Does their existence violate some law of science? Considering the fact that there are at present hundreds of paranormal societies popping up across the country recording video and audio evidence of ghosts (whatever they may be) why do you think they DON'T exist at least as real phenomena? Are people walking around abandoned bldgs at 3 AM just to create elaborate hoaxes or recording equipment glitches?

the technical truth is it cannot be proven or disproven at this time.

if anyone tells you that it emphatically cannot exist, they are lying.

there are hoaxes which have been busted but that doesn't negate the possibility of paranormal phenomenon.

Isn't 100% lab-replicable proof impossible? I mean if a ghost is an intelligence of some sort then there can never be a certainty they will manifest or not. But then again we recognize lots of phenomena that aren't replicable in labs. People get struck by lightning from clouds all the time, but I doubt if that is replicable in a lab or has even been photographed.

let's look at this hypothetically since that is all we can do at this time. say that there are ghosts all around us but can't be seen, how do you catch one? you can't.

besides ghosts can mean anything or be something other than what we think it is. it's all speculation. there are so many labels such as entities, ghosts, spirits, orbs etc

the technology just isn't there. paranormal phenomenon can just be personally experienced and even that varies as to the nature of the occurrence. it just can't be quantified. most people will say it's one's imagination. in some cases it may be but it may not in all cases.

what the hell more is there to say?

Does their existence violate some law of science?

Given that they are supposed to have all sorts of strange abilities, yes. For example, ghosts can walk through solid walls, they can float or fly, they can teleport from place to place, appear and disappear at will. All of those things violate laws of science.


Considering the fact that there are at present hundreds of paranormal societies popping up across the country recording video and audio evidence of ghosts (whatever they may be) why do you think they DON'T exist at least as real phenomena? Are people walking around abandoned bldgs at 3 AM just to create elaborate hoaxes or recording equipment glitches?

Some of them are, without any doubt. Everybody wants to make a viral youtube video. UFO nuts are the same.

Why are there no really convincing videos or audio of ghosts? Why no good evidence at all? Why so many personal anecdotes but no convincing evidence?


Isn't 100% lab-replicable proof impossible? I mean if a ghost is an intelligence of some sort then there can never be a certainty they will manifest or not.

We'd only need a ghost to manifest once or twice among a body of reputable witnesses. In the middle of a UN meeting, for example. Or in Congress. Or at a protest rally with 10000 people watching. Or something like that. It never happens, does it? Why not?


People get struck by lightning from clouds all the time, but I doubt if that is replicable in a lab or has even been photographed.

It is replicable in a lab. There are huge lightning generators that have been built to test various things. Plenty of lightning has been photographed. Check google images if you don't believe me. Lightning is a measurable phenomenon whose causes and effects are well understood. It is even predictable.

Why are there no really convincing videos or audio of ghosts?

The thing I don't get, is why in these horrid 'Ghost Hunter' type programs, is why they creep around in the dark, using IR cameras,.... don't ghosts show up if the lights are on? Says more about our perception, than the alleged properties of ghosts I think.

There is no 'ghost in the machine' as there is no reason for one. Occam's Razor (parsimony)

No 'spirit' means there is no 'ghost' left over when your body shuts off.

let's look at this hypothetically since that is all we can do at this time. say that there are ghosts all around us but can't be seen, how do you catch one? you can't.

besides ghosts can mean anything or be something other than what we think it is. it's all speculation. there are so many labels such as entities, ghosts, spirits, orbs etc

the technology just isn't there. paranormal phenomenon can just be personally experienced and even that varies as to the nature of the occurrence. it just can't be quantified. most people will say it's one's imagination. in some cases it may be but it may not in all cases.

what the hell more is there to say?

Okaaay...Well you claim we don't have the technology to detect ghost phenomenon. And yet people in paranormal groups are capturing such evidence all the time with infared cameras, k-2 meters, digital recorders, etc. Like it or not there's plenty of video footage of objects moving about on their own, shadow figures, strange lights, and even apparitions. What kind of technology do you suppose is needed more than this?

Given that they are supposed to have all sorts of strange abilities, yes. For example, ghosts can walk through solid walls, they can float or fly, they can teleport from place to place, appear and disappear at will. All of those things violate laws of science.

Not seeing how something made of energy or of dark matter couldn't do those things. At the quantum level it happens all the time. And hell, physics even recognizes the existence of other dimensions. Whose to say there aren't inhabitants in those just like in our own?



Some of them are, without any doubt. Everybody wants to make a viral youtube video. UFO nuts are the same.Why are there no really convincing videos or audio of ghosts? Why no good evidence at all? Why so many personal anecdotes but no convincing evidence?


But there's many more that are real and authentic. I've seen footage of all sorts of phenomena. I find it harder to believe it is a big conspiracy to create hoaxes than it is the real thing. People don't go thru the trouble of spending so much time and money just to hoax what they truly believe in.



We'd only need a ghost to manifest once or twice among a body of reputable witnesses. In the middle of a UN meeting, for example. Or in Congress. Or at a protest rally with 10000 people watching. Or something like that. It never happens, does it? Why not?

Who decides what a reputable witness is? Politicians are reputable?! Since when? As far as I'm concerned, anybody is a reputable witness if what they saw cannot be explained by natural means.



It is replicable in a lab. There are huge lightning generators that have been built to test various things. Plenty of lightning has been photographed. Check google images if you don't believe me. Lightning is a measurable phenomenon whose causes and effects are well understood. It is even predictable.

No..being struck by a cloud is not replicable in a lab. And noone has yet been photographed being struck by lightning. I know whereof I speak.

The thing I don't get, is why in these horrid 'Ghost Hunter' type programs, is why they creep around in the dark, using IR cameras,.... don't ghosts show up if the lights are on? Says more about our perception, than the alleged properties of ghosts I think.

If you're a being made of some kind of energy, then perhaps lots of light energy interferes with your presence. I think these "horrid" ghost programs are excellent and provide convincing proof of the reality of the paranormal. Do you think they're all fake?

Here's some pics of alleged ghosts. While some are probably faked, others appear authentic. My niece sent me a pic of a man in a suit standing in her dark doorway in the background of one of her photos of her sons. It's really there clear as can be. How can stuff like this happen if there's no ghosts?


real ghost pics - Google Search
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&ie=ISO-8859-1&gbv=1&q=real+ghost+pics

If you're a being made of some kind of energy, then perhaps lots of light energy interferes with your presence.

Then you are pretty dumb. Dumb because I mentioned that these stupid fake programs are filmed using IR cameras that emit INFRA RED LIGHT, which is energy. So how come that doesn't interfere?


I think these "horrid" ghost programs are excellent and provide convincing proof of the reality of the paranormal.

Proof? Did you really mean to say that word, proof? Let's see some then!


Do you think they're all fake?

No, I know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Acorah#Controversy)they are fake.

Here's some pics of alleged ghosts. While some are probably faked, others appear authentic.

And you can't tell the difference. FFS, show some discernment.

Are people walking around abandoned bldgs at 3 AM just to create elaborate hoaxes or recording equipment glitches?

Yes they are doing just that, how do you know what time they are "walking around"? Many people are given money to make a TV show or just to "create" a video so that they might get more money if people want to pay them and many people are foolish enough to do so.

Let me ask you, do you ever see "ghosts" and if so how can you provide evidence that you actually did? Do you believe everything that you are told? if not how do you prove to yourself that what you are told is actually a fact not fiction? :shrug:

I think these "horrid" ghost programs are excellent and provide convincing proof of the reality of the paranormal.

Must be on a different channel than I get. All the ones I've ever seen didn't consist of much of anything that's worthy to discuss.

I mean, I discuss them with my 10 year old, because he's seen them as well as the thousands of Youtube videos on ghosts and UFOs out there. They serve well as a lesson on objectivity and the scientific method, as well as how to debunk claims made.

Does their existence violate some law of science? Considering the fact that there are at present hundreds of paranormal societies popping up across the country recording video and audio evidence of ghosts (whatever they may be) why do you think they DON'T exist at least as real phenomena? Are people walking around abandoned bldgs at 3 AM just to create elaborate hoaxes or recording equipment glitches?


I read this post and think to myself, man am I lucky to be good looking. Even though I'm guilty of dirty filthy thoughts about women I like to pretend that I'm not whenever I talk to them.

A ghost would necessarily violate conservation of energy. They use energy allegedly by appearing, or throwing stuff around - but with no means of obtaining such energy. If a ghost had access to a reseviour of energy, then by definition so would all other ghosts. We would be plauged by them, and we're not. If a ghost is a metaphysical entity, it cannot use physical energy. It could only use a metaphysical energy, and such a thing is not known to exist.

the word 'ghost' scares people, even scientists. lol

they think they have everything figured out which of course is not true.

still, there is no proof of ghosts that can be quantified at this time or know what it really is.

Then you are pretty dumb. Dumb because I mentioned that these stupid fake programs are filmed using IR cameras that emit INFRA RED LIGHT, which is energy. So how come that doesn't interfere?



Proof? Did you really mean to say that word, proof? Let's see some then!



No, I know (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Acorah#Controversy)they are fake.

Ok..I'm not in the habit of people calling me "dumb". So you've just been reported. FYI, I have no interested in discussing anything with rude people.

Yes they are doing just that, how do you know what time they are "walking around"? Many people are given money to make a TV show or just to "create" a video so that they might get more money if people want to pay them and many people are foolish enough to do so.

Let me ask you, do you ever see "ghosts" and if so how can you provide evidence that you actually did? Do you believe everything that you are told? if not how do you prove to yourself that what you are told is actually a fact not fiction? :shrug:

Yeah right. All these societies set up to go out and stay all night in abandoned bldgs and homes to fake evidence for something they truly believe in. That just doesn't make sense.

And no..I haven't seen any ghosts LIVE (that I know of) but have seen plenty on camera and on photograph. How many creatures have YOU seen merely on camera or by photo and accepted the existence of. I'd say around 90% of the entities out there I take to exist on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence, even when offered by scientists, is powerfully persuasive don't you agree?

[QUOTE=Rhaedas;2723001]Must be on a different channel than I get. All the ones I've ever seen didn't consist of much of anything that's worthy to discuss.

Ok...then have a nice day! :)

A ghost would necessarily violate conservation of energy. They use energy allegedly by appearing, or throwing stuff around - but with no means of obtaining such energy. If a ghost had access to a reseviour of energy, then by definition so would all other ghosts. We would be plauged by them, and we're not. If a ghost is a metaphysical entity, it cannot use physical energy. It could only use a metaphysical energy, and such a thing is not known to exist.


Well...humans use energy to perform actions. When I decide to take a walk, haven't I willed energy from my own mind into the service of moving my body? Why couldn't other entities do the same? A mind is a metaphysical entity--existing in some non-extended state. Why couldn't other such entities--or even disembodied minds-- exist too? As far as the physics of ghostly manifestation, I don't think people have enough information yet as to WHY they appear or don't appear more often. On alot of ghost hunting shows it is observed how they draw heat energy from the air and from batteries to perform some physical action. So it isn't so much that they need lots of energy to exist per se, but they apparently need energy to manifest in some way perceivable to our dull senses.

haven't I willed energy from my own mind into the service of moving my body?
No.

Yeah right. All these societies set up to go out and stay all night in abandoned bldgs and homes to fake evidence for something they truly believe in. That just doesn't make sense.

And no..I haven't seen any ghosts LIVE (that I know of) but have seen plenty on camera and on photograph. How many creatures have YOU seen merely on camera or by photo and accepted the existence of. I'd say around 90% of the entities out there I take to exist on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence, even when offered by scientists, is powerfully persuasive don't you agree?

i don't take any of those ghost hunter shows seriously because of several factors. it's a show to entertain so they need to come up with something or sensationalize. also, a lot of those people have no idea what they are looking for and just want to be scared or spooked. they also have superstitious views of ghosts or paranormal phenomenon.

it's very obvious because they tend to work in the dark as it creates a sense of drama or fear.

the people i've talked to that have seen so-called ghosts or have experienced paranonormal phenomenon has nothing to do with time of day or how dark or light it is inside or outside.

there are also a lot of people who create hoaxes just for fun. this doesn't mean there aren't unusual things that occur but it's hard to separate the two sometimes.

the word 'ghost' scares people, even scientists. lol

they think they have everything figured out which of course is not true.

still, there is no proof of ghosts that can be quantified at this time or know what it really is.

It is indeed daunting, perhaps more to smug adherents of scientism than to real scientists, that the universe exhibit behavior and phenomena that cannot be explained yet. Hell, science can't even explain the mind and consciousness yet. How would we expect them to be able to quantify other transphysical entities?


My concern is not so much that science explain it as just recognize that there is a phenomena going on that we don't understand yet. Fearless objective examination of the evidence is the least we can expect here. Thankfully people aren't waiting around for this to happen and are coming up with recorded evidence of their own.


I used to not believe myself. In fact I'd rather not NOW. Do you think I like laying in bed at night thinking something could float across the ceiling? Believe me, I'd RATHER everything operated smoothly and scientifically with no uncertainty whatsoever. But that's not the kind of reality we live in.

Well...humans use energy to perform actions. When I decide to take a walk, haven't I willed energy from my own mind into the service of moving my body? Why couldn't other entities do the same? A mind is a metaphysical entity--existing in some non-extended state. Why couldn't other such entities--or even disembodied minds-- exist too? As far as the physics of ghostly manifestation, I don't think people have enough information yet as to WHY they appear or don't appear more often. On alot of ghost hunting shows it is observed how they draw heat energy from the air and from batteries to perform some physical action. So it isn't so much that they need lots of energy to exist per se, but they apparently need energy to manifest in some way perceivable to our dull senses.

No. you derive ALL your energy from food. If you don't eat, and you use all your reserves of fat and protein, you die. Simple.

Ok..I'm not in the habit of people calling me "dumb". So you've just been reported. FYI, I have no interested in discussing anything with rude people.

Eat my vomit.

No. you derive ALL your energy from food. If you don't eat, and you use all your reserves of fat and protein, you die. Simple.

Good point..But doesn't it take a minimal amount of pre-existent energy to USE energy? A light is clicked on with our hand. A car is started with a turn of the key. Is the food-derived energy of the body sufficient to decide how much of and in what way that energy is spent?

Is the food-derived energy of the body sufficient to decide how much of and in what way that energy is spent?


No. you derive ALL your energy from food. If you don't eat, and you use all your reserves of fat and protein, you die. Simple.
Which part of ALL did you not understand?
Where else would the energy come from?

Good point..But doesn't it take a minimal amount of pre-existent energy to USE energy? A light is clicked on with our hand. A car is started with a turn of the key. Is the food-derived energy of the body sufficient to decide how much of and in what way that energy is spent?

You should listen to D, he doesn't say much but when he does, it's usually direct and to the point.

The chemical pathways by which plants and animals get thier energy are well known and are not disputed by anybody. It is a simple matter of fact.

There is no pre-existing energy. You do not have to be switched on each day by someone else do you? Your energy is stored from your meals. If you don't use it all it turns to glycogen and fat, which is the main way energy is stored.
There is no "magic" energy. None. It does not exist.

You should listen to D
I think MR's got me on ignore*. Which makes it fun for me. ;)

* He didn't like an earlier "direct and to the point" comment of mine and the ignore list is apparently how he "deals" with anyone who doesn't agree with him.

You should listen to D, he doesn't say much but when he does, it's usually direct and to the point.

The chemical pathways by which plants and animals get thier energy are well known and are not disputed by anybody. It is a simple matter of fact.

There is no pre-existing energy. You do not have to be switched on each day by someone else do you? Your energy is stored from your meals. If you don't use it all it turns to glycogen and fat, which is the main way energy is stored.
There is no "magic" energy. None. It does not exist.

so you can emphatically say for a fact that no paranormal activities exist or have happened, right? interesting you just know everything there is.

there was a case where an orb was seen by several witnesses around this woman. what they think is it was a projection of her own psychosis which was very strong. it took on a life of it's own, so to speak.

this may not be a usual occurence but i can't rule out that it's impossible. she also claimed to be raped by some unseen spirit and even her family members witnessed it as well as someone she was dating. of course he left in awful fright but no matter what it's called or if it's called magic or ghosts is irrevelant. we just do not know the various ways energies can work as it can be complicated. the mind can be a powerful thing for good or ill to yourself or others.

it's quite stupid and rote to be that sure just for convenience and it makes you wonder why people who haven't experienced anything are so afraid and adamant against any possibility of such occurences. they want to believe the world is neat and orderly always or that nothing is beyond their neat grasp. it doesn't always work that way.

You should listen to D, he doesn't say much but when he does, it's usually direct and to the point.

The chemical pathways by which plants and animals get thier energy are well known and are not disputed by anybody. It is a simple matter of fact.

There is no pre-existing energy. You do not have to be switched on each day by someone else do you? Your energy is stored from your meals. If you don't use it all it turns to glycogen and fat, which is the main way energy is stored.
There is no "magic" energy. None. It does not exist.


Wow..such rock-hard certainty! As if stating an assertion over and over makes it even more convincing? Oh..and btw, "D" by which I guess you mean "Dweedledee", is inside my little "ignore" jar sitting quietly underneath my front porch. So LISTENING to him has, praize gawd!, long since ceased to be an option for me. ;)

Wow..such rock-hard certainty! As if stating an assertion over and over makes it even more convincing?
There doesn't seem to be any other way to get you to recognise a fact (note: not assertion).


Oh..and btw, "D" by which I guess you mean "Dweedledee"
For future reference my user name Dywyddyr. There are forum rules on deliberately mangling user names. Ignore list or not this is your one and only warning - any further misuse will be reported.

I'm not afraid of anything birch. Least of all the possibility of a ghost. In fact, I'd love the chance to study a ghost, there are a lot of piercing questions that I would just love to ask it. But I know catagorically where our energy is derived, it really hasn't been a question of note for hundreds, if not thousands of years. The chemical pathway for the conversion of ATP to ADP and back, the co2 lysis in plants and aerobic and anaerobic combustion are fully understood. There is no mistake. I'm a biologist, it's what I do.
As for some etherial, unproven mysterious energy available only to ghosts, no. It does not exist. I have only ever seen people try to fake photo's etc, and in fact the whole field seems to attract fakers. Proven fakers. If you could prove it you'd be a very, very rich man, I can assure you. Thousands have tried, thousands have failed. Some people genuinely believe it, and good luck to them, but simply believing in something doesn't make it so. Others believe the rantings of cranks, but ranting doesn't make it so either.
Conservation of energy is no crank science, nor is biology. It's solid, and all scientists know it. It's not in question.

you just jumped from possibility to belief. i can tell just from reading your post that it's a bit paranoid and you are trying to reassure yourself. i can also tell you can only think categorically and rotely. you completely glossed over that there are different types of occurences which are not supernatural or 'magical', it is just not understood at this time. anything that is not understood is seen as supernatural or magical my most people. i don't know why people have a problem with just leaving things to possibilities. no one said they have to believe in ghosts or anything else.

not everything has to be wrapped up. we can just say we know what we know for now.

one can choose to believe it doesn't exist or not understand what the hell it is since it makes no difference either way anyways but don't emphatically say one understands everything or knows everything. that's just assinine. i don't even believe in ghosts. i consider different ideas and info for what it is. i don't need to conclude categorically of anything since i'm not that insecure.


As for some etherial, unproven mysterious energy available only to ghosts, no. It does not exist.

when did anyone say this, genius? you are just going off your own stereotypes of what a ghost is. maybe it's not a ghost at all. you might as well be talking about casper.

anyways, i like your 'it does not exist' statement. i'm sure it's very reassuring to you. lol

On the contrary, i am perfectly at ease with the situation. I was asked why ghosts can't exist, and so I said why. simple. You have, on the other hand tries to accuse me of being afraid and then of paranoia and finally insecurity. I am none of these, and have been happy to explian the physics and biology known to be true facts of science. You can only come up with feeble personal slurs, no substantive evidence of any kind or even your usual "it's God doing it" speech. Ah but you have a vested interest don't you?
If ghosts can be shown to be nothing but mumbo-jumbo, what does that mean for your Holy Ghost. You can't countenance it not existing. Sorry about that, it was an unintended consequence. The most powerful ghost ever, and what does it do? Nothing. Exactly nothing. Why? because it does not exist.
Learn about conservation of energy, it's not hard. Then you'll see why ghosts can't exist.

On the contrary, i am perfectly at ease with the situation. I was asked why ghosts can't exist, and so I said why. simple. You have, on the other hand tries to accuse me of being afraid and then of paranoia and finally insecurity. I am none of these, and have been happy to explian the physics and biology known to be true facts of science. You can only come up with feeble personal slurs, no substantive evidence of any kind or even your usual "it's God doing it" speech. Ah but you have a vested interest don't you?
If ghosts can be shown to be nothing but mumbo-jumbo, what does that mean for your Holy Ghost. You can't countenance it not existing. Sorry about that, it was an unintended consequence. The most powerful ghost ever, and what does it do? Nothing. Exactly nothing. Why? because it does not exist.
Learn about conservation of energy, it's not hard. Then you'll see why ghosts can't exist.

i don't believe in god. i see nothing but more paranoia in your post. i don't even believe in ghosts yet you are still on that train of thought. it's either you believe or it's emphaticaly out of the question is your logic on the issue.

we create not just on a naked-eye physical level. we also create on an emotional/mental level.

many atheists are so ascetic they tend to view everything from a reactive point of view. from that type of position then nothing does seem to be real unless it's knock on wood.

there are people like that. a typical example is of a person who tends to react to only outside stimuli without ever considering about harnessing what is inside of them. but the truth is you can also be proactive and procreative on the mental/emotional level which aren't concretely evident. we do it all the time. one's moods can even affect another subtly or overtly.

even concepts and ideas are creations as well as our emotions or how we cultivate them.

There are at present hundreds of paranormal societies (...) recording video and audio evidence

You can't misuse the term 'evidence' in this way.


why do you think they DON'T exist at least as real phenomena?

