Do you believe in ghosts? If so, what was your experience?

[Doomkid]

6 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

Moral of the story: don´t rely on modern science, trust your gut

People who trusted their gut over evidence:

 

-witch burners

-witchdoctors

-flat earthers

-anti-vaxxers

-geocentrists

-moon landing deniers

-sandy hook deniers

 

Basically, this is bad advice no matter how you slice it. Human guesswork is wrong way more often than it’s right. I’d only trust my gut in a split-second scenario, such as a hand to hand fight. Beyond that it’s an awful means of reaching something close to the truth - assuming the person cares about accuracy or truthfulness, that is.

 

Something I will admit to is that research can be co-opted by shady figures, be it Murdoch’s media empire with a vested interest in a specific outcome, or any other number of shady characters with enough money and influence. There are plenty of times where “research” was either altered after the fact or done under deliberately skewed circumstances to reach a desired conclusion.

 

However I think jumping from “occasionally the research is corrupt” to “believe whatever silliness floats your boat” is several bridges too far. It leaves people open to be duped: “I share your belief in hoodoo, so you can trust me!” (then they proceed to slip a bunch of other weird ideas into your thought process - often without you even being aware..)

 

Plus, often enough, the conspiracies people believe instead of accepted fact are also propped up by shady figures who stand to gain money or influence through their misinformation.. So the best course of action for a critical thinker is not to trust anything “fully” until you know who’s writing the checks and for whom. That’s often the most illuminating factor, really. (Didn’t expect this to come from a conversation about ghosts, lol)

 

Edit: A side note, but “modern science” has a way better resumé than hoodoo as well. Cell phones, modern medicine that keeps literally billions alive, air travel, GPS and satellites, video games, VR, space flight, safer cars than ever.. and many more are all products of modern science.

 

I don’t think hoodoo has quite as much worthy of mention on the resumé..

[Murdoch]

1 hour ago, Doomkid said:

People who trusted their gut over evidence:

 

-witch burners

-witchdoctors

-flat earthers

-anti-vaxxers

-geocentrists

-moon landing deniers

-sandy hook deniers

 

God damn. Sandy Hook deniers are pond scum. The shit they have pulled just defies belief. Evil pricks, the lot of them.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Murdoch

[Nikku4211]

On 9/5/2021 at 6:47 AM, Naarok0fkor said:

...there must be a ghostbuster.wad somewhere... 

There actually is. Be warned, though, it's unfinished and will never be since the game didn't fit Scuba Steve's rising expectations of his own work.

22 hours ago, Doomkid said:

Socrates put it well: “I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know.”

Socrates speakin' true fax here.

 

If we don't know, let's not pretend to or jump to conclusions.

 

That's why I never pretend to know how humans work, I never pretend to know what to do, I always doubt every single thought that occurs in my brain, I don't even pretend to have empathy.

20 hours ago, Murdoch said:

But at the same time I think some really hard-core skeptics should ease off a bit and be a bit more accepting that whatever did happen it was real to that person.

Yeah, science is still incomplete, there are things that cannot be explained easily. Jumping to conclusions goes both ways.

18 hours ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

I worked for a ghost tour business in Saint Augustine, FL for a little over a year. SA is the oldest city in America and is widely known for its "haunted" locations. Locations so haunted that tour guides resort to made up or dramatized stories to fool tourists and foreigners into believing everything they say and giving them just enough intrigue to keep listening and coming back for more.

Time to give my dog a treat and go investigate what's going on.

 

Hopefully I won't have to go Ultra Instinct or anything like that.

14 hours ago, CBM said:

Pure math states that the probability of us being alone in the universe is very close to zero...

[...]

I think UFOs are real because the math says they have to be, but I will not claim to know it for sure, since I have never seen one myself.

That same math also probably dictates that the probability of extra-terrestrials ever interacting with us at all is very close to 0 too, considering how it's been 4.5 billion years since the Earth formed and nothing has happened as far as we know, though the existence of humans is a relatively recent thing itself.

