DOES anyone on this board believe in ghosts?

[Mijin]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

So, what if somebody explained to you that it works via metamaterials having a negative refractive index that bend the light around you in such a way that the interference pattern behind you exactly reproduces the influx of light from before you – would you still consider it magic?

Would you consider the example of electricity in the dark matter universe to be magic? If so, why wouldn’t it be magic in our universe, too – just because it’s simply more readily manifest here?

Do you consider your computer to be magic?

No, but you’ve missed my point here. In fact, it’s not even obvious to me what you think my point was.

All I was saying was that your definition of magic is not necessarily the one most people subscribe to.

The implication I got from one of your earlier posts is that magic is something inexplicable, in principle, by any set of laws. I don’t think many people would think of it like that.

I think most people would consider it a temporary label for things that are not reducible to known physics, and it is unclear how we could even add to the physical laws to include these phenomena.
It’s not the same thing as declaring “we’ll never understand this”.

[Savannah]

It’s not so much that I believe in ghosts, but I once saw something I really have no explanation for. So I called it a ghost.

There is probably a perfectly logical explanation involving science, psychiatry, brain function, physics or time displacement.

[AClockworkMelon]

@Savannah

It’s not so much that I believe in ghosts, but I once saw something I really have no explanation for. So I called it a ghost.

There is probably a perfectly logical explanation involving science, psychiatry, brain function, physics or time displacement.

Don’t forget swamp gas and weather balloons.

[42fish]

@Idle_Thoughts

@AClockworkMelon

Is there a hippopotamus in your car? Don’t say no. You can’t know for sure.

Actually, since I don’t own a car, I can say no for sure. : p

How do you know for sure you don’t have a car? Maybe you bought one but are suffering from amnesia and have forgotten about it.

[Half_Man_Half_Wit]

@Mijin

No, but you’ve missed my point here. In fact, it’s not even obvious to me what you think my point was.

I took your point to be that most people define magic as something unexplained by current scientific knowledge, which I still think it is (correct me if that’s wrong); my point is simply that I don’t think that’s a very useful definition (mostly because then anything can be considered magic from the right vantage point).

[Mijin]

@Half_Man_Half_Wit

@Mijin

No, but you’ve missed my point here. In fact, it’s not even obvious to me what you think my point was.

I took your point to be that most people define magic as something unexplained by current scientific knowledge, which I still think it is (correct me if that’s wrong); my point is simply that I don’t think that’s a very useful definition (mostly because then anything can be considered magic from the right vantage point).

Ok, I think we’re talking across each other then.

I don’t want to keep going over the semantics of “magic”, since it’s not a very useful term, and it’s a little ambiguous.

My wider point is just about the suggestion upthread (not by you) that we need to have a model reducing something to known physics before we can do science.
I disagree with this: we can do science without reducing at all. And when we do reduce something, it doesn’t need to be all the way down to fundamental physics to be useful.

[XT]

@Mijin

My wider point is just about the suggestion upthread (not by you) that we need to have a model reducing something to known physics before we can do science

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if so then we are also talking past each other, since that wasn’t what I was saying at all. You don’t have to fit ‘ghost’ into existing models, you simply have to have something demonstrable to actually look at and use the scientific method to go about looking, if you want to do science. If not then you aren’t doing science…you are using magical thinking.

I disagree with this: we can do science without reducing at all. And when we do reduce something, it doesn’t need to be all the way down to fundamental physics to be useful.

Depends on what you mean by ‘reducing’. Could you elaborate?

-XT

[Mijin]

@xtisme

Not sure if this was directed at me, but if so then we are also talking past each other, since that wasn’t what I was saying at all. You don’t have to fit ‘ghost’ into existing models, you simply have to have something demonstrable to actually look at and use the scientific method to go about looking, if you want to do science. If not then you aren’t doing science…you are using magical thinking.

Agreed

Depends on what you mean by ‘reducing’. Could you elaborate?

What I mean is describing a phenomenon as a product of simpler phenomena / models.
Like describing diffusion, say, as the statistical product of thermal motion and molecular collisions.

