[Guest]

I think they do exist religiously (not as you think they do)

Edited November 2, 2008 by guest_7314

[Guest]

You're right about this first statement.

What does "knowledge about death" (whatever that is trying to implicate) have to do with this discussion? This discussion is about ghosts. Who "sees" ghosts? Living people do. And let me assure you that both I and octopuppy are living. We don't need to die to figure out something doesn't make sense and has no proof to justify its existence. I don't even see the need to have an open mind about ghosts, in the hopes that maybe in the future someone will prove they exist; that is just not going to happen. There are way too many reasons for ghosts not to exist. And must I remind you that books, movies, etc... do not count as proof?

*sigh*

so your telling me movies are real? So a guy in an iron suit with very hi-tech technology in it is flying around? There is a big green monster on the loose causing destruction? What about Get Smart? Is our agents really like that? And does the Vice President really fight with the other departments of the government (physically fight)????

I HIGHLY doubt that.... i can get high as hell and see gosts... will anyone believe me.... uh NO! But me seeing a gost makes them real.... even though my mind was elsewhere and i wasnt thinking right. Although gosts are a bit... superstional with me, I agree with Kat..... spirits i think are real....

and yet you still spelt favourites wrong tsk tsk.

anyway

GHOSTS: hmm. i don't exactly believe in people coming back to earth as ghosts (but i believe in our souls being resurrected on Day of Judgement and stuff) but i do believe in jins which are kind of like genies in Islam.

BAH!!!! I am so sorry i spelled it wrong MASTER!!!!!

I believe in spirits 100% but I don't think they are around to haunt us...

I have seen my great tata's(my dad's grandfather) ghost about 4 times. Only once out of the four did I actually see his entire body... the other three times it was shadows at least thats how I can explain them...

So my tata passed away and since he was the one who had built the house my dad didn't want it to be lost from the family so we moved in... This house was one of those old looking houses where an entire wall would be covered with mirror tiles and the rest of the walls had wood paneling and the carpet was red and it was always dark even with lamps and stuff... we also had a full length mirror at the end of the hallway so it looked like the hallway continued on... Anyway this hallway was shaped in a L with the mirror being at the top of the L...

Well the night of the 1 yr anniversary of his death we had a small family get together at the house, well you know how people always say "He's with us now", "I can feel him around", or "He's looking on us now"... Well i found out later that it was true... After everyone left and we went to bed I got up maybe around 11pm or so to go to the rest room which was at the other end of the L shaped hallway... I finished and started going back towards my bedroom and while looking in the full length mirror in front of me I saw his reflection in the mirror of his back walking away so if his actual body were there in the house he'd be walking towards me(hope that makes sense)... It wasn't very clear, more like a silouette(sp?) so ya it was very quick and it dissapeared as soon as I realized what it was... the funny thing is, I wasn't afraid because I loved him very much, after that I would see shadows move behind me when I would look into the tile mirrors that covered a wall in the living room.... I would have probably not stopped seeing them but my little sister told my mom that she would see things so i told her about what I saw and the next day she had my dad tearing down the tiles, we kept the full length at the end of the hall because my mom used it to look at herself when she would pick an outfit...

well maybe about 1yr and a half later we were at my cousins house and we found out that my grandmother(my dad's mother) passed away and when we got home the mirror at the end of the hall had shattered as if a ball had been thrown at it or as if someone had punched it so after that my mom couldn't take it anymore so we moved and my uncle took the house...

A year later my little brother was born and when he was only a year old, he started talking and among his first words were of course mama and dada but he also said bobi(pronounced bobee)... Bobi was what we called my grandmother because she didn't like being called anything that made her feel old so she picked that nickname for us since it was easy to say even as a toddler Since he hadn't even been born yet when she passed away, it made me believe that she was visiting him...

I know this sounds a little over the top and no one ever believes me but thought I would share

Edit: Sorry for the length and all the grammatical errors

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW!!! Usually i am the one for stories, but this one is good! Gives me chills really

[Guest]

Pffff... The thing about investigating paranormal is that it's more about collecting DATA than collecting evidence!!!

