Dear parapsychologists, I invite you to convince me that you are scientists.

Great Debates
61

[QUOTE=pbbth]
If one day someone can come to me and show me something that could explain the paranormal experiences I have had I would be nothing but grateful. Someone who could say, “Hey, you remember that dream your mom had predicting the exact date and time of your brothers death 4 days before it happened? This is why.”
[/QUOTE]
Likely reasons (without knowing the exact content of the dream):

  1. Coincidence. People dream about friends and family members all the time whether things happen to them or not. Sometimes things happen to people after we dream about them.

  2. The dream seems more specific in retrospect than at the time she actually dreamed it. Perhaps she dreamed of him, then he died, and she remembered dreaming about him, and her mind filled in some of the details (including the warning he would die and the date and time) afterward, all exacerbated by the trauma of his death. Memories of dreams (like memories in general) are very tenuous, fluid things subject to all kinds of alteration over time, and not static snapshots.

  3. Some entity from the “spirit world” attempted to warn your mother by revealing to her the precise date and time her son would die a few short days later (a concept which, coincidentally, has been employed as a plot device in several major motion pictures over the past several years). To what purpose is uncertain, since she was sadly unable to use her foreknowledge to save him.

[QUOTE=pbbth]
or “Hey, you know that dark haired guy you always see smoking a cigarette outside the laundry room at your friends apartment that no one else can see even if they are there and looking for him when you see him, this is what that actually is.”
[/QUOTE]

  1. Your friends are fucking with you (maybe realizing that you’re prone to belief in the supernatural).

  2. You’re hallucinating due to current or past drug use, brain injury, or other mental illness.

  3. You are exaggerating or misrepresenting the event(s) somehow, whether intentionally or not.

  4. There really is a mysterious nonhuman entity who hangs around outside the laundry room smoking cigarettes, and you’re the only one able to see him. He doesn’t know he’s dead and is waiting for you to come say hello. Oh, and the dark hair is a rug, and he’s a dead ringer for Bruce Willis.

62

[QUOTE=Testy]

The reason many scientists write something offf as a hoax is that un many cases it was a hoax. Also, if the paranormal were shown to exist it would require a huge restructuring of physics, biology, and who knows what else. “Extraordinary claims,” and all of that. Why should the believers be given a pass on controls and repeatability?
[/QUOTE]

They shouldn’t, but perhaps a phenomena is local, or occurs by a mechanism we do not understand, or can measure yet since no one has researched it enough to manufacture the needed technology. The odd nature of the subject ought to require modified, but no less rigorous data. It’s a case of needing a parallel system of investigation.

[QUOTE=Testy]

I disagree that the attitudes of most scientists is “arrogant.” I think it is more like boredom and a serious and well-founded fear that someone is going to waste a lot of their time with something that they (the reporter) was mistaken about or an out-and-out hoax. They’ve seen it before and it has always turned out to be unproven or in some cases just a hoax. The paranormal never showsup in the lab or under adequately controlled conditions. Nobody has gotten so much as a hint of actual paranormal activity so how much more investigating should they do?
[/QUOTE]

Enough to explain basic phenomena adequately to the lay person without resorting to the usual excuses, mental illness, hoaxing, etc. Certainly all these occur and thus the need for science to take a good look at such things in order to put them to rest once and for all if they don’t ever happen. I understand the fear of losing grants, and negative or inconclusive results; but that is what science is all about! Moving the unknown to the known. The london underground investigation was a great example of science in action; explaining adequately the errieness of the place, and having a repeatable conclusion. If scientists don’t want to spend their time on it, then the need to create a board of review for lay investigators is even more urgent.

63

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
They shouldn’t, but perhaps a phenomena is local, or occurs by a mechanism we do not understand, or can measure yet since no one has researched it enough to manufacture the needed technology. The odd nature of the subject ought to require modified, but no less rigorous data. It’s a case of needing a parallel system of investigation.
[/quote]

The trouble is that you dont’ seemt o be talking about an invetsigation at all. WHat you have just descirbed is a fishing trip for supporting evidence that will, by its very nature, ignore contradictory evidence.

So despite the fact that in each case that could be adequeately investigated it was hoax, or mental illness or the usual excuses we still need to find other explanations.. and all this depsite the fact that there is no evidnece that the phenomenon even exists.

This has just become ridiculous. You are asking that investigation be undertaken until an explanation is found that suports what you choose to believe. You are asking that the investigation not cease when it has an answer supported by the evidence, but that it continue until such time as it gets the answer that you have predetermined as being correct.

This is the antithesis of science, never mind common sense.

:dubious:

These things certainly occur, and we need to keep investigating them if they don’t ever occur.

You seem to think that there is some overseeing body of “science” that dictates what is and isn’t investigated by scientists and that reviews their work. Reality isn’t like that. Anyone who is vaguely intersted can conduct these invetsigations and can publish their results. JREF will even reward them handsomely for doings so if they turn up any evidence in their favour.

We don’t need some ill-defined board of review for laypeopel to investigate these phenomena. All we need is for proponents to do the bloody work.

64

This is incorrect. A full out scientific investigation into paranormal phenomenon is relatively straightforward to perform. No doubt it would cost much less than one million dollars. Therefore, anyone willing to perform such an investigation will be more than reimbursed by the James Randi Educational Foundation. Except that, Randi will only refund them if they produce an effect. If you know ahead of time that you aren’t going to find an effect because your theories are completely baseless, you would have good reason to be hesitant.
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Under most circumstances I would be inclined to agree, but paranormal phenomena is held to a higher standard (unfairly in some cases) than other aberrant phenomena.
[/quote]
Please elaborate on this higher standard. This is the “science can’t prove it so we’re going to redefine science” argument in disguise.
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Even with the most rigorous of testing, there will be a section of the “legitimate” scientific community who will deny your evidence due to the inability to repeat your findings in the lab.
[/quote]
If by section you mean the entire scientific community, then you are correct. There is nothing stopping you from moving your instruments to the supposed phenomenon itself. This is the “ghosts don’t like scientists” argument in disguise.
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
It’s a case of needing a parallel system of investigation.
[/quote]
What sort of a parallel system of investigation? We’re not going back to multiple parallel universes again are we? This is the “science can’t prove it so we’re going to redefine science” argument in disguise.
[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Enough to explain basic phenomena adequately to the lay person without resorting to the usual excuses, mental illness, hoaxing, etc. Certainly all these occur and thus the need for science to take a good look at such things in order to put them to rest once and for all if they don’t ever happen.
[/QUOTE]
By basic phenomena you mean telekinesis and clairvoyance, for example, I presume? This fallacy assumes, first of all that they exist, and second that the phenomena have never been subjected to proper scientific investigation, which is why they have not been detected. In reality, the converse is true. When subjected to proper scientific investigation, evidence for their existence has never been found.

There is nothing stopping “laypersons” from performing these investigations. Science is a method - you don’t have to have a PhD to perform it. There already are theories for paranormal phenomenon. They have never, not once, been demonstrated in a proper scientific study that could be repeated.

A hallmark of the scientific method is the notion of a double-blind study, which eliminates experimenter bias. I suggest you watch “The Enemies of Reason” by Richard Dawkins for examples of failed double blind studies in dowsing. Critically, every double blind study every conducted into the paranormal has failed to find a repeatable effect.

65

[QUOTE=Blake]
The trouble is that you dont’ seemt o be talking about an invetsigation at all. WHat you have just descirbed is a fishing trip for supporting evidence that will, by its very nature, ignore contradictory evidence.
So despite the fact that in each case that could be adequeately investigated it was hoax, or mental illness or the usual excuses we still need to find other explanations.. and all this depsite the fact that there is no evidnece that the phenomenon even exists.
This has just become ridiculous. You are asking that investigation be undertaken until an explanation is found that suports what you choose to believe. You are asking that the investigation not cease when it has an answer supported by the evidence, but that it continue until such time as it gets the answer that you have predetermined as being correct.
This is the antithesis of science, never mind common sense.

You seem to think that there is some overseeing body of “science” that dictates what is and isn’t investigated by scientists and that reviews their work. Reality isn’t like that. Anyone who is vaguely intersted can conduct these invetsigations and can publish their results. JREF will even reward them handsomely for doings so if they turn up any evidence in their favour.

We don’t need some ill-defined board of review for laypeopel to investigate these phenomena. All we need is for proponents to do the bloody work.
[/QUOTE]

Yes you are absolutely correct. Everyone who has ever observed an unusual phenomena is fucking insane or faking it. :dubious: What I am asking is that instead of doing the usual handwaving that you seem so fond of, someone bothers to take the time to figure out what is actually going on; be it creaky wall joists, weird vibrations, funny electric fields or whatever. I’m asking that science does due fucking diligence in their investigations instead of trite dismissal. It is very likely that half of what is out there is hoaxing and crazies. It is likely that 49% of the rest is explainable if someone bothers to actually TRY. And who knows? the 1% left over might lead us into new exciting discoveries. You don’t fish until you find the right evidence, you fish until you get the damn ANSWER. If the answer happens to come up occasionally “I don’t know”, then further investigation is needed until we can figure it out. Blowing it off is irresponsible at best and negligent at worst.

I proposed a board of review since there aren’t really and sort of credentials one can accrue to give legitimacy to this field. A panel that doles out endorsements, even if they are trite, establishes guidelines for the investigations that would meet a minimum standard of acceptability. Why should I bother to investigate, catalog, compile, and report data if the larger community is simply going to blow it off anyway since I don’t have the right “credentials”?

66

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Because often when people study paranormal stuff they don’t actually have a hypothesis as to why it’s happening. There are many studies which look into telepathy, TK and so on that try to observe the effects whilst not actually having an idea at what is causing the effects; they’re trying to prove they are there, first. So it’s hard to totally eliminate confounding variables if you don’t know which is actually a variable you’re studying.
[/QUOTE]

This sort of potential theoretical problem is often raised as a means of avoidance, but has little if any practical relevance.

In reality those who say they know of paranormal effects usually describe something that simple tests show does not occur, even under the conditions that its proponents say it does.

Sure, you could theorize that a given phenomenon doesn’t occur when tested due to an unknown confounding variable, but when you are testing under the conditions that the very witness to the effect says should be OK, and when the only reason you are testing at all is because that witness propounds the phenomenon under those conditions, it’s all getting a bit silly. You might as well start theorizing about flying invisible pink elephants: there’s as much reason to.

[QUOTE=KGS]
Some do. But many ghosts actually like scientists.
[/QUOTE]

This is incorrect. Ghosts actually like 4 year old children. And not in a good way. In a way that would see them arrested if they were corporeal.

67

Alterego, You are misunderstanding me. I am not assuming that the conventional paranormal explanation is correct. I am saying that assuming we have ruled out hoaxing and mental illness, someone who is claiming to have experienced a paranormal event ought to have the same access to a fair investigation rather than a curt dismissal. I am also referring to phenomena that are not generated by the subject. I agree that dowsing, telekinesis and the like are easily tested and have little hope of being a reality. I am referring to external things, like so called hauntings and poltergeist type reports. If we can rule out the obvious then perhaps the actual explanation will help others in like positions. Such investigations have shown that certain electrical fields and subsonic levels can mess with peoples’ minds for instance. The issue is that I can’t show a result because I don’t have a hypothesis yet. I have to first prove the existence of the effect before I can attempt to form a theory on it’s origin. If the effect doesn’t show then I can fall back to searching for an unknown hoax, and have my subject re-evaluated. If that fails then i can simply state: “There was no proof on any such effect occurring during the investigation. It is My opinion that the effect reported is either fraudulent or has ceased to occur.” That statement won’t get me grants, prestige, or a paycheck; hence the lack of good science.

