Do you believe in ghosts?

10 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

Sheesh man you´ve got to be the most militant skeptic on this site, do you also happen to browse r/atheism in your free time?

Why, is it forbidden to be an atheist?

I didn’t say that I believe that ghosts don’t exist, I said that I don’t believe that ghosts exist. There’s a difference.

51 minutes ago, ducon said:

Why, is it forbidden to be an atheist?

I didn’t say that I believe that ghosts don’t exist, I said that I don’t believe that ghosts exist. There’s a difference.

Nobody said that it is forbiden to be an atheist, but a lot of people are gonna roll their eyes at you, because a lot of online atheist I met have this strange self serious personality mixed with persecution complex.

It's almost a mirror reflection of how a lot of evangelical christians in the US see themselves, trying to act super serious when speaking about their faith all the time and having this victim mentality that everyone is about to get them.

Where did you see in my messages what you criticize in evangelical Christians?

I don’t like reddit even if I use it for two subreddits only (r/atheism is not in them).

If ghosts don't exist, how do the Ghostbusters operate? Checkmate liberals. 

8 minutes ago, ducon said:

Where did you see in my messages what you criticize in evangelical Christians?

I don’t like reddit even if I use it for two subreddits only (r/atheism is not in them).

If you want to ask me more question then DM me, I don't want to shit up this thread with our dumb arguing.

5 hours ago, Murdoch said:

Belief is irrelevant. To me it's what you can prove with verifiable, objective evidence. Ghosts, by their very nature, are likely to prove forever immune to any kind of objective verification. People are going to follow their own biases to determine if they personally believe in them or not, and dissuading someone of their personal beliefs is not easy to do. And that's cool. People are entitled to believe as they wish.

 

Kinda disagree here. I mean ghosts being immune to objective verification part. With our current understanding of science, we have done things that people in the past could only dream of. We've also done a bunch of things that many people in the past didn't even consider. So I think that given enough time and assuming the human race doesn't go extinct before then, we may be able to figure out some way to objectively verify the existence of ghosts. How and when that will happen? Yeah no clue on that front.

I'm the spooky black ghost who haunts the WADs & Mods subforum! WoOoOoOoOoOoOoO!

Nah, I've always been highly skeptical of anything remotely supernatural when there's no evidence. I was a huge pain in the arse for my Religious Studies teacher when I was in primary school, always pointing out shit that I didn't think made sense and causing all my classmates to laugh which then got me sent out of the room. My parents even had a hard time trying to convince me that Santa, The Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy were real. I guess you could say I was the proto-obnoxious online skeptic growing up long before it became an tired internet meme lmao.

49 minutes ago, Zulk RS said:

 

 Kinda disagree here. I mean ghosts being immune to objective verification part. With our current understanding of science, we have done things that people in the past could only dream of. We've also done a bunch of things that many people in the past didn't even consider. So I think that given enough time and assuming the human race doesn't go extinct before then, we may be able to figure out some way to objectively verify the existence of ghosts. How and when that will happen? Yeah no clue on that front.

Oh sure. I said likely, not completely :)

50 minutes ago, Biodegradable said:

always been highly skeptical of anything remotely supernatural when there's no evidence.

Yes i am now too. I was much more easily swayed when i was younger. Now i try to follow the "eliminate the impossible before considering the improbable" thought process. One person's subjective experience, as impactful and meaningful as it may be to them, and as interesting as it might be, should never be considered 100% reliable objective evidence. 

1 hour ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

If you want to ask me more question then DM me, I don't want to shit up this thread with our dumb arguing.

Yeah, sucks when that happens

I believe in déjà vu.

I worked as a ghost tour guide as one of my first real jobs, so I got to peddle a bunch of bullshit to gullible tourists in exchange for tips. I watch ghost tour trolleys pass my room every thirty minutes, listening to tour guides peddle a bunch of bullshit to gullible tourists in exchange for tips. A big part of my city's income revolves around tour guides peddling a bunch of bullshit to gullible tourists in exchange for tips.