Real is real, there is no 'at least' / 'at most' real.


A mind is a metaphysical entity--existing in some non-extended state.

'Non-extended' ???

Does their existence violate some law of science?

Why couldn't other such entities--or even disembodied minds-- exist too?

Although his theory is of course only one of many, the "philosopher who thinks like a neurobiologist" John Searle (The 1984 Reith lectures : Minds,Brains, Science ) has a direct answer to your question.

Magical Realist:


Not seeing how something made of energy or of dark matter couldn't do those things.

Nothing is "made of energy". Energy isn't a substance, even though every new-age guru, astrologer and psychic will try to tell you it is.


At the quantum level it happens all the time.

Everything is at the quantum level. Large objects such as people are made of small objects such as atoms. Atoms have quantum properties. People, who are made of atoms, have quantum properties. But people can't walk through walls.

There's nothing magical about quantum physics, despite what those new-age gurus would have you believe. Quantum physics is science. It doesn't explain ghosts.


And hell, physics even recognizes the existence of other dimensions. Whose to say there aren't inhabitants in those just like in our own?

No dimensions beyond the usual four we are familiar with (3 space and 1 time) have ever been detected anywhere. So ignore new-age gurus who tell you there are extra dimensions.



Some of them are, without any doubt. Everybody wants to make a viral youtube video. UFO nuts are the same.Why are there no really convincing videos or audio of ghosts? Why no good evidence at all? Why so many personal anecdotes but no convincing evidence?

But there's many more that are real and authentic. I've seen footage of all sorts of phenomena. I find it harder to believe it is a big conspiracy to create hoaxes than it is the real thing. People don't go thru the trouble of spending so much time and money just to hoax what they truly believe in.

You only think there are many that are real and authentic. Any real investigation would show you quickly that there are many many fakes, and many many instances where there are perfectly normal explanations for fuzzy spots on photos, strange-looking people in photos, grainy videos and so on.

Grow up a little. Some people do go to an amazing amount of trouble to create hoaxes. On the other hand, many ghost hoaxes are easy to fake - almost no trouble at all. You can doctor a photo to show a ghost with practically zero effort, and you don't even need to photoshop it.



We'd only need a ghost to manifest once or twice among a body of reputable witnesses. In the middle of a UN meeting, for example. Or in Congress. Or at a protest rally with 10000 people watching. Or something like that. It never happens, does it? Why not?

Who decides what a reputable witness is? Politicians are reputable?! Since when? As far as I'm concerned, anybody is a reputable witness if what they saw cannot be explained by natural means.

You decide who's reputable. That's the problem you're currently having - you're willing to believe anybody right now. You think everybody is honest, nobody would be bothered hoaxing you, nobody wants money or fame, etc. You're way too naive right now.

Don't trust Congress when 100 members report a ghost in the House of Representatives? I say "Good for you!" Now you're finally developing a healthy sense of skepticism. Next apply that to the single witnesses whose internet photos you currently believe are unquestionably real.


No..being struck by a cloud is not replicable in a lab. And noone has yet been photographed being struck by lightning. I know whereof I speak.

I just told you there are facilities that exist explicitly to replicate lightning strikes. Do you think I'm lying to you? Have you ever watched Mythbusters? On at least one show, they used one of those places. They went there and filmed it. I'm sure you could check for yourself with about 2 minutes of internet searching as to whether I'm telling the truth or not.


If you're a being made of some kind of energy, then perhaps lots of light energy interferes with your presence.

Please give ONE example if you can, other than of ghosts, of something that is made of "some kind of energy".


I think these "horrid" ghost programs are excellent and provide convincing proof of the reality of the paranormal. Do you think they're all fake?

95% of those ghost programmes take a credulous approach to the matter. They never do proper scientific investigations. They only ever interview the believers. Skeptics and real scientists never feature on those programmes. No alternative, sensible explanations are ever offered. All you get is a string of people being interviewed telling you they went to a place and "felt a presence" or "got the shivers up my spine" or "saw a light I couldn't explain" or "heard a weird noise that I couldn't explain" or whatever. And they'll tell you the local history of the place - that according to legend somebody was murdered there or died a cruel death or whatever. Everything they tell you supports the ghost story. They never look for alternative explanations such as old buildings, creaky floors and doors, dusty rooms that produce bright spots on photos when you use the flash, etc.


Here's some pics of alleged ghosts. While some are probably faked, others appear authentic.

A lot of them, even on the first page, are quite obvious and badly-done fakes. Can't you see that? Others are slightly cleverer fakes. Some are legitimate photos but they don't actually show ghosts, just effects of the conditions under which the photo was taken or of characteristics of the camera.


My niece sent me a pic of a man in a suit standing in her dark doorway in the background of one of her photos of her sons. It's really there clear as can be. How can stuff like this happen if there's no ghosts?

Maybe a man in a dark suit was standing behind her sons...? Who knows?

You'd have to know all the conditions under which the photo was taken, how reliable you niece is in telling the truth, and a lot of other facts before you could start getting to the bottom of that.


Yeah right. All these societies set up to go out and stay all night in abandoned bldgs and homes to fake evidence for something they truly believe in.

There are certainly people like you who are true believers who will want to go and sit in a cold damp house somewhere for the night. As a true believer, you'll be very willing to interrupt a boring night by attributing any strange noises you hear from the creaky old place to a ghost in the house. That will make it all seem worthwhile, I'm sure.


And no..I haven't seen any ghosts LIVE (that I know of) but have seen plenty on camera and on photograph. How many creatures have YOU seen merely on camera or by photo and accepted the existence of. I'd say around 90% of the entities out there I take to exist on anecdotal evidence. Anecdotal evidence, even when offered by scientists, is powerfully persuasive don't you agree?

Take tigers, for example. Do tigers exist? Suppose you've never seen a tiger yourself. How could I convince you they exist? Well, for a start, I can pull out MILLIONS of crystal-clear and well-focused photographs of tigers doing all the things that tigers do. I can show you HOURS upon HOURS of video of tigers in various habitats - all of it consistent with the alleged behaviour of tigers. Moreover, NOTHING in what these tigers do breaks any of the known laws of physics, and what they are observed to do matches all kinds of other circumstantial evidence for their existence. I could bring you prey animals that have been attacked in ways that are quite characteristic of tigers, and consistent once again. I can bring other physical evidence of tigers - their droppings, the odd tooth perhaps, maybe some hair that you could send off for analysis. I can show you evidence of many other animals that share habitats with tigers, and show you that their existence is quite consistent with the existence of tigers.

If you were still doubtful, eventually I could take you to a zoo where I could point out a real-life tiger to you - guaranteed to be there any day you chose to go and look.

Obviously, the situation is completely different with ghosts. Why are the photos fuzzy and badly focused? Why is the video always dark and grainy? Why are the sound recordings always vague and of poor quality? Why can't ghosts be guaranteed to be seen at a particular time and place?


Well...humans use energy to perform actions. When I decide to take a walk, haven't I willed energy from my own mind into the service of moving my body?

No. The energy to run your body comes from your food. Your brain is also run from the same source. The brain signals the body via well-understood electrical signals.


A mind is a metaphysical entity--existing in some non-extended state.

A mind exists in a physical object called a brain. No brain, no mind.


It is indeed daunting, perhaps more to smug adherents of scientism than to real scientists, that the universe exhibit behavior and phenomena that cannot be explained yet. Hell, science can't even explain the mind and consciousness yet. How would we expect them to be able to quantify other transphysical entities?

Science has gone a long way towards explaining the mind and consciousness. We have mapped many many functions of the brain. We understand very well how we see things, for example. We know where memories are stored in the brain.

Scientists do not study transphysical entities for the simple reason that there's no reliable evidence that such entities exist.


Fearless objective examination of the evidence is the least we can expect here.

Then you should be out there demanding that those ghost-hunter TV shows you're so fond of start employing some real scientists and also start giving equal time to skeptics who have some doubts from the start about the ghosts being investigated. Giving all the time to the believers/hoaxers is hardly objective examination of the evidence, is it?


I used to not believe myself. In fact I'd rather not NOW. Do you think I like laying in bed at night thinking something could float across the ceiling?

You know what? I think you do like thinking that something could float across your ceiling at night. If you saw a ghost yourself, that would make you special. You might even become famous for your ghost story.

Also, you find it nice to know that all those smarty-pants book-learnin' types who have an actual education in science don't know everything. You are one-up on them, because you know how the world really is, while they stupidly live in a narrow world of ignorance.

Is that how it works?

i don't believe in god. i see nothing but more paranoia

Prove it. just more slurs.


i don't even believe in ghosts yet you are still on that train of thought. it's either you believe or it's emphaticaly out of the question is your logic on the issue.

I take any good science seriously.




we create not just on a naked-eye physical level. we also create on an emotional/mental level.

Which stems directly from the physical.


many atheists are so ascetic they tend to view everything from a reactive point of view. from that type of position then nothing does seem to be real unless it's knock on wood.

Because it isn't real.



there are people like that. a typical example is of a person who tends to react to only outside stimuli without ever considering about harnessing what is inside of them.

Such as?


but the truth is you can also be proactive and procreative on the mental/emotional level which aren't concretely evident. we do it all the time. one's moods can even affect another subtly or overtly.

moods are governed by electrochemical processes and neurotransmitters


even concepts and ideas are creations as well as our emotions or how we cultivate them.

Thoughts are electrochemical. you can see them on scanners, nope. nothing mysterious there.

Ok..I'm not in the habit of people calling me "dumb". So you've just been reported. FYI, I have no interested in discussing anything with rude people.

But your are. You ignored the point about Infra Red cameras, and came back with some vague bullshit about 'energy'. Infra Red light is energy too, DUH! And all the time, even in the dark, there is ambient temperature, which is energy. DUH!

You stated these programs prove the paranormal, yet haven't come up with any proof. DUH!

You need to drop the word 'Realist' from your handle.

And no..I haven't seen any ghosts LIVE (that I know of) but have seen plenty on camera and on photograph. I have seen ghosts on two separate occassions and I most certainly do not believe in them. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Photographic evidence presented thus far is barely laughable. You need something very much more substantial than anything you have offered so far to justify even a glimmering of doubt.

I just wish people could understand plain english. There is NO weird energy available only to ghosts that science has mysteriously missed. Both the soviet and US government looked into telekinesis etc. with huge resources. The only thing it proved was that nothing occult could be proved. Further, all such programmes were scrapped as a waste of time.
This field just attracts fakers and con-artists because some people are extremely gullable.

Additionally, enthusiasts have a chip on their shoulder about all the skeptics so they seek to "prove" the skeptics wrong by fabricating evidence. Once you understand the psychology behind it you suddenly have an answer to the question "why is there so much 'evidence' if there's nothing really there?".

Magical Realist:

Nothing is "made of energy". Energy isn't a substance, even though every new-age guru, astrologer and psychic will try to tell you it is.

Really? So fields aren't made of energy? What homeskool science course told you that?



Everything is at the quantum level. Large objects such as people are made of small objects such as atoms. Atoms have quantum properties. People, who are made of atoms, have quantum properties. But people can't walk through walls.

No everything is not at that quantum level. The rules that apply at the quantum level do not apply at the macro level. There's a little thing called decoherence that interferes with quantum phenomena for anything much larger than an atom.



There's nothing magical about quantum physics, despite what those new-age gurus would have you believe. Quantum physics is science. It doesn't explain ghosts.

Wow..so quantum entanglement and Bell's incompleteness theorem propose nothing "magical"? You could've fooled me AND Einstein. He called it "spooky action at a distance".


No dimensions beyond the usual four we are familiar with (3 space and 1 time) have ever been detected anywhere. So ignore new-age gurus who tell you there are extra dimensions.


You need to update yourself on string theory and Everett's many-worlds hypothesis, both of which are gaining wider acceptance these days. As far as new age gurus go, I don't read them. But I DO recognize that reality is not defined by science but by philosophy, particularly via various metaphysical schools such as physicalism, absolute idealism, dualism, panexperientialism, and panpsychism. These were around before your new guru demons ever deigned to materialize in our modern world. So don't be so paranoid ok? ;)



You only think there are many that are real and authentic. Any real investigation would show you quickly that there are many many fakes, and many many instances where there are perfectly normal explanations for fuzzy spots on photos, strange-looking people in photos, grainy videos and so on.

No..you are directly contradicting what I said. I said SOME are probably hoaxes and camera glitches, but that others look authentic. Is is YOU who summarily dismisses all photographic evidence before even examining it. And all because you just know, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that the phenomenon isn't real. You are thus trapped in a vicious circle: denying the evidence as inauthentic because you believe there is no authentic evidence. How CONVEEENIENT!

SNIP ad hominem about having to grow up a little. (sniff sniff ;)



You decide who's reputable. That's the problem you're currently having - you're willing to believe anybody right now. You think everybody is honest, nobody would be bothered hoaxing you, nobody wants money or fame, etc. You're way too naive right now.

I believe the people who are eyewitnesses of the phenomena and who are actually out in the field doing the research. That's why I usually believe scientists too, except when they refuse to do research and instead pontificate on what can and can't be real. Less still do I believe devoted adherents of scientism who on purely dogmatic grounds deny the existence of documented and recorded phenomenon.



Don't trust Congress when 100 members report a ghost in the House of Representatives? I say "Good for you!" Now you're finally developing a healthy sense of skepticism. Next apply that to the single witnesses whose internet photos you currently believe are unquestionably real.

Thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses of paranormal phenomena down thru the centuries in every culture on earth and suddenly I'm supposed to believe YOU instead because...uh...because...now what was that reason again?


I just told you there are facilities that exist
explicitly to replicate lightning strikes. Do you think I'm lying to you? Have you ever watched Mythbusters? On at least one show, they used one of those places. They went there and filmed it. I'm sure you could check for yourself with about 2 minutes of internet searching as to whether I'm telling the truth or not.

Tell ya what. While you're out there frantically googling for experiments of cloud-generated lightning performed in lab settings I'll be over here trying to discuss the thread topic at hand so I don't get my ass infracted again by some socially-challenged hypermoderating OCD case. ok?



Please give ONE example if you can, other than of ghosts, of something that is made of "some kind of energy".

Fields...


95% of those ghost programmes take a credulous approach to the matter. They never do proper scientific investigations. They only ever interview the believers. Skeptics and real scientists never feature on those programmes. No alternative, sensible explanations are ever offered. All you get is a string of people being interviewed telling you they went to a place and "felt a presence" or "got the shivers up my spine" or "saw a light I couldn't explain" or "heard a weird noise that I couldn't explain" or whatever. And they'll tell you the local history of the place - that according to legend somebody was murdered there or died a cruel death or whatever. Everything they tell you supports the ghost story. They never look for alternative explanations such as old buildings, creaky floors and doors, dusty rooms that produce bright spots on photos when you use the flash, etc.


Uhh..might I just say, in the most respectable way I can, BULLSHIT! to all the above. I have watched these programs for years and they consistently make it a point to debunk the reports with possible natural explanations ALL the time. Many investigations in fact come away with nothing paranormal at all and show the client that their reports were likely due to outside street noises, emf in the bldg wiring, air currents from a/c units, and old pipes in the basement. Do you even watch these shows? Give'em a try. You might find them more credible than you have already concluded them to be.


A lot of them, even on the first page, are quite obvious and badly-done fakes. Can't you see that? Others are slightly cleverer fakes. Some are legitimate photos but they don't actually show ghosts, just effects of the conditions under which the photo was taken or of characteristics of the camera.


I see..So the ones that are TOO clear can't be ghosts because they're obviously hoaxed and the ones that aren't clear enough can't be ghosts because well afterall who ever heard of a hazy unclear ghost eh? You can't even look at these pics objectively and without preconceptions. That doesn't sound very scientific too me.


Maybe a man in a dark suit was standing behind her sons...? Who knows?
You'd have to know all the conditions under which the photo was taken, how reliable you niece is in telling the truth, and a lot of other facts before you could start getting to the bottom of that.

Yeah that sneaky old niece of mine-- part of the vast world conspiracy to create fake ghost photos while taking pictures of her family in her own living room. Guess she hired the guy to stand there just so she could fool me. You must live in a VERY supicious world. I feel sorry for you..I really do.



There are certainly people like you who are true believers who will want to go and sit in a cold damp house somewhere for the night. As a true believer, you'll be very willing to interrupt a boring night by attributing any strange noises you hear from the creaky old place to a ghost in the house. That will make it all seem worthwhile, I'm sure.

Wow..ghost believers are such deceptive and lazy people aren't they? Why hell.those scumbags would go all the way out to a deserted bldg and then decide to fake it just so their trip wouldn't be viewed as such a waste. lol! Funny then that even according to paranormal investigators 80% of the cases aren't real paranormal cases.

SNIP inane and overelaborated tiger tale.



Obviously, the situation is completely different with ghosts. Why are the photos fuzzy and badly focused?

Because of the nature of the phenomena! They're ghosts in dark rooms man! Ofcourse they look hazy and indistinct.


Why is the video always dark and grainy? Why are the
sound recordings always vague and of poor quality? Why can't ghosts be guaranteed to be seen at a particular time and place?

Good question. When I run into one that wants to communicate with me I'll ask him..


No. The energy to run your body comes from your food. Your brain is also run from the same source. The brain signals the body via well-understood electrical signals.

Right..So there's no free thought or decided intent or self-derived willpower going on behind your typed words at this moment. It's all the result of a ham sandwich you had for lunch yesterday. Geez that must've been one helluva of a sandwich! ;)


A mind exists in a physical object called a brain. No brain, no mind.

If it exists INSIDE it then it can't exactly be the same as it now can it? Is the water in a glass the same as the glass?


Scientists do not study transphysical entities for the simple reason that there's no reliable evidence that such entities exist.

Keep repeating that to yourself enough and you might actually start to believe it!


Then you should be out there demanding that those ghost-hunter TV shows you're so fond of start employing some real scientists and also start giving equal time to skeptics who have some doubts from the start about the ghosts being investigated. Giving all the time to the believers/hoaxers is hardly objective examination of the evidence, is it?

Look, I don't know what ghost shows, if any, you watch, but the ones I watch have real photographic analysts and real audio specialists doing the technical examination. Do you seriously think only "REAL scientists" have the ability to tell when something is real or not? Gee I hope not!


You know what? I think you do like thinking that something could float across your ceiling at night. If you saw a ghost yourself, that would make you special. You might even become famous for your ghost story.
Also, you find it nice to know that all those smarty-pants book-learnin' types who have an actual education in science don't know everything. You are one-up on them, because you know how the world really is, while they stupidly live in a narrow world of ignorance.

Wow..and so one last vicious ad hominem aimed straight for my sensitive lil heart. Sniff sniff..How will I ever go on now? By cover's been totally blown! Oh what a world..I'm meeeeelttting...SSSSSssssss..

I have seen ghosts on two separate occassions and I most certainly do not believe in them. Eye witness testimony is notoriously unreliable. Photographic evidence presented thus far is barely laughable. You need something very much more substantial than anything you have offered so far to justify even a glimmering of doubt.

Eyewitness testimony as in court trials and news reports and lab experiments and autobiographies? Yeah that's SOME unreliable sh%t there..;)

But your are. You ignored the point about Infra Red cameras, and came back with some vague bullshit about 'energy'. Infra Red light is energy too, DUH! And all the time, even in the dark, there is ambient temperature, which is energy. DUH!

You stated these programs prove the paranormal, yet haven't come up with any proof. DUH!

You need to drop the word 'Realist' from your handle.


Yeah.. whatever you say Phlog. But DO try not to get so upset over such petty things. You're coming off as rather huffy here. And in the end that's not really too good for your heart. (thump..thump..)

I wonder whose sock you are.
Your "style" seems vaguely familiar: incoherent punctuation and grammar/ syntax. Long inane diatribes. Self-justifying rants. And double standards. Plus that readiness to select "ignore" when confronted with questions that you can't answer.

BTW, last three posts?
Get an education.

I just wish people could understand plain english. There is NO weird energy available only to ghosts that science has mysteriously missed. Both the soviet and US government looked into telekinesis etc. with huge resources. The only thing it proved was that nothing occult could be proved. Further, all such programmes were scrapped as a waste of time.
This field just attracts fakers and con-artists because some people are extremely gullable.

you keep repeating that there is energy only available to ghosts when i don't think anyone has said that.

i did recently see a program on the science channel which did show there were some unusual but very rare people that did show some telekinetic activity. it was conducted by scientists but they do not understand nor does the person exactly how they do that. one person could hold a spoon to their head using some form of concentration. i'm sure they contacted research scientists to find out for themselves as well. they can't explain this but they did record some unusual brain activity during this exercise. of course these aren't spectacularly lavish feats but it is unusual.

it's just about not ruling out possiblities.


Thoughts are electrochemical. you can see them on scanners, nope. nothing mysterious there.

you aren't making sense. anything is mysterious when it's not understood but just because something is not understood at this time doesn't mean it doesn't exist. i said the mind is a powerful tool and we aren't aware of all the different possible ways it can work or express itself in the world.

Additionally, enthusiasts have a chip on their shoulder about all the skeptics so they seek to "prove" the skeptics wrong by fabricating evidence. Once you understand the psychology behind it you suddenly have an answer to the question "why is there so much 'evidence' if there's nothing really there?".


Oh come on! Spare us the psychobabble.


Could it ACTUALLY be the case...with Occam's Razor deftly applied here...that there's so much evidence because there IS something there?!

Oh come on! Spare us the psychobabble.


Could it ACTUALLY be the case...with Occam's Razor deftly applied here...that there's so much evidence because there IS something there?!

No. The simplest explanation is that people are making stuff up and/or seeing what they want to see. We know for a fact that people have a tendency to do such things.

No. The simplest explanation is that people are making stuff up and/or seeing what they want to see. We know for a fact that people have a tendency to do such things.