68

[QUOTE=Vinyl Turnip]

  1. Your friends are fucking with you (maybe realizing that you’re prone to belief in the supernatural).

  2. You’re hallucinating due to current or past drug use, brain injury, or other mental illness.

  3. You are exaggerating or misrepresenting the event(s) somehow, whether intentionally or not.

  4. There really is a mysterious nonhuman entity who hangs around outside the laundry room smoking cigarettes, and you’re the only one able to see him. He doesn’t know he’s dead and is waiting for you to come say hello. Oh, and the dark hair is a rug, and he’s a dead ringer for Bruce Willis.
    [/QUOTE]
    You forgot:

  5. The visage is really a projection of your subconscious imagination, a fictional character who has broken free of your cerebral matrix and taken (non-)physical form. Most likely a symbol of your unconscious inner turmoil or a representation of someone you never made peace with (such as your father who, when you were two years old, went out to buy a pack of cigarettes and never returned.)

69

Impossible explanations for any phenomenon may be dismissed out of hand with no investigation. It is not closed minded to assume that the impossible is impossible. It is patently unscientific and anti-intellectual to even posit impossible explanations for anything much less try to test for them. “Ghosts” cannot possibly exist in the physical universe, therefore they don’t exist, therefore any attempt to test for them as a hypothesis is a waste of time and shows the individuals engaging in such nonsense doesn’t have the faintest grasp of scientific method

70

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I"Ghosts" cannot possibly exist in the physical universe, therefore they don’t exist, therefore any attempt to test for them as a hypothesis is a waste of time and shows the individuals engaging in such nonsense doesn’t have the faintest grasp of scientific method
[/QUOTE]

Why not?

71

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Alterego, You are misunderstanding me. I am not assuming that the conventional paranormal explanation is correct. I am saying that assuming we have ruled out hoaxing and mental illness, someone who is claiming to have experienced a paranormal event ought to have the same access to a fair investigation rather than a curt dismissal.
[/QUOTE]
The same access to a fair investigation as who? I addressed this point in my last post:

Once again, you posit that such scientific investigation does not constitute a “fair investigation.” Can you guess which of your recurring fallacious arguments this is?

72

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Why not?
[/QUOTE]

Why not what? Why can’t ghosts exist or why don’t people who test for them understand scientific method?

73

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Yes you are absolutely correct. Everyone who has ever observed an unusual phenomena is fucking insane or faking it.
[/quote]

Nice strawman, but nobody ever said that. You listed the “usual explanations” such as mental illness or hoaxes.

Even if we restrict ourselves to those two explanations we don’t need to conclude that everyone who observes the paranormal is fraud or ‘insane’. I’d wager that 99.99% of people who have seen crop circles are both sane and honest. The hoax has been perpetrated on them, not by them.

If we expand the usual explanations to common explanations such as optical illusions, lucid dremaing, confirmation bias and so forth then there is no rational reason to assume that everyoine who has observed such things is insane or a fraud.

The trouble is that we have no evidence that anything is happening that requires any explanation whatsoever. If what is going on is nothing at all but confirmation bias then thatis what is going on. No amount of tetsing is goingt o come up with any other explanation because the event these people describe isn’t occuring in the real world.

Cite!
One example of where “Science” indulged in trite dismissal rather than due diligence?

But people have tried and they have explained them: hoaxes, confirmation bias, mental illness, optuical illusion and so forth. There has ben no shortage of succesful attemtps to explain what is going on in case sof alleged paranormal activity.

Firstly you need to establish that there is in fact even 1% pof cases that cna;t be adequately explained by mundane causes. ONce again you have assumed that the phenomenon exists and demand an are now demanding an explanation for it. In fact there is no evidence whatsoever that he pehnomenon exists.

Never happens.

Obviously not all cases can be investrigated, there are far more gullible people, crazies and frauds than there are scientists.

What happens instead is that the best representaive cases are investigated, and in every case the answer has been either that the alleged phenomenon doesn’t exist or is the reuslt of mundane causes. When this has occured a million times the the hypothesis of mundance causes is considered proved and anyone challenging that has to bring evidence to the table. That is how science works.

Now if you believe you have evidence of a field that has been “blown off” as you put it then show your evidence. Not evidence of a specific tea leaf reader who claims extraordinary results or a specific house you think is haunted but a field like “haunted houses” or “tealeaf readers”. Because once we’ve investigated a millon tea leaf readers and explained all through mundance causes then anyone claiming they have an example that can’t be explained by mundance means has to produce their evidence, not the establishment.

