A question that puzzles me about ghosts and demons

[ellion]

sarkus;
crunchy;

both of you are right!

 

[duendy]

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

me)))i recommend you read Critique of Patriarchal Reason, by Arthur Evans. If you do a search at google, you will find good summary of it.
Basically 'logic' as you are calling it is irrationa in its bias towards women, Nature and the 'other' which includes tem and thier fear dark skinned people, anamalous phenomena, and so on.
Patriarchal 'logic' actually begins with the concept of 'Logos'

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

me)))it is materialistic? is one-sided. believes materiality is primary, and that consciousnes is a produt of complex matter. WHEN, it doesn't understand consciousness!

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?

me)))you lie to yourself if you believe that you and your materialistic interpretation of reality is NOT subjective. of course it is. you cannot have objectivity without subjectivity and vice versa. 'objectivity' and 'subjectivity' are abstracted terms

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

my idea of a 'ghost'? how i go about thinking of it?
It is a deeper feeling of nuances of reality. but it is complex. tese experiences aren't mono. it depends what circumstance. but its some form of commuunion wit deeper aspects of reality. these efvents can come out of the blue----for example i heard-on docu- a woman saying that shewas in hospital corridor, a man pushed /nuged pass her, she said 'sorry' watched as he walked past then disappeaered into a wall. ten another extreme concerns the ancient pagans who at certain times of te year wuld commune with the 'dead'. they had different worldview than western materialists. as do the Australian Aboriginees, and their 'Dreamtime'---a dimension which is atemporal
,

 

[duendy]

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."

me))hah...but it's your materialistic conclusions that worry me, because thy deny subjectivity. when you do this you by default become ultra-irrational, and dangerously so. Read The Bacchae by Euripedes. it's all there

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.

well err it does actually. we agree on this: we dont understand consciousness. but from different manings of that. from past talks with you, i feel you mean: 'we will someday' whereas i am meaning: consciousness is not a think and can never ever be measureed. objectified by the patriarchal mindset. THough if it could it would!

 

[Woody]

Sarkus said:

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".

That is currently being studied. If you were sitting in a movie theatre and it felt like somebody was kicking the back of your seat but nobody was there -- how would you interpret it?

From Source

The VGHRS Audio/EVP expert Jim Hale has devised an instrument to measure infrasound. The instrument uses a commercial seismograph transducer that converts low frequency vibrations into an electrical signal. This electrical signal is amplified and fed into an oscilloscope which provides a visual display of the waveform thus revealing its frequency and relative amplitude. The VGHRS has used this infrasound instrument in an investigation of the Byrd Theatre in Richmond, VA. During the course of the investigation, Jim Hale experienced several “kicks” to the back of his seat in the theatre when no one was around. Notably, infrasonic waves were registe#730400 on the oscilloscope for each “kick”—perhaps indicating that infrasound may be responsible for more than just hallucinations and “creepy” sensations. The VGHRS will continue to test for infrasound at future investigations as possible to collect more data.

 

[Woody]

SW said:

With regard to the UFO-ETI movement, however, there are some characteristics that are very religious-like, which vary from believer to believer. I wrote a paper for a 3rd year anthropology class a few years ago that looks at this: http://home.earthlink.net/~ctfeagans/uforeligion.htm

Interesting site Mr. C. I apologize for some rebuttals.

I have an interest in indian archaeology. Have you heard of the "white indians" from louisville. I know one. He says he's done excavation work in the Louisville area, and they discovered european armor. Supposedly the white indians came from europeans prior to columbus.

 

[Sarkus]

That is currently being studied. If you were sitting in a movie theatre and it felt like somebody was kicking the back of your seat but nobody was there -- how would you interpret it?

Initially I would of course see if there was someone behind me - or even someone throwing something against the back of the chair.
Then, seeing noone, would feel inside the back of the chair to see if there is something (e.g. rat) inside the back.

Or I would consider it possibly a muscle-spasm.

If it still occurred and I could rule out all of the above then I would possibly think it some mechanical fault with the chair.

