why we need ghosts

Magical Realist said:
I'm familiar with it. I agree there's such a thing as mental illness. But I don't believe that fact alone is sufficient basis to discount our sensory experience. Accurate sensory awareness is so crucial to our lives that we wouldn't get thru a day without it. BTW I have no idea what video you keep referring to. Can you post a link?
Click to expand...
Thanks for asking. I'm happy to post the link again. It's not a long video, but well worth the view.

https://www.ted.com/talks/anil_seth_how_your_brain_hallucinates_your_conscious_reality
 
Magical Realist said:
Here's some facts based on eyewitness testimony and multiple sightings:

Click to expand...
You've got to be kidding.
The Arc is a building in Jacksonville, FL. for adults with learning disabilities.
Click to expand...
A guy who works there is telling stories about stuff that happened. This is your proof of ghostly occurrences?

And you have not yet begun to explain the psychology why we need ghosts.
 
A guy who works there is telling stories about stuff that happened. This is your proof of ghostly occurrences?
Click to expand...

Yes..people who work in that office space having repeated paranormal experiences. This is both compelling and unexplainable.

And you have not yet begun to explain the psychology why we need ghosts.
Click to expand...

I never said we need ghosts. That was the premise of somebody else's OP.
 
Magical Realist said:
Here's some facts based on eyewitness testimony and multiple sightings:
Click to expand...
The skepticism isn't about whether they heard noises or bumps or saw shadows. The skepticism is about whether "ghosts" is the explanation.
The office workers are not qualified to distinguish ghosts from mundane explanations.

Nor are ghost hunters. The best they can do is say "we have no explanation".

"Ghosts" is not an explanation. It provides no proposed mechanism or slightest hint of known physics.

Anyone could could just as easily say these are all the work of "demons" and that explanation would have every bit as much weight as "ghosts". That's one of the reasons why a mechanism is necessary - because without it, any explanation is as good as any other - therefore none are useful.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The skepticism isn't about whether they heard noises or bumps or saw shadows. The skepticism is about whether "ghosts" is the explanation.
The office workers are not qualified to distinguish ghosts from mundane explanations.

Nor are ghost hunters. The best they can do is say "we have no explanation".

"Ghosts" is not an explanation. It provides no proposed mechanism or slightest hint of known physics.
Click to expand...

Yeah.."ghost" is an explanation in that they repeatedly occur with the same manifestations the world over. Paranormal investigators turn up evidence for ghosts all the time. It's the typical cause for the phenomenon that fits and works well in explaining what happens. Haunting phenomena entail ghosts as the agents behind it. That's just the way it is.

Anyone could could just as easily say these are all the work of "demons" and that explanation would have every bit as much weight as "ghosts"
Click to expand...

Better to posit a horse instead of a zebra..
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
compelling
Click to expand...
How many compelling's does that make for 2018?

I just had a Christmas Day compelling thought bubble

Numerous ghost, UFO and all sorts of other paranormal activity has proven to be faked

How come nobody tries to fake reality?

I can think of two events which might be considered to be attempts to fake reality

Anyone else have any ideas?

MR any thoughts?

:)
 
Magical Realist said:
Yeah.."ghost" is an explanation in that they repeatedly occur with the same manifestations the world over.
Click to expand...
Argument by popularity.

And a tautology.

"It's ghosts."
"How do you know?"
"Because everybody else is calling it ghosts."
"So?"
"And because last time this happened we called it ghosts, and this is the same."

How does that make it ghosts?

Magical Realist said:
Paranormal investigators turn up evidence for ghosts all the time.
It's the typical cause for the phenomenon that fits and works well in explaining what happens. Haunting phenomena entail ghosts as the agents behind it. That's just the way it is.
Click to expand...
No. Again that's begging the question. You can't say it's evidence for ghosts.
Without a mechanism, any fabricated explanation will fit just as well.

"It's evidence for pixies!"
"How do you know?"
"Because that's what pixies do!"
"How do you know?"
"Because every other time this happened I said it was pixies. So there's a history of it being pixies!"

IOW:
Who originally decided it was actually ghosts? And how did they reach that conclusion, exactly?



Magical Realist said:
Better to posit a horse instead of a zebra..
Click to expand...
Precisely.
Which is why mundane explanations are the default. We simply do not have sufficient evidence that any of these unexplained accounts are ghosts.

The mundane explanation does not require evidence of any unknowns. (This is horse territory, so let's assume it's a horse for now.)

The ghost explanation does. It raises many more questions than it answers (why would it be a zebra when no one has ever been able to put forth a mechanism for zebras to be here?).
 
DaveC426913 said:
Argument by popularity.

And a tautology.

"It's ghosts."
"How do you know?"
"Because everybody else is calling it ghosts."
"So?"
"And because last time this happened we called it ghosts, and this is the same."

How does that make it ghosts?


No. Again that's begging the question. You can't say it's evidence for ghosts.
Without a mechanism, any fabricated explanation will fit just as well.

"It's evidence for pixies!"
"How do you know?"
"Because that's what pixies do!"
"How do you know?"
"Because every other time this happened I said it was pixies. So there's a history of it being pixies!"

IOW:
Who originally decided it was actually ghosts? And how did they reach that conclusion, exactly?




Precisely.
Which is why mundane explanations are the default. We simply do not have sufficient evidence that any of these unexplained accounts are ghosts.
Click to expand...

LOL! I hear the snicker of a million paranormal investigators as Dave says hauntings can't indicate the presence of ghosts.
 
DaveC426913 said:
The rest of us rational people are perfectly OK with that.
Click to expand...

Oooo..the "rational people". Aren't we just full of ourselves..

Get back with me after you've spent a few nights in a haunted location. Till then, spare us your armchair pontifications.
 
Last edited:
Magical Realist said:
Oooo..the "rational people". Aren't we just full of ourselves..
Click to expand...
You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to evidence, so you try to drag the discussion to an emotional arena, where you hope you'll do better.

Let's get back to facts. YouTube videos don't count as facts.

Explain what "ghosts" are, how they operate, and by what laws of nature. Explain how your evidence differentiates ghost from any other unknown things, such as pixies, angels, demons, God himself, or aliens.
 
Let's get back to facts. YouTube videos don't count as facts.
Click to expand...

I just posted 4 videos of facts that actually happened. If that's not enough for you, I'm sorry. Go spend the night in a haunted location. That's the only way you'll ever see the reality of ghosts for yourself.
 
Last edited:
Whether or not phenomena were observed, there is nothing in the videos that wears a badge saying "I am a ghost."
Click to expand...

LOL! I'm afraid it does. This is what ghosts have been observed to do. Voices from empty rooms. Poltergeist activity in old pubs. Footsteps in empty attics. Bangings in empty elevators. This is so much a part of our culture and understanding that to try and deny it now only makes you look silly. People experience paranormal phenomenon AS ghosts. That's just a solid fact of the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top