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”.
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.
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
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?
Hey dude, chill out you’ll get a stroke, die, and come back to haunt me.
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.
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.
Czarcasm, I think the needle is stuck, give it a kick so the song can finish. Thanks.
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.
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.
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 ]
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.
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.
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
Does the OP even get that dispensation?
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?
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)
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.
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.
<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?