• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

My Ghost Story

Pixel42 said:
Like I said: lots of ideas, no claims that anything is cut and dried.

Pointing out that there is no need to reach for supernatural explanations when there are plenty of hypothetical natural ones is not the same as claiming that everything is cut and dried either. In the absence of proof people are free to choose to believe supernatural explanations, they are just not justified in claiming they are obliged to do so for lack of natural ones.
Click to expand...


Some subtle language here, and a bit of mixing of issues.

I did not claim to be obliged to believe a supernatural explanation for lack of a natural one. If the natural explanations do not fit too well (low probabilities of being right), but a supernatural explanation seems to fit better (if the supernatural might exist), then I could say that there MIGHT be a possible supernatural explanation.

My original point was that there are some human experiences that MIGHT have supernatural explanations once one had reviewed the natural explanations as "not fitting".

"Not fitting" means that the natural explanations have underlying causes or links that are not present. For example the "causes" for hallucinations are linked to drugs, sleep and/or sensory deprivation, sleep transition, mental disorders, migraine and so on. If these are not present, then using the explanation of hallucination is problematic.

"Freedom of choice for the supernatural". You do at least make that concession without implying insanity. ;)
 
PartSkeptic said:
Some subtle language here, and a bit of mixing of issues.

I did not claim to be obliged to believe a supernatural explanation for lack of a natural one. If the natural explanations do not fit too well (low probabilities of being right), but a supernatural explanation seems to fit better (if the supernatural might exist), then I could say that there MIGHT be a possible supernatural explanation.

My original point was that there are some human experiences that MIGHT have supernatural explanations once one had reviewed the natural explanations as "not fitting".

"Not fitting" means that the natural explanations have underlying causes or links that are not present. For example the "causes" for hallucinations are linked to drugs, sleep and/or sensory deprivation, sleep transition, mental disorders, migraine and so on. If these are not present, then using the explanation of hallucination is problematic.

"Freedom of choice for the supernatural". You do at least make that concession without implying insanity. ;)
Click to expand...

Speaking to myself, why not, let us get to the interesting substance:— what means this "might"?

Maybe, perhaps, could. It is a thing authentic, given a very small chance in its favour. This small chance is not stated and so you weave the motive to give it substance, standing, alongside nature.

In truth, this chance is so slight that a mountain made therefrom would not obscure the view of a legless ant pressing its eye to the ground. This chance is so formal, only a formula in a tuxedo would bother to model it. This chance is granted only as a nod to honesty, when deduction is driving.

Your maybe is an argument from ignorance. You sweep away all natural explanations, unwittingly claiming for your own vast knowledge not possessed by any singular scholar, and substitute the uncanny.

Certainly, you are free to choose whatever philosophy suits. It is not insanity in any clinical sense, for polite conversation, however it does betray a sad dilution of the powers of discernment and sober reckoning into a humid fantasy of empty language.
 
PartSkeptic said:
"Not fitting" means that the natural explanations have underlying causes or links that are not present. For example the "causes" for hallucinations are linked to drugs, sleep and/or sensory deprivation, sleep transition, mental disorders, migraine and so on. If these are not present, then using the explanation of hallucination is probematic.
Click to expand...
Whereas being honestly mistaken, the most likely explanation for the vast majority of experiences attributed to the supernatural, requires only a normal human brain with its normal built in cognitive biases and fallible perceptions.

Why do you persist in pretending that hallucinations are the preferred sceptical explanation for all experiences attributed to the supernatural, no matter how many times you are corrected?
 
PartSkeptic said:
The brain is hard-wired to be predisposed to hallucinations, dreams and spiritual phenomenon. Science tells us that. Does that mean that all such events are random noise? Or could there be supernatural intelligence (God or spirits) using the brain to communicate?

Some people think so. Take Joan of Arc as a documented historical figure.
Click to expand...

The brain is hardwired to seek explanations for hallucinations and other "spiritual" phenomenon, which for many people means assuming they're messages from a god or spirits because that's what they feel like.

If the brain can produce false experiences it can produce false explanations.
 
PartSkeptic said:
"Freedom of choice for the supernatural".
Click to expand...

You are free to believe in the supernatural, rejecting naturalistic explanations because you don't like the way they "fit." And critics are free to point out the flaws in this kind of thinking. Arguments from incredulity and confirmation bias appear to be your calling card here, as with many supernatural proponents; what you haven't done in laying out your "research" is posit any evidence that supernatural explanations do any explaining at all.
 
Resume said:
You can also take Son of Sam as an example of an historical figure who acted on the voices in his head.
Click to expand...


My first impression of your comment was that you are not comparing apples with apples. Joan of Arc is an unusual example of "the voice of God" because not only did she act on the voices, but others believed her, and her prediction of victory was accurate.

What prediction did Son of Sam make? True he was not easily caught. Perhaps one should say he is an example of Satan pretending to be God, or just a voice? Although you will get no argument from me if you claim he was simply insane. I was living close to New York City at the time, and remember the fuss.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0075473/bio
At the time of his arrest, Berkowitz told police he believed that Sam was a "high demon" who transmitted his powers to him through Sam's black Labrador retriever.
Click to expand...