No.. I don't know for a fact that people have a tendency to lie and make up stuff that would make them a laughing stock if they told anyone about it. In fact if someone is sure enough about what they saw that they have the courage to come forward and be public about it then I say they must have experienced SOMEthing. That kind of "I saw it with my own eyes" testimony, particularly from people who didn't even believe in it to begin with, at least deserves to be looked into. That would be the TRULY scientific way to approach it instead of just dismissing them as either liars or delusional.

Originally Posted by James R
You know what? I think you do like thinking that something could float across your ceiling at night. If you saw a ghost yourself, that would make you special. You might even become famous for your ghost story.
Also, you find it nice to know that all those smarty-pants book-learnin' types who have an actual education in science don't know everything. You are one-up on them, because you know how the world really is, while they stupidly live in a narrow world of ignorance.

i don't think seeing something makes one special and i really don't think others do too. i don't think it's necessarily some special ability either. there are various people of all types who have had some unusual experiences or that can't be explained concretely that vary depending on the situation.

it's not about one-up, it's about experiences that are unexplainable at this time. most people dismiss it all as 'it's all in the head' though that may be in some cases but it may not be in all cases. it's just possibilities.

No.. I don't know for a fact that people have a tendency to lie and make up stuff that would make them a laughing stock if they told anyone about it.
And here we have an excellent example of the blinkered view.
Denial or ignorance? I wonder...

How many people can you come up with that fit into the category of "lie or make up stuff that would make them a laughing stock if they told anyone about it" boys and girls?

David Icke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Icke).
Claude Maurice Marcel Vorilhon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABl)
Graham Hancock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock).
Need I go on?
How about right here on this very forum?
Any examples?
No names of course, because that could be breaching the rules, but there's more than a day's worth of reading in threads that would lend credence to the idea.

A couple of reputable scientists who believe(d) in the paranormal:


"Reputable" Scientists and The Paranormal - Paranormal Haze
Address:http://www.paranormalhaze.com/reputable-scientists-and-the-paranormal/

Oh, and for those still brave enough to remain open-minded about the nature of reality, check out THIS experiment performed in the 1990's:

The Scole Experiment
Address:http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/

I have seen ghosts on two separate occassions and I most certainly do not believe in them.

Okaaaay...so did you see ghosts or not? BTW, that reminds me of what Einstein once said, that even if he saw a ghost he wouldn't believe it. I might not either come to think of it. Afterall, the mind IS capable of all sorts of strange perceptual illusions. BUT--when the same phenomena gets reported over and over again in the same house or bldg over the years, or if YOU experience repeated events that defy physical explanation, then there's a reason to at least suspect that this is MORE than a random glitch of an overimaginative brain. And then when lots of other phenomena accompany it, like footsteps in empty rooms, moving cold spots, doors shutting and opening in shuttered rooms, moving objects, electrical appliances turning off/on, and voices, then the case for it being paranormal is very strong at that point. Lots of people who don't know each other do NOT as a rule keep making up the same exact experiences. But haunted places show exactly this kind of historical continuity of phenomena. Thus such events cannot be dismissed as mere delusions or chance mistakes.

Yeah.. whatever you say Phlog. But DO try not to get so upset over such petty things.

Who is upset? Not me kid. You're the one with the warped view of reality not me. You believe in ghosts, and don't seem very bright, I'd be upset if I was like you.


You're coming off as rather huffy here.

Like I care how you perceive me.


And in the end that's not really too good for your heart. (thump..thump..)

Yeah, whatever kid.

A couple of reputable scientists who believe(d) in the paranormal:


"Reputable" Scientists and The Paranormal - Paranormal Haze
Address:http://www.paranormalhaze.com/reputable-scientists-and-the-paranormal/

Ah yes, Brian Josephson, who also claims that he knows others who have successfully repeated Fleischmann and Pons cold fusion experiment,.... despite every other credible scientist failing.

Sorry, where are these 'reputable' scientists again? The guy has lost the plot.

Maybe poltergeists. Poltergeists seems to move things around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist

Poltergeists seems to move things around.
They probably would. If they actually existed. :rolleyes:

If you take a picture of something, it is matter so it can reflect the light to make the photo or it is matter that emits light so it's image is recorded. If you record a sound, matter was involved to produce the sound energy.

Energy and matter are part of the physical universe and as such can be observed consistently. In fact, as most of us are aware, it is the process of examining and re - examining to log consistent results that defines science.

If "ghosts" exist but are not made of matter or manifestations of energy then they cannot interact with us in any way and are thus irrelevant to us. To wit: if you can see it, it exists, if only in your mind as an hallucination. If you see ghosts that we do not then they exist in your' head and not out here with us.

"No number of testimonials, anecdotes or case histories can prove an hypothesis, but it takes only one exception to destroy an hypothesis."

So MR, are you trying to teach us about the physics of ghosts cos you got a D on your essay?

To wit: if you can see it, it exists, if only in your mind as an hallucination. If you see ghosts that we do not then they exist in your' head and not out here with us.

"No number of testimonials, anecdotes or case histories can prove an hypothesis, but it takes only one exception to destroy an hypothesis."

don't pass off your limited take on reality as if it is all reality.

you don't know this for sure, you just think you do. it's true that anecdotes and testimonials and some case histories are not enough to prove especially something of this nature but neither do you have a RIGHT to emphatically say that it doesn't exist. you are not seeing the forest for the trees but you think you have. it doesn't take just one exception to destroy a hypothesis when there is no understanding of what it is in the first place. understand now? if you are so intellectually honest and logical, then you'd understand that.

some things are indeed hallucinations and other things are a lot more complicated than that.

Maybe poltergeists. Poltergeists seems to move things around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poltergeist

Excellent article! I guess according to some of the scientism fundamentalists in this thread all these scientists and physicists who have studied and confirmed the phenomenon itself were therefore not REAL scientists and physicists. Maybe they were just fake members of the Max Planck Institute who were really new agers just trying to get famous or who just wanted to feel "special". They're a sneaky lot those..;)

Excellent article! I guess according to some of the scientism fundamentalists in this thread all these scientists and physicists who have studied and confirmed the phenomenon itself were therefore not REAL scientists and physicists.
Not real? Studied and confirmed?
I wonder how they did that?

There is also no evidence on video that matches the more extreme (and, therefore, paranormal) events said to have occurred (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenheim_Poltergeist).
Maybe they just made it up...


Maybe they were just fake members of the Max Planck Institute who were really new agers just trying to get famous or who just wanted to feel "special". They're a sneaky lot those..;)
Sure are. After all Karger has also claimed:

There is a certain type of cord, or connection, between the soul and the body. It’s called the silver cord, because clairvoyants can see it as a shining "tether" between the soul and the body, and when this chord is severed, then it’s no longer possible for the soul to return into its body.
Yup. A physicist says there's a soul (http://www.newtimes.org/issue/0104/karger.htm).

Just another crank. :rolleyes:

scientists and physicists who have studied and confirmed the phenomenon

Do you have an example? Seriously, let's examine one in particular.

If you take a picture of something, it is matter so it can reflect the light to make the photo or it is matter that emits light so it's image is recorded. If you record a sound, matter was involved to produce the sound energy.

Energy and matter are part of the physical universe and as such can be observed consistently. In fact, as most of us are aware, it is the process of examining and re - examining to log consistent results that defines science.

If "ghosts" exist but are not made of matter or manifestations of energy then they cannot interact with us in any way and are thus irrelevant to us. To wit: if you can see it, it exists, if only in your mind as an hallucination. If you see ghosts that we do not then they exist in your' head and not out here with us.

"No number of testimonials, anecdotes or case histories can prove an hypothesis, but it takes only one exception to destroy an hypothesis."


You're debating a particular theory ABOUT what ghosts are instead of the occurrance of paranormal phenomena itself. But I think most paranormal researchers would admit that they just do not know what ghosts are or what they are made of. Some appear to be residues of past events that are played over and over. Others appear intelligent and actually responsive to words and requests. Others manifest thru mediums and ectoplasmic projections. And still others like certain kinds of poltergeists seem to be psychokinetic generations of the repressed psyche of adolescent teenagers. So it doesn't seem that we can simply attribute all these phenomena to one generic being called "a ghost". As with every field of research, the more you study it the more complicated it gets.

Do you have an example? Seriously, let's examine one in particular.

We've posted several links of such examples already. Check the Wiki article on poltergeists for example.

We've posted several links of such examples already. Check the Wiki article on poltergeists for example.

Surely you have one or two "favourites" that would serve as good examples of scientists and physicists being able to verify paranormal claims.

And still others like certain kinds of poltergeists seem to be psychokinetic generations of the repressed psyche of adolescent teenagers

this is enough of a tentative subject as it is so don't get way stupid. maybe you've been watching too many 'scary movie' part umpteenth or scream etc.

there have been many unusual paranormal phenomena of many different types experienced by all types of people which cannot all be explained away or dismissed away. we just don't know it all.

Yup. A physicist says there's a soul.

Just another crank.

i don't know about life after death but you obviously don't have a soul.

perhaps you have a pit for one. lol

the soul is usually an expression of the sense of self/selves/emotions/experiences in the seat of the heart area. the feelings can also be layered.

Surely you have one or two "favourites" that would serve as good examples of scientists and physicists being able to verify paranormal claims.

Click on the link and see. I can't read them for you.

this is enough of a tentative subject as it is so don't get way stupid. maybe you've been watching too many 'scary movie' part umpteenth or scream etc.

there have been many unusual paranormal phenomena of many different types experienced by all types of people which cannot all be explained away or dismissed away. we just don't know it all.


Uhh...READ the Wiki article! Geez! Do I have to do all the legwork here?

Click on the link and see. I can't read them for you.

I did. I've actually read the Wikipedia article on Poltergeists before. Are you demanding that I read all the sources in an attempt to locate an example like the one I asked for? You're really going to refuse to point me to one?

i don't know about life after death but you obviously don't have a soul.
And you appear to be short on brains.


the soul is usually an expression of the sense of self/selves/emotions/experiences in the seat of the heart area. the feelings can also be layered.
If you'd actually read what the guy said about you'd realise that isn't what he means. :rolleyes:

I did. I've actually read the Wikipedia article on Poltergeists before. Are you demanding that I read all the sources in an attempt to locate an example like the one I asked for? You're really going to refuse to point me to one?


Uhh..I think I just pointed you to several. So what did you find questionable about ANY of the described accounts?

Uhh..I think I just pointed you to several. So what did you find questionable about ANY of the described accounts?

I'm sorry, but I couldn't locate an example that was verified by scientists and physicists. Such an example is of the type I think would be useful to examine.

Dear Magical Realist,

You probably think your thread received so many views because you've asked a novel question. LOL! No, people have entered your thread to see what kind of fucking idiot you are. That is all.

Given that they are supposed to have all sorts of strange abilities, yes. For example, ghosts can walk through solid walls, they can float or fly, they can teleport from place to place, appear and disappear at will. All of those things violate laws of science.

Many electromagnetic waves can go through walls, as can the theorized dark matter.

Clouds float. Birds fly.

Quantum particles can appear and disappear.

I'm not saying I believe in ghosts. But to say that the idea of ghosts would violate the laws of physics reveals a very unimaginative and unscientific point of view.

Many electromagnetic waves can go through walls, as can the theorized dark matter.

Clouds float. Birds fly.

Quantum particles can appear and disappear.
So what?


I'm not saying I believe in ghosts. But to say that the idea of ghosts would violate the laws of physics reveals a very unimaginative and unscientific point of view.
So define "ghost".
How do any of the above have a "human shape"? How do they "manipulate objects"?
Both of those, and others, are among the claimed attributes of "ghosts".

You're confusing "imagination" with "undiscerning credulity" and "science" with "woo wooism.

what if, ghosts, or djins (wich is different from ghosts, but, about this topic can share this)
and i'm going, somehow with fantasy, and then start shaping it to get an idea
what if they live in another dimention, and we are a part of that dimention, they can see us and etc... and we can't
what if they live among us, but like, like that we can't see the ultra violet light with our eyes, what if they are from, something like that, means, what if their world, is another world, but in our world, that is like, another kind, of existence/matter/energy, idk
like we have in our univerce, the matter is only 4% and the rest is dark energy, and dark matter
what if they are, like, from some kind of energy, that can't sence or know or see, and neither our machines, means, that we don't know about them, we have no evidences on it, i mean scientific evidences, or know what are they, so we can detect them somehow, like we can detect the radio signals for example
what if they are somehow, not even from matter, i wan't be surprised, neither you can deny that (not necerly on our earth or something)
what if they are on another univerce (i said previously dimention but i meant another univerce) from another kind, different physics laws, different in the kind of matter, the kind of energy, different, and wich somehow, it is still connected with our univerce, as also we supose that all univerces are connected, like the space and the galaxies and etc... fibers in our univerce, maybe a fibre of univerces

it seems like if i'm saying mambo jumbo, but, since we have no, rational explained, and actual laws and science, so, we need some bluffing :P

however, i don't expect that they would be against the physics laws, what if, our univerce have it's laws, the other univece have it's laws, and etc... and the univerces fabric (if that exist) have also laws, that rules the laws and orgenize it and keep it together and atached and etc...

however, what if, they are actually some phenomens from our own univerce, from our own laws, what if, we don't know everything that we think we know all the physics laws, however i can't go further than that here, because I practicly don't know anything in physics and maths and etc... i still have alot to learn
but i can just, go with the philosophical and just, ideas and etc.. :P

what if they live in another dimention, and we are a part of that dimention, they can see us and etc... and we can't
By "dimension" I take it you mean universe.
If they can see us and we can't etc then how come we supposedly do see them?
How come we can't detect this "other universe"?


it seems like if i'm saying mambo jumbo
You are.


however, i don't expect that they would be against the physics laws, what if, our univerce have it's laws, the other univece have it's laws, and etc...
Then how come the laws of the two different universes haven't mixed? If they can interact (e.g. ghosts supposedly show up here) then there should be detectable interaction/ mixing. Which there isn't.


however, what if, they are actually some phenomens from our own univerce
Your answer is here:

because I practicly don't know anything in physics and maths and etc...


but i can just, go with the philosophical and just, ideas and etc.. :P
Even philosophical ideas are expected to stand up to scrutiny and rationality.

By "dimension" I take it you mean universe.
If they can see us and we can't etc then how come we supposedly do see them?
How come we can't detect this "other universe"?


You are.


Then how come the laws of the two different universes haven't mixed? If they can interact (e.g. ghosts supposedly show up here) then there should be detectable interaction/ mixing. Which there isn't.


Your answer is here:



Even philosophical ideas are expected to stand up to scrutiny and rationality.

as i said, just ideas :P
doent have to be right or rational or something, idk

another dimension is another speculative idea. the nature of these phenomena vary so that it's not just about so-called 'ghosts' either.

it may be that in some rare cases, the mental projection is so strong that others may be able to see it manifested in physical reality in some way. how long they last or the nature of it, as well as being positive or negative would depend on the one who produced it. i've heard cases of where there is a strong violent atmosphere in the home that many experience unusual happenings. some cases are obviously being sensationalized such as blood dripping from walls produced for movies. there are certain things that are easily dismissed but not all of them.

just as we can create on the physical level producing inanimate objects as well as producing life (giving birth), perhaps on some level at times for good or ill people produce on a mental/emotional level which could manifest itself as some sort of apparition with temporary properties that others may even be able to see or experience at times. again, this is all speculation.

i recall a case where there were some paranormal phenomena occurring in a household where they just moved in recently. at first they thought it was just one entity/spirit or what have you but later it was more clear that it was more than one. there was a violent older male and a younger child. the child apparently appeared for a time and asked one of them confusedly and lost 'where do all the lonely people go?' which struck me with some type of knowing or understanding to the core even though it is anecdotal. it's just one of those things where your intuition screams it's not imaginary or unreal. it made me cry actually even though it may not be real but i can't rule it out completely. was this a residual memory they were picking up where an occurence happened there? was this a spirit that was separated from it's owner or host or is it a dead spirit? how long do they last before they dissipate?

or it could be a situation of another layer of reality or dimension.

Eyewitness testimony as in court trials and news reports and lab experiments and autobiographies? Yeah that's SOME unreliable sh%t there..;)You just confirmed for me that you are not to be taken seriously. Anyone who is so ignorant of the human cognitive function that they actually believe eye witness testimony is reliable shouldn't be allowed out without bodyguards and an adult diaper. Really, dude, try to get an education in these things and you might not continue to look like a total dork.

Oh, and for those still brave enough to remain open-minded ....

MR it seems that being proven wrong only makes you feel brave and open-minded.

You rationalised similarly on a previous thread, dismissing all links to studies contradicting you by declaring that you were capable of thinking for yourself.

Since when has thinking become totally independent from doing research and analysis?

It seems you're not just learning-challenged, you're also learning-insulated.

You just confirmed for me that you are not to be taken seriously. Anyone who is so ignorant of the human cognitive function that they actually believe eye witness testimony is reliable shouldn't be allowed out without bodyguards and an adult diaper. Really, dude, try to get an education in these things and you might not continue to look like a total dork.

So did you see a ghost or didn't you? You claimed you did and then said you didn't believe it. Why should YOUR eyewitness testimony, or lack thereof?, count when others should be dismissed out of hand?

MR it seems that being proven wrong only makes you feel brave and open-minded.

You rationalised similarly on a previous thread, dismissing all links to studies contradicting you by declaring that you were capable of thinking for yourself.

Since when has thinking become totally independent from doing research and analysis?

It seems you're not just learning-challenged, you're also learning-insulated.

My my, such unprovoked hostility from those normally so confident and infallible in their dogmatic faith. You know, you would at least expect that a bunch of mature adults so sure of their position wouldn't HAVE to resort to childish belittling and personal ad hominem attacks. Sniff sniff. Oh woe is me! Is it something I said? ;)

another dimension is another speculative idea. the nature of these phenomena vary so that it's not just about so-called 'ghosts' either.

it may be that in some rare cases, the mental projection is so strong that others may be able to see it manifested in physical reality in some way. how long they last or the nature of it, as well as being positive or negative would depend on the one who produced it. i've heard cases of where there is a strong violent atmosphere in the home that many experience unusual happenings. some cases are obviously being sensationalized such as blood dripping from walls produced for movies. there are certain things that are easily dismissed but not all of them.

just as we can create on the physical level producing inanimate objects as well as producing life (giving birth), perhaps on some level at times for good or ill people produce on a mental/emotional level which could manifest itself as some sort of apparition with temporary properties that others may even be able to see or experience at times. again, this is all speculation.

i recall a case where there were some paranormal phenomena occurring in a household where they just moved in recently. at first they thought it was just one entity/spirit or what have you but later it was more clear that it was more than one. there was a violent older male and a younger child. the child apparently appeared for a time and asked one of them confusedly and lost 'where do all the lonely people go?' which struck me with some type of knowing or understanding to the core even though it is anecdotal. it's just one of those things where your intuition screams it's not imaginary or unreal. it made me cry actually even though it may not be real but i can't rule it out completely. was this a residual memory they were picking up where an occurence happened there? was this a spirit that was separated from it's owner or host or is it a dead spirit? how long do they last before they dissipate?

or it could be a situation of another layer of reality or dimension.

Very interesting case. I don't rule out the existence of other dimensions or even other realities. Nowadays there is a fundamentally monist assumption defining our experience of the real, as if it is a given that there is only one reality. But really there don't seem to be any solid grounds for denying the possibility of a pluralist scenario in which many parallel realities exist and even overlap with each other. All speculation mind you, but then so is belief that this physical universe is the lone and absolute reality.

Magical Realist:


Really? So fields aren't made of energy? What homeskool science course told you that?

Fields aren't made of energy. They do carry energy. But like I said, energy isn't a substance. It's more like an accounting method. In fact, in some ways fields are abstractions, too. They are basically a shorthand way of saying something like "if I put a charged particle here then it will experience such-and-such a force in this particular direction".


No everything is not at that quantum level. The rules that apply at the quantum level do not apply at the macro level.

Yes they do. Big things are made of little things, so they must.


There's a little thing called decoherence that interferes with quantum phenomena for anything much larger than an atom.

Explain to me how this "decoherence" changes the rules all of a sudden.


Wow..so quantum entanglement and Bell's incompleteness theorem propose nothing "magical"? You could've fooled me AND Einstein. He called it "spooky action at a distance".

Science and magic are two quite different things. You seem confused about the difference, which is probably one reason you're so credulous about ghosts.

Quantum entanglement is not magic. It is well-understood science. And Bell's incompleteness theorems are mathematical, physical propositions. In other words, once again, science, not magic. As for Einstein, he was raising the issue of the apparent non-locality of quantum entanglement. Einstein, you must remember, remained skeptical about quantum physics to the end of his life - quite the opposite of an attitude that would help your argument about quantum physics supporting ghosts.



No dimensions beyond the usual four we are familiar with (3 space and 1 time) have ever been detected anywhere. So ignore new-age gurus who tell you there are extra dimensions.

You need to update yourself on string theory and Everett's many-worlds hypothesis, both of which are gaining wider acceptance these days. As far as new age gurus go, I don't read them. But I DO recognize that reality is not defined by science but by philosophy, particularly via various metaphysical schools such as physicalism, absolute idealism, dualism, panexperientialism, and panpsychism. These were around before your new guru demons ever deigned to materialize in our modern world. So don't be so paranoid ok?

How is any of this relevant to the statement of mine you quoted? Answer: it isn't. I was correct. No dimensions beyond the usual four we are familiar with have ever been detected anywhere.

You can bluff and bluster about how reality isn't defined by science all you like, but when you use a scientific concept such as "extra dimensions" to justify a fringe belief such as ghosts, then get the science wrong, you really end up looking quite silly.


No..you are directly contradicting what I said. I said SOME are probably hoaxes and camera glitches, but that others look authentic. Is is YOU who summarily dismisses all photographic evidence before even examining it. And all because you just know, beyond all shadow of a doubt, that the phenomenon isn't real. You are thus trapped in a vicious circle: denying the evidence as inauthentic because you believe there is no authentic evidence. How CONVEEENIENT!