If I wanted to, and was allowed to investigate it further, I would start analysing the chair.

If the chair and everything it was connected to turned out to be 100% ok then I would indeed be puzzled - and would try and see what else could be causing it.

Unfortunately at no point would I jump to the conclusion that a "ghost" was doing it - not while some rational explanation remains to be investigated.

 

[ellion]

Initially I would of course see if there was someone behind me - or even someone throwing something against the back of the chair.
Then, seeing noone, would feel inside the back of the chair to see if there is something (e.g. rat) inside the back.

Or I would consider it possibly a muscle-spasm.

If it still occurred and I could rule out all of the above then I would possibly think it some mechanical fault with the chair.

If I wanted to, and was allowed to investigate it further, I would start analysing the chair.

If the chair and everything it was connected to turned out to be 100% ok then I would indeed be puzzled - and would try and see what else could be causing it.

Unfortunately at no point would I jump to the conclusion that a "ghost" was doing it - not while some rational explanation remains to be investigated.

if you where fully awake and alert and going about your daily business and your deceased grandmother appeared before you, and she made you feel comforted emotionally, she speaks as she did when alive, she tells you how much she missed you, how well you have done and how proud she is of you, and she told you things that you had forgotten, she told you something from your mothers childhood that you would have never known about, and when you mention it to your mother she confirms it is true.

What then would your conclusion be?

how does someone predsiposed with an aversion to thoughts of ghosts and spiritual concepts reconcile such an event?

hypothetically!

 

[Sarkus]

if you where fully awake and alert and going about your daily business and your deceased grandmother appeared before you, and she made you feel comforted emotionally, she speaks as she did when alive, she tells you how much she missed you, how well you have done and how proud she is of you, and she told you things that you had forgotten, she told you something from your mothers childhood that you would have never known about, and when you mention it to your mother she confirms it is true.

What then would your conclusion be?

how does someone predsiposed with an aversion to thoughts of ghosts and spiritual concepts reconcile such an event?

hypothetically!

Hypothetically...
I would first see if anyone else can see what I do.
I would then try and capture it on film / video / photo etc.

I would then go and get myself checked out at a hospital - for any disease or illness that could manifest itself with such symptoms as lucid hallucination.

Assuming I am deemed fit and well, I would assess whether this visage is able to predict the future, or is limited to past events - and if limited to the past is restricted to my own memories.

If it is limited then I would deem it a neurological dysfunction in my brain - although a harmless one (as I would have already been given the medical all-clear).

If it is not limited - i.e. it can predict the future with unerring accuracy - then I would certainly consider it much more.

I would also consider psychotherapy.

In the meantime, with no psychological, neurological or other external cause, I would start trying to come up with any other number of rational explanations - testing for each one scientifically.


Hypothetically, that is.


If it tells me things that I supposedly wouldn't know about then I would need to test that this is the case - as the subconscious can remember even tiny details of things that your conscious never picked up - be it speech, sound, sight, smell.

The fact that I may have forgotten is irrelevant - for to have forgotten (consciously) I must have known - and thus it was obviously still in my subconscious.

Test scientifically.

That's what I'd do.


Obviously - if it comforted me then there is a trade-off between "resolving" the issue and letting it be.

 

[ellion]

so try to find any reason for the visual, auditory and kinaestheitc representation of your grandmother, apart form the most obvious? what would it be like to just accept it as it is? without trying to deny its existence and without attributing it to other visceral phenomena, what would it be like for you to just let it exist?


you mentioned predicitng the future, how come you associate ghosts with premonitions?

 

[Sarkus]

I'll start with this one....

you mentioned predicitng the future, how come you associate ghosts with premonitions?

