Do you believe in ghosts (the supernatural)?

[ecstatic]

I know of people who swear up and down that they've seen ghosts.

[MsFlorida]

1. Really think they do.

Although, not in the traditional, booing, scarey kind. I know I have definitely felt a presence of something.

[John BigBootay]

115. Anyone here watch "Ghost Hunters" on Sci-Fi?

[sariku]

160. I do sometimes

It's not a show that I seek out, but if I turn on the tv and it is on, I'll watch it. Some of it is interesting, some of it is hokey.

[pen dragon]

127. nt

[Seabiscuit]

170. I've been called a "hot spook" and I definitely exist.

[noonwitch]

2. I believe that they do exist, but I don't believe every ghost story I hear

Some people are just full of shit, you know?

Like John Edwards-I believe he has psychic ability, but I don't believe he is talking to the dead. I think he has an ability to read thoughts in people's minds, and then by using his questioning format, can get the rest of the info from the people themselves. He's a good con man with a glimmer of a gift.

[WoodrowFan]

7. actually

he just uses typical "cold reading" techniques (his mother was a "psychic" too). He has also been accused by some people that were on his show of editing it so to make it appear that he got some things right. (splicing in a "yes" answer when the person really said "no" to a specific question.) he'll also send his staff out to chat up the guests in his TV show (everybody has an assigned seat). That way he knows that the lady in seat 5A is looking to contact he dead Uncle. It's an old trick, faith healers use it too.


Total fraud.

http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-11/i-files.html

[bettyellen]

162. i heard they listen in as people are on line to get in... and pick up the

names/ details etc from that. which would make it totally phony.
that's just the lowest of the low. takiing advantage of the bereaved? that's for santa and kenny kimes! not fucking tv hosts. i hope it's not true.

[ecstatic]

9. Come again?

Edwards a good con man? I'm confused.

[charlie]

13. Not THAT John Edwards

Another one, who's made a fortune bringing "messages" from dead relatives.

[ecstatic]

17. LOL ok nt

[Seabiscuit]

171. I thought John Edwards was a lawyer.

[Squeech]

3. Good question

Perhaps it needs some definition. If you mean "Is there some quality of the human spirit that can survive death?" I think there probably is. If you mean "Do these spirits continue to affect living humans?" I would say they mostly have better things to do :-)

[K-W]

6. I think in this context it means dead soul still on earth.

That was my take at least. Its usually what people mean when they ask if you believe in ghosts.

[H2O Man]

92. More likely

a living soul still on earth. It's possible that you are right, though I think there are very few accounts of dead ghosts/souls roaming the earth.

[Mallifica]

70. Although I was skeptical for a while

I definately do believe that they sometimes affect the lives of the living - my boyfriend lived in a haunted house for a couple of years and a number of strange things happened that scared the shit out of me. I am definately a believer.

[BurtWorm]

74. What sort of scary shit?

Out of curiosity.

[Mallifica]

95. I replied, below, to the original . . .

[raggedcompany]

4. superstition is superstition is superstition

whether you call it Jesus, a ghost, a jinx or the Great Spirit...it's all hooey.

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. yes because...

things that exist and cant be explained dont exist at all right. :eyes:

[MsConduct]

87. LOL Great point! n/t

[patcox2]

104. All that you beleive, all that you just opined, equally hoooey.

What are these things you perceive as "thoughts," this consciousness you beleive that you are experiencing? What is it? Has science explained it?

Don't say "its chemicals and electrical circuits," thats not an explanation, thats just voodoo words, like an incantation, unless you can explain just exactly what is consciousness, and how chemicals and electrical impulses produce the subjective experience of consciousness and hope and love and joy.

Science has not yet done that. So, I trust that you do not beleive in yourself, right?

[K-W]

106. Chemicals is a voddoo word?

What a persuasive argument.

[patcox2]

110. When you use it as a symbol with no real meaning it is.

If you say the words without a real undrestanding of the process, yes, saying the word is the equivalent of a superstitious incantation, as if just saying "thought is caused by chemicals and electrical currents" somehow means something.

Its like when someone who is really stupid and has no clue as to higher math, or understanding of the relation between Maxwell's equations and special relativity, says "e=mc squared." Its just an incantation for him, he has no idea what it means. Like when someone says "nuclear reactors produce power by splitting atoms." Those are just meaningless symbols for concepts the speaker has no conception of, they are statements of faith, essentially, the modern version of superstitions.

The fact is that science has absolutely no explanation for consciousness. It exists, that has been observed, and it is somehow related to the biological processes occurring in the brain involving chemical reactions and electrical circuits, but that does not explain it.

At just what point does a chemical reaction start thinking? Does your computer feel compassion, does it have hopes and feelings? It has lots of electrical circuits. Where does it happen? Where is a thought? Where is the number 2, for that matter? I want to observe it so I can be sure of its existence.

[Ian David]

5. Ghost Detective Unmasks Hoaxes

This is not a ghost.




This is Joe Nickell.

Joe Nickell smarter and less-dead than a ghost.


(AP) On Halloween, when legend says disembodied spirits return in search of living bodies to possess, Joe Nickell goes on the prowl, too - for ghosts, ghouls and other things that creep in the night.

The former private eye, who used to solve arsons and theft rings for a security firm, is now a senior research fellow at the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal, or CSICOP.

His job: unravel the unexplained, debunk the deceptive, unmask the hoax.

Nickell, 58, joined CSICOP in 1995 after a career that also included stints as a professional magician and professor of English at the University of Kentucky. CSICOP, based in Amherst, N.Y., encourages the critical investigation of paranormal and "fringe-science" claims from a scientific viewpoint.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/30/tech/main581003.shtml

Here's some more:

Joe Nickel and Ghosts
http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=mozclient&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&q=%22Joe+Nickell%22+and+ghosts

James Randi and Ghosts
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22James+Randi%22+and+ghosts&btnG=Search

[Seabiscuit]

172. He looks like one of those ghosts in the Haunted Mansion at Disneyland.

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. There is definately something to it....

My family has had experiences, and myself and my friends have had aswell.

Perhaps it wasnt all "Ghosts," but there is defiantely something to it.

Just because it cant easily be explained doesnt mean that it doesnt exist.

[K-W]

10. We had more credible evidence of Iraqi WMD's than we do that ghosts exist.

I would just like to point that out to the fact based community.

[Jack_DeLeon]

15. thats a lie...

Most of the evidence of Iraqi WMD was based on lies by Chalabi and the like.

There is more evidence of ghosts than just a handful of people lying.

[K-W]

20. We at least knew saddam had WMD's at one point.

We have 0 credible evidence of a single ghost ever existing.

[Jack_DeLeon]

23. I never saw Saddam's WMD...

I wont say that I dont believe that Saddam had them or that he used them before.

However I have had an experience with "ghosts" before.

I guess you are saying that myself and people who believe in ghosts arent credible.

I suppose if if I didnt think what I saw on TV or in the print media was credible then I too would have 0 credible evidence of Saddam every having WMD.

[raggedcompany]

24. I wouldn't say ghost believers aren't credible

just that they fall into the same realm as people who believe in virgin birth, dragons, resurrection, eternal life, , demons, telekenesis, etc.

call that whatever you want.

[hyphenate]

67. I don't think so

Some people who have felt the presence of "something" don't even understand it enough to phrase it in a context that would be comprehensible to others.

I believe in some sort of "essence"--whether you want to call it a "spirit," a "ghost," a "soul," or some other similar word, is up to you.

They have proven without a shadow of a doubt that there is an unexplained loss of "weight" when a person dies. We're NOT talking about bodily fluids or anything like that--they've taken all that into account. The amount of "energy" expended upon death is miniscule, but measurable.

We all know that energy is impossible to destroy--it merely converts into another form, so why is it so hard to discount that "spark of life" as surviving the human body?

I've seen the argument that there are far more people now than there were a century ago, so how could the energy exist if it didn't exist when there were less bodies to fill? The argument for the "essence" is simple--at some point, that energy splits, such as you would see in mitosis. That alone would account for some phenomenon as clairvoyance, reincarnation and psychometry, because an essence that has split could then inhabit more than one "host" and thus share some memories with others.

It's all a matter of how you look at things in the end. Some people who are radically religious in a right winged manner would suppress their curiosity about things they don't understand, and those who pride themselves as "scientists" don't want to have to decipher another paradigm.

[K-W]

71. You are horribly mistaken as to how energy works.

I suggest you do some SERIOUS reading about energy before attempting to articulate a theory involving it.

As far as the body losing weight on death, that is unmitigated bunk.