If God exists, then there is the possibility that Satan exists. Again I can relate to anecdotal evidence that this might explain some events of demon possession.

Disclaimer for Donn.
MIGHT! I do not know for certain. How can I know anything for certain? Or for that matter, why are you so sure I am have no idea what I am talking about. Your ad hominems only reflect your own bias in trying to discredit my postings.

Are you scared that the possibility that God exists MIGHT mean you could be punished for "your sins".

BTW - I am just revving you up a bit. If you give it, you must be prepared to take it also. :D

Besides, is this not an entertainment site? :duck:
 
PartSkeptic said:
My first impression of your comment was that you are not comparing apples with apples. Joan of Arc is an unusual example of "the voice of God" because not only did she act on the voices, but others believed her, and her prediction of victory was accurate.
Click to expand...
Until it wasn't.

Dog told Son of Sam what to do, not god. Interesting in that we have plenty of examples for dog.
 
Pixel42 said:
Whereas being honestly mistaken, the most likely explanation for the vast majority of experiences attributed to the supernatural, requires only a normal human brain with its normal built in cognitive biases and fallible perceptions.
Click to expand...


Yes. But why would that mean that it applies all instances? It is not proof that supernatural events cannot occur.

Pixel42 said:
Why do you persist in pretending that hallucinations are the preferred sceptical explanation for all experiences attributed to the supernatural, no matter how many times you are corrected?
Click to expand...


I do not. I gave an example (feeling a "cold wall") which is hard to explain except by some kind of brain malfunction. And that no-one has tried to explain by any other means.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Yes. But why would that mean that it applies all instances? It is not proof that supernatural events cannot occur.




I do not. I gave an example (feeling a "cold wall") which is hard to explain except by some kind of brain malfunction. And that no-one has tried to explain by any other means.
Click to expand...

How does all this apply to the squeaky floor of the op?
 
PartSkeptic said:
I do not. I gave an example (feeling a "cold wall") which is hard to explain except by some kind of brain malfunction. And that no-one has tried to explain by any other means.
Click to expand...

I thought it was so easy to explain that no one bothered. A cold spot or draft by the door due to cracks, air circulation, etc. gives just that sensation if enhanced with a little imagination. For a blatantly obvious example, think of busy stores that have a fan blowing downward by the doors to keep in the heat/AC--it's obvious when you step through the wall of different-temperature air. Now reduce that to a natural glitch in circulation, add some ghost stories...

Of course, the point is not to get an explanation; the point is to tell a story so mysterious it defies all explanations. So I'm sure we'll be told some confounding factor now why it couldn't possibly be a natural pocket of colder air.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Yes. But why would that mean that it applies all instances? It is not proof that supernatural events cannot occur.
Click to expand...
If there is a perfectly adequate natural explanation there is no need to invoke a supernatural one.

If every volcano can be explained without postulating the existence of volcano gods there is no need to postulate the existence of volcano gods. It is not proof that volcano gods don't exist, but insisting they continue to be considered as an alternative explanation is not rational.
 
PartSkeptic said:
Disclaimer for Donn.
Click to expand...
Better to simply talk to me than at me.

MIGHT! I do not know for certain. How can I know anything for certain?
Click to expand...
You cannot, nor can I. Still, what is this might that it looms so large in your thinking? How many other mights might there be? Could you not list an infinite set of weird ideas, each mutating with the other in combinations? And for what? All of it posed as profound, backed by nothing at all.

Or for that matter, why are you so sure I am have no idea what I am talking about.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what this refers to. It could be my strong challenge of your blasé use of supernatural idioms for the surprising when simple puzzlement would do.

Your ad hominems only reflect your own bias in trying to discredit my postings.
Click to expand...
I opposed your ideas. Please point out the move against yourself, and I shall answer for it.

Are you scared that the possibility that God exists MIGHT mean you could be punished for "your sins".
Click to expand...
Not one whit.

When faced against the infinity of other sludge that might conjures, God is just a more popular lack of imagination.

BTW - I am just revving you up a bit. If you give it, you must be prepared to take it also. :D
Click to expand...
I await your giving.

Besides, is this not an entertainment site? :duck:
Click to expand...
I was having fun.
 
Donn said:
Better to simply talk to me than at me.


You cannot, nor can I. Still, what is this might that it looms so large in your thinking? How many other mights might there be? Could you not list an infinite set of weird ideas, each mutating with the other in combinations? And for what? All of it posed as profound, backed by nothing at all.


I'm not sure what this refers to. It could be my strong challenge of your blasé use of supernatural idioms for the surprising when simple puzzlement would do.


I opposed your ideas. Please point out the move against yourself, and I shall answer for it.


Not one whit.

When faced against the infinity of other sludge that might conjures, God is just a more popular lack of imagination.


I await your giving.


I was having fun.
Click to expand...
As brer Rabbit said "I told you it was my laughing place".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom