why we need ghosts

[Write4U]

Most paranormal experiences involve seeing and hearing and feeling. There are no limitations set upon it from the spectral range of vision.

Yes there are, in all four sensory areas, including taste.
Moreover, human senses are about the least developed of all mammals. But we do have a brain which can think abstractly and make up stuff that isn't there.

Researchers have estimated that a bloodhound’s nose consists of approximately 230 million olfactory cells, or “scent receptors” — 40 times the number in humans. Whereas our olfactory center is about the size of a postage stamp, a dog’s can be as large as a handkerchief — according to Allen, it is among the largest in canines. “The physical size of their olfactory area far exceeds most other working scent dogs,” he says. “The larger capacity combined with the desire to work makes them a very good tool.”

https://www-tc.pbs.org/wnet/nature/files/2008/06/inline_underdogs_bloodhound.jpg

The eagle eye is among the strongest in the animal kingdom, with an eyesight estimated at 4 to 8 times stronger than that of the average human.[1] An eagle is said to be able to spot a rabbit 3.2 km away.[1] Although an eagle may only weigh 10 pounds (4.5 kg), its eyes are roughly the same size as those of a human.[1] As the eagle descends from the sky to attack its prey, the muscles in the eyes continuously adjust the curvature of the eyeballs to maintain sharp focus and accurate perception throughout the approach and attack

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eagle_eye

You are talking about extra-sensory perception. In what respect and in which medium?
Only a few very gifted persons are able to perceive extra-sensory perceptions?
Special people??

 

[Magical Realist]

Moreover, human senses are about the least developed of all mammals. But we do have a brain which can think abstractly and make up stuff that isn't there.

No..we perceive the doors that are actually before us. We perceive the 100 yards of freeway that is actually before us as we drive. We perceive what is on our TVs and our computers. We don't make stuff up unless we are impaired with toxins. The normal average mode of human functioning is seeing what is right in front in of us. There is no making up stuff that is not there.

 

[Write4U]

No..we perceive the doors that are actually before us. We perceive the 100 yards of freeway that is actually before us as we drive. We perceive what is on our TVs and our computers. We don't make stuff up unless we are impaired with toxins. The normal average mode of human functioning is seeing what is right in front in of you. There is no making up stuff that is not there.

You have already forgotten the chess board?

 

[Magical Realist]

You have already forgotten the chess board?

Nothing you have posted invalidates the accuracy of human perception.

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh fuck'n well. So much for science explaining everything that happens as posted in the fringe section..

Science does explain this. Just not the answer you want.

No we don't. We overwhelmingly see things that are there. That's how good human perception is.

Even under everyday circumstances our brains are tricking us. This is absolutely indisputable fact, no matter how incredulous you personally may be.

The fact that we can go through our entire day without ever being aware that our brains are tricking us is a testament to how ingrained it is.

Please - do not take our word for this - ask anyone who knows anything about cognition and perception.

Seriously, read Jay Ingram's Theatre of the Mind.
https://www.jayingram.ca/books/theatre-of-the-mind.html

Nothing you have posted invalidates the accuracy of human perception.

It doesn't need to be invalidated. It's fact that human perception is illusory.

You personal opinion on the matter does not stand up.

 

[DaveC426913]

[DUPE]

 

[Write4U]

MR,
Are you at last going to view this remarkable lecture by a knowledgeable person in the field of "cognition" and "perception". Will you make an attempt to look at reality objectively and not through the evolved internal subjective filters.

At all times our brain is making "best guesses" of what's out there. It doesn't see anything at all. It receives electrochemical stimuli, which it must translate into a holographic cognitive experience.

 

[billvon]

No..we perceive the doors that are actually before us. We perceive the 100 yards of freeway that is actually before us as we drive. We perceive what is on our TVs and our computers. We don't make stuff up unless we are impaired with toxins. The normal average mode of human functioning is seeing what is right in front in of us. There is no making up stuff that is not there.

Google "confabulation across saccades."

We make stuff up.

 

[Magical Realist]

Science does explain this. Just not the answer you want.

Dimissing an experience as a hallucination is not an explanation. It is an attempt to dismiss the experience as invalid, Science does not have the authority to do this,

Even under everyday circumstances our brains are tricking us. This is absolutely indisputable fact, no matter how incredulous you personally may be.

The fact that we can go through our entire day without ever being aware that our brains are tricking us is a testament to how ingrained it is.

Please - do not take our word for this - ask anyone who knows anything about cognition and perception.

Seriously, read Jay Ingram's Theatre of the Mind.
https://www.jayingram.ca/books/theatre-of-the-mind.html

No..that does not apply to the everyday perceptions that get us thru our day.