[sariku]

161. Hey now

The way I see it is this. I've had experiences that I would definitely call paranormal. I posted about them - the door trying to be opened in the middle of the night, two peopel and a dog hearing it, and nobody there (snow outside, no footprints). To have my experienced compared to people who believe in what you see as fairy tales is insulting. What I call this is narrow-mindedness. So you haven't had a strange experience that you weren't able to explain away. That, obviously, means everyone else is crazy? Uh huh.

[K-W]

36. You THINK you had experience with ghosts before.

Ghosts is your explenation for something you experienced. Here is where you are slipping up.

Your perceptions are as credible as any personse observations. But this isnt about your perceptions. This has to do with your explantation of perceptions.

I trust that you experienced something that you label as a ghost. Unless you did a whole heck of alot of scientific analysis you havent told us about, you are going to have a hard time getting credibility for your outlandish theory to explain your experience. Since your theory requires such a drastic change in our understanding of the world, you are going to need some corroberating evidence for anyone to buy your theory of what happened to you.

I dont doubt that people see things in the sky. YOu need more evidence than just seeing something in the sky to prove that it was a UFO.

[Jack_DeLeon]

57. You are wrong...

You need more evidence than just seeing something in the sky to prove that it was a UFO.

Really? If there is something flying in the sky that I cannot identify then by its very definition it is a UFO, an unidentified flying object.

I trust that you experienced something that you label as a ghost.

Exactly, there was a situation and that situation fit my definition of what a ghost is.

Maybe that doesnt fit what your definition is, but that is your problem.

Since your theory requires such a drastic change in our understanding of the world, you are going to need some corroberating evidence for anyone to buy your theory of what happened to you.

Really? What is so drastic about sometimes things that cant be immediately explained happen? Shit that cant be explained happens all the time.

[K-W]

59. What is so drastic about discovering another plane of existance?

Do you really need me to answer that question?


I think you know what I meant by UFO, at least I hope so.

I dont care what you personally define as a ghost, that has no bearing on this discussion. You saw something. Your description of that thing is an observation. You can call it an Ewok for all I care. If you think that you just get to decide what reality is, I have some bad news for you.

[Liberaltarian]

66. and if it can't be explained...it's obviously a ghost?

:eyes:

[bettyellen]

164. So if no one else is there it didn't happen?

[H2O Man]

94. Now, now

Poor "science" there! Let's be fair!

If you want to use the evidence of saddam having had WMDs at one time, then it would be accurate to say that we could agree that every living person contains a "life force."

It is fairly easy to say where the WMDs went. But it's a little harder to say where that life force goes after death. You, being of sound body and scientific mind, seem confident that you have "proof" of where it's not. So, doc, why don't you explain what that life force is, and where it goes when the body dies?

[Liberaltarian]

56. what evidence?

and bibles don't count.

[Jack_DeLeon]

58. eyewitness accounts...

last time I checked eyewitness accounts were considered evidence in a court of law.

[K-W]

62. We have accounts of dragons, fairies, elves, ogres, etc.

What else have you got?

[Jack_DeLeon]

69. from what I learned while doing jury duty the other day...

Which I really did have to go to court to serve for Jury Duty yesterday.

Out of all the evidence, witnesses, and testemoy that the state or the defense puts up its up to the juror to decide if they will believe all of it, some of it, or none of it.

So yes eyewitness accounts no matter how far fetched they are are all evidence.

So you can choose to believe all of it, some of it, or none of it.

[K-W]

76. In court people tell observations, not thier outlandish theories.

That you perceived something would be a matter of fact.

That it was a ghost would be speculation on your part.

If you walk into court and say "he is a murderer" the judge will tell the jury to disregard your statement. All you can testify on is the actual visual exprience you had. You dont get to just tell us that it is a ghost and make it true.

[Liberaltarian]

77. eyewitness accounts are "evidence" in a court of law...

so if the ghost question ever comes to court, THEN you can say that eyewitness accounts are "evidence"...
but they still wouldn't be "proof" of anything- merely allegations.

[Jack_DeLeon]

80. you didnt ask for "proof" you asked for evidence...

In all of the court cases in all of human history I'd would be almost certain that atleast one of them has had the issue raised.

[Liberaltarian]

91. outside a court of law, eyewitness accounts aren't "evidence" of anything.

if evidence of ghosts has been raised in a court of law, please post the info, or a link...

"I'd would(sic) be almost certain..." isn't exactly..."evidence"?

[shadowknows69]

135. I've been attacked by a spirit before

:mad: looked a little like this guy

[Liberaltarian]

63. and of course nobody ever lies or hallucinates, right?

:eyes:
texans....sheesh!

[Trajan]

11. I of course selected ....

No: Ghosts do not exist ...

But I am intrigued by the 'psychological phenomena' aspect ...

When we 'think' of something, does that something become 'real' ? ... 'existent' ? ...

Or: does it remain only the thought ? .. an abstract, ideal form of the thing ? ....

When I think of existent things, I think of concrete reality, of objective stuff, with mass, weight, temperature, spatial position : all measurable and observable quantities .... how can something be 'real' and 'existent' without having a concrete and objective presence ? ...

[Squeech]

22. Neutrinos

As an example of things that (we're pretty sure) exist, but the confirmation of their existence is subtle and inferential.

I submit that ghosts are probably in that category. As I suggested above (with a smiley, but I'm actually pretty serious) I think I buy the "Our Town" theory of the afterlife, which is that once you die, you find that the concerns of the living don't matter all that much, and other issues are more relevant, and you just abandon the mortal world.

Most of the evidence we have for the existence of ghosts is hauntings or poltergeists, which suggests to me that some people die still fixated on some earthly issue, some trauma they haven't gotten over, so they hang around and try to do something about it. That's probably not how it was supposed to work, you're supposed to proceed to the next stage, or prepare for your next incarnation or whatever; maybe there's a security hole in the cosmic operating system and poltergeists slip through...

[sariku]

163. I think that sometimes

We want to be able to put everything into a nice, tight, cozy little package. It helps us to make sense out of evertying. Unfortunately, not everything does make sense.

how can something be 'real' and 'existent' without having a concrete and objective presence

How many creatures (especially of the sea) have we not witnessed or catalogued? Do they not exist until we discover them?

[ecstatic]

14. They could exist

I just hope I never have to meet one--that would be kind of scary. Even it it's a loved one, the idea of being watched just spooks me out.

[WoodrowFan]

16. I work in a "haunted house"

but have not (yet) seen a "ghost."

[clydefrand]

18. If one believes in God, then one must believe in the

supernatural. Simple as that. I must say I don't know if the supernatural exists.

But I keep returning to a "vision" of reality that I had when I was five. Yes, I can remember back that far even in my twilight years. I lived on a farm. My sister and brother, who are 8 and 6 years my senior, and I were walking home from getting the cows from over in the pasture fields or picking chinquapins or both when I looked up to see a WHITE mule come out of the edge of the woods. I told them to look. They told me they didn't see it. Well, "I" did and I will go to my grave knowing that I saw it and they didn't. There were no white mules on the farm. In fact, I've never seen a white mule...presumably an albino...other than that one. Was that supernatural? I don't know. But it was and is real in my mind.

[arwalden]

19. Wow! What Disturbing Results!!

[ecstatic]

21. Surprising in a way, considering the evolution debate

In which most of us swear off anything that can't be explained by science.

[Jack_DeLeon]

26. swearing off anything that cant be explained by science is narrowminded...

Science isnt perfect and cant explain everything.

Back in the day science didnt know anything about radiation, so would that mean that radiation didnt exist?

[arwalden]

30. Oh Brother!

:eyes:

[patcox2]

116. Refusing to beleive that there are things science can't explain

Is even more narrowminded.

Science (which is after all, a consensus-based social system for arriving at truth, based on empirical observation) is nothing but a human construct, like our system of government or a skyscraper. Beleiving that it is capable of explaining all that exists is beyond narrowminded. It is actually a form of faith. Beleiving that science and human consciousness are capable of comprehending everything is in fact provably wrong.

[K-W]

119. You dont understand science, thus your mistake.

There are things that scientists cant understand.

For there to be something that science cant understand, it would have to not exist.

If it exists, it interacts with our world, i can be analyzed by science.

[patcox2]

124. I understand science perfectly.

Thats why I know that science is a cultural artifact, a useful tool, and the best means yet developed for understanding the world, but its not some kind of perfect platonic ideal. Science does not exist independant of the scientists who practice it; it is not a thing, its something that you do. It is absurd to believe science can "do" something that would be beyond the abilities of the scientists who "do" the science.

You have elevated science to the level of infallible, omniscient deity. You have a supersitious beleif in the omnipotence of science.

