it is out sole connection to the world, and it is extremely powerful, and has helped us function successfully for a few hundred thousand years and longer. I'm inclined to give subjective personal experience the benefit of the doubt.

With respect to the OP, I addressed it from a philosophical standpoint. However, I have had a couple of experiences that are relevant, I'll write them up later today. I'm sure they'll be explained away as well.

[Marley23]

I.e. you must belief mental content and physical brain state are not connected, this is the mind/body duality. If you believe that why can't you believe in ghosts. You might as well.
A pile of nonsense and sophistry does not add up to evidence or a logical argument no matter how big the pile gets. Nobody has claimed that "mental content and physical brain state are not connected." The contention is that we don't always accurately perceive the world around us: you think you experienced something, but that doesn't mean what happened to you is exactly what you think it was. Our brains are prone to all sorts of errors.

[mishagoe]

Where is your corresponding direct evidence for the existence of ghosts?

Please read and at least try to understand what I'm saying or if you can't be bothered to do that, then feel free to skip any of my posts. Thanks in advance.

[mishagoe]

A pile of nonsense and sophistry does not add up to evidence or a logical argument no matter how big the pile gets.

Excuse me, I though this was a forum for thoughful discussion, but if what I'm saying is simply a big pile, then I'll just stop depositing them for you. Feel free to agree to amongst yourselves.

[Marley23]

I just think we need to be careful how tenaciously we debunk the content of personal experience. I'd like to leave the door open to the possibility that yes, things may go bump in the night. It seems though that generally the immediate reaction is to go for the "hallucination" explanation.
There's good reason for that. You know, logic and stuff. In the process of inquiry, you don't get to say "stop trying to debunk that, it might be magic."

Personal experience is everything we have in this world, it is out sole connection to the world, and it is extremely powerful, and has helped us function successfully for a few hundred thousand years and longer. I'm inclined to give subjective personal experience the benefit of the doubt.
We've developed things like the scientific method because, while personal experience has been good enough for the species to survive, it's not a particularly reliable guide to the world in a lot of ways. It emphasizes snap judgments and tangential connections, and the general priority is keeping you alive and uneaten by predators, not making sure you have a proper understanding of phenomena.

[Czarcasm]

Please read and at least try to understand what I'm saying or if you can't be bothered to do that, then feel free to skip any of my posts. Thanks in advance.I've read and understood your posts(small side note: What is it with some people that think that the only reason people disagree with them is because they just don't understand what is being put forth?)
You want ghosts to be considered a possibility, and I am asking you for evidence that ghosts should even be considered, beyond the fact that you can type the word "ghosts". I have shown you direct evidence that ventriloquist cats should be considered, and I have asked you to do the same for ghosts.
Note to moderators-this isn't a "joke" response. I really want to know why my example, for which there is just a little evidence, should be discarded when there is no evidence for the existence of ghosts.

[Mangetout]

The contention is that we don't always accurately perceive the world around us...

I would take that further and say we never accurately perceive the world around us. We're incapable of perceiving some of it, and for the rest we're designed (in the schematic, functional sense) to only perceive it in an approximate and digested form.

[mishagoe]

We've developed things like the scientific method because, while personal experience has been good enough for the species to survive, it's not a particularly reliable guide to the world in a lot of ways. It emphasizes snap judgments and tangential connections, and the general priority is keeping you alive and uneaten by predators, not making sure you have a proper understanding of phenomena.

We've developed the scientific method about as much as we've developed language. It's simply how we function coming into this world. It is part of what we are, science, language, art, religion, etc, it's all one package and all there because it's how we function best, not because in our wisdom we developed it. Good luck taking it apart and discarding the inconvenient bits.

[Marley23]

I would take that further and say we never accurately perceive the world around us. We're incapable of perceiving some of it, and for the rest we're designed (in the schematic, functional sense) to only perceive it in an approximate and digested form.
Without getting too philosophical about it, I'll agree that we don't realize how much editing and selecting our brains do and how much our perceptions are affected by what we expect.

[Czarcasm]

We've developed the scientific method about as much as we've developed language. It's simply how we function coming into this world. It is part of what we are, science, language, art, religion, etc, it's all one package and all there because it's how we function best, not because in our wisdom we developed it. Good luck taking it apart and discarding the inconvenient bits.
And what would those "inconvenient bits" of science be?

[mishagoe]

I've read and understood your posts(small side note: What is it with some people that think that the only reason people disagree with them is because they just don't understand what is being put forth?)
You want ghosts to be considered a possibility, and I am asking you for evidence that ghosts should even be considered, beyond the fact that you can type the word "ghosts". I have shown you direct evidence that ventriloquist cats should be considered, and I have asked you to do the same for ghosts.
Note to moderators-this isn't a "joke" response. I really want to know why my example, for which there is just a little evidence, should be discarded when there is no evidence for the existence of ghosts.

No you haven't bothered to read or understand it. At least Marley23 had a reasonable response because he actually read what I wrote, eventhough it was considered a big pile of something. You aren't even responding to my point. You simiply want to turn this into "show me evidence for ghosts", which is just shilling for 'there is no evidence for ghosts'. Stop it please or I'll sick a ghost on you.

[Marley23]

It's simply how we function coming into this world.
Not at all. It's true that we developed the scientific method and we ourselves are flawed, but unlike many of our other tools, the scientific method is not just intended to record or reflect our perceptions. It's intended to take out some of the parts of our perceptions that can be unreliable and focus on things like verifiability and repeatability. That's different from a medium of impressions and communication.

[Czarcasm]

No you haven't bothered to read or understand it. At least Marley23 had a reasonable response because he actually read what I wrote, eventhough it was considered a big pile of something. You aren't even responding to my point. You simiply want to turn this into "show me evidence for ghosts", which is just shilling for 'there is no evidence for ghosts'. Stop it please or I'll sick a ghost on you.Read it.
Understand it.
It is nonsense.
edited to add-You seem to be doing a variation of The Emperor's New Clothes, but in your version the fancy clothes exist...but the Emperor is missing.

[mishagoe]

Read it.
Understand it.
It is nonsense.
edited to add-You seem to be doing a variation of The Emperor's New Clothes, but in your version the fancy clothes exist...but the Emperor is missing.

I warned you, expect three ghosts this evening.

[mishagoe]

As promisd, here are my two experiences, one is of my dead brother and the second is only tangential to the topic but of the type "unusual consciousness experience"

1. I was in the pre-waking up sleep state. Dreamed I was in bed, someone opend the door to the room, my brother walks in silent and unemotional. I look at him, get out of bed, walk over to him and hug hiim. No response, he just stands there mute and looking at me. I then wake up, feeling very much like I had just had an encounter with my brother and at the same time re-remembering that he had died a year earlier. My conclusion is that my brother's spirit visited me in my sleep to say good by perhaps.

2. An altered consciousness experience. A few years ago I was in my doctor's office. At some point I felt dizzy and passed out. Or at least my doctor would have seen me pass out. I never lost consciousness, I was aware the entire time. Except that when I "passed out" I was somewhere else, not sure where, but it was close to a sea or river and someone, not sure who, was giving me directions on how to navigate a boat down stream or along the coast and where I had to go. All this time, I was conscious of being me (you know, the sense we have of being ourselves) except I had no memory of my present life up to that point in time. It felt as if I was experiencing a deeper self, the part of me that would always be me regardless of what life experiences, decisions, and event might shape who I am. I felt very peaceful. At some point that world and my doctor's office where superimposed in my awareness, I could experience the doctor trying to get me to "wake up" and feeling that I was being torn out of that world back into my doctor's office and not wanting that to happen, but needing to since I had a family to take care of. When I came back, my doctor explained that had gone stiff as a board and stopped breathing and he was desperately trying to get to breath again the entire time, about 2 minutes he thought.

[Czarcasm]

As promisd, here are my two experiences, one is of my dead brother and the second is only tangential to the topic but of the type "unusual consciousness experience"

1. I was in the pre-waking up sleep state. Dreamed I was in bed, someone opend the door to the room, my brother walks in silent and unemotional. I look at him, get out of bed, walk over to him and hug hiim. No response, he just stands there mute and looking at me. I then wake up, feeling very much like I had just had an encounter with my brother and at the same time re-remembering that he had died a year earlier. My conclusion is that my brother's spirit visited me in my sleep to say good by perhaps.If this is your story and your conclusion, then we have a big problem here. What, pray tell, made you throw out the obvious answer(you were dreaming) in favor for the one for which there is no solid evidence(ghosts)? Your account and conclusion casts a disturbing shadow on any other arguments you make on this subject. 2. An altered consciousness experience. A few years ago I was in my doctor's office. At some point I felt dizzy and passed out. Or at least my doctor would have seen me pass out. I never lost consciousness, I was aware the entire time. Except that when I "passed out" I was somewhere else, not sure where, but it was close to a sea or river and someone, not sure who, was giving me directions on how to navigate a boat down stream or along the coast and where I had to go. All this time, I was conscious of being me (you know, the sense we have of being ourselves) except I had no memory of my present life up to that point in time. It felt as if I was experiencing a deeper self, the part of me that would always be me regardless of what life experiences, decisions, and event might shape who I am. I felt very peaceful. At some point that world and my doctor's office where superimposed in my awareness, I could experience the doctor trying to get me to "wake up" and feeling that I was being torn out of that world back into my doctor's office and not wanting that to happen, but needing to since I had a family to take care of. When I came back, my doctor explained that had gone stiff as a board and stopped breathing and he was desperately trying to get to breath again the entire time, about 2 minutes he thought.You passed out and had a dream-same as your first story, and it casts the same dark cloud on your ability to properly reason.

[Marley23]

My conclusion is that my brother's spirit visited me in my sleep to say good by perhaps.
Whatever particular meaning you draw from it, you had a dream- end of story. This isn't something that requires further explanation or defies our scientific understanding of the world. It's not even really a supernatural event as most people would define it.

