Thoughts on the Afterlife, ghosts, and spirits.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by fringed n fab

Ghosts can be playful, especially with children. Or they can be mischievous. It just depends.

because I sense Debbie's presence in the house all the time, Especially if I am sitting at the computer desk, because when she was among the living she would lean over my shoulder to look at the PC screen if I wanted to show her something of interest on the screen. I can feel a cold touch on my shoulders that only Debbie would provide, but noone is here (Minus the cats) besides me.

I wouldn't put it past her dropping the remains of her HP Pavilion (Which, I...uh...broke...) onto my head as I sleep as a way of reminding me she is watching over me...

Of course when I go to the cemetery I ask her aloud for the lottery numbers, I can hear her reply being "f**k you, If I have 'em I'm using 'em".

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by fringed n fab

I think Stevie's a very spiritual person, but in the good way. So it's funny so many on this board have issues with it, when FM and Stevie have dealt with visions, and crystal balls, and Buddhist decor in their homes, on album covers, they've talked about it, wrote mysterious songs about this stuff. So I find it quite funny that people question us when we're talking about some of the very things this group has written about for 30 years.

"She was dark at the top of the stairs"

there is a difference between appreciating something that was created due to a belief in the otherworldly and believing the otherworldly.

if i refused to appreciate art that was based on religion, mythology, or archetypes, i could never read another book, watch another movie, or listen to another album ever again.

that argument has no validity.

and as for a lack of faith leading to a dark and depressing existence, i can speak from experience and deny that categorically.

i do not believe in god, an afterlife, heaven, or hell. but i have a wonderful life. i have good friends and opportunities and i am grateful every day for their existence.

on the other hand, i know plenty of people for whom belief in the fantastic is a source of sadness, guilt, and fear.

happiness and hope are the result of choices everyone, whether or not they believe in god, makes.

correlation is not causation.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by Zombie

All righty. I'll leave it.

But I do have to add one respectful disagreement: science does not involve faith. Faith, by definition, is belief in things unseen or for which there is no proof. Science is in the business of finding proof.

But proof is based on data which is obtained with instruments, etc. that ultimately involve the senses. And it's based on statements - in human language - that there's "a 95% probability that such-and-such is true." So it's also a faith-based perspective.

I'm not saying that with any "disrespect" towards science, as a matter of fact I LOVE science and all of its underlying concepts -
including it's fundamental precepts, for example that it's a faith-based perspective.

(i.m.o. many or even most people who work in science would agree with me, even if was with a little bit of a chuckle.)

[carrie721]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

But proof is based on data which is obtained with instruments, etc. that ultimately involve the senses.

how is this not the exact opposite of faith?

i will accept that science employs a degree of faith in that you have to accept a handful of givens in order to get anything done. we may never know how or why the universe was formed, although there are theories that try to explain it. but that doesn't detract from the hard facts about our reality that have been illuminated by science. nor does it make science a "faith" a la christianity, judaism, scientology, etc.

[tilthefirefades]

forgive me for being a nihilist, but why does there have to be a point in anything? other than to make yourself happy before all else. There are many interesting viewpoints and philosophies floating around out there, and i would find it to be such a depressing existence to live my life based on someone else's words and ideas. Also, if there is a God, they made me so why haven't they instilled faith in me? They know what i'm doing, after all it is my destiny that they allegedly created. I'm not looking for scripture, or an answer really. But science, in it's most primitive form, is what was used to write the scriptures and record it all. Also, one thing i've always wondered, those that were around before modern religion existed, where did they end up after death? And that brings me back to my first statement, why do we have to go anywhere after death? Maybe we should appreciate and enjoy everything in this life before we start expecting another. It's as if people want to half-ass their opportunities in this life so that they can completely start over in the next one.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by carrie721

how is this not the exact opposite of faith?

i will accept that science employs a degree of faith in that you have to accept a handful of givens in order to get anything done. we may never know how or why the universe was formed, although there are theories that try to explain it. but that doesn't detract from the hard facts about our reality that have been illuminated by science. nor does it make science a "faith" a la christianity, judaism, scientology, etc.