[K-W]

125. I have done no such thing.

Science is the rational analysis of the world around us. Your other choice is irrational analysis. You can wait for a third option for the rest of your life. the rest of us will continue to use reason to understand the world and improve our lives.

[patcox2]

137. Science actually has little to do with "reason."

Reason is used mostly for the formation of postulates; but the real significance of science is the rejection of logic and reason as the ultimate arbiters of truth in favor of a reliance on empirical evidence. The big breakthrough in science has nothing to do with logic or reason, logic and reason were around long before science. The problem is, logic and reason often do not lead to truth, because reality is too often counter-intuitive. The big breakthrough represented by science is the rejection of purely logical and reason based philosophy in favor of strict empiricism.

I am not advocating a non-rational approach to the world, just pointing out that science does in fact have limitations and imperfections.

You are almost there, but you don't quite get it. Thats what I mean when I say that you have a superstitious understanding of science, and you ascribe to it powers it does not possess.

[arwalden]

175. Remarkable.

>> You have a supersitious beleif in the omnipotence of science. <<

How can one respond to such an idiotic statement?

[patcox2]

185. You could use your super-big brain and omnipotent reason.

Seriously, explain to me the rationale behind the proposition that science is capable of knowing all that there is in the universe to know, and explaining all the mechanisms of reality.

Science is not a perfect platonic ideal, as I have pointed out. It is a human cultural construct. It is limited and imperfect just as those who practice it are.

To beleive that "science" as some kind of abstract, perfect system, is capable of omniscience, is unsupportable. It has been mathematically proven false (the simplest explanation of the proof is that it has been proven that for any given set of symbols, there are an infinite number of true statements that cannot be made using that set of symbols).

This worship of "reason" and "rationality" is really small-minded, it is an anthropocentric view of the universe. After all, your huge brain is just a bag of chemicals and all your thought processes are just electrical impulses running through a complicated system of nuerons, right? And it all evolved randomly, right?

So what makes you think that your little skin bag of chemicals just happens to have the perfect reasoning ability, the unlimited reasoning ability, to know and comprehend all that is? What you percieve as "Logic" is itself is nothing more than an attribute of Chomsky's "language organ" in the brain, you perceive things to make "logical sense" simply because the relationship you perceive between things comports with the innate grammatical rules your brain uses to process symbols (think of it as machine code). Thats why so much of higher physics and mathematics is not in any way "logical," in that it could never be deduced from logical principles, and thats why science is in fact a great leap forward from previous, purely logical philosophical systems; science accepts that observation trumps logic. Empiricism is the first rule, not deduction.

But anyway, as I said, it is a very anthropocentric view to beleive that our species of apes here on this insignificant planet has randomly evolved an ability which is theoretically impossible, (and which provides no reproductive or survival advantage and is therefore unlikely to derive from natural selection) the ability to comprehend and undrestand everything in the universe. Thats kinda crazy, isn't it?

Of course, it must be comforting to beleive it, I suppose. It satisfies the same urge that some seek in religion, the need to know there is a purpose to everything.

And don't call me an idiot, you really have no means to judge that, and besides, you will notice I have never called you a name, just asked for a reasoned response, as opposed to a personal insult.

[mondo joe]

189. Got a system other than reason or science? Fine. Now just demonstrate

Got a system other than reason or science? Fine. Now just demonstrate that it is reliable.

[patcox2]

191. See my post on Godel's incompleteness theorem.

The point is simply that no system can explain all, no system of logic is "omniscient," and that to beleive so is really a form of magical thinking, ascribing superhuman, godlike powers to science and logic.

[mondo joe]

192. I didn't ask for a system that can explain it all. Just demonstrate

I didn't ask for a system that can explain it all. Just demonstrate that whatever system you propose is reliable.

Science and reason are not perfect - but they're the most reliable systems I know of.

If you have an alternative please simply demonstrate its reliability.

[patcox2]

193. You are not arguing with me, you just think you are.

I am not suggesting that there is a better system than science, nor am I denigrating or criticizing science simply because it has limitations, nor am I suggesting that there is any reason to have any doubt or scepticism about science in general or any particular scientific principle.

You already accept that there are limits to logic and science. I am arguing against those who beleive that there are no limits.

The fact that there are limits does not devalue any statement made within the system. Godel only proves that for any given logical system, there exist "truths" which cannot be stated using that system. This does not mean that science is wrong in what it says, it only means that there are "right" or "correct" things that science cannot say.

[mondo joe]

195. Fine. Tell me how we identify, observe, etc the "truths" that cannot

Fine. Tell me how we identify, observe, etc the "truths" that cannot be stated in the system of reason or science.

[patcox2]

196. We cannot. Whats the big deal about that?

All it means is that we are not omniscient. Don't take me, or Godel, too far. It is an interesting corollary to Godel's theorem, that you cannot see the limits of any system from within the system, which means that its inherently impossible to identify, observe, or explain those phenomena that cannot be explained by that system.

Too put that in simpler, and more human terms, consider this: person A has an IQ of 80. Person B has an IQ of 90. And Einstein has an IQ of 200. But from person A's perspective, Person B with his 90 IQ and Einstein with his 200 IQ are indistinguishable. Person A has a limited logical system. Since both person B and Einstein exceed A's ability to comprehend, person A cannot even perceive whether or to what extent Einstein exceeds person B in intelligence.

Its why I am sometimes called an idiot, right here on DU, usually when I make a statement that transcends someone's symbolic system (roughly, that would be there knowledge base and their vocabulary, kinda their information vocabulary). Since they are ignorant of the information in question, they are able to dismiss it as idiotic. And in their limited logical system, this makes perfect sense, because they perceive it as nonsense, because it exceeds their symbolic system.




I thought that was self-evident.

[mondo joe]

197. Here's the big deal -

Woman has cancer.

Man says to her: here, you hold this rock every day. You can't do chemo, it will counter the rock's effect. It may take a long time, and while you use it, you may appear to be more sick, but that's part of the rock's effect.

Woman says "Is this scientifically proven to be effective?"

Man says "This is one of those truths that can't be described by the scientific system."

Woman says "That doesn't sound rational to me."

Man says "Reason can't explain everything."

So the woman forgoes treatment outside of the rock. She gets more sick. She dies.

[patcox2]

199. But thats not what I am saying or advocating.

Nor is it an accurate logical progression from the simple recognition that science cannot comprehend all.

I already said that the implication of Godel is simply that there are positive true statements that any system cannot make. In other words, just because science doesn't say something, does not mean that the thing not said must necessarily not be true. Science can say nothing about those things it cannot describe. Just because something has not been scientifically described does not mean it does not exist (and this is not the same argument about how it might exist somewhere far away, and has been so far undetected,it means it might be everywhere but not within the symbolic system's ability to comprehend it).

But this is not the same as saying you might as well disregard science because its as likely to be wrong as right. First of all, the logic of Godel's theorem only applies to true statements which are outside the theoretical system. The medical efficacy of competing treatments for cancer, one being a rock, the other a cancer drug, is within the logical system of science, and thus Godel's theorem has no application there.

To repeat, in your scenario, the efficacy of a rock as a cancer cure is obviously within the abilities of science to describe. Thats why your scenario is not logical. It does not logically follow from Godel that you might as well go with the unproven as with the proven. Its a non-sequitor. Only a liar would make such an argument, and only an ignoramus would beleive it.

Lying and stupidity of course exist, so someone could make such arguments, and they could be beleived, but that does not disprove the fact of Godel's theorem. Were you trying to disprove Godel's theorem? You would make quite a name for yourself if you could.

What then is your argument? Are you suggesting that we should suppress or censor Godel's theorem so that people won't make the logical mistake that is made in your scenario. Should we ignore uncomfortable facts and hold to a fictitious beleif that science (and human reason and loogic)is capable of omniscience? That would be a religious faith, I think. I'm not signing up.

[mondo joe]

200. Who is trying to disprove Godel. Not me.

I'm simply pointing out that it's useless.

[patcox2]

190. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. (you should not argue what you know not)

You really shouldn't try to argue this topic when you have absolutely no knowledge of it. Dismissing things you disagree with out of ignorance as "idiotic" really isn't too bright a move, it makes you look dumb when your ignorance is pointed out.

Here is a short explanation of Godel's Incompleteness theorem, a mathematical principle widely taken as establishing that no logical system is capable of perceiving or accurately encompassing all true statements. Read, you might learn, unless of course you cling to the strategy of labelling anything you are ignorant of or which you do not understand as "idiotic."