It doesn't need to be invalidated. It's fact that human perception is illusory.

That's a lie meant to invalidate paranormal experiences. Human perception is overwhelmingly accurate and reliable.

You personal opinion on the matter does not stand up.

Neither does your opinion.

 

[DaveC426913]

Google "confabulation across saccades."

Indeed. MR, if your brain were not tricking you right now, you would be quite incapable of reading this text.

 

[DaveC426913]

Dimissing an experience as a hallucination is not an explanation.

I did not do this.

No one is denying experiences. What we challenge is the interpretation.
'Ghosts' is an interpretation of an experience.

 

[DaveC426913]

Neither does your opinion.

Which is precisely why I said:

No..that does not apply to the everyday perceptions that get us thru our day.

It absolutely does.

As pointed out, you would be unable to read this text if your brain didn't trick you.

Please - do not take our word for this - ask anyone who knows anything about cognition and perception.

These aren't opinions; these are facts.

 

[Magical Realist]

I did not do this.

No one is denying experiences. What we challenge is the interpretation.
'Ghosts' is an interpretation of an experience.

There is no interpretation with the experience. There is only what they experienced,

 

[Magical Realist]

Google "confabulation across saccades."

We make stuff up.

No we don't. We see what happens right in front of us.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is no interpretation with the experience. There is only what they experienced,

Yes. They heard a noise.

They interpreted it as a voice.
They interpreted where it was coming from.

And then someone, somewhere along the line, interpreted that as ghosts - or whatever mystery explanation you care for.

 

[DaveC426913]

No we don't. We see what happens right in front of us.

This is false.

You will get nowhere denying facts.

Do some reading. Disabuse yourself of this notion.

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes. They heard a noise.

They interpreted it as a voice.
They interpreted where it was coming from.

And then someone, somewhere along the line, interpreted that as ghosts - or whatever mystery explanation you care for.

No.. there is only what they experienced, What other's say about it is irrelevant.

 

[DaveC426913]

No.. there is only what they experienced, What other's say about it is irrelevant.

Yes.

But they don't know it was a voice they heard and they don't know it came from the vehicle.

It is quite easy to accidentally hear things, and quite easy to accidentally misjudge where they are coming form. (Ventriloquists take good advantage of this particular shortcoming of human hearing. So does your TV.)

And nowhere in there is there any mention of ghosts. So we can dispense with that.

And since this is a thread about ghosts, the anecdote is off-topic.

 

[billvon]

No we don't. We see what happens right in front of us.

Incorrect.

If you really "saw" what your eyes see, you would see an unrecognizable mess. There are blind spots. You can really only see detail in your fovea. When your eyes jitter around (saccade) as they always do, your visual stream is interrupted.

But we perceive a fixed visual field, because our brains "fill in" the confusing or missing pieces. That's a well researched fact. Indeed, computer programs that watch your eyes can easily fool your brain because of its confabulation. For example, if a computer watches your eyes, and puts target information on the screen within your fovea's area only when your eye is stationary, and fills the rest of the screen with a "hidden picture" i.e. one easily visible to someone else watching the screen - the subject will not see it, because his brain is filling in the missing areas with fake, assumed information.

From the book "Why We Lie" by David Smith:

========
Consider the phenomenon of "confabulation across saccades." As we look at our surroundings, our visual experience seems coherent and continuous. In fact, our eyes never keep still for very long, even when we think we are staring steadily at a fixed point in space. Our eyes remain fixed on one spot for no more than a quarter of a second before darting of in tiny, jerky movements called saccades. Although we are effectively blind during saccades, we do not have choppy visual experiences because our brains silently, unobtrusively, and unconsciously iron things out for us, editing the visual information to create the illusion of a smoothly un-folding visual panorama. In one of several marvelous experi-ments demonstrating saccade-blindness, the experimenter asks his or her subject to gaze at a scene projected on the screen of a computer monitor. Of course, this is no ordinary computer. The experimenter has rigged it to change some aspect of the picture during the viewer's saccades. Because the subject is blind during saccades, he or she is completely oblivious to these sometimes-dramatic alterations, even if told beforehand that the picture will change at some point during the experiment.
========

 

[Magical Realist]

Yes.

But they don't know it was a voice they heard and they don;t know it came from the vehicle.

And nowhere in there is there any mention of ghosts. So we can dispense with that.

And since this is a thread about ghosts, the anecdote is off-topic.

The voice is heard coming from the car. That's what the four rescue workers testify to. There is no other explanation but a ghost vocalizing the cry of help from the car.