 

I mean, there's got to be some water on a planet in order for things to form that would be considered lifeforms under our current scientific definition of life, right?

14 hours ago, CBM said:

About the paranormal things, well I have experienced alot of weird, and to me, very convincing, things... thats why I have no doubt whatsoever that there is life after death and that ghosts are real.

How do you know the weird things you saw have anything at all to do with afterlife or ghosts n' stuff for sure?

 

I mean, they're just weird things, doesn't necessarily mean they're linked to somebody's death.

14 hours ago, CBM said:

I think Ghost and stuff like that will always be ridiculed and people will always think its just nonsense or find other logical ways to explain it away... until that day where that person perhaps experiences things that can not be explained away by anything but the fact that the paranormal is real.

A lot of humans tend to try to connect things they can't explain to explanations that themselves haven't been supported by science, yeah.

14 hours ago, Optimus said:

UFOs do exist as Unidentified Flying Objects. Anything we can't identify yet. No need to be alien.

Yeah, you're right, they don't have to be alien, they can be literally anything you don't know. If someone sees a plane in the sky, but they don't know what a plane is, to them, it's an Unidentified Fantastic Object as far as they're concerned.

13 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

Yes there are, yes there are, yes there are AND THEY ARE RIGHT BEHIND YOU!!!

Oh, found 1. Don't worry, I got a rocket launcher right here and I am only waiting for it to get near a wall...

13 hours ago, CBM said:

try getting some actual paranormal stuff happen to you and you will be done joking about it... nuff said

Even if it has been confirmed by science, that won't stop me from joking about it-- BUZZ, LOOK, AN ALIEN!!!

 

People joke about death in general a lot anyway.

 

If anything, that would make death a bit of a joke itself because it means you can respawn as a spectral being.

13 hours ago, CBM said:

As such, I think there is ALOT that science doesnt know yet... especially when it comes to ghosts, spirits etc...

I'm sure there is a lot that science doesn't know yet, but it's unlikely you know any more than most scientists do enough to actually associate the weird stuff you saw with what comes out of corpses.

12 hours ago, CBM said:

science have no proof for or against the existence of ghosts, aliens, ufos or other unexplained stuff... thats why its unexplainable

No, it doesn't, but there's still a pattern among believers of Howard the Alien and Ghouls n' Ghosts 'n' stuff similar to conspiracy theorists.

 

I don't know, seems kinda sus...

12 hours ago, CBM said:

Ask any REAL scientist if ghosts are real... what will he say? he will say... I do not know....

Either that or he'll just dodge the question like a Matrix.

12 hours ago, CBM said:

Should I meet an alien face to face one day here on earth.. then I can't likely continue to pretend that they are not visiting earth... now can I?

How would you even know you're looking at an alien anyway, rather than discovering something from Earth that people did not know about? I mean, I highly doubt aliens in real life are going to look anything like on Star Trek.

 

same thing with ghosts...

11 hours ago, ApprihensivSoul said:

I've never believed in ghosts, persay, as the spirits of the deceased, but I'm confident there are plenty of spiritual beings that have no problem impersonating departed people. Way I figure it, dead is dead, but we underestimate how many things are out there that are capable of getting to know us and manipulating our behaviour.

When the spiritual beings are sus!!!

 

Psychic stuff like being able to read someone else's mind from afar are also one of the many things science has no proof either for or against.

10 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

All it takes is for me is to fund a bogus "research" that´s credible enough and has good enough arguments, for laymans such as yourself, that claims that eating meat shrinks your testicles (or other such bullshit).  I will then make sure to give "leak" my findings to reporters who will make this a media sensation and voala: now you are a vegan because science says so.

Well, to be fair, this has happened with the supposed scientific study conducted in 1997 that claims vaccines cause autism, which was later proven to be a poorly done study, which caused the surgeon conducting it to lose his medical licence and his information removed from the Lancet medical journal. Various studies that have been conducted since then have proven that vaccines don't cause autism.

