My Ghost Story

[Jodie]

Indeed. "Speculation based on science" is a red herring. Faced with the dichotomy between science and speculation, Jodie seems to have invented some new thing that, I infer from context, has all the favorable properties of science (rigor, trustworthiness, etc.) and all the favorable properties of speculation (flexibility, scope, etc.). Simultaneously it requires none of the pesky obligations of science (proper method, evidence, etc.), and avoids all the pesky shortcomings of speculation (predictive and explanatory impotence).

What's wrong with speculation? Why shouldn't we do that?

t just doesn't work that way. First and most obvious, all speculation is "based on" something -- a set of facts, an observable outcome, a body of law.

I listed the observations that indicate that we might live in a multidimensional world, and some of the consciousness research that suggests there is more to our "I" than just chemical processes within our brains.

It starts from known properties and observables and imagines what else there could be. But that imagination is the point of departure from the original basis. A speculation based on law, for example, might start with an existing corpus of case law and attempt to apply it informally to some hypothetical or as-yet untried set of facts. Or it may imagine how law will evolve in the future, say, to accommodate polygamous marriage, or autonomous drone flying, or seemingly intelligent machines. Similarly scientific speculation starts with known scientific laws and imagines what other natural laws might exist, yet to be discovered. Touting the strength of one's departure point doesn't obviate the fact that one has departed it in order to speculate. You don't get to carry that strength with you everywhere your imagination might thereafter take you.

Feel free to reject my idea simply because it doesn't reflect your world vision. Science hasn't addressed consciousness on a dimensional level. Science would first have to have a clear understanding of what consciousness is and better evidence that other dimensions exist. Even then, it might not be something you could feasibly test. Imagination is the root of all science, one has to first think about what might be before they can look for evidence of it's existence.

Second, the scientific method and speculation are inherently, qualitatively, and fundamentally different things. There is no tenable centrist doctrine. Jodie insinuates she can take a red shade of science and a blue shade of speculation and mix them into a lovely violet shade of acceptable sciency-speculation. It's more accurate to say you can't take the dough of speculation and the trumpet of science and smoosh them together, expecting a cookie that plays mariachi music.

Science starts with a hypothesis. Hypotheses are developed from evidence but that evidence can be from various other branches of science. There is no reason you can't take new research regarding consciousness and how it might operate on a quantum level and consider what the implications of that might mean if a multidimensional universe exists. That makes your analogy ridiculous because it indicates that you've either deliberately misunderstood or you want to discredit the science behind the hypothesis for your own emotional/personal reasons.

Speculation does not and cannot have any sort of explanatory or predictive value. Those goals require the rigor that science provides, not the infinitely mutable nebula that defines speculation. And it can provide it only by trying specific, applicable evidence. Starting with a predetermined quod erat demonstrandum and drawing speculative lines between known science and what would need to hold in order to exclaim that QED is a quintessential loading of the dice. It's made only worse by imperfect knowledge of the departure point. None of that is in any way science, or even responsible speculation.

I understand my departure points clearly enough but I believe many of you would prefer that I didn't based on your own personal belief systems. Speculation would have to have some direction in order for hypotheses to be built upon them. They might be incorrect, but it doesn't make postulating something irresponsible. Not considering various different ideas/speculation would be the irresponsible approach IMO.

 

[JayUtah]

If you don't understand the science behind the statement then it wouldn't make sense to you. Go back and read what Tegmark and Song had to say about consciousness...

As I and others have pointed out, Tegmark rather strongly contradicts your claims. I have read and understood Tegmark's paper. Not articles written about the paper, but the paper itself. His findings directly contradict your insinuation that something "else" must be eventually understood by science in order to reason about the nature of consciousness as he defines it.

After that, I think you'll understand where my speculation starts.

Your speculation starts entirely with your desire to prove that your dream actually happened, or could have happened. You have pretty much said this yourself. The materials you cite as the "scientific" basis of your speculation are, as has been explained, either not science or not compatible with your speculation.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about my dream but it did happen.

