[Closed] Have you seen a Ghost?

Of course there are ghosts but there are no creator God nor all knowing science. 🙄

Why do you say this? Cougar said I was being hostile. I said I was trying not to be, and then explained why I had felt somewhat miffed. Quite reasonable IMO.

It's a joke I wasn't being serious.

Sorry but it isn't even remotely plausible. Mice smell.

Well I'm convinced it was your ghost dog how could I've thought it could possibly been anything else at all.

nice to see you are working hard on reasoned arguments and backing it up with data

His argument is perfectly reasonable it is fallable just not as fallible

You may possibly be generalising your experience to all areas of science. It was not like that when i was [ nearly ] one. It was very open to anyone with data

This to me is just as fallible as believing in magical sky pixies or ghosts.

as for what we are aiming for

“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.”
? Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo

One day scientists may find a way of measuring these phenomenon, that would be great, really exciting.

I find things that have been explained are still as wonder-ful, amazing, awe-some, as before. Like the wonder of reproduction, we understand it, but it's still amazing, a miracle.

I'm still trying to work out how your mouse (or bat) moved the free-standing mirror and the tumble dryer. 😆

I once saw a highwayman on a 29'er

Was he dandy?

beaker2135 - Member

None believer here. In my experience it is the living you have to watch out for, the dead have never hurt anybody

[img] [/img]
😀

then you are wrong. A belief that god made the world because it is in a book is just as fallible as the scientific explanations of how we got here....be have yerself fella.

ahhhh dear old junky... dogmas favourite friend. You see I would never be arrogant enough to assume my way was right. I'm (as explained an earlier post) just postulating on the perception that science is right without questioning it when it is a new and total minority view with regards to the population of the world and history and spirit and soul and art and love. There is no scientific need for art or music or love, yet we crave it maybe, just maybe, we are more than just science.

and i still love you even when you are mr grumpy pants

I felt a bit cross because people say it's a stretch for me to suggest some kind of unusual energy, but quite believable to suggest a mouse? Scrappy would have gone crazy if there was a mouse in the room.

Aside from the fact that mice actually demonstrably exist; it seems odd to be cross at me that I didn't take into consideration during my suggestions (which you asked for) a dog in the room that you'd never mentioned. Or at least, if you had, I'd missed that.

There are more unanswered questions in the mouse/bat scenario yet people cling to this. Fear perhaps? Fear that there IS something we don't know about - and worse - that we can't control?

In the religious debates here I'm often on the back foot to an extent in that my knowledge is basic; to wit, I welcome intelligent discussion as it furthers my understanding. Conversely, when it comes to random supernatural stuff I've done a lot more legwork to look into it so I'm on much more comfortable ground.

--

Mice smell. They have little scratchy claws for a start, the the sensation I felt was certainly not scratchy.

Mice smell when they're dead, but not noticeably so when they're alive IME. Also, they might well have 'little scratchy claws' but when one ran over me in the middle of the night a few years ago it didn't feel scratchy at all, felt like tiny little kitty paws.

There is no scientific need for art or music or love, yet we crave it maybe, just maybe, we are more than just science.

There has to be a 'scientific need for art, music, and love'. It has obviously provided an evolutionary advantage as it is prevalent in all human societies.

Whether it provides greater social cohesion, or simply a greater determination to live, it clearly has a scientific need/advantage.

Tazzy > you seem to be confusing process with implementation.

The scientific process is solid. The fact that we lack the resources / inclination to always properly apply it does not undermine that. Plenty of companies have vested interests, which doesn't help. (I really should read Goldacre's Bad Pharma at some point)

There has to be a 'scientific need for art, music, and love'. It has obviously provided an evolutionary advantage as it is prevalent in all human socities.

if it provided evolutionary advantage then it wouldn't be present in all society. Only those that are dominant as the society without it would have been out competed.

Considering most early art was linked to religion that surely means that "god" created it as god is everywhere where as "science" is a new construct of man?

if it provided evolutionary advantage then it wouldn't be present in all society. Only those that are dominant as the society without it would have been out competed.

Sorry you're quite right - I should have stated "all existing and all known societies"

Those societies which failed to embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace.

The scientific process is solid

well solid-ish. At the end of the day it is still based on human observation which is based upon perception, which based differing human physiology and upon context and development of that persons cognitive and perceptual buffers, which is totally individual.

the best we can say is that good science is broadly consensual.

good science will always question and review and re-assesses what we tend to get is non scientists spouting sound bites and putting more certainty on outcomes and more faith in the process than is actually wise.

Maybe the society without it has already been outcompeted and died out long ago. It is merely present in all current/recent human societies not necessarily all societies ever.
.
(EDIT) what ernie just said

Those societies which failed embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace.

no they didn't there are fine examples of neanderthal art, even apes paint for pleasure in captivity. Is that a scientific need to suddenly communicate or evolve?

anyway as i said early on, I'm as thick as fk, so thanks for taking the time to read and hopefully help me work through my very basic understanding of things.

"Those societies which failed embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace."

no they didn't there are fine examples of neanderthal art, even apes paint for pleasure in captivity.