I mentioned this - because if what it tells me is limited to my own memories (subconscious or conscious) then I would be more inclined to think that it was merely something going on in my brain that is accessing memory.
If however it can tell the future then it is categorically not linked to my memory.
If it can also be proven to tell me things that I couldn't possibly know - e.g. it can recite PI to 1,000,000 decimal places and have it verified - then I would also know it is external to my memory.
But if it is restrcited in what it knows to things that I myself know (consciously or subconsciously) then it restricts the possibilities of what I am seeing.

so try to find any reason for the visual, auditory and kinaestheitc representation of your grandmother, apart form the most obvious? what would it be like to just accept it as it is? without trying to deny its existence and without attributing it to other visceral phenomena, what would it be like for you to just let it exist?

Firstly I wouldn't deny the existence or the experience of what I am seeing.

But if something is visual then it must be interacting with some part of my brain (visual cortex, or other parts).
If it is interacting then there must be a cause of those interactions - or another measurable and thus material side to the interaction... you can not have a one-handed clap! And to interact must require two material elements.

You might label the other side a "ghost" - but I would want to know more about what it is. Is it merely an anomaly inside my head, brought on by stress, illness etc?
Is it a reflection that triggers a memory and makes my brain fill in areas that aren't there - and thus interpret it incorrectly?

And many times the experience is not worth ruining by dissecting it into less aesthetic components. But that only hides us from knowing the truth of what we are experiencing.

If it really is the consciousness of a deceased person communicating with me - then I certainly want to find out how it's doing it.
But on the weight of evidence alone (ghost = zero, other cause = lots) I would have to explore the other causes first.

 

[TW Scott]

Actually, I have the answer.

Why do atheists not see ghost, angels and demons, while religious people do?

Simple. The Atheist if they see such phenomena represses it as it challenges their sanity, belief, and hold on reality. If they were to acknowledge what they saw to be real then they would have questions they cannot answer. So it merely blocked form the ind and memory. A thousand people could see the exact same thing, but the atheist would later dismiss it as a flight of fancy or mass delusion. Even if it were verifiably outside of our understanding of science, the atheist would refuse to believe it was anything worthy of attention and simply repress the memory. It's not their fault as it is the minds natural reaction to protect the reality it has constructed.

And that is the answer in a nutshell, the fact is they do see them, they just don't know they do.

 

[duendy]

oh god, how sad. that say you had a vision of your dead granny and would even WANT to go to all that crap to prove to your self how 'normal' you are.....dont know what to say. your mindset is really reall sad t me

it is OBSESSED with measurement, but REFUSESto measure the evnts in history that has brought this obsession about...! apparently that is off-scene, out of bounds, 'we err dont go there'

do you get me? you dont even bother to wonder where you mindset originates. how it has comeabout due to patriarchal oppression and supression of our deeper sense of being--what is modernly called 'subjective awareness'. so see---you So distrust this deeper aspect of yorself, ANY 'anomly, and you fratically go rushing fr your measuring rod!

sad

 

[Sarkus]

Actually, I have the answer.

Why do atheists not see ghost, angels and demons, while religious people do?

Simple. The Atheist if they see such phenomena represses it as it challenges their sanity, belief, and hold on reality. If they were to acknowledge what they saw to be real then they would have questions they cannot answer. So it merely blocked form the ind and memory. A thousand people could see the exact same thing, but the atheist would later dismiss it as a flight of fancy or mass delusion. Even if it were verifiably outside of our understanding of science, the atheist would refuse to believe it was anything worthy of attention and simply repress the memory. It's not their fault as it is the minds natural reaction to protect the reality it has constructed.

And that is the answer in a nutshell, the fact is they do see them, they just don't know they do.

How many times do we have to reiterate - the experience is not in question - merely the explanation of the cause!!

 

[Sarkus]

oh god, how sad. that say you had a vision of your dead granny and would even WANT to go to all that crap to prove to your self how 'normal' you are.....dont know what to say. your mindset is really reall sad t me

it is OBSESSED with measurement, but REFUSESto measure the evnts in history that has brought this obsession about...! apparently that is off-scene, out of bounds, 'we err dont go there'

do you get me? you dont even bother to wonder where you mindset originates. how it has comeabout due to patriarchal oppression and supression of our deeper sense of being--what is modernly called 'subjective awareness'. so see---you So distrust this deeper aspect of yorself, ANY 'anomly, and you fratically go rushing fr your measuring rod!

sad

That is why I say there is a trade-off between comfort and answer. If you're happy with the idea that it's a "ghost" and want to continue to believe - feel free.