Apparently we're not welcome to believe as we wish, because you seem to have issues with people who are giving you very good reasons to believe differently than you do about it. You're welcome at any time to supply proof that it did happen the way you say. Until then you have to make good on your invitation for others to draw their own, different conclusions.

I have no reason to make up anything.

Moot. The question is whether you did or not, not whether we can guess your reasons. Since you pose a farfetched claim and supply no proof, the most parsimonious conclusion is that you have invented or embellished it.

I like my idea but whether or not I have it right remains to be seen.

Certain aspects of your claim, vis-a-vis the sources you cite allegedly in support of it, can be immediately dismissed as in conflict with them.

 

[JayUtah]

What's wrong with speculation? Why shouldn't we do that?

Asked and answered. When challenged, you claim it's only speculation. At other times you claim it's "speculation based on science," as if that were somehow a stronger thing. Speculation per se is not objectionable. Speculation intended to prove a farfetched claim is simply specious. Since the motivation for your speculation was to attempt to prove your interpretation of your dream is true, it is not the good kind of speculation.

Feel free to reject my idea simply because it doesn't reflect your world vision.

I reject your idea because you've attempted and failed to prove it. Kindly do not assume that rejection of such a claim constitutes closed-mindedness.

Imagination is the root of all science, one has to first think about what might be before they can look for evidence of it's existence.

Asked and answered. Science starts with imaginative hypotheses, but ends with proof. Only then does it actually become science. You do only the former and excuse yourself from the latter under the presumption that science isn't ready for you. Not all that can be imagined proves to be true.

There is no reason you can't take new research regarding consciousness and how it might operate on a quantum level and consider what the implications of that might mean if a multidimensional universe exists.

Your physics authors do not discuss the multiverse. They do, however, discuss consciousness at the quantum mechanics level and conclude that no more is necessary to explain consciousness than what we can already deduce from the quantum nature of matter. There being nothing necessary to explain by the appeal to multiple dimensions, your claim is superfluous.

That makes your analogy ridiculous because it indicates that you've either deliberately misunderstood or you want to discredit the science behind the hypothesis for your own emotional/personal reasons.

No, your critics are not wallowing in emotion. I am not discrediting the science. I am disputing your interpretation of it, which is clearly in error for the reasons stated repeatedly at length. The science you cite is not behind your hypothesis. The purpose of this forum is, among other things, to test claims of a putatively scientific nature. You have explicitly said you posted your ideas here with the expectation that they would be addressed skeptically, not as in more sympathetic forums that you were afraid might just be echo chambers. It is now time for you to come to terms with the nature of that skeptical response and quit trying to blame your critics for a plethora of imagined sins.

 

[Jodie]

As Garrette noted, you have characterised my response as 'knee-jerk', whilst excusing yourself from the same designation by saying you give your responses a lot of thought and pick your words carefully to best express what you want to say.
Are you suggesting that I do not? You acknowledge that I have never insulted you, so why respond with what looks like an insult aimed at me? Moreover, being "snide" could also be construed as an insult. I cannot see that asking you to show what you consider to be knee-jerk responses is snide, so, again, why the insults?

I don't recall any specific insult from you but "knee jerk" doesn't necessarily refer to insulting responses. As far as this topic is concerned, I haven't seen any indication that you have a reason to reject what I'm saying.

No, but it's possible for mathematicians to be mistaken. Especially if they are agenda-driven, evolution-denying Christian fundamentalist ones. Some discussion here of his claims.
http://www.skeptiko-forum.com/threa...ousness-does-not-compute-and-never-will.2218/

Did you watch the video I linked to? It answers all of that.

I haven't seen the video yet, work has been especially busy. I think I should be able to get to it this weekend since no one is due. When it comes to physics, all you can do is rely on the math to give you an indication of what to look for if it isn't directly observable. I realize this requires adapting the equations to solve for missing data. I'm assuming based on the link I haven't looked at it that Song is a fundamentalist?

Was the Dark Ages a golden age of the scientific method? If not, why do you think this is in any way an apt comparison?

No, the Dark Ages were definitely not a golden age but it allowed old systems and infrastructure to be cleared away so that new ideas could arise such as the scientific method. This method is great for testing the observable, but not so much when testing for the presence of hypothetical dark matter that would explain the missing mass of the universe, for example. In the Dark Ages we didn't have the ability to look for things, like germs for instance, much less even dream that they might exist. I'm not sure what kind of leap in scientific discovery would have to take place that would allow you to perceive dimensions outside of this one that we are living in at the moment. I think we will get there one day if we don't kill ourselves in the process.

The germ theory supplanted the miasma theory. This latter theory was supported by speculation. The germ theory, to quote Wikipedia, " gained widespread credence when substantiated by scientific discoveries of the 17th through the late 19th. century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
So not only does germ theory not provide an example of the destruction of "decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results", as I asked you for, but it in fact provides a great example of why it is unwise to rely on speculation as a reliable guide to, or predictor or, reality.

The hypothesis for the germ theory was there before there was physical evidence to support it and, yes, it did revolutionize medicine.

 

[Jodie]

Asked and answered. When challenged, you claim it's only speculation. At other times you claim it's "speculation based on science," as if that were somehow a stronger thing. Speculation per se is not objectionable. Speculation intended to prove a farfetched claim is simply specious. Since the motivation for your speculation was to attempt to prove your interpretation of your dream is true, it is not the good kind of speculation.

Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit. Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established. Were his ideas specious in the interim?

I reject your idea because you've attempted and failed to prove it. Kindly do not assume that rejection of such a claim constitutes closed-mindedness.

You make your own assumptions regarding my motivations therefore I feel free to do the same.

Asked and answered. Science starts with imaginative hypotheses, but ends with proof. Only then does it actually become science. You do only the former and excuse yourself from the latter under the presumption that science isn't ready for you. Not all that can be imagined proves to be true.

As so often is found in physics. Science begins with hypotheses that are built upon evidence from previous research. Science is not a nice little finished product that has a start and a finish, it is an ongoing process whereby you move up and down along a continuum as the evaluation of the results will dictate. There is no way to test my idea at this point. I'm sure nothing about my idea is original so it's only a matter of time before more research will evolve, whether I'm right or wrong remains to be seen.

Your physics authors do not discuss the multiverse. They do, however, discuss consciousness at the quantum mechanics level and conclude that no more is necessary to explain consciousness than what we can already deduce from the quantum nature of matter. There being nothing necessary to explain by the appeal to multiple dimensions, your claim is superfluous.

Not necessarily, why would physicists be consulted on consciousness? They would only address the quantum nature of such a thing if it exists. This is one of those topics that would require a convergence of multiple branches of science before we could ever obtain any evidence, assuming we ever could.

No, your critics are not wallowing in emotion. I am not discrediting the science. I am disputing your interpretation of it, which is clearly in error for the reasons stated repeatedly at length. The science you cite is not behind your hypothesis. The purpose of this forum is, among other things, to test claims of a putatively scientific nature. You have explicitly said you posted your ideas here with the expectation that they would be addressed skeptically, not as in more sympathetic forums that you were afraid might just be echo chambers. It is now time for you to come to terms with the nature of that skeptical response and quit trying to blame your critics for a plethora of imagined sins.

I do criticize you, and a few others, because you haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the scientific method, specific topics such as physics, psychology, or any other branch of science that might be related to my idea in order to to be an adequate judge.

 

[Garrette]

--snip--

I do criticize you, and a few others, because you haven't demonstrated to me that you understand the scientific method, specific topics such as physics, psychology, or any other branch of science that might be related to my idea in order to to be an adequate judge.

And this is more evidence for the gaming hypothesis, but I will follow JayUtah's lead and leave motivation out, at least for the moment.

Of everyone actively involved in this discussion JayUtah (to whom you are responding) is the one who has demonstrated absolutely the best understanding, so either you have not read his posts, have read them and not understood them, or understood them but are pretending.

After JayUtah come a few others, myself included, who have shown a good layman's grasp.

