My Ghost Story

[Nonpareil]

You haven't observed anything that would validate that hypothesis.

You really don't seem to understand this whole "burden of proof" thing, or why it's important.

We could speculate a 100 ways until Tuesday and never come up with a suitable explanation for how people can survive the afterlife

Because they don't.

it doesn't mean that it isn't a possibility.

No. Quite a lot of other things mean that it isn't a possibility.

You simply believe that it isn't possible

No. I conclude that it is not possible.

Because literally every piece of evidence that we have says that not only does it not happen, but that the very idea of it is incoherent.

That's fine, I doubt I'll notice the absence.

Okay, credit where credit is due. Smack talk game strong.

I understand just fine but as in the story of "The Emperor that Had No Clothes" people tend to dislike it when I point out the flaws in what they define as rational.

You have not pointed out any flaws. You have just established that you do not understand the way rationality works.

 

[Pixel42]

We could speculate a 100 ways until Tuesday and never come up with a suitable explanation for how people can survive the afterlife, it doesn't mean that it isn't a possibility.

Do you think volcano gods are a possibility? We understand why our ancestors believed in them, but we have learned a lot more about how the world actually works than they knew. For us to continue to believe in volcano gods would be perverse, don't you agree?

Likewise we have learned enough about human psychology to explain your dream (including its apparent precognition) without postulating an afterlife. Everything we know and understand leads us to discount that explanation. To continue to insist that it is a possibility is as irrational as continuing to insist that volcano gods are a possibility.

 

[Axxman300]

Just because you saw or heard or felt something doesn't always make it real.

If it was special to you, had great meaning, or gave you peace then that's great. The problem comes when you insist that others accept your experience without question, it places you in the position of being the one with the closed mind.

I have seen all kinds of wild things, but I cannot prove I saw them so I don't wander into a room full of people who advertise their non-belief of these things and demand that they take my word for it. They're not bad guys, I would be.

The discipline is to understand why I saw them. That's where the interesting stuff happens because I've had to learn about how my brain works, how my five senses work together (or don't work), how my eyes work, and how my mind works. That's science, that's testable, that is where the answers will be found. Just walking around saying "I know what I know" makes a person a slave to their limitations.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I agree with you that ghosts don't exist. There might actually be some kind of 5th dimensional being occupying the same space that we do that is capable of borrowing our memories, thoughts, and fears and using those images to project something it thinks we can understand. That's just my theory. It might be able to do the same with dreams, however, it might have been my mother.

It would have to be the shadow of my mother's former self since she was deceased and she appeared in a dream.

So it could have been your mother, though not her ghost, as you don't believe in ghosts. Or it could have been "the shadow of your mother's former self", which is somehow different from a ghost. Or it could have been a "5th dimensional being" pretending to be your mother in order to tell you something.
This is the problem with what can loosely be termed 'woo beliefs'. Your view of reality is based on whatever comforting explanation you can dream up, rather than on any kind of evidence. While this may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it is absolutely useless as a way of determining the truth of the matter.
Jodie: Does the fact that your three explanations contradict each other, and none of them are backed by anything other than fanciful speculation, not trouble you at all?

 

[Daylightstar]

...
That's fine, I doubt I'll notice the absence.
...

Irrational belief usually creates some degree of isolation from the real world, causing the phenomenon of 'to not notice' stuff.

 

[Donn]

I sent Jodie that dream from my seventh dimensional cell phone. It wasn't cruel, I gave her feels.

Now the gig's up.

 

[Jodie]

You really don't seem to understand this whole "burden of proof" thing, or why it's important.

If you don't believe that there is some form of afterlife then my belief that there is should be of no consequence to you. It seems to bother you that I accept something as real without physical proof. IMO, the message I received turned out to be true several years after the incident. That was all the proof I needed.

Because they don't.

According to your limited view of reality.

No. Quite a lot of other things mean that it isn't a possibility.

Such as?

No. I conclude that it is not possible.
Because literally every piece of evidence that we have says that not only does it not happen, but that the very idea of it is incoherent.