Hard facts about reality such as the existence of matter?
Well, if you haven't learned about that yet, you might find it interesting to look it up. "Matter" is just an energy wave which is only explained by a mathematical equation which doesn't REALLY tell us what it is. And it's not possible to "look at" it without changing it; and it's not possible for "matter" to have both its momentum and its location measured at the same time. I don't mean that it's not possible for US, I mean that it's not possible. Period. The implications are literally staggering - a physicist once said, "Anyone who hasn't been absolutely FLOORED by Heisenberg and Shroedinger can't POSSIBLY have understood it." This isn't some "far-out there" idea that I'm rambling about, it's mainstream "established science" - there's essentially no such thing as matter, it's just a form of energy that doesn't even have a specific location in space.

My point is that science has shown is that "cold hard reality" is anything but; and at the very least is something which is extremely elusive, mysterious, and not at all understood, even at the simplist levels.

Just some thoughts.

[jannieC]

Sylvia brown is a lunatic, pure and simple.

I have always found it to be so intriguing the way certain folks are so SURE of their truth.

I wish I had the energy to get into this thread, but I have a wicked muscle spasm that has me very upset right now.

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

Hard facts about reality such as the existence of matter?
Well, if you haven't learned about that yet, you might find it interesting to look it up. "Matter" is just an energy wave which is only explained by a mathematical equation which doesn't REALLY tell us what it is. And it's not possible to "look at" it without changing it; and it's not possible for "matter" to have both its momentum and its location measured at the same time. I don't mean that it's not possible for US, I mean that it's not possible. Period. The implications are literally staggering - a physicist once said, "Anyone who hasn't been absolutely FLOORED by Heisenberg and Shroedinger can't POSSIBLY have understood it." This isn't some "far-out there" idea that I'm rambling about, it's mainstream "established science" - there's essentially no such thing as matter, it's just a form of energy that doesn't even have a specific location in space.

My point is that science has shown is that "cold hard reality" is anything but; and at the very least is something which is extremely elusive, mysterious, and not at all understood, even at the simplist levels.

Just some thoughts.

This post touches on my comment about how the universe is more incredible than we can imagine. There's just a couple of things that need refining...
Firstly, matter are interchangeable, but still somewhat distinct. (Don't mind the upcoming complications too much!) Matter around us is composed of spin 1/2 particles, namely up & down quarks and electrons (e leptons). Real matter that we see, touch, feel etc. is, of course, observable (real meaning uncertainty in position times uncertainty in momentum > h/4pi). Energy, particularly light, is composed of spin 1 particles. Virtual Spin 1 particles transmit forces (virtual meaning uncertainty in position times uncertainty in momentum < h/4pi), like electromagnetism, and can't be observed, only inferred.
Now, as for science being a faith...
Well, if you understand Thomas Kuhn's interpretation of what science is ("The Structure of Scientific Revolutions"), you'll find that sciences are characterised by, shall we say, imposing a view of how nature is (a paradigm), and making nature conform to it. This is something shared by science, religion, and pseudo-science. The difference between science and pseudo-science (including religion) is that scientists care about the problems nature presents to us when we try to make it conform.
There'll usually be a good time in science where everything seems to be working pretty well, usually the very start of a new paradigm. However, more evidence is accumulated that goes against the paradigm too much, resulting in a "crisis". "Crises" are met with "revolution", in which an old paradigm is overthrown in favour of a new one (e.g. Newtonian Gravity is replaced by Einsteinian General Relativity), and a new view of nature is imposed on the universe.
However, pseudo-science and religion do little and care little for problems ("puzzles") with their paradigms - they're stagnant! So it's little wonder that science is regularly coming up with increasingly informed and accurate answers, while pseudo-science and religion either write off inconsistencies ("the lord works in mysterious ways") or construct unfalsifiable hypotheses to protect themselves. Astrology is a glaring example of pseudo-scientific stagnation - the dates used for star signs were (somewhat) correct about 2000 years ago, but not anymore. Astrologers would happily tell me I'm a Taurian, but astronomers (who are smart enough to not actually bother to care) would tell me I'm sometimes a Taurian, other times an Arian (14 May is right on the border). Astrologers have also forgotten about the existence of Ophicus as a star sign, preferring to lump it with Scorpius into Scorpio! Of course, there are other reasons for astrology being pseudo-scientific, namely its inconsistency with modern-day physics, which they don't care about!
So yes, science is a faith. But let's think of science's faith in this way - it doesn't seem unreasonable to have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, at least to me! But it does seem unreasonable to think that, if you accidentally fall off a cliff, accelerating towards the ground at about 10m/s/s, god/s will send a flock of eagles to catch you and gently slow your fall!