2. An altered consciousness experience.
I'm not surprised you saw something after you stopped breathing and passed out (it's not uncommon because your brain was deprived of oxygen). Aside from your interpretation of it - did you ever look into why this happened? Healthy people don't usually pass out and stop breathing for no reason and there may be something you should investigate here.

[mishagoe]

If this is your story and your conclusion, then we have a big problem here. What, pray tell, made you throw out the obvious answer(you were dreaming) in favor for the one for which there is no solid evidence(ghosts)? Your account and conclusion casts a disturbing shadow on any other arguments you make on this subject. You passed out and had a dream-same as your first story, and it casts the same dark cloud on your ability to properly reason.

I'm not epxecting nor asking for your validation. Perhaps after tonight you too will have three experiences to share, right after the three ghost set you straight about a few things.

[Czarcasm]

I'm not epxecting nor asking for your validation. Perhaps after tonight you too will have three experiences to share, right after the three ghost set you straight about a few things.I've seen this "safety net" approach far too often. You will accept conversation that confirms and supports your stories and opinions, but any criticism is dismissed because you supposedly have no need for validation. It looks to me like the only thing you are looking for is unquestioning validation.

[Czarcasm]

Oh, and the "three ghosts" thing you think is so clever?
It isn't.

[mishagoe]

Whatever particular meaning you draw from it, you had a dream- end of story. This isn't something that requires further explanation or defies our scientific understanding of the world. It's not even really a supernatural event as most people would define it.


I'm not surprised you saw something after you stopped breathing and passed out (it's not uncommon because your brain was deprived of oxygen). Aside from your interpretation of it - did you ever look into why this happened? Healthy people don't usually pass out and stop breathing for no reason and there may be something you should investigate here.

1. That is a matter of interpretation. It sure felt supernatural to me. But I can see where it wouldn't qualify as supernatural for you. Seeing it as purely a dream is actually pretty staight foward. It is quite a stretch to see it as an encounter with my dead brother, but that is exactly what it felt like.

2. Yes, I am very healthy. That isn't the salient aspect of the experience. From the doctor's point of view I was unconscious. From my point of view I was aware the entire time. I quite literally was in a different space. The two states then superimposed, both the physical spaces and the, I guess, deeper self and the self with all of my experienced life history. Those are the salient aspects for me of this experience.

[mishagoe]

Oh, and the "three ghosts" thing you think is so clever?
It isn't.

I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am.

[mishagoe]

I've seen this "safety net" approach far too often. You will accept conversation that confirms and supports your stories and opinions, but any criticism is dismissed because you supposedly have no need for validation. It looks to me like the only thing you are looking for is unquestioning validation.

You know I could maybe take you more seriously, but you come out the gate with both guns blazzing away and then expect me to sit there and be nice to you. I've explained exactly what I think about the topic. I have not much more to add at this time. You have expressed your deep disdain for my logic and conclusions. You don't have to agree with me. Go in peace my friend.

[Marley23]

1. That is a matter of interpretation.
No, it's not. You said yourself that it was a dream.

It sure felt supernatural to me.
I understand that, but that doesn't make it so.

Seeing it as purely a dream is actually pretty staight foward.
Particularly since you said it was a dream. You're not the first person to speak to a departed loved one in a dream and find meaning in it. That doesn't make it anything other than a dream.

From the doctor's point of view I was unconscious. From my point of view I was aware the entire time.
You were unconscious. You realize this is pretty much the same as the dream, right? When you're dreaming, you are unconscious but parts of your brain remain active. That doesn't mean the experiences you have in those dreams are really taking place in the external world. You lost consciousness, you apparently stopped breathing, and you "felt" something. Does that mean your feelings reflect some kind of reality? No, not any more than your dreams do.

[Czarcasm]

You know I could maybe take you more seriously, but you come out the gate with both guns blazzing away and then expect me to sit there and be nice to you. I've explained exactly what I think about the topic. I have not much more to add at this time. You have expressed your deep disdain for my logic and conclusions. You don't have to agree with me. Go in peace my friend.Since this isn't your personal blog, I don't have to agree with you. For that same reason, I am under no compulsion to make your life less complicated by leaving. If you don't wish to have your stories questioned, I think there are two solutions available to you:
1. Post them in a blog that you control.
2. Don't post them at all.

[mishagoe]

No, it's not. You said yourself that it was a dream.


I understand that, but that doesn't make it so.


Particularly since you said it was a dream. You're not the first person to speak to a departed loved one in a dream and find meaning in it. That doesn't make it anything other than a dream.


You were unconscious. You realize this is pretty much the same as the dream, right? When you're dreaming, you are unconscious but parts of your brain remain active. That doesn't mean the experiences you have in those dreams are really taking place in the external world. You lost consciousness, you apparently stopped breathing, and you "felt" something. Does that mean your feelings reflect some kind of reality? No, not any more than your dreams do.


1. Yes, I agree my conclusion that the dream was an encounter with my brother's spirit/energy/whatever is objectively unsupportable. Yes it was a dream, but as experienced it was of a different quality. I understand and appreciate that is not enough to convince anyone that it wasn't just a dream. I understand that is very shaky ground to stand on. I don't think we have a disagreement on the basic objective facts, just on the felt experience.

2. Here we have a disagreement on the basic facts. I was not unconscious. I know what unconscious is, this wasn't it. It was not that I rememberd these events after "coming to", it is that I was conscous and experienced them as they were happening. I can't prove it to you, it is a data point of one, but it is my data point.

The basic disagreement is how much stock to put into subjective experience. The overwhelming consensus of the rigorous rational mind on this topic is to discount the reported experience as anything other than a mis-alignment between reality and the experience of reality. The argument is that because we have shown in other cases that the brain can be fooled, that every experience that doesn't seem to obey the laws of physics is just the brain being fooled again. I think that is too easy. Not in the Occam's Razor sense, but it the let's roll out our standard answer sense.

[mishagoe]

Since this isn't your personal blog, I don't have to agree with you. For that same reason, I am under no compulsion to make your life less complicated by leaving. If you don't wish to have your stories questioned, I think there are two solutions available to you:
1. Post them in a blog that you control.
2. Don't post them at all.

Well then I think we've resolved the issue. Thanks for all the fish.

[Czarcasm]

Well then I think we've resolved the issue. Thanks for all the fish.Not so obscure reference(and not so subtle snub) acknowledged.

[Marley23]

Yes it was a dream, but as experienced it was of a different quality.
Not all dreams feel the same. If you've had more than one dream, I'm pretty sure you know that.

I understand and appreciate that is not enough to convince anyone that it wasn't just a dream.
Particularly since it was a dream.

I don't think we have a disagreement on the basic objective facts, just on the felt experience.
No, we have no disagreement about how you felt. We disagree about what that means. You're saying it didn't feel like just a dream, and that that statement has some kind of value as evidence of what the dream really was. I'm saying it doesn't. Some dreams feel more real than others, and dreams about more emotional subjects have more impact.

I was not unconscious.
Again, yes, you were. The fact that you saw or felt something after losing consciousness for unknown reasons and perhaps being deprived of oxygen doesn't mean you were really cosncious.

It was not that I rememberd these events after "coming to", it is that I was conscous and experienced them as they were happening.
I understand that. It makes no difference to what I'm saying.

The argument is that because we have shown in other cases that the brain can be fooled, that every experience that doesn't seem to obey the laws of physics is just the brain being fooled again.
Particularly when we've shown that that's exactly what is happening in situations just like these.

I think that is too easy. Not in the Occam's Razor sense, but it the let's roll out our standard answer sense.
In other words, that's good enough explanation of other people's dreams and hallucinations, but not yours. Unfortunately I think a lot of people feel that way - and it doesn't mean they're right.

[mishagoe]

Not so obscure reference(and not so subtle snub) acknowledged.

Fine, we've both snubbed each other, that seems like a fair enough outcome. I still don't have anything else to add to what I've already replied. If it isn't sufficient for you then you'll have to wait for my own thinking to progress.

[mishagoe]

No, we have no disagreement about how you felt. We disagree about what that means. You're saying it didn't feel like just a dream, and that that statement has some kind of value as evidence of what the dream really was. I'm saying it doesn't. Some dreams feel more real than others, and dreams about more emotional subjects have more impact.

Yes we do, because the experience (how I felt) is the meaning.


Again, yes, you were. The fact that you saw or felt something after losing consciousness for unknown reasons and perhaps being deprived of oxygen doesn't mean you were really cosncious.

Again, I was conscious. You can't seriously be arguing with me about whether I was conscious or not. I know what losing consciousness feels like, this was not that

Particularly when we've shown that that's exactly what is happening in situations just like these.

This was not a "situation like these". If you start out by saying this experience is a "situation like these" then apply the collective conclusion about what "situation like these" really are, then you aren't responding to the actual event, but your supposition that it is a "situation like these".

In other words, that's good enough explanation of other people's dreams and hallucinations, but not yours. Unfortunately I think a lot of people feel that way - and it doesn't mean they're right.

Only if you shunt my data point off into the "situation like these" pile, when it really belongs in the "not a situation like these" pile.

[Czarcasm]

The doctor(and other professionally trained personnel) say you were unconscious, and you say you weren't. Barring further(if any) evidence, I'm going with the professional medical personnel that observed you when you were on the floor and non-responsive to outside stimuli.

[Marley23]

Yes we do, because the experience (how I felt) is the meaning.
This doesn't mean anything. And I don't mean "your dream doesn't mean anything," I mean "this statement about the dream doesn't mean anything." I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

You can't seriously be arguing with me about whether I was conscious or not. I know what losing consciousness feels like, this was not that
You don't know why you lost consciousness, so I don't think you're in a position to say what you would have felt. Have you stopped breathing other times you lost consciousness?

