Why can't ghosts exist?

[birch]

So you can't substantiate your claim.


I'm not the one making a claim I can't support.


Still making the claim. And still unsupported.
This is equivalent to a theist stating "evidence for god is all round us, atheists are simply blind to it".
Way to go.


Sure it does: it was based on ignorance. Don't compound the error.

Then again you've already displayed some woo woo characteristics:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2728746&postcount=244

i'm not going to say what i think of your so-called intelligence because i would most likely get an infraction.

you think it isn't woowoo if one claims they just feel in the head but somehow someone saying they feel in the heart is woowoo. talk about having one's head so far up their ass.

you must need a source of reference at all times of the day to get by to double-check with some source that what you are perceiving is considered correct. lol

as far as you citing my description of the sense of self as being woowoo is very unintelligent actually. i was just honest enough to try and describe it whereas others would just not divulge that info so because i did try to describe it as best i could considering the type of subject it is, you label me as being crazy.

it's obvious i'm more aware and sane than you even for that understanding alone.

 

[C C]

there is tons of inanity in other threads as well as inane threads especially in free thoughts. there are a whole bunch of them even now! it's all arbitrary speculation.

By deterioration into inanity I was referring more to behavior or straying from sobriety rather than "speculations". The thread's original question had an epistemological undercurrent, an inquiry into how one arrives at doxastic states like "I believe ghosts exist" or "I don't believe ghosts exist". For instance, if any methodological process was concerned at all, was the conclusion yielded by its procedures or was it something actually omitted from the start by a priori canon or basic principles for carrying out operations of the process?

For the average "ghostie addict", though, I assume it's just an uncritical bias from tradition or an accommodation of emotional desires ("I just like the idea of spirits surviving death"). Of course, there's also the individual who believes they personally observed a ghost -- there's no inferential process mulling over a body of second-hand accounts preceding that judgement, although a critical examination of the incident could be applied retrospectively by the witness afterwards.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i'm not going to say what i think of your so-called intelligence because i would most likely get an infraction.

As if I care what you think. You haven't given much indication that you can even recognise intellect.

you think it isn't woowoo if one claims they just feel in the head but somehow someone saying they feel in the heart is woowoo. talk about having one's head so far up their ass.

I see you also don't read.

you must need a source of reference at all times of the day to get by to double-check with some source that what you are perceiving is considered correct. lol

So still nothing other than unsupported speculation.

Are you going to reply with anything worthwhile or just continue ranting?

 

[Magical Realist]

That's the sub-forum that paranormal and "unexplained phenomena" are listed under in the description, though. So the sorting process always has the potential to relocate something like this there. Probably what triggers it most though is when a discussion deteriorates to a certain level of inanity, regardless of whatever an OP originally intended.

CC...I feel like I once knew you in a former cyberlife. Does that sound possible to you? Just wondering..

RE: "inanity", I have a hard time objectively defining such a subjective appellation. With an inserted "s" it suddenly becomes "insanity". Is THAT the dreaded monster of these forums--a sort of involuntary collective lapsing into irrationality. But then SOME in(s)anity can be instructive in a Zen koan sort of way. Anyway, as you can probably tell I'm not a big fan of ANY third party altering a fruitful dialogue to suit their own agenda however justified. This whole website in fact may not be right for me. There's many others with less stringent protocols. Maybe I should look at those..

 

[birch]

So still nothing other than unsupported speculation.

Are you going to reply with anything worthwhile or just continue ranting?

this is the type of logic that is essentially scoffing at speculation or description unless something is already substantiated already in some formal study.

if that were the case, nothing would ever be considered.

if you don't consider my speculations worthwhile, that's your perogative.

 

[C C]

CC...I feel like I once knew you in a former cyberlife. Does that sound possible to you? Just wondering..

With millions of posters buzzing on countless forums, it would be surprising if you didn't encounter personality doppelgangers now and then. If the universe was really infinite, even it would eventually exhaust its possible configurations "according to these rules" and repeat itself.

RE: "inanity", I have a hard time objectively defining such a subjective appellation. With an inserted "s" it suddenly becomes "insanity". Is THAT the dreaded monster of these forums--a sort of involuntary collective lapsing into irrationality. But then SOME in(s)anity can be instructive in a Zen koan sort of way. Anyway, as you can probably tell I'm not a big fan of ANY third party altering a fruitful dialogue to suit their own agenda however justified. This whole website in fact may not be right for me. There's many others with less stringent protocols. Maybe I should look at those..

Where are those? Usenet?

 

[Dywyddyr]

this is the type of logic that is essentially scoffing at speculation or description unless something is already substantiated already in some formal study.

Incorrect. I'm scoffing at a claim that has repeatedly been made and stated as if it were true, not as "speculation".

if that were the case, nothing would ever be considered.

