Woo Denial

[Disco08]

So to, ghosts.

What motivation does the subconscious have to create an illusion of a ghost? In fact I would say the subconscious plays little role in ghost sightings. Do you think all ghost sightings are delusions?

Change the word ghosts with "Christian God ",and theres your answer.

Apart from Paul and Moses, who claims to have seen God? Who has a photo or video of him?

Again,change the word ghosts with 'christian god' and that could be a verbatim statement fron Jayfox.

I thought you understood the concept of it being impossible to prove a negative.

"Russels teapot."

I think I do. The difference is I think using peoples claims to have seen ghosts (as opposed to talking to them in their mind) as evidence that they might exist isn't trying to prove a negative.

Russell's Teapot isn't relevant because people don't necessarily claim to believe in ghosts, they just claim to have seen one. The evidence, if you like, that I'm using to justify my belief that ghosts quite possibly exist is that so many people, without subconscious motivation (unless you can demonstrate why the average person's subconscious would want to see a ghost) have essentially physically seen the same thing, possibly even capturing it on film or video. I don't really see why you insist on comparing this with the belief in a personal god. Surely the evidence of one is quite a bit stronger than the other?

 

[TigerForce]

My little story was at 21 years of age, I kept having consistent dreams of an old lady falling down stairs and never knew what it was all about until 7 years later, I heard my 55 year old aunt (who lived overseas) died after she slipped over when washing the bathroom floor, hit her head on the ground bringing her into a coma.

 

[AngryAnt]

Most conspiracy theories are ridiculous but for other cases where true facts are never known, they still have some value.

Strange how most terrorist attacks are caused by bomb explosion and yet 9/11 was a 'plane' flying into a building.

I guess you missed all that live TV footage of actual planes flying into buildings.

 

[TigerForce]

I guess you missed all that live TV footage of actual planes flying into buildings.

Why not just bomb the WTC just like the Oklahoma one in 1993, London 2005, Bali 2002 etc...

Why use planes? Where's the security on who the pilots are?

Too many questions to ask always leaves you wondering........

 

[evo]

What motivation does the subconscious have to create an illusion of a ghost?

I don't know.

You're the one who seems to think motivation is the distinguishing feature we should take seriously.

In fact I would say the subconscious plays little role in ghost sightings.

Who can say.Where does the subconscious begin and the conscious end?

Do you think all ghost sightings are delusions?

As I've alluded in nearly every post I treat ghost sightings of the same order that I treat visions of the virgin Mary,disccussion with God and so on.

I suspend my belief until evidence arises.

Apart from Paul and Moses, who claims to have seen God?

Are you kidding?Go to some Christian websites.And many Chrisitinas believe they have spoken with God,as you know.

Who has a photo or video of him?

How do you know those photyos of ghosts you are putting great stock in arent photos or videos of God? ;D

I think I do. The difference is I think using peoples claims to have seen ghosts (as opposed to talking to them in their mind) as evidence that they might exist isn't trying to prove a negative.

Why do you rate seeing, over and above hearing?

Russell's Teapot isn't relevant because people don't necessarily claim to believe in ghosts, they just claim to have seen one.

Of course it's relevant if you ask me to "prove all ghost accounts are false". Jayfox and countless religious people all over the world believe they talk with God,and God replies.People believe they saw a ghost.

What is the difference?

The evidence, if you like, that I'm using to justify my belief that ghosts quite possibly exist is that so many people, without subconscious motivation (unless you can demonstrate why the average person's subconscious would want to see a ghost)

This is rubbish.You posit that motivation is the key factor then ask me to disprove your premise.How could I possibly prove the motivation or lack thereof of every person who believe they saw a ghost.

This is like a lame theist trick.

have essentially physically seen the same thing,

what is the difference between physically seeing,and other types of seeing?

And why aren't theists reports of hearing God speak not "physical" but seeing ghosts are?

Surely the evidence of one is quite a bit stronger than the other?

not in my view.

 

[1eyedtiger]

You were saying more than that though.Your clear implication in this thread is that we should take peoples accounts of ghost stories more seriously than accounts of a brush with God--due to motivation.

Of course subconscious could drive visions;in both cases.The brain is still a very mysterious instrument.

I'm studying psychology at the moment(I should actually be doing it right now, rather than on PRE ).It is almost impossible to say when the subconscious is involved and when it isn't.Therefore it is best remove it as a variable in any claims, and just examine the evidence.

And as Pantera has already pointed out "extrodinary claims,requite extraordinary evidence". Otherwise if we want to remain rational the best thing to do is suspend our belief.

I think it's been covered but imo extrodinary claims require no more evidence than any other claim. Aside from the fact that most claims are initially extrodinary by nature, you then need to decide which claims are more extrodinary than others and why those claims should be subjected to any more scrutiny than others.

Back to business, why would you remove the subconscious as a variable when it may be the subconscious that provides us with the evidence?

