Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

"It goes arrhn, Judah"....... as Messala says in Ben Hur........

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

To clarify, the "it" to which I have been referring is accusing others of mental unwellness, of which "psychotic" is a subset.

You demand for evidence of your own behavior which (since you never mismremember, embellish or omit anything in your memory), you remember perfectly well.

Are you denying that you have accused others of being mentally unwell in this thread?

It certainly would make the world a slightly better place.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

In order to take umbrage with that, it would behoove you to not commit it yourself, as has occurred several times in this thread.

Now, why don't we get back on-topic?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Right..Never have I accused anyone of being "mentally unwell" OR "psychotic." I told you you should go get your brain checked if you feel you are hallucinating. But that's a valid concern. Everyone who hallucinates should go do that.

 

OK, now I know you're talking tongue-in-cheek

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

 

Do you hear yourself? You're assuming that ghosts manifest in a certain way and that space aliens manifest in a different way. How do you know that it isn't just one type of entity that manifests in (at least) two different ways?

(The answer is that you've decided a priori what ghosts are like and what space aliens are like and you're looking for evidence to confirm your bias.

 

In the words of Sirt Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." At this point, what you are claiming simply does not align with known and accepted laws of the physical universe... thus, should be eliminated as impossible. Until you can provide some physical, irrefutable evidence of this "great paranormal conspiracy", then Occam's Razor pretty well nails it "The simplest answer is most often the correct one". In this case, delusions and psychosis among a select few individuals makes FAR more sense than the majority of the population being part of some great conspiracy to keep things hidden... that and, the whole "violating the laws of physics" kind of thing.

Simple - it is what we are presently able to measure, notate, interact with, and analyze. Anything outside of that is fanciful and phenomenal, but not reality.

I'm going to answer your unspoken question - "Do I think I perceive all there is to the Universe". To that - No, not at all - after all, we can only see so deep into the vastness of space, so there are great swaths of infinity that are unavailable to us. However, because of that, they are not part of our reality. Surely a rational person does not base their everyday choices on things that they cannot know, but rather on that which they can.

I fail to see how that is relevant to this discussion - for starters, wrong forum. Nice red herring though - understandable, given you have no actual evidence or proof to back up your claims.

Face it - anyone who disagrees with you is a "troll" in your view... which, once again, lends credibility to the psychosis theory.

 

We haven't communicated with them enough to determine that. But we do know that ghosts manifest consistently as if they are the spirits of deceased persons, and that ufonauts manifest consistently as if they are from another world. I actually lean more toward the interdimensional hypothesis of Vallee in regard to ufos. But that's not to say actual ET's aren't mixed in there as well.

No actually I'm much more interested in the phenomena itself rather than our theories of what is behind it. Ghosts show signs of being pure imprinted energy as well. Poltergeists otoh display the traits of a psychically-amplified proto-entity. So we have to be open about our interpretation of what and who ghosts are.

 

i love hallucinogens--but i do not think i need to have my brain checked since my hallucinations are consented and self-induced, just a thought.

 

Uh no its not because you or anyone else does not have all of reality cornered but it does lend a sense of safety and predictability to believe only what we can measure is the only reality though, so its understandable. Not to mention the fact a general framework recognized by everyone as common facts.

Magical realist may be a bit hyped on one extreme but at least he is open to possibilities. He may be guilty of assuming its ghostly phenomena but the detractors are no less guilty either. They are just as pig-headed that they are all knowing and anything outside that cant be measured currently is delusion. Uh yes, just as ignorant. Hypocrites!!!

 

Quantum entanglement does not align with the known and accepted laws of the physical universe. Answered prayers don't. The Big Bang doesn't. And consciousness? Who ever heard of matter being conscious? We have to bear in mind that the laws of nature are subject to what we have so far been able to infer and discover. The paranormal could simply be operating on a level we haven't discovered yet.

Paranormal entities have been measured with sophisticated equipment, notated, interacted with, and analyzed.