"The proof of Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem is so simple, and so sneaky, that it is almost embarassing to relate. His basic procedure is as follows:

Someone introduces Gödel to a UTM, a machine that is supposed to be a Universal Truth Machine, capable of correctly answering any question at all.
Gödel asks for the program and the circuit design of the UTM. The program may be complicated, but it can only be finitely long. Call the program P(UTM) for Program of the Universal Truth Machine.
Smiling a little, Gödel writes out the following sentence: "The machine constructed on the basis of the program P(UTM) will never say that this sentence is true." Call this sentence G for Gödel. Note that G is equivalent to: "UTM will never say G is true."
Now Gödel laughs his high laugh and asks UTM whether G is true or not.
If UTM says G is true, then "UTM will never say G is true" is false. If "UTM will never say G is true" is false, then G is false (since G = "UTM will never say G is true"). So if UTM says G is true, then G is in fact false, and UTM has made a false statement. So UTM will never say that G is true, since UTM makes only true statements.
We have established that UTM will never say G is true. So "UTM will never say G is true" is in fact a true statement. So G is true (since G = "UTM will never say G is true").
"I know a truth that UTM can never utter," Gödel says. "I know that G is true. UTM is not truly universal."
Think about it - it grows on you ...

With his great mathematical and logical genius, Gödel was able to find a way (for any given P(UTM)) actually to write down a complicated polynomial equation that has a solution if and only if G is true. So G is not at all some vague or non-mathematical sentence. G is a specific mathematical problem that we know the answer to, even though UTM does not! So UTM does not, and cannot, embody a best and final theory of mathematics ...

Although this theorem can be stated and proved in a rigorously mathematical way, what it seems to say is that rational thought can never penetrate to the final ultimate truth ... But, paradoxically, to understand Gödel's proof is to find a sort of liberation. For many logic students, the final breakthrough to full understanding of the Incompleteness Theorem is practically a conversion experience. This is partly a by-product of the potent mystique Gödel's name carries. But, more profoundly, to understand the essentially labyrinthine nature of the castle is, somehow, to be free of it."

[Jack_DeLeon]

156. "it can be analyzed by science"

So you are claiming that science can analyze everything that interacts with our world?

I dont think that is the case.

I'm sure that there are quite many things that happen in our world that are not yet capable of being analyzed properly because the right tools have yet to be developed.

Just as my example above using radiation.

At one point in time we lacked the tools to analyze it, but according to your logic for us not to be able to analyze it that would be that it did not exist.

[arwalden]

176. Believers In Such Nonsense And Claptrap Cannot Even Provide Mere...

*evidence* that such things are true. Forget "proof"... forget "measuring"... and enough of this hackneyed "we can't measure it yet" bullshit. Just demonstrate under controlled testing conditions (testing conditions by which the potential for fraud can be eliminated) that such things might be true or possible. The onus of proof is on the one making the claim... not on the one who denies that such fanciful beliefs are untrue, and not one the one who asks for evidence that supports such a belief.

[Jack_DeLeon]

180. I never expected such narrowmindedness on DU...

people who claim that our science has advanced so far that we can measure everything. :eyes:

[arwalden]

182. Okay... Let's Not "Measure" It Conclusively... Let's Just OBSERVE It...

let's just see some credible EVIDENCE that supports these magical woo-woo claims.

Roll your eyes all you want, this is nothing to do with being "narrow minded".

[patcox2]

186. Yes, its a form of theism, in which man is given god-like powers.

Anthropocentrism. I thought copernicus sorta established that we are not the center of the universe, yet so many people seem to have this unprovable faith that we are, in fact, the intellectual ne plus ultra of the universe. Exceptionalism would be another term for it, I guess. I wonder how evolution explains its development.

[patcox2]

188. Such scholastic logic.

Referriong to some personal beleif about "burdens of proof" is not part of any formal system of logic I know of, thats just a rule of debate, which is different.

The fact is that it is logically provable that there are aspects of reality that are unkown and unexplainable using our symbol set. These aspects of reality would therefore be unexplainable by science.

Its also impossible by definition to use our symbolic system to prove the existence of something which is unkowable and unexplainable by our symbolic system.

You see, you refuse to accept that there are any limitations to the human system of language and symbols and to human logic, yet you premise this unfounded belief on the inability of human language and logic to prove the existence of things beyond its own limitations. well, duh, of course you can't prove the existence of something that lies beyond your symbolic system's ability to explain.

[WoodrowFan]

31. you don';t believe in ghosts Allen?/

I am shocked, shocked I say! :)

[arwalden]

177. Oh... I'm Just One Great Big Surprise After Another

:hi:

[Lerkfish]

25. I've personally seen too much evidence to discount it completely.

As my first wife died in an ER in Los Angeles, her brother called IMMEDIATELY from Florida to say that he just felt her "pass through him" and knew she was dead.
On the way to her funeral, I had strong suicidal feelings in car, at night. Then, I felt her hold me from behind like we used to do in bed, and a huge flood of positive images of our love for each other flowed through me unbidden.

when my grandfather died, that night I had a dream of him in his favorite rocking chair. He told me: "I'm dead now, but everythings' all right. I wanted to come tell you that so you wouldn't worry". I woke up the next morning and called his house, 1,000 miles away, to find out he had, indeed, died the night before.

These are personal experiences I'm not making up, though I have no way to prove them to anyone.

However, even having said that, I have trouble believing a lot of these "ghost chaser" situations where psychics come to supposedly haunted houses and feel cold spots, etc. It all seems rather hokey, and they really never get anything worthwhile or believable on film. What they interpret as hard evidence seems flimsy at best, and wishful thinking on their parts.

Just like I have my personal experiences, but I don't believe Jonathan Edwards is anything but a mentalist act.

[ecstatic]

28. Do you think you might be psychic?

I'm very sorry to hear about your loss.

[Lerkfish]

64. hmm...good question, not sure.

but even if I were, that would not explain my wife's brother's experience, unless he were also psychic.

[K-W]

38. Humans have a tendancy to find miracles by selectively

remembering low probability incidences in thier lives.

[WoodrowFan]

45. I had a similar dream

when my Dad died. I couldn't get the image of him when he died of cancer out of my mind, so old and thin and yellow. Then about a month later I had a dream about a huge room full of people sitting in chairs all dressed alike. My Dad leaned forward out of the crowd and gave me his big happy grin that I loved. He was younger (40s) and dressed in his favorite suit (my favorite photo of him shows him standing in my fraternity room in college grinning and wearing that suit).

I felt much better when I woke up. I don't read anything supernatural into the dream but it did make me feel better.

[Guaranteed]

167. That happened to my step-father, too, AND his sister.

Same thing, exactly, with their father. They both knew before they heard. They talked to each other beforehand, then found out from their mother that their father had had a heart attack.

Very weird. Not sure that makes me believe, though.

[BiggJawn]

27. The only reason I think they COULD exist...

..is that I lived in a house built on an old Civil War POW camp. Lots of young fellows from down south died there, and long time residents claim that they see "things" in the neighbourhood.

My own daughter claimed many times that a young fellow used to sit on the crapper, watching her shower...I heard and saw things that were not normal 100-y-o house things (footsteps, doors opening and closing)

Things unexplained...

[Hephaistos]

29. Ghosts?

Too trivial and human-like. Nature is a heck of a lot weirder than that...

:crazy:

[gpandas]

32. nope, never saw, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled one.

why would i believe they exist? why would anybody believe they exist?

[WoodrowFan]

33. but do Ghosts EVOLVE??

shameless thread plug..

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=105x2117500

[datasuspect]

34. do ghosts believe in us? eom

[ohio_liberal]

35. I don't know what to believe...

I saw something when I was 12 that totally freaked me out. So bad that I wouldn't stay in a room by myself after that. It took years to get over it.

My grandma moved to a senior citizen apartment when she got older and couldn't manage stairs anymore. My sibling and I used to stay overnight with her all the time. So this one evening, it was just starting to get dark, and I walked down the hallway past my Gram's bedroom. I saw an old lady standing in her bedroom. You know, she was fuzzy, like out of focus. I said "Gram?" and she didn't move and didn't say anything. So I walked right up to her and waved my hand kind of through her and then there was nothing there. Now that I'm older I tell myself that it must have been my imagination, a trick of the dim light. But at the time I swore it was real.

[MadHound]

37. Yes, I believe in ghosts, after all, I've seen them on two occaisons

Once when I was a child, then when I was in my early twenties. With such evidence how can I not believe in them?

[K-W]

39. Because every human who has ever lived

has seen something that doesnt exist or seen things and mistaking them for other things.

Thus your uncorraborated report of seeing a ghost (and how exactly are you qualified to identify ghosts?) falls in generally the same category as my uncorraborated report that I thought I saw my ex girlfriend on the train this morning.

Needless to say, she wasnt on the train, and i can prove it. But it tells you alot about the brains leeway with interpreting things that you see.