Or in any other field. Credentials don’t give legitimacy in science. Replicability falsifiability give legitinmacy.

That is what the peer review process is for. Anyone who wants to can submiit a paper to a peer reviewed journal and if it meets meet a minimum standard of acceptability it will be published. That way you get publicity as well as endorsement and anyone who wants to has the information required to attempt to falsify your claims.

Once again, this is how science works, and once again what you are proposing is not science.

You shouldn’t, but thankfully that doesn’t happen.

Can you provide a single example of where someone did meticulous work and was “blown off” by a peer reviewed journal because she didn’t have the right credentials?

This is just ludicrous. Anyone who can produce rigorus science that investigates, catalogues, compiles and reports data documenting paranormal activity will have their choice of journal willing to publish.

The problem is that nobody has ever produced such science, or any science at all.

74

[QUOTE=KGS]
You’re talking about Scientific Method. And, while Scientific Method is a significant part of Science, useful for building stuff like cell phones and nuclear bombs, it is not the “be all, end all” of reality.
Scientific Method boils down to 4 basic steps: (1) Hypothesis. (2) Experiments. (3) Observation. (4) Conclusion. You, like many other deterministic people, appear stuck on the “Conclusion” part. Fair and good. But before Conclusions can be made, somebody has to come up with the Hypothesis part. And people who focus on the Hypothesis part aren’t always treated nicely by society – people like Galileo & Semmelweis were persecuted for being scientists.
[/quote]

KGS
I’d have to disagree with that first sentence. The scientific method is “the be all and end all” of determining whether something is reality. People’s imaginations are effectively unlimited. Anyone can hypothesize any cause they like for anything they observe. That has no bearing at all on whether their hypothesis is correct. Error is unlimited and unbounded. There are an infinite number of wrong explanations for anything we see.
I could hypothesize that tooth decay is really caused by demons, and that’s fine. The problem is when I want you to accept this. Where is my evidence? Have I done any experiments to control for bacteria? And then we get into what happens if you do accept my idea about demons causing tooth decay. The result of that would be that we both have false teeth in a few years. The woo-woo crowd is generally out to make a buck and have little or no concern about what happens if people believe them.
Also, prior to the steps you’ve outlined, someone has to observe something that requires an explanation. So far, no one has even got that far with the paranormal. There isn’t anything to make a hypothesis about or to perform an experiment on. In my demonic tooth decay hypothesis I can at least show that teeth do decay if you don’t care for them. The spiritual people haven’t even gotten that far yet.
Semmelweis was rejected by some BUT, he kept records and his evidence was eventually accepted. IOW, he could prove what he was saying. Likewise Galileo.

No, that isn’t right. Or maybe it’s just an extremely flawed analogy. As far as me loving my wife goes, yes I did. The analogy falls down because me loving my wife was purely subjective and I wasn’t trying to convince anyone (except my wife) that I loved her. Still, there is more evidence that I loved my wife than there is for ghosts. You could even run experiments on this if you wanted to spend the time and me loving my wife would be a reasonable hypothesis for what you observed.
AFAIK, no one has claimed that love has any kind of objective existence.
Now, if you want to argue that ghosts are also a purely subjective phenomena I might agree with you. I could be persuaded that ghosts are the result of poor vision, general brain-glitches, or some other problem with the observer.

Regards

Testy

75

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
They shouldn’t, but perhaps a phenomena is local, or occurs by a mechanism we do not understand, or can measure yet since no one has researched it enough to manufacture the needed technology. The odd nature of the subject ought to require modified, but no less rigorous data. It’s a case of needing a parallel system of investigation.
[/quote]

Acid Lamp
I’m not sure what you mean by “modified but no less rigorous data.” Modified how? Would we just accept any old pile of anecdotes? I’m sure you wouldn’t recommend that but if not, how would we decide which pile was good and which was just crap? We have a good system of doing this right now but if we trash it to allow ghosts and other things that bump around late in the evenings then what replaces it?
How do we separate complete loons from something that might have some basis in fact? We’ve thrown away our requirement for repeatability, evidence, and experiment. What do we have left?

