A question that puzzles me about ghosts and demons

[duendy]

And why aren't there thousands of them in Aushwitz?

if YOU were a 'ghost' would YOU like to hang round such an evil place??

 

[Mythbuster]

And why do they then claim Jesus protects them from such afflictions with no intended irony?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

We take for granted watching a video, we are seeing a replay of something occurring in the past, seeing 'ghosts' is the same but without the equipment. A 'replay' of something recorded from the past...stored in 'something' and triggered into 'play' by means we do not understand.

Of course you don't have to be religious to see a ghost, people either do or don't. It's to do with how your brain is wired. Of course there will always be those who 'imagine' things!

 

[duendy]

maybe its not as tidy as claimingitis some kind of recording. i agree that that may be part of it. ie., when poople have reported seeing apparitions walking /hovering aove present level of ground main gthat level had changed over time.....etc etc

but it cant be ignored that some reports tell of interactionsbetween people and 'ghosts'...IF it was just a 'recording' that wouldn't make sense...?

 

[Crunchy Cat]

A big case of 'DUH' coming up:

Q:Why don't atheists ever see them? or are haunted by them?

Because they don't exist.

Why are Christians or religious people only afflicted with these pesky demons talking to them?

Because they don't know how to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

 

[duendy]

A big case of 'DUH' coming up:



Because they don't exist.

me))a silly, non-thinking/feeling reaction to phenomena you don not understand


Because they don't know how to distinguish between reality and fantasy.

When someone experiences such events they ARE reality for them. you saying that/accsing says more about yorSELF, and your entrenched INTERPRETATION of reality

you are also talkin blind. you have already admitted to me in another tread that you do not understand consciousness.

 

[water]

A big case of 'DUH' coming up:

That is just so funny, you know -- because in my native language, the word for "ghost" is "duh".


:bugeye:

 

[ellion]

Because they don't exist.

but something does exist which gives rise to the subjective experince of ghost/demon.

what i feel would be useful to understand is why so many people (myself included) experience real tangible phenomena in their reality which are considered to be fantasy by ... er? science. and why other people experince nothing yet deem themselves as the authority on reality and other peoples experience.

it seems, from this fourm any way, that science does not want to begin to understand what is happening in these situations, the way its approached on these forums is with a flame thrower, like thats going to advance understading.

 

[Sarkus]

but something does exist which gives rise to the subjective experince of ghost/demon.

what i feel would be useful to understand is why so many people (myself included) experience real tangible phenomena in their reality which are considered to be fantasy by ... er? science.

Science only considers the "theory" of ghosts / demons etc as fantasy - NOT the causes.
The causes could be anything from a reflected light to neurological causes.
In most cases a ghost-sighting CAN be traced back to logical explanations that do not require something for which there is no evidence.

If I see something that my brain interprets as a ghost - does this mean the ghost is objectively real? Merely because my subjectivity has caused me to see it? No. Of course not. There is a rational explanation for all observations. Science merely tries to uncover the rational explanation.

And how are ghosts "tangible" phenomena? Please explain what you mean by this.

and why other people experince nothing yet deem themselves as the authority on reality and other peoples experience.

Don't confuse "reality" and "peoples experience". The two are rarely the same thing.

it seems, from this fourm any way, that science does not want to begin to understand what is happening in these situations, the way its approached on these forums is with a flame thrower, like thats going to advance understading.

You could not be futher from the truth. Science wants to understand the TRUTH - the objective reality - of whatever it is the person has experienced.
The objective truth is that the person has had stimuli applied to them and their brain has interpreted it to be something - a "ghost".

Science, in this area, tries to uncover what those stimuli were (observation, sound, smell etc) and what the brain should rationally have interpreted the stimuli to be.

