Pentagon admits that ghosts exist.

[C C]

There are plenty of subjective phenomena that are universally experienced.

Yes.

The body feelings receiving the "pain" label -- and other qualia or secondary qualities (whatever the hell expression one chooses) -- are universal experiences (manifestations, phenomena, presentations, etc) for the majority of humans who are not mitigated by various clinical conditions. We couldn't even agree on the colors of a color chart if that wasn't the case, the notes of music, etc.

It is our judgements and evaluations of those visual, auditory, olfactory, etc category "showings" that have personal fluctuations. For the majority of people (universal for them) the presence of a migraine headache is conceived as terrible; but for a veteran sufferer of agony it may be assigned a less degree of unpleasantness; and for an algophile who has perversely overridden the native brain tendencies, the headache might be downright pleasurable.

For the rare individuals afflicted with CIP, pain-related feelings are not presented at all. Eliminativism seems fully applicable there. But they fall into that minority who accordingly don't create and manage the standards and distinctions for the majority of humans for which the multiple types of manifestations and their refined discriminations are universal. (Albeit, again, the judgmental values assigned to those specific experiences may personally vary.)[1]

- - - footnote - - -

[1] As a crude analogy: Everyone recognizes Hitler (he is the same presentation for us). Many of us hate Hitler, but Nazis love him. The latter are the judgements and understandings of him (cognitive affairs) that personally vary.

 

[Sarkus]

For the majority of people (universal for them) ...
...
But they fall into that minority who accordingly don't create and manage the standards and distinctions for the majority of humans for which the multiple types of manifestations and their refined discriminations are universal.

I find it rather... odd... to use the term "universal" when you only mean "to those to which it applies". In other words, everything is universal if you only consider those to which it applies. Having only one leg is universal among those with only one leg, for example. Using the term in this way is to deprive it of its intended meaning, is it not?

 

[Sarkus]

Some can, many cannot.

I'm not talking about whether a concept can be realised, but whether the concept itself, the idea, can be said to have an existence, even if inside someone's head.
Some would argue that no, they have no existence, and that what exists are the neurons and activity in our head, that our consciousness then interprets and reacts to etc, but that the "concept" does not itself have existence.
Others would argue that they do.
It is a significant question in philosophy - e.g. Nominalism and Realism offer different views on whether such "universals" (as such things as properties, numbers, concepts, have been termed) can be said to exist or not.

 

[Michael 345]

Some would argue that no, they have no existence, and that what exists are the neurons and activity in our head, that our consciousness then interprets and reacts to etc, but that the "concept" does not itself have existence.

I would be one of those some

as such things as properties, numbers, concepts, have been termed) can be said to exist or not

Bit of a mix there. Some do, some don't

 

[C C]

I find it rather... odd... to use the term "universal" when you only mean "to those to which it applies". In other words, everything is universal if you only consider those to which it applies. Having only one leg is universal among those with only one leg, for example. Using the term in this way is to deprive it of its intended meaning, is it not?

One of the ways a category of "one-legged people" could be defined is that having only a single leg is universal to that population group. Lexical explanations are inherently redundant in that way, with regard to unpackaging something already contained in the queried language unit or concept.

Another way to put it: The word "universal" functions in everyday, practical matters in all their loose-ends glory. It's not just a flag for waving at ideal worlds or recreational absolutes ("universal peace arises when our _X_ deity returns") and dashes of physics hyperbole yammered in the courtyard ("universal laws").

https://www.wordnik.com/words/universal

universal (applicable excerpts):

Done, produced, or shared by all members of the class or group under consideration.

Common to all members of a group or class.

Capable of being predicated of many individuals or single cases; general.

A characteristic or property that particular things have in common.

Applicable to or common to all members of a group or set.​

The population group referenced in this thread being that majority of humans not "suffering" from a variety of physiological conditions that mitigate the senses. I.e., the ones who set the standards and conventions -- and not the person who has deuteranopia or tritanopia sight, and so-forth.

- - -

 

[Sarkus]

Sure, but when talking about whether something is objectively real or not, the "universal" isn't some with regard some subset but to all. Period. Not just those who it might otherwise apply to, but everyone. As in, if it doesn't apply to everyone, it isn't part of objective reality.

A widely shared subjective reality is different from an objective reality. If the entire population happens to share the same viewpoint, that does not necessarily make it objective. I.e. if there exists a theoretical perspective, a viewpoint, in which that reality does not hold for a person.

So no, we're not talking about the majority with a shared subjective viewpoint, or at least that is/was not the position I was responding to, but rather whether it is objectively real or not. I.e whether it is a reality irrespective of subjectivity.

 

[Michael 345]

objectively real or not

Is - IT - detectable by a means (method) with zero subjectivity? ie a machine that goes beep

whether it is a reality irrespective of subjectivity

I would contend the above test, when the machine goes beep rubber stamps IT as being real

Breakfast just arrived

 

[wegs]

I disagree. Look at any dictionary and "pain" is defined as a "feeling" or "experience", not the cause, not the signals from the pain receptors etc, but the experience. To some people (with certain medical conditions etc) there is no pain. It simply does not exist for them. It is therefore surely subjective, not objective.