What evidence? The NDE research or neuro research? If that's what your basing your conclusion on then I think it's very limited. It only reflects what's happening inside the brain, not what happens once your consciousness leaves the body.

Okay, credit where credit is due. Smack talk game strong.

I was just stating a fact. I'm not playing games.

You have not pointed out any flaws. You have just established that you do not understand the way rationality works.

I have, but I think it bears repeating, if you think the extent of reality is what you experience or observe everyday then you are mistaken in basing your conclusions on that limited bit of evidence.

 

[Jodie]

Do you think volcano gods are a possibility? We understand why our ancestors believed in them, but we have learned a lot more about how the world actually works than they knew. For us to continue to believe in volcano gods would be perverse, don't you agree?

Likewise we have learned enough about human psychology to explain your dream (including its apparent precognition) without postulating an afterlife. Everything we know and understand leads us to discount that explanation. To continue to insist that it is a possibility is as irrational as continuing to insist that volcano gods are a possibility.

All I can say is that my experience was a distinctly personal one, there is no way to share that with anyone here and adequately portray what it was like. To think that you can define it, rationalize it, or discount it based on something you read second or third hand seems irrational to me. No research thus far has led to a null hypothesis for the lack of existence for an afterlife, quite the contrary, we simply don't have the means to perceive what happens to our consciousness once disembodied IMO.

 

[Jodie]

So it could have been your mother, though not her ghost, as you don't believe in ghosts. Or it could have been "the shadow of your mother's former self", which is somehow different from a ghost. Or it could have been a "5th dimensional being" pretending to be your mother in order to tell you something.
This is the problem with what can loosely be termed 'woo beliefs'. Your view of reality is based on whatever comforting explanation you can dream up, rather than on any kind of evidence. While this may make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside, it is absolutely useless as a way of determining the truth of the matter.
Jodie: Does the fact that your three explanations contradict each other, and none of them are backed by anything other than fanciful speculation, not trouble you at all?

Not in the least. The concept of a ghost to me is an intact form of consciousness that appears in some kind ephemeral form as an imitation of what it was when it existed as a living person. My mother appeared to me in my dream as she looked when she was in her late 30's rather than as the middle aged woman she was when she suddenly died. She was just as real as I was in the dream, but she didn't appear to me while I was awake, that's not a ghost in the traditional sense.

If there is anything remotely sentient existing in the 5th dimension it would be able to see all things in all times because it would include the 3 dimensional world plus the 4th dimension of time, at least based on my understanding of it. Whatever lived there would be omniscient by our standards. Thought would have immediate form as opposed to our starting out with an idea and going through the steps to make it real. If such a being existed it would be able to pluck thought forms from your consciousness and follow those from beginning to end choosing what it wanted you to see and what information it wanted to impart. That means it could pretend to be anything, even your mother.

 

[Nonpareil]

Such as?

The fact that souls don't exist, human consciousness does not persist outside of a functioning brain, there is no mechanism for direct interaction between two consciousnesses even ignoring the fact that the idea is incoherent, and so on.

What evidence? The NDE research or neuro research? If that's what your basing your conclusion on then I think it's very limited. It only reflects what's happening inside the brain, not what happens once your consciousness leaves the body.

Those, and quite a few other bits of research along similar lines.

What you keep trying to ignore is that literally every one of them indicates that consciousness doesn't leave the body. Because it can't.

All I can say is that my experience was a distinctly personal one, there is no way to share that with anyone here and adequately portray what it was like.

"You can't understand because you weren't there" isn't an argument. Rationality does not depend on personal experience.

No research thus far has led to a null hypothesis for the lack of existence for an afterlife

That is the null hypothesis. All research thus far has only strengthened it.