And ? Neanderthals obviously embraced art. Where's the bit where I claimed they hadn't ?

My point is there must be an evolutionary advantage to art, ie a scientific need.

And ? Neanderthals obviously embraced art. Where's the bit where I claimed they hadn't ?

in which case we'd still have then here as well then wouldn't we mr smarty pants as with art they wouldn't have become extinct, if as you claim it provides an scientifically based advantage.

now "My point is there must be an evolutionary advantage to art"

is just plain supposition with no scientific evidence, it could equally be argued that art is a means of communication with god and if god liked the paintings he blessed his followers with food. which is why most theories on early cave art tend towards it as a communication with the gods and spirits to provide a bountiful hunt

so again we come full circle that people have believed and seen gods and ghosts and spirits far longer in our existence as a species than have seen an electron.

in which case we'd still have then here as well then wouldn't we mr smarty pants as with art they wouldn't have become extinct, if as you claim it provides an scientifically based advantage.

LOL I didn't claim that art was the only factor which was needed to guarantee that a society was successful ! 😀

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post beyond the sentence which referred to "mr smarty pants",
I decided it probably wasn't worth it.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post beyond the sentence which referred to "mr smarty pants",
I decided it probably wasn't worth it.

shame as you'd have missed this bit

so again we come full circle that people have believed and seen gods and ghosts and spirits far longer in our existence as a species than have seen an electron.

and can you honestly tell me that something like quantum field theory is any more likely than someone seeing a ghost?

it's all made up and everyone is bloody mad I tell thee! 😀

is just plain supposition with no scientific evidence,

[b]it could equally be argued[/b] that art is a means of communication with god and if god liked the paintings he blessed his followers with food. which is why most theories on early cave art tend towards it as a communication with the gods and spirits to provide a bountiful hunt

One of the most hilarious threads ever. 😆 I love the wrestling with rudimentary logic ('all societies that lack art die out' implies that 'all societies that die out lack art'..!?).

But everyone seems to have missed this: "I felt a [b]dog[/b] brush against my arm, and it couldn't have been any kind of animal because the [b]dog[/b] in the room would've gone nuts"! OK, I'm sure there's a reason why the dog was ruled out, but "animals have super sensory powers" and yet the dog in the room didn't react to a [b]ghost[/b] in said room!?

Seriously though, surely arm outside the covers chilled slightly and got goosebumps. Or a spider or fly ran over it. Occam's razor, innit bruv.

saw this on facebook this morning

[img] [/img]

Occam's razor, innit bruv.

There is a razor involved? OMG we are into self harming now, it's all getting very EMO 😀

I know the difference between spiders, flies, goosebumps, mice and drafts; and the feeling of a dog. Scrappy wouldn't have reacted to Sam's 'ghost'- they were BFFs in this world.

Don't worry, science will catch up someday. In the meantime, as I said previously, and echoed above, check out some quantum physics. It makes doggy-ghosts look positively quotidien.

I think that the vast majority of, what I shall call for brevity, 'supernatural' events are fake. Mistakes, hope, grief, fear, greed, dishonesty.

Leaders learned a long time ago to manipulate religious beliefs and superstitions to keep their underlings in order through fear.

Emperor Constantine (and his mum) re-wrote parts of the Christian Bible to get rid of the idea of reincarnation. They thought it would be easier to scare the populace if they (the populace) thought they only had one go at life, and if they were bad they would burn in hell for all eternity.

Landowners who wished to keep peasants off their land would certainly welcome, and probably activity promote, rumours of ghostly happenings.

The entertainment industry has made a fortune from the theme: countless films about demons, werewolves, hauntings, possessions, vampires.

But, I think, after giving it a good shake, and all the con-men and charlatans fall out, what remains are supernatural events.

I can't do this when I think deliberately about it but, if I am vacuuming (not often!), or bike cleaning or something like that, into my head pops a thought about someone. Within a few minutes whoosh! (that's the sound texts make when they arrive on my phone) and it's a text from that person.

Before mobile phones were invented I could tell who was going to ring, before they rang. I quite often know things before I am told them. It used to be a bit alarming, but I'm used to it now.

I can't do this when I think deliberately about it but, if I am vacuuming (not often!), or bike cleaning or something like that, into my head pops a thought about someone. Within a few minutes whoosh! (that's the sound texts make when they arrive on my phone) and it's a text from that person.

Before mobile phones were invented I could tell who was going to ring, before they rang. I quite often know things before I am told them. It used to be a bit alarming, but I'm used to it now.

That's just a couple of examples of confirmation bias, unless of course you also recorded all the times that you though about someone and they didn't text you, someone texted you when you hadn't thought of them, when you got the phone call thing wrong.

It's a remarkably easy trap to fall into.

Karinofnine - check out that PDF of the Sagan book I linked to on the previous page.

gonefishin: over 57 years? - it's way more than a 'couple of examples';

It's a remarkably easy trap to fall into.