Oh no! You have me quite wrong. I haven't dismissed all evidence without examining it, and would never do so.

I'll tell you what. How about you post the most convincing 3 photos (or even just the most convincing one, for a start) of ghosts that you know of. Link me to all the relevant information on those photos that you have, since obviously a bare photograph by itself is going to be of little use to me, so give me all the information you have on the specific cases. I will take a look at your evidence and get back to you with thoughts and comments. We can examine the evidence as a team. Ok?


I believe the people who are eyewitnesses of the phenomena and who are actually out in the field doing the research.

Then you're too credulous. Eyewitness testimony is very very often unreliable. Some of it is outright lies. To simply believe somebody when they tell you "I saw a ghost" is naive in the extreme.

But again, let me not rush to dismiss good evidence without fair examination. Why don't you post the best investigative evidence you have that shows the presence of a ghost? (with links or whatever). I will take a look and together we can work through how strong the evidence is. Ok?


That's why I usually believe scientists too, except when they refuse to do research and instead pontificate on what can and can't be real. Less still do I believe devoted adherents of scientism who on purely dogmatic grounds deny the existence of documented and recorded phenomenon.

Good for you! Now you're getting the idea! You only need to apply the same thinking to your favorite psychic "researchers" now, and you'll be on track.


Thousands upon thousands of eyewitnesses of paranormal phenomena down thru the centuries in every culture on earth and suddenly I'm supposed to believe YOU instead because...uh...because...now what was that reason again?

I'm not asking you to accept anything I have to say on authority. I'm asking you to start thinking a little.

Do you believe in witches? Thousands of people were burnt in the past for being witches. There must have been something to that, right? Why aren't there so many witches today, do you think? Or are there as many as ever, but they are just better at hiding? What do you think?

What about leprecauns and other fairies? Do you believe in those? Thousands of people claim to have seen the "little people". There are even photographs of them. If you don't believe in fairies, why don't you believe in them?


Tell ya what. While you're out there frantically googling for experiments of cloud-generated lightning performed in lab settings I'll be over here trying to discuss the thread topic at hand so I don't get my ass infracted again by some socially-challenged hypermoderating OCD case. ok?

Never mind. Given that you apparently now accept that there are facilities that can do lightning tests, there's no need for me to provide you with links. Let us move on.


I have watched these programs for years and they consistently make it a point to debunk the reports with possible natural explanations ALL the time.

How many of the programmes conclude a ghost investigation with the investigators saying "Well, that turned out to be a complete hoax" or "We have deteremined that the cameras weren't working correctly in this case" or "We have uncovered no evidence at all of a ghost in this house. It is possible that the family reporting these incidents were all under a kind of mass delusion, as the psychiatrist we interviewed earlier convincingly argued."?

I'm betting that there are a lot of inconclusive endings like "We can't explain the temperature drop we recorded in the bedroom. Our camera crew definitely felt scared and heard noises during the night. We got a fuzzy object on this freeze frame here. We can't say for sure that there was a ghost, but the evidence certainly points that way! Coming up next week...."


Many investigations in fact come away with nothing paranormal at all and show the client that their reports were likely due to outside street noises, emf in the bldg wiring, air currents from a/c units, and old pipes in the basement. Do you even watch these shows? Give'em a try. You might find them more credible than you have already concluded them to be.

Yeah, I've watched fair few. When I was a teenager, I was quite credulous, like you. Then I learned something about the scientific method and I learned a bit about scepticism and how to examine claims properly.


I see..So the ones that are TOO clear can't be ghosts because they're obviously hoaxed and the ones that aren't clear enough can't be ghosts because well afterall who ever heard of a hazy unclear ghost eh? You can't even look at these pics objectively and without preconceptions. That doesn't sound very scientific too me.

Show me your three best, with the surrounding stories/evidence and I promise to look. I'll give you my thoughts. I can't promise no preconceptions, but I can promise you a truthful analysis.


Yeah that sneaky old niece of mine-- part of the vast world conspiracy to create fake ghost photos while taking pictures of her family in her own living room. Guess she hired the guy to stand there just so she could fool me. You must live in a VERY supicious world. I feel sorry for you..I really do.

Sorry that I tend to be suspicious of third-hand stories. "My sister's former room-mate took this photo, and it shows a strange man!" Wow. On that basis, I'm supposed to believe in ghosts? Did you know that my second-cousin has built a perpetual motion machine? He has it in his bedroom. I even have photos of it, so that proves it's real.


Wow..ghost believers are such deceptive and lazy people aren't they?

Generally the hoaxers are not believers, though I guess it is possible that some are.

Who said anything about lazy?


Funny then that even according to paranormal investigators 80% of the cases aren't real paranormal cases.

So all they need is to go the extra 20% and they'll be living in the real world.


SNIP inane and overelaborated tiger tale.

Didn't you understand the point?


Because of the nature of the phenomena! They're ghosts in dark rooms man! Ofcourse they look hazy and indistinct.

Why don't ghost hunters turn on the lights when they do their investigations? Why do ghosts only appear in the dark?


Right..So there's no free thought or decided intent or self-derived willpower going on behind your typed words at this moment. It's all the result of a ham sandwich you had for lunch yesterday. Geez that must've been one helluva of a sandwich!

There's certainly thought, intent and willpower. Whether any of those are "free" or not depends on what you mean by "free". Free of what? Free from what? The energy to type this post certainly comes from the food I've eaten recently. Where else could it come from? Try it yourself - don't eat for a while. You'll find you quickly become tired. After a while, you'll become seriously ill. Continue and you're sure to die. Your food sustains you. There really is no question about that, despite what guru "breatharians" might tell you. Are you a breatharian?



A mind exists in a physical object called a brain. No brain, no mind.

If it exists INSIDE it then it can't exactly be the same as it now can it? Is the water in a glass the same as the glass?

A better analogy is that of a computer program inside a silicon chip. The program is not the same as the chip, but if you take the chip away the program won't run on the computer. See?



Scientists do not study transphysical entities for the simple reason that there's no reliable evidence that such entities exist.

Keep repeating that to yourself enough and you might actually start to believe it!

I already believe it. I'm hoping you might start to believe it, silly! :)

I'll wait for your one (or three) best ghost cases. Let's go through them together. It'll be fun. And hopefully enlightening. Who knows? One of us may even change his mind.

Or are you going to find an excuse to chicken out of this challenge?

Will-o'-the-wisp phenomena..Mere swamp gas or something else?

Will-o'-the-wisp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will-o%27-the-wisp

Ok James..I'm game. Let's start with this old photo taken of the old Myrtles plantation in Louisiana. I don't have the date of the photo (I can do more research if necessary) but I tend to find it more credible because it predates the age of photoshop.
The plantation itself is notoriously haunted by several spirits, one being a slave woman who was killed there after poisoning the wife and kids with oleander leaves in their dinner. See if this photo convinces you that SOMEthing is there that shouldn't be. Note the transparency of the figure too--the white boards can clearly be made out behind her. Hoax? Not likely in my opinion.

Myrtles.jpg
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_c9C9jptlu6o/TSflkeI9C6I/AAAAAAAAAMQ/VzBCyKdDko8/s1600/Myrtles.jpg

getting back to another example such as the 'soul', many people say it doesn't exist. how do they know? the answer is they really don't. it's an assumption as well.

it's actually similar to saying that the body doesn't exist because one day it will disintegrate into base components.

what makes people so sure that what we feel and sense in the heart area is not a real manifestation even though it's not physically seen? the answer is they don't. it's just a very black/white assumption. it's just may be a different kind of reality. an example they may be able to understand would be like gas, liquid or solid.

getting back to another example such as the 'soul', many people say it doesn't exist. how do they know? the answer is they really don't. it's an assumption as well.

Oh please, our personality can be altered by simple chemicals, and brain damage can alter us permanently, and these mechanisms are quite well understood. How then does this soul have any bearing on our personality? Does the soul too, get drunk when I drink? Is the soul abstract, and ethereal, rather than absolute, and physical?

If the soul is somehow separate from our physical body, how come it's fate is dependant on the actions of that body?

Please plead a consistent and testable case for the existence of the soul, or admit, rather than naysayers making assumptions, it's actually the believers that are doing just that, and failing to make any definite statement.

Oh please, our personality can be altered by simple chemicals, and brain damage can alter us permanently, and these mechanisms are quite well understood. How then does this soul have any bearing on our personality? Does the soul too, get drunk when I drink? Is the soul abstract, and ethereal, rather than absolute, and physical?

If the soul is somehow separate from our physical body, how come it's fate is dependant on the actions of that body?

Please plead a consistent and testable case for the existence of the soul, or admit, rather than naysayers making assumptions, it's actually the believers that are doing just that, and failing to make any definite statement.

actually you have a backward understanding of the mind/feeling dynamic. the brain is the processor but most of our experiences is felt in the heart region as well as our sense of self.

did i say the soul was abstract? no. your take is.

first of all, did i say the soul was necessarily separate from the body? no.

did i say the brain can't alter or affect our moods, feelings etc or even permanently? no. thank you for that enlightening point. when you turn off the light switch, the light goes out. that's amazing. when your arm is amputated, you no longer have an arm. when you are having a pleasant day, you tend to feel better. how amazing.

just the same with your physical body, what you do and what you eat as well as the enivironment can affect or change it in subtle and overt ways.

that doesn't negate the existence of it no matter how many changes it may go through. even your body reproduces it's cells continuously as well as mutates at times.

the soul is part of your personality. your brain creates it. that is the 'result' as well as from what you experience as well as affected from the environment.

uh, when you drink, does the soul get drunk? it affects your mind and also feelings does it not? yes, it does even if it's temporary. does it mean that it affects your soul permanently? not necessarily.

when you get a tan, does it last forever? usually not. when you gain weight, does it have to be permanent? of course not.

when you feel sad, don't you usually do something to alter that feeling? this is because there is a constant communication going on from your sense of self/feelings/and or body to the mind and vice versa.

can you quantify exactly my sense of self as well as yours? absolutely not.

can you quantify the feeling of happy or sad? absolutely not.

does it mean it doesn't exist? absolutely not.

not everything can be measured in a lab but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

one being a slave woman who was killed there after poisoning the wife and kids with oleander leaves in their dinner.

The historical record does not support this legend. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myrtles_Plantation)
So dedicated to finding the "truth" you can't even be bothered to check the facts.

Magical Realist:


Ok James..I'm game. Let's start with this old photo taken of the old Myrtles plantation in Louisiana.

The photo you've linked is poorly digitised. Zooming in even a little shows a heap of jpeg artifacts - so many in fact that I can't tell where this "figure" is that you're telling me I should look at. I can't see anything particularly unusual in the inset photo either. Could you please tell me what this figure you see looks like, where it is in the photo and so on?


The plantation itself is notoriously haunted by several spirits, one being a slave woman who was killed there after poisoning the wife and kids with oleander leaves in their dinner.

According to wikipedia, that plantation is supposed to be one of the "most haunted sites in America" or something. Apparently there have been claims of 10 murders there, but only one is historically documented (not the slave girl you mention, either).

Is this photo really your best evidence for ghosts?

The site has been investigated at least twice, as far as I can tell from a minute or two searching the web.

One of your ghost TV shows - a thing called "Ghost Hunters" (ever seen that one?) - apparently spent a night there. Their infrared cameras saw shapes or images of some kind, although none of the people could see them with their own eyes. The most spooky event reported was when two of the investigators were sitting near a table with a lamp on it, discussing their "research". The lamp slowly was seen in the TV footage to move across the table! Oooh, ghosts ghosts!

The only problem was that the show's own viewers quickly wrote in to express their outrage, because they had noticed that the lamp was being pulled by its own power cord - presumably by one of the makers of the show, off-camera. So much for Ghost Hunters.

The plantation was also investigated by professional paranormal investigator and skeptic Joe Nickell in 2003. A lot of the wikipedia article on the plantation is actually based on his research and the story he wrote back then. He found no evidence at all of any ghosts or paranormal activity there.

The place uses its "ghost house" reputation as a lure for tourists. They even have a web site. They don't want to scare off the tourists, of course, so they make sure to tell you that the ghosts there are harmless to tourists.

There's plenty more information on the place on the web. A lot of it is mindless repeating of information from elsewhere, including all the incorrect stories about the supposed history of the place. But there's some stuff that seems a bit more careful and thoughtful.

Once again, I have to ask you: is this really the most convincing evidence you have for the existence of ghosts? Do you really believe the Myrtle plantation is haunted? By whom? How many ghosts? Why?

Oh, and I should also add that I've found plenty of other "ghost" photos from the plantation house on the web. There is apparently quite a famous mirror that shows ghostly images in some photos. I read that it is cracked and doesn't show the expected reflections from all angles. Looking at some of the photos that purport to show ghosts in a mirror, I notice that some of them merely show direct sunlight shining across one part of the mirror, which looks a bit like a hazy glowing shape if you hold your head the right way and have a good imagination.

So did you see a ghost or didn't you? You claimed you did and then said you didn't believe it. Why should YOUR eyewitness testimony, or lack thereof?, count when others should be dismissed out of hand?I have recounted these incidents at least twice on this forum. (Time and inclination permitting I shall try to track down the posts.) Associated evidence demonstrate that in these two incidents I was hallucinating. If I were a less skeptical person I would believe that I had seen a 'real' ghost, a departed spirit, or non-corporeal entity. So, while I am sure I have seen ghosts, whose appearance matches that of many other (but certainly not all) ghost sightings, I equally have no reason to believe in ghosts as spirits, or other 'entities'.

I assessed my detailed eye witness testimony objectively and arrived at a plausible and probable conclusion of my experience based upon that objective analysis. Note that that analysis did not start from the premise that I had seen what I had seen. As noted earlier, that would have just been dumb.

actually you have a backward understanding of the mind/feeling dynamic. the brain is the processor but most of our experiences is felt in the heart region as well as our sense of self.

(twoddle deleted for brevity)

What a load of arse. Being vague doesn't get us anywhere, does it? Most people agree that the soul is some kind of separate entity to the living body, as it goes onto heaven or hell after the body dies. Except you, who has failed to actually say what it is, but pointlessly tell us what it is not.

It's due to pareidolia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia), especially when you've been told that there's something there to see, your mind tried to make sense of what's there.

Most people agree that the soul is some kind of separate entity to the living body, as it goes onto heaven or hell after the body dies.

Can't agree on the most part, but I'll agree that some people do believe it.

There's no hard evidence for it though.

don't pass off your limited take on reality as if it is all reality.

you don't know this for sure, you just think you do. it's true that anecdotes and testimonials and some case histories are not enough to prove especially something of this nature but neither do you have a RIGHT to emphatically say that it doesn't exist. you are not seeing the forest for the trees but you think you have. it doesn't take just one exception to destroy a hypothesis when there is no understanding of what it is in the first place. understand now? if you are so intellectually honest and logical, then you'd understand that.

some things are indeed hallucinations and other things are a lot more complicated than that.

I urge you to take your own advice and not pass off your very limited take on reality as factual. It is not. My statement was standard science, thus the quotes.

Yours is/are not, thus the rampant religious silliness. Believe what you want, but be clear that it is your belief, not objective facts. Those are not interchangeable.

Can't agree on the most part, but I'll agree that some people do believe it.

There's no hard evidence for it though.

I mean that most people who believe in the soul have that opinion, not the majority of the population. I myself do not believe in souls.

my, my, look at who is being ridiculous. the only ones being unrealistic are the ones who can't handle the idea that a soul actually exists. i explained that it may and that even though it may be temporal doesn't mean it can't exist.

prove to me that a soul doesn't exist or the sense of self doesn't exist. oh, that's right, you can't!

thanks for playing. anything else?

I urge you to take your own advice and not pass off your very limited take on reality as factual. It is not. My statement was standard science, thus the quotes.

Yours is/are not, thus the rampant religious silliness. Believe what you want, but be clear that it is your belief, not objective facts. Those are not interchangeable.

and you people call yourself scientists? your statement is totally off. this is because i made no claims for you to make such a statement. therefore, it's you who is amounting to rampant religious silliness.

if you can recall, i pointed out that there is no way to currently understand all the phenomena that is reported because we don't understand the nature of them. they do not all have to do with ghosts either.

you just discount it all because it's convenient. that's just as erroneous and arrogant to assume you understand it all.



What a load of arse. Being vague doesn't get us anywhere, does it? Most people agree that the soul is some kind of separate entity to the living body, as it goes onto heaven or hell after the body dies. Except you, who has failed to actually say what it is, but pointlessly tell us what it is not.

how did i fail, numbnuts? because it's not in plain sight to see like your feet?

Magical Realist:



The photo you've linked is poorly digitised. Zooming in even a little shows a heap of jpeg artifacts - so many in fact that I can't tell where this "figure" is that you're telling me I should look at. I can't see anything particularly unusual in the inset photo either. Could you please tell me what this figure you see looks like, where it is in the photo and so on?



According to wikipedia, that plantation is supposed to be one of the "most haunted sites in America" or something. Apparently there have been claims of 10 murders there, but only one is historically documented (not the slave girl you mention, either).

Is this photo really your best evidence for ghosts?

The site has been investigated at least twice, as far as I can tell from a minute or two searching the web.

One of your ghost TV shows - a thing called "Ghost Hunters" (ever seen that one?) - apparently spent a night there. Their infrared cameras saw shapes or images of some kind, although none of the people could see them with their own eyes. The most spooky event reported was when two of the investigators were sitting near a table with a lamp on it, discussing their "research". The lamp slowly was seen in the TV footage to move across the table! Oooh, ghosts ghosts!

The only problem was that the show's own viewers quickly wrote in to express their outrage, because they had noticed that the lamp was being pulled by its own power cord - presumably by one of the makers of the show, off-camera. So much for Ghost Hunters.

The plantation was also investigated by professional paranormal investigator and skeptic Joe Nickell in 2003. A lot of the wikipedia article on the plantation is actually based on his research and the story he wrote back then. He found no evidence at all of any ghosts or paranormal activity there.

The place uses its "ghost house" reputation as a lure for tourists. They even have a web site. They don't want to scare off the tourists, of course, so they make sure to tell you that the ghosts there are harmless to tourists.

There's plenty more information on the place on the web. A lot of it is mindless repeating of information from elsewhere, including all the incorrect stories about the supposed history of the place. But there's some stuff that seems a bit more careful and thoughtful.

Once again, I have to ask you: is this really the most convincing evidence you have for the existence of ghosts? Do you really believe the Myrtle plantation is haunted? By whom? How many ghosts? Why?

Oh, and I should also add that I've found plenty of other "ghost" photos from the plantation house on the web. There is apparently quite a famous mirror that shows ghostly images in some photos. I read that it is cracked and doesn't show the expected reflections from all angles. Looking at some of the photos that purport to show ghosts in a mirror, I notice that some of them merely show direct sunlight shining across one part of the mirror, which looks a bit like a hazy glowing shape if you hold your head the right way and have a good imagination.

Yeah..that's what I thought. Like a skeet shoot I'm supposed to set em up while you shoot em down by either dismissing them as fake or camera glitches. Really now, I've got better things to do with my time. And no that's not the best photo, but it's certainly unexplained and one of hundreds of depicted unfaked transparent human figures. The really good evidence comes from video footage where actual objects are seen to move, figures dart around corners, as well as from the audio recordings of EVPS. Also, I have seen just about every episode of Ghost Hunters and don't recall any scene of a lamp being pulled by a producer. You're saying that was caught on camera? When?

I have recounted these incidents at least twice on this forum. (Time and inclination permitting I shall try to track down the posts.) Associated evidence demonstrate that in these two incidents I was hallucinating. If I were a less skeptical person I would believe that I had seen a 'real' ghost, a departed spirit, or non-corporeal entity. So, while I am sure I have seen ghosts, whose appearance matches that of many other (but certainly not all) ghost sightings, I equally have no reason to believe in ghosts as spirits, or other 'entities'.

I assessed my detailed eye witness testimony objectively and arrived at a plausible and probable conclusion of my experience based upon that objective analysis. Note that that analysis did not start from the premise that I had seen what I had seen. As noted earlier, that would have just been dumb.


Well..if I was a periodic hallucinator such as yourself I wouldn't trust what I see either. Ever spot any snakes coming out of the carpet? I hear they'll come out if you stay up really late. ;)

and you people call yourself scientists? your statement is totally off. this is because i made no claims for you to make such a statement. therefore, it's you who is amounting to rampant religious silliness.

if you can recall, i pointed out that there is no way to currently understand all the phenomena that is reported because we don't understand the nature of them. they do not all have to do with ghosts either.

you just discount it all because it's convenient. that's just as erroneous and arrogant to assume you understand it all.




how did i fail, numbnuts? because it's not in plain sight to see like your feet?

One of my favorite quotes: People who have not arrived at their conclusion by evidence and reason will never be convinced they are wrong by evidence and reason. Under the banner of science they preen and pose, believing precisely what they want to just like every other fundamentalist. Hell, if we even trotted a ghost out right in front of them they'd probably just shrug it off as a product their own demented minds. There's just no convincing an ideological skeptic. A methodological skeptic yes..but not an ideological one.

And you believe that you don't fit into this category because...?
What "evidence" or "reason" have you displayed so far?

Yeah..that's what I thought. Like a skeet shoot I'm supposed to set em up while you shoot em down by either dismissing them as fake or camera glitches. Really now, I've got better things to do with my time. And no that's not the best photo, but it's certainly unexplained and one of hundreds of depicted unfaked transparent human figures. The really good evidence comes from video footage where actual objects are seen to move, figures dart around corners, as well as from the audio recordings of EVPS. Also, I have seen just about every episode of Ghost Hunters and don't recall any scene of a lamp being pulled by a producer. You're saying that was caught on camera? When?

but you do know that you have to be skeptical of these things, right? this is because we don't know what they are or if they are faked or misinterpreted etc.

evp's are not reliable either. they can record lots of background noise which can end up sounding like anything. it's similar to making out objects in cloud formations.

that said, it's not right to discount them all because there are some that are not faked and experiences people cannot currently explain.

this doesn't mean it's magical or supernatural. it's just unexplainable.


