My Ghost Story

[Jodie]

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

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

I think she did visit me after she died, how that might have been accomplished is my speculation based on the multiverse theory, some theories from research regarding consciousness that is related to AI, and how psychology delineates the different levels of consciousness.

 

[JayUtah]

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...

But then you tried to equate speculation with science, according to the tap-dance that science would be nothing without speculation. Twice thereafter I had to correct that misconception by noting that imagination and speculation provide the hypotheses that invigorate science, but that science doesn't happen without testing those hypotheses according to evidence. Only then do you get a descriptive, predictive theory. That's science.

 

[Daylightstar]

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.

What was the you knowing without a doubt that your mother visited you after she died?
Was that according to you scientific thought or speculation?

Your emotional need lies in your need to 'take care of unfinished business'.
Your mother doesn't need anything anymore, she's gone, for good.
You should have done that while she was alive, you didn't.
See here:

It was only a memory of your mother, instigated by your desire to take care of unfinished business.

Nothing more.

You've been too argumentative with your mother in the past, you can not fix it anymore, other than accept what has been, learn from it and use it to improve yourself.

That's the only way your desire to take care of unfinished business with your arguments with your mother while she was alive, can have any positive meaning.

 

[Daylightstar]

I think she did visit me after she died, how that might have been accomplished is my speculation based on the multiverse theory, some theories from research regarding consciousness that is related to AI, and how psychology delineates the different levels of consciousness.

You are trying to find an 'explanation' for something for which no evidence at all exists that it can occur.

 

[Daylightstar]

I think she did visit me after she died, ...

You want it to be so, but you can't make it so.
Your mother is gone, forever.

 

[Mashuna]

I think she did visit me after she died, how that might have been accomplished is my speculation based on the multiverse theory, some theories from research regarding consciousness that is related to AI, and how psychology delineates the different levels of consciousness.

For me, it seems as though you don't understand any of the theories you're basing your speculation on. Instead, you're starting with your conclusion then trying to find key words or phrases in popular science that you can retrofit into your argument.

 

[JayUtah]

I think she did visit me after she died...

Earlier you were adamant that she in fact visited you. Now you only "think" so, but give your critics no quarter for taking you at your previous word. You now appear open to some doubt regarding that. Would you care to enlighten us regarding what finally engendered that doubt?

[H]ow that might have been accomplished is my speculation based on the multiverse theory, some theories from research regarding consciousness that is related to AI, and how psychology delineates the different levels of consciousness.

But as others have pointed out, you either don't understand any of the principles to which you've referred or you have elected to misrepresent them. If the former, then your speculation offers no probative value; the parsimonious explanation remains simply that you had a dream about your mother. If the latter, then you would be properly taken to task for propping up a belief you arrived at by means other than science, deliberately misusing science to do so.

 

[Daylightstar]

Earlier you were adamant that she in fact visited you. Now you only "think" so, but give your critics no quarter for taking you at your previous word. You now appear open to some doubt regarding that. Would you care to enlighten us regarding what finally engendered that doubt?
...

Similar to the below:

... what I think I experienced. ...

She probably has no doubt whatsoever.

 

[Jodie]

But then you tried to equate speculation with science, according to the tap-dance that science would be nothing without speculation. Twice thereafter I had to correct that misconception by noting that imagination and speculation provide the hypotheses that invigorate science, but that science doesn't happen without testing those hypotheses according to evidence. Only then do you get a descriptive, predictive theory. That's science.

I agree, my thoughts on what I've read are strictly speculation on my part to explain what I experienced. What I experienced was outside of normal for me so I reject the explanation that it was subconscious suggestion or wishful thinking. Had the dream been about me I might have felt differently.

Science happens when you take what is known or what mathematics might suggest is possible to formulate a hypothesis. It might take decades or centuries to arrive at a technological standpoint where it would be feasible to test certain hypotheses but it doesn't make what's postulated garbage.

I was reading a link from another forum poster about the lack of a center for the universe and why there are conflicting theories on what the shape of the universe is at the moment. The most well accepted theory is that the universe is flat but it's not definite. Neither is dark matter but it makes certain equations work well to explain cosmological questions. When you really start delving into physics, at least the theoretical part, it's pretty bizarre at some of things that are hypothesized based on the evidence available. Those are just a couple of examples. You can find conjecture and supposition in every discipline.

 

[Daylightstar]

... What I experienced was outside of normal for me so I reject the explanation that it was subconscious suggestion or wishful thinking. ...

You reject any explanation which does not recognize your visiting mother as a fact.

 

[Jodie]

Earlier you were adamant that she in fact visited you. Now you only "think" so, but give your critics no quarter for taking you at your previous word. You now appear open to some doubt regarding that. Would you care to enlighten us regarding what finally engendered that doubt?



But as others have pointed out, you either don't understand any of the principles to which you've referred or you have elected to misrepresent them. If the former, then your speculation offers no probative value; the parsimonious explanation remains simply that you had a dream about your mother. If the latter, then you would be properly taken to task for propping up a belief you arrived at by means other than science, deliberately misusing science to do so.

Not so, it depends on what theories you want to accept as most probable. For every postulate out there regardless of what it might be you will find those that don't agree with it. Each side has their reasons, you decide what you want to believe about them.

I do think/believe/ have no doubt that my mother visited me in a dream after she died. If you are an atheist then you've rejected my premise before I even tried to explain why I think our consciousness isn't limited to our physical body.