The keywords here are "gullible", "bullshit", and "tips".

The concept of ghosts and what mysteries behind it and their part in our universe is intriguing, so I almost want it to be true.

But no I don't believe in ghosts. I'm a Catholic and I struggle to have faith as my pragmatism challenges practically everything about religious beliefs, from it's stories and saints, miracles etc. Only exception is the fundamental values, e.g. values behind the 10 commandments.

Even if I experience a  "ghost encounter" or a religious near death experience and "see heaven" but survive - I bet I'll believe it was my mind creating illusions in a panicked state or something. But I'd prefer and hope an afterlife exists, but not in a ghost form! Christian afterlife, that would be nice.

If ghosts exist then mind/body dualism is true. But mind/body dualism is false. So no, ghosts don't exist.

no, but if they do, I have some things that will make them rest again

No. Ghosts are fun characters for telling stories but I don't believe they're real.

I don't believe in ghosts for the same reason I don't believe in God, Jesus, Satan, Jagannath, Kali, Freya, Santa Clause, the Tooth Fairy, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Cthulhu: there's no objective evidence of any of them. When I die, I die, and that's the end ... I can live with that :)

Statistically speaking, it would be remarkable if 100% of all ghost sightings were complete bullshit. Sure, we can discount those cheesy ghost hunting shows on TV, but what about people who sincerely believe they witnessed something? Can that really all be hallucination and nothing else?

I'm willing to say ghosts exist if provided sufficient evidence, but no one has produced it yet.  And any strange things that happen are incredibly likely to have a rational explanation.

2 hours ago, durian said:

If ghosts exist then mind/body dualism is true. But mind/body dualism is false. So no, ghosts don't exist.

Your reasoning is false. « A IMPLIES B » is logically equivalent to « NOT B IMPLIES NOT A », and « B IMPLIES A » is also « NOT A IMPLIES NOT B ».

But « A IMPLIES B » is not « NOT A IMPLIES NOT B ».

2 minutes ago, ducon said:

Your reasoning is false. « A IMPLIES B » is logically equivalent to « NOT B IMPLIES NOT A », and « B IMPLIES A » is also « NOT A IMPLIES NOT B ».

But « A IMPLIES B » is not « NOT A IMPLIES NOT B ».

You're correct with your equivalences, but incorrect in attributing an error. What I said is an instance of your first equivalence. Using your schema: << A (Ghosts exists) IMPLIES B (mind/body dualism is true) >> is logically equivalent to << NOT B (mind/body dualism is false) IMPLIES NOT A (Ghosts do not exist) >> 

No

40 minutes ago, Kor said:

I'm willing to say ghosts exist if provided sufficient evidence, but no one has produced it yet.  And any strange things that happen are incredibly likely to have a rational explanation.

Human rationale is based on survival instincts and the biological compulsion to procreate. Why would rationale be the preferred source of intuition? It's not a system built for answering most questions. 

39 minutes ago, durian said:

You're correct with your equivalences, but incorrect in attributing an error. What I said is an instance of your first equivalence. Using your schema: << A (Ghosts exists) IMPLIES B (mind/body dualism is true) >> is logically equivalent to << NOT B (mind/body dualism is false) IMPLIES NOT A (Ghosts do not exist) >> 

Hu hu, you’re right.

Anyway, this kind of reasoning is too simple for such a complex question.

For me, there are multiple arguments against the existence of ghosts:

• They have never been seen, measured, photographed…
• Their existence contradicts all known physical laws.
• When people were convinced of having proved their existence, it was a fraud, on purpose or not.

4 minutes ago, ducon said:

• Their existence contradicts all known physical laws.

This is the big one. A friend of mine once mentioned that she believed in ghosts after seeing one. I asked her whether ghosts either emit or reflect light. If they do neither, then she didn't see one, but if they do either then they must be physical. She got annoyed and changed the subject.