Again you're wrong.

if you don't consider my speculations worthwhile, that's your perogative.

It's not so much that I don't consider them "worthwhile" as that you persist in stating them as fact.
That is less than honest. And less than rational.

 

[birch]

Incorrect. I'm scoffing at a claim that has repeatedly been made and stated as if it were true, not as "speculation".


Again you're wrong.


It's not so much that I don't consider them "worthwhile" as that you persist in stating them as fact.
That is less than honest. And less than rational.

it is very honest. also because this is so common sense that it is understood. many people do have a sense of self as well as their emotional center in the chest/heart area.

if you don't believe me, then go around and ask people randomly on the street. sorry for you it's not in a bottle for you to see and acknowledge.

 

[Dywyddyr]

it is very honest.

Wrong.

also because this is so common sense that it is understood. many people do have a sense of self as well as their emotional center in the chest/heart area.

Still can't back it up.
You claim it's "common sense" yet so far the responses to your claim have been against you.

if you don't believe me, then go around and ask people randomly on the street. sorry for you it's not in a bottle for you to see and acknowledge.

Still wrong.

Please make your mind up: is a speculation or is it a fact?

 

[birch]

Wrong.


Still can't back it up.
You claim it's "common sense" yet so far the responses to your claim have been against you.


Still wrong.

Please make your mind up: is a speculation or is it a fact?

really? so you need a study to acknowledge that many people do have the sensation of a sense of self and feelings in the heart/chest area? lol.

very amazing. you need a schematic drawn to understand anything. it's like you need the concrete proof of results acknowledged by some researcher even when there is evidence all around you.

you know who is nuts in this conversation? you. so far the statements here have been against me? so what?

i doubt very much that it's a minority of people who have a sense of self experienced in the heart area.

 

[nicholas1M7]

CC...I feel like I once knew you in a former cyberlife. Does that sound possible to you? Just wondering..

RE: "inanity", I have a hard time objectively defining such a subjective appellation. With an inserted "s" it suddenly becomes "insanity". Is THAT the dreaded monster of these forums--a sort of involuntary collective lapsing into irrationality. But then SOME in(s)anity can be instructive in a Zen koan sort of way. Anyway, as you can probably tell I'm not a big fan of ANY third party altering a fruitful dialogue to suit their own agenda however justified. This whole website in fact may not be right for me. There's many others with less stringent protocols. Maybe I should look at those..

You belong in a shitass website full of losers and failures like Cerebrals.

 

[Dywyddyr]

really? so you need a study to acknowledge that many people do have the sensation of a sense of self and feelings in the heart/chest area? lol.

Isn't that what I've been asking for?
Please list these "many people" since, as stated, the weight of evidence is so far against you.

it's like you need the concrete proof of results acknowledged by some researcher even when there is evidence all around you.

Back to theists' argument for god.
Well done.

 

[birch]

Isn't that what I've been asking for?
Please list these "many people" since, as stated, the weight of evidence is so far against you.


Back to theists' argument for god.
Well done.

sorry, i'm not being the dumbass here. acknowledging that a sense of self is experienced in the heart area vs what one thinks is the correct answer is not the same though there are probably people who do just seem to not experience their sense of self as much in the heart area.

don't even try that bullshit. there is no weight of evidence here against me. you are not even scientific yourself. this is a small pool of people and those who are inclined to dismiss any sensation that they deem illogical or not in the head as well. never considered that either.

also, when i encounter people daily, the majority of their energy and persona stems from the heart/chest area. this is why people use terms like spirit, heart or soul.

you need this spelled out for you and remain blind unless someone gives you the thumbs up to acknowledge it. that makes you a follower, not someone open to actual experience. i bet you ignore anything that's not already approved in your mental data bank.

 

[Dywyddyr]

sorry, i'm not being the dumbass here. acknowledging that a sense of self is experienced in the heart area vs what one thinks is the correct answer is not the same though there are probably people who do just seem to not experience their sense of self as much in the heart area.

Wrong again. Repeating a claim you cannot substantiate is hardly smart.

don't even try that bullshit. there is no weight of evidence here against me. you are not even scientific yourself. this is a small pool of people and those who are inclined to dismiss any sensation that they deem illogical or not in the head as well. never considered that either.

And yet you have not provided one shred of evidence or testimony to support your contention.

also, when i encounter people daily, the majority of their energy and persona stems from the heart/chest area.

What? How do you know?

you need this spelled out for you and remain blind unless someone gives you the thumbs up to acknowledge it. that makes you a follower, not someone open to actual experience. i bet you ignore anything that's not already approved in your mental data bank.

And a resort to ad homs again. Insults do not constitute data.

 

[birch]

Wrong again. Repeating a claim you cannot substantiate is hardly smart.


And yet you have not provided one shred of evidence or testimony to support your contention.