95-98% of the time there's an explanation for the collected data. I've seen science programs on NG channel about ghosts and debunking ALL the evidence about orbs and alleged "audio recordings of ghosts" and I absolutely agree with everything said there, but there are some data that still escape scientific reasoning (not in that program I've seen because they conveniently show only what they can explain).

You seem to feel there is a case to answer. In some ways I share your frustration on this issue. I think it is constructive to put forward rational thinking in ways that do not seem dismissive of the unknown. The problem is that whenever a "paranormal" incident is investigated there are 4 possible outcomes:

1) Every strange phenomenon is replicated, investigated and explained using existing science

Extremely unlikely to happen, since ghostly apparitions tend not to occur when you look for them. But in this case the "supernatural" interpretation can be dismissed.

2) It is impractical to do a complete investigation, or the phenomena don't occur when investigated

Highly likely, in which case everybody is wasting their time.

3) Some strange phenomenon occurs when, upon being investigated, proves to be have no rational explanation

This proves that the supernatural exists. If this did occur, it would perhaps open up a whole new branch of science, the science of the irrational, or perhaps we would have to abandon science altogether in favour of irrationality. Never happened to date as far as I'm aware. Note that an inability to explain something is not the same as it having no rational explanation. Sometimes practical considerations dictate that you can't find the answer to your questions, in which case we still have the second outcome.

4) Some strange phenomenon occurs which has a rational explanation requiring us to expand existing science

This is a very good outcome since it is an important scientific discovery. Never happened yet, alas.

So...

We have 4 possible outcomes. The last 2 are the only ones which would justify the whole enterprise, but since numerous serious attempts have been made to validate the supernatural and none have worked, these are an extremely slim hope. The first outcome is only a success in the sense that it validates science and rationality, but these didn't really need validating, and this does nothing to change public perception. Where one incident is debunked, there are always others that remain "unexplained", and proponents of the supernatural easily dismiss every debunked incident as one fake among many genuine ones. The second outcome is overwhelmingly the most likely and is generally counterproductive. It does nothing to change or inform anyone's opinion, and if things remain unexplained is it generally chalked up as a victory for irrationality ("Scientists came to investigate! They could find no scientific explanation!"). So whatever happens it's a no-win situation.

The data we have on the supernatural is gathered selectively. We choose to look at it because it is unexplained. As soon as it is explained it ceases to be interesting. So it follows that until we have perfect knowledge of the entire universe and an explanation for absolutely everything (including, particularly, reported first-hand experiences) there will always be those who consider this a reason to believe in the supernatural. But in order to view it in perspective you have to see how selective it is. If you see a movement out of the corner of your eye you might find out what that was, or you might not. If you do, you think nothing of it. If you don't you might feel it was something supernatural. But it stands to reason that you won't always be able to explain everything. It doesn't mean that explanations don't exist, it's just that you cannot always know the explanation. We have to consider this aspect of it, unsatisfactory as it may seem, and allow that the unexplained exists. Investigating it is not always practical or useful.

Since you still don't get what I'm saying, let me put it this way - I don't believe in ghosts, I believe in truth (it's sounds like something said in "The X-Files" ). EDIT: I don't know the truth!!!!!!! I don't claim to know the truth!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON'T care about whether ghosts exist or not I care about ME being open minded for those information that can't be explained

I think the reason people are taking issue with you on this is that your principles of truth and open-mindedness are admirable, but if misapplied they can steer you wrong. As I've pointed out here and in my last post, information which can't be explained implies nothing. It is all too easy to tacitly imply irrationality and supernatural beliefs from what is merely a lack of data, chosen selectively from everyday occurrences all over the planet simply on the basis of it being unexplained. Where we can make up the missing data and find an explanation, this may be useful (or more likely, a pointless exercise in validating rationality). But usually we cannot. In that case, such information may as well be ignored. It serves no purpose.

[itachi-san]

*sigh*

so your telling me movies are real? So a guy in an iron suit with very hi-tech technology in it is flying around? There is a big green monster on the loose causing destruction? What about Get Smart? Is our agents really like that? And does the Vice President really fight with the other departments of the government (physically fight)????