Science has been so effective at reduction of late, that people assume that this is what science is all about. e.g. that a theory of the mind must necessarily be reductionist.

[Shawn1767]

My problem with ghosts is that, if you think about it, what would be the point? What’s the mechanism? Where does the energy come from?

I liked the Penn & Teller Bullshit episode about ghosts because all their ghosts were naked and just blew cold air on them in order to communicate. Seriously. What would be the point of being a ghost? Who decides who gets to be a ghost and who came up with the ghost rules? There seems to be no sense.

[Grateful-UnDead]

Xtisme: I misinterpreted your earlier post, and therefore my response was not accurately on point. Sorry about that. In fact, I agree with most of your comments.

However, you do seem to make the assumption that we already know enough about the universe to confidently assume that all observed phenomena could, or should, fit into the existing framework.

What if it is true that there is a whole realm out there, which sits outside our current knowledge framework?

That was the point of my referring to “Dark Matter”. If this exists, then there a huge philosophical as well as scientific implications relating to that.

Similarly, there is an undercurrent of talk in mainstream physics circles about the existence of a fifth force; this force being needed to explain some currently inexplicable phenomena. Again, significant implications if this is shown to be true.

We can also refer to the String Theorists and their ever growing collection of parallel universes; although IMHO they have spent altogether too much time experimenting with non prescription pharmaceuticals.

[swhite1276]

I’m a 1 and I base that on experience. One time, I was shopping with my mom and noticed a little girl curled up in the corner, looking at me frightened. She wasn’t fuzzy, see-through or anything. I saw her in complete detail all the way to her pig tails. My mom-instincts kicked in and when I looked back at her a second or two later to see if I could help, she wasn’t there. Was the little girl a ghost, my imagination? I don’t know but it was truly odd.

[Little_Nemo]

@Grateful-UnDead

However, you do seem to make the assumption that we already know enough about the universe to confidently assume that all observed phenomena could, or should, fit into the existing framework.

What if it is true that there is a whole realm out there, which sits outside our current knowledge framework?

That was the point of my referring to “Dark Matter”. If this exists, then there a huge philosophical as well as scientific implications relating to that.

Similarly, there is an undercurrent of talk in mainstream physics circles about the existence of a fifth force; this force being needed to explain some currently inexplicable phenomena. Again, significant implications if this is shown to be true.

We can also refer to the String Theorists and their ever growing collection of parallel universes; although IMHO they have spent altogether too much time experimenting with non prescription pharmaceuticals.

But people believing in ghosts are going the opposite way. They have the belief first and then go looking for evidence to verify it. That’s not how science works.

Nobody invented dark matter or string theory because they thought they would be cool ideas. Scientists made observations and took notes. Then when they found verifiable objective evidence that could not be accounted for by what was already known about the universe, they began to speculate about unknown phenomena like dark matter and strings.

This has not happened with ghosts. Nobody has produced verifiable objective evidence of “ghosts” that cannot be explained by other known phenomena.

[Bryan_Ekers]

I’m a Pisces and we don’t believe in mystical crap like ghosts.

[shiftless]

I am 100% certain that ghosts do not exist for most definitions of “ghost.” That doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t find some definition that does exist. Ghost crabs exist, for example.

If someone wants to define a ghost as any odd sounds a house makes or as anything a person thinks they see and then isn’t there then of course they exist. And who cares?

[Guinastasia]

I really have no opinion either way. I don’t KNOW if ghosts exist (although most tales of ghost encounters sound like bullshit). I’m not going to say if they do or don’t.

I do, however, love ghost stories. I absolutely adore them. I’ll watch those stupid “ghost hunter” shows on The History Channel, because I like the old legends and such. I don’t care if it’s bullshit – I just love the old stories, about haunted houses and such.
(And I’ve always wanted to visit the Winchester Mansion. That house is a work of art)

[Grateful-UnDead]

S seem to have screwed up my quotes from previous posts, but will do it the old fashioned way, until I figure out what I did wrong:

“But people believing in ghosts are going the opposite way. They have the belief first and then go looking for evidence to verify it. That’s not how science works.”

