My Ghost Story

[JayUtah]

what is the original intent of the research that I cited to back up my supposition if I'm incorrect?

Speculation, not research. Your attempt to explain events in terms of it constitutes the misuse.

It looked like science to me...

Nope.

Nothing I stated is pseudoscience other than the idea that we might co-exist in other dimensional space.

That's the pseudoscience.

There is no scorn, it's no different than saying "dismiss" or "attribute", it sounds like you simply didn't like my choice of verb.

No, I didn't, considering "toss off" is the Commonwealth euphemism for masturbation. Do you consider your critics' interpretation of their experiences as putatively valid as yours? A simple "yes" or "no" would be appreciated.

 

[Jodie]

Interpreting them in public, loudly and repeatedly. Do you really think your motives are so transparent? As to the offense component, you're posting ghost stories in a forum clearly devoted to skepticism. You know exactly what response to expect. Complaining about it just makes us laugh.

I don't see anyone laughing, I do see you having a virtual conniption fit over how I chose to interpret my experiences in a thread titled " My Ghost Story". How rational is that? I'm not complaining, I'm making a valid observation.

 

[Axxman300]

No, I'm simply trying to figure out how it might be possible. There are a lot "if's" and "maybe's" before I could state that it was true such as...

Late me state a few things I know to be true about ghosts:

1. Social, religious, and cultural background is a solid predictor as to who will see a ghost.
2. There is no consistent data on ghosts which allows for predictable patterns. This includes location, time of day/week/month/year, or what creates a haunting.
3. The most common ghosts are of living people.

#3 holds the key to understanding the phenomenon in my opinion, because it hints at how the brain manufactures information based on esoteric and abstract input.

1. If the mathematics is correct and other dimensions exist.

So.

2. If they exist, would they function the way we think they would.

Fair question, but right now the physicists who think about this stuff can't answer that right now.

3. If these other dimensions do function the way we anticipate how does that affect our existence.

Why would it effect us at all?

4. Does our consciousness reside in these other dimensions?

I doubt it. We are creatures of this dimension.

5. Is our conscious simply a function of the brain or does the brain exist because our consciousness needs a lens to focus on 4th dimensional reality?

I could be wrong but I think the 4th Dimension belongs to the concept of Time (in space-time).

I choose to believe that we exist in all dimensions at the same time and that our brain provides the focus to process our existence here on Earth.

You base this on what? I live on earth, but not everywhere on earth. I can't live on the bottom of the Pacific and I wouldn't last very long at the top of Everest or Antarctica. So while I exist on earth I only inhabit a small fraction of it. At the moment it's safe to say the same would be true in regard to other dimensions.

I also choose to believe that physical life and death have little meaning in the grand scheme of things, it's more of a type of phase of existence.

You know what has little meaning? The word "Meaning". As someone who has been dead I can tell you life is a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

Seeing ghosts is definitely all in our heads because without our brain, assuming the person actually experienced something, the "ghost" couldn't manifest without the person being there to observe it's presence IMO.

Now you're talking in circles. If ghosts are real then they manifest regardless of who is or is not present.

Belief that such things exist would probably have to play a part in ghost sightings because you probably wouldn't see the manifestation without it.

If something exists then you will see it regardless of what you believe.

Seeing what you want to believe probably determines who you see if these sightings actually happen.

Not really. I've never seen Cindy Crawford in my room, and I really want this to happen.

For the most part it's the power of suggestion. It's like seeing a spider cross the floor - every itch you feel for a while afterwords becomes that spider. A ghost-hunting team I knew actually created a ghost as part of a controlled experiment involving a high school. They started a rumor about a 2nd floor janitor's closet haunted by someone who had hung themselves inside. I think they gave him a red shirt or some distinguishing feature. Within 6 months this previously unhaunted 2nd floor janitor's closet was now haunted by a boy in a red shirt.

So if the prophetic dream wasn't my mother, it was definitely something IMO, simply because what she/he/it said came true, but there wasn't enough information given to avoid the outcome.

I think you're just perceptive. You put the pieces together in your subconscious and brought it forward in the dream.

 

[Jodie]

Speculation, not research. Your attempt to explain events in terms of it constitutes the misuse.