 

[hug-a-tree]

I'm Christian but I don't see or hear ghost. But to answer your question "why don't atheist see ghost but Christians sometimes say they do" well maybe some people really do see ghost? You can't be sure.
It's kind of easy to understand actually. To Atheist when someone dies, they're dead so they aren't expecting to see them anytime soon. Some Christians after a member f the family or someone close to them has died they're all the time looking for signs from the great beyond. It makes it easier to deal with things. And it might be more of their imagination but they really believe that someone could be trying to talk to them. And who knows someone might be trying to contact you, you never know. And maybe the Atheist just dismiss it all because they don't believe in that stuff.
That's a lot of maybes, we can't be sure.
I know someone who had once seen a demon. I don't think he was lying to me, but I know that he also used to be on drugs so I can't say....

 

[ellion]

Science only considers the "theory" of ghosts / demons etc as fantasy - NOT the causes.

well we dont get much science on this forum then do we? everyhting that is not understood in this area is attacked, ridiculed and associated with delusional beleif and psychosis. is that a way to understand the truth? categorise by the criteria of somebody elses "beliefs"

The causes could be anything from a reflected light to neurological causes.
In most cases a ghost-sighting CAN be traced back to logical explanations that do not require something for which there is no evidence.

the cause could also be the conscious or unconscius presence of a discarnate entity? would you consider that a possibility?

If I see something that my brain interprets as a ghost - does this mean the ghost is objectively real? Merely because my subjectivity has caused me to see it? No. Of course not. There is a rational explanation for all observations. Science merely tries to uncover the rational explanation.

and ghost or demons are irrational becasue? ? who decides what is rational and irrational? oh yes those who dont have the expereince but have decided they are the authority on reality and other peoples experience. yes?

And how are ghosts "tangible" phenomena? Please explain what you mean by this.

tangible in the sense that reality in is tangible, having an effect upon the senses having an effect on the emotions on the psyche in general leaving a tangible impression.

Don't confuse "reality" and "peoples experience". The two are rarely the same thing.

hmm, and of course you know all about that, but you think i am confused. so you could tell me about "my experince" and "my reality", better than i know, could you?

You could not be futher from the truth. Science wants to understand the TRUTH - the objective reality - of whatever it is the person has experienced.

i would like to think that where true but there is not much evidence of it here?

The objective truth is that the person has had stimuli applied to them and their brain has interpreted it to be something - a "ghost".

so from this position of uncertainty science is certian of this one thing; it could not be a spirit because spirits dont exist, so ther must be a more rational explanation.

Science, in this area, tries to uncover what those stimuli were (observation, sound, smell etc) and what the brain should rationally have interpreted the stimuli to be.

"rationally"
so the brain interprets sensory data perfectly all day everyday but when it identifies a ghost there must be another rational explantion, the mind has gone a bit kooky, it slipped in to the realm of woo woo for a brief second, interperted the whiff of the dogs farts as an apparition of deceased grandmother. then grounded it self firmly back in the non-psychotic concrete physical and continued to accuraltey identify reality albeit somewhat perturbed by the short vacation from normal processing.

 

[Sarkus]

the cause could also be the conscious or unconscius presence of a discarnate entity? would you consider that a possibility?

Possible - in as much as God is a possibility - but there is zero evidence for it - and thus must be rejected in favour of something that is both possible AND for which there is evidence.

and ghost or demons are irrational becasue?

Ghosts and/or demons themselves are not irrational - in the same way that the concept of "God" is not irrational - but to believe them as the answer / cause to the stimuli received IS irrational - as there is no evidence for their existence.

If you feel that there is evidence, please post it.

who decides what is rational and irrational?

Logic.

oh yes those who dont have the expereince but have decided they are the authority on reality and other peoples experience. yes?

No. Logic dictates what is rational and irrational.

tangible in the sense that reality in is tangible, having an effect upon the senses having an effect on the emotions on the psyche in general leaving a tangible impression.