[datasuspect]

40. people hallucinate too

let's never forget the power of the human mind.

self-fulfilling prophecy and the like. people can will things to happen and they can work themselves into emotional states where they think they hear god and shit like that.

the only REAL thing about the supernatural is that the phenomena are REAL only in the individual's mind and subjectively true.

[ecstatic]

41. I wish I could witness your reaction to an apparition suddenly appearing

It would be hilarious to watch you fumble between different scientific explanations for what you saw.

[datasuspect]

47. i would probably

go to the hospital and get screened for mental illness.

seeing things that aren't real (hallucinations) can be symptomatic of schizophrenia.

[ecstatic]

51. LOL

So you'd prefer to let them lock you up rather than believe what's before your very eyes?

[K-W]

53. You are making the massive mistake of assuming

that because you saw something, it exists. A human, or even a group of humans seeing something does not prove it exists. If it did, dragons, unicorns, leperchauns, faries, ogres, trolls, boogeymen, etc all exist.

[datasuspect]

55. i don't understand your question

i believe what is before my eyes.

THAT does not include ghosts, elves, pixies, television broadcasts from the future, ufos, gremlins, poltergeists, MIBs, the undead, vampires, angels, demons, ectoplasms, fortean creatures, or any other sundry paranormal oddities.

if i began hallucinating, i would question my sanity.

of course, a schizophrenic thinks their hallucinations are entirely real and cannot distinguish them from reality.

but they are seeing what no one else can see - scary stuff, i've known a few people with severe mental illness, and that is more scary than any boogeymen you can come up with.

[H2O Man]

144. Maybe you can help!

Everytime I ask K-W, (s)he disappears like ... a ghost!

Now, clearly you of scientific mind are having a real giggle with those who believe in the possibility of an afterlife. Comparing them to schizophrenics is really funny! I'm thinking that you might be Eddie Murphy!

Anyhow, tell me: exactly what happens to the "life force" that we all agree distinguishes a living human being from a dead and decomposing corpse? From your scientific understanding, if you could explain that to us? Give us the serious explanation, and then crack out the bipolar jokes!

Thanks! Can't wait!

[mondo joe]

184. What "LIFE FORCE" do you speak of?

I'm not aware of such a "force".

I'm aware that some systems function in a way that results in what we call life.

I'm also aware that those systems break down and no longer have the effect.

[H2O Man]

198. I was talking

to those who are smart enough to recognize the difference between a living human and a corpse. You are describing an automobile. Best of luck to you.

[K-W]

48. Prove that one appirition has ever occurred in the history of the world.

Once you do I will start worrying about them appearing in front of me.

And if something very stranger, particularly in a human form appeared in front of me, I would probably get really scared, say "that was really, really strange" and the rest would depend entirely on the specific circumstance.

[Jack_DeLeon]

68. That would not be very difficult...

I think it would be entirely possible to prove to someone that an apperition has appeared before.

I have never seen an apperition myself but I believe that they have appeared to people before and if someone gave me some evidence of it I might believe it.

I think the real question you are asking however is to prove to you that an appearition has ever occurred. And well that something that would be much more difficult, not to say that anything would wrong with the evidence but just that you would choose not to believe it.

[Liberaltarian]

79. you are very confused about the difference between "proof"...

and the 'legal' definition of evidence in a court of law.

how would it be possible to prove to someone that an apparition has appeared?
and remember- eyewitness accounts may be called "evidence" in court, but they are NOT considered "proof" of anything.

[Jack_DeLeon]

84. "Proof"

using dictionary.com, I found these definitions relevent.

1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.

2. Law. The result or effect of evidence; the establishment or denial of a fact by evidence.

So if some evidence makes someone believe something, that that think has been proven.

Perhaps you dont like those definitions of proof. Feel free not to believe them.

[Liberaltarian]

88. eyewitness accounts dont "COMPEL the mind to accept an assertion as true"

...unless you've got a very weak mind.

[arwalden]

178. I Don't Accept Anecdotal Evidence Either

[MadHound]

46. LOL friend, reading things into my post eh?

Actually my whole family saw the same thing that I did when I was a child, we were vactioning at a rustic resort at Lake of the Ozarks. Found out later that the resort was built either on, or next to an old Indian burial ground. And the funny thing is that my mother still has the picture that she took of the event, and the evidence is quite clear.

My second sighting was in the company of a friend, who also saw what I did. Sorry, don't have a picture of that one.

Just because you don't believe in something doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. And then again, there are people who either cannot, or will not what is plain before their face.

[K-W]

52. You are asking us to accept an outrageus theory

because you and your family think you saw a ghost and are probably some of the hundreds of thousands of people in the history of photography who thought they had a picture of a ghost because they dont understand the massive number of possible ways that a camera image can be corrupted.

If you want to believe in ghosts, knock yourself out, just dont pretend that you are being rational.

[MadHound]

85. Ha Ha, I'm not asking you to accept a damn thing

I am simply repeating my experience. You want to think that it is mass hallucination, or a trick of photography(though it is a mighty clear picture, taken on an Argus 35mm, state of the art camera at the time), fine, go ahead. Who am I to mess with somebody's belief system, eh?

But also remember that the belief in ghosts is one that crosses both time and cultures. Literally millions upon millions of people, from all walks of life, across all cultural boundaries, throughout human history, have witnessed ghosts. Sure, some of those can be written off as hysteria and hallucination. But also realize that many of those events were experienced by intelligent, sane, sober, rational human beings.

There are many many unexplained things in this world. Things and questions you and I will never have the answers to. To write that off to irrationality or insanity, or whatever is the height of hubris and arrogance. The universe is a mighty big place, and we don't know everything that goes on within it. To pretend otherwise is to place limits on ones mind and psyche. Not a bright idea friend.

[shadowknows69]

133. rational?

rational like believing people who die on crosses resurect 3 days later or that theres a horny guy swimming around a lake of fire trying to collect souls or that thinking the world isn't flat or man will never fly or........

[Liberaltarian]

60. post the picture, then.

anybody can say that they have photographic proof...

let's SEE it.

[MadHound]

86. Like I said, it is with my mother's collection

And that is many many miles away. I'll see what I can do about getting a reprint when I visit her at the holidays, OK.

[CornField]

42. There's a lady in my kitchen

I don't see her, but my youngest daughter does. I only get to see the lady's handiwork -- broken stuff, moved stuff, etc.

I went into the basement just below the kitchen to clean out an old collection of jars down there. I put five or six into a box and then had to run back upstairs. When I came back, the jars were back on the shelf. I began refilling the box. That's when jars from the top shelf began flying off the shelf at my head. I left quickly and have decided the jars can stay.

[ecstatic]

43. Are you going to move out?

That ghost is very violent and dangerous!

[CornField]

49. I picked the worst example

She typically isn't violent at all. She doesn't like it when we 'mess' with her area (until the jar incident, we thought it was just the kitchen). For instance, we had new neighbors move in next door. They really junked up their back yard and the windows off that side of my kitchen look into their back yard. So, I hung up blinds to block the view then cooked dinner. After dinner we went back into the kitchen to discover that the new blinds were laying neatly on the floor.

I put them back up, this time explaining why I wanted them in the windows. Again, they were removed and placed neatly on the floor. I did it a third time, explaining again and tossing in more information about the messy new neighbors... they're still up.

[datasuspect]

50. if you could document this

in any meaningful way, you could be $10,000 richer.

there is a guy out there (saw it on some cable show) who is offering the sum for proof of the paranormal.

to date, he hasn't paid out.

[K-W]

54. Actually, it is a million dollars.

www.randi.org

[Bill McBlueState]

187. the prize

Wouldn't it be great if the winner of the Randi prize was one of our very own from DU? I hope she submits an entry! :D

[sariku]

44. I do because of one thing that happened to me...

When I was 12, I was very afraid of the dark. I shared a room with my sister, Pam. When Pam was gone, I would sleep in the living room with my trust lab, Smokey.

On one such night, I had a very strange thing happen to me. I was in the living room, and had settled down on the sofa for the night. My other older sister, Trish, was home and in her room down the hall, with her door open. The house that we lived in was a 70's ranch. You walk into a hallway with the kitchen on your right, and behind that is the dining room and then the living room. To the right would be a hallway and down that hallway are three bedrooms and a bathroom. In the living room, there is a sliding glass door into the backyard, and a door at the side that goes into the garage. The garage has a double rolling door, and a back door into the backyard.

Shortly after I turned out the light, I began hearing something. It still gives me chills. What I heard was the door to the garage. It was being pushed on. Over and over and over. It was as if someone had their hand on the knob in the garage and was pushing and pulling over and over and over. Scared the absolute crap out of myself.