If there is anything remotely sentient existing in the 5th dimension it would be able to see all things in all times because it would include the 3 dimensional world plus the 4th dimension of time, at least based on my understanding of it. Whatever lived there would be omniscient by our standards. Thought would have immediate form as opposed to our starting out with an idea and going through the steps to make it real. If such a being existed it would be able to pluck thought forms from your consciousness and follow those from beginning to end choosing what it wanted you to see and what information it wanted to impart. That means it could pretend to be anything, even your mother.

I'm not unconvinced that you haven't plucked this remarkably incoherent nonsense from an old episode of Doctor Who.

 

[Daylightstar]

... It seems to bother you that I accept something as real without physical proof. ...

It seems to bother you that others do not accept your claimed reality of your anecdote on the 'strength' of that anecdote, only.
Your claim appears to be in dire need of defense.

 

[Daylightstar]

... My mother appeared to me in my dream as she looked when she was in her late 30's rather than as the middle aged woman she was when she suddenly died. She was just as real as I was in the dream, but she didn't appear to me while I was awake, that's not a ghost in the traditional sense.
...

Your mother in your dream was simply a memory of your mother.
Nothing more.
Possibly a rather vivid one but just a memory.

You appear to be haunted by the memory of your mother.

The memory of your mother causes you to argue in disagreement with others a position you can never hope to substantiate and will only lead to more disagreement.

There will no doubt be a backstory relating to your troubled relationship with your mother.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

Not in the least. The concept of a ghost to me is an intact form of consciousness that appears in some kind ephemeral form as an imitation of what it was when it existed as a living person. My mother appeared to me in my dream as she looked when she was in her late 30's rather than as the middle aged woman she was when she suddenly died. She was just as real as I was in the dream, but she didn't appear to me while I was awake, that's not a ghost in the traditional sense.

If there is anything remotely sentient existing in the 5th dimension it would be able to see all things in all times because it would include the 3 dimensional world plus the 4th dimension of time, at least based on my understanding of it. Whatever lived there would be omniscient by our standards. Thought would have immediate form as opposed to our starting out with an idea and going through the steps to make it real. If such a being existed it would be able to pluck thought forms from your consciousness and follow those from beginning to end choosing what it wanted you to see and what information it wanted to impart. That means it could pretend to be anything, even your mother.

1. You cheerfully admit to living in a world you have essentially made up, in which your own fantasies contradict each other, and you wonder why other people seem troubled by this?
2. Surely the first two things are the same?
The last part of your post, as nonpareil notes, is more made-up, unsubstantiated nonsense. While I acknowledge, and indeed support, your right to believe what you like, it seems strange to me that you appear to navigate through life by weaving appealing fairy stories around commonplace events (like dreaming of your deceased mother). It is also puzzling why you think this is somehow better than using reason and evidence as a basis for decisions in life.

 

[Jodie]

I told you why, I used the Allegory of the Cave to illustrate why. If you think that this is it, then you are the people chained in the cave that are looking at shadows on the cave wall with no possibility of ever knowing anything different because you accept your limitations as all that is, could be, or will be.

This is nit picky, but if science is based strictly on repeated observation, and the human mind is apt to err, how can you be so sure that everything you read or conclude based on research is absolutely correct? You have statistics to give you probabilities, but probabilities aren't certain. Any research studying the chemistry of the brain is not going to give you any insight into the meaning or content of your thoughts.

My idea of what existing in the 5th dimension would be like was inspired by that movie Flatland. The last version of Dr. Who that I ever watched was in 1979.

 

[Pixel42]

I told you why, I used the Allegory of the Cave to illustrate why. If you think that this is it, then you are the people chained in the cave that are looking at shadows on the cave wall with no possibility of ever knowing anything different because you accept your limitations as all that is, could be, or will be.

Or it could be you doing that, and people who use the scientific method who are discovering the reality behind the shadows.

This is nit picky, but if science is based strictly on repeated observation, and the human mind is apt to err, how can you be so sure that everything you read or conclude based on research is absolutely correct?

Because the whole point of the scientific method is to carefully and methodically eliminate the effect of our perceptual errors and cognitive biases in order to arrive at objective truth. That's what it's for. It's this sort of ignorance that makes your posts so frustrating to read.