Ok - then again it goes back to the simple matter that your experience is very real - very tangible. But ther conclusions as to their cause (i.e. ghosts / demons) are irrational.

hmm, and of course you know all about that, but you think i am confused. so you could tell me about "my experince" and "my reality", better than i know, could you?

Of course not. I don't, and wouldn't, ever claim to.

so from this position of uncertainty science is certian of this one thing; it could not be a spirit because spirits dont exist, so ther must be a more rational explanation.

Science is never "certain". But if two things can explain an experience, and one of them absolutely lacks evidence, then the other, for which there is evidence, will be considered the cause.

"rationally"
so the brain interprets sensory data perfectly all day everyday but when it identifies a ghost there must be another rational explantion, the mind has gone a bit kooky, it slipped in to the realm of woo woo for a brief second, interperted the whiff of the dogs farts as an apparition of deceased grandmother. then grounded it self firmly back in the non-psychotic concrete physical and continued to accuraltey identify reality albeit somewhat perturbed by the short vacation from normal processing.

You paint such a lovely picture.
The brain does NOT always act rationally.
In fact at any given instant it is having irrational and rational thoughts.
It is only the overwhelmingly consistent input from our senses, and the experiences of our life up to that point, that determine what takes precedence.

Consider when you are intoxicated - you might think the room is spinning - and your brain even interprets it as such - yet you rationally know that it isn't.

Furthermore, the idea of "ghosts" are ingrained in our psyche - we know what they are supposed to represent and what they might look like as we are told stories and/or watch "ghosts" on television programmes all the time.
When we experience stimuli that our brain can't immediately comprehend and process it grabs whatever it can from our memory and brings that to the surface.

So when we see an odd reflection that our brain can't process properly it drags up the thought of "ghost"!
Sometimes this thought makes us jump.
Most people will then quickly realise that this initial thought was wrong.
Some people stick with the idea, for one reason or another - possibly because it pleases them that they have "seen a ghost", or possibly because they haven't yet worked out what it was they really did see.

But if you are predisposed to believe (in) things for which there is no evidence then you will be more willing to accept what your brain is telling you without questioning it - without trying to fully understand what it is that is really going on.

Yes, people see things.
If they claim they are ghosts - please let them provide the evidence.
To date there is zero evidence.
It is thus irrational to believe that they exist.

 

[duendy]

your 'rational' idea of 'rational is irrational

you are one-sided. you dont understand CONSCIOUSNESS, your depth, but are here using it to tell us 'whats what'.

ie., YOUR interpretation backed-up by for you--'THE' interpretation/current materialistic worldview of science. this is highly amusing

 

[Sarkus]

your 'rational' idea of 'rational is irrational

you are one-sided. you dont understand CONSCIOUSNESS, your depth, but are here using it to tell us 'whats what'.

ie., YOUR interpretation backed-up by for you--'THE' interpretation/current materialistic worldview of science. this is highly amusing

Please indicate how my idea of rational - i.e. something that follows logic - is irrational?

Please explain how the "materialistic worldview of science" is flawed?

Please explain how your ideas, whatever they may be, do not merely fit on top of the "materialistic worldview of science" and are not merely a subjective interpretation of the underlying nature of things?

Please tell me what your idea of a "ghost" is - and then please provide evidence for it.

 

[ellion]

Possible - in as much as God is a possibility - but there is zero evidence for it - and thus must be rejected in favour of something that is both possible AND for which there is evidence.

the evidence is the expereince those who have these expereinces especially on a daily basis dont need evidence of their expereince.

Ghosts and/or demons themselves are not irrational - in the same way that the concept of "God" is not irrational - but to believe them as the answer / cause to the stimuli received IS irrational - as there is no evidence for their existence.

if their is a possibiliity of their existence and they are epxerienced by many people form many cultures, it seems more irrational to discount the expereince and attibute it to something that was not expereinced. that does seem to me irrational, and it is based in the irrational belief that if there is no evidence then it does not exist.