 

So yeah, studies can be badly done and show inaccurate data as a result, but usually, they are disproven by more science. Science constantly corrects itself when it is found to be inaccurate, unlike certain ancient belief systems that are kept alive to this day.

10 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

Moral of the story: don´t rely on modern science, trust your gut

And even then, I wouldn't trust my gut, because I'm not a person who has a degree in certain scientific fields and has studied stuff for over a decade, and I'm sure most people here haven't studied scientific stuff for over a decade like a real scientist does either.

10 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

our ancestors weren´t stupid they just vibed different.

Or, in other words, our ancestors weren't stupid, they just didn't have the technology we have now to aid in discoveries and share them with the rest of the world...

 

...and they also vibed different too, I guess.

9 hours ago, ducon said:

If you prove that ghosts exist, I’m sure that your publication will create a craze in scientific research and that you will win a Nobel prize.

 Scientists, against what say people who hate science and say crap about it, are like children who will be happy if ghosts’ existence is proven.

Yes, they would be happy to find out something new was proven, even if it's a disturbing, scary truth. The person who discovers such a creepy truth like that definitely deserves a Nobel prize and plenty of therapy paid for by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to compensate for what he or she saw.

9 hours ago, Dubbag said:

I had no point of reference, never seen a horror movie never seen anything that would influence my imagination at this point in life. I was 4.

Not even a Halloween episode of a preschooler show?

 

Okay, real talk, nothing explains what you people saw. Not science(probably), and not ghosts n' stuff either.

9 hours ago, Dubbag said:

yeah I was on some powerful shit when I was 4

Me too. I acted pretty wild back in the 2000s when I was a little boy.

 

Though I have a congenital mental disorder, if that explains it.

9 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

Lmao, (modern) science literaly tells what to do, what the hell are you talking about?

No, I'm pretty sure it's the media telling you what to do.

9 hours ago, Murdoch said:

Yes and i completely disagree. I see no evidence to support that stance. Science is amoral. Just because you don't like what it's telling you doesn't mean it has an agenda. A single scientist might. No human is completely objective.  Thats why one should look at overall consensus. 

Yeah, science is amoral. Not immoral, amoral.

 

Of course, even overall consensus can be very flawed, but that's what scientific revisionism is for.

 

At least it's not like the 1700s where an overall consensus of a certain piece of land was convinced foxes could become humanoid and ghost people or some shit.

4 hours ago, Doomkid said:

“I share your belief in hoodoo, so you can trust me!”

I can't wait to see these people manufacturing dolls based on me so that I can buy one and completely destroy it to see what happens.

Spoiler

^{I hope it works.}

 

4 hours ago, Doomkid said:

(Didn’t expect this to come from a conversation about ghosts, lol)

Yeah, I didn't expect it either.

 

I thought it'd just be a fedora-tippin' experience with plenty of jokes and references to pop culture(and Doom), not actual philosophical debates on the nature of the human mind or something.

4 hours ago, Doomkid said:

A side note, but “modern science” has a way better resumé than hoodoo as well. Cell phones, modern medicine that keeps literally billions alive, air travel, GPS and satellites, video games, VR, space flight, safer cars than ever.. and many more are all products of modern science.

 

I don’t think hoodoo has quite as much worthy of mention on the resumé..

Yeah, all we got from hoodoo is some weird cheesy B-movies and historical books and stuff like that, not actual devices that work(unless you mean plot devices).

 

I want to see Reddit witches try to make a phone using their witchcraft.

Edited September 7, 2021 by Nikku4211

[CBM]

23 minutes ago, Nikku4211 said:

I want to see Reddit witches try to make a phone using their witchcraft.

I would love to meet a wiccan/witch/whatever, that is able to do real actual magic... I can't say for sure that none of them are able to, but I can't say for sure that any of them aren't as well

 

I can say that experiences I've had convinced me of certain things.