This was not a "situation like these".
Your experiences aren't comparable to other dreams? To other times people stopped breathing? Why not? Like I said, you seem to think it's different just because it happened to you and not someone else.

[mishagoe]

The doctor(and other professionally trained personnel) say you were unconscious, and you say you weren't. Barring further(if any) evidence, I'm going with the professional medical personnel that observed you when you were on the floor and non-responsive to outside stimuli.

And that's because you are the subject matter expert on my experiences.

[Czarcasm]

And that's because you are the subject matter expert on my experiences.Based on how you describe them, apparently so. Perhaps if you were better able to separate your imaginings from your experiences, it might not be so.

[mishagoe]

Based on how you describe them, apparently so. Perhaps if you were better able to separate your imaginings from your experiences, it might not be so.

I think my initial response was unnecesarily snide, you deserves a better answer, so apologies for that.

Neither the doctor nor you have the priveledged information I have about my internal brain state. The doctor can make an educated guess about my state, but that's all he can do. Suppose I was a blind/deaf/paralyzed/mute - am I unconscious? If you didn't know I was one of those, then you might make an educated guess that I was unconscious. Me on the hand, I have priveledged information to the contrary.

[Czarcasm]

I think my initial response was unnecesarily snide, you deserves a better answer, so apologies for that.

Neither the doctor nor you have the priveledged information I have about my internal brain state. The doctor can make an educated guess about my state, but that's all he can do. Suppose I was a blind/deaf/paralyzed/mute - am I unconscious? If you didn't know I was one of those, then you might make an educated guess that I was unconscious. Me on the hand, I have priveledged information to the contrary.Could we get a doctor in here to comment on the "educated guess" portion of his argument? I'm pretty sure a doctor does more than guess about consciousness, or whether a trained medical professional can tell the difference between a "blind/deaf/paralyzed/mute" and someone who is unconscious, but a word from someone with direct knowledge would be helpful.

[mishagoe]

This doesn't mean anything. And I don't mean "your dream doesn't mean anything," I mean "this statement about the dream doesn't mean anything." I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

I mean in this case, how the dream made me feel, is what gave it the meaning of not being just a dream. So, feeling = meaning. If the dream had felt just like a dream, I would not be asserting that the dream did not feel just like a dream.


You don't know why you lost consciousness, so I don't think you're in a position to say what you would have felt. Have you stopped breathing other times you lost consciousness?

You insist on knocking me unconscious and I continue to resist you. This won't end well. I am in a position to say how I felt because I was in the position to feel what I felt and experience what I experienced. I was fully there, much like I'm fully here now.


Your experiences aren't comparable to other dreams? To other times people stopped breathing? Why not? Like I said, you seem to think it's different just because it happened to you and not someone else.

No. I seem to think it's different only in comparison to other related experiences I have had, not related experiences others have had.

[Marley23]

Neither the doctor nor you have the priveledged information I have about my internal brain state.
But you don't have privileged ability to evaluate what happens to your brain or why it's happening. In fact you have less ability to evaluate that than, say, a doctor.

I mean in this case, how the dream made me feel, is what gave it the meaning of not being just a dream.
I understand that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a dream.

I am in a position to say how I felt because I was in the position to feel what I felt and experience what I experienced.
That doesn't mean you're able to interpret it correctly.

No. I seem to think it's different only in comparison to other related experiences I have had, not related experiences others have had.
Other people have experiences similar to yours, and there is a non-supernatural explanation for them. Wouldn't that indicate that your experiences were also probably non-supernatural?

[mishagoe]

Could we get a doctor in here to comment on the "educated guess" portion of his argument? I'm pretty sure a doctor does more than guess about consciousness, or whether a trained medical professional can tell the difference between a "blind/deaf/paralyzed/mute" and someone who is unconscious, but a word from someone with direct knowledge would be helpful.

By all means. But, you realize he didn't have time to run a battery of tests on me to determine my exact brain state. I assume he looked at me, eyes closed, stiff as a board, not breathing. I actually don't know if he thought much about whether I was conscious or not, I imagine he was rather busy doing stuff to me so I'd start breatihng again.

[Marley23]

I actually don't know if he thought much about whether I was conscious or not, I imagine he was rather busy doing stuff to me so I'd start breatihng again.
I'm still wondering why you didn't do more to find out why you suddenly passed out and stopped breathing. I'd be thinking more about that than my experience while I was "out to lunch."

[mishagoe]

But you don't have privileged ability to evaluate what happens to your brain or why it's happening. In fact you have less ability to evaluate that than, say, a doctor.

So tell me this are you conscious right now? Are you in a position to evaluate it accurately? Because I believe that you are just a very cleverly constructed computer, but essentially unconscious. I've come to that conclusion based on our interaction up to this point. I can evaluate that better than you because I'm an expert in these things.

I understand that, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a dream.

I have nothing else important to add, maybe it was just a dream, then again maybe not. I'm keeping it open for now.


That doesn't mean you're able to interpret it correctly.

Sorry, you lost me here. You mean decide if I was conscious? Or you mean, did what I describe happen actually happen the way I experienced it?

Other people have experiences similar to yours, and there is a non-supernatural explanation for them. Wouldn't that indicate that your experiences were also probably non-supernatural?

Supernatural by definition does not exist. By definition if it exists it must be natural. My experience was perfetly natural, though I can't explain it.

[mishagoe]

I'm still wondering why you didn't do more to find out why you suddenly passed out and stopped breathing. I'd be thinking more about that than my experience while I was "out to lunch."

Well maybe but then again this happened 8 years ago. I'm fine, no worries.

[Czarcasm]

Supernatural by definition does not exist. By definition if it exists it must be natural. My experience was perfetly natural, though I can't explain it.No-that is not the definition of "supernatural".

[mishagoe]

No-that is not the definition of "supernatural".

You win, it is not and it was not.

[Czarcasm]

You win, it is not and it was not.This isn't a cheap game where you get to make up the rules as you go along. The word "supernatural" has an established definition, and most dictionaries will define it as such: "(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.", or words to that effect.

[Marley23]

So tell me this are you conscious right now?
As best I can tell. The difference between your made-up claim of expertise and what I've said is that there's evidence of what happens to people when they have experiences like the ones you've claimed, and those claims don't involve anything supernatural or spooky happening. What you're doing, essentially, is saying that our body of observations and data on the world might turn out to be wrong at any time and for no explained reason - just because other people dream about talking to dead people and it's just a dream or have odd experiences that can be explained by loss of oxygen doesn't mean every experience of that type can be explained by those things. And maybe you're right, but until it actually happens there's no reason to take that kind of claim seriously. Your experiences are explicable without a supernatural component. We don't know with an absolute certainty that the laws of gravity will continue to apply after 5 p.m. either, but until you give me a reason to think they might turn off, I'm not going to seriously consider that that's going to happen.

maybe it was just a dream, then again maybe not. I'm keeping it open for now.
No, you aren't. Please don't pretend to be undecided after you've spent this much time rejecting the possibility that maybe you just had a dream.

You mean decide if I was conscious? Or you mean, did what I describe happen actually happen the way I experienced it?
The second one.

My experience was perfetly natural, though I can't explain it.
Yes, you can: you fell asleep and had a dream in the first instance, and in the second, you lost consciousness, stopped breathing, and had a hallucination. You just don't care for that explanation because it doesn't satisfy your feelings about the events.

[mishagoe]

This isn't a cheap game where you get to make up the rules as you go along. The word "supernatural" has an established definition, and most dictionaries will define it as such: "(of a manifestation or event) Attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.", or words to that effect.

I'm sorry, have you converted? Are you the defender of the supernatual now? Well, bless you.

[Czarcasm]

I'm sorry, have you converted? Are you the defender of the supernatual now? Well, bless you.What the hell are you talking about?

[mishagoe]

As best I can tell. The difference between your made-up claim of expertise and what I've said is that there's evidence of what happens to people when they have experiences like the ones you've claimed, and those claims don't involve anything supernatural or spooky happening. What you're doing, essentially, is saying that our body of observations and data on the world might turn out to be wrong at any time and for no explained reason - just because other people dream about talking to dead people and it's just a dream or have odd experiences that can be explained by loss of oxygen doesn't mean every experience of that type can be explained by those things. And maybe you're right, but until it actually happens there's no reason to take that kind of claim seriously. Your experiences are explicable without a supernatural component. We don't know with an absolute certainty that the laws of gravity will continue to apply after 5 p.m. either, but until you give me a reason to think they might turn off, I'm not going to seriously consider that that's going to happen.

If we are talking about my second experience, then please quote me where I've said what happened was spooky or supernatural. I described what happened to me. What we have been doing is going and back forth about whether or not I was conscious. You insist you know me better than I do and can determine whether I was conscious on a certain day 8 years ago. On that basis, I claim the same priveledge over you, which makes as much sense in both cases. None at all.


No, you aren't. Please don't pretend to be undecided after you've spent this much time rejecting the possibility that maybe you just had a dream.

Ok, you are the boss of me, what may I do next?

The second one.

No I relayed exactly what happened to me. Granted it was weird and unusal.

Yes, you can: you fell asleep and had a dream in the first instance, and in the second, you lost consciousness, stopped breathing, and had a hallucination. You just don't care for that explanation because it doesn't satisfy your feelings about the events.

We're just going in circles now. You insist I was unconscious, and that settles the issue for you. What exactly do you expect me to do with that? Let's say I suddenly agree with you: yes I was unconscious - your conclusion stands. Let's say I continue to disagree with you: I was conscious - you assert the opposite and your conclusion still stands. It's a win win for you both ways.

[Marley23]

No I relayed exactly what happened to me.
No- you relayed your interpretation of what happened. Your conclusions are what's in dispute: the dream didn't feel like a dream and might have been caused by your brother's soul reaching out to you, and you were definitely conscious after you stopped breathing and your consciousness was near a body of water and was getting directions from someone. That didn't "happen to you." You had the impression of those things happening, but factually, you can't say they did happen. (Secret revelation: they didn't happen. Your brain made them up.)