One of my favorite quotes: People who have not arrived at their conclusion by evidence and reason will never be convinced they are wrong by evidence and reason. Under the banner of science they preen and pose, believing precisely what they want to just like every other fundamentalist. Hell, if we even trotted a ghost out right in front of them they'd probably just shrug it off as a product their own demented minds. There's just no convincing an ideological skeptic. A methodological skeptic yes..but not an ideological one.

you have a point here and i agree with you on this.

The title is "Why can't ghosts exist". So far i am not seeing any proof that they cant.

That would be because A) they haven't been defined and B) you haven't read the thread properly.

Well..if I was a periodic hallucinator such as yourself I wouldn't trust what I see either. Ever spot any snakes coming out of the carpet? I hear they'll come out if you stay up really late. ;)Hallucinations are commonplace and those who do not experience at least a handful during their lifetime would make excellent subjects for a study of bizarre psychologies. You clearly have zero education in any apsect of human cognition: this accounts for your persistent misplaced confidence in eye witness testimony. I urge to correct this deficiency. Othewrwise debating these points with you will be as edifying as arguing with a stone.

Hallucinations are commonplace and those who do not experience at least a handful during their lifetime would make excellent subjects for a study of bizarre psychologies. You clearly have zero education in any apsect of human cognition: this accounts for your persistent misplaced confidence in eye witness testimony. I urge to correct this deficiency. Othewrwise debating these points with you will be as edifying as arguing with a stone.

Uhhh...okaaaay...so hallucinating probably occurs more often than we think..(!!!?) But probably the worst kind of hallucination there is is when something is sitting right before your eyes and you can't even see it. In this case not eye-witnessing something might be even MORE unreliable as eye-witnessing it. ;)

but you do know that you have to be skeptical of these things, right? this is because we don't know what they are or if they are faked or misinterpreted etc.

evp's are not reliable either. they can record lots of background noise which can end up sounding like anything. it's similar to making out objects in cloud formations.

that said, it's not right to discount them all because there are some that are not faked and experiences people cannot currently explain.

this doesn't mean it's magical or supernatural. it's just unexplainable.



you have a point here and i agree with you on this.

Oh I'm all FOR skepticism when it is used as tool for uncovering the truth. But not when it is used as a substitute for the truth or for even having to look for it. I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer magazine and eventually was amazed at how anyone could always with complete honesty take the position that some phenomena isn't real or that it is always hoaxed. I never got how the magazine writers just knew that. Testing the phenomena and ruling out fakery and error are certainly PART of understanding it. But nobody can just axiomatically rule out a phenomenon as ever happening at all. That would require a level of ESP in skeptics that even I am not willing to admit exists..at least not yet..;)

Now i'm not so sure if they exist or not. I was sure they didnt but now i'm not so sure.

Magical Realist:


Yeah..that's what I thought. Like a skeet shoot I'm supposed to set em up while you shoot em down by either dismissing them as fake or camera glitches.

My idea was that we'd examine the evidence together. I tell you what my doubts are about it; you tell me why you find it convincing. I've completed my half of the bargain. You apparently can't even point out the ghostly figure in the photo you linked.


Really now, I've got better things to do with my time. And no that's not the best photo, but it's certainly unexplained and one of hundreds of depicted unfaked transparent human figures. The really good evidence comes from video footage where actual objects are seen to move, figures dart around corners, as well as from the audio recordings of EVPS. Also, I have seen just about every episode of Ghost Hunters and don't recall any scene of a lamp being pulled by a producer. You're saying that was caught on camera? When?

In the episode they did on the Myrtle Plantation ghost(s), obviously. Didn't you see that one?


Oh I'm all FOR skepticism when it is used as tool for uncovering the truth. But not when it is used as a substitute for the truth or for even having to look for it.

Well let's see. I presented you with some evidence that Ghost Hunters was faked. You ignored that and insisted that the incident with the lamp never happened. I presented you with information showing that at least some of the stories about Myrtle Plantation are false, such as the one about the ten murders and your slave girl. You ignored that information too.

As far as I can tell, you've closed your mind to anything that might question your pre-existing belief in ghosts. You're not interested in proper investigation. All you're interested in is stuff that supports your preconceptions. Anything else you just dismiss out of hand and refuse to discuss.

Remind me who is being unscientific again...


I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer magazine and eventually was amazed at how anyone could always with complete honesty take the position that some phenomena isn't real or that it is always hoaxed.

You obviously didn't read any of the investigative articles. Joe Nickel, who investigated the Myrtle Plantation, always goes into his ghost investigations with an open mind. He carefully documents all the available evidence and comes to a scientific conclusion.


But nobody can just axiomatically rule out a phenomenon as ever happening at all. That would require a level of ESP in skeptics that even I am not willing to admit exists..at least not yet..;)

You're right, of course. But if somebody like Joe Nickell axiomatically ruled out the possibility of ghosts from the start, then he would never need to investigate anything. He could just sit back in his armchair at home and say "Ghosts don't exist. It's axiomatic." He doesn't do that. What he does it that he goes to places and sees for himself. He investigates.

Now compare yourself. You axiomatically say "ghosts exist". You sit there in your chair and suck up everything Ghost Hunters tell you as gospel truth. You rely on second-hand accounts to bolster your beliefs. You're not willing to consider contrary evidence.

Remind me again who is being scientific here.

So you're saying there was an actual camera shot of someone pulling a cord of a lamp. I think you're lying. But that's ok because it's obviously something you're very good at. See posts about cloud-generated lightning., fields not being made of energy, etc and etc.


RE: the picture. This pic is world-famous. Millions of people can see the figure. I don't know what to say. It's right there in front of you and is even magnified. Maybe you have an eye problem. Do you need reading glasses?


RE: your much admired Joe Nickel, I know the guy well. He's always on shows taking the skeptical pov. Doesn't matter what the topic. He's always the one arguing against it. That tells me he's disingenious.
He's an ideological skeptic associated with a skeptical society that has become a hero with a certain following and wants us to take his inability to find paranormal phenomena as evidence that it doesn't exist. That would be like someone who claims that because they personally can't catch a fish there must be no fish in the stream. Hey...but then he's gotta make a paycheck doin something. ;)

So you're saying there was an actual camera shot of someone pulling a cord of a lamp. I think you're lying.

Well get the episode and see for yourself!

Don't trust me. Investigate!


But that's ok because it's obviously something you're very good at.

Oh, I see. You've moved onto personal attacks now. Well done. How mature of you. When you have nothing to offer, you resort to schoolboy tactics.


See posts about cloud-generated lightning., fields not being made of energy, etc and etc.

Don't trust me. Investigate for yourself! Come on. Time to grow a brain.

http://www.environlab.com/emc-emi.htm
http://www.windtech-international.com/company-news/new-lightning-test-laboratory-for-full-scale-testing
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/f-ene/hvhp/english/f_hvtst.htm
http://www.highvoltage.ecs.soton.ac.uk/commercialTesting/facilitiesAndTestingCapabilities.php
http://www.kema.com/services/testing/hmv-components/labs/HVL.aspx
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/aug01/test%20facility.htm

It's as if you don't know how to use a search engine.


RE: the picture. This pic is world-famous. Millions of people can see the figure. I don't know what to say. It's right there in front of you and is even magnified. Maybe you have an eye problem. Do you need reading glasses?

Yes, I do use reading glasses. All I have asked of you is that you direct me to where the figure is in your poor-quality image. You seem quite incapable of doing that. Is it because there is no figure?


RE: your much admired Joe Nickel, I know the guy well. He's always on shows taking the skeptical pov. Doesn't matter what the topic. He's always the one arguing against it. That tells me he's disingenious.

It tells me he's the only smart one in the room. I bet he gets less than a minute in an hour-long show of Ghost Hunters.


He's an ideological skeptic associated with a skeptical society that has become a hero with a certain following and wants us to take his inability to find paranormal phenomena as evidence that it doesn't exist. That would be like someone who claims that because they personally can't catch a fish there must be no fish in the stream. Hey...but then he's gotta make a paycheck doin something. ;)

Instead of attacking the man, why don't you start digging up some convincing evidence.

I mean, I asked you for the BEST, most convincing photo you can find, and you give me a blurry, old, badly digitised photo in which I can't even see a ghost. Hell, you're not even sure where the ghost in that photo is.

magical realist just wants to believe in ghosts.

that said, there are unusual things that have occurred which are yet to be explained. again, they don't all have to do with so-called 'ghosts' but some are.

Uhhh...okaaaay...so hallucinating probably occurs more often than we think..(!!!?) But probably the worst kind of hallucination there is is when something is sitting right before your eyes and you can't even see it. In this case not eye-witnessing something might be even MORE unreliable as eye-witnessing it. ;)No, it occurs more often than you think. This is because you have not thought about it. Not seeing something that is there is another wholly recognised form of cognitive difficulties. A substantial number of 'ghost sightings' can be easily explained by one or other form of cognitive difficulty. You are using many of these sightings to defend the reality of ghosts. I have demonstrated that such an approach has no value. End of story.

Ghost sightings are a very real phenomena, but its unlikely that they are the spirits of dead people.

more likely they are a result of the visual hallucinations and other physiological and psychological responses to infrasound


Our story begins at a medical manufacturing facility in the midlands of Great Britain. Vic Tandy, an engineer from Coventry University, was doing research in a laboratory at the company. Tandy is an expert in computer-assisted learning (and coincidentally, if I'm not mistaken, I think the "Vic Tandy" might have been an old TRS-80 model they used to sell at Radio Shack). Workers at the lab told Tandy that the building was haunted, but being a reasoning man of science, he didn't believe them. At least, not at first.


Late one night, when Tandy was burning the midnight oil all alone at the laboratory, he had a face-to-face encounter with the unexplained. As he sat at his desk working in the silent, desolate building, a gnawing unease began to overtake him. Although he couldn't put his finger on anything out of the ordinary, something was not right.


"I was sweating but cold and the feeling of depression was noticeable -- but there was also something else. It was as though something was in the room with me," Tandy said. "Then I became aware that I was being watched, and a figure slowly emerged to my left. It was indistinct and on the periphery of my vision, but it moved just as I would expect a person to. It was gray, and made no sound. The hair was standing up on the back of my neck -- I was terrified."


Tandy steeled himself and turned to face the ghostly shape dead-on, but he said it immediately faded and completely disappeared. Concerned that his mind must be playing tricks on him, Tandy packed up and went home. But in the great tradition of haunted house encounters, he didn't flee from the ghost-ridden building and swear never to return -- no sir, he came right back for more. And he got it.


The morning after his weird sighting, Tandy took a break at the lab to spend some time on a hobby of his, namely the sport of fencing. He clamped a fencing foil in a vise so that he could make some adjustments on it, perhaps subconsciously thinking he might need the sword to fight off any unruly ghosts. Tandy briefly left the room, and then returned to see a phenomenal sight. The tip of the foil was vibrating intensely and continuously, for no apparent reason.


The average person might have freaked out and concluded that the poltergeists were trying to go on a foil-whacking spree upside somebody's head. But not Vic Tandy, professional engineer. His first thought was that there might be low frequency sound waves coming from somewhere in the laboratory -- subsonic sounds that can be seen (in the form of surrounding vibrations) but not heard.


One of the perks of being a scientist is that you can usually get ahold of big-time scientific equipment any time you have a crazy hunch about something, and so Tandy was able to test out the laboratory's sound wave properties. His hypothesis was correct: there was a "standing wave" acoustically stuck inside walls of the lab, an infrasound wave vibrating at about 19 cycles per second. The sound waves, which just happened to hit top intensity at a spot right beside Tandy's desk, were being generated by a recently installed extraction fan.


"When the fan's mounting was altered, the ghost left with the standing wave," Tandy said. And that, surely, was the most hum-drum exorcism ever performed in history. But there's a deeper significance to Tandy's discovery than knowing when to tighten some loose bolts. Tandy believes that the low frequency sound also caused his late-night spectral visitation: the cold chills, the sense of paranoia and distress, the hallucinatory figure glimpsed creeping in the shadows. In short, infrasound waves could could be a multi-purpose explanation for most of the commonly reported occurrences in suspected hauntings.


Research has previously proven that exposure to low frequency sound can cause a variety of physiological effects, many of them adverse ones, such as shivering, anxiety and breathlessness. These responses can lead a person to think that some unseen danger is imminent, or feel like he is being watched. Infrasound might even cause hallucinations. Tests at NASA have shown that the human eyeball has a resonant frequency of 18 cycles a second, and will vibrate in sympathy with infrasound waves that have a similar frequency. Under these conditions, there would be a "smearing of vision" that is capable of making someone see evanescent hallucinations in the periphery of their visual field. This effect is reminiscent of the theories of neurologist Michael Persinger, who has suggested that electromagnetic waves can interfere with brain activity and lead people to think they see ghosts or aliens.


To back up his personal observations, Tandy has investigated other sites of reported hauntings, and he claims to have found two more in which infrasound may account for the "presence" of ghosts. One was a building where a wind tunnel in the basement was running during the sighting. Of course, the classical haunted house is an old abandoned mansion without so much as electrical wiring, let alone heavy industrial equipment. But infrasound can still be generated without power -- a standing wave could be caused by wind blowing past a cracked window in a long, narrow corridor, which sounds like a suitably creepy setting. This type of low-frequency sound generation is similar in principle to the deep tooting sound a glass bottle makes when you blow across the top of it.


So it just might be that subsonic sound waves have put the spook in a lot of traditionally spooky places. And what's more, in some cases it may have even been put there on purpose. Archaeologists have discovered that a number of Neolithic tombs in England and Ireland were seemingly constructed so as to make sounds bounce off walls with the intentional effect of being, well, scary. The tombs uniformly create this acoustic environment through the familiar recipe of a long, narrow entryway with an opening to the outside at one end. The ancient architects of these tombs may not have understood infrasound frequencies and Helmholtz resonance, but spookiness was a desirable feature for a tomb, for the purpose of instilling reverence for the dead and discouraging grave-robbers. Through trial and error, they might have struck upon the most sonically foreboding design possible, and stuck with it.


All in all, the Tandy theory of infrasound hauntings is a nifty notion that's tailor-made for Scully to fling at Mulder's next phantom menace. But never fear: the true-believing ghost-hunters of the world will remain undaunted by science's latest whiz in their cornflakes. At the very least, the faithful will knowingly explain that real ghosts produce subsonic sounds, thereby hijacking all the salient facts over to their side of the argument. Or they could just pretend that this whole discovery resonates at an ultra low frequency, and never hear a word of it.

http://istina.rin.ru/eng/ufo/text/270.html

References:



Tandy V. & Lawrence, T,. (1998). The ghost in the machine. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, 62, 360-364

http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/ghost-in-machine.pdf


Tandy, V. (2000), "Something in the Cellar", Journal of the Society for Psychical Research, Vol. 64.3, No 860

http://www.psy.herts.ac.uk/ghost/Something-in-the-Cellar.pdf

Since the claim that ghosts or spirits exist is extraordinary, it behooves the folks who claim they exist to provide the requisite extraordinary proof, not the other way around.

This has not yet been done here, and it will not be provided either IMHO.

that said, there are unusual things that have occurred which are yet to be explained. again, they don't all have to do with so-called 'ghosts' but some are.
Some are?
How do you know?
What evidence is there that they are "ghosts"?
How do you define "ghost"?

prove to me that a soul doesn't exist or the sense of self doesn't exist. oh, that's right, you can't!

self awareness ≠ soul.

Also, I don't have to disprove the existence of souls. Why do woowoos always play that card?

Why don't you actually explain what you think a soul is, so we can test your hypothesis?

Well get the episode and see for yourself!

Don't trust me. Investigate!



Oh, I see. You've moved onto personal attacks now. Well done. How mature of you. When you have nothing to offer, you resort to schoolboy tactics.



Don't trust me. Investigate for yourself! Come on. Time to grow a brain.

http://www.environlab.com/emc-emi.htm
http://www.windtech-international.com/company-news/new-lightning-test-laboratory-for-full-scale-testing
http://www.toshiba.co.jp/f-ene/hvhp/english/f_hvtst.htm
http://www.highvoltage.ecs.soton.ac.uk/commercialTesting/facilitiesAndTestingCapabilities.php
http://www.kema.com/services/testing/hmv-components/labs/HVL.aspx
http://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/techfocus/aug01/test%20facility.htm

It's as if you don't know how to use a search engine.



Yes, I do use reading glasses. All I have asked of you is that you direct me to where the figure is in your poor-quality image. You seem quite incapable of doing that. Is it because there is no figure?



It tells me he's the only smart one in the room. I bet he gets less than a minute in an hour-long show of Ghost Hunters.



Instead of attacking the man, why don't you start digging up some convincing evidence.

I mean, I asked you for the BEST, most convincing photo you can find, and you give me a blurry, old, badly digitised photo in which I can't even see a ghost. Hell, you're not even sure where the ghost in that photo is.

I DO remember the episode. That's why I DON'T remember your alleged incident of someone pulling a lamp. I DO remember them taking the time to debunk the mirror, which they often do with mirrors as they are liable to prompt people to "matrix" faces and forms out the light distortions. I also remember them catching on camera a figure that looks thru a window which they immediately debunked was a real person on the outside. I wondered why since I was all ready to take it as paranormal. But obviously they knew something I didn't and I trust their judgment.

RE: the posted links, I haven't gone thru all of them, but you are confirming what I already said: NO experiments replicating CLOUD-GENERATED lightning. How many times do I have to say it? Ofcourse there are machines that create arcs. But these are NOT cloud-generated.

Now compare yourself. You axiomatically say "ghosts exist".

No..I do not axiomatically say that. I say it based on the evidence that I've seen and examined. When I see photos and footage of things that cannot be explained away as hoaxes or tricks of the light, I take it as evidence of paranormal. That's evidence-based reasoning. When you see the same things you immediately dismiss them as faked anyway because that would contradict your assumptions that a) ghosts can't exist.. and therefore b) that there can be no evidence for ghosts. THAT is axiomatically assuming your own conclusion. See the difference?

[QUOTE=synthesizer-patel;2725632]Ghost sightings are a very real phenomena, but its unlikely that they are the spirits of dead people.

more likely they are a result of the visual hallucinations and other physiological and psychological responses to infrasound

People are physiologically hallucinating the exact same voices, knocks, footsteps, lights and figures that they are also capturing on film and audio recordings? That seems unlikely..

People are physiologically hallucinating the exact same voices, knocks, footsteps, lights and figures that they are also capturing on film and audio recordings? That seems unlikely..

you would need to qualify that statement by providing convincing audio / video evidence - I've yet to see any

No..I do not axiomatically say that. I say it based on the evidence that I've seen and examined. When I see photos and footage of things that cannot be explained away as hoaxes or tricks of the light, I take it as evidence of paranormal. That's evidence-based reasoning. When you see the same things you immediately dismiss them as faked anyway because that would contradict your assumptions that a) ghosts can't exist.. and therefore b) that there can be no evidence for ghosts. THAT is axiomatically assuming your own conclusion. See the difference?
And when faced with something that can't be explained (how intensive was the investigation?) stating "That is a ghost" as opposed to "This needs further investigation" does actually happen to be axiomatically assuming your own conclusion.
Do you understand that?
I doubt it.

People are physiologically hallucinating the exact same voices, knocks, footsteps, lights and figures that they are also capturing on film and audio recordings? That seems unlikely..

It seems unlikely only to you and others like you who so desperately want for such things to be real.

The mentality I see expressed in this thread is identical to that of those who believe in alien visitations, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, that the government is watching them through their TV, etc. The problem is that there's no real evidence of any of that despite the claims of the "true believers."

Basically, it could be said that people can be divided into three groups - those who want solid evidence of such claims, those who don't really care one way or the other, and those who are willing to believe practically anything that comes along.

And it's the last group that I find so amusing. :D Not only do they readily believe that ghosts and the other things I listed above exist, they are pretty much the same group that keeps fortune-tellers, palm readers, horoscope makers and the like in business. ;) But most of them are actually just ordinary people who live such dull lives that they'll take anything that comes along to add some excitement. They can't stand being bored and are almost desperate for excitement and entertainment - and resort to pure foolishness in order to get it.

It has been said that ignorance can be corrected (through education) but that foolishness and stupidly are forever. And there's solid proof of that in this very thread. :D

It seems unlikely only to you and others like you who so desperately want for such things to be real.

The mentality I see expressed in this thread is identical to that of those who believe in alien visitations, bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, that the government is watching them through their TV, etc. The problem is that there's no real evidence of any of that despite the claims of the "true believers."

Basically, it could be said that people can be divided into three groups - those who want solid evidence of such claims, those who don't really care one way or the other, and those who are willing to believe practically anything that comes along.

And it's the last group that I find so amusing. :D Not only do they readily believe that ghosts and the other things I listed above exist, they are pretty much the same group that keeps fortune-tellers, palm readers, horoscope makers and the like in business. ;) But most of them are actually just ordinary people who live such dull lives that they'll take anything that comes along to add some excitement. They can't stand being bored and are almost desperate for excitement and entertainment - and resort to pure foolishness in order to get it.

It has been said that ignorance can be corrected (through education) but that foolishness and stupidly are forever. And there's solid proof of that in this very thread. :D

Yet another vicious ad hominem this time aimed at everyone who even just recognizes the existence of paranormal phenomenon. All the typical aspersions and cliche stereotypes are trotted out: we're ignorant, we're gullible, we're foolish, and we're astrology buffs? lol! Not hardly. Anyway, if you're lurking here I ask you to simply examine the reports and the evidence yourself. Be open-minded and don't resort to demonizing all the good folk who happen to have such experiences. They're just human beings with the courage to come forward and talk about something they will be ridiculed for. I imagine that many people keep their paranormal experiences to themselves because of such overemotional hostility towards the merest possibility of the paranormal. And just going by some of the posts in this thread can you blame them?