What? How do you know?


And a resort to ad homs again. Insults do not constitute data.

i'm sorry but i can't help it if you are an idiot.

hardly smart? you can't even acknowledge or detect it from many people who have that experience all around you in life.

 

[Dywyddyr]

i'm sorry but i can't help it if you are an idiot.

I'm an idiot because you can't back up your assertions?
Explain to me how that works please.

you can't even acknowledge or detect it from many people who have that experience all around you in life.

You're assuming again, aren't you?
Who has this "experience"? You've yet to show that it's true.

 

[Magical Realist]

With millions of posters buzzing on countless forums, it would be surprising if you didn't encounter personality doppelgangers now and then. If the universe was really infinite, even it would eventually exhaust its possible configurations "according to these rules" and repeat itself.

Well..is it at least LIKELY.....that the universe, or "the multiverse", is infinite?

 

[C C]

Well..is it at least LIKELY.....that the universe, or "the multiverse", is infinite?

Endlessness as a concrete, completed condition doesn't make sense. But if it referred to a continuing, unbounded process of adding more to a progressing "edge" of the universe as well as to fractal-like nested levels in the compositions of entities, then what sort of unfinished reality would that be? Sounds more like an unresolved virtual cosmos ingeminated by a computational formula than a non-abstract one that has all possible dangling ropes secured. So we're left taking cosmology's word that if the density of the universe exceeds a certain value, its being "infinite" refers to endless expansion - just more space arising between galaxies.

The possibility of infinite multiple universes - according to the gospel of this or that theoretical construct - would also have to refer to a temporal endlessness -- more universes constantly or intermittently budding off.

But what, you may ask, about block-time or anything related? If commonsense notions of past and future existed simultaneously as such a continuum, then how could that hyperdimensional solid or field avoid being 'infinity' as a completed condition? Perhaps that's the usefulness of Kant: The human operating system is simply too limited to successfully represent whatever the ultimate situation is as an imagined material structure or other manifested experience. Mathematical descriptions might capture it in some manner, but converting the deeply abstract to our commonsense apprehensions is.....

 

[Magical Realist]

Endlessness as a concrete, completed condition doesn't make sense. But if it referred to a continuing, unbounded process of adding more to a progressing "edge" of the universe as well as to fractal-like nested levels in the compositions of entities, then what sort of unfinished reality would that be? Sounds more like an unresolved virtual cosmos ingeminated by a computational formula than a non-abstract one that has all possible dangling ropes secured. So we're left taking cosmology's word that if the density of the universe exceeds a certain value, its being "infinite" refers to endless expansion - just more space arising between galaxies.

The possibility of infinite multiple universes - according to the gospel of this or that theoretical construct - would also have to refer to a temporal endlessness -- more universes constantly or intermittently budding off.

But what, you may ask, about block-time or anything related? If commonsense notions of past and future existed simultaneously as such a continuum, then how could that hyperdimensional solid or field avoid being 'infinity' as a completed condition? Perhaps that's the usefulness of Kant: The human operating system is simply too limited to successfully represent whatever the ultimate situation is as an imagined material structure or other manifested experience. Mathematical descriptions might capture it in some manner, but converting the deeply abstract to our commonsense apprehensions is.....

One of the problems with a infinite universe as I see it is the issue of limitation. How, iwo, does an infinite expanse of space/time ever come to amount to ONE (as in UNI-verse) thing? With a universe surely you must have a circumscribable set inside of which exist all it's contents. But that would mean a finite spacetime, not to mention an encompassing meta-space beyond its own boundaries. I guess this is where the concept of self-containment comes into play. With such entities as universes you actually CAN have infinitude that is nevertheless bounded if the universe hyperdimensionally folds back and contains itself. After that you could theoretically have perhaps an infinitude of self-containing infinite universes all existing parallel to each other in some sort of transfinite continuum. Some universes may consist of microscopically infintesimal spacetimes. Others macroscopically infinite spacetimes. Yet others may include both, the infintesimal folding back into the infinite in one self-containing "gauge symmetrical" whole.

Ok..now I gotta go take an aspirin before my head explodes..

 

[SciWriter]

for instance, i've never heard of someone "grieving" in their head. they grieve in their heart and feel it there.

There are some feelings from the gut, as there are even said to be some neurons there from the very early days of being.

It is also that the anxiety and depression of mourning or from anything else can be physically felt, mostly in the torso, but these as well as most sensations have reported to the brain and back to the body at large, as qualia.

I'm trying to say that, yes, a toe can have injury or be a concentrated place of thought, but it is the brain that makes the pain qualia or of the place that is focused on.

One can even take a pencil and rub it along a fabric, even feeling the sensation way out there at the tip of the pencil, where no sense organs are. Same when flying a hang glider that the wings seem to be an extension of the arms.