There's plenty that humans cannot directly detect. Atoms for instance, we know they exist but only because we developed the equipment to see them. All light outside of the visible spectrum is another. Our eyes can't see it directly, but with the right equipment, it's there in all it's glory.

If you remove the subconscious as a variable, are you questioning the existance of the subconscious? What is the purpose and function of the subconscious?

 

[TigerForce]

What type of psychology are you studying evo?

These type of clients who see ghosts and apparition would be seeing clairvoyants and psychics more wouldn't they?

 

[evo]

This is getting more interesting (philosophically speaking)

There's plenty that humans cannot directly detect. Atoms for instance, we know they exist but only because we developed the equipment to see them.

..so we can detect them.

All light outside of the visible spectrum is another. Our eyes can't see it directly, but with the right equipment, it's there in all it's glory.

Again we detect them.

This is why I meantioned ontology at the start. People have to decide what they mean by the term "exist".There are many different interpretations.

In my opinion the defintion of exist is "to give rise to an appearance" where appearance is a fairly lose term that could be applied to various things including your example of the light spectrum.

Demarcation or Identity would be more accurate.

So,the illusion of a ghost exists,it is describable--but whether a ghost 'physically exists' is another matter.

If you remove the subconscious as a variable, are you questioning the existance of the subconscious?

If you can give me an objective or scientifically testable account of what the subconscious "knows" then it can be included in the investigation of the existence of ghosts.

What is the purpose and function of the subconscious?

*shrug*

 

[evo]

What type of psychology are you studying evo?

All of it at this stage.I'm only just starting 2nd year.Not specialising yet.My main interest is 'philosophy of the mind.'

These type of clients who see ghosts and apparition would be seeing clairvoyants and psychics more wouldn't they?

Dont know.

 

[AngryAnt]

Why not just bomb the WTC just like the Oklahoma one in 1993, London 2005, Bali 2002 etc...

Why use planes? Where's the security on who the pilots are?

Too many questions to ask always leaves you wondering........

Huh?

 

[evo]

Huh?

Well he did leave you wondering. ;D

 

[1eyedtiger]

The human race's lack of ability to detect the existance of disputed claims is no evidence that the claims are not true. I've had a couple of experiences in the past that would suggest that telepathy and the ability to see into the future does exist.

Future example, a few years ago I had a dream where there was a booze bus outside Lilydale at a location where I hadn't seen them before or since but it's not often I go that way anymore. In my dream, I was pulled over and found to be intoxicated. From what I recall, they put on a small stool and stood around me laughing. I must have been pretty far gone since in my dream, I was laughing with them .

Anyway, the next night I went over that way to play squash. I hadn't been drinking (If you drink before playing squash, then you may as well not go!) and there the booze bus was, in the exact location I had dreamt the night before but had never seen there in real life.

Why would I have that dream on that particular night? Mere coincendence. Maybe. I haven't had that dream since.

Telepathy example, when I was a toddler in kindergarten, one day my mother picked me up and I was apparently upset about my sister who attended a local primary a couple of K's away. It wasn't until later in the day that my mother learnt that during the day, my sister had hurt herself by falling over. My mother has no reason to lie about it. It's the only time in my life that I'm aware of any sort of telepathic ability but I still believe that telepathy exists.

Just because science can't make a machine to detect such instances isn't surprising. They don't occur on a regular or reliable basis and science wouldn't know what to look for anyway.

There are some things that can't be reproduced at will. Science will never be able to verify claims of this nature.

 

[Disco08]

I don't know.

You're the one who seems to think motivation is the distinguishing feature we should take seriously.

'a factor' evo, not 'the distinguishing feature'.

Who can say.

That's the point. There is plenty of very obvious subconscious motivation for religious belief and very litle if any for ghost sightings. Nothing more, nothing less.

As I've alluded in nearly every post I treat ghost sightings of the same order that I treat visions of the virgin Mary,disccussion with God and so on.

I suspend my belief until evidence arises.

So basically you disregard every single photo, video and personal sighting of ghosts as delusion or forgery?

I can understand the reasoning behind the theory of religious delusion, but what is the reasoning behind deluding oneself into seeing a ghost?

Are you kidding?Go to some Christian websites.And many Chrisitinas believe they have spoken with God,as you know.

Well yeah, pretty much all Christians claim to be able to speak with God in their minds. I didn't know lots of Christians were claiming to have seen God though.

How do you know those photyos of ghosts you are putting great stock in arent photos or videos of God?

I'm not putting great stock in them. I've already said most of them are probably bogus. At least there's lots of them though.

Why do you rate seeing, over and above hearing?

Because hallucinatory delusion is far rarer than ordinary delusion (assuming you mean 'hearing' as in "God told me to give the church $5000 this morning).

Of course it's relevant if you ask me to "prove all ghost accounts are false". Jayfox and countless religious people all over the world believe they talk with God,and God replies.People believe they saw a ghost.

What is the difference?