[handsomeharry]

[Of course if they tell you that it's important to bury a hatchet in your next door neighbor please ignore that part.]

What?? Make the ghost even angrier?? I don't think so!!

hh

[Czarcasm]

What?? Make the ghost even angrier?? I don't think so!!I do believe that burying the hatchet in your next door neighbor would create an even angrier ghost, though.

[simster]

mishagoe

Exactly how does one determine which dreams have 'real' meaning vs those that are just ordinary dreams?

One nite I'm fighting zombies - the terror is real - the next I'm having some fantastic .. ahem... encounters... ahem -- and both times I would swear the reality of what happend while it was happening - and at times they are so real that the next day I'm sometimes left with guilt feelings over it (or terror that the dog I buried in the back yard is actually still alive).

(I even had physical evidence when I awoke from the 'encounter' that proved I was there!)

So, riddle me that - how do you decide between 'dreams' and 'spirits visiting me while I am asleep with important messages' - cause, well, I really want to know.

until you can give me a good way to discern - they all go in the 'dream' bucket.

[Shmendrik]

In Judaism we say that the deceased still "live on in the hearts of those who cherish their memory."

We do? Cite?

[mishagoe]

No- you relayed your interpretation of what happened. Your conclusions are what's in dispute: the dream didn't feel like a dream and might have been caused by your brother's soul reaching out to you, and you were definitely conscious after you stopped breathing and your consciousness was near a body of water and was getting directions from someone. That didn't "happen to you." You had the impression of those things happening, but factually, you can't say they did happen. (Secret revelation: they didn't happen. Your brain made them up.)

You keep on missing the point of personal experiences and how their meaning is derived. They are personal and subjective and that is precisely the source from which their meaning is derived. I guess the next time you have an unusual dream or some other unusual conscious state experience, no doubt you'll think it was just bit of undigested potato lodged in your stomach. Trust me on this, there is a big world out there just waiting for you to partake in it, so don't be afraid to take the first step to explore the world inside your head.

[Czarcasm]

Trust me on this, there is a big world out there just waiting for you to partake in it, so don't be afraid to take the first step to explore the world inside your head.Trust me, the world inside your head does not necessarily correspond 1:1 with the world outside your head.

[mishagoe]

mishagoeExactly how does one determine which dreams have 'real' meaning vs those that are just ordinary dreams?

Well, this will shock you, you determine that by exploring the significance of the dream to you. It is afterall your dream, not mine. For you to ask anyone but yourself for the meaning is misguided.

One nite I'm fighting zombies - the terror is real - the next I'm having some fantastic .. ahem... encounters... ahem -- and both times I would swear the reality of what happend while it was happening - and at times they are so real that the next day I'm sometimes left with guilt feelings over it (or terror that the dog I buried in the back yard is actually still alive).

(I even had physical evidence when I awoke from the 'encounter' that proved I was there!)

So, riddle me that - how do you decide between 'dreams' and 'spirits visiting me while I am asleep with important messages' - cause, well, I really want to know.

until you can give me a good way to discern - they all go in the 'dream' bucket.

If you really want to know then go reflect on it, read some books, explore why you think what you think. If you don't want to do that work then don't do it and go on with whatever meaning or non-meaning you assign to your dreams. I'm not here to teach you any of this. Good luck and enjoy.

[mishagoe]

Trust me, the world inside your head does not necessarily correspond 1:1 with the world outside your head.

Nice try since you almost had that right You should have said: the world outside your head does not correspond 1:1 with the word inside your head.

[Czarcasm]

Well, this will shock you, you determine that by exploring the significance of the dream to you. It is afterall your dream, not mine. For you to ask anyone but yourself for the meaning is misguided.



If you really want to know then go reflect on it, read some books, explore why you think what you think. If you don't want to do that work then don't do it and go on with whatever meaning or non-meaning you assign to your dreams. I'm not here to teach you any of this. Good luck and enjoy.Vague pointing off in the direction of unnamed books, vague words o' wisdom and a vague condescending guru smile. You're right, you certainly aren't here to teach us anything...because we've seen this all before.

[mishagoe]

Vague pointing off in the direction of unnamed books, vague words o' wisdom and a vague condescending guru smile. You're right, you certainly aren't here to teach us anything...because we've seen this all before.

Yes, I get that you've seen this all before many times and it is like water off a ducks back to you. Congrats.

[simster]

Well, this will shock you, you determine that by exploring the significance of the dream to you. It is afterall your dream, not mine. For you to ask anyone but yourself for the meaning is misguided.



If you really want to know then go reflect on it, read some books, explore why you think what you think. If you don't want to do that work then don't do it and go on with whatever meaning or non-meaning you assign to your dreams. I'm not here to teach you any of this. Good luck and enjoy.

I didn't ask if my dreams had "meaning" to me (or to anyone).

I asked how to discern the difference between a 'normal dream' and a 'visit from a dead spirit' or me moving on the astral plane to some enchanted place.

cause, if there is a difference, then that difference must be discernible beyond mere 'feeling' its different.

[mishagoe]

I didn't ask if my dreams had "meaning" to me (or to anyone).

I asked how to discern the difference between a 'normal dream' and a 'visit from a dead spirit' or me moving on the astral plane to some enchanted place.

cause, if there is a difference, then that difference must be discernible beyond mere 'feeling' its different.

Really? How do you propose that difference is manifested inside you if you think the experience or the feeling you derive from the dream has no meaning? I would also be interested in anything you can add to this.

[SiXSwordS]

<snip> How do you propose that difference is manifested inside you if you think the experience or the feeling you derive from the dream has no meaning?
I hope this isn't breaking a rule, but let me try to parse this:

[What is the] difference ... inside you if ... the experience [of the] the dream has no meaning?

Is that right?

[simster]

Really? How do you propose that difference is manifested inside you if you think the experience or the feeling you derive from the dream has no meaning? I would also be interested in anything you can add to this.

You seem to be mis understanding the question - I am asking YOU how YOU (or anyone) could discern the difference - clearly you cant describe any meaningful way of telling the difference between a 'dream' and a 'dead spirit visiting me while in a sleeplike state' beyond "how it makes me feel' - which is meaningless as evidence.

[mishagoe]

You seem to be mis understanding the question - I am asking YOU how YOU (or anyone) could discern the difference - clearly you cant describe any meaningful way of telling the difference between a 'dream' and a 'dead spirit visiting me while in a sleeplike state' beyond "how it makes me feel' - which is meaningless as evidence.

YOU and YOU alone are the only valid source for the meaning. It is a subjective experience. Not an object. You want a primer on subjective? or Experience? You either trust your experience or you don't. You don't believe in encounters with souls, or spirits, or the dear departed. But I can't sort that out for you. For you to be asking me for proof of these things is a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?

[Czarcasm]

YOU and YOU alone are the only valid source for the meaning. It is a subjective experience. Not an object. You want a primer on subjective? or Experience? You either trust your experience or you don't. You don't believe in encounters with souls, or spirits, or the dear departed. But I can't sort that out for you. For you to be asking me for proof of these things is a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?Define "Reality" in your own words, please.

[mishagoe]

I hope this isn't breaking a rule, but let me try to parse this:

[What is the] difference ... inside you if ... the experience [of the] the dream has no meaning?

Is that right?

Better parsed this way:

What is inside of you is is the meaning of the experience. If the experience has no difference in meaning for you then that is what is inside of you. Not my fault.

[Czarcasm]

Better parsed this way:

What is inside of you is is the meaning of the experience. If the experience has no difference in meaning for you then that is what is inside of you. Not my fault.Can anyone here translate Guru-->English, please?

[simster]

YOU and YOU alone are the only valid source for the meaning. It is a subjective experience. Not an object. You want a primer on subjective? or Experience? You either trust your experience or you don't. You don't believe in encounters with souls, or spirits, or the dear departed. But I can't sort that out for you. For you to be asking me for proof of these things is a bit disingenuous, wouldn't you agree?

Again - I DID NOT ASK FOR MEANING.

I asked for a discernible difference between

"DREAM"

and

"VISIT BY SPIRIT OF DEAD THING"

can you or can you not provide a way to discern the difference between the two?

I assume you still have dreams where you visit 'places' that you do not qualify as being some out of body experience - how do you tell the difference?

[mishagoe]

Define "Reality" in your own words, please.

No problem my friend. Reality: for you and me it is our experience of being in the world (Universe).

[mishagoe]

Again - I DID NOT ASK FOR MEANING.

I asked for a discernible difference between

"DREAM"

and

"VISIT BY SPIRIT OF DEAD THING"

can you or can you not provide a way to discern the difference between the two?

I assume you still have dreams where you visit 'places' that you do not qualify as being some out of body experience - how do you tell the difference?

I did, but seems like you're looking for something I can't provide. Try a different approach.

[simster]

I did, but seems like you're looking for something I can't provide. Try a different approach.

bolding mine - thanks for finally admitting it.

You have no evidence or quantifiable way of discerning what is "dream" vs "spirit of dead thing visiting me".

Based on your logic, if my dream(s) of being on a distant planet with blue critters flying on dragonlike creatures and dancing naked around trees "means something" then it must be 'real'.

[woodstockbirdybird]

No problem my friend. Reality: for you and me it is our experience of being in the world (Universe).

Sounds more like perception, to me. A schizophrenic in a mental institution may believe he's being attacked by a fire-breathing dragon while he's sitting in the day room, but that doesn't mean he's being attacked by a dragon in reality. You're trying to say there are no objective facts, only subjective experience.

[mishagoe]

Sounds more like perception, to me. A schizophrenic in a mental institution may believe he's being attacked by a fire-breathing dragon while he's sitting in the day room, but that doesn't mean he's being attacked by a dragon in reality. You're trying to say there are no objective facts, only subjective experience.