Objective existnece means that it is the same for everyone, irrespective of position, perspective, personal condition, etc. Pain simply does not fit into this. It is a subjective reality. From both the ability to experience, and the nature of that experience for those that do. It is, however, a widely shared phenomena, because most of us are in the same position, and thus have the same perspective.

Bear in mind that just because something has subjective existence does not mean that it does not exist, it merely means that the nature of that existence, the when, why, how of it, is a matter of the individual. The difference between the subjective reality of pain and ghosts, I would argue, is that pain is a concept with a reasonably understood mechanism, and broad consistency between stimuli and experience across the population. The stimuli can be objectively measured, and the explanation is rational. Ghosts, however, are an irrational explanation of the stimuli.

I've decided to bold that part for emphasis, because it is sort of what I've been trying to say. But...

I'm thinking though that pain, the concept itself, is not reliant on a subjective belief system to give it meaning, but that it is a sensation that is common to all humans - emotionally, physically and/or mentally. (I'm limiting it to humans for the sake of this discussion, but of course, other living organisms may experience pain.)

Clinically speaking, if you go to the doctor complaining of pain, the sensation will be subjective to you, for only you feel it...but, the doctor could measure it objectively, to be able to properly diagnose you. Doctors aren't just relying on our subjective feelings that we're reporting to them to determine our ailments and prescribe accordingly.

When we look at ghosts, because there is no objective way to really ''measure'' the stimuli that people are allegedly convinced they're experiencing, they can ever only be subjective to the individual making the claim.

 

[Michael 345]

I'm thinking though that pain, the concept itself

I do not look upon PAIN as a concept.
Pain is basically a nerve sensory feeling. Defining a nerve stimulation as pain gives it a position, on a sliding scale, unpleasant

However a unpleasant position on pain scale may be agony to another person - subjectivity

the doctor could measure it objectively,

The doctor could measure it objectively,

How?

It might be possible to make a device which delivers a standard force to a body part (objective) and note a verbal (subjective) reaction

they can ever only be subjective to the individual making the claim

Try taking a photo of where the ghost is said to be manifesting itself

 

[Dicart]

I have see a ghost when i was a child (my brother too, so we have see the same).
Yes. Ghosts exists.

 

[James R]

I have see a ghost when i was a child (my brother too, so we have see the same).

How did you know it was a ghost?

 

[Dicart]

How did you know it was a ghost?

Haha !
Very funny.
There is no specific scientific definition -the property of the observation - that permit to define what a ghost is.
Therefore you have to use some more generaly defintion like : It appeared and vanished. It was some kind real but not totaly.

There is not any scientific observation that could demonstrate that it is a "ghost" (or surely we would have named it differently).
You could also say :" I am a free man." (there is no scientific definition here, but generaly we agree to consider that someone is free or not)

Therefore, i know it was "a ghost", because it behave like what we generaly name "a ghost".
And we where 2 (me and my brother) with (almost) the same observation of this kind of oddly phenomenon.

And it has something to do with "time".
In fact he observered (my brother) "someone" walking in the room (at night) with the same watch he had on his handle.
But the one the ghost was wearing, was broken (this is a watch you can see by night because there is a light in it).
1 week after (around) his watch sliped from his arm and falling at the floor... broke !
Like the one the "ghost" was wearing !

Therefore "ghosts" could be some manifestation of the future events (or the past) we can see at the present.
You see a flying object in the sky and in fact it is a "plane" we will use in some decade, because humanity will create such space-ship.

 

[wegs]

There is a commonly accepted definition though, of the term “ghost” and that is an apparition of a dead person, manifesting itself in a physical sense to others. That might not be a “scientific” definition as science and the spiritual world don’t intersect, but it’s a universally accepted definition.

 

[DaveC426913]

Haha !
Very funny.
There is no specific scientific definition -the property of the observation - that permit to define what a ghost is.
Therefore you have to use some more generaly defintion like : It appeared and vanished. It was some kind real but not totaly.

There is not any scientific observation that could demonstrate that it is a "ghost" (or surely we would have named it differently).
You could also say :" I am a free man." (there is no scientific definition here, but generaly we agree to consider that someone is free or not)

Therefore, i know it was "a ghost", because it behave like what we generaly name "a ghost".

Or a dream.

Haha !In fact he observered (my brother) "someone" walking in the room (at night) with the same watch he had on his handle.
But the one the ghost was wearing, was broken (this is a watch you can see by night because there is a light in it).

So, it was night, but he could see that it was the same watch.
The light in it only shows the face, not the casing or the band, so how did he conclude it was the same?


And the ghost got close enough, and it held still for long enough, that your brother could see it was broken.
What was "broken"? The glass? The timing?