This went on for a minute or two, with me absolutely frozen in fear on the sofa. My dog, however, was not frozen in fear. He was being THE DOG. And THE DOG was NOT happy. He immediately went to the door and growled and growled.

When the noise stopped, my dog was completely cured of her agitation. And as soon as it stopped, my sister yelled to me "Did you hear that?!?" When I saidd yes, we ran to each other and went to our parents' room.

My father got up, grabbed the biggest knife he could find, and went to investigate. He entered the garage, looked around, under, and in the car. Nobody there. The front, rolling, door hadn't been touched (you can definitely hear that), so he went to the backdoor and opened it. Nobody there. He looked around in the back yard. Nobody there.

You know what is remarkable about it? That winter, Portland had one of its rare bad snowstorms. The backyard had a couple of inches of snow. And yet there were no foot prints.

There was also another, more recent incident, which has strongly affected my view of this subject. Keep in mind that I have a very strange family. When my father was three, his mother died in childbirth. Throughout my childhood, I didn't even know my grandmother's name. When I had children, I found that I really wanted to know about my grandmother, so I started doing some research. I found out that her name was Bethana. I knew where she had died because both my father had told me where he lived at the time, and census records showed the same thing.

So I got the contact information for the records in the Indiana town where she'd died, I wrote a check, and I sent off for a certificate of death. When I spoke with the lady at the records office, she told me that it would take about two weeks.

Well, less than a week after having sent off the request, I had the strangest dream. I dreamed I was at my computer, and a woman was beside me but out of my vision. She was telling me "You're looking in the wrong place." There was a sense of urgency. The web browser was flipping through genealogy pages fast, fast, fast, and it was the woman who was using the mouse - I was just an observer.

After having this dream, I woke to this sense that there was something I had to do and I had to get up. NOW. I thought, wow, that's really weird, and went back to sleep. And had the same dream. And woke up feeling the same way.

Ok so I'm a little creeped out by now. My then husband had already gotten up and was getting ready for work. I was creeped out and didn't want to be alone, so I went downstairs for the company. I said nothing about my dreams, and was just chit-chatting with him about the day. Then I asked him, "How did you sleep?" which is something I always ask. He got this funny look on his face and said, "You know, not very well. I kept waking up feeling like I had to get up because there was something I was supposed to do." I'm not sure what I looked like at that moment, but however it was, he was concerned enough to put his hand on my arm and ask if I was ok.

So he leaves for work and I'm creeped out, which my dog picks up on and follows me around (she was a protective one). Sometime around noon I went to get the mail, as usual. There was a letter from the records department in Indiana. I was opening it as I walked back up the street and was unfolding it as I walked in the door. As I closed the door, I remember the check I'd sent falling out. I read the note that was with it - an apology because they couldn't find the record I was looking for, even though they'd expanded the search year forward and backward by five years, and searched under both her maiden and married name. Right about then, I was thinking of what the women was saying in the dream - you're looking in the wrong place.

It was just weird.

[ecstatic]

61. that is weird!

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm...

[Mallifica]

83. Strange things like that have happened to me too . .

My boyfriend lived in a haunted house, or so I am convinced. Several creepy things happened.
- light bulbs went out ALL the time (which, could be a problem with the wiring, I guess)

- the dog would unexpectedly bark as if someone were standing right in front of her. She'd follow it into another room . . or into the WALL and then suddenly stop.

- there was an unexplained coffin (the old, pine-box kind) in the dirt basement (the house was a rental)

- you could sometimes hear children laughing and running around in the attic in the middle of the night

All of these things (and more that I'll not enumerate) could probably be explained away, however, I have a difficult time explaining away.

One evening, two of my friends and I were hanging out in the den, with the dog. We were all just joking and laughing, and watching television. We suddenly heard a huge crash. The living room was adjacent to the den with a large, double door opening. We saw a keyboard (which had been on a stand) fly across the living room. The keyboard had been standing in front of a bookshelf. When we went to investigate, one shelf of books had come off of the bookshelf and knocked the keyboard across the room. I was relieved, until, upon further investigation, saw that ALL of the supporting pegs for the shelf were still in place, and we put the books and shelf back with absolutely no repair. Just that one shelf of books had fallen.

Creeped me out. After that I refused to stay there alone.

[sariku]

159. What?!?

A coffin in the basement? And you didn't run away because...? :)

Seriously, explain the coffin to me. That really reminds me of a story my ex had about his best friend in arkansas whose dad or step-dad committed suicide in their house and some freaky things that happened afterwards.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

65. Is it just me who thinks options 1 and 4 are identical? (nt)

[Jack_DeLeon]

72. not necessarily...

I suppose option 1 is for people who think all eyewitness accounts of ghosts are all made up and the people who make them up are all liers.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. But unfortunately I voted for option 1 when I saw it

because I saw the direction the answers seemed to be going, and had decided #1 described my position. Now, I'm not saying all ghost reports are made up; but I don't think ghosts have any physical or 'spiritual' existence. So I could accept #4 too.

[mtnsnake]

73. The Pentagon may be interested in some of you

Any of you wouldn't happen to be code busters, would you?

:evilgrin:

[LisaLynne]

75. Eh, who knows.

I joined a ghost hunting group a while back because I wanted to play with electronics (EMF meters, fancy cameras, fancy recording equipment). It's really fun and a lot of skeptics are involved, but the best people are those who have totally open minds, which I try to emulate. Heck, I don't know. I don't know everything and I am totally willing to admit that. Honestly, it was a lot of fun creeping through old buildings and I got to tour a lot of historical homes and sites that the general public doesn't get to.

On the other hand, never saw a ghost. Recorded some weird sounds, saw some strange things, but not enough to convince me. Either way, I might add. :)

[Flammable Materials]

78. The ONLY ghost I've seen lately ...

... is the Ghost of Democracy Past.

[RedCloud]

81. You're pandering to the fundies!

Ghosts give them a chance to scare sheeple into believing religion.

We don't have ghosts. This was proven on Star Trek where some interdimensional beings snarf up our souls upon our croaking.

We have much more in common with Neanderthals tham phantoms. Get with the program!

[H2O Man]

90. Two points

that you might consider: {1} Red Cloud believed that the human "spirit" went on after the death of the body; and {2} so did Neanderthals. Although are knowledge of Neanderthals tends to be based upon speculative interpretations of their physical remains (science), we do know that Red Cloud was not "scared ... into believing religion."

[RedCloud]

96. I am now rehydrated!

This new Red Cloud is a more "evolved" form.

When I see fetal ghosts, perhaps then...

What I meant, H20 Man, was that genetically we have about 40% neanderthal in us.

This larger version of Red Cloud was told he would burn if he didn't go to the church! I was but 4 at the time.

[H2O Man]

107. At least you are consistent

in your posts on this thread. Very poor taste.

[belle]

136. Oh for fuck's sake. Get with your own damn program.

I am agnostic on the subject of ghosts; but what I REALLY don't like are people who insist that everyone think the same way they do, and use fearmongering/shaming language to further that attempt. Sheeple yourself.

[leftofthedial]

82. we need to define "ghosts"

before I can answer definitively.

There is something not supernatural going on in the "ghost" realm.

[ellie]

89. I have had some pretty strange experiences

One that sticks out in my mind is when I was living in Colorado. I was sleeping and a voice woke me up. It said, "We are coming for you." It totally freaked me out and I had to sleep with the lights on. A couple of days later, I had a dream about a little girl with long hair who was crying for me. I don't have children.

I moved back to Ohio about five months later. Three months after that, my mom asked me if I wanted to go to a psychic fair. I said sure. When I got there, I was unsure of who to see. I picked someone at random and sat down. The woman said nothing, but picked up a piece of paper and drew a picture of the girl in my dream and said she is trying to contact you.

Talk about being freaked out. I must have worn my glass head, because the psychic could see right through it.

[deutsey]

93. I think there are many aspects of reality that can't be explained away

by rational analysis.

I'm open to there being more to reality than what the rational mind can accept.

[K-W]

98. Rationality doesnt explain anything away.

Try understanding something before you critisize it next time.

I'm glad that your irrational mind is willing to accept the existance of things that dont exist. Mistaking that for an open or enlightened mind is a huge mistake on your part.

[deutsey]

112. I'm sorry, but you don't seem to have the foggiest clue what

I'm talking about. Either my post isn't clear or your interpretation of it isn't.

I was not in any way intending to "critisize" rationality. I was simply stating my belief (based on experience, not conjecture) that there are aspects of human experience that go beyond our ability to understand them or to conceptualize them within rational, scientific frameworks.

If you can't deal with that, so what? I won't lose any sleep over it. But I really think your snippy tone and presumptuousness are a huge mistake on your part, if we're going to dole out criticisms here.

In either case, I don't really give a damn and don't feel any more need after I complete this sentence to explain or to justify to you what I wrote originally.

[K-W]

117. You believe that some things that do exist cannot be detected?

Congratulations, but if they interact with our lives in any way shape or form, they can be detected, and science has no problem dealing with them.

You can believe in all the mysterious hypotheticals you want. I will stick with things that actually exist if you dont mind.

[H2O Man]

121. From your scientific point of view

and scientific ability to detect things that are there versus things that aren't there, I'm sure you would agree that a living human being has a "life force" that a dead human body does not. Can you tell us, doc, what exactly happens to that energy force that distinguishes a living human being from a corpse? Where's it go? From your scientific point of view?

[K-W]

123. I dont see a need to invent magical forces to explain life.

And oddly enough I have no problem distinguishing corpses from living people without any energy measuring devices.

[H2O Man]

131. Well, doc,

that wasn't my question to you. Fancy way to avoid it, though. Again, doc: where does that energy go? What happens to it? Using your scientific insight, please.

[deutsey]

126. Good for you.

I'm ok with you sticking with things that actually exist, or whatever. Jeesh. But you really should work through whatever issues make it difficult for you to deal with what others believe.

And note, I've never specified what it is I'm referring to here, so, in essence, you don't even know what it is you're critiquing. My, how scientific.

All I did was say that I am open to the possibility that there are aspects of human experience that I don't understand and that science does not explain to me. Science is only interested in what is known and verifiable. Great. I'm glad we have the scientific method available to us for that. I have a master's degree from Georgetown University and work in a place where the scienfific method reigns. So I'm quite comfortable with methodically analyzing and verifying and replicating claims.

However, there are also things I've seen in my experience with hospice, for example, as well as in other areas of my life where science just doesn't offer any explanation for what happened. I'm ok with that, too. I don't have the same need you apparently have to put down what others say in order to defend what I am saying.

[H2O Man]

134. Please be patient ....

I think that this scientist is on the verge of explaining exactly what happens to the life force of a human being when they die. This is pure science at its finest. The answer is on its way, and it will put all this spiritual nonsense to rest.

[deutsey]

150. LOL

:hi:

[H2O Man]

174. Well????

Come on, doc! Share that scientific insight!

[belle]

140. Wow. You are aware that humans have limited perception abilities, yes?

If you want to say, any phenomena that humans cannot perceive therefore are irrelevant to our lives, then that is a different argument.

[H2O Man]

141. Please, Belle, just wait!

The good doctor is going to explain exactly what happens to that enegy force that distinguishes a living human being from a corpse, at the moment of death. Although most of us can tell the difference between a walking, talking human beanie and a dead and decomposing corpse, only a scientist knows exactly what happens to the energy force upon death! We just need to wait patiently .......

[DrWeird]

97. Ghosts should be given equal time in science classrooms.

Probably in health classes.

[Fifth of Five]

99. I voted no, in spite of experience.

I have never seen a ghost, but when we lived in a different house, I would have a very strange experience, repeated many times over the 5 years we lived there. Never experienced it before or since.

At night, something would come and sit on my chest. Could not see anything, but the pressure seemed real, and there seemed to be a presence of personality. If I laughed out loud, it would leave immediately. It always stayed until I laughed out loud.

I do not know how I knew to laugh, it just came to me.

I don't believe in ghosts, and this was probably a side effect from not enough sleep and stress (2 young kids), but I have never sensed such a feeling in any other place or time.

[K-W]

100. It is a sign of true open mindedness

to experience something that eludes your understanding and resist the urge to classify it because you know you really cant do so.

[Guaranteed]

168. I agree.

I've had very weird things happen to me- but sometimes they just can't be explained. At all.

[ecstatic]

Umm.... Why did you vote no?

How do you explain what used to happen to you? Gravity pockets?

[Fifth of Five]

102. I have no explanation.

As I said - could have been imagination due to stress and sleeplessness.

There are lots of things I can't explain - that doesn't mean I go jumping to conclusions with no verifiable evidence.

[sangh0]

103. I used to have a dream like that

over and over until I finmlly recognized that it was a dream.

[Fifth of Five]

108. I have considered the possibility of a dream.

I sure felt awake, but dreams can sometimes feel very real.

[sangh0]

109. Mine was very real too

It took me months of having it about twice a week to realize what was going on.

In my dream, I "woke up" from sleeping facing the wall (my bed used to face the wall) so I couldn't see the rest of the room, but I knew there was someone else in the room. Not only could I hear them walking slowly and softly towards me, I could see his/her shadow on the wall as it grew bigger. I wanted to do something but I couldn't move, not even to scream.

I'd sit there growing more and more frightened until I concentrated on mustering the strength to roll and scream. At that point, I'd wake up. I'd be in bed, on my back, exactly where I should have been if I had been lying facing the wall, and then rolled over. It took me a while to realize that I had woken up from a dream. Once I did, I started to realize it in my dream, with the eventual effect being that simply realizing it was a dream allowed me to wake myself up. At that point, the dream disappeared.

Since then I've read some articles about a state of semi-consciousness that's somewhere in between sleep and wakefulness. A person in this state often is immobolized (when we dream, a portion of our brain that regulates movement partially shuts down) and it is often accompanied by feelings of dread (and why shouldn't they? They can't move!!) and some other common threads, which I can't seem to remember. I suspect that may be what was happening to me, and maybe to you also.

[K-W]

111. I went through a period of frequent sleep paralysis.

Not the same obviously, but the sleep-wake state is a very weird thing.

I would wake up, fully concious, but be completely unable to move anything in my body for a time. Then eventually I would get control over my body. The first time it happened I thought I was dying or something.

[sangh0]

118. I'm not sure that I had sleep paralysis

but I strongly suspect it. The dream was SO real. Not only could I see the cracks in the wall I was facing, I could feel the coolness of the wall (this happened in the summertime).

[K-W]

120. Its very possible

In situations like that reality can get very blurred because it is just so surreal and scary.

[WoodrowFan]

138. it's also called "night hag"

because peopel used to believe it was a witch come to attack them. :eyes:

http://watarts.uwaterloo.ca/~acheyne/S_P.html

[datasuspect]

130. it's usually

high anxiety levels or sleep apnea.

i get that when i am really stressed out.

[ecstatic]

154. Hehe, now I get to play the pompous scientist

The strange, illogical experiences we call dreams almost always occur during REM sleep.

REM sleep begins with signals from an area at the base of the brain called the pons These signals travel to a brain region called the thalamus, which relays them to the cerebral cortex - the outer layer of the brain that is responsible for learning, thinking, and organizing information. The pons also sends signals that shut off neurons in the spinal cord, causing temporary paralysis of the limb muscles. If something interferes with this paralysis, people will begin to physically "act out" their dreams - a rare, dangerous problem called REM sleep behavior disorder. A person dreaming about a ball game, for example, may run headlong into furniture or blindly strike someone sleeping nearby while trying to catch a ball in the dream.
http://ehc.healthgate.com/GetContent.asp?siteid=f225216a-8e31-11d3-ad16-00508b91a0dd&docid=/hic/sleep/whathappens

[Fifth of Five]

157. This part of your post:

"Since then I've read some articles about a state of semi-consciousness that's somewhere in between sleep and wakefulness. A person in this state often is immobilized (when we dream, a portion of our brain that regulates movement partially shuts down) and it is often accompanied by feelings of dread (and why shouldn't they? They can't move!!)"

and the replies to your post sound very much like my experience.
I too felt immobilized, but I thought it was from fear, not a physiological response.

It is somewhat comforting to know that others have had similar experiences, and that there is a likely and reasonable explanation related to normal brain function.

[ecstatic]

158. see post 154 nt

[K-W]

105. Some of us are comfortable not knowing things.

Some of us need inductive metaphysical catch-all theories so that we can pretend weve got the world all figured out.

[AnIndependentTexan]

101. I've experienced enough stuff to believe they do exist

Just editing to add one reason why I have reason to believe. It was late at night and I'm not ruling out that I was in a half asleep/ half awake state. I was in my bed facing the door that goes into the hallway connecting my little sisters room to mine.

Two people were standing inside the doorframe going into my room. It was a male and female dressed in mid-60's doctor and nurse outfit. Nobody else was awake and the two faces didn't match that of my parents. I didn't feel threaten by them being there because they were looking at me with a smile as if proud of something. I've only had this experience once. I still can not explain it to myself.

[Forkboy]

114. I used to believe in ghosts until I discovered Leprachauns

[WI_DEM]

122. With all the tinfoil theories that many here believe in I'm surprised

that so few of us believe in ghosts!! (not that all the tin-foil theory's are tin foil).