After that group, going strictly by the posts in this thread, is you. Your links contradict each other and your claim. You repeatedly talk about the math and how it supports you and/or you can use it as a launching pad, but everything you say indicates you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.

That's where we are. I've read your posts and watched all but one of your videos. You haven't read our posts -- or at least show no indication of understanding them -- and haven't watched the one video Cosmic Yak put out there for you.

You are where you were long ago, i.e., tossing your desired outcome around as if it is supported by something. It's not, even despite your attempts to compare your musings to those of Einstein. It was not his thought experiments that were proven later; it was the math that he had used the thought experiments to illustrate.

Indirect self-comparisons to real geniuses do you no credit.

 

[Jodie]

As I and others have pointed out, Tegmark rather strongly contradicts your claims. I have read and understood Tegmark's paper. Not articles written about the paper, but the paper itself. His findings directly contradict your insinuation that something "else" must be eventually understood by science in order to reason about the nature of consciousness as he defines it.

It's obvious that you didn't. Tegmark only said that quantum states would become decoherent before they could reach the temporal level but he did find evidence for quantum processes related to transport of energy.

Your speculation starts entirely with your desire to prove that your dream actually happened, or could have happened. You have pretty much said this yourself. The materials you cite as the "scientific" basis of your speculation are, as has been explained, either not science or not compatible with your speculation.

It depends on how capable you are of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science. You might not be familiar with everything to be able to discount what I'm suggesting. It seems you aren't based on what you've posted so far.

Apparently we're not welcome to believe as we wish, because you seem to have issues with people who are giving you very good reasons to believe differently than you do about it. You're welcome at any time to supply proof that it did happen the way you say. Until then you have to make good on your invitation for others to draw their own, different conclusions.

I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority. I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.

Moot. The question is whether you did or not, not whether we can guess your reasons. Since you pose a farfetched claim and supply no proof, the most parsimonious conclusion is that you have invented or embellished it.

The question of whether the dream occurred or didn't occur doesn't really have any relevance regarding the idea, if you want to get that picky about it. The only reason you would question it's authenticity would be as a means to question the motive for the discussion. You would do this because it would derail the discussion or confuse the premise for the hypothesis. The debate tactic, in and of itself, demonstrates your motives.

Certain aspects of your claim, vis-a-vis the sources you cite allegedly in support of it, can be immediately dismissed as in conflict with them.

I'm sure they would for those that had a superficial understanding of the implications of the research conclusions.

 

[Garrette]

It's obvious that you didn't. Tegmark only said that quantum states would become decoherent before they could reach the temporal level but he did find evidence for quantum processes related to transport of energy.

And this clinches it. You toss around words and phrasse that you do not understand and do not support your claim.

It depends on how capable you are of synthesizing multiple research conclusions from various branches of science. You might not be familiar with everything to be able to discount what I'm suggesting. It seems you aren't based on what you've posted so far.

And you are? The evidence suggests not.

I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority.

Unless it's you doing it? That seems to be the case here.

I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.

You have been asked to demonstrate that what you claim is true. You have failed to do so. In the meantime, others here have demonstrated a grasp of the relevant concepts yet you pretend they have not.

The question of whether the dream occurred or didn't occur doesn't really have any relevance regarding the idea, if you want to get that picky about it.

If you wish to drop your dream claim that's fine, except now you need something else to indicate what the idea is. If it is that the consciousness of a deceased person not only survives but can communicate via dreams events still in the future to a living person, then you still have the same burden of proof. If that is not the idea, then you need to elucidate it.

The only reason you would question it's authenticity would be as a means to question the motive for the discussion.

No. The reason to question its authenticity is that you have not demonstrated that it is, in fact, authentic.

You would do this because it would derail the discussion or confuse the premise for the hypothesis. The debate tactic, in and of itself, demonstrates your motives.

You are actually pretty good at this gaming. The derails are all yours, Jodie.

Let's cut to the chase then and prevent all derails:

1. Regardless if it actually occurred to you or not, your hypothesis is that the consciousness of a deceased person (a) survives the person's death, (b) can invade the dream of a living person, and (c) convey accurate prophetic information via that dream

2. In support of your hypothesis you offer:

a. A general reference to the work of Song, but the general reference does not in fact support the hypothesis

b. A video by Bryanton on the 5th Dimension, but the video -- besides being quite silly -- says nothing that supports any part of your hypothesis

c. A general reference to Christof Koch, but Koch's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis

d. A general reference to Tegmark, but Tegmark's work very clearly runs counter to your hypothesis

e. A claim that the math supports your hypothesis but a refusal to indicate whose math where

Please let's not derail. We are in the meat of it now so now is your chance.

Where is the math that supports your hypothesis?

What exactly in Tegmark and Koch support your hypothesis and in what fashion?

I'm sure they would for those that had a superficial understanding of the implications of the research conclusions.

That does appear to be the problem. The person with the claim is demonstrating a superficial understanding.

But I could be wrong, seriously. It only needs demonstrating.

 

[Mashuna]

Do you mind clarifying what areas of psychology, AI research, and physics I've misinterpreted ? You don't have to go into great detail but a few statements with links that I can use to do follow up reading would be appreciated.

Pretty much all of it. You just randomly pick statements and claim they justify your beliefs.

 

[Mashuna]

Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit. Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established. Were his ideas specious in the interim?

No, they were well thought out and logically consistent.

 

[Mashuna]

I have issues with mediocrity posing as superiority. I've been asked specifically to demonstrate my understanding of different concepts, no one else here has returned the favor.

They have, you just haven't been able to understand the difference.

 

[Garrette]

Regardless of the motivation, one should consider the idea on it's own merit. Einstein started out with thought experiments and it was many years later before any evidence for his theories could be established. Were his ideas specious in the interim?

No, they were well thought out and logically consistent.

Yep. This is a variation of the "They laughed at Galileo" gambit and deserves little attention in response, but I'm in an expansive mood tonight.

Einstein did not submit thought experiments to journals and then the thought experiments were experimentally verified years later. He submitted scientific papers complete with math supporting the thought experiments. The math held up, and it was the math that was empirically verified later.

 

[Pixel42]

Einstein's theories also explained previously inexplicable observations - the Michelson Morley results in the case of Special Relativity, Mercury's orbit in the case of General Relativity.

'Superficial' is too kind a word to describe Jodie's understanding of the science she appeals to. 'Non-existent' is more accurate.

 

[JoeMorgue]

If you don't understand the science behind the statement then it wouldn't make sense to you.

There is no science behind the statement Jodie. You don't understand science. You treat it like a magic spell to invoke, not the process with meaning and and standards that it is.

Go back and read what Tegmark and Song had to say about consciousness and what indications we have here in our 4D world that multiple dimensions exist.

Deepak Chopra would tell you that sentence had too much psuedoscience woo in it.

After that, I think you'll understand where my speculation starts.

Oh I understand perfectly well where your speculation starts and ends.

You are welcome to believe whatever you want to believe about my dream

You see here's the thing Jodie that you put such monumental effort into not getting. No we are not all "welcome to believe whatever we want." You are welcome to hold any opinion you want provided that opinion can be supported by evidence, or baring that at least some logic or reason. None of us have the blank card to believe stuff at random.

but it did happen.

No it did not. Nothing you are claiming happened happened.

I have no reason to make up anything.

Some people don't need a reason. Making stuff up comes naturally to them.

 

[Daylightstar]

...
Some people don't need a reason. Making stuff up comes naturally to them.

..... to those with an irrational mindset, it is a requirement.

 

[Cosmic Yak]

I don't recall any specific insult from you but "knee jerk" doesn't necessarily refer to insulting responses. As far as this topic is concerned, I haven't seen any indication that you have a reason to reject what I'm saying.

OK, so you grudgingly acknowledge that I haven't insulted you, so would you now like to withdraw the insult you levelled at me?
And for the record, I do reject what you're saying. My understanding of the scientific method is sufficient to reject it based on that alone. JayUtah and others, who are way more knowledgeable about physics that I, have shown in great depth how the sources you quote do not support your claims. Conversely, you have provided nothing but speculation to support what you say. Who wouldn't reject such claims?