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by jaycee

This post touches on my comment about how the universe is more incredible than we can imagine. There's just a couple of things that need refining...
Firstly, matter are interchangeable, but still somewhat distinct. . . . .

Now, as for science being a faith...
an old paradigm is overthrown in favour of a new one (e.g. Newtonian Gravity is replaced by Einsteinian General Relativity), and a new view of nature is imposed. . . .
.

Okay fair enough - I think we're basically on the same page, but i.m.o. it's still a choice to view the Universe from a certain point-of-view. Not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" one, just a specific perspective. But often in Science these days (for example), there are theories that are put out as "fact" - but in Science, theories are supposed to be confirmed by an independent, separate group of workers, and more often than not that's not done these days - and yet people continue to claim that certain things are "scientific fact."

Here's a somewhat silly example, just to try to make my point - I once heard somebody claim that there's a real possibility that there's a "second Earth" exactly on the other side of the sun which hasn't been detected yet. That person didn't necessarily mean it literally, he just meant that we don't KNOW that that isn't true. Now, I realize that that's nonsense. And I realize that there's ways to tell - for example, the orbit of the Earth would be affected by the other planet's gravity. But at the TIME I didn't know that. I just simply knew it was nonsense. But it wasn't SCIENCE that TOLD me that; it was "common sense." There was NO data (that I was aware of) at that time to say whether it was "true" or not.

Science is a "search for truth." I agree that it's supposed to be flexible and change its theories when they're contradicted. But scientists aren't robots, they're human beings, and whether they like it or not it's IMPOSSIBLE for them not to be biased. There have actually been independent studies OF Science, called "meta-studies," which have shown how researchers ARE biased - even when they think they're not - and that those biases do in fact affect their research.

So for me, overall, it's a perfectly valid - but humanly imperfect, potentially flawed - perspective to use, to understand the Universe.

And ultimately, practitioners of this specific perspective end up saying,
"HERE'S our best guess of what we think is true, and here's why:"

[jaycee]

Originally Posted by Ghost_Tracker

Okay fair enough - I think we're basically on the same page, but i.m.o. it's still a choice to view the Universe from a certain point-of-view. Not necessarily a "right" or "wrong" one, just a specific perspective. But often in Science these days (for example), there are theories that are put out as "fact" - but in Science, theories are supposed to be confirmed by an independent, separate group of workers, and more often than not that's not done these days - and yet people continue to claim that certain things are "scientific fact."

Here's a somewhat silly example, just to try to make my point - I once heard somebody claim that there's a real possibility that there's a "second Earth" exactly on the other side of the sun which hasn't been detected yet. That person didn't necessarily mean it literally, he just meant that we don't KNOW that that isn't true. Now, I realize that that's nonsense. And I realize that there's ways to tell - for example, the orbit of the Earth would be affected by the other planet's gravity. But at the TIME I didn't know that. I just simply knew it was nonsense. But it wasn't SCIENCE that TOLD me that; it was "common sense." There was NO data (that I was aware of) at that time to say whether it was "true" or not.