If you feel that there is evidence, please post it.

what you want me to post you a ghost wtf constitutes evidnce of ghost, they only exist as states of consciousnes with emotional psychological content. consciousness interacts mostly with consciousness, though a strong spirit can cause physical sensations and stronger still can cause environmental disruption. how do you give proof of this to another person? you cant? so what do you do? oh i know blame it on the dog farts.

Logic.

No. Logic dictates what is rational and irrational.

who decide what is logical?

Ok - then again it goes back to the simple matter that your experience is very real - very tangible. But ther conclusions as to their cause (i.e. ghosts / demons) are irrational.

only if you beleive ghosts are not real? it is not irrational to me. if someone says they expereince a ghost i do no think 'oh it must be a dog fart', i will try to discover what was that persons expereince like, may be it was a dog fart but if i discount the experience before exploring it then i will never find out.

Of course not. I don't, and wouldn't, ever claim to.

but that is exactly what you are doing. right now. my impressionof your attitude is something like [= the expereince cant be as presented, because i dont believe in ghost i have never expereinced them so they cannot exist, having never, it is irrational to think they exist, therefore it is irrational to think that the expereince was a ghost, so there must be a rational explanation, something that i believe in or have experinced myself.=]

Science is never "certain". But if two things can explain an experience, and one of them absolutely lacks evidence, then the other, for which there is evidence, will be considered the cause.

so only things that are expereinced objectively existl, i.e. it exists only if can be re-presented, carried about or put on dislplay, to sniff, poke or listen to.

in other words only things objective of conscious experince can be causes of expereince.

You paint such a lovely picture.

my eyes have been opened

The brain does NOT always act rationally.

does your brian act?

In fact at any given instant it is having irrational and rational thoughts.
It is only the overwhelmingly consistent input from our senses, and the experiences of our life up to that point, that determine what takes precedence.

i would agree with you and for me this is my point when the senses and the experince of life present us with a situation, *ghost* why is it irrational to think that the sense are interpreting acuratley and more rational to think it was glitch in the processor.

Consider when you are intoxicated - you might think the room is spinning - and your brain even interprets it as such - yet you rationally know that it isn't.

this has nothing to do with anything except being drunk. everything gets distorted, which is why we wake up with scary looking females, and horrific memories of semi naked dancing in tesco carpark. i imagine very very few reported or recorded experiences of ghosts have happened while intoxicated.

Furthermore, the idea of "ghosts" are ingrained in our psyche - we know what they are supposed to represent and what they might look like as we are told stories and/or watch "ghosts" on television programmes all the time.
When we experience stimuli that our brain can't immediately comprehend and process it grabs whatever it can from our memory and brings that to the surface.

So when we see an odd reflection that our brain can't process properly it drags up the thought of "ghost"!
Sometimes this thought makes us jump.
Most people will then quickly realise that this initial thought was wrong.
Some people stick with the idea, for one reason or another - possibly because it pleases them that they have "seen a ghost", or possibly because they haven't yet worked out what it was they really did see.

i have no arguments with that and i think there are a lot of incidences where this is the case.

ther are a lot of incidences and this is fact for me that are not explained by this and are not explained in any other way than actual contact with a conscious entity incarnate in a physical body.

But if you are predisposed to believe (in) things for which there is no evidence then you will be more willing to accept what your brain is telling you without questioning it - without trying to fully understand what it is that is really going on.

again i think you are right and there are many people who are prediposed to believe in ghosts and many predisposed to believe it was the dog. but i will personally trust my own experince and reasoning over someone elses belief.

Yes, people see things.
If they claim they are ghosts - please let them provide the evidence.
To date there is zero evidence.

i have explained why that is i would be interested in you thoughts on how you provide evidence of interactions of consciousness in a purely conscious dimension

It is thus irrational to believe that they exist.

until the day you see, and hear, and know, then irrational it is.

personally i think belief is irrational fullstop,

whatever that belief is,

belief is accepting something as true that you have no certainty about.

it is for this reason i think it is more irrational to believe something does not exist just because there is no evidence of its existence. which is what we have here.

no evidence does not = no existence.