[WoodrowFan]

139. just blame the CIA, Mossad, or the Pentagon

THAT'LL get more believers. :)

[pen dragon]

128. My coworkers and I had enough bizarre encounters

when we worked night security in an underground parking lot back in the mid eighties that made me a firm believer. A few years before a girl shot herself in her car down there and the place was legendary for its hauntedness. Ghosts exist

[MrSlayer]

129. Sure ghosts exsist....and so does Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

How silly. :crazy:

[datasuspect]

132. =ghosts=god=easter bunny=santa claus=angels=

and so it circles and circles

can't blame children for thinking like that, but ADULTS?

[Endangered Specie]

142. Ghosts are ficticious...

and usually come about because people THINK they see them, either through optical illusions, mind tricks, poor memory, or, even a desire to see (the human mind can convince itself of many things).

[jsw_81]

143. No

Ghosts and the supernatural (including "god") are nothing more than primitive myth and superstition.

[johnnie]

145. Yes, they do

I have had enough happen to me to prove it to myself, but anyone who refuses to believe will never believe.
There is a lot more I could get into that is a lot wilder than "ghosts", but this is not the place. I am still dealing with something that I have not yet been able to figure out.
I respect people's right to believe whatever they want, but it is hard to read posts where people think they know that things outside of our own realm don't exist and try to make fun of those who do believe. The only proof they will ever have is when they move on and nothing will ever change their minds until then.

[pinniped]

146. I voted yes only because I don't want a secret visitor later.

:scared:

[Hobarticus]

147. Worked with one!

In an old theater in high school...

[Blue State Blues]

148. I don't know if they exist or not ...

... but in several states they apparently voted for *.

[frictionlessO]

149. now this a wonderfully useless poll, but the thread is awesome!!

People arguing science versus individual belief and vice versa should always take a step back and realize that what is real to a body in the very physical sense as percieved in that bodys mind is whats real to them.

What some of you are trying for here seems to be a conversion to your own principles of sanity, in this argument one side is crazy/irrational and the other is deprived of experience, but where do you come together?? Where do you bridge that gap between scientific reasoning and what your mind has percieved as an actual physical experience?

You tolerate anothers belief, with an open mind. To cast aspersions for lack of experience or lack of scientific reasoning drives a wedge between the physical body and its "psyche-emotional" (is that a real word?) heart. Balance dictates this if nothing else. How else do you willfully gain knowledge if you're not open to at least the possibility.
I very sincerely mean that for both sides and some of the inbetween.

just a few one hundreths of a cents worth on this...sorry so long!

[Cush]

151. yup

[MissMillie]

152. I do believe in spooks, I do believe in spooks

I do, I do, I do, I do believe in spooks.

[RevolutionaryActs]

153. They do dammit! There was one in my room once!

It was so freaky, but I was asleep and I woke up, which in itself is bizarre, because I never wake up in the middle of the night, I'm an extremely sound sleeper.
So I wake up and I look across my room, I'm a little groggy, but then I realize why I'm awake, I feel like I'm being watched!

I shift my gaze from directly across from me, to the end of my bed, where my vanity is, and there I see a dark figure, it kinda leaned to what would have been its left, so like it could see my face better I swear! Well then I freak and throw the blankets over my head and just lay there, nothing happens (thank gawd) so I went back to sleep after a while.

The next night I was too chicken to sleep in my room, so I slept in my moms room, but the night after that I went back to my room.

I was laying there cuddled up in bed, and I feel weird for a moment, then I feel as if someone is putting there hand on top of my comforter, just a little weight on my leg.

Well I freaked out royally and I scream and my brother comes in asking me what the hell is wrong, so I tell him. He just laughed at me and said it was fine, nothing else happened that night or since, but there was a ghost or something in my room those two nights! I swear!

[Liberalynn]

155. I am mostly skeptical but one weird experience

I have never seen a ghost with my own eyes.

But I did go to a reading once by a medium similar to John Edwards (the one with the TV show not the VP candidate, LOL). The odd thing is I had never met this woman before in my life and I was totally skeptical and just going out of curiosity because a friend had told us about this woman. She came out with the nickname this mean kindergarten teacher told the rest of the class to call me once.I mean this was totally out of the blue. The medium just asked who was called that when they were little. The friend by the way who told me about the medium didn't know about the nickname.

The medium also asked me if I had tripped over a rug earlier that day and said some four letter words. I said yes and she said your father, aunts, and uncles heard you and they told you to watch your language. Then she said that they told me just kidding. She also went onto to tell me about this odd nervous habit my grandmother had of folding paper or Kleenex into little squares when she was nervous. She said my grandmother was there in the room as was my Dad, My Uncle and my Aunt. Man that freaked me out. I know there probably was a way she figured that stuff out but I don't see how. I mean it wasn't like those kind of shows where they ask is there anybody with a K and then they just keep guessing. This medium came right out with the information. There were specific names and instances and she wasn't prompting us to give her hints either.

Reading the posts about John Edwards the medium above, I just wanted to add too that no one came around and asked us questions in advance including other members of the audience.I sat with my sister and we were just talking about going shopping the next day. So unless it was mind reading I don't know how to explain it. I also wasn't thinking about my grandmother or the aunt she said she was talking to. I was thinking that nothing was going to happen, we wouldn't get read because we weren't plants, or that if by some weird chance it could, I'd want to talk to my Dad.


By the way is there anyone here named Steve, who is 44, likes going to dog shows, and antique car shows, and is amicably divorced?

Just asking.

Still mostly a skeptic but who knows. As Socrates said the wisest man is one who admits he knows nothing.

[bettyellen]

165. what about chest sleeperss? the ghoul that sits on your chest ....

in the middle of the night and breathes dragon breathe on you should you awake? Needless, to say you don't move!
Anybody seen one of them?

[Dukkha]

166. Definitely

I've had several experiences. MANY people I know have had encounters. An overwhelming amount of photographic, video and audio proof.

People who don't believe simply choose not to. Their afraid to because it contradicts their own narrowly defined belief systems, They're closed minded and don't open up to other possibilities. Usually they're too pretentious to betray their ubercool exterior and risk looking like a "crack pot" so they do the tired roll eyes gesture.

[SideshowScott]

169. Well I know one thing: I LOVE a good ghost story!!!

A good ghost story is always fun and for a good read..ESP personal accounts..Bullshit? Perhaps. But still id rather be an enthralled listener than a wet blanket..Jeeze Some of you people must never smile. But i still yearn for the day when science was not the answer for everything..I really cant take account for the "Science has the answer for everything!" people. Hey ever think that that might be BS too? Anyhow great storys..Havent seen a ghost yet but still i like to entertained by mystery's of the unexplained. And for you wet blankets out there: geeze!
Here is some great and spooky reading
Ghosts of the SS Watertown is my fave
http://www.ghostresearch.org/ghostpics/watertown.html
The Portsmouth Poltergeist is another My MOM lived right around the block from that happening and told me of how the police taped off the house and no one could go in it till it was over
http://www.prairieghosts.com/portsmouth.html

[bobthedrummer]

173. There is a spiritual dimension that interacts with the physical universe

that's been my belief and experience as a human being. It is cross-cultural.
It includes "ghosts".

[AlienGirl]

179. Weird Shit Happens

Call it ghosts or whatever...weird shit happens frequently. I can't explain it and neither can anybody else. The best thing in the world is to find something so weird it doesn't fit *anybody's* idea of how the Universe works.

Tucker

[rene moon]

181. Yes

I do think there are spirits around. I have always believed. I dont beleive in "elves, pixies, television broadcasts from the future, ufos, gremlins, poltergeists, MIBs, the undead, vampires, angels, demons, ectoplasms, fortean creatures, or any other sundry paranormal oddities".

However, I dont knock those who dont believe. Everyone is entitled to their own thoughts. So, to all the pretentious, "scientific" people---bite me.

[mondo joe]

183. Sure. And I believe demons make you sick. And fairies live in trees.

Sure. And I believe demons make you sick. And fairies live in trees.

Bad cats are bad luck, and there are little invisible heat creatures that make water boil, though the narrow minded think it's the heat agitating the molecules of the water.

After all, science can't explain everything.

Right?

Right?

[BlueJazz]

194. Well..Sure..If science can't explain something exactly then it has..

...to be Ghosts.
We see this everyday. If there is a bright light in the sky and somebody can't tell you exactly what it is, at the time, then the only explanation is that it's a bunch of Alien creatures sent down to spy on earth.
The funny thing is, the term UFO (of course) means Unidentified Flying Object..not "I'll make up some bullshit superstition to appease my ignorance". :)