Hi, MR. Cloud generated lightning here-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK9Gz77F4S0

Psychoanalyst Carl Jung's experience in a haunted house:


http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Ghosts-and-Phantoms/Ghostly-Beings.html

Hi, MR. Cloud generated lightning here-->http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oK9Gz77F4S0


Sorry but my browser doesn't support that. So the lightning actually came out of a cloud in a lab?

FYI: Plasma entities:

Plasmoids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid

MR:

Yes. They use a rocket w/wire.:)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/102-vari-09.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/02-vari-09.html)


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/images/02-vari-triggered.jpg

MR:

Yes. They use a rocket w/wire.:)

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/102-vari-09.html (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/02-vari-09.html)


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3214/images/02-vari-triggered.jpg


Holy Crap!! What an AWESOME pic! I did not know about that. I'm guessing that wire was vaporized in a matter of microseconds! Thanks for post this..


BTW, I just heard from a friend that someone was trying to have me banned from the group because of this thread. Guess I'm rock'n the boat too much? Anyway, so I may not be around much longer..:(
Hey, maybe I'll come back and haunt the group as a "ghost". lol! Is there life after the internet?

Psychoanalyst Carl Jung's experience in a haunted house:


http://www.unexplainedstuff.com/Ghosts-and-Phantoms/Ghostly-Beings.html

So what?


FYI: Plasma entities:

Plasmoids - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasmoid

ditto

Yet another vicious ad hominem this time aimed at everyone who even just recognizes the existence of paranormal phenomenon. All the typical aspersions and cliche stereotypes are trotted out: we're ignorant, we're gullible, we're foolish, and we're astrology buffs? lol! Not hardly. Anyway, if you're lurking here I ask you to simply examine the reports and the evidence yourself. Be open-minded and don't resort to demonizing all the good folk who happen to have such experiences. They're just human beings with the courage to come forward and talk about something they will be ridiculed for. I imagine that many people keep their paranormal experiences to themselves because of such overemotional hostility towards the merest possibility of the paranormal. And just going by some of the posts in this thread can you blame them?

Oh, really? Then show us some EVIDENCE of ANY paranormal activity. No, not your grainy, fuzzy pictures or poor quality video/audio recordings. If the attorney (on either side) tried to enter such junk into evidence during a trial, the judge would have it immediately thrown out. And the same would hold true for a scientist, even a well-respected one, that tried to use such things to prove some scientific discovery.

So tell me why it is that you and your "true believers" should be allowed a MUCH lower standard to meet???? What makes you so "special"?

Guess I'm rock'n the boat too much?
Bland inanity does not "rock the boat".
Guess again.

Oh, really? Then show us some EVIDENCE of ANY paranormal activity. No, not your grainy, fuzzy pictures or poor quality video/audio recordings. If the attorney (on either side) tried to enter such junk into evidence during a trial, the judge would have it immediately thrown out. And the same would hold true for a scientist, even a well-respected one, that tried to use such things to prove some scientific discovery.

So tell me why it is that you and your "true believers" should be allowed a MUCH lower standard to meet???? What makes you so "special"?

The same could have been said hundreds of years ago about airplanes.

Don't talk crap.

This conversation could have taken place hundreds of years ago:

Person A: We are going to go past the sun and visit other planets.

ReadOnly: Ha...what a load of BS.

This conversation could have taken place hundreds of years ago:
Person A: We are going to go past the sun and visit other planets.
ReadOnly: Ha...what a load of BS.
Still wrong.
You're talking about someone making a claim of what may be possible in the future (to them) - a technological advance.
MR's "ghosts" are a claim of what is supposedly happening now as some sort of "natural" phenomenon. :rolleyes:
Get a clue.

Still wrong.
You're talking about someone making a claim of what may be possible in the future (to them) - a technological advance.
MR's "ghosts" are a claim of what is supposedly happening now as some sort of "natural" phenomenon. :rolleyes:
Get a clue.

It doesnt matter. The point is being aware of something. Just like diseases were not aware of in the past so no one could have said the person died from that specific disease. Does not mean they didnt have it though. Its just a matter of being aware.

It doesnt matter.
Then why bring it up?


The point is being aware of something. Just like diseases were not aware of in the past so no one could have said the person died from that specific disease. Does not mean they didnt have it though. Its just a matter of being aware.
Also nonsense. The point is whether there's anything to be aware of.

Then why bring it up?
.

That means your point doesnt matter. Your head is like an anvil.:D

That means your point doesnt matter. Your head is like an anvil.:D
You're talking bollocks again.

That means your point doesnt matter. Your head is like an anvil.:D

Your train has totally jumped the track, John. :bugeye:

We're not discussing FUTURE possibilities and discoveries - like traveling faster than light, extending human lifespans by a few hundred years, trains that travel at 1,000 mph, repairing a served spine, curing all cancers, etc. The discussion is about something that is being claimed to have existed for hundreds of years already without a single shred of solid evidence to support it.

So you can take your smug "What Read-Only would say" and shove it in your ear!!!!!:bugeye:

You're talking bollocks again.

It isnt bollocks (note: i would never use such a ridiculous word). There are many things that are unknown, to discount them out of hand is ignorance. This is how humanity learns and makes discoveries or else we would still be living in caves. But many people just can only recite what came before them...there are still many things to learn. As we age we become cynical though and even senile.

We're not discussing FUTURE possibilities and discoveries - like traveling faster than light, extending human lifespans by a few hundred years, trains that travel at 1,000 mph, repairing a served spine, curing all cancers, etc. The discussion is about something that is being claimed to have existed for hundreds of years already without a single shred of solid evidence to support it.


Of course there is evidence, but accepted evidence is another matter.

All i am saying is "never say never".

It isnt bollocks
Wrong.


(note: i would never use such a ridiculous word).
And you're ignorant too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bollocks).


There are many things that are unknown, to discount them out of hand is ignorance.
If you'd bothered at all to read the thread you'd see that they aren't being discounted out of hand. And your "scenario" has nothing to do with the topic.


As we age we become cynical though and even senile.
Well I can see evidence of senility in you. Go have a chat with your four grandfathers. :rolleyes:

Of course there is evidence, but accepted evidence is another matter.

All i am saying is "never say never".

Oh, sure - the EXACT same kind evidence that's used to "prove" the existence of alien-piloted UFOs and alien beings. Even" not excepted evidence" doesn't come close - it's nothing but garbage, fakes and worthless trash.

It isnt bollocks (note: i would never use such a ridiculous word). There are many things that are unknown, to discount them out of hand is ignorance. This is how humanity learns and makes discoveries or else we would still be living in caves. But many people just can only recite what came before them...there are still many things to learn. As we age we become cynical though and even senile.

Is that an indication of the age of these posters? ;) Truth be told they'll never be open to the possibility of this phenomenon John. They can't even perform the very first basic step of the scientific method: ask a question (ie. does paranormal phenomena exist?). They automatically deny that very possibility from the outset. Hence then if A) paranormal phenomena doesn't exist..then B) evidence for paranormal phenomena doesn't exist either..Therefore all evidence must be fake or camera gliches. It's like how christian creationists argue: Evolution can't happen..therefore evidence for evolution can't exist either.


But this is NOT science. It's something disturbingly different. And just as creationists push their agenda of a interventionist worldview under the auspices of an infallible authority called the Bible, scientistic fundamentalists push their own materialist worldview under the auspices of THEIR infallible authority called science. The parallels here are surely more than coincidental.

Here's a good website with an interesting first hand account and 10 of some of the best ghost pics ever taken. I'm inclined to agree. They tread the thin line between being SO clear that they look fake and being so UNclear that they could be just photo "noise". Ofcourse to a resolved skeptic these photos will most likely be shrugged off for some reason. But that's not a scientific approach. Each photo must be examined for itself and judged according to the circumstances under which it was taken. So check them out and draw your own conclusion. Or don't draw any conclusion at all and remain open to the possibility that we just don't know all of what is out there! Reality afterall is pretty mysterious in itself..


The Knight Shift: The Top Ten Best GHOST PHOTOGRAPHS Ever Taken
http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2005/10/top-ten-best-ghost-photographs-ever.html

Amateur photos are also not science.

But that's not a scientific approach. Each photo must be examined for itself and judged according to the circumstances under which it was taken.

The Knight Shift: The Top Ten Best GHOST PHOTOGRAPHS Ever Taken
http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2005/10/top-ten-best-ghost-photographs-ever.html


lets pick a pic


http://photos1.blogger.com/img/247/1596/1024/6freddyjackson.jpg

Freddy Jackson's Comeback

do a critical analysis
i wish to learn
you show me how

But that's not a scientific approach. Each photo must be examined for itself and judged according to the circumstances under which it was taken.
And, of course, scientifically-minded people will also check to see what's been said by both sides of the argument.
For example:

A later analysis by photographic officers of the National Media Museum concluded that the photograph was doctored.
(This from the ever-so difficult to find Wiki page on the Wem Town Hall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wem_Town_Hall) photo).

And, just for information, that's the only one I've bothered checking, and it took all of five minutes...

I have done such things accidentally by double exposure, or it can be done in the developing process.

Amateur photos are also not science.

History is not science. The evening news is not science. Travel magazines are not science. Biographical accounts are not science. Do you doubt these too?

I have done such things accidentally by double exposure, or it can be done in the developing process.

Wow...You can create pictures of dead people using double exposure? That's quite a talent! ;)

History is not science. The evening news is not science. Travel magazines are not science. Biographical accounts are not science. Do you doubt these too?
Yes.


Wow...You can create pictures of dead people using double exposure? That's quite a talent! ;)
Thanks, A got a BS in Graphic Design and Photography.

It would not be that much of a challenge to take a picture of the man, forget to wind the film, then take another photo 2 days later to result in something like this.

On double exposures, I wonder if down the road we'll see less of those kinds of ghosts due to digital photography. Although digital has its own artifacts. Don't know how many times I've seen claims of life on Mars, and it's due to pixelation.

There's a few photos there that, knowing enough background of the place and time, could be examined further. But by themselves they're just curiosities. It's like any other unexplained case, you have to have correlating data...one data point is not enough for any conclusive result.

Here's another pic. Pretty creepy:


WoodsSM_580_765843a.jpg
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00765/WoodsSM_580_765843a.jpg

It would not be that much of a challenge to take a picture of the man, forget to wind the film, then take another photo 2 days later to result in something like this.


Kinda hard to take a picture of a dead man isn't it?
Oh that's right..They knew the pilot was GOING to die so they took his pic while he was alive so they could double expose it behind this one after he died.

It was during the course of WWI, people died all the time, it would not be unusual to take a picture of someone who ended up dead soon after.

The Knight Shift: The Top Ten Best GHOST PHOTOGRAPHS Ever Taken
http://theknightshift.blogspot.com/2005/10/top-ten-best-ghost-photographs-ever.html

Very interesting. Also interesting is that so many images are very old, which i think is a clue. Here is why: Photography and mainly film has many tricks and some people wouldnt even know about today since people dont use film or develop images in their homes any longer.

I would imagine an old timer\pro photographer can explain how those were done.

Or maybe not.

Very interesting. Also interesting is that so many images are very old, which i think is a clue. Here is why: Photography and mainly film has many tricks and some people wouldnt even know about today since people dont use film or develop images in their homes any longer.

I would imagine an old timer\pro photographer can explain how those were done.

Or maybe not.

Well ofcourse if they were new photos then the argument would become that they were photoshopped digitally. So really, unless you take the professional photo analysts who have analyzed them to be complete liars, these are pretty convincing evidence.

Some are?
How do you know?
What evidence is there that they are "ghosts"?
How do you define "ghost"?

i said 'so-called ghosts' meaning i don't know what they are. they vary which aren't all 'ghost' related or sightings.



self awareness ≠ soul.

Also, I don't have to disprove the existence of souls. Why do woowoos always play that card?

Why don't you actually explain what you think a soul is, so we can test your hypothesis?


excuse me?? what i did point out is the hostility against the idea of a soul as if it was ridiculous. in the other thread you were blunt that everyone knows what cruelty is.

well, i can be blunt and tell you that most people do have a sense of soul as it being a living sense of self. it's not abstract to them but very real like a three-dimensional unseen being which is them and their body is a container

whether it can be proven or disproven is another matter.


more likely they are a result of the visual hallucinations and other physiological and psychological responses to infrasound

i saw that too. unfortunately, it can't currently explain away all of them since they don't all have to do with infrasound or 'ghosts'.

i already posted an example that science cannot explain or doesn't consider real such as two people separated in physical distance but connected somehow. they see that as being untrue but even from personal experience i know it isn't. still, i also know i can't physically or concretely prove it either. but it's important to keep in mind that just because something can't be concretely proven or shown at this time doesn't mean it's untrue.

Magical Realist:


No..I do not axiomatically say that. I say it based on the evidence that I've seen and examined. When I see photos and footage of things that cannot be explained away as hoaxes or tricks of the light, I take it as evidence of paranormal.

That's a false dichotomy - very bad reasoning.

Your reasoning is "Either it is a hoax or it is ghosts". False dichotomy. It may be neither. It may be a camera artifact. It may be misperception. It may be self-delusion. It may be a simple mistake of seeing an ordinary thing and mistaking it for something else.

If your answer from all the available evidence is "We can't explain this", that doesn't mean you all of sudden default to "It must be ghosts". That's a huge leap of logic, and totally unjustified.

Do you believe in witches? I asked you before but you didn't answer.

Do you believe in alien spacecraft UFOs?

Suppose I see a bright light in the sky early in the morning and I take a photo that clearly shows it, and I don't know what it is. I show you the photo, and you're not sure what it is either, but you have the photo analysed and it isn't faked in any way. What's a reasonable conclusion here? Answer: "We don't know what the light in the photo is". It is NOT reasonable to say "We can't explain the light in the photo, so it must be a flying saucer".

Suppose that 6 months later somebody looks at my photo and says "You, know, I think that might be the planet Venus." He goes away and checks the position of Venus in the sky on the day I took the photo, and what do you know? It turns out that Venus was exactly where it appears in the photo. Now, finally, 6 months later, we can put this mystery to rest. We've solved it, beyond any reasonable doubt (barring new evidence of course). It's a good thing we didn't simply conclude that it was a flying saucer at the start, or we might never have learned that sometimes you can mistake an ordinary planet for a UFO.


That's evidence-based reasoning. When you see the same things you immediately dismiss them as faked anyway because that would contradict your assumptions that a) ghosts can't exist.. and therefore b) that there can be no evidence for ghosts. THAT is axiomatically assuming your own conclusion. See the difference?

I don't assume ghosts don't or can't exist. I just look at the evidence. Show me some good evidence for the existence of ghosts. So far, you've presented nothing really convincing.


BTW, I just heard from a friend that someone was trying to have me banned from the group because of this thread.

Who? On what basis could you be banned?

We don't generally ban people for holding particular views here. If you believe in ghosts, that's just fine. It won't stop people trying to explain why you might be wrong, but there's no reason you should be banned just for being wrong.

Here's another pic. Pretty creepy:

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00765/WoodsSM_580_765843a.jpg

What's the background to that photo? Without any information on when it was taken, by whom, where, etc. it is hard to say anything about it. At least this one does show a ghostly-looking figure.

Magical Realist:That's a false dichotomy - very bad reasoning.

Your reasoning is "Either it is a hoax or it is ghosts". False dichotomy. It may be neither. It may be a camera artifact. It may be misperception. It may be self-delusion. It may be a simple mistake of seeing an ordinary thing and mistaking it for something else.

Gawd! Don't be so anal. Okay--when I see something that is not hoaxed or a trick of the light or a jpeg artifact or a natural object or smoke or camera flare or my own hallucinating mind or anything ELSE pretending to look like a transparent human form I THEN conclude it to be paranormal. Snip entire torturous belaboring of an unnecessary point. Geezz..

What's the background to that photo? Without any information on when it was taken, by whom, where, etc. it is hard to say anything about it. At least this one does show a ghostly-looking figure.


Well, the background of the picture looks to be a line of trees with the ghost of a man sitting in them. Anything else you need to know? ;)

Here's another ghost pic. And no I don't have the telephone numbers of the girls or the phase of the moon at the time or even where it was shot. It's just an innocent picture of some girls with an unexpected transparent humanoid form beside them.

filipino-ghost-788648.jpg
http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/filipino-ghost-788648.jpg

Magical Realist:


Gawd! Don't be so anal.

You're right. All these inconvenient demands for evidence and information are anal, aren't they? I should really just stop being a party pooper and start believing that every photo, however produced, that shows a fuzzy person in it is a real ghost photo. It's much easier that way, and more fun too! Wow, look at all those ghosts! Creepy! Spooky! Ooh Errr!

I'm sorry you find the scientific method anal. I'm sure you're comfortable living in a fantasy land of pixies and ghosts and witches and flying saucers. Good luck to you, but don't you dare start bashing those anal scientists as if you cared about evidence.


Okay--when I see something that is not hoaxed or a trick of the light or a jpeg artifact or a natural object or smoke or camera flare or my own hallucinating mind or anything ELSE pretending to look like a transparent human form I THEN conclude it to be paranormal. Snip entire torturous belaboring of an unnecessary point. Geezz..

You're still wrong. Paranormal is not the default option once you've exhausted all the other things you can think of. There may well be things that you just haven't considered that might explain the thing without resorting to the paranormal.

What you need is not a bunch of negative evidence - it can't be X, it can't be Y, it isn't Z. No amount of negative evidence will establish that "It is a ghost". What you need is positive evidence that it is a ghost. And your definition of "ghost" has to be more than "Anything I don't have an alternative explanation for".


Well, the background of the picture looks to be a line of trees with the ghost of a man sitting in them. Anything else you need to know? ;)

You betcha.

I need to know if the photo has been faked, for a start. To determine that, I need to either examine it in detail myself or else determine if any experts have examined it in detail. I need to know if the person who purported to take the photo is trustworthy, or does he or she have a history of faking things? I need to know whether any other photos of that location were taken. In particular, I'd like to see the same trees from a slightly different angle or under slightly different light conditions. I'd like to know where the photo was taken. I would like to know how difficult it would be to photoshop the image.

In short, there's a lot of questions I'd ask regarding that photo before I started to think it might actually show a real ghost.


Here's another ghost pic. And no I don't have the telephone numbers of the girls or the phase of the moon at the time or even where it was shot. It's just an innocent picture of some girls with an unexpected transparent humanoid form beside them.

http://www.mopo.ca/uploaded_images/filipino-ghost-788648.jpg


My impression is that the shot shows a reflection in something like a shop window, at an angle that shows the girls but not their companion (in full). Or, it could be faked. Or there could be some other explanation. There's really no way to tell without more information.

You're right. All these inconvenient demands for evidence and information are anal, aren't they? I should really just stop being a party pooper and start believing that every photo, however produced, that shows a fuzzy person in it is a real ghost photo. It's much easier that way, and more fun too! Wow, look at all those ghosts! Creepy! Spooky! Ooh Errr!

I'm sorry you find the scientific method anal. I'm sure you're comfortable living in a fantasy land of pixies and ghosts and witches and flying saucers. Good luck to you, but don't you dare start bashing those anal scientists as if you cared about evidence.

Oh get off your high horse. I meant quit being anal about my statements. You are pretty much splitting hairs about things I say and offering not one valid explanation for these photos. Face it..You simply cannot accept the existence of the paranormal as in ANYTHING unexplained in terms of conventional science. Like I said, I'm not here to persuade someone who's already made up their mind that the paranormal cannot in principle exist. You've made it totally clear that even if you CAN'T explain these pics away you STILL won't admit they could be paranormal. Oh sure...MAYBE it's some phenomenon that isn't understood now but will be in the future. Perhaps time traveling holograms from the future? Or maybe interdimensionals? Or perhaps thought forms of a collective cutural conscious? HELLO! All THAT falls under the paranormal! Welcome to the club bub.

excuse me?? what i did point out is the hostility against the idea of a soul as if it was ridiculous. in the other thread you were blunt that everyone knows what cruelty is.

You compare the two as if it's a valid analogy. It isn't.


well, i can be blunt and tell you that most people do have a sense of soul as it being a living sense of self. it's not abstract to them but very real like a three-dimensional unseen being which is them and their body is a container

self awareness ≠ soul.

If you think otherwise, please offer a hypothesis, rather than an unsubstantiated claim.

If a soul in your mind is just self awareness, you've just traded terms, not established the existence of any paranormal entity. Just what are you blindly stabbing at?

Perhaps time traveling holograms from the future? Or maybe interdimensionals? Or perhaps thought forms of a collective cutural conscious? HELLO! All THAT falls under the paranormal! Welcome to the club bub.
Right. It also falls under "wild-ass guesses with no substantiation".
In order to support your ridiculous assertion you decide to introduce more woo wooisms?
How very scientific of you. :rolleyes:

Right. It also falls under "wild-ass guesses with no substantiation".
In order to support your ridiculous assertion you decide to introduce more woo wooisms?
How very scientific of you. :rolleyes:

Yeah. Despite his claims of wanting 'science' to take a look at it, apparently he wants REAL science to stay totally away! Why? Because it demolishes all the claims made by him and his group that WANT to believe in such nonsense.;)

Meanwhile, just as you say, he introduces even MORE fictitious stuff in an effort to explain an unexplainable and unsubstantial, illogical system of belief. What a sure-fire method of self-defeatism THAT is. :D

Yeah. Despite his claims of wanting 'science' to take a look at it, apparently he wants REAL science to stay totally away! Why? Because it demolishes all the claims made by him and his group that WANT to believe in such nonsense.;)

Meanwhile, just as you say, he introduces even MORE fictitious stuff in an effort to explain an unexplainable and unsubstantial, illogical system of belief. What a sure-fire method of self-defeatism THAT is. :D

While you were studying all that science in college maybe you should've made time for at least a FEW reading/writing courses. NEWSFLASH: I was satirically mimicking what he'd have to offer other than saying ghosts are doing it. Surely you grasp the fine art of sarcasm. Or is that not scientific enough for you? ;)

Magical Realist:


Oh get off your high horse. I meant quit being anal about my statements. You are pretty much splitting hairs about things I say and offering not one valid explanation for these photos.