For starters multiple people can see the same ghost, somewhat corroborating the evidence, whereas I don't think anyone ever overhears God talking to someone. Secondly there's the photos and videos, some of which may possibly be genuine.

But sorry, you're right that asking you to prove all sightings are false is asking you to prove a negative which is silly.

This is rubbish.You posit that motivation is the key factor then ask me to disprove your premise.How could I possibly prove the motivation or lack thereof of every person who believe they saw a ghost.

This is like a lame theist trick.

Why do you keep insisting that I'm putting forward motivation as the key factor when I;ve told you more than once I'm not?

On the rest you miss the point. You don't need to prove that the motivation exists, you just need a reasonable explanation for it to exist, such as in religious delusion.

what is the difference between physically seeing,and other types of seeing?

And why aren't theists reports of hearing God speak not "physical" but seeing ghosts are?

I wasn't trying to say physically seeing something is different to seeing it in other ways. I was trying to say that seeing something (unless it's a hallucination) occurs in the physical world and hearing voices happens in one's mind. As I said, people occasionally see the same ghost but AFAIK no one claims to have overheard God's conversation with the bloke sitting next to them at church.

not in my view.

I disagree, but fair enough.

 

[TigerForce]

Huh?

Huh huh?

Were you implying 9/11 wasn't a set-up?

I don't know what your original post meant?

 

[AngryAnt]

Yep, it was a set-up alright - by a bunch of terrorists who flew planes into buildings as seen on TV.

Now, what did you mean?

 

[TigerForce]

Yep, it was a set-up alright - by a bunch of terrorists who flew planes into buildings as seen on TV.

Now, what did you mean?

What I meant is what I wrote previously.

Huge majority of terrorist attacks are bomb explosions which asks a clear question as to why get on planes as pilots, go through security and fly into two buildings?

Why not just bomb the building just like the Oklahoma one was in 1993 etc...

 

[evo]

So basically you disregard every single photo, video and personal sighting of ghosts as delusion or forgery?

I regard of the same order as reports of contact with God.How many times to have to say it.

I suspend my belief.

I can understand the reasoning behind the theory of religious delusion, but what is the reasoning behind deluding oneself into seeing a ghost?

Many and varied I suppose.What is reasoniong behind all the people who claim alien encounters--who can say?

I don't really know why you are stuck on this concept of "deluding oneself to.. " idea.As if it is all about willing oneself.

Personally I wouldn't even know how to will myself to see or hear God.

For starters multiple people can see the same ghost, somewhat corroborating the evidence, whereas I don't think anyone ever overhears God talking to someone. Secondly there's the photos and videos, some of which may possibly be genuine.

In my early 20's I used to frig around with various drug cocktail with mates.,including LSD.On a number of occassions we "saw" the exact same weird sh!t.

Suggestability would account for alot of it.

Why do you keep insisting that I'm putting forward motivation as the key factor when I;ve told you more than once I'm not?

because you say things like..

I can understand the reasoning behind the theory of religious delusion, but what is the reasoning behind deluding oneself into seeing a ghost?

it speaks to 'willing'

. I was trying to say that seeing something (unless it's a hallucination) occurs in the physical world and hearing voices happens in one's mind. As I said, people occasionally see the same ghost but AFAIK no one claims to have overheard God's conversation with the bloke sitting next to them at church.

group delusions happen all the time.

This place specialises in them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pirx-eQUupI&feature=related

 

[TigerForce]

As this topic on ghosts is running around in circles, I'll ask Dr Evo a question relating to the 'philosophy of the mind'.

Why do you think there are so many young adults /teens in trouble nowadays?
(i.e. hooning, fights in City streets, carrying knives, no discipline to police etc...)

 

[evo]

Why do you think there are so many young adults /teens in trouble nowadays?
(i.e. hooning, fights in City streets, carrying knives, no discipline to police etc...)

I'm not certain that there are more people hooning than their used to be. Do you have evidence of this,or just gut feel?

There's certainly more Today Tonight type programs drawing our attention to it than there used to be.

As I posted ion a thread on the general board, Socrates complained about the lack of discipline and respect for authority in the younger generation 2500 years ago.

Maybe you're just getting old and conservative mate.

 

[TigerForce]

I'm not certain that there are more people hooning than their used to be. Do you have evidence of this,or just gut feel?

There's certainly more Today Tonight type programs drawing our attention to it than there used to be.

As I posted ion a thread on the general board, Socrates complained about the lack of discipline and respect for authority in the younger generation 2500 years ago.

Maybe you're just getting old and conservative mate.

Well I'm definitely not conservative.

My evidence is what actually happens on roads while walking down a street or driving, TV news and newspapers.

I compare what kids were like when I was a kid / teen (70's & 80's) and also in decades before (watching some old
B&W films helps ;D).

The more time goes on, the more they can feel free to do ANYTHING immoral and disrespective. I think political correctness plays a part in the way kids are raised nowadays.