About NDEs: As much as I’m a faithful Christian and believe in the afterlife, I have to doubt the accuracy of NDEs, merely because my (admittedly stubborn) mind holds out that if you’re not dead dead–i.e. no pulse, no vital signs, nothing–you’re still alive. Most people report NDEs while dying, but not (obviously) dead.
The ghost hypothesis is so tenuous, I think, because so much of the hypothesis is difficult–almost impossible–to prove. Ghosts = confused remnants of the dead, for example, is very hard to prove.
And hey, not all scientists have thrown out the dogma of Christianity. Some people I know are the most logical, clear-thinking scientists and faithful believers. (Not prostelyzing–did I spell that right?–just saying.)
For the most part, I think that the scientific community is working on negating the other variables in their evaluations of ghosts–they’re working on disproving all other explanations. When you have some cases that can’t be explained any other way, then you have the start of something.
If I could step in here for a moment and observe that the definition I provided was done under duress.
It is, in short, a fancy way of saying that a ghost is like interacting with a human being, but minus the human being’s physical presence. Or, a “ghost” is all of the observed phenomena Aeschines loves to point at, minus the ones which have proved to be error, fraud, accident, etc.
My definition does not say anything about souls, death, the moon landing, reincarnation, psychic talent, skeptics, spoon-bending, Bigfoot, the shape of the Earth, near-death experiences, or why there’s never enough ketchup left in the packet for a full order of fries. My definition only encapsulates a description of the superficial observable qualities of a phenomenon, without trying to postulate any explanation: that which we have not explained, but which may be possible to explain in the future.
Yes, by my definition, “ghosts” exist. I do not personally believe that it logically follows that there are disembodied human spirits roaming the world looking for lamps to throw and chains to rattle. Unexplained != spirits of the dead.
This isn’t a thread about whether ghosts do exist so I’ll leave it at that.
I think the problem with the hypothesis is we’re seeing different parts of it: there’s the “ghosts throw things around, make spooky noises, are cold” part, and then there’s the “ghosts are disembodied spirits of the dead” part.
It all depends on what you want to include in your definition of a ghost, I guess.
Agreed, and overdone.
Loved your discourse, Aeschines, I wish I was still as erudite.
‘The Amazing Randi’ started as a carnival huckster, and somehow, no matter how hard he tries, for intelligent people, that image clings to him like limpets.
And, he continues to reinforce it.
Participant for the $1,000,000 prize: There!
Randi: (Slight of hand) Oops, you missed here, here, and here. Did you read the fine print???
If I could summon this ghost at will in an auditorium packed with scientists on international TV live, and these scientists could offer no other explanation, this would be significant.
And you can quit using strawman arguments against the challenge and actually take it. It is so easy to “win” an argument when you make up both sides of a debate, but reality doesn’t work that way. I suggest that Kythereia actually go to the link I provided and read the challenge. If she has a problem with the actual challenge(NOT the massive distortion provided so far), I’m sure she’ll let us know.
You have to take them for what they are: they’re called near-death for a reason. I don’t think even the skeptics here would say that the phenomena aren’t extremely important for understanding consciousness. No matter what they are or aren’t, they’re amazing. I find them compelling evidence for the afterlife. Others disagree.
Perhaps, but skeptics deny the phenomena themselves, because they know that if they admit that an “orb” was captured on film–a tiny thing like that–the floodgates are open.
No, I haven’t found that faith gets in the way of rational thought–unless the dogma specifically prohibits belief in a particular phenomenon, etc. These days the blinders belong equally to theists and atheists and sometimes even find their way onto the heads of New Agers like me.
Uh, well, I don’t think most scientists are thinking about it at all. As for “some cases,” I’m not sure what you mean. The kind of video footage and EVPs that people get these days is pretty in-your-face and not rare at all. But like I said, skeptics won’t even recognize the existence of the phenomena.
I know, you need observations that can be checked for accuracy. This, hopefully, is what some scientists are working on with paranormal phenomenon right now.
If Randi wants his thing to be taken seriously, he needs to make a case file to see how each applicant has failed. I’ve seen one case about a dowser and commented on that extensively in a thread way back (nutshell: dowser was pretty pathetic, but the test was too stringent by far, statistically speaking).
I have searched for such a case file on the site. If I’ve missed it and there’s a link, please post it.
Otherwise, we’ve just got to take R’s word that these people aren’t pathetic losers like the dowser to begin with and that R is treating them fairly.
NDEs: They’re cool and fantastic, and they’re definitely worth investigation, but it’s also very hard to prove that the light at the end of the tunnel is a gateway or passage into the next life. All others have to rely on that it actually took place is the person’s word that they saw this, and then you’d have to set about proving that the light was indicative of heaven, or nirvana, or wherever.
I don’t think all skeptics are stonewalling about the existence of the paranormal–I think there is research in this area continuing, and that it’ll turn up some remarkable results.
Many modern ghost hunters use modern technology to try to detect ghosts. Things like magnetometers for example will show strong spikes when a ghost is supposedly present. They also use temperature guages as temperature supposedly goes down if a ghost is present. Others have used cassette recorders set to a certain frequency and claimed to have gotten messages by doing that.
According to this article until methods of detecting consciousness in the living are developed (we don’t have them yet) detecting it in the dead will be impossible. However if you combine electromagnetic fluctuations with temperature fluctuations with abnormal sights and sounds on audio and video recordings then you have at least something to work on.
I would like to see the cite in which Gellar is accused of cheating in the lab.
Not just saying it, I actually read these things and try to understand both sides. From what I’ve read, Gellar did well in the lab and has bent keys in the hands of many famous people (Werner von Braun is listed as an example on UG’s website) without even touching them himself.
And then the keys continue to curl up even after Gellar has left the room, etc. I’d like to know how he pulls that off.
If you find a self-described “skeptic” who isn’t stonewalling, please let me know. They are rare and valuable!
Most who called themselves “skeptics” are actually functional cynics. Tread carefully, trust marginally. Be a true ‘skeptic’ yourself. Demand proof, but remember to examine the proof that is presented, and not dismiss it because “If it were true Randi would have awarded them the money.”
Be neither quick to accept or reject results. Examine, study, and withhold judgement until YOU are ready to decide.
Don’t let the cynics-calling-themselves-skeptics bully you. They will, if you let them.
I am not a Geller fanatic or anything. It just seems that his rather limited range of claims–he can bend metal, sprout seeds: he at least hasn’t changed his story over the years–seems correct and backed up with plenty of proof.
Just type the name into your favorite search engine, stand back, and be amazed at what some people will do to grab a little publicity.
Anything else of value I have to say about him would have to go in The BBQ Pit.