No, and if they were real it would be very uncomfortable to do anything in your own home, specially sexual activities because you would be watched all the time by lingering souls, specially those of your own relatives who may or may not be close ones.

On the ghost's point of view; at least those who are aware of being dead, it would be sad to see the living experiencing life and knowing they would never experience it again, specially for those people who used to live a century or more ago and see life experiences they wish they had when they were alive in their time. Assuming ghosts are disembodied minds at all.

3 hours ago, durian said:

If ghosts exist then mind/body dualism is true. But mind/body dualism is false. So no, ghosts don't exist.

I always liked the System Shock 2 explanation for ghosts, them being residual energy, a "record" of people in great emotional or mental stress. Then again, that requires "mental energy projection" and telepathy and whatnot, which do not exist, so ghosts "of this type" do not exist either. But it was a neat explanation for ghosts in a sci-fi setting.

4 hours ago, durian said:

This is the big one. A friend of mine once mentioned that she believed in ghosts after seeing one. I asked her whether ghosts either emit or reflect light. If they do neither, then she didn't see one, but if they do either then they must be physical. She got annoyed and changed the subject.

This... confuses me. Why is it such a big deal if ghosts emit/reflect light? Also I can think of a way that ghosts might be "Visible" without emitting or reflecting light but the explanation is pseudo-science BS.

EDIT: I realize this message is unclear so posting a clarification. Like I agree, if they emit/reflect light, they should be physical... and that's a problem because?

1 hour ago, Zulk RS said:

 

This... confuses me. Why is it such a big deal if ghosts emit/reflect light? Also I can think of a way that ghosts might be "Visible" without emitting or reflecting light but the explanation is pseudo-science BS.

 

EDIT: I realize this message is unclear so posting a clarification. Like I agree, if they emit/reflect light, they should be physical... and that's a problem because?

A fair question. I guess the standard conception of ghosts is that they are non-physical entities. This conception is, I take it, informed by a broadly Abrahamic metaphysics, on which the human being is composed of a material body and an immaterial soul or spirit, which can survive the death of the body. So if we're thinking of ghosts in these terms - as loose spirits that haven't yet moved on from the physical realm - then we'll think of them as being non-physical. 

But suppose we affirm instead that ghosts exist and are physical. What would be wrong with that? Well, a lot of things! A ghost is supposed to be something which can persist beyond the death of the body. So, if ghosts are physical, then I should have some physical part which can survive the death of my body. Which part is it? Can you find it in a physiology textbook? But hang on, couldn't every part of my body be annihilated? Would that destroy my physical ghost, too? It seems so, but then aren't ghosts supposed to be able to survive the total destruction of the body? Hmm. Well, suppose I die nice and peacefully, will my mourners be able to watch this physical (but ghostly) part of me separating itself from the rest of my body? Well, perhaps not, if it's very small, or maybe a very thin vapor or gas. But hang on, aren't I supposed to be psychologically continuous with my ghost? So, like me, my ghost is a conscious entity, and it has all of my memories, thoughts and feelings. How could all of that psychological activity be supported by some very small physical part of my body, or by a very thin vapor or gas? After all, even if we're neutral on whether the mind is identical to the brain, we've good reason to think that they're very closely related: you don't get a mind without a brain. So is my ghost my brain? Does my brain leave my body when I die? Surely someone would notice that?

I could go on, but you get the idea. Much easier to suppose that the soul is non-physical.

If we consider some of the strange phonetics of the English language, yes.  I have two ghosts on the end of my arms right now.  (consider the "gh" in "enough" and odd use of the vowel "o" and it will make sense.)

20 minutes ago, durian said:

 

A fair question. I guess the standard conception of ghosts is that they are non-physical entities. This conception is, I take it, informed by a broadly Abrahamic metaphysics, on which the human being is composed of a material body and an immaterial soul or spirit, which can survive the death of the body. So if we're thinking of ghosts in these terms - as loose spirits that haven't yet moved on from the physical realm - then we'll think of them as being non-physical. 