I haven't seen the video yet, work has been especially busy. I think I should be able to get to it this weekend since no one is due. When it comes to physics, all you can do is rely on the math to give you an indication of what to look for if it isn't directly observable. I realize this requires adapting the equations to solve for missing data. I'm assuming based on the link I haven't looked at it that Song is a fundamentalist?

He is most definitely a fundamentalist. I suggest actually looking at the links before you reply, especially in light of what you've been saying about others not doing so.

No, the Dark Ages were definitely not a golden age but it allowed old systems and infrastructure to be cleared away so that new ideas could arise such as the scientific method. This method is great for testing the observable, but not so much when testing for the presence of hypothetical dark matter that would explain the missing mass of the universe, for example. In the Dark Ages we didn't have the ability to look for things, like germs for instance, much less even dream that they might exist. I'm not sure what kind of leap in scientific discovery would have to take place that would allow you to perceive dimensions outside of this one that we are living in at the moment. I think we will get there one day if we don't kill ourselves in the process.

Nice try. I asked you this:

Quote:
Sorry, but that still doesn't answer my question. If what you claim is true, and scientists one day discover and interact with these dimensions, the qualities you claim for them would overturn everything science has discovered about them so far. How is that possible?

You responded with this:

Consider yourself to be a person seeing reality as it was perceived in the Dark Ages with what we know now.......it wouldn't be the first time a paradigm shift in our thinking has occurred.

My response:

Was the Dark Ages a golden age of the scientific method? If not, why do you think this is in any way an apt comparison?

Your response was a dodge. You admit that the scientific method did not exist in the Dark Ages, but stop short of admitting it was therefore an irrelevant comparison. Nothing in the Dark Ages was based on science, as science as we know it now did not yet exist- as you admit. To then say that a paradigm shift in scientific thinking such as I outlined has occurred by citing this example is deeply flawed. Your response does not answer my point at all: in fact, you tacitly admit you were in error. Why not just admit it? After all, this is just a discussion- no emotions involved, so nothing to get upset or embarrassed about, right?

And here comes another dodge!
I asked you

As you mention these many wrong physicists, perhaps you could provide some (and here I go with that nasty word again) examples of this, and also a discovery that has destroyed decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results, in the way you are predicting for this multidimensional consciousness idea of yours?

You responded by citing the germ theory. My response:

The germ theory supplanted the miasma theory. This latter theory was supported by speculation. The germ theory, to quote Wikipedia, " gained widespread credence when substantiated by scientific discoveries of the 17th through the late 19th. century."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease
So not only does germ theory not provide an example of the destruction of "decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results", as I asked you for, but it in fact provides a great example of why it is unwise to rely on speculation as a reliable guide to, or predictor or, reality.

You ignored that entirely:

The hypothesis for the germ theory was there before there was physical evidence to support it and, yes, it did revolutionize medicine.

I didn't ask you if it revolutionised medicine. I asked you if it had destroyed decades of research, experiment, predictions and replicable results. Your response dodges that entirely. Care to try again?
Then you go on to contradict yourself entirely. Having tried to claim as fact something that would totally overturn decades of scientific research, you then say

As so often is found in physics. Science begins with hypotheses that are built upon evidence from previous research. Science is not a nice little finished product that has a start and a finish, it is an ongoing process whereby you move up and down along a continuum as the evaluation of the results will dictate.

So which is it? Is science built on evidence from previous research, or is it a series of unexpected, out-of-the-blue paradigm shifts in our thinking? You can't have it both ways.

 

[Axxman300]

This thread is about a guy's ghost story.

All of the things Jodie has thrown around has nothing to do with the phenomenon in anyway, shape, or form.

The OP was a story about phantom footsteps approaching the poster on the top floor of an old school house. It freaked him out even though he was familiar with old buildings and the endless menagerie of sounds they are known to unleash.

It would have freaked anyone else out too.

But, the explanation is that those old floor boards and the supporting wood structure underneath was the cause of the sounds he heard. The problem is that he'd "heard rumors" about the old building and it got to him.