Without perception then, exactly what are you left with oh perceptive one? For us there is only experience, not sure how you make it through the world without experiencing it, but let me know how you do it.

[mishagoe]

bolding mine - thanks for finally admitting it.

You have no evidence or quantifiable way of discerning what is "dream" vs "spirit of dead thing visiting me".

Based on your logic, if my dream(s) of being on a distant planet with blue critters flying on dragonlike creatures and dancing naked around trees "means something" then it must be 'real'.

Exactly what kind of quantifiable evidence do you imagine there might be outside of the experiences themselves, that anyone in their right mind would offer up to you? I'm guessing you don't do much science of any sort to speak of. Right? You're asking for something you already know is unavailable, and you do this because....?

[simster]

Exactly what kind of quantifiable evidence do you imagine there might be outside of the experiences themselves, that anyone in their right mind would offer up to you? I'm guessing you don't do much science of any sort to speak of. Right? You're asking for something you already know is unavailable, and you do this because....?

Because you're the one claiming to have proof or evidence there of - thru your own personal experiences - if this were true, you could quantify it in some manner beyond 'feeling' that they are different - which is, to some degree, a valid quantifier, but not if you are trying to prove to others that these things are 'different' and 'real' and have 'substance'.

You believe you have been visited by ghosts - you believe you have 'astral projected' yourself when you were 'not unconscious' - I'm asking how you 'know' these weren't just dreams - how you tell these experiences apart -

You don't know - and you won't admit it.

Let me put it another way - early in the thread you said these things 'must be valid' because of other peoples reports - I'm asking you to quantify it beyond "feeling that its different" - get sci-ency about it and prove that this stuff is more than just a dream.

[mishagoe]

Because you're the one claiming to have proof or evidence there of - thru your own personal experiences - if this were true, you could quantify it in some manner beyond 'feeling' that they are different - which is, to some degree, a valid quantifier, but not if you are trying to prove to others that these things are 'different' and 'real' and have 'substance'.

You believe you have been visited by ghosts - you believe you have 'astral projected' yourself when you were 'not unconscious' - I'm asking how you 'know' these weren't just dreams - how you tell these experiences apart -

You don't know - and you won't admit it.

Let me put it another way - early in the thread you said these things 'must be valid' because of other peoples reports - I'm asking you to quantify it beyond "feeling that its different" - get sci-ency about it and prove that this stuff is more than just a dream.

I shared a couple of experiences that were related to the OP. What I didn't do is immediately shoot them dead on arrival like most everyone else on this thread. Yes, I do believe they are what I experienced them to be. You're asking me to pass some bullshit meter test to prove to you the experience are what I say they meant to me. And if I don't, they can't possibly mean to me what I say they mean. Please don't believe they are what I say they are. Trust me on this, you can believe what you want. I have never claimed to have objective evidence. You just realized that did you? I have a good remedy for that tendency, read what I write, not what you think I'm writing.

[FixMyIgnorance]

Didn't we go over this already in that other thread?

There's ample, ample, ample evidence to suggest that such "experiences" are just hallucinations.

[Czarcasm]

I shared a couple of experiences that were related to the OP. What I didn't do is immediately shoot them dead on arrival like most everyone else on this thread. Yes, I do believe they are what I experienced them to be. You're asking me to pass some bullshit meter test to prove to you the experience are what I say they meant to me. And if I don't, they can't possibly mean to me what I say they mean. Please don't believe they are what I say they are. Trust me on this, you can believe what you want. I have never claimed to have objective evidence. You just realized that did you? I have a good remedy for that tendency, read what I write, not what you think I'm writing.You want to tell unsubstantiated stories in a debate thread, and you don't want to debate them.
Understood...and rejected.

[SiXSwordS]

Better parsed this way:
I tried it in an online processor, and got:

What you are is the meaning of l' experience this. If l' experience n' to not then of difference in the meaning for you this it is what in you it is. Not my error.

[mishagoe]

You want to tell unsubstantiated stories in a debate thread, and you don't want to debate them.
Understood...and rejected.

Aye aye captain.

[mishagoe]

I tried it in an online processor, and got:

What you are is the meaning of l' experience this. If l' experience n' to not then of difference in the meaning for you this it is what in you it is. Not my error.

No no no, you messed it all up doing that. Try this:

What does the experience I have mean to me? Does it matter to me what it means to you? If so, why does it matter to me that you don't ascribe the same meaning that I do? Well, shit it doesn't matter to me. Does it matter to you? Well too bad, not my fault.

[mishagoe]

You want to tell unsubstantiated stories in a debate thread, and you don't want to debate them.
Understood...and rejected.

In all fairness to you I should rephrase my reply. You are correct this is supposed to be a debate thread. And, if in fact it were a debate thread, we would now be debating.

[woodstockbirdybird]

Without perception then, exactly what are you left with oh perceptive one? For us there is only experience, not sure how you make it through the world without experiencing it, but let me know how you do it.

Well, for one thing, I'm left with equipment that can detect things you can't by perception alone. The kind of equipment that's used all the time in science.

But even just using perception, consensus among other, disinterested parties usually works pretty well. If everyone else agrees there's no dragon attacking you, no matter what you're experiencing, that's a pretty good indicator your perceptions don't conform to objective reality. Really, this is freshman-bullshit-session-level philosophizing you're engaging in here.

[simster]

I shared a couple of experiences that were related to the OP. What I didn't do is immediately shoot them dead on arrival like most everyone else on this thread. Yes, I do believe they are what I experienced them to be. You're asking me to pass some bullshit meter test to prove to you the experience are what I say they meant to me. And if I don't, they can't possibly mean to me what I say they mean. Please don't believe they are what I say they are. Trust me on this, you can believe what you want. I have never claimed to have objective evidence. You just realized that did you? I have a good remedy for that tendency, read what I write, not what you think I'm writing.

I Asked for how you determined they were more than just a 'dream' or 'hallucination'. You keep claiming they were - I asked for the "how".

You get defensive because you _know_ that you cannot provide anything more than "feeling" on the matter - if you simply owned up to that, it would be over.

I never said what they did (or did not) 'mean' to you or "shot that down".

You are confusing two very different things - but it serves your purpose, so enjoy.

[Una Persson]

Auditory hallucinations are commonly associated with being on the verge of sleep (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnagogia#Sounds)
I will get these from time to time, and a disturbingly common hallucination is like the OP said; someone saying my name and nothing else.

Once when I had stayed up working an extra shift at fast food, a very long time ago, I heard the entirety of Vital Signs by Rush in my car...except I had no radio. Music in stereo. Creeped me out, but then I was so far drowsy I fell asleep twice on the way home that night so the explanation is obvious.*



* Progressive rock spirits had infested my car...maybe the Spirit of Radio?

[FixMyIgnorance]

These debates are useless.

"I swear I saw/heard it!"
"*Evidence for hallucinations!*"
"I don't care, you weren't there, I know what I experienced!"

Agree to disagree, move on. What debate could possibly be had here? It's just another "No it isn't"/"Yes it is" debate.

[Czarcasm]

These debates are useless.

"I swear I saw/heard it!"
"*Evidence for hallucinations!*"
"I don't care, you weren't there, I know what I experienced!"

Agree to disagree, move on. What debate could possibly be had here? It's just another "No it isn't"/"Yes it is" debate.All things being equal, you are absolutely right.
But they aren't, so you aren't. There is ample verifiable evidence for the existence of hallucinations available for all to see, but there isn't any verifiable evidence for the existence of ghosts. The last time I checked, the words under THE STRAIGHT DOPE banner at the top of the page didn't read "Whatever dude-it's all cool".

[gunnergoz]

If this sort of experience befuddles a modern and educated person, imagine what it must have done to our ancestors, in the days before anyone knew about the self, psychology, science or just about anything else. My sense is that these sort of early experiences eventually lead to the "invention" of religious beliefs about the afterlife. After all, people wanted an explanation for the "voices" they heard and as often as not they ascribed them to invisible entities, including deceased relatives, etc.

[SiXSwordS]

If this sort of experience befuddles a modern and educated person, imagine what it must have done to our ancestors,
I don't think it is too much of a hijack to ask: "...what must it have done FOR our ancestors?"

Do we gain anything form these experiences or are they just "side-effects" or possibly dysfunction in an otherwise useful "psychological apparatus."

quotes indicate IANAPsychologist and do not know appropriate terminology

[mishagoe]

If this sort of experience befuddles a modern and educated person, imagine what it must have done to our ancestors, in the days before anyone knew about the self, psychology, science or just about anything else. My sense is that these sort of early experiences eventually lead to the "invention" of religious beliefs about the afterlife. After all, people wanted an explanation for the "voices" they heard and as often as not they ascribed them to invisible entities, including deceased relatives, etc.

This is just a comment on the premise of your question. You assume that everyone who has any sort of religious or spiritual experience must be befuddled. That includes billions of people currently alive and untold billions more who have ever lived. Don't you ever question the basic assumptions you make about anything? Or are you just shooting from the hip to look cool?

[mishagoe]

All things being equal, you are absolutely right.
But they aren't, so you aren't. There is ample verifiable evidence for the existence of hallucinations available for all to see, but there isn't any verifiable evidence for the existence of ghosts. The last time I checked, the words under THE STRAIGHT DOPE banner at the top of the page didn't read "Whatever dude-it's all cool".

Hey dude, chill out you'll get a stroke, die, and come back to haunt me.

[Czarcasm]

This is just a comment on the premise of your question. You assume that everyone who has any sort of religious or spiritual experience must be befuddled. That includes billions of people currently alive and untold billions more who have ever lived. Don't you ever question the basic assumptions you make about anything? Or are you just shooting from the hip to look cool?I see that you are trying to equate the vague term "spiritual experience" with the supposed ghost visitation mentioned earlier in an effort to inflate both the numbers and the significance of your event. The only one being accused of befuddlement is you at this point, and only because of your personal story. What you are trying to do is the equivalent of saying that, because someone doesn't like dogs that bite, they must hate all animals because dogs are animals.
I do not dismiss your interpretation of what happened to you because it was a spiritual experience-I dismiss it because your interpretation of it flies in the face of logic.