In the post immediately above this reply of yours, I offered an alternative explanation for one of your photos. Didn't you see it?


Face it..You simply cannot accept the existence of the paranormal as in ANYTHING unexplained in terms of conventional science.

I can accept it, if somebody provides at least some convincing evidence that the "paranormal" exists.


Like I said, I'm not here to persuade someone who's already made up their mind that the paranormal cannot in principle exist.

And I've clearly said, several times, that I have no in-principle objection to the paranormal. Just show me some convincing evidence!


You've made it totally clear that even if you CAN'T explain these pics away you STILL won't admit they could be paranormal.

I freely admit they could be paranormal. There's not a shred of decent evidence that they are paranormal.


Oh sure...MAYBE it's some phenomenon that isn't understood now but will be in the future. Perhaps time traveling holograms from the future? Or maybe interdimensionals? Or perhaps thought forms of a collective cutural conscious? HELLO! All THAT falls under the paranormal! Welcome to the club bub.

Here's an alternative theory of my own:

All the "ghosts" in your photos are not ghosts at all, but projections made by aliens in spaceship, broadcasting at Earth.

If I can't explain a figure in one of your photos, my default position from now on is that they must be aliens. That sounds fair enough, doesn't it? They're as likely to be alien projections as they are to be ghosts, so I'm opting for alien projections.

If you think the figures in your photos are ghosts rather than aliens, show me some evidence that supports your hypthesis over mine. I say they are aliens. Prove me wrong! Or at least tell me why you don't think they are alien projections. Can you rule out the alien projection hypothesis? To do so would seem to indicate that you've already made up your mind.

Magical Realist:



In the post immediately above this reply of yours, I offered an alternative explanation for one of your photos. Didn't you see it?



I can accept it, if somebody provides at least some convincing evidence that the "paranormal" exists.



And I've clearly said, several times, that I have no in-principle objection to the paranormal. Just show me some convincing evidence!



I freely admit they could be paranormal. There's not a shred of decent evidence that they are paranormal.



Here's an alternative theory of my own:

All the "ghosts" in your photos are not ghosts at all, but projections made by aliens in spaceship, broadcasting at Earth.

If I can't explain a figure in one of your photos, my default position from now on is that they must be aliens. That sounds fair enough, doesn't it? They're as likely to be alien projections as they are to be ghosts, so I'm opting for alien projections.

If you think the figures in your photos are ghosts rather than aliens, show me some evidence that supports your hypthesis over mine. I say they are aliens. Prove me wrong! Or at least tell me why you don't think they are alien projections. Can you rule out the alien projection hypothesis? To do so would seem to indicate that you've already made up your mind.

Reread my posts in this thread. I've already mentioned the voluminous amounts of evidence for ghosts in paranormal investigations, EVP recordings, footage of apparitions, shadowfigures, and poltergeist phenomena, audio of footsteps in empty bldgs, people being touch and even scatched, unexplained lights and flashes, moving EMF fields, heat vision footage of half formed figures walking thru walls, slamming doors, sudden unexplained aromas, audible voices, etc etc and etc. All that AND photos of transparent forms of non-present and even non-living people. Now you come up with anything comparable for your alien theory and we'll talk. But till then I think we're done here.

Reread my posts in this thread. I've already mentioned the voluminous amounts of evidence for ghosts in paranormal investigations, EVP recordings, footage of apparitions, shadowfigures, and poltergeist phenomena, audio of footsteps in empty bldgs, people being touch and even scatched, unexplained lights and flashes, moving EMF fields, heat vision footage of half formed figures walking thru walls, slamming doors, sudden unexplained aromas, audible voices, etc etc and etc. All that AND photos of transparent forms of non-present and even non-living people.

Yeah, you've convolved a bunch of disparate and debunked trash to support your pre-conceived ideas.

Oh, and please stop using the word 'evidence'.

Reread my posts in this thread. I've already mentioned the voluminous amounts of evidence for ghosts in paranormal investigations, EVP recordings, footage of apparitions, shadowfigures, and poltergeist phenomena, audio of footsteps in empty bldgs, people being touch and even scatched, unexplained lights and flashes, moving EMF fields, heat vision footage of half formed figures walking thru walls, slamming doors, sudden unexplained aromas, audible voices, etc etc and etc. All that AND photos of transparent forms of non-present and even non-living people. Now you come up with anything comparable for your alien theory and we'll talk. But till then I think we're done here.James has already done so. There are voluminous amounts of evidence for alien projections in paranormal investigations, EVP recordings, footage of apparitions, shadowfigures, and poltergeist phenomena, audio of footsteps in empty bldgs, people being touch and even scratched, unexplained lights and flashes, moving EMF fields, heat vision footage of half formed figures walking thru walls, slamming doors, sudden unexplained aromas, audible voices, etc etc and etc. All that AND photos of transparent forms of non-present and even non-living people. All of these are simply the product of alien auditory and visual projections.

There is no distinguishing evidence to support the notion that they are departed spirits. There is substantial circumstantial evidence to believe that alien life exists and that some of it is intelligent. The apparent absence of such life forms from the solar system is readily explained by their desire to remain unknown. Thus Occam's razor favours us accepting the alien hypothesis (since their is sound logic to suspect their existence) over spirits.

LOL Ophiolite PWNS MR!

James has already done so. There are voluminous amounts of evidence for alien projections in paranormal investigations, EVP recordings, footage of apparitions, shadowfigures, and poltergeist phenomena, audio of footsteps in empty bldgs, people being touch and even scratched, unexplained lights and flashes, moving EMF fields, heat vision footage of half formed figures walking thru walls, slamming doors, sudden unexplained aromas, audible voices, etc etc and etc. All that AND photos of transparent forms of non-present and even non-living people. All of these are simply the product of alien auditory and visual projections.

There is no distinguishing evidence to support the notion that they are departed spirits. There is substantial circumstantial evidence to believe that alien life exists and that some of it is intelligent. The apparent absence of such life forms from the solar system is readily explained by their desire to remain unknown. Thus Occam's razor favours us accepting the alien hypothesis (since their is sound logic to suspect their existence) over spirits.


Wow..so James finally concedes the validity of all the evidence for paranormal phenomena!!? Hallejuia!
He's finally come over to the dark side! ;) Now..as I am certainly loose in my interpretation of WHAT a "ghost" is, as made clear in my post that they could be spacetime residues, departed intelligent souls, or psychic externalizations, maybe James would also do us the same favor with his "interpretation" of exactly WHAT is behind the phenomenon? ;)


As far as them not being associated with the dead but with aliens instead, isn't it more parsimonious to just say that they ARE manifestations of the dead instead of contriving an elaborate hypothesis of them being holographic illusions of dead people generated by aliens for godnozwat reasons?

LOL Ophiolite PWNS MR!


Do you ever offer anything of polemical substance yourself or do you just cheerlead from the sidelines for your favorite players?

I can make this kind of "evidence" all day long.

I can make this kind of "evidence" all day long.

Well thats just it...and why i put in an earlier post that those old tricks and techniques with old film cameras and developing have been either forgotten about or people never explained how they did a "trick' to begin with. I know an 80 year old photographer and he knows photography, film, developing film like the back of his hand. Maybe i will email him those old images and i am fairly certain he will know how they were done or just call them all fakes\not supernatural.

http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/AnomolousSpiritPhotoPage.htm

Here is an interesting example:
http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/PDFs/WemGhostPhoto.pdf

Well thats just it...and why i put in an earlier post that those old tricks and techniques with old film cameras and developing have been either forgotten about or people never explained how they did a "trick' to begin with. I know an 80 year old photographer and he knows photography, film, developing film like the back of his hand. Maybe i will email him those old images and i am fairly certain he will know how they were done or just call them all fakes\not supernatural.

http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/AnomolousSpiritPhotoPage.htm

Here is an interesting example:
http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/PDFs/WemGhostPhoto.pdf

It's interesting to me that those pics of possibly fake ghost photos comes from a website whose owner is a firm BELIEVER in ghosts and paranormal! Below is the OTHER page of what are in his opinion authentic ghost pics. This simply underscores the fact that paranormal investigators are some of the best debunkers of fraud and camera glitches there are. Once they debunk all that, then they can focus on the REAL evidence:

Favorite Ghost Photos
http://www.ourcuriousworld.com/FavGhostPXs.htm

"Authentic ghost photos" LOL

My impression is that the shot shows a reflection in something like a shop window, at an angle that shows the girls but not their companion (in full). Or, it could be faked. Or there could be some other explanation. There's really no way to tell without more information.


I'm not seeing the window. And if the figure to the right is a mere reflection, then explain its opaque hand clutching the girl's arm. From what I've heard this pic was just an innocent cellphone pic two girls had a stranger take of them while in Manila and no other person was around at the time. Sure you can always say it's fake, but you should at least have some basis for suspecting fakery shouldn't you? I see none. They're just girls having fun while partying in Manila. I find accidental photos like this one, including the one my niece sent me, to be pretty convincing evidence.

Who? On what basis could you be banned?

We don't generally ban people for holding particular views here. If you believe in ghosts, that's just fine. It won't stop people trying to explain why you might be wrong, but there's no reason you should be banned just for being wrong.

I don't know who it is nor the reason they proposed for my banning. I don't even know how one would find that info out. As you can see by my post count I'm pretty new here and so still have lot's to learn. I DID happen to notice a thread here in Free Thoughts posted by someone named Nicholas that was entitled "Let's sh%t all over Magical Realist etc". But alas I had already put that poster in my ignore jar and so didn't even read his post. There were a few other comments in his thread, including something by the moderator about such comments being self-defeating, but I just moved on. I'm doing the best I can to stay polite in here. If what I say provokes such hostility and insults from a poster then that probably says more about THEM than it does about me.

I'm not seeing the window. And if the figure to the right is a mere reflection, then explain its opaque hand clutching the girl's arm. From what I've heard this pic was just an innocent cellphone pic two girls had a stranger take of them while in Manila and no other person was around at the time. Sure you can always say it's fake, but you should at least have some basis for suspecting fakery shouldn't you? I see none. They're just girls having fun while partying in Manila. I find accidental photos like this one, including the one my niece sent me, to be pretty convincing evidence.

The one problem with these random occurrences is that a lot of them are not repeatable. And without that, you've got a mysterious photo. But that isn't enough to conclude anything, any more than seeing a bright light in the night sky once can allow you to conclude anything more than you saw "something".

I'll admit there's some odd stuff out there that can be repeated, has been investigated, and we still aren't sure absolutely what is causing them. The Brown Mountain lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Mountain_Lights) in western NC are a good example of this.

But not knowing their cause doesn't mean that they must be some paranormal activity from the undead. It means, we don't know yet what's causing them. It could be that they're some wandering souls...but you'd have to show why this is true, and that's going to take a lot more than just some photos and some speculation.

Does their existence violate some law of science? Considering the fact that there are at present hundreds of paranormal societies popping up across the country recording video and audio evidence of ghosts (whatever they may be) why do you think they DON'T exist at least as real phenomena? Are people walking around abandoned bldgs at 3 AM just to create elaborate hoaxes or recording equipment glitches?

What do you mean by ghost? Any manifestation (like the content of perception, phenomenal consciousness, etc) might be considered a brute add-on that doesn't follow from an underlying framework where existence in general is assumed to be absent to itself. Is it dead spirits you refer to? I think both philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism exclude the occult pre-conditionally. Kant would do the same, if the latter is wanderingly descended from him: Such noumenal or pre-conceptual possibilities cannot become empirical or testable denizens of the phenomenal world.

If you're a being made of some kind of energy, then perhaps lots of light energy interferes with your presence. I think these "horrid" ghost programs are excellent and provide convincing proof of the reality of the paranormal. Do you think they're all fake?

Seriously, how many people would watch those shows if all they did was stand around for a while and declare every single place they went to as a fake? Of course all those shows are faked.

here's some pics of alleged ghosts. While some are probably faked, others appear authentic. My niece sent me a pic of a man in a suit standing in her dark doorway in the background of one of her photos of her sons. It's really there clear as can be. How can stuff like this happen if there's no ghosts?


Real ghost pics - google search
http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&ie=iso-8859-1&gbv=1&q=real+ghost+pics

behold!... The magic of photo shop!!!

LOL Ophiolite PWNS MR!

Dog! I love you guys! I feel so at home here now....almost as good as at the 'special house' with all of the doctors....

The one problem with these random occurrences is that a lot of them are not repeatable. And without that, you've got a mysterious photo. But that isn't enough to conclude anything, any more than seeing a bright light in the night sky once can allow you to conclude anything more than you saw "something".

I'll admit there's some odd stuff out there that can be repeated, has been investigated, and we still aren't sure absolutely what is causing them. The Brown Mountain lights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Mountain_Lights) in western NC are a good example of this.

But not knowing their cause doesn't mean that they must be some paranormal activity from the undead. It means, we don't know yet what's causing them. It could be that they're some wandering souls...but you'd have to show why this is true, and that's going to take a lot more than just some photos and some speculation.

I'm certainly open to all possible natural explanations before resorting to the paranormal ones. RE: ghostlights, here's a good webpage about them and what they might be.


Earth Lights: Spooklights and Ghost Lights, etc.
http://inamidst.com/lights/earth

What do you mean by ghost? Any manifestation (like the content of perception, phenomenal consciousness, etc) might be considered a brute add-on that doesn't follow from an underlying framework where existence in general is assumed to be absent to itself. Is it dead spirits you refer to? I think both philosophical naturalism and methodological naturalism exclude the occult pre-conditionally. Kant would do the same, if the latter is wanderingly descended from him: Such noumenal or pre-conceptual possibilities cannot become empirical or testable denizens of the phenomenal world.

By "ghost" I am here referring to whatever the cause may be behind various "haunting" phenomena. From the overall evidence obtained from paranormal investigations around the world over the decades, certain common attributes accrue: they appear to be intelligent beings (when they're not residuals). They appear to be beings who have died. They often haunt old places with a turbulent history of death and/or intense human suffering. They seem to be trapped in some unnatural state of fixation on their former life. WHATever they are, these entities I call by the name of "ghost".

RE: Kant, he took space and time to be ways the mind represents reality to itself. Do you think this argues for a transtemporal and transpatial state for the noumena?

I'm certainly open to all possible natural explanations before resorting to the paranormal ones.

It doesn't seem like paranormal is a final solution to you, but more of a default solution UNLESS a rational reason is proposed. And even then...

C C touched on a big problem with any paranormal/supernatural conclusions. By definition these cannot be influenced nor influence the natural world. If we can see something, if we can record something, then it must be a natural phenomena, otherwise there would not have been anything to detect. Likewise, seeing something but not being able to record it, or visa versa, defies our understanding of how things work. There's nothing magical about a camera that can see visual things we cannot, but both cameras and our own optics do have limitations that can often alter what we see vs what was really there.

Does their existence violate some law of science? Considering the fact that there are at present hundreds of paranormal societies popping up across the country recording video and audio evidence of ghosts (whatever they may be) why do you think they DON'T exist at least as real phenomena? Are people walking around abandoned bldgs at 3 AM just to create elaborate hoaxes or recording equipment glitches?


There is no contradiction it is possible i guess if you want to talk if's and but's but the truth is ghosts do not exist, when you die you don't float around in some kind of Limbo state freaking out the living.


Ghost's, daemons, dead spirits is all nonesense, Jinn on the other hand do exist and they are inhabitants of the earth just like we are except they have no "physical" earthly body like we do, Jinn are confused as ghosts of dead people and other strange things humans have decided to call them.

Jinn are real and exist but they are not dead humans.


Peace.

Jinn on the other hand do exist and they are inhabitants of the earth just like we are except they have no "physical" earthly body like we do, Jinn are confused as ghosts of dead people and other strange things humans have decided to call them.
Jinn are real and exist but they are not dead humans.
Peace.
Evidence please.

Jinn on the other hand do exist and they are inhabitants of the earth just like we are except they have no "physical" earthly body like we do

Then like I said before, how does a non-physical thing influence the physical world without being physical? Can't have it both ways.

It doesn't seem like paranormal is a final solution to you, but more of a default solution UNLESS a rational reason is proposed. And even then...

C C touched on a big problem with any paranormal/supernatural conclusions. By definition these cannot be influenced nor influence the natural world. If we can see something, if we can record something, then it must be a natural phenomena, otherwise there would not have been anything to detect. Likewise, seeing something but not being able to record it, or visa versa, defies our understanding of how things work. There's nothing magical about a camera that can see visual things we cannot, but both cameras and our own optics do have limitations that can often alter what we see vs what was really there.

Well, I don't know how a naturalist defines "nature" anymore. Is technology nature? Is human culture nature? Are singularities as in black holes nature? Are virtual particles nature? OTOH, if we are talking "how can a non-physical entity influence the physical realm", the mind does this all the time. The mind, while expressing itself thru the physical, is not identifiable with the physical. As given it is something expressly and qualitatively different from the physical. The origins of it's agency--faculties like reason, freewill, intentionality, purpose--remain for us a relative mystery. Even a person, when you think about it, is not a physical thing like their body or a chair. They are more of a cumulative organism of subjective experiences extended in time but not in space. So the problem of how a non-physical being interacts with the physical world, while not understandable at this time, definitely seems to be going on somehow even in our everyday lives. Perhaps we are ALREADY the "ghosts" we fear so much to posit.

Then I guess computer software in your definition is non-physical.

By "ghost" I am here referring to whatever the cause may be behind various "haunting" phenomena. From the overall evidence obtained from paranormal investigations around the world over the decades, certain common attributes accrue: they appear to be intelligent beings (when they're not residuals). They appear to be beings who have died. They often haunt old places with a turbulent history of death and/or intense human suffering. They seem to be trapped in some unnatural state of fixation on their former life. WHATever they are, these entities I call by the name of "ghost".

RE: Kant, he took space and time to be ways the mind represents reality to itself. Do you think this argues for a transtemporal and transpatial state for the noumena?

There would only be noumenon, since quantity was removed as well. Since so many others chatter about "monism" behind the appearance of many, I suppose Kant's own inconsistency often goes unnoticed there, despite Schopenhauer. If nothing becomes the case after death and the cessation of manifested content, then even in non-Kantian context the bill seems met: That kind of absence would also be non-fragmented, atemporal, aspatial, and so-forth. No meaning whatever.

Our critical deduction by no means excludes things of that
sort (noumena), but rather limits the principles of the Aesthetic
(the science of the sensibility) to this, that they shall not
extend to all things, as everything would then be turned into
mere appearance, but that they shall only hold good of objects of
possible experience. Hereby then objects of the understanding are
granted, but with the inculcation of this rule which admits of no
exception: "that we neither know nor can know anything at all
definite of these pure objects of the understanding, because our
pure concepts of the understanding as well as our pure intuitions
extend to nothing but objects of possible experience,
consequently to mere things of sense, and as soon as we leave
this sphere these concepts retain no meaning whatever."

Evidence please.

Your face

Insults instead of answers again?
Just as I expected.

Wow..so James finally concedes the validity of all the evidence for paranormal phenomena!!?

Yeah. I think it's all due to aliens. There are no spirits of dead people, or anything silly like that. But aliens have powerful advanced technology. They can easily create holograms, and they can easily tap into something as simple as a digital camera to create all kinds of weird effects.


As far as them not being associated with the dead but with aliens instead, isn't it more parsimonious to just say that they ARE manifestations of the dead instead of contriving an elaborate hypothesis of them being holographic illusions of dead people generated by aliens for godnozwat reasons?

Not at all. The possibility that aliens with advanced technology exist does not breach any laws of physics that I know of. The idea that dead people can hang around as disembodied spirits in such a way that they can affect the physical world breaks all kinds of laws.

The simpler explanation is that the aliens are doing it!

Of course, simpler than that is the explanation that there are no ghosts or aliens. But that couldn't be right, could it?


I'm not seeing the window.

Windows are made of glass.


And if the figure to the right is a mere reflection, then explain its opaque hand clutching the girl's arm.

Sure. Suppose the window was slanted slightly - possibly upwards and backwards, and possibly at an angle to the camera. The girls are closer to the window than the figure standing behind them, so the figure behind may not have been illuminated as much or reflected in the right way to be captured in the photo.

However, looking at the photo again, I can see flaws in my reflection explanation. It seems that the girls are standing on a path or road, and it would be unlikely for a window to be located where it would need to be to produce the effect. So, here's another idea:

The photo was taken at night. The exposure time would have necessarily been quite long. Look at the brightness of the lights in the photo! They appear not as well-defined lights but as big blurry bright blobs. Once again, the whole photo is blurry, suggesting that the camera probably moved slightly during the exposure.

Now, there's the idea: the figure in the photo probably moved rapidly while the photo was being taken, while the two girls essentially stood still. That is, their boyfriend (or whoever it is) either started holding the girl's arm then moved away ("Hey, how about we get a photo of just the two girls?"), or he started out of shot and moved in radidly. Over the time of the exposure, his lower body was not moving as rapidly as his upper body and arm, which resulted in the lower body being captured reasonably clearly, but the head and upper body being "smeared out" over the frame of the photo.

This theory is actually supported by the very blurry nature of the figure's shoulder/head area. Basically, the further towards the head you go the more blurred the image becomes. In fact, you can see a more or less double image around the shoulder area.

Oh no, wait. I'm wrong. It must be aliens.