And where would this end? Would we just accept any kind of thing? Crystal power, faith healing, homeopathy, and who knows what else. As I mentioned in my reply to KGS, error is infinite. There are no boundaries on the number or kind of errors people can come up with. I know one woman that puts rocks around the beds of sick people. I’m convinced that she means well. I even accept that she sincerely believes she’s being helpful. The trouble is that it doesn’t work. Her patients die.

Well, mental illness, mistakes, and hoaxing are all that has ever been found. Those aren’t excuses, they’re results. What do you want? Scientists are never going to be able to prove a negative. Also, no amount of evidence or explanation is going to convince your dedicated believer. Researchers have explained till they’re blue in the face but the dedicated loon goes right on believing. Cold facts are much less satisfying than a warm and comforting belief. Some people just need this support and resist having it taken away from them.
I think you do researchers at least a slight injustice. Scientists want results, they want to prove things. A life spent researching things that never work, never happen when someone is watching, and never allow experiments sounds like a very unsatisfying lifetime. So far, that is all that anyone has ever come up with. I’d be very reluctant to sign-up for a life like that.

Regards

Testy

76

[QUOTE=Acid Lamp]
Why not?
[/QUOTE]

Acid Lamp

I think it was Sagan that explained why ghosts are not possible. The problem is that ghosts are disembodied consciousnesses. They are claimed to be conscious but have nothing to be conscious with. Other people hypothesized a mysterious “energy field” but there is no detectable energy aside from the usual infrared, electrical energy induced from power lines and other, non-magical explanations.

Regards

Testy

77

[QUOTE=Testy]
The problem is that ghosts are disembodied consciousnesses. They are claimed to be conscious but have nothing to be conscious with. Other people hypothesized a mysterious “energy field” but there is no detectable energy aside from the usual infrared, electrical energy induced from power lines and other, non-magical explanations.
[/QUOTE]

To me that’s a particularly weak argument since it hinges on us knowing everything about consciousness and what can and can’t produce it. IR radiation in a vacuum could be described as disembodied heat with nothing to hot with. Doesn’t mean t doesn’t exist, it just means that we needed to accept some very wierd properties of em radiation that allows it to exist in the absence of any medium. For that matter the same applied to gravity to this day. Do gravitons exist? We haven’t been able t detect them, but if they don’t exist then how can gravity propagate when it has nothing to propagate with, so to speak?

Not perfect analogies, but you see my point I hope. The fact that we can’t detect any medium for something doesn’t mean that it can’t exist. We can’t even define what consciousness is, much less know how it is generated so it’s a pretty weak case to declare that we know what is required to generate it.

There have been and still are many observable phenomena for which there is no detectable medium, that doesn’t mean those phenomena can’t exist.

The reason to disbelieve ghosts isn’t because they can’t exist (a very bold claim) but simply because they have never been reliably observed to exist. If we accept the level of evidnce we have for ghosts as sufficient (anecdotal accounts, blurry photos and so forth) then we have to accept the existence almost anything, including unicorns.

78

[QUOTE=Blake]
To me that’s a particularly weak argument since it hinges on us knowing everything about consciousness and what can and can’t produce it. IR radiation in a vacuum could be described as disembodied heat with nothing to hot with. Doesn’t mean t doesn’t exist, it just means that we needed to accept some very wierd properties of em radiation that allows it to exist in the absence of any medium. For that matter the same applied to gravity to this day. Do gravitons exist? We haven’t been able t detect them, but if they don’t exist then how can gravity propagate when it has nothing to propagate with, so to speak?

Not perfect analogies, but you see my point I hope. The fact that we can’t detect any medium for something doesn’t mean that it can’t exist. We can’t even define what consciousness is, much less know how it is generated so it’s a pretty weak case to declare that we know what is required to generate it.

There have been and still are many observable phenomena for which there is no detectable medium, that doesn’t mean those phenomena can’t exist.