I HIGHLY doubt that.... i can get high as hell and see gosts... will anyone believe me.... uh NO! But me seeing a gost makes them real.... even though my mind was elsewhere and i wasnt thinking right. Although gosts are a bit... superstional with me, I agree with Kat..... spirits i think are real....

You're the one who brought up Ann Rice... may I ask why? Do you also believe in vampires?

[itachi-san]

Pffff... The thing about investigating paranormal is that it's more about collecting DATA than collecting evidence!!!

95-98% of the time there's an explanation for the collected data. I've seen science programs on NG channel about ghosts and debunking ALL the evidence about orbs and alleged "audio recordings of ghosts" and I absolutely agree with everything said there, but there are some data that still escape scientific reasoning (not in that program I've seen because they conveniently show only what they can explain).

Since you still don't get what I'm saying, let me put it this way - I don't believe in ghosts, I believe in truth (it's sounds like something said in "The X-Files" ). EDIT: I don't know the truth!!!!!!! I don't claim to know the truth!!!!!!!!!!!

I DON'T care about whether ghosts exist or not I care about ME being open minded for those information that can't be explained!

And since you still don't get it... I really don't know what else to say. <_<

EDIT: You DON'T know the truth!

I think you're mixing up a few things. Actually nevermind, this makes no sense. You said you agreed with the guy who worked in a haunted building, now you're saying you don't believe in ghosts.

I believe in truth... who doesn't?

I agree that some data escapes understanding and proof, so we are then to chalk that up to ghosts? Ghosts that always conveniently are never around when the equipment to record them is? Being open minded does not imply you have to be excepting of anyone's tall tale. There is a line between open-mindedness and silliness. Should I have an open mind about Big Foot? Please say no.

Edit: for clarification, the Poll here asks if people believe in ghosts or not. Belief and open-mindedness are logically very far apart (hopefully). So you say your open-minded, but did you check "yes"? That would imply you believe in ghosts, only because there is a possibility (one that I don't see) that they exist.

[Guest]

So I know I came into this quite late, but I finally had the time to read through everything. SO here we go.

How is thinking ghosts exist, optimistic? I don't find the idea of eternally walking the earth for no reason other than to scare one in every million people a very optimistic future

Hey that sounds like a great future.... =D

Well, by your logic, if you've never been to china, and you can't prove it doesn't exist...Why believe in China? Say there's proof...like a rock from China...How do you know that that rock is from China? It could be from anywhere. Say you have someone from China. How do you KNOW they're from China? They could be LYING! They could be KOREAN!

So...for all those saying there's no proof China exists,

there's no proof that China DOESN'T exist

(and no way to prove that it doesn't exist)

So you can only prove that China exists,

and cannot prove that it doesn't.

Therefore, the only logical conclusion

is to believe in China.

You cannot prove that China doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean it exists. All those people who claim to have "been to China" were probably just hallunctionating. And just because you THEORETICALLY COULD prove China exists IF it exists doesn't mean it exists

So I am no longer believing in China.

(By the way, are you implying that quamagas don't exist?) <_<

I think this is an agrument that can go 'round and 'round and never really come to an agreement so long as there are those who liek to argue just for the sake of argument...like me

In that case, I should probably sleep on the floor tonight.

Except I have come into contact with my bed, and I can see it, feel it, hear it when I drop stuff on it, smell it(doesn't have much of a smell), and I can taste it-(yuck, cottony)

I don't believe your floor exists either

You're the one who brought up Ann Rice... may I ask why? Do you also believe in vampires?

Ooooh I do. I am one, ok no, not really.. But i do prefer the night time to the day.

Anywho, I have to agree with everyone who says ghost have not been proven to exist so the likelihood that the do is slim. I've never seen ghosts, I've seen big black floating shapes in my room, but I was usuall on my computer at the time and my room was dark, and it was usually around 3AM (Wait according to The Haunting of Emily Rose 3AM is the devils hours...hmmmm) so I was pretty tired and my eyes were most likely tried of focusing and adjusting to the darkness.

And, for the record Bigfoot, Nessie, and the abominable snowman do exist,

right up there with Santa

[andromeda]

I think you're mixing up a few things. Actually nevermind, this makes no sense. You said you agreed with the guy who worked in a haunted building, now you're saying you don't believe in ghosts.