[mishagoe]

I don't think it is too much of a hijack to ask: "...what must it have done FOR our ancestors?"

Do we gain anything form these experiences or are they just "side-effects" or possibly dysfunction in an otherwise useful "psychological apparatus."

quotes indicate IANAPsychologist and do not know appropriate terminology

Yes, we get meaning about our existence from our subjective experiences. Meaning allows to continue living with a purpose and understanding of the world in which we exist, it is very healthy and conducive to a long and prosperous life. Many people posting on this board seem to have moved past these basic human needs. They have clearly evolved into computers and no longer rely on their personal life experience for anything other than the occasional hallucinogenic trip.

[mishagoe]

I see that you are trying to equate the vague term "spiritual experience" with the supposed ghost visitation mentioned earlier in an effort to inflate both the numbers and the significance of your event. The only one being accused of befuddlement is you at this point, and only because of your personal story. What you are trying to do is the equivalent of saying that, because someone doesn't like dogs that bite, they must hate all animals because dogs are animals.
I do not dismiss your interpretation of what happened to you because it was a spiritual experience-I dismiss it because your interpretation of it flies in the face of logic.

Czarcasm, I think the needle is stuck, give it a kick so the song can finish. Thanks.

[Czarcasm]

Hey dude, chill out you'll get a stroke, die, and come back to haunt me.hey dude, try to at least make an effort to back up your claims.

[mishagoe]

hey dude, try to at least make an effort to back up your claims.

Excuse me say what? You want proof of ghosts? Really? You need help. Or, you want proof of my subjective experience? But you don't trust my report of it. Are you fully aware of what you say? I think you're just shilling for the SDMB. Common, admit it.

[Czarcasm]

I think you're just shilling for the SDMB. Common, admit it.What does this even mean?

[mishagoe]

What does this even mean?

It means that you aren't interested in the subject matter, your only interest is in winning the debate, or in this case, simply pretending to win by setting up a false argument. I could care less about proving ghosts exist to you or anyone, what I'm interested in is the significance of subjective experience. I could care less whether you think that is or isn't important. You keep wanting to turn this into a non-debate by demanding proof of ghosts, which you are unlikely to get from anyone living. Since I don't want to unnecessarily accuse you of being an ignorant doofus, I gave you a chance to exit gracefully by suggesting that your function at SDMB is to keep the replies rolling in by starting idiotic debates that have no chance of going anywhere but in a great big useless circle. Oh my god, you have succeeded! By.

[tomndebb]

Well, this will shock you, you determine that by exploring the significance of the dream to you. It is afterall your dream, not mine. For you to ask anyone but yourself for the meaning is misguided. Then nothing in this thread has meaning because your entire point is that only solipsism can validate a solipsistic experience and, since none of us can get inside another's head, we have no common ground on which to base discussion.

I think you're just shilling for the SDMB. Common, admit it.This seems to be a short accusation of trolling.
It means that you aren't interested in the subject matter, your only interest is in winning the debate, or in this case, simply pretending to win by setting up a false argument. I could care less about proving ghosts exist to you or anyone, what I'm interested in is the significance of subjective experience. I could care less whether you think that is or isn't important. You keep wanting to turn this into a non-debate by demanding proof of ghosts, which you are unlikely to get from anyone living. Since I don't want to unnecessarily accuse you of being an ignorant doofus, I gave you a chance to exit gracefully by suggesting that your function at SDMB is to keep the replies rolling in by starting idiotic debates that have no chance of going anywhere but in a great big useless circle. Oh my god, you have succeeded! By.And this seems to be a long-winded accusation of trolling.

Either way, don't do this again.

I am probably going to close this thread on the grounds that it really is not a debate and you really don't want a debate and the thread has now gotten too hostile to send to MPSIMS.

Give me a reason to leave it open.

[ /Moderating ]

[SiXSwordS]

It means that you aren't interested in the subject matter, your only interest is in winning the debate....
I've seen variations on this argument from time-to-time and they always surprise me.

We're on an Internet message board, in a forum specifically for Debates (which may aspire to greatness)... But trying to win a given debate somehow nullifies the argument??

I don't buy the interpretation that those who do not share your view are not interested in the subject matter. It may mean that there are different interpretations of what the subject matter is.

But more likely, their interest in the subject matter comes down on another side of the issue than your own.

[mishagoe]

Then nothing in this thread has meaning because your entire point is that only solipsism can validate a solipsistic experience and, since none of us can get inside another's head, we have no common ground on which to base discussion.

This seems to be a short accusation of trolling.
And this seems to be a long-winded accusation of trolling.

Either way, don't do this again.

I am probably going to close this thread on the grounds that it really is not a debate and you really don't want a debate and the thread has now gotten too hostile to send to MPSIMS.

Give me a reason to leave it open.

[ /Moderating ]

Please close it down, this forum is extremely lopsided and repetitious. A few posts and then a pile on is the normal sequence of events on the SDMB, at least in GD. If all you are looking for are like minded participants then just please open another forum called, "we love the current paradigm that the world is just a big machine grinding its way through an endless meaningless process until it peters out." And then you can get like minded person agreeing with each other. There's nothing wrong with that and should be encouraged, like a club of like minded members, it's ok. And you know what, maybe the world is just a big impersonal machine winding along for all time. But even if it is, what's the point, what kind of an existence is that? Let in some fresh air into this mislabel thing called GD. Moderate a bit more and encourage debate instead of this endless pile on. It's boring and useless. So good luck and enjoy.

[SiXSwordS]

Please close it down,
Wait a second....

Someone other than the OP can ask to have a thread closed based on a perception of some: normal sequence of events
:confused:

Does the OP even get that dispensation?

[SiXSwordS]

Thanks LikeMindedPerson, you are humble and lovable.

I agree with you.
Can we form a club?
Confound this machine! Winding along--as it were--for all time. What was the point again?

[Mangetout]

No problem my friend. Reality: for you and me it is our experience of being in the world (Universe).

This is the nub of the whole disagreement in this thread - you've got your own personal definition of 'reality'. No wonder you can't reach agreement on anything else.

The common (and I would say, only useful) definition of reality is that which exists independently of our experience of it..

At least if you're talking about the reality of the universe, it is.

Other things - including perceptions - have their own qualities of reality - I poke you with a pin, you experience pain - this is tied to reality, despite being dependent on your perception, but you could dream I poked you with a pin, and the pain you dream is real only to you - it's not tied to reality (and you could dream something that is impossible in reality, for example, me poking you with the planet Neptune)

[mishagoe]

This is the nub of the whole disagreement in this thread - you've got your own personal definition of 'reality'. No wonder you can't reach agreement on anything else. The common (and I would say, only useful) definition of reality is that which exists independently of our experience of it

Thanks for having a debate. I think the whole disagreement is not what my definition of reality is. Rather it is that I"m talking about personal, necessarily subject, experience and others want me to talk about objective reality. Having said that, you'll get no disagreement from me that an objective reality exists, we all participate in it and we all have bodies that function within it. However, our experience of the world is necessarily subjective and will always be subjective. In that sense, our first hand knowlege of the reality we exist in is our subjective experience of that reality. There is no way around it. Most everyone here is very keen on treating experiences as objective facts, requiring validation for their meaning. It turns out to be a very dissociative process, where even as you experience being in the world, you also set yourself apart from it as some external object of that world. I think that is ultimately damaging to the self. Hence, I am unlikely to get into a debate about whether or not ghosts or spirits exist, it is ultimately an unanswerable question. The real debate is, are subjective experiences (of which an example is -) of encountering the dead, meaningful to our existence in this world? I say they are, and need not be dismissed as halucinations. They should be taken seriously and accepted for what they are, because these experiences provide the meaning within which we exist as fully integrated participants in the world.

Other things - including perceptions - have their own qualities of reality - I poke you with a pin, you experience pain - this is tied to reality, despite being dependent on your perception, but you could [I]dream I poked you with a pin, and the pain you dream is real only to you - it's not tied to reality (and you could dream something that is impossible in reality, for example, me poking you with the planet Neptune)

I think it woud more helpful to move the discussion away from poking me with the planet Neptune and into " how do we derive a meaningful existences, if not from our subjective experience of being in the world". I'm certainly not going to derive it by piggy backing on your subjective experiences, we all have to find meaning in our own existence, there is no objective measure for meaning when it comes to the self finding it's place in the world. Science and religion can't do that for us, we have to bring something to it, that something being our own subjective experience. So, don't knock it down too fast, it is all you have.

[simster]

The real debate is, are subjective experiences (of which an example is -) of encountering the dead, meaningful to our existence in this world? I say they are, and need not be dismissed as haluciinations. They should be taken seriously and accepted for what they are, bcause these experiences provide the meaning within which we exist as fully integrated participants in the world.

.

<snipping mine>

How do you discern what is a halucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you tell the difference?

[Marley23]

Wait a second....

Someone other than the OP can ask to have a thread closed based on a perception of some: normal sequence of events
:confused:

Does the OP even get that dispensation?
Anybody can ask for whatever they like - it doesn't mean they're going to get it. ;) tomndebb didn't ask mishagoe if he wants the thread to be closed or not; he said if mishagoe wants the thread to remain open he needs to provide a reason, meaning he needs to offer something other than the solipsism argument. The OP hasn't participated in the thread since early on page 1, if that matters.

[mishagoe]

Anybody can ask for whatever they like - it doesn't mean they're going to get it. ;) tomndebb didn't ask mishagoe if he wants the thread to be closed or not; he said if mishagoe wants the thread to remain open he needs to provide a reason, meaning he needs to offer something other than the solipsism argument. The OP hasn't participated in the thread since early on page 1, if that matters.