No it isn't, that's simply your opinion. How do you think science works if it doesn't first begin with speculation?

No, I didn't, considering "toss off" is the Commonwealth euphemism for masturbation. Do you consider your critics' interpretation of their experiences as putatively valid as yours? A simple "yes" or "no" would be appreciated.

I live in South Carolina, how am I supposed to know what slang you use for masturbation? It didn't occur to you that I was using the traditional definition of the term? Why would you think I would say something like that? Anyone's opinion is as valid as mine when it comes to discussing uncharted territory such as what consciousness is, the afterlife, and such.

 

[Jodie]

Late me state a few things I know to be true about ghosts:

1. Social, religious, and cultural background is a solid predictor as to who will see a ghost.
2. There is no consistent data on ghosts which allows for predictable patterns. This includes location, time of day/week/month/year, or what creates a haunting.
3. The most common ghosts are of living people.

#3 holds the key to understanding the phenomenon in my opinion, because it hints at how the brain manufactures information based on esoteric and abstract input.

You mean like the doppleganger myth? I'm not familiar with stories of living ghosts unless that's what you're talking about. I don't disagree with the rest. I think belief plays a big part in what you see, it would have to if it is truly an entity plucking something familiar from your memory in order to interact with you in some way.

So

Then pseudoscience doesn't apply to the basic premise of what I was suggesting.

Fair question, but right now the physicists who think about this stuff can't answer that right now.

That's true.

Why would it effect us at all?

Because there is no "down" if there is no "up" and the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd dimensional space intersect. Time is the 4th dimensional space which overlays the 3, why would the upper dimensions be any different?

I doubt it. We are creatures of this dimension.

That could possibly be just a matter of perception if the previous suggestion of inter-related dimensions happens to be true.

I could be wrong but I think the 4th Dimension belongs to the concept of Time (in space-time).

It does.

You base this on what? I live on earth, but not everywhere on earth. I can't live on the bottom of the Pacific and I wouldn't last very long at the top of Everest or Antarctica. So while I exist on earth I only inhabit a small fraction of it. At the moment it's safe to say the same would be true in regard to other dimensions.

If consciousness resides in all dimensions then your brain only allows you to perceive this 4th dimensional space that you occupy, your physical existence limits what you can focus on since you are here to have a physical experience...just IMO. If a part of us extends into other dimensions then whether we can perceive anything other than that depends on what abilities we have there. If we can perceive the 4th dimension one slice at a time, then we should be able to perceive everything at once if we are looking from 5th dimensional spatial perspective. At least that's my understanding of it.

You know what has little meaning? The word "Meaning". As someone who has been dead I can tell you life is a big deal in the grand scheme of things.

I'm really interested in hearing about it if you don't mind sharing.

Now you're talking in circles. If ghosts are real then they manifest regardless of who is or is not present.

No, I don't think they can manifest unless there is a conduit, such as a person, to manifest through. I think they use what you expect or believe to see to portray the expected. I've watched films of poltergeist activity in empty buildings but no one has bothered to study them seriously. I could very well be wrong.

If something exists then you will see it regardless of what you believe.

That's not necessarily true. No two NDE's that I've ever heard about are just alike. I think you see what you believe or expect to see. Likewise with eye witness testimony, no two witnesses will describe the same thing.

Not really. I've never seen Cindy Crawford in my room, and I really want this to happen.

For the most part it's the power of suggestion. It's like seeing a spider cross the floor - every itch you feel for a while afterwords becomes that spider. A ghost-hunting team I knew actually created a ghost as part of a controlled experiment involving a high school. They started a rumor about a 2nd floor janitor's closet haunted by someone who had hung themselves inside. I think they gave him a red shirt or some distinguishing feature. Within 6 months this previously unhaunted 2nd floor janitor's closet was now haunted by a boy in a red shirt.

That fits my theory.

I think you're just perceptive. You put the pieces together in your subconscious and brought it forward in the dream.

My siblings were children at the time my mother died. I can't see how I could have subconsciously known anything about their future.

 

[JayUtah]

No it isn't, that's simply your opinion. How do you think science works if it doesn't first begin with speculation?