Exactly... I don't believe in ghosts but I believe that potentially they might exist!

I agree that some data escapes understanding and proof, so we are then to chalk that up to ghosts?

I never said THAT! I said that will remain INCONCLUSIVE!

Ghosts that always conveniently are never around when the equipment to record them is?

What equipment exactly?? I don't believe that there's a proper equipment!

Being open minded does not imply you have to be excepting of anyone's tall tale.

I already said I dismiss 95-98% of everything I hear and read! The reason I said kat that I believe her and that I believe the building guy is because I do think they've heard and seen something they couldn't explain at the time... Were those ghosts?? I don't know... Could somebody else explain them what happened?? Maybe... I don't know!

There is a line between open-mindedness and silliness. Should I have an open mind about Big Foot? Please say no.

You forgot Almas and Yeti, and while I'm at it Allghoi Khorkoi (probably made up by smugglers to keep people away from the Gobi desert)!

:lol:

Edit: for clarification, the Poll here asks if people believe in ghosts or not. Belief and open-mindedness are logically very far apart (hopefully). So you say your open-minded, but did you check "yes"? That would imply you believe in ghosts, only because there is a possibility (one that I don't see) that they exist.

I couldn't check neutral <_< and I didn't want to check "How should I know?" because that would mean like I'm not even interested, and I am!

I don't expect you to understand my twisted logic...

Edited November 6, 2008 by andromeda

[andromeda]

And, for the record Bigfoot, Nessie, and the abominable snowman do exist,

right up there with Santa

You forgot Ogopogo!!

Edited November 6, 2008 by andromeda

[Guest]

I couldn't check neutral <_< and I didn't want to check "How should I know?" because that would mean like I'm not even interested, and I am!

I didn't read it that way - I expected you would have checked "How should I know?". Since you're open to the possibility, but don't yet have any evidence, how should you know?

Edited November 6, 2008 by Cherry Lane

[andromeda]

I didn't read it that way - I expected you would have checked "How should I know?". Since you're open to the possibility, but don't yet have any evidence, how should you know?

I'm still in the process of learning English, American whatever... To me How should I know? sounds like I don't give a rat's PEEP!

[itachi-san]

What equipment exactly?? I don't believe that there's a proper equipment!

cameras, microphones, any recording devices... so what you're basically saying is that human eyes and ears (which are very easily manipulated and tricked) are more reliable than video, picture and audio recorders? Sorry to say, but you're off on this one.

I don't expect you to understand my twisted logic...

You're right, I don't

[andromeda]

cameras, microphones, any recording devices... so what you're basically saying is that human eyes and ears (which are very easily manipulated and tricked) are more reliable than video, picture and audio recorders? Sorry to say, but you're off on this one.

You're right, I don't

Cameras and microphones?! I thought you meant something fancy schmancy. The problem with those however is that the results can be easily fabricated so no one would believe it! I wouldn't believe it!

Now I sound like a real skeptic... :lol:

EDIT: Now when I only read these last two post of ours... it's pretty funny!

It almost sounds like you are defending "ghost hunters"!!!

lmao rofl lol and everything...

Edited November 6, 2008 by andromeda

[itachi-san]

Cameras and microphones?! I thought you meant something fancy schmancy. The problem with those however is that the results can be easily fabricated so no one would believe it! I wouldn't believe it!

Now I sound like a real skeptic... :lol:

EDIT: Now when I only read these last two post of ours... it's pretty funny!

It almost sounds like you are defending "ghost hunters"!!!

lmao rofl lol and everything...

Are you actually saying you trust other people's (even your own) sense perception over video and sound footage of an event? That's nothing short of ridiculous. <_<

Edit: btw, doctored footage is almost always easily picked apart. There's always an edit trail regardless of how well a video has been modified.

[andromeda]

Are you actually saying you trust other people's (even your own) sense perception over video and sound footage of an event? That's nothing short of ridiculous. <_<

Edit: btw, doctored footage is almost always easily picked apart. There's always an edit trail regardless of how well a video has been modified.

Ups... sorry about my poor English I just looked up fabrication I didn't mean modification but... um... but creating visual and audio effects and recording them, or something not modifying.