 

[ellion]

Please explain how the "materialistic worldview of science" is flawed?

Please explain how your ideas, whatever they may be, do not merely fit on top of the "materialistic worldview of science" and are not merely a subjective interpretation of the underlying nature of things?

materialistic world view is flawed in materialism. its objectivity is too severe. this is not too harmful for true science, physics, chemistry but my feeling is there is something missing in sciences aprroach to humans and psychology and consciousness. we are not wholly objective beings in fact we are as much subjective as we are objects. all the richness and true beauty of our being is inside us. this is not really valued by marterialistic science that is its flaw.

just my view, no means answering for duendy. i am sure she has a lot to say on this too.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

When someone experiences such events they ARE reality for them. you saying that/accsing says more about yorSELF, and your entrenched INTERPRETATION of reality

you are also talkin blind. you have already admitted to me in another tread that you do not understand consciousness.

It's not the experience that's being disputed (I see that misinterpretation repeatedly). It's the conclusion and it's derived of poor thought processes such as "I see some fiery blob of orange floating in front of my door whispering in many voices; therefore, 'ghosts' exist."

Consequently, the point about my not understanding the how's and what's of consciousness (which applies to you as well) doesn't mean a person can't distinguish between interpretation caused by the internal vs. external.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

That is just so funny, you know -- because in my native language, the word for "ghost" is "duh".


:bugeye:

Hahahhahah. Lol Water.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

but something does exist which gives rise to the subjective experince of ghost/demon.

Bingo, and without solid evidence of what that *something* is, no conclusion can be claimed.

what i feel would be useful to understand is why so many people (myself included) experience real tangible phenomena in their reality which are considered to be fantasy by ... er? science.

Great question, an answer to the question could be that fantastic experiences are not consistent between people and the tools we make with the 'stuff' reality is made out of (ex. video cameras) dont support the fantastic experiences being non-hallucinatory.

and why other people experince nothing yet deem themselves as the authority on reality and other peoples experience.

My guess is because reality agrees with them more. Personally, I suspect I have had significantly more fantastic experiences than the average joe. Because of this I have been really good at being able to identify when the two most prevalent types of natural human hallucination are present (dreams and hypnogogia).

it seems, from this fourm any way, that science does not want to begin to understand what is happening in these situations, the way its approached on these forums is with a flame thrower, like thats going to advance understading.

People who wield science do want to understand, mind you it's not a priority topic. What's being rejected are the fantastic conclusions issued by people whom experience these things.

 

[Sarkus]

the evidence is the expereince those who have these expereinces especially on a daily basis dont need evidence of their expereince.

The bulk of your reply I can answer with:

There is no disputing the experience - only the conclusion drawn from it.

i have explained why that is i would be interested in you thoughts on how you provide evidence of interactions of consciousness in a purely conscious dimension

How indeed.
I can't - because I see no evidence for a conscious dimension.
I see no theory for one - that can be tested.

personally i think belief is irrational fullstop,
whatever that belief is,
belief is accepting something as true that you have no certainty about.

it is for this reason i think it is more irrational to believe something does not exist just because there is no evidence of its existence. which is what we have here.

no evidence does not = no existence.

I couldn't agree more.
I have never said that Ghosts do not exist. But I do not have a belief that they do exist.
Likewise I am an atheist but do not say that I believe that God does not exist.

But until there is evidence, any evidence for them that can not be explained by other, less fantastical things, then to posit them as the conclusion to an experience when there is a rational alternative is irrational.


People do have experiences that they claim are "ghosts" - and I am often intrigued as to what causes these interpretations - what stimuli did the person receive through their senses that caused the trigger: "it's a ghost".

Only when all rational alternatives have been exhausted will I contemplate that for which there is as yet no evidence.