I just choose to accept rational answers before I'll accept irrational answers.

If you can theorise what ghosts are - and provide a provable mechanism by which they interact with people - and then test that theory - then you'll be along the way to making "ghosts" a rational explanation.

Otherwise you're merely giving a solution that answers nothing and raises more questions.

But again - I stress - it does not mean the experience is not real.
This is all regarding the interpretation of those experiences.

 

[ellion]

how come you keep reinforcing in yourself the idea that ghosts are irrational?

is this because of your beliefs?

If you can theorise what ghosts are -

conscious beings, but without a biological body. like you, me, your granny and the dog.

and provide a provable mechanism by which they interact with people - and then test that theory - then you'll be along the way to making "ghosts" a rational explanation.

we have the same problems here that psychology has, how do you observe something that is only observable in the consciousness of the subject?

 

[Sarkus]

how come you keep reinforcing in yourself the idea that ghosts are irrational?

I don't. I do say that using ghosts as an explanation is irrational.
It is irrational because there is zero evidence for ghosts.
Therefore it is just as likely to be anything else for which there is zero evidence.
As such it is irrational to believe it is ghosts.

is this because of your beliefs?

I have no beliefs in things for which there is no evidence.

conscious beings, but without a biological body. like you, me, your granny and the dog.

Please explain how this conscious being, without a biological body, can interact with the material world.

we have the same problems here that psychology has, how do you observe something that is only observable in the consciousness of the subject?

Indeed - so why have a belief that it is ghosts?
Why not have a belief that it is a more rational answer?
Better still - why actually believe it is anything at all and not merely investigate the experience until you have evidence.
Afterall - if it is a "ghost" then why not merely the manifestation of indigestion? Or a manifestation of the Spaghetti Monster?

 

[ellion]

I don't. I do say that using ghosts as an explanation is irrational.

what you are doing though is denying the expereince as it is repesented to you senses, you are denying the experince. and claiming there is a more rational explanation than the actual experince as it is presented to the senses.

to me that is irrational

accept the phenomena as it presents itself to the senses, if you are going to start doubting your own experince then when you are presented wtih evidence you are going to deny the evidence as a hoax. i have close relationships with a number of mediums and it is possible to photograph spirits. but if you have a predisposed aversion to spirit you are going to be looking for further reasons to deny your expereince and reinforce your beliefs.

It is irrational because there is zero evidence for ghosts.

so in your case seeing is not believing you need something more than direct experince? seeing hearing afeeling andcommunicating yourself would not be enough you would still need something else to reassure you that you have interpreted correctly

Therefore it is just as likely to be anything else for which there is zero evidence.

what? how is it likely to be something for which there is noe vidence. all you seem to be doing is trying to make something, anything, anything at all except allow it to be what it appears to be

As such it is irrational to believe it is ghosts.

I have no beliefs in things for which there is no evidence.

the evidence is your experince. but you are going to deny your expereince because there is no evidence. outside your experince. do you need somone else to confrim it for you?

Please explain how this conscious being, without a biological body, can interact with the material world.

if you think a ghost is irrational you will not be ready to accept how a ghost interacts with the material world. even if i began to explain as soon as your rigid structured concepts of reality where breached you would demand evidence.

Indeed - so why have a belief that it is ghosts?
Why not have a belief that it is a more rational answer?

again you reinforce in your self ghosts are irrational something else more rational must be reponsible. you canot help but deny your expereince, and then say you are not denying the expereince only the cause. as though the expereince was false somehow.