From what I've heard this pic was just an innocent cellphone pic two girls had a stranger take of them while in Manila and no other person was around at the time. Sure you can always say it's fake, but you should at least have some basis for suspecting fakery shouldn't you?

I don't think it's faked. It may be, but more likely is some kind of explanation like the ones I've given above.


Ghost's, daemons, dead spirits is all nonesense, Jinn on the other hand do exist and they are inhabitants of the earth....

There you go, Magical Realist. We're both wrong! It's not ghosts, and it's not aliens. It's Jinn!

It must be Jinn, right?

Insults instead of answers again?
Just as I expected.

Your face is an insult? I wasn't aware you were that ugly.


You know i don't have evidence so don't expect aa serious answer, if i had a penny for everytime I was asked for religious evidence id have enough to buy you cosmetic surgery for your offensive face.

There you go, Magical Realist. We're both wrong! It's not ghosts, and it's not aliens. It's Jinn!

It must be Jinn, right?



See I am not a complete woowoo, I debunk magical nonesense with more magical nonesense, in a scientific way ofcourse.

Peace.

See I am not a complete woowoo, I debunk magical nonesense with more magical nonesense, in a scientific way ofcourse.

Sure, just like using Russell's Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn to show how silly it all is.

If a soul in your mind is just self awareness, you've just traded terms, not established the existence of any paranormal entity. Just what are you blindly stabbing at?

*sigh!* unfriggingbelievable.

have you noticed you don't feel in your skull?? have you noticed your sense of self is not felt or experienced in your skull??

because the 'soul' being referred to is not taking place in the mind. the result is in the heart area. whether it is living or not or if it can be classified as such is undeterminable but it might possibly be.

birch:


have you noticed you don't feel in your skull?? have you noticed your sense of self is not felt or experienced in your skull??

Have you noticed that when you burn your finger, you don't experience the pain in your skull, but in your finger? But you know what? When you burn your finger while you're in a brain-scanner areas of your brain associated with pain light up. What can we conclude? Well, we know that nerves connect your brain to your finger. And we know where the pain centres are in the brain from those scanners. The obvious conclusion seems to be that the perception of pain happens in the brain, even if it doesn't seem that way to you.

Now, consider the possibility that your "sense of self" just might take place in your brain. Possible or not?

Also, if your sense of self does not take place in your brain, where do you think it takes place? And by what mechanism? Another problem is that if your "self" is completely separate from your body, then how can it have physical effects on your body? In other words, when you will your finger to wiggle, how is that message transferred from your disembodied "soul" to the finger? What's the process, exactly? How does the non-physical interact with the physical world?


because the 'soul' being referred to is not taking place in the mind. the result is in the heart area.

What makes you think the "soul" resides in the heart, exactly? Do you know what the heart actually does? It's a pump. It pumps blood around the body.

birch:



Have you noticed that when you burn your finger, you don't experience the pain in your skull, but in your finger? But you know what? When you burn your finger while you're in a brain-scanner areas of your brain associated with pain light up. What can we conclude? Well, we know that nerves connect your brain to your finger. And we know where the pain centres are in the brain from those scanners. The obvious conclusion seems to be that the perception of pain happens in the brain, even if it doesn't seem that way to you.

Now, consider the possibility that your "sense of self" just might take place in your brain. Possible or not?

Also, if your sense of self does not take place in your brain, where do you think it takes place? And by what mechanism? Another problem is that if your "self" is completely separate from your body, then how can it have physical effects on your body? In other words, when you will your finger to wiggle, how is that message transferred from your disembodied "soul" to the finger? What's the process, exactly? How does the non-physical interact with the physical world?



What makes you think the "soul" resides in the heart, exactly? Do you know what the heart actually does? It's a pump. It pumps blood around the body.

oh really, i didn't know the heart pumped blood and was an organ. that's really not the issue we're discussing.

the pain in the finger is also going to affect your feelings in the heart area, now tell me why?

tell me why we have a sense of self in the heart area continuously? you can't.

what makes you think that our sense of self which is not directly physical (like the body) can't be classified as being a living state?

Magical Realist:

I found another ghost photo:

http://www.robertsewell.ca/tunnels/blueghost8.jpg

Spooky eh!

Do you think there's any chance this one might be a fake? If so, why?

Personally, I think the aliens might have done it.

birch:


the pain in the finger is also going to affect your feelings in the heart area, now tell me why?

When I burn my finger I don't feel a pain in my heart. I feel a pain in my finger, and I'm likely to snatch it back from the hot stove and put it in my mouth or run it under a tap or something.

It's possible that a burnt finger could trigger some kind of heart attack, but I think that would be rare.


tell me why we have a sense of self in the heart area continuously? you can't.

I don't have a sense of self in the heart area. If I think about where my "self" is at all, I think of it as being located in my brain, although obviously like almost everybody I have a strong sense that the various parts of my body are part of Me. (Interestingly, certain kinds of brain damage can make people lose the sense that their leg, say, belongs to them. They then regard it as a foreign object. It's quite strange.)

Before the advent of modern medicine (and certainly before we understood electricity very well), poets and writers and philosophers tended to locate the "soul" in the heart. The general view was that the brain had basically no function, although some thought it might be an organ for cooling the blood (not an unreasonable guess, seeing as we lose a LOT of heat through our heads).

It looks like maybe you've absorbed too much old poetry or old thinking and not enough 20th-century science. You're culturally conditioned to think that your "self" is located in your heart area. In contrast, I think of my "self" as being located mostly in my brain. But neither of us really has a localised sense of self. Like I said, we consider our entire bodies to be part of ourselves. Our consciousness feels distributed, even if it isn't.

You've really got to separate perception from fact. How things feel or look or sound or smell to you may not, at the bottom of things, be how they actually are. Humans regularly operate under all kinds of different illusions. That pain in my finger really does happen in my brain, not in the finger. What happens in the finger is just some stimulation of the nerve endings. But I will swear to you that burning my finger makes the finger hurt like hell, even though I know intellectually what is actually going on.


what makes you think that our sense of self which is not directly physical (like the body) can't be classified as being a living state?

I'm not sure what you're asking. Our sense of self is certainly a "living state". Our sense of self leaves us when we stop living, after all.

Magical Realist:

I found another ghost photo. It's actually quite famous, having been reported in various publications around the world. I'd like your honest opinion on this one. It's quite a large scan, so you can see all the detail:

Ghost in fire photo (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eXc_EwBohOg/S_SXvtMUK3I/AAAAAAAABdo/sc7VoE8EBU0/s1600/pic8.jpg)

Here's the background to the photo:

It was taken by an amateur photographer. He was taking a photo of a fire engulfing a building in England in 1995. When the film was developed, as you can see there is an image of a young girl wearing clothes from a past era. She appears to be standing in the fire staring at the camera.

The photographer died a few years ago, and he always denied faking the photo.

Some local people have linked the photo to a young teenaged girl who accidentally set fire to the same building back in the 15th century. Maybe the girl in the photo is the ghost of that girl.

What do you think?

Could this one be a fake? Lots of people, including many journalists, have looked at the photo. Many newpapers and other publications have published it, along with the information above. Between the time it was taken and the death of the photographer, nobody proved the photo to be a fake.

So, what do you think?

I'd also like some opinions from other people in this thread who believe in ghosts. Is this photo real or fake, do you think? Or can you think of some other explanation that involves an innocent mistake, an illusion or something else?

birch:



When I burn my finger I don't feel a pain in my heart. I feel a pain in my finger, and I'm likely to snatch it back from the hot stove and put it in my mouth or run it under a tap or something.

It's possible that a burnt finger could trigger some kind of heart attack, but I think that would be rare.



I don't have a sense of self in the heart area. If I think about where my "self" is at all, I think of it as being located in my brain, although obviously like almost everybody I have a strong sense that the various parts of my body are part of Me. (Interestingly, certain kinds of brain damage can make people lose the sense that their leg, say, belongs to them. They then regard it as a foreign object. It's quite strange.)

Before the advent of modern medicine (and certainly before we understood electricity very well), poets and writers and philosophers tended to locate the "soul" in the heart. The general view was that the brain had basically no function, although some thought it might be an organ for cooling the blood (not an unreasonable guess, seeing as we lose a LOT of heat through our heads).

It looks like maybe you've absorbed too much old poetry or old thinking and not enough 20th-century science. You're culturally conditioned to think that your "self" is located in your heart area. In contrast, I think of my "self" as being located mostly in my brain. But neither of us really has a localised sense of self. Like I said, we consider our entire bodies to be part of ourselves. Our consciousness feels distributed, even if it isn't.

You've really got to separate perception from fact. How things feel or look or sound or smell to you may not, at the bottom of things, be how they actually are. Humans regularly operate under all kinds of different illusions. That pain in my finger really does happen in my brain, not in the finger. What happens in the finger is just some stimulation of the nerve endings. But I will swear to you that burning my finger makes the finger hurt like hell, even though I know intellectually what is actually going on.



I'm not sure what you're asking. Our sense of self is certainly a "living state". Our sense of self leaves us when we stop living, after all.

though it's difficult to believe, i'll take your claim at face value though it's unusual for someone to not have a sense of self felt/lodged in the heart area. i never said the brain had nothing to do with it but it does seem to be affected as if it's like an living appendage all it's own.

perhaps you are 'different'. and no, i haven't absorbed any poetry or whatever you are referring to that would influence me to conclude such an idea. this has been my experience as well as with other people.

Looks like a chick standing in the stairway, has anyone asked if it might be a real person instead of assuming ti'sa ghost lol. might just be a girl standing there.


Peace.

birch:

How about we poll the members of sciforums on this?

"Where you feel that your 'self' is located? (a) In your heart area (b) in your head area (c) elsewhere in your body (d) all over your body (e) in space separate from your body (f) somewhere else"

You could start a new thread if you're interested. I don't think that in the brain will be an uncommon response.

birch:

You could start a new thread if you're interested. I don't think that in the brain will be an uncommon response.

of course because that would be the expected correct answer to them so they would check that.

that's hardly the same as someone honestly admitting that they feel or experience their sense of self mostly in the heart area.

birch:

How about we poll the members of sciforums on this?

"Where you feel that your 'self' is located? (a) In your heart area (b) in your head area (c) elsewhere in your body (d) all over your body (e) in space separate from your body (f) somewhere else"

You could start a new thread if you're interested. I don't think that in the brain will be an uncommon response.


This is interesting, but now you got me focusing my intention on particular body parts which is screwing up my natural state of being.

I think he is onto something with it being your chest area but now I keep switching my focus up and the point of intention keeps shifting due to my intense focus levels.

Im like a crappy test subject I think I have messed with my body too much and meditated for too long in the past. I can make parts of my body heat up and cool down by just focusing my will on it, and I can make parts of my body itchy aswell by doing the same type of thing.

I think im staying out of this test I would only mess up the results and complicate things lol


Peace.

Looks like a chick standing in the stairway, has anyone asked if it might be a real person instead of assuming ti'sa ghost lol. might just be a girl standing there.

Look closely, though. The building is on fire, and the girl is just standing there. Also, the clothes she is wearing don't look like 1995 clothes.

Do you think it might be a Jinn?

Look closely, though. The building is on fire, and the girl is just standing there. Also, the clothes she is wearing don't look like 1995 clothes.

Do you think it might be a Jinn?


Not sure, looks like a normal girl to me but something does seem "off" about the whole picture It might just be a fake pic. Letme take another look/


PEace/

Look closely, though. The building is on fire, and the girl is just standing there. Also, the clothes she is wearing don't look like 1995 clothes.

Do you think it might be a Jinn?

that picture was actually a hoax but not all of them may be. is that hard to believe?

birch:


of course because that would be the expected correct answer to them so they would check that.

that's hardly the same as someone honestly admitting that they feel or experience their sense of self mostly in the heart area.

Ok. How about a thread with the open question "Where do you feel your sense of self is located?"


EmptyForceOfChi:


This is interesting, but now you got me focusing my intention on particular body parts which is screwing up my natural state of being.

That is interesting.

I think that if I really try to imagine my "self" as being in my heart, it's not hard to do that. But it's not that hard to shift your sense of self around your body.

I'm sure everybody has had the experience of doing something intensive with their hands, for example, and feeling as if their self is in their hands. Playing a musical instrument might be one example - people talk about having music in their hands. Or what about a painter or sculptor? Some people talk about being able to see the soul in people's eyes (including their own). And there is much talk of the "life force" in the "seed" or sperm of men (not so much about the ova of women, because their role in reproduction wasn't known for a long time).

I don't find it that hard to imagine myself a little outside my own body - kindof looking at myself from a distance. I could easily enough translate that to a belief in a separate "soul" - that's if I didn't know better. Imagination is one thing; fact is another.

that picture was actually a hoax but not all of them may be. is that hard to believe?

Oh? How can you tell it was a hoax? It doesn't seem obvious to me from the photo.

It was actually sent to an official paranormal investigation society in the United States and they concluded it wasn't faked.

A photographic expert from a British university examined the original photo negative, too. He concluded that it was just an "ordinary black-and-white negative" that showed no signs of fakery. His opinion was that he was skeptical about the photo, but he couldn't say that it was faked.

That is interesting.

I think that if I really try to imagine my "self" as being in my heart, it's not hard to do that. But it's not that hard to shift your sense of self around your body.

I'm sure everybody has had the experience of doing something intensive with their hands, for example, and feeling as if their self is in their hands. Playing a musical instrument might be one example - people talk about having music in their hands. Or what about a painter or sculptor? Some people talk about being able to see the soul in people's eyes (including their own). And there is much talk of the "life force" in the "seed" or sperm of men (not so much about the ova of women, because their role in reproduction wasn't known for a long time).

I don't find it that hard to imagine myself a little outside my own body - kindof looking at myself from a distance. I could easily enough translate that to a belief in a separate "soul" - that's if I didn't know better. Imagination is one thing; fact is another.



Yeah, I don't find it difficult to shift my focus around I actualy used to use a certain meditation for this very reason to increase focus and will power. It's not that hard to do atall but it's actualy very annoying when you get the hang of it because you can begin to make parts of your body get itchy and then sometimes you start randomly getting itchy all over your body and it gets kind of yeah... annoying. I got so itchy once i felt like fleas were jumping all over my body and i had to jump up and start scratching everywhere.



By the way i was taking a closer look at that photograph and if you take a look above the girls head near her hair-line somethign just looks "Wrong" and also take a look below her knees it's like there's nothing there. Also her eyes seem very evil and menacing if you stare at them long enough you see some malice or something "not innocent" Im not sure what that picture is but I know that I don't like her lol she just seems evilt o me. i dont like her eyes atall.



peace.

That is interesting.

I think that if I really try to imagine my "self" as being in my heart, it's not hard to do that. But it's not that hard to shift your sense of self around your body.

I'm sure everybody has had the experience of doing something intensive with their hands, for example, and feeling as if their self is in their hands. Playing a musical instrument might be one example - people talk about having music in their hands. Or what about a painter or sculptor? Some people talk about being able to see the soul in people's eyes (including their own). And there is much talk of the "life force" in the "seed" or sperm of men (not so much about the ova of women, because their role in reproduction wasn't known for a long time).

I don't find it that hard to imagine myself a little outside my own body - kindof looking at myself from a distance. I could easily enough translate that to a belief in a separate "soul" - that's if I didn't know better. Imagination is one thing; fact is another.

it's not the same. your sense of 'self' is usually experienced in the heart area very keenly not anywhere else though of course you will have sensations in other areas of your body. you don't have a sense of self in your hands, for example, even though you are working with them. you also misinterpret the 'eyes are the window to the soul'. it doesn't mean the sense of self is in the eyes but that it is merely a window or clue as to the state of the heart/soul just as someone crying may mean they are sad.


Yeah, I don't find it difficult to shift my focus around I actualy used to use a certain meditation for this very reason to increase focus and will power. It's not that hard to do atall but it's actualy very annoying when you get the hang of it because you can begin to make parts of your body get itchy and then sometimes you start randomly getting itchy all over your body and it gets kind of yeah... annoying. I got so itchy once i felt like fleas were jumping all over my body and i had to jump up and start scratching everywhere.

no, it's not the same type of sensation. not when we are referring to a sense of identity or 'self' encompassing.



Oh? How can you tell it was a hoax? It doesn't seem obvious to me from the photo.

It was actually sent to an official paranormal investigation society in the United States and they concluded it wasn't faked.

A photographic expert from a British university examined the original photo negative, too. He concluded that it was just an "ordinary black-and-white negative" that showed no signs of fakery. His opinion was that he was skeptical about the photo, but he couldn't say that it was faked.

because they later found a pic from a postcard which had the same girl in the picture. whoever created this hoax used her image onto the building on fire.

an interesting one is the tulip staircase pic too.

nope, sorry but it's not the same. your sense of 'self' is usually experienced in the heart area very keenly not anywhere else though of course you will have sensations in other areas of your body.



no, it's not the same type of sensation. not when we are referring to a sense of identity or 'self' encompassing.

It is initialy in the chest yes but you can move it around at your own will. You can direct that focus into any other body part. try it it's easy.


Peace.

It is initialy in the chest yes but you can move it around at your own will. You can direct that focus into any other body part. try it it's easy.


Peace.

though i don't believe you can do that for what is being referred to, moving it around is hardly the point considering it's usual place is in the chest/heart area.

the sense of self is an identity not just a partial sensation.

though i don't believe you can do that for what is being referred to, moving it around is hardly the point considering it's usual place is in the chest/heart area.

the sense of self is an identity not just a partial sensation.

Yeah I am refering to the sense of self, that strange feeling of erm how can i put it "Center" what feels like your "central spirit?" the chinese call it your shen which is different to your jing (essence).


Here is a technique i used to use to change its position. instead of trying to move your actual "central spirit" instead try to move the focus of your mind below your heart, you will feel a sinking kind of feeling and for a split second your center will actualy move and might make you feel a tad strange.


Keep trying until you can move it around for periods then you can begin doing other things once you master it a little.


Peace.

Oh yeah remember to close your eyes it's kind of hard to do it when your eyes are open because your eyes steal focus points and can be distracting.


Peace.

Yeah I am refering to the sense of self, that strange feeling of erm how can i put it "Center" what feels like your "central spirit?" the chinese call it your shen which is different to your jing (essence).


Here is a technique i used to use to change its position. instead of trying to move your actual "central spirit" instead try to move the focus of your mind below your heart, you will feel a sinking kind of feeling and for a split second your center will actualy move and might make you feel a tad strange.


Keep trying until you can move it around for periods then you can begin doing other things once you master it a little.


Peace.

what for? that's stupid. the issue is you have a sense of self. period

what for? that's stupid. the issue is you have a sense of self. period

How is it stupid to try a meditation technique?.

and anyway Eww this is in the psuedo section im bailing out i dont like these sub forums.


Peace.

as if it being in free thoughts makes any difference.

as if it being in free thoughts makes any difference.

It really does make a difference lol, well to me anyway.


Peace.

It really does make a difference lol, well to me anyway.


Peace.

because your delusional or shallow? actually a lot of pseudoscience and parasychology has even more possible legitimacy than religion or philosophy

anyways, there is no proof that ghosts can't exist nor is it out of the question that a soul or sense of self is an actual living being of it's own properties. there are even times that one can sense or viscerally feel a three-dimensional being is inside your heart chakra with all it's particular properties/traits. you can liken it to a person without a body.

How is it stupid to try a meditation technique?.

and i also don't believe you. i don't believe that you can shift your sense of self and actually feel your sense of self in your big toe for instance.

i think you are full of it and it's mostly bragging and some exaggeration.

and i also don't believe you. i don't believe that you can shift your sense of self and actually feel your sense of self in your big toe for instance.

i think you are full of it and it's mostly bragging and some exaggeration.

So you don't believe me even though you haven't and refuse to try it?, what kind of logic is that.

You sometimes come off as nice but deep down your an asshole arent you i can see it in your words.

So you don't believe me even though you haven't and refuse to try it?, what kind of logic is that.

You sometimes come off as nice but deep down your an asshole arent you i can see it in your words.

because i know you are full of it.

i know that you can't really feel that sense of self in another part of your body the same way or as clearly and this is why it is felt where it is, the heart area. though you have perhaps convinced yourself, i'm not not buying it.

and you have the nerve to call me an asshole when you are the snob who got all pissy when the thread was moved to pseudoscience. that's a laugh as if religion forum is somehow more legitimate or the idiotic threads in free thoughts are somehow not idiotic because they are in free thoughts! you are more of an asshole than me. i am more honest than you.

because i know you are full of it.

i know that you can't really feel that sense of self in another part of your body the same way or as clearly and this is why it is felt where it is, the heart area. though you have perhaps convinced yourself, i'm not not buying it.

and you have the nerve to call me an asshole when you are the snob who got all pissy when the thread was moved to pseudoscience. that's a laugh as if religion forum is somehow more legitimate or the idiotic threads in free thoughts are somehow not idiotic because they are in free thoughts! you are more of an asshole than me. i am more honest than you.

No you assume, you even told me you haven't even tried it and havent done it yourself so dont chat shit to me.

it's not the same. your sense of 'self' is usually experienced in the heart area very keenly not anywhere else though of course you will have sensations in other areas of your body. This is not the case for me. It never has been the case for me. I suspect it never will be the case for me. My sense of self is always located within my head, to the extent that I can much more readily ignore pain in my extremeties than in my torso, or in my toso rather than my head. I was surprised - though not unduly - to learn that someone might have a sense of self located amywhere other than the head.

We have both taken our personal experience of sense of self and extended it to the rest of the population at large. The difference is that on encountering fresh information - your experience of self location - I have been immediately willing to change my understanding of the phenomena. You have stuck to your guns and simply denied the experience of others. You might want to revisit your definition of an open mind (or, in your case, an open heart).

i'll take your claim at face value though it's unusual for someone to not have a sense of self felt/lodged in the heart area.
Link please.
Like the other responders, I'm "in my head".