Next time ask what I meant before you squash me like an ant. You are not being nice and using the word ridiculous is really unnecessary...

[itachi-san]

Ups... sorry about my poor English I just looked up fabrication I didn't mean modification but... um... but creating visual and audio effects and recording them, or something not modifying.

Next time ask what I meant before you squash me like an ant. You are not being nice and using the word ridiculous is really unnecessary...

Sorry if I offended, that wasn't my intent. Your English seems fine to me btw. I certainly didn't try to squash you, but you also didn't answer what I asked. Basically I'm asking: Do you trust human sense perception over clean, unmodified video and audio footage?

The intent of the question breaks down into:

1) The only "proof" of ghosts is through people's recollection of their sensory perception of them

2) There is no "proof" of ghosts by means of raw footage

It's very convenient that ghosts can be seen and heard, but never captured with a camera.

[andromeda]

Do you trust human sense perception over clean, unmodified video and audio footage?

No.

1) The only "proof" of ghosts is through people's recollection of their sensory perception of them

Agree.

2) There is no "proof" of ghosts by means of raw footage

I agree never encountered one! One of them very convincing turned out to be a hoax. It was a ghost caught on a parking lot camera.

It's very convenient that ghosts can be seen and heard, but never captured with a camera.

I absolutely and 100% agree!

I still don't understand why are you arguing with me

I think that "ghost encounters" are interesting, because they are like riddles. You collect everything that people saw and heard, basically experienced when they think (believe) that they have seen a ghost, and give them a logical and scientific explanation of that event. And maybe, just maybe you run into something that can't be explained and then you leave the case opened... simple as that, an unsolved riddle yet to be solved. I'm not saying that, since it's unsolved it has to be a ghost, no... it's just unsolved.

The only difference between you and me is that I'm opened to a possibility of a crazy and ridiculous idea that ghost JUST MIGHT exist and you are not. I agree with you totally on everything else!

I just don't understand why is that such a problem??

Edited November 7, 2008 by andromeda

[andromeda]

You seem to feel there is a case to answer. In some ways I share your frustration on this issue. I think it is constructive to put forward rational thinking in ways that do not seem dismissive of the unknown. The problem is that whenever a "paranormal" incident is investigated there are 4 possible outcomes:

1) Every strange phenomenon is replicated, investigated and explained using existing science

Extremely unlikely to happen, since ghostly apparitions tend not to occur when you look for them. But in this case the "supernatural" interpretation can be dismissed.

2) It is impractical to do a complete investigation, or the phenomena don't occur when investigated

Highly likely, in which case everybody is wasting their time.

3) Some strange phenomenon occurs when, upon being investigated, proves to be have no rational explanation

This proves that the supernatural exists. If this did occur, it would perhaps open up a whole new branch of science, the science of the irrational, or perhaps we would have to abandon science altogether in favour of irrationality. Never happened to date as far as I'm aware. Note that an inability to explain something is not the same as it having no rational explanation. Sometimes practical considerations dictate that you can't find the answer to your questions, in which case we still have the second outcome.

4) Some strange phenomenon occurs which has a rational explanation requiring us to expand existing science

This is a very good outcome since it is an important scientific discovery. Never happened yet, alas.

So...

We have 4 possible outcomes. The last 2 are the only ones which would justify the whole enterprise, but since numerous serious attempts have been made to validate the supernatural and none have worked, these are an extremely slim hope. The first outcome is only a success in the sense that it validates science and rationality, but these didn't really need validating, and this does nothing to change public perception. Where one incident is debunked, there are always others that remain "unexplained", and proponents of the supernatural easily dismiss every debunked incident as one fake among many genuine ones. The second outcome is overwhelmingly the most likely and is generally counterproductive. It does nothing to change or inform anyone's opinion, and if things remain unexplained is it generally chalked up as a victory for irrationality ("Scientists came to investigate! They could find no scientific explanation!"). So whatever happens it's a no-win situation.