It's a remarkably easy answer 🙂

gofasterstripes: will do

gonefishin: over 57 years? - it's way more than a 'couple of examples';

If you had all the information (including all the times you were wrong) over 57 years, it would be interesting but even then not necessarily indicative of anything extra ordinary. If you have millions of people simply guessing stuff it is likely that you would find someone who out of chance was correct far more often than they were wrong. That's just how chance and probability works.

I think that the vast majority of, what I shall call for brevity, 'supernatural' events are fake. Mistakes, hope, grief, fear, greed, dishonesty.

Yours presumably are all genuine though?

How is this NOT confirmation bias?

Scrappy wouldn't have reacted to Sam's 'ghost'- they were BFFs in this world

You sure he would not have gone to say goodbye - just ignored it completely

No offence but this is just silly. your dog died and you think it came =back to say goodbye. that is the basis of this story and ntohing i say will alter your opinion

check out some quantum physics. It makes doggy-ghosts look positively quotidien

Just because the truth is strange than fiction

As for the rest you are remembering the few times you did this and it came true and ignoring the thousands of other times that you had these thoughts and nothing at all happened

richmtb: because I'm not trying to con anyone, and I am quite sanguine about the events that are simple happenstance.

These are just standard replies from people who don't want to accept there's something odd going on 🙂

...and yours is the standard response of a someone with a closed mind who doesn't want to accept simple, reasonable explanations of what at first hand appears to be odd goings on.

I'm a sceptic however there has been instances that couldn't be explained away (to me).

There was a tiny plastic toy box. The toys were all tightly packed into the box in such a way that it couldn't be replicated. I commented on this to mrshora. She hadn't done it and neither had our son (1 at the time). No matter what neither of us could do this. In addition at night the bin in the kitchen used to lift and drop on its own. No wind/windows open and only when I put a 5litre bottle of water ontop did this stop. If I didn't it used to do this every other night.

The last owner died/lay in the kitchen from a heart attack/retiree.

Recently we found out another woman had died prematurely (30 yr old) in the back living room.

Do I believe? Unsure, never seen one but things happen that can't be explained leave me perplexed.

Its interesting that most peoples 'experiences' of ghost and contacting the dead etc in the UK closely mirror the writings and culture of the Victorian period that really popularised the occult for the first time.

People who claim to be completely unconnected report the same experience and rather that connect that to a shared memory of cultural influence this is then used to prove a connection that must be supernatural.

It's total nonsense, ghostly encounters differ around the globe and surprise surprise, they reflect the common beliefs of the culture. An unexplained visit in the night will be dead pets in the UK, ancestors in the Aboriginal people, jungle spirits in Brazil.

We are far more influenced by culture and upbringing than the spirits of trillions of dead creatures.

These are just standard replies from people who don't want to accept there's something odd going on

What I want is neither here not there in what the evidence suggests.

Have we been called close minded yet?

@Junkyard, no you haven't been called it, but I have, a few posts up.

I accept science AND supernatural.

Scientists only accept science.

Who's mind is closed?

Well what would persuade you that all of the things you have mentioned aren't the result of anything supernatural?

I had a frightening and inexplicable experience in 1990.

I will never forget it.

I was completely lucid and have no doubt that what happened was paranormal.

I accept science AND supernatural.

Scientists only accept science.

Who's mind is closed?

best of luck with your challenge under scientific conditions

I know the difference between spiders, flies, goosebumps, mice and drafts; and the feeling of a dog.

I bet you don't in a dark room or with your eyes closed.

It's nice you want to believe your dead dog wanted to say goodbye but it doesn't make it right because science "hasn't caught up".

I always get deep into threads such as these (established fact vs. unsubstantiated rumour) and have an overwhelming sense of grief...all of the contributors probably have the right to vote, and breed. 😐

I always get deep into threads such as these (established fact vs. unsubstantiated rumour) and have an overwhelming sense of grief...all of the contributors probably have the right to vote, and breed

Thanks your for your valuable contribution.

"There is much that science doesn't understand, many mysteries
still to be resolved. In a Universe tens of billions of light years
across and some ten or fifteen billion years old, this may be the
case forever. We are constantly stumbling on surprises. Yet some
New Age and religious writers assert that scientists believe that
'what they find is all there is'. Scientists may reject mystic
revelations for which there is no evidence except somebody's
say-so, but they hardly believe their knowledge of Nature to be
complete.
Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It's just
the best we have. In this respect, as in many others, it's like democracy. Science by itself cannot advocate courses of human
action, but it can certainly illuminate the possible consequences of
alternative courses of action.

The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and
disciplined. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let
the facts in, even when they don't conform to our preconceptions.
It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see
which best fit the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between
no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and
the most rigorous sceptical scrutiny of everything - new ideas and
established wisdom. This kind of thinking is also an essential tool
for a democracy in an age of change.

One of the reasons for its success is that science has built-in,
error-correcting machinery at its very heart. Some may consider
this an overbroad characterization, but to me every time we
exercise self-criticism, every time we test our ideas against the
outside world, we are doing science. When we are self-indulgent
and uncritical, when we confuse hopes and facts, we slide into
pseudoscience and superstition. "

The Demon Haunted World - P28/29 Carl Sagan