Again, it happens to honest people all the time.

Whether or not he accepts this or chooses to keep his ghost story a ghost story is up to him. Cool, maybe he gets a free bear out of it from time to time.

If I were still investigating this kind of thing my explanation ends with old floor boards singing out.

Why?

Because that's what it was. More importantly, that's all it was. The OP even admits it's likely the floor boards, but seemed to kinda hope to stump us. That's because people want their ghosts to be real. Hell, I do, but there's just not enough evidence to seriously suggest ghosts are real in the context that most ghost hunters and believers advocate.

The problem as I see it is the claim that ghosts are spirits of the dead, trapped in a specific location. Like I said earlier, the most common ghosts or apparitions are those of living people, so something else is going on. Something that doesn't involve other dimensions, dark matter, or a slew of physics concepts I don't pretend to understand.

I think it has to do with the brain, and our five senses, and exposure to rare natural phenomenon that somehow tells our mind to see specific things, or hear specific things. I don't pretend to understand the brain or neurology either, but that's where I'd put my money. They're very real inside a person's head, and I'm interested in the whys of the phenomenon (Why did they see it?Why did they see it where they saw it? Why did they see it when they saw it? What was going on when they saw it? What was going on in their heads before they saw it, etc). My interested is not metaphysical satisfaction, if people are seeing stuff that isn't there it's no joke. What if the viewer is a big-rig truck driver or school bus driver? That's my concern. How often do people see things that aren't there but don't know it?

That's my interest in ghosts, it's about the living, and I don't think the Woo crowd are helping in any way.

Back to the discussion in progress...

 

[Pixel42]

I think it has to do with the brain, and our five senses, and exposure to rare natural phenomenon that somehow tells our mind to see specific things, or hear specific things. I don't pretend to understand the brain or neurology either, but that's where I'd put my money. They're very real inside a person's head, and I'm interested in the whys of the phenomenon (Why did they see it?Why did they see it where they saw it? Why did they see it when they saw it? What was going on when they saw it? What was going on in their heads before they saw it, etc). My interested is not metaphysical satisfaction, if people are seeing stuff that isn't there it's no joke. What if the viewer is a big-rig truck driver or school bus driver? That's my concern. How often do people see things that aren't there but don't know it?

My understanding is that it's essentially all down to the fact that, whilst false positives and false negatives are both mistakes, false positives are less potentially dangerous mistakes than false negatives. Mistaking a shadow for a bear may cause you to spend the night in the open rather than in a warm dry cave, but mistaking a bear for a shadow gets you eaten. We're all descended from those who survived long enough to produce offspring, ie those whose mistakes were more likely to be false positives than false negatives. So our brains have evolved cognitive biases which make them more likely to see patterns in the noise, even when there is in fact only noise, than miss a real pattern. In order to be sure the pattern we think we see is really there we need to compensate for those biases, which is why we invented the scientific method.

ETA: For example there are noises going on around us all the time, our brains are constantly filtering most of them out as noise and picking out just a few to bring to the attention of our conscious awareness. The OP's brain picked out what sounded like footsteps and alerted his consciousness to them; the question is whether it was correct to do so, ie whether this was a true positive or a false positive.

Likewise we dream all the time, we often dream about people we know/have known, and occasionally something we dream is bound to correspond with something that later happens (especially when our memories are sufficiently malleable to retrospectively alter the dream to match the event). When someone attributes significance to one such correspondence are they doing so correctly, or is it a false positive? The only reliable way to find out whether dreams can genuinely be precognitive is to collect thousands of such dreams, accurately estimate the expected chance hit rate, and measure the actual hit rate for comparison. ie to use the scientific method to compensate for our propensity to see patterns that aren't actually there.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Whether or not he accepts this or chooses to keep his ghost story a ghost story is up to him. Cool, maybe he gets a free bear out of it from time to time.

Oh, oh! I have an unevidenced ghost story, Can get a free bear?

 

[Daylightstar]

Oh, oh! I have an unevidenced ghost story, Can get a free bear?

If you can catch it