But it doesn't end with speculation. And that's not just my opinion.

 

[Pixel42]

What if you're wrong about how my brain is working in these situations, would that mean you might have to give what I said some serious consideration?

What if you're wrong about how your brain is working in these situations, would that mean you might have to give what I said some serious consideration?

In the absence of supporting objective evidence, fanciful explanations which contradict much of what we have discovered about how the world works do not merit serious consideration when there are several plausible mundane ones.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This has been pointed out before, but I think it's worth saying again.
Your basic assumption is that science is wrong, and that some day it will "catch up" with whichever of your numerous and contradictory beliefs you are espousing today.
Every step science has made so far has led more to the realisation that we really are just material bodies relying on electro-chemical reactions in our brains. Consciousness has been shown to be an emergent property of brains. There is no consciousness outside of our brains. The more we discover, the more evidence we have for this. If what you are saying is true, this would involve throwing out every single one of these steps- steps which have been thoroughly tested and validated. How could this possibly happen?
You have this apparently unshakeable belief that science is wrong, and your speculative beliefs are right and will one day be validated by science. Given that this is highly unlikely, have you considered revising your assumptions? Do you not think that is is just faintly possible that what you saw was just a dream?

I think what I experienced was ordinary, just not for 4th dimensional space here on Earth. The details remain untestable because they are untestable, or at least until physics catches up with a way to intuit what other dimensional space is like based on what is testable. Isn't that one of the reasons they built CERN?

Given that you're doing exactly what I said you were doing, would you mind now answering my questions?

 

[Donn]

I can't think why Jodie does not embrace my testimony about how I sent her that dream via my cell phone from the subtle dimensions.

I mean, it's anecdote and hypothesis all wrapped in untestable cohesion.

 

[JayUtah]

I don't see anyone laughing...

That's funny; I do.

I do see you having a virtual conniption fit...

Sitting at my keyboard calmly typing replies designed to test your claims is somehow a "conniption fit?" This is the second time you've loaded your language like this. Are you trying to make your critics feel ashamed for challenging your beliefs?

...over how I chose to interpret my experiences in a thread titled " My Ghost Story". How rational is that?

You choose to interpret your experiences in a way that you then say is scientific, but provide none of the essence of science to back that up. Then you say science has to "catch up" to your particular intuitive brand of making things up as you go. And you insinuate that your critics secretly have the same experiences as you but are too spiritually myopic to appreciate it for what it is. And you do all this publicly in a very prominently skeptical forum, where your post count leads us to believe you can be expected to know the response.

So yes, it is rational for me to expect you to understand that you'll be criticized for what you're doing. I find it more likely you're simply seeking attention than it is you have something insightful to discuss.

 

[HighRiser]

Snip
Science is not hopelessly hobbled just because it knows the difference between fact and imagination.

Sig worthy! Your words, Jay?

 

[JayUtah]

Sig worthy! Your words, Jay?

They are. Thank you!

 

[Daylightstar]

... I'm making a valid observation.

Looks more like an invalid conclusion for which you have an emotional need.

 

[Jodie]

What if you're wrong about how your brain is working in these situations, would that mean you might have to give what I said some serious consideration?

In the absence of supporting objective evidence, fanciful explanations which contradict much of what we have discovered about how the world works do not merit serious consideration when there are several plausible mundane ones.

If I remember any of my dreams at all, it's usually what I call a "dump" dream where it's a mish mash of the previous day's events. Once in awhile I'll have the typical " I can't find the exit on the interstate dream" and I keep driving around in circles on this giant conjunction of freeways. The other dream I have on a regular basis is about an approaching tornado and my feet are stuck to the ground. That's it, I don't have dreams where actual conversations take place and rarely remember anything when I do dream.
I don't think my mind would suddenly do something different from what it usually does, but I could be wrong, other people have dreams where they talk to people in those dreams.

I think if you happen to be an atheist you would probably find my speculation about this to be offensive. That's the only reason I can think of for why you and JayUtah would insist on proof for something that was clearly stated to be an idea. You don't have to participate in the conversation if it offends you.

 

[Jodie]

Given that you're doing exactly what I said you were doing, would you mind now answering my questions?