The unperceived isn't part of reality? That's a rather anthropocentric view isn't it? Like an ant assuming all it perceives around itself constitutes the whole of the jungle.

It's germane to your accusation that I'm psychotic for believing in supernatural entities if you also believe in supernatural entities. Why should you apply one standard to me and another standard to yourself? Isn't that hypocritical?

Nope..insulting people when you have no argument to make is what trolls do. And I have to right to call anyone out on that when they behave that way.

 

Yes. It does. Really.

We have the theory of quantum mechanics, which is one of the most carfeully tested theories in modern science, and is perfectly consistent with the mathematical model that describes it. Along with relativity, it is one of the cornerstones of modern physics.

What we do not have is a theory of ghosts.

Yes. It could be.

But knowledge doesn't build on what could be. It works by building on existing knowledge and pushing out the boundaries of what we know to what we don't. Without any verifiable evidence of ghostly physics (the mechanism, not the anecdotes), there is no theory there. But there is existing evidence of multiple other explanations that fit the world as we understand it (and we understand it pretty well) much better than positing a mechanism that has no relation to any known natural or artificial physics.

The thing that builds on what could be is imagination. Which is fine, but not useful to knowledge unless and until it inspires a new mechanism which can then be tested. The ghost category doesn't. It is a dead-end theory-wise.

 

I'm still trying to figure out why, since you admit you don't know and don't care how the ghostly world works, you would tend toward this as an explanation as opposed to any other.

Why are these apparitions not attributable to magic or God? Both are equally qualified to produce all the effects attributed to ghostly apparitions, and they don't require another unexplainable mechanism. What if they're all just the same mechanism? Since we don't know what the mechanisms are, it is impossible to rule out that they are all facets of the same mechanism.


To wit:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This is obviously the eternal soul of the victim being drawn up to heaven by God.
We know this is what is because it is consistent with thousands of other accounts over years and centuries of eyewitnesses seeing souls wandering around before God drags them up to heaven.

 

"In the 1960s John Bell proposed an experimental test that could explicitly uncover whether quantum-mechanical correlations between two distant events have an intuitive causal origin (see here to find out more). Such Bell tests have now been carried out and consistently demonstrate that entangled particles defy simple cause-and-effect explanations"===https://plus.maths.org/content/why-did-nature-choose-quantum-theory

No..just because we don't have a theory to explain a phenomenon doesn't mean the phenomenon isn't real. We have many examples of how science had to change its theories to match the phenomena. Einstein and black body radiation is one of those. Science is essentially progressive and driven by paradigm shifts, morphing itself to explain what new phenomena we come to detect.

 

I've answered that question several times already. I'm not going to repeat myself because you have a short memory.

 

You've evaded it several times; you haven't answered it.

 

Sure, it's certainly not "simple".

Quite different than what you claimed:

Which is not true. The known and accepted laws of the physical universe are described in part by Quantum Mechanics - an accepted cornerstone of mainstream physics.

Ghosts, on the other hand, have no such description (let alone one that is consistent with known science). For that reason, if for no other, the comparison with QM is invalid.

And for that reason, it is a dead-end in the pursuit of knowledge about anecdotal paranormal phenomena.

Next.

 

Agreed. And as soon as there is evidence of a ghostly mechanism that can be scientifically analyzed, we will certainly begin addressing it.

There is, on the other hand, a preponderance of scientifically-verifiable evidence of human perceptive fallibility, memory modification, pareidolia, hoaxes and lies.

Until these are inadequate, the wisdom is to "not multiply entities unnecessarily".

 

The laws of the physical universe assume cause and effect relationships. Quantum entanglement is a phenomena that defies that. It defies the known laws of the physical universe, as does the Big Bang, and as does consciousness.

 

Assumptions aren't laws. And they don't have mathematical models.

So it defies ... an assumption?

Please feel free to read up it the known mainstream physics of quantum mechanics. It's a bit more complicated than an assumption.

The assertion has been refuted by the simple act of referring to known physics. I'm not going to go around in circles about it.