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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
I know condescension when I see it.
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.
Yes you do.
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.
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’.
[quote=“simster, post:175, topic:610586”]
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.
It did, it left a “footprint”, the experience.
True, it could be any of those from an external reference point. The footprint is always private.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You know mishagoe, this does nothing to persuade me to give any credence to what you have to say.
Debating by insulting rarely works.