The data we have on the supernatural is gathered selectively. We choose to look at it because it is unexplained. As soon as it is explained it ceases to be interesting. So it follows that until we have perfect knowledge of the entire universe and an explanation for absolutely everything (including, particularly, reported first-hand experiences) there will always be those who consider this a reason to believe in the supernatural. But in order to view it in perspective you have to see how selective it is. If you see a movement out of the corner of your eye you might find out what that was, or you might not. If you do, you think nothing of it. If you don't you might feel it was something supernatural. But it stands to reason that you won't always be able to explain everything. It doesn't mean that explanations don't exist, it's just that you cannot always know the explanation. We have to consider this aspect of it, unsatisfactory as it may seem, and allow that the unexplained exists. Investigating it is not always practical or useful.

I think the reason people are taking issue with you on this is that your principles of truth and open-mindedness are admirable, but if misapplied they can steer you wrong. As I've pointed out here and in my last post, information which can't be explained implies nothing. It is all too easy to tacitly imply irrationality and supernatural beliefs from what is merely a lack of data, chosen selectively from everyday occurrences all over the planet simply on the basis of it being unexplained. Where we can make up the missing data and find an explanation, this may be useful (or more likely, a pointless exercise in validating rationality). But usually we cannot. In that case, such information may as well be ignored. It serves no purpose.

Sorry I missed your post. I agree. Nicely worded!

[Guest]

Uhhh huh......... so are gosts real or not? And why cant we video tape them? What about a camera?

[Izzy]

Uhhh huh......... so are gosts real or not? And why cant we video tape them? What about a camera?

We have no empircal data, whatsoever, to suggest they are real. You may think whatever you like, and although I'm willing to keep an open mind, I'm saying that, based on what we know, they are not real.

We can't film them because they do not exist.

And what about a camera?

[akaslickster]

The only ghosts that do exist are ones who still post after dying in a Mafia game.

Edited November 17, 2008 by akaslickster

[Guest]

The only ghosts that do exist are ones who still post after dying in a Mafia game.

xD nice.

I believe ghosts don't exist. I believe a person's physical body is dead and gone and the spirit goes wherever it goes (not getting religious here, although I admit I am Christian.) I somewhat believe that people might "feel" an eerie presence of a lost loved one near them that might give them comfort. Whether that is actually the person's spirit or the living person's thoughts, I don't know however. In that case, it can sort of go either way, whereas there is no REAL CONCRETE proof of ghosts as portrayed in any recent media that I know of.

[phaze]

I am suprised that more people were not truely honest with themselves and selected the "I dont know" option

[Izzy]

I am suprised that more people were not truely honest with themselves and selected the "I dont know" option

I'm sorry, but how is that not being honest with yourself? For people unfamiliar with the topic (or not used to the topic being brought up), the answer should very well be "How should I know?!". Others may have just skimmed and seen the question as "Do ghosts really exist?", which, well, frankly most people don't know. Please don't criticize people because you aren't capable of thinking like them or seeing something from someone else's point of view.

[andromeda]

I'm sorry, but how is that not being honest with yourself? For people unfamiliar with the topic (or not used to the topic being brought up), the answer should very well be "How should I know?!". Others may have just skimmed and seen the question as "Do ghosts really exist?", which, well, frankly most people don't know. Please don't criticize people because you aren't capable of thinking like them or seeing something from someone else's point of view.

You are the one who constantly does all the criticizing, calm down!

If someone says I don't believe in ghosts and then that same someone says if they find proof that ghosts do exist I'm willing to believe, but that someone checks I don't believe in ghosts instead of I don't know then, by phaze's opinion they are not true to them selves, I think that's what he meant.

To be honest non of us really knows, so I interpreted that last option as I don't really care if ghosts exist or not so I checked I think that they do exist because of the remote possibility that they might and not because I think that they actually do.

Next time ask someone what did they exactly mean by what they said before you needlessly verbally attack someone

[phaze]

mmm, It seems that I am oft misunderstood on BrainDen

What I meant was if I am honest with myself the only thing that I can be certain about is my own existance.

Have you heard about René Descartes?

[peace*out]

mmm, It seems that I am oft misunderstood on BrainDen

What I meant was if I am honest with myself the only thing that I can be certain about is my own existance.

Have you heard about René Descartes?

I think the reason is people are voting for what they belive. IF you believe there are, will you say 'no' or 'i dont know'? That's my interpretation, but it may not be it....