I don't have any particular interest in keeping it open or closing it down. If someone posts something productive, I'm happy to keep responding. I don't feel a particular need to justify keeping this thread open just for my sake.

[Czarcasm]

<snipping mine>

How do you discern what is a halucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you tell the difference?And to clarify: How do you(mishagoe, not the public at large) discern what is a hallucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you(mishagoe, not the public at large) tell the difference?

[mishagoe]

<snipping mine>

How do you discern what is a halucination and what is a visit by the spirit of the dead? How do you tell the difference?

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for you. There is no objective measure you can use. It comes down to, what meaning you assign to it. Not that it is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be my meaning either. It is stricly speaking dependent on you, as the self-determing its meaning of the event. You may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, you may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that you can discern, meaningful within your life experience and therefore signficant and important.

[Czarcasm]

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for you. There is no objective measure you can use. It comes down to, what meaning you assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be my meaning either. It is stricly speaking dependent on you, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. You may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, you may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefor signficant and important.He wasn't asking how he could tell the difference-the question is how you tell the difference.

[mishagoe]

He wasn't asking how he could tell the difference-the question is how you tell the difference.

I realize this is a difficult leap for you to make so I'll help push you along:

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for me. There is no objective measure I can use. It comes down to, what meaning I assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be Czarcasm's meaning either. It is strictly speaking dependent on me, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. I may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, I may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefore signficant and important.

[Czarcasm]

I realize this is a difficult leap for you to make so I'll help push you along:

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for me. There is no objective measure I can use. It comes down to, what meaning I assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be Czarcasm's meaning either. It is strictly speaking dependent on me, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. I may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, I may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefore signficant and important.I know that it is up to the individual to determine whether an encounter is a hallucination or not. What specifically lead you to believe that it wasn't a dream or a hallucination in the stories you told earlier in the thread? It would be appreciated if you could leave out the vague "it's up to the individual to determine..." non-answers.

[mishagoe]

I know that it is up to the individual to determine whether an encounter is a hallucination or not. What specifically lead you to believe that it wasn't a dream or a hallucination in the stories you told earlier in the thread? It would be appreciated if you could leave out the vague "it's up to the individual to determine..." non-answers.

The quality of the experience. It's a feeling Czarcasm. I'm sure you must know what these strange and wonderous things are, feelings? Yes/No?

[Czarcasm]

The quality of the experience. It's a feeling Czarcasm. I'm sure you must know what these strange and wonderous things are, feelings? Yes/No?I know condescension when I see it.

[simster]

I realize this is a difficult leap for you to make so I'll help push you along:

By the subjective quality of the experience. In other words, what meaning does the event have for me. There is no objective measure I can use. It comes down to, what meaning I assign to it. Not that is is arbitrary, it isn't. By the same token it isn't going to be Czarcasm's meaning either. It is strictly speaking dependent on me, as the self, determing the meaning the event has. I may well determine, this is just a hallucination and discard it as nothing else. Or, I may determine, this is an encounter with a spirit and there is some purpose behind it that I can discern, meaningful within my life experience and therefore signficant and important.

None of this makes it anything other than a 'dream' - after all, it is your brain that is having the 'encounter', and therefore it will have 'some meaning' that your brain wants it to have.

It does not make it an encounter with the 'spirit of the dead' - unless you are equating 'things my brain makes up using memories and experiences with the person in question" as its 'spirit' - which, is a perfectly valid thing to do, but it does not make it an actual encounter with the dead (or 'spirit world' or whatever euphamism you want to call it).

[mishagoe]

None of this makes it anything other than a 'dream' - after all, it is your brain that is having the 'encounter', and therefore it will have 'some meaning' that your brain wants it to have.

It does not make it an encounter with the 'spirit of the dead' - unless you are equating 'things my brain makes up using memories and experiences with the person in question" as its 'spirit' - which, is a perfectly valid thing to do, but it does not make it an actual encounter with the dead (or 'spirit world' or whatever euphamism you want to call it).

From who's point of view though? My experience may certainly not mean for you what it means for me. Certainly, my experience is that and only that: things my brain experiences being in the world. Isnt' that the basic assumption about experience, that these are mine and only mine? How could we even consider that to be a meaningful factor in my concluding: the encounter is with my brother's spirit or the encounter is a mis-reading of a noisy neighbor.

[mishagoe]

I know condescension when I see it.

Yes you do.

[Telemark]

The quality of the experience.
Can you describe those qualities in more words, perhaps? Right now, there's no basis for anyone to understand what you are saying. How would we distinguish what you felt versus a person with a brain tumor that is causing neurons to fire at random?

[mishagoe]

Can you describe those qualities in more words, perhaps? Right now, there's no basis for anyone to understand what you are saying. How would we distinguish what you felt versus a person with a brain tumor that is causing neurons to fire at random?

I could but I doubt it would constitute data of the kind I think you are interested in, i.e., a set of emotional descriptions, let's say, that you could then apply to other reported events where people feel they have had encounters. Let's say that I felt intrinsically that my brother's spirit came to visit me, how would I translate "felt intrinsically" to you so you would understand what that feels like and apply it to other people? Yet you probably know what "felt intrinsically" feels like to you. We understand it to be an experience of the sort where we know "in our being" what the experience is. It is certainly non-verbal, it is an integrative aspect of the meaning of the event.

[simster]

From who's point of view though? My experience may certainly not mean for you what it means for me. Certainly, my experience is that and only that: things my brain experiences being in the world. Isnt' that the basic assumption about experience, that these are mine and only mine? How could we even consider that to be a meaningful factor in my concluding: the encounter is with my brother's spirit or the encounter is a mis-reading of a noisy neighbor.

The only time an experience can be said to be "yours and only yours" is when those experiences are fully within your own brain - as in a dream - because they cannot be shared.

If you are encountering a 'physical manifestation' of _anything_ then it must also interact with the world around it, and would therefore leave something behind that could be quantified.

If its all in your brain, and the experience cannot be quantified, shared, duplicated or researched - then it is a 'dream' or 'halucination' and only has meaning to you.

Your encounter with your 'brothers spirit' has no meaning beyond what it means to you - you cannot even 'prove' or 'provide evidence' beyond "what it means to you' that it was anything other than a run of the mil dream.

And that is fine - for you personally - it does not mean that 'spirits of the dead' are regularly conversing thru these 'dreams'.

[mishagoe]

The only time an experience can be said to be "yours and only yours" is when those experiences are fully within your own brain - as in a dream - because they cannot be shared.[/QUOTE}

Experiences are always "yours and only yours." There are events that are experienced by more than one person. Each experience is still private. What we share are decriptions of the experience. And each person may or may not agree with a particular description.

[QUOTE]If you are encountering a 'physical manifestation' of _anything_ then it must also interact with the world around it, and would therefore leave something behind that could be quantified.

It did, it left a "footprint", the experience.

If its all in your brain, and the experience cannot be quantified, shared, duplicated or researched - then it is a 'dream' or 'halucination' and only has meaning to you.

True, it could be any of those from an external reference point. The footprint is always private.

Your encounter with your 'brothers spirit' has no meaning beyond what it means to you - you cannot even 'prove' or 'provide evidence' beyond "what it means to you' that it was anything other than a run of the mil dream.

Yes, it's what I've been saying all along. But, the fact that it has a definit meaning for me is the significant difference. Just because you form a different meaning from an external reference point, does not change the intrinsic meaning for me.

And that is fine - for you personally - it does not mean that 'spirits of the dead' are regularly conversing thru these 'dreams'.

Agreed. And no, spirits do no regularly converse with me, there was just that one time, and it wasn't just any spirit, it was my brother's, so we can conjecture a special relationship might exist that would not exist between anyone else.

[Telemark]

I could but I doubt it would constitute data of the kind I think you are interested in, i.e., a set of emotional descriptions, let's say, that you could then apply to other reported events where people feel they have had encounters. Let's say that I felt intrinsically that my brother's spirit came to visit me, how would I translate "felt intrinsically" to you so you would understand what that feels like and apply it to other people? Yet you probably know what "felt intrinsically" feels like to you. We understand it to be an experience of the sort where we know "in our being" what the experience is. It is certainly non-verbal, it is an integrative aspect of the meaning of the event.
I have no idea what "felt intrinsically" means in this context, let alone what it means to you. We have plenty of examples of things that felt extremely real to the people who experienced them (night terrors, vivid dreams, hallucinations, loss of oxygen, so called NDEs) that leave people changed, but we have clear, logical, and reproducible biological causes for them.

Your experiences are extremely similar to things we can demonstrate are not caused by spirits, but you offer no differentiation for why we should think that yours are any different. If there were no external confirmation that people can easily be mistaken by things we understand and can reproduce you might have a case. But to be taken seriously, you first have to distinguish your experiences from those. The appeals to "felt intrinsically" and "in our being" are presuming facts not in evidence, plus they can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean.

Can you give us one specific item that you use to differentiate a "normal" dream from a visit by your brother's spirit?

[mishagoe]

I have no idea what "felt intrinsically" means in this context, let alone what it means to you. We have plenty of examples of things that felt extremely real to the people who experienced them (night terrors, vivid dreams, hallucinations, loss of oxygen, so called NDEs) that leave people changed, but we have clear, logical, and reproducible biological causes for them.

Your experiences are extremely similar to things we can demonstrate are not caused by spirits, but you offer no differentiation for why we should think that yours are any different. If there were no external confirmation that people can easily be mistaken by things we understand and can reproduce you might have a case. But to be taken seriously, you first have to distinguish your experiences from those. The appeals to "felt intrinsically" and "in our being" are presuming facts not in evidence, plus they can mean anything the speaker wants them to mean.

Can you give us one specific item that you use to differentiate a "normal" dream from a visit by your brother's spirit?