 

[Seattle]

There is a commonly accepted definition though, of the term “ghost” and that is an apparition of a dead person, manifesting itself in a physical sense to others. That might not be a “scientific” definition as science and the spiritual world don’t intersect, but it’s a universally accepted definition.

If "science" and the spiritual world don't intersect what would lead one to think that there is a spiritual world? The scientific method is just a tool, a method of objectively establishing facts by testing and experimentation. You could design a test to learn something about the effects of love using the scientific method.

You could do the same regarding ghosts but the outcome would be much different.

 

[wegs]

You could do the same regarding ghosts but the outcome would be much different.

Actually, that’s not a bad idea. Love is a good example in that we all define and experience it differently, but no one can prove that love exists. It’s a feeling, an emotion, a sensation even, and for something utterly “invisible,” it can wreak havoc in a person’s life. lol But there’s no “test” that would suffice for everyone to collectively agree that what they’re experiencing is love. Do you know what I mean?

Maybe the concept of ghosts is like that.

 

[Seattle]

Actually, that’s not a bad idea. Love is a good example in that we all define and experience it differently, but no one can prove that love exists. It’s a feeling, an emotion, a sensation even, and for something utterly “invisible,” it can wreak havoc in a person’s life. lol But there’s no “test” that would suffice for everyone to collectively agree that what they’re experiencing is love. Do you know what I mean?

Maybe the concept of ghosts is like that.

I disagree. You just have to define what love is and what a ghost is. Love, however you specifically define it, is a feeling that causes certain actions and reactions and certain behaviors if it exists.

Ghosts need to be defined to some standards and then those standards have to be tested. Is a ghost defined as something that we can see? That's generally the claim, that someone saw a ghost. Can that be independently replicated? If you saw a ghost, can you take a picture of it? Can I take a picture of the ghost that you experienced?

What can a ghost do? Walk though a door? Set up a test where a ghost should appear, along with a door with sensors on both sides. Did a ghost appear? Did it pass though the door?

Define love. Is it something that, if it exists, would have a person change their life, be less self-interested, become depressed when love is lost, have an elevated heart-rate when it's present?

You have to make claims about love and about ghosts, objective actionable claims and then test those claims.

Love will fairly consistently meet those claims beyond what could be attributable random chance outcomes and ghosts will fail that test miserably I'm guessing. Prove me wrong if you can and I'll accept that as well.

 

[wegs]

I disagree. You just have to define what love is and what a ghost is. Love, however you specifically define it, is a feeling that causes certain actions and reactions and certain behaviors if it exists.

Ghosts need to be defined to some standards and then those standards have to be tested. Is a ghost defined as something that we can see? That's generally the claim, that someone saw a ghost. Can that be independently replicated? If you saw a ghost, can you take a picture of it? Can I take a picture of the ghost that you experienced?

What can a ghost do? Walk though a door? Set up a test where a ghost should appear, along with a door with sensors on both sides. Did a ghost appear? Did it pass though the door?

Define love. Is it something that, if it exists, would have a person change their life, be less self-interested, become depressed when love is lost, have an elevated heart-rate when it's present?

You have to make claims about love and about ghosts, objective actionable claims and then test those claims.

Love will fairly consistently meet those claims beyond what could be attributable random chance outcomes and ghosts will fail that test miserably I'm guessing. Prove me wrong if you can and I'll accept that as well.

I’d agree we need different measurements and standards to determine if ghosts exist, as opposed to love. But love doesn’t cause everyone to feel one way over another, universally. What you’ve described could be how you experience and define love, but maybe someone else views love as co-dependency or becoming completely selfless for another. Love exists because we believe it does. You have to believe in ghosts for them to have a definition at all. Even the definition is a loose translation of others’ opinions of what they’ve experienced.

Have you ever known someone who every single person they date…they’re “in love?” Most likely, they’re infatuated but attach “love” to their relationship, way too soon. But that’s just my opinion. There’s no “universal standard” as to what causes a person to feel and experience love.

I think it’s easier to debunk the idea of ghosts existing in a physical sense more so than love. Love is accepted as a feeling that at some point in a person’s life, they may feel it.

But ghosts require the suspension of disbelief. Even if science can’t prove that ghosts exist, many people still choose to believe in them. Therein lies the dilemma…beliefs are part of our lives just as much as physical realities and if you believe strongly in something, no amount of “evidence” debunking it, will change that.

 

[DaveC426913]

Love is a good example in that we all define and experience it differently

I don't. I experience it the same as others.

 

[wegs]

I don't. I experience it the same as others.

Who are “others?”

I experience it similarly to what Seattle is describing but it’s still not measurable, like water or heat, for example. If there is no standard measurement for love, yet we still think it exists, why couldn’t the ghost world be the same? The claims aren’t measurable yet some people are convinced that ghosts exist.

I’ve heard people say “I don’t believe in love,” usually because they’ve had a bad experience in a relationship. So they guard themselves from feeling it again. So we can at least say that love causes reactions in people, but still only subjectively.