The reason to disbelieve ghosts isn’t because they can’t exist (a very bold claim) but simply because they have never been reliably observed to exist. If we accept the level of evidnce we have for ghosts as sufficient (anecdotal accounts, blurry photos and so forth) then we have to accept the existence almost anything, including unicorns.
[/QUOTE]

Blake

I do take your point, and it’s a good one. I would respond by saying that we are able to detect the effects of EM radiation and gravity. There is no doubt that they exist. That is far from the case with ghosts. Also, because consciousness seems to require a medium, that does not extend to everything in the universe. In any event, I think I’ll stop using this to explain the non-existence of ghosts. The explanation, as you’ve highlighted, are too lengthy.

I’d also have to agree that people haven’t really defined consciousness yet. OTOH, we have certainly defined some prerequisites for consciousness, primarily a physical brain. In 100% of the cases known if the brain stops working, so does consciousness.

Regards

Testy

79

Maybe we should start another thread.

[QUOTE=Testy]
I would respond by saying that we are able to detect the effects of EM radiation and gravity. There is no doubt that they exist. That is far from the case with ghosts.
[/quote]

That was my point. The reason for not believing ghost is that there is no evidence they exist. They produce no effects: no reflected light, no compression waves in the air. IOW nobody has ever been able to demonstrate they have seen or heard a ghost. That’s the cause for skepticism. A claim that they can’t exists because we know everything about consciousness isn’t much a of reason at all.

That wasn’t my point either. My point was that many things that we are certain exist can exist without any detectable medium and as such claimimg that consciousnes needs a detectable medium needs a lot more knowledge of consciousness than we have.

I agree, but for someone who believes in ghosts you are now begging the question.

A ghost is a person who retains consciousness after death.
Ghosts exhibit no brain.
A brain is necessary to retain consciousness.
We know a consciouness needs a brain because 100% of dead people cease to be conscious after death.

Totally begging the question. It only proves that ghost can’t exist if we are already willing to accept that ghosts don’t exist. If we accept that some percentage of people do retain cosciousness after death then the argument proves exacty the opposite point: that ghosts do exist. Still begging the question, but reaching th eopposite conclusion.

80

[QUOTE=Blake]
Maybe we should start another thread.

That was my point. The reason for not believing ghost is that there is no evidence they exist. They produce no effects: no reflected light, no compression waves in the air. IOW nobody has ever been able to demonstrate they have seen or heard a ghost. That’s the cause for skepticism. A claim that they can’t exists because we know everything about consciousness isn’t much a of reason at all.

That wasn’t my point either. My point was that many things that we are certain exist can exist without any detectable medium and as such claimimg that consciousnes needs a detectable medium needs a lot more knowledge of consciousness than we have.

I agree, but for someone who believes in ghosts you are now begging the question.

A ghost is a person who retains consciousness after death.
Ghosts exhibit no brain.
A brain is necessary to retain consciousness.
We know a consciouness needs a brain because 100% of dead people cease to be conscious after death.

Totally begging the question. It only proves that ghost can’t exist if we are already willing to accept that ghosts don’t exist. If we accept that some percentage of people do retain cosciousness after death then the argument proves exacty the opposite point: that ghosts do exist. Still begging the question, but reaching th eopposite conclusion.
[/QUOTE]

Blake

Well, I didn’t claim that “we know everything about consciousness,” just that it has some prerequisites. It requires a physical matrix to operate. We have experimental evidence of this going back as far as recorded history. Kill the brain and consciousness stops, every time. I await evidence to the contrary.

On that last part of your post, it would seem to me that the other side of the debate is the one “begging the question.” If they believe ghosts exist then it is up to them to prove this, or at least show some real evidence.

I understand where you’re coming from but it is a lot more philosophical than I am usually comfortable with. My usual response to the woo-woo crowd is along the lines of;

“What a steaming pile of horse shit. Wishful thinking and the need for a psychic security blanket backed up by a pile of anecdotes from deluded dullards.”

I try not to come out with that too often though as I try to be polite here and there’s really no point in it as the true-believer types aren’t going to be convinced anyway. All anyone can do is present the best arguments he has in the hope that someone that has not yet made up their mind will be swayed.

Regards

Testy