Any research studying the chemistry of the brain is not going to give you any insight into the meaning or content of your thoughts.

Pretty sure it already has.

My idea of what existing in the 5th dimension would be like was inspired by that movie Flatland.

Maybe you should try reading some actual science on the subject.

The last version of Dr. Who that I ever watched was in 1979.

Your loss.

 

[Donn]

This is nit picky, but if science is based strictly on repeated observation, and the human mind is apt to err, how can you be so sure that everything you read or conclude based on research is absolutely correct? You have statistics to give you probabilities, but probabilities aren't certain. Any research studying the chemistry of the brain is not going to give you any insight into the meaning or content of your thoughts.

You can't remember all science's findings all the time, therefore my unmeasured mictations are just as valid.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

This is nit picky, but if science is based strictly on repeated observation, and the human mind is apt to err, how can you be so sure that everything you read or conclude based on research is absolutely correct?

My idea of what existing in the 5th dimension would be like was inspired by that movie Flatland. The last version of Dr. Who that I ever watched was in 1979.

This is a misrepresentation of science. Conclusions are always subject to revision. The idea of something being 'absolutely correct' is a religious one, not a scientific one.
In any case, it surely has to be better than basing your world view on what you've seen in films.

 

[Pixel42]

This is a misrepresentation of science. Conclusions are always subject to revision. The idea of something being 'absolutely correct' is a religious one, not a scientific one.

Quite, something else about the scientific method she's failing to understand. In fact I don't think there's anything about it she does understand.

It's ironic how Jodie continues to harp on about Plato's cave, apparently still blissfully unaware that she is the one chained there making up silly stories about the shadows. Meanwhile scientists have sawn through their chains and left the cave in search of what's causing them.

 

[dlorde]

Quite, something else about the scientific method she's failing to understand. In fact I don't think there's anything about it she does understand.

It's ironic how Jodie continues to harp on about Plato's cave, apparently still blissfully unaware that she is the one chained there making up silly stories about the shadows. Meanwhile scientists have sawn through their chains and left the cave in search of what's causing them.

This ^

 

[JayUtah]

One of the great advantages science has over dogmatic religion is that it doesn't ever presume to have arrived at the accurate, complete answer once and for all. Scientific conclusions are forever tentative. That doesn't meant they aren't usefully predictive. It means that when they stop being predictive, we fix the conclusion so that it regains predictive value. We study and discover, for example, that hitherto unimportant variations in the variables have effects we didn't see at first.

While an individual human mind is prone to error, collections of minds working critically over many years are less susceptible to error. Science does not rely heavily on "eureka!" discoveries so much as plodding, methodical investigation from different angles.

In contrast, a dogmatic religious view is purely propositional. The propositions are accepted axiomatically as true. The epistemology is foisted, albeit in a way that invites blind acceptance. Religion proposes a broad scope, which it touts as a great strength. But the foisted epistemology makes this scope illusory. As long as one has accepted that propositions in religion are dispensed from on high by an all-knowing deity, one doesn't question whether the scope is appropriate, testable, or useful. This means the charge that science is myopic (the cave analogy) is true only in a blustery sense. Religion has a broader vision only in the same sense that mythology or science fiction does.

Science changes its conclusions to conform to new observations. Dogmatic religion does not. There is no palatable resolution to a conflict between a religious "truth" and an empirical observation. Adherents generally try to spackle over the dissonance with suppositional platitudes such as "It's a trial of my faith." The culture of dogmatic religion promises rewards for maintaining belief over observation. Sadly, many adherents to dogmatic religion project their epistemology onto science, noting that it doesn't measure up in this respect or another. Skeptics don't hold to the scientific method the way religious adherents profess a faith. Skeptics don't hold to scientific conclusions the same way religious adherents hold to doctrine. The chief failure among religious critics of science is in the belief that science is just a different kind of religion. It is, in all respects, the anti-religion precisely because it can change its mind to accept new fact.