Better still - why actually believe it is anything at all and not merely investigate the experience until you have evidence.

i have said before beliefs are a weakness, a belief is accepting something as true something that you do not know for certain.

personally there is nothing that has greater authority than my own expereince, not god, not science, not medicine, not government, no experts on other peoples reality. i am the knower, i am the watcher, i am the master of this temple. my knowledge is based on experience and i live my life for those experiences, there is no greater teacher than the relationships and interactions that exist between myself and my reality.

Afterall - if it is a "ghost" then why not merely the manifestation of indigestion?

if your biology is so awfully wired as this i am not supriseed you do not trust your own experience.

Or a manifestation of the Spaghetti Monster?

ah so thats where the spaghetti monster comes from, he is a manifestation of your undigested dinner.

i dont know how you managed to get me back into this debate, it must have been the marshmallows made my brain mushy. *squidge squidge*

 

[Crunchy Cat]

me))hah...but it's your materialistic conclusions that worry me, because thy deny subjectivity. when you do this you by default become ultra-irrational, and dangerously so. Read The Bacchae by Euripedes. it's all there

Any conclusions I might derive are based on evidence. Since, for example, video cameras have existed, people have repeatedly caught some fantastic displays of reality. The frequency of these displays caught on video has a healthy and consistent ratio to the frequency of people issuing the claim that the displays exist. Now take ghosts for example, the frequency of people issuing the claim that the displays exist is VERY high and has next to a zero ratio of anything even remotely anolomlous appearing on video. What the evidence supports is that when something is perceived subjectively and has no objective componenet then the perception is generated internally.

well err it does actually. we agree on this: we dont understand consciousness. but from different manings of that. from past talks with you, i feel you mean: 'we will someday' whereas i am meaning: consciousness is not a think and can never ever be measureed. objectified by the patriarchal mindset. THough if it could it would!

I disagree and I assert it doesn't and of course I'll be happy to provide evidence. Sometime last year, I woke up staring at a massive and intensly glowing rose. The light from the rose didn't reflect show on the walls, didn't have a reflection on the shiny TV screen, and it faded from sight by loosing opacity (it was a very smooth transition). I have had many similar types of experiences and have had the opportunity to make alot of observations (including anecdotally using recording equiptment just to gain a 'second opinion'). The conclusion is that the experiences are hallucinatory and reality fully supports that conclusion.

You are correct in that we both don't understand consciousness. I think there is a higher probability (it's not a certainty) that someday humans will figure it out (so your assertion of my view was very close to what it actually is). Your assertion of consciousness has two points of contradiction. It was stated that it is not a 'thing'. By very definition of the word 'thing' in the English language, it is (thats the first contradiction). The second point of contradiction was the part of the assertion that stated consciousness cannot be measured. This means you have alot of knowledge about the whats and hows of consciousness to be able to issue such a firm conclusion, and at the same time it was asserted that you don't know what consciouss is (thats the second contradiction).

 

[Woody]

Initially I would of course see if there was someone behind me - or even someone throwing something against the back of the chair.
Then, seeing noone, would feel inside the back of the chair to see if there is something (e.g. rat) inside the back.

Or I would consider it possibly a muscle-spasm.

If it still occurred and I could rule out all of the above then I would possibly think it some mechanical fault with the chair.

If I wanted to, and was allowed to investigate it further, I would start analysing the chair.

If the chair and everything it was connected to turned out to be 100% ok then I would indeed be puzzled - and would try and see what else could be causing it.

Unfortunately at no point would I jump to the conclusion that a "ghost" was doing it - not while some rational explanation remains to be investigated.

Interesting -- then perhaps there is a rational explanation for the "resurrection" of Christ and the "claimed miracles" he performed.

From the references I provided, I see that artists and other people with creative minds are more likely to believe in the supernatural than your average person. Some atheists on this forum claim that superstition comes from a more primitive form of human intelligence.

 

[SnakeLord]

then perhaps there is a rational explanation for the "resurrection" of Christ and the "claimed miracles" he performed

Certainly, just like there is a rational explanation to explain where mermaids came from. Here it is Woody: They're fictional stories.