The multiverse theory is one of many theories that explain reality and is based on mathematics. AI research is a relatively new field and nothing about psychology is set in stone as evidenced by the constant revisions of the DSM III diagnostic criteria for certain disorders. Science is malleable, it's not concrete and tidy, just as my belief that my mother visited me after she died is subjective.

 

[Daylightstar]

... Science is malleable, it's not concrete and tidy, just as my belief that my mother visited me after she died is subjective.

Science nor belief will bring your mother back.
She's gone, for good.

 

[JayUtah]

Not so, it depends on what theories you want to accept as most probable.

You don't understand the theories. That's a separate problem from whether they are credible.

I do think/believe/ have no doubt that my mother visited me in a dream after she died.

Throwing all your contradictory claims together in one sentence doesn't reconcile them.

If you are an atheist then you've rejected my premise...

Red herring. Your premise is rejected because it lacks evidence, not because your critics are somehow biased.

Science is malleable, it's not concrete and tidy, just as my belief that my mother visited me after she died is subjective.

Non sequitur. Science is malleable because it adapts to new evidence. It is not subjective, and takes great pains to distance itself from any semblance of subjectivity.

 

[JayUtah]

Science happens when you take what is known or what mathematics might suggest is possible to formulate a hypothesis. It might take decades or centuries to arrive at a technological standpoint where it would be feasible to test certain hypotheses but it doesn't make what's postulated garbage.

"Garbage" is loaded language. An unproven hypothesis based on speculation remains only a hypothesis, which has no probative, descriptive, or predictive value. Therefore it is improper for you to look for proof of your preferred interpretation for a dream in one. You keep trying to redefine science to leave out the parts you can't satisfy.

Again, believe what you want. Just don't call it scientifically supported when it patently isn't.

 

[dlorde]

It depends on whether you consider consciousness to be the soul.

That would be a category error. Consciousness is a process, an activity, something our brains do. The soul is supposedly some kind of vaguely defined object, or substance, or entity - isn't it?

In my belief, I think that we use the brain as a lens to focus our self awareness, or soul, or " I am alive" feeling to experience this 4th dimensional reality.

If the brain is just a 'lens', how then can the effect of drugs on the brain radically change someone's sense of self-awareness, and damage to certain areas of the brain can cause them to assert they are actually dead?

Except his made up word for this self awareness/soul/ muchy muchness is perceptronium. I'm not clear on why he chose that term, it sounds like a Transformer's name, like Optimus Prime, and no one will take that seriously.

"Perceptronium" - a state of matter that perceives. It's a little hokey, but he likes a snappy soundbite. Let me know when he stops talking mathematics and starts talking about souls.

 

[Jodie]

What was the you knowing without a doubt that your mother visited you after she died?
Was that according to you scientific thought or speculation?

Your emotional need lies in your need to 'take care of unfinished business'.
Your mother doesn't need anything anymore, she's gone, for good.
You should have done that while she was alive, you didn't.
See here:

My belief is just that. You are making an assumption about what the dream was about, it wasn't about me, it was something my mother wanted me to do to prevent something from happening. Other than that, the dream wasn't about me at all, I had no unfinished business.

 

[Jodie]

That would be a category error. Consciousness is a process, an activity, something our brains do. The soul is supposedly some kind of vaguely defined object, or substance, or entity - isn't it?

I use the terms as meaning the same thing, but there is no evidence that a soul exists.

If the brain is just a 'lens', how then can the effect of drugs on the brain radically change someone's sense of self-awareness, and damage to certain areas of the brain can cause them to assert they are actually dead?

If you are looking through a microscope and the lens is dirty, scratched, or the illumination isn't adjusted correctly, what you see will be distorted or you won't see anything at all. Drugs and physical damage do the same thing to the processes of the brain.

"Perceptronium" - a state of matter that perceives. It's a little hokey, but he likes a snappy soundbite. Let me know when he stops talking mathematics and starts talking about souls.

Will do assuming he goes in that direction.

 

[Jodie]

"Garbage" is loaded language. An unproven hypothesis based on speculation remains only a hypothesis, which has no probative, descriptive, or predictive value. Therefore it is improper for you to look for proof of your preferred interpretation for a dream in one. You keep trying to redefine science to leave out the parts you can't satisfy.

Again, believe what you want. Just don't call it scientifically supported when it patently isn't.

Many hypotheses are a synthesis of other conclusions from various disciplines of science. I didn't do anything any different except suggest it indicated that something of "us" is capable of surviving physical death. Evidently if the conclusion is unacceptable then the degree in which you accept the hypotheses on which it was based becomes questionable. The worst thing you can say is that I'm biased, but the same could be said for your position.

 

[Mashuna]

Many hypotheses are a synthesis of other conclusions from various disciplines of science. I didn't do anything any different except suggest it indicated that something of "us" is capable of surviving physical death. Evidently if the conclusion is unacceptable then the degree in which you accept the hypotheses on which it was based becomes questionable. The worst thing you can say is that I'm biased, but the same could be said for your position.

Well no, your position can be said to be biased and unsupported by the evidence.

 

[Jodie]

Red herring. Your premise is rejected because it lacks evidence, not because your critics are somehow biased.

You said communication from my mother after death was impossible therefore you have doubts about the existence of an afterlife. Is it not fair to assume you are an atheist? Or can atheist embrace an afterlife with no particular godhead? I sincerely don't know, I thought it was an all or nothing proposition.

Non sequitur. Science is malleable because it adapts to new evidence. It is not subjective, and takes great pains to distance itself from any semblance of subjectivity.

Science isn't subjective but the people deciding which hypothesis or theory is best supported certainly are.