No I can't give you anything other than what I've already provided. You don't have to agree with me. These experiences apparently are ones that do not have a clear, logical and reproducible biological cause, and would only be of interest to people who aren't looking for external validation of the experience. So, I can't move the topic in the direction you are looking for.

[Mangetout]

We experience the world subjectively, for sure, but that's no basis for saying that we should treat all of our subjective experiences as equally valid - because we have tools and methods that can apply to help us sift out the wheat from the chaff - from a philosophical standpoint, we would have to admit that we can never be absolutely certain, but we must be able to *approach* an objective view of the world.

[Euphonious Polemic]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm
I know condescension when I see it.

Yes you do.


You know mishagoe, this does nothing to persuade me to give any credence to what you have to say.

Debating by insulting rarely works.

[mishagoe]

You know mishagoe, this does nothing to persuade me to give any credence to what you have to say.

Debating by insulting rarely works.

Correct, and Czarcasm is divinely insulting and condescening, deserves what I dish out and probably expects it.

[mishagoe]

..... but we must be able to *approach* an objective view of the world.

And I'm arguing that we must not approach an objective view of the world in every instance. Or in every aspect of our lifes. This is true, in particular, when we are looking for a meaning to our existence. As an example. You are not going to find meaning to your existence in any book, religious or otherwise, but you may give meaning to the information the book presents. Counter example, I would not make plans to fly a rocket to the moon based on an intrinsic feeling about how to engineer it.

[Mangetout]

Sounds like you're saying ignorance is bliss.

[Telemark]

So, I can't move the topic in the direction you are looking for.
No, you can't. But you've also given no reason why anyone should take your experiences seriously. They are indistinguishable from dreams and hallucinations.

[mishagoe]

Sounds like you're saying ignorance is bliss.

I'm not, I'm saying the only meaning you will find is the meaning you assign.

[simster]

I'm not, I'm saying the only meaning you will find is the meaning you assign.

Which is meaningless in any debate.

[mishagoe]

No, you can't. But you've also given no reason why anyone should take your experiences seriously. They are indistinguishable from dreams and hallucinations.

Did I ask that anyone else should take them seriously? I think I pretty much argued for the opposit. Whether you take them seriously or not is I think missing the point. Let's say you post to say you've fallen in love. I then ask for prove. You reply, my prove is that I feel that I'm in love. I don't have to take you seriously do I? Will you be any less in love just because you can't provide an objetive measure of the experience? It could be just a hallucination though, right?

[mishagoe]

Which is meaningless in any debate.

I think that rather depends on what is being debated. I do believe you though when you say it is meaningless to you.

[simster]

Did I ask that anyone else should take them seriously? I think I pretty much argued for the opposit. Whether you take them seriously or not is I think missing the point. Let's say you post to say you've fallen in love. I then ask for prove. You reply, my prove is that I feel that I'm in love. I don't have to take you seriously do I? Will you be any less in love just because you can't provide an objetive measure of the experience? It could be just a hallucination though, right?

Love can be 'proven' thru outward actions toward the recipient.

I even seem to recall that there are different chemical/signals that can be validated in a lab for those 'feelings' (meaning that something can be objectively measured) - something about chocolate simulating those responses as well.

So - try for a different analogy.

I think that rather depends on what is being debated. I do believe you though when you say it is meaningless to you

What is being debated here is wether or not people hear/see 'spirits' or 'ghosts' or if they are just dreams and halucinations.

[mishagoe]

Love can be 'proven' thru outward actions toward the recipient.

I even seem to recall that there are different chemical/signals that can be validated in a lab for those 'feelings' (meaning that something can be objectively measured) - something about chocolate simulating those responses as well.

So - try for a different analogy.

What is being debated here is wether or not people hear/see 'spirits' or 'ghosts' or if they are just dreams and halucinations.

Yes but -
"The hot spot is the teardrop-shaped VTA. When people newly in love were put in a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine and shown pictures of their beloved, the VTA lit up. Same for people still madly in love after 20 years.

The VTA is part of a key reward system in the brain.

"These are cells that make dopamine and send it to different brain regions," said Helen Fisher, a researcher and professor at Rutgers University. "This part of the system becomes activated because you're trying to win life's greatest prize - a mating partner."

One of the research findings isn't so complimentary: Love works chemically in the brain like a drug addiction."

So I maintain it isn't love, it is just an addiction to dopamine. Why not substitute beer and pretzels? Because the meaning is clearly not the same. Are you addicted to your loved ones or are you in love?

[simster]

Yes but -
"The hot spot is the teardrop-shaped VTA. When people newly in love were put in a functional magnetic resonance imaging machine and shown pictures of their beloved, the VTA lit up. Same for people still madly in love after 20 years.

The VTA is part of a key reward system in the brain.

"These are cells that make dopamine and send it to different brain regions," said Helen Fisher, a researcher and professor at Rutgers University. "This part of the system becomes activated because you're trying to win life's greatest prize - a mating partner."

One of the research findings isn't so complimentary: Love works chemically in the brain like a drug addiction."

So I maintain it isn't love, it is just an addiction to dopamine. Why not substitute beer and pretzels? Because the meaning is clearly not the same. Are you addicted to your loved ones or are you in love?

You missed your own point - it was a measurable response.

Love is an addiction - it is a battlefield - its blind - it hurts - it makes you cry like a baby.

Crazy little thing, this thing called Love.

But the response is 'measurable' - and therefore 'quantifiable' in some way.

[Mangetout]

I'm not, I'm saying the only meaning you will find is the meaning you assign.Which is meaningless in any debate.Concur. This is equivalent to saying "Hey, HEY! listen up!...

....


....

nothing.

If the only meaning is the meaning we individually assign, you just pulled the rug out from under your own feet - whatever meaning you're trying to convey here is yours alone.

[mishagoe]

You missed your own point - it was a measurable response.

Love is an addiction - it is a battlefield - its blind - it hurts - it makes you cry like a baby.

Crazy little thing, this thing called Love.

But the response is 'measurable' - and therefore 'quantifiable' in some way.

Or possibly you missed the point. The meaning you attribute to that chemical interaction is still whatever you subjectively assign to it. You call it love or biological imperactive, or addiction - still your assigned meaning.

[simster]

Or possibly you missed the point. The meaning you attribute to that chemical interaction is still whatever you subjectively assign to it. You call it love or biological imperactive, or addiction - still your assigned meaning.

Last attempt to hlp you understand -

The reaction of 'love' can be quantified - you can continue to try and re-define every thing till it fits what you want - but you are missing the point entirely in doing so.

We assign a particular idea behind a thing called 'love' - we questioned if it was 'just a feeling' or if something on the physical level was happening as well - and if it was - could it be measured.

Turns out, it can be.

I'm sure that similar physical responses can be measured for other emotional states.

Now - do the same to find the quantifiable difference between a 'dream' and a 'visit by spirit of dead person'

When you have that - THEN you will be able to say that you were _actually_ visited by the spirit and not just left with a 'feeling' that you had been.

[mishagoe]

Concur. This is equivalent to saying "Hey, HEY! listen up!...

....


....

nothing.

If the only meaning is the meaning we individually assign, you just pulled the rug out from under your own feet - whatever meaning you're trying to convey here is yours alone.

Well yea, duh. You guys keep running in huge circles claiming to have once again discovered that whatever meaning I assign is mine alone. If it is subjective it is mine alone. Whatever did you think I was saying when I said subjective experience. You thought I meant what? Well done. Is that all you wanted to be able to say? I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning. But I'm realizing that isn't necessarily a good thing to argue on this forum because you all want to argue something more sciency like, and while that can be cute for a while, misses real life by a mile.

[Telemark]

I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning.
Why should we treat your self defined meaning any differently than someone who has night terrors and thinks they were kidnapped by aliens? Do you care if your self defined meaning is contradicted by what we know about dreaming?

[mishagoe]

Last attempt to hlp you understand -

The reaction of 'love' can be quantified - you can continue to try and re-define every thing till it fits what you want - but you are missing the point entirely in doing so.

We assign a particular idea behind a thing called 'love' - we questioned if it was 'just a feeling' or if something on the physical level was happening as well - and if it was - could it be measured.

Turns out, it can be.

I'm sure that similar physical responses can be measured for other emotional states.

Now - do the same to find the quantifiable difference between a 'dream' and a 'visit by spirit of dead person'

When you have that - THEN you will be able to say that you were _actually_ visited by the spirit and not just left with a 'feeling' that you had been.

Well gads. I have to confess, in my personal day to day existence I never really thought much about measuring love. I was happy enough just to experience it. But you propose an interesting, if somewhat objectifying, perspective on this. It's just not for me as it turns out. So I leave you with the chemicals and will continue on my merry way.

[Czarcasm]

Well yea, duh. You guys keep running in huge circles claiming to have once again discovered that whatever meaning I assign is mine alone. If it is subjective it is mine alone. Whatever did you think I was saying when I said subjective experience. You thought I meant what? Well done. Is that all you wanted to be able to say? I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning. But I'm realizing that isn't necessarily a good thing to argue on this forum because you all want to argue something more sciency like, and while that can be cute for a while, misses real life by a mile.Until evidence shows otherwise, in real life ghosts are just fictional creatures used by grownups to scare children.
"Sciency like"? Really?

[Mangetout]

Well yea, duh. You guys keep running in huge circles claiming to have once again discovered that whatever meaning I assign is mine alone. If it is subjective it is mine alone. Whatever did you think I was saying when I said subjective experience. You thought I meant what? Well done. Is that all you wanted to be able to say? I'm pretty sure I made the point that what I'm arguing for is the importance of that self defined meaning. But I'm realizing that isn't necessarily a good thing to argue on this forum because you all want to argue something more sciency like, and while that can be cute for a while, misses real life by a mile.

Your argument defeats itself - that's the point. If it's all subjective and personal, it's a waste of time telling us about it.