 

But suppose we affirm instead that ghosts exist and are physical. What would be wrong with that? Well, a lot of things! A ghost is supposed to be something which can persist beyond the death of the body. So, if ghosts are physical, then I should have some physical part which can survive the death of my body. Which part is it? Can you find it in a physiology textbook? But hang on, couldn't every part of my body be annihilated? Would that destroy my physical ghost, too? It seems so, but then aren't ghosts supposed to be able to survive the total destruction of the body? Hmm. Well, suppose I die nice and peacefully, will my mourners be able to watch this physical (but ghostly) part of me separating itself from the rest of my body? Well, perhaps not, if it's very small, or maybe a very thin vapor or gas. But hang on, aren't I supposed to be psychologically continuous with my ghost? So, like me, my ghost is a conscious entity, and it has all of my memories, thoughts and feelings. How could all of that psychological activity be supported by some very small physical part of my body, or by a very thin vapor or gas? After all, even if we're neutral on whether the mind is identical to the brain, we've good reason to think that they're very closely related: you don't get a mind without a brain. So is my ghost my brain? Does my brain leave my body when I die? Surely someone would notice that? 

  

I could go on, but you get the idea. Much easier to suppose that the soul is non-physical.

That's fair. Again, I have some ideas as to how all those can be explained but again, that borders on Pseudo-science BS. Also I somehow am not 100% convinced that a ghost will have all your memories. Kind of like how people don't really remember anything that happened to them before a certain age (I think it was 6 but I'm not sure). As for how something physical survives complete destruction, what if ghosts are energy beings? Like you can't destroy energy but it might still give you something to see by converting a small part of it into light.

Of course I don't really have a horse in the race. I don't believe in the traditional "Boo Spooky" Ghost. I'm also not very good at science so I can't really explain things too well. I'm just brainstorming here.

As for if the mind is identical to the brain. In the visual novel 9 Hours 9 Doors 9 Persons, there was an interesting bit of dialogue. Of course that was just BS even in the game's world but it does make me think about it from time to time. The game posed the question, "What if the brain is not what controls everything?" They compared the brain to the monitor of a computer that has a wireless CPU. You press a button on the monitor and the display comes to life. Someone who is computer illterate and doesn't see the CPU running under the monitor would think that the computer was "turned on" by the monitor and not that the monitor was just showing what's going in. They'd type and see the letters appear and think that all the computer stuff is happening in the monitor. What if there is something else in the body, that's sending wireless signals to the brain. The electrical signals we observe in the brain and the signals the brain sends to the rest of the body through nerves is simply the brain relaying the command it was receiving from this outside source.

Estimates to the number of humans who have lived, since we became Homo Sapiens are as high as 177 billion, given that Homo Sapiens have existed for 190,000 years. So why don't we see ghosts literally everywhere? If ghosts are the spirit of a human, there should be at least 177,000,000,000 ghosts wandering around.

And why would humans be special? Why would we have an energy that can continue for hundreds of years after our death that whales, porpoises, ravens, tortoises, dogs, cats, don't have? They're all relatively intelligent animals, tortoises can certainly live longer than humans. So why don't they make ghosts? Humans are evolved from chimpanzees, we share 99.6% of our genetic material with them. Why don't we see ghost chimps? Why do the vast majority of ghost sightings of humans appear to be from the last five hundred years? We don't see ghosts of people from 160,000 years ago. We see ghosts of people that we can still think about. It's all in the imagination.

The human mind can come up with so many amazing explanations for things that we don't understand. Hallucinations are also extremely common. It makes far more sense that a person will imagine a ghost, instead of there actually being a dead persons energy walking around. And with all of the myths regarding supernatural beings being embedded in our collective psyche, it makes sense that the notion of ghosts persists. It's part of us, we're a weird, paranoid, amazingly intelligent animal that's trying to make sense of things we don't understand. But ghosts, no, they don't exist. A person sees something that they can't immediately explain, and they try to come up with an explanation.