Unfortunately, that is exactly how a lot of science does work; particularly now that a lot of science has become heavily politicized. I refer to “The Great Global Warming Scam” as a case in point. But that is a discussion for another thread…!

"Nobody invented dark matter or string theory because they thought they would be cool ideas. Scientists made observations and took notes. Then when they found verifiable objective evidence that could not be accounted for by what was already known about the universe, they began to speculate about unknown phenomena like dark matter and strings.

This has not happened with ghosts. Nobody has produced verifiable objective evidence of “ghosts” that cannot be explained by other known phenomena."

With regard to procedural approach, I agree with you; furthermore, I suggest that the same principle and method should be applied to the study of “Ghosts”.

With regard to content, it seems to me that there is a sufficient accumulation of anecdotal and observational data to show that SOMETHING is happening. That, in itself, should be sufficient basis for serious analysis and examination of the issue.

It would be worth doing even if the final result is to confirm that it is all delusion on the part of the world’s whackos.

In order to effect a serious study of the subject, significant funding would be required; and this is where the problem arises.

Given the general attitude of both the scientific community and the funding bodies to the very idea of “ghosts”; ie: “everybody knows that ghosts don’t exist”, what are the odds they would provide the funding for any such study?

What are the odds they would fund any kind of comprehensive branching and iterative process such as described by Xtisme", upstream?

This is where the whole business dies on the starting blocks; no funding, no study, no resolution. All leading to continued uniformed, opinionated debate. Damn!

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Grateful-UnDead

Unfortunately, that is exactly how a lot of science does work

No it isn’t.

particularly now that a lot of science has become heavily politicized. I refer to “The Great Global Warming Scam” as a case in point. But that is a discussion for another thread…!

You’re pretty much flushing your credibility right down the shitter with this statement.

With regard to procedural approach, I agree with you; furthermore, I suggest that the same principle and method should be applied to the study of “Ghosts”.

With regard to content, it seems to me that there is a sufficient accumulation of anecdotal and observational data to show that SOMETHING is happening.

Anecdotal and observational data of WHAT?

That, in itself, should be sufficient basis for serious analysis and examination of the issue.

Examination of WHAT? What exactly is the phenomenon which you would like to explain?

It would be worth doing even if the final result is to confirm that it is all delusion on the part of the world’s whackos.

In order to effect a serious study of the subject, significant funding would be required; and this is where the problem arises.

What “subject?” What exactly is it you’re proposing to study, what is the hypothesis you want to test and how are you going to test it?

Given the general attitude of both the scientific community and the funding bodies to the very idea of “ghosts”; ie: “everybody knows that ghosts don’t exist”, what are the odds they would provide the funding for any such study?

I ask again, a study of WHAT? You actually have to stipulate what phenomenon you want to explain and propose some kind of testable hypothesis.

This is where the whole business dies on the starting blocks; no funding, no study, no resolution. All leading to continued uniformed, opinionated debate. Damn!

Any scientist would love to prove the existence of ghost. It would mean an instant Nobel Prize and untold fame and fortune. It would be the greatest scientific discovery of all time. It’s not about funding. It’s about the fact that there’s nothing to fucking study. Nothing to examine, nothing to test, nothing to EXPLAIN.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Guinastasia

I really have no opinion either way. I don’t KNOW if ghosts exist (although most tales of ghost encounters sound like bullshit). I’m not going to say if they do or don’t.

Why not? Would you have a problem with saying that vampires don’t exist?

[gonzomax]

NO. It is stupid.

[Idle_Thoughts]

@shiftless

I am 100% certain that ghosts do not exist for most definitions of “ghost.” That doesn’t mean that someone couldn’t find some definition that does exist. Ghost crabs exist, for example.

If someone wants to define a ghost as any odd sounds a house makes or as anything a person thinks they see and then isn’t there then of course they exist. And who cares?

Even if we took “ghost” out of the equation…let’s just say a lamp lifted up and floated around the room on its own accord.
Now, if you witnessed that yourself, what would you think?
Would that be proof to you supernatural things exist?
If not, how would you explain it?
I’m guessing you’d either explain it as a dream or hallucination or someone playing a trick on you.