Which post number?

 

[Jodie]

That's funny; I do.

How are you seeing the other forum members?

Sitting at my keyboard calmly typing replies designed to test your claims is somehow a "conniption fit?" This is the second time you've loaded your language like this. Are you trying to make your critics feel ashamed for challenging your beliefs?

Your posting tantrum indicates some kind of internal strife regardless of how you might be typing your posts. Is telling someone to GTFO the forum an appropriate post just because you don't agree with their viewpoint? It's not.

You choose to interpret your experiences in a way that you then say is scientific, but provide none of the essence of science to back that up. Then you say science has to "catch up" to your particular intuitive brand of making things up as you go. And you insinuate that your critics secretly have the same experiences as you but are too spiritually myopic to appreciate it for what it is. And you do all this publicly in a very prominently skeptical forum, where your post count leads us to believe you can be expected to know the response.

There is a scientific basis to what I'm saying, I clearly laid out what part was my speculation. If someone doesn't agree with me it means they've accepted some other explanation. There is nothing in the rules that state that every point pondered here requires the kind of proof that you are asking me to provide. If you chose to do that then that limits the quality of the content that members can contribute to the forum. Science is riddled with speculation, imagination, and new concepts otherwise it would be directionless.

So yes, it is rational for me to expect you to understand that you'll be criticized for what you're doing. I find it more likely you're simply seeking attention than it is you have something insightful to discuss.

You are falling back on the attention seeking angle because you are personally offended by what I'm posting. If you can't remain objective, regardless of whether you agree or not, then that says more about your mindset than it does about my motives.

 

[JayUtah]

That's the only reason I can think of for why you and JayUtah would insist on proof for something that was clearly stated to be an idea.

You clearly stated your belief that it was an idea backed up by science. If you say that in a skeptics' forum, but can't actually provide real science, you will be challenged.

You don't have to participate in the conversation if it offends you.

Conversely you don't get to complain when you engender criticism you had reason to suspect. As to the matter of "offense," there you go again with your loaded language. Why does it seem as if you're trying to make your critics go away?

 

[Jodie]

Looks more like an invalid conclusion for which you have an emotional need.

I've been straight forward, to the point, and clearly outlined what was speculation on my part and what scientific thought that speculation was based on......the emotional need seems to be coming from a handful of other forum members rather than from my position.

 

[Daylightstar]

... something that was clearly stated to be an idea. ...

The you knowing without a doubt that your mother visited you after you died??

... I know without a doubt that my mother visited me after she died. ...

... or the speculation about unrealistic explanations for the above, without there being any evidence supporting the (possibility of) occurrence of such a thing?

 

[JayUtah]

How are you seeing the other forum members?

Literally "see?" You're actually making such a pedantic argument?

Your posting tantrum...

More loaded language.

...indicates some kind of internal strife...

Oh, please. You overestimate your influence. I am confident your critics aren't wallowing in the throes of some sort of cognitive dissonance over your claims.

Is telling someone to GTFO the forum an appropriate post just because you don't agree with their viewpoint? It's not.

"_____ or GTFO" is just another popular expression. Don't take it personally. And it's not just because I don't agree with your viewpoint. It's because you suggest your beliefs are backed by science, but you refuse to supply the science -- i.e., appropriate evidence. You admit you can't, so why are you still beating the horse? I told you explicitly I had no problem with you believing whatever you want.

There is a scientific basis to what I'm saying...

Asked and answered. Rampant speculation using scientific-sounding words from someone else's speculation is not science.

You are falling back on the attention seeking angle because you are personally offended by what I'm posting.

Actually I'm not falling back at all. That's pretty much my primary affirmation, and you were kind enough to essentially confirm that I was right about it. What was that you said? What would we do around here if we didn't have you to kick around? Yeah, attention-seeking.

And no matter how frantically you try to write off your critics as somehow emotionally fragile, the fact remains that people are very much trying to drag you away from emotional attachment to an idea and toward objective methods of testing your claims. You can't personally offend me; I have no idea who you are, nor do I care.

You do offend reason, though. For the reasons amply laid out by the several posters in this thread.