Science is a "search for truth." I agree that it's supposed to be flexible and change it's theories when they're contradicted. But scientists aren't robots, they're human beings, and whether they like it or not it's IMPOSSIBLE for them not to be biased. There have actually been independent studies OF Science, called "meta-studies," which have shown how researchers ARE biased - even when they think they're not - and that those biases do in fact affect their research.

So for me, overall, it's a perfectly valid - but humanly imperfect, potentially flawed - perspective to use, to understand the Universe.

Sounds like Bertrand Russell's Solar Teapot, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster! But it's not "common sense" that tells you to ignore it - it's the fact it's unfalsifiable. If you can't, in principle, find out if something's true, you ignore it. At least that's what you should do. In any case, science makes a point of ignoring unfalsifiable hypotheses, even if they could in fact be true, like the twin Earth, Teacup etc.
As for scientific fact... well, as a philosopher I try to avoid using the word. But I have no qualms with scientists saying that, for example, Darwinian Evolution is a fact. It's a much a fact as the keyboard I'm using to type this message!
And, of course, humans aren't robots (well, actually, that's debatable, but not for the purposes of this post). Scientists are passionate about their work and theories. It's not surprising that they should be reluctant to give up on things they've spent a lot of time on. But there are so many scientists working all over the world that "deviants" or "straglers" (whatever you want to call them) either have to admit defeat or get left behind. This happened to Einstein in his later years, when he was too stubborn in his worldview to work with Quantum Mechanics, instead fruitlessly trying to merge Classical Electromagnetism with General Relativity in a four dimensional (including time) framework.
It can be considered fortunate that humans are biased in their scientific work, because we probably wouldn't pursue it with the passion we do, and therefore most likely wouldn't have made the great insights that we have so far with respect to the universe!

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by jaycee

It can be considered fortunate that humans are biased in their scientific work, because we probably wouldn't pursue it with the passion we do, and therefore most likely wouldn't have made the great insights that we have so far with respect to the universe!

We're definitely on the same page there!

[holidayroad]

Originally Posted by fringed n fab

Ghosts can be playful, especially with children. Or they can be mischievous. It just depends. I really think to ghosts, we're the intruders in their world and that's why they can appear upset sometimes or make loud noises etc. People may sit and judge us for talking about this and offer every explanation in the book but maybe these things have to happen to them for them to understand.

I agree that ghosts would see us as intruders. A lot of people would have tried to 'get rid of' the ghosts we had, but we did our best to be respectful. They were there first! I'm sure a lot of people would say that I was 'imagining' these ghosts or that ghosts/spirits don't exist. All I can say is, if they don't, I'd love for these people to explain what was happening in that house!

[jaycee]

If ghosts exist, and I was lucky enough to become one, all I'd be interested in doing is haunting CERN and doing everything I could possibly think of to draw the attention of as many respectable scientists as I could, and help them in every way conceivable to give evidence of my existence. It would certainly give the overjoyed physicists a Nobel Prize, if not many!
Of course, ghosts always seem to be wrapped up in their own emotions, merely haunting families' houses or abandoned buildings, and unwilling to change the landscape of physics. Maybe that isn't an important enough thing to do? Or, more probably, because they don't actually exist...
Maybe I'd better stay off this thread... it's making me increasingly frustrated...

[mylittledemon]

Originally Posted by jannieC

Sylvia brown is a lunatic, pure and simple.

I have always found it to be so intriguing the way certain folks are so SURE of their truth.

I have to agree on both points. In the end, you can only have hope in your faith.

[Ghost_Tracker]

Originally Posted by jannieC

I have always found it to be so intriguing the way certain folks are so SURE of their truth.

(

That's why I'm a "relativist" - - - I feel that there's "a little bit of Truth" in EVERYTHING and that whether someone's "right" or not depends on their point-of-view. I'm absolutely inflexible on that, the ONLY way to view the universe is as a Relativist.

( )