While other stuff that I have no experience with yet, remains unknown to me.

 

I have no evidence that there arent wiccans with real magic nor do I have evidence that none of them have real magic

I have no evidence that there arent aliens on earth nor do I have evidence that none of them are on earth

I have no evidence that there arent timetravellers on earth nor do I have evidence that none of them are on earth

I have no evidence that there arent...

 

There are indications that say something about the above, but no solid evidence one way or the other...

 

But science also once had indications that people would die if they went faster than the speed of sound...

so....

 

science is always subject to change... always

 

Edited September 7, 2021 by CBM

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

[Deleted, misunderstanding]

Edited September 7, 2021 by TheMagicMushroomMan

[RDETalus]

26 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

If you don't want to rely on modern science

There is a lot of public confusion around popular science vs. real science, which is what Zaku is complaining about, not computers and shit.

 

Scientifically illiterate journalists have created a situation where the layperson smells some obvious bullshit in a news headline, but the layperson doesn't have the special knowledge to pinpoint where it's coming from. The layperson might end up blaming the scientist instead of the journalist. The end result is that it ends up poisoning public trust in scientific institutions across a wide variety issues.

 

I'll trust actual science first, followed by my gut, then the journalists last.

Edited September 7, 2021 by RDETalus

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

21 minutes ago, RDETalus said:

There is a lot of public confusion around popular science vs. real science, which is what Zaku is complaining about, not computers and shit.

 

Scientifically illiterate journalists have created a situation where the layperson smells some obvious bullshit in a news headline, but the layperson doesn't have the special knowledge to pinpoint where it's coming from. The layperson might end up blaming the scientist instead of the journalist. The end result is that it ends up poisoning public trust in scientific institutions across a wide variety issues.

 

I'll trust actual science first, followed by my gut, then the journalists last.

If that's the case I think he could have explained what he meant a little better - the comment he replied to gave examples of extreme idiots (flat-earthers, QAnon), groups of people who believe shit like that because they are flat out stupid, not because they have been mislead by journalists and sham scientists. I agree with what you said in your post completely, but Zaku's reply doesn't make much sense to me in terms of what he was replying to. If he would have said "listen to your gut and do some research before believing the first science-related article you read", I would have agreed with that. Either way I edited out that part of my reply just in case, as I don't want to be a dick for no reason.

Edited September 7, 2021 by TheMagicMushroomMan

[ducon]

11 hours ago, Dubbag said:

what is the scientific reason behind what I saw as a kid then? My mind was too young to make those images I saw up. I had no point of reference, never seen a horror movie never seen anything that would influence my imagination at this point in life. I was 4.

 

I already answered but here are ideas of what happened to you:

• You saw actually a ghost, unfortunately, you can’t prove it. Yes, it’s possible but nobody was able to prove it.
• You get drugged (for example by Claviceps purpurea).
• Your brain was not complete when you were 4 (and it’s not until you are about 21).
• Your brain was subject to an illusion (it mis-saw something or something get wrong in it).
• Insert another idea here.

 

11 hours ago, CBM said:

according to ducon we are prolly both doing drugs... despite never having touched that shit

 

Nope, please read again my post and don’t make me say what I did not say.

 

11 hours ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

No no, I know what he said and I don´t agree with it. I feel like a modern science (for the most part) strayed away from it´s descriptive model and tries (probably unintentionaly) to replace religion as a primary source of values, if you get what I´m saying.

 

I can’t agree with this.

Have you got an example?

 

6 hours ago, Doomkid said:

People who trusted their gut over evidence:

 

-witch burners

-witchdoctors

-flat earthers

-anti-vaxxers

-geocentrists

-moon landing deniers

-sandy hook deniers

 

Even a scientist can think with "his guts". In this case, he might say bullshit.

 

1 hour ago, CBM said:

I would love to meet a wiccan/witch/whatever, that is able to do real actual magic... I can't say for sure that none of them are able to, but I can't say for sure that any of them aren't as well

 

So do I, many scientists and skeptics.

[MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai]

1 hour ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

If that's the case I think he could have explained what he meant a little better - the comment he replied to gave examples of extreme idiots (flat-earthers, QAnon), groups of people who believe shit like that because they are flat out stupid, not because they have been mislead by journalists and sham scientists. I agree with what you said in your post completely, but Zaku's reply doesn't make much sense to me in terms of what he was replying to. If he would have said "listen to your gut and do some research before believing the first science-related article you read", I would have agreed with that. Either way I edited out that part of my reply just in case, as I don't want to be a dick for no reason.

Yeah I should have worded my opinion a little better, but I was stressed (and still am) at the time so it made it difficult for me.

Also English is not my native tongue, so it can be hard for me to get my point across.

Edited September 7, 2021 by MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai

[TheMagicMushroomMan]

1 hour ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

Yeah I should have worded my opinion a little better, but I was stressed (and still am) at the time so it made it difficult for me.

Also English is not my native tongue, so it can be hard for me to get my point across.

It's okay, my reply was pretty condescending anyway, sorry for that. I also think sham journalists are a huge problem. People who automatically assume that someone's credentials are real, or that credentials automatically make someone correct, are doing themselves a great disservice. Journalists take advantage of people who aren't educated, or people who are naive, and that's one of the biggest problems the world is facing now in terms of science and politics. Especially America.

 

And your English is great, so don't worry about that! Sorry again for being an ass, hope you feel better soon.

Edited September 7, 2021 by TheMagicMushroomMan

[lwks]

17 hours ago, ducon said:

Some other paradoxes are real games with language, for example the paradoxes about logic and meta-logic (for example the smallest interesting integer number).

Here, you are playing with language: you say that language describes exactly the reality (when you say that there is a logical inconsistency) and when logical rules apply to common language. No, the common language (and even philosophy) is not exactly describing reality. Mathematics describes nothing, just rules and games with them (even if they are extremely powerful to describe reality but, of course, with approximations).

Language does not describe reality. Does this thing you wrote describe reality? If this logic statemente is true then this logic statement is false. When you say "It is raining" it is either TRUE or FALSE. If language did not refer to reality we would not be able to communicate with one another because everything would be subjective. Logic is the most fundamental form of knowledge, everything else springs from it, if you can't grasp it then I don't know what to tell you.

 

14 hours ago, ducon said:

I consider that a skeptic is more open-minded than a believer, because he asks for a proof. If the proof is (scientifically) correct, he will change his opinion; but his mind is not open to the wind. They often change their opinion if good arguments are provided.

 

14 hours ago, ducon said:

If ghosts are so intelligent that they avoid on purpose all scientific experiments, how can we know that they exist? It’s an ad hoc argument that proves nothing, except that the guy who found it has imagination, not that ghosts exist.

Do you need proof to trust the laws of logic and mathematics as well or do you just accept them based on your subjective personal experience like everybody else? Because that's the same reason @CBM uses to ground his belief on the supernatural. There's no such a thing as scientific proof, the whole thing is built on assumptions and axioms, science is cool, it's interesting, but it's not the only way to the truth.

 

11 hours ago, ducon said:

And this science opposed its theories, statements and facts against… people who said that there are spirits or angels.

Am I sensing despise for religious faith here?

 

11 hours ago, ducon said:

It’s worse than that: we can not prove that something does not exist (except in mathematics).

However, when a belief is against all known scientific theories and has absolutely no valid proof, it’s reasonable to abandon its belief.

Completely false, for example we can prove there isn't a second star in the center of our solar system, I can prove there are no elephants in the room I'm in right now, etc.

 

hours ago, CBM said:

science have no proof for or against the existence of ghosts, aliens, ufos or other unexplained stuff... thats why its unexplainable

Ask any REAL scientist if ghosts are real... what will he say? he will say... I do not know....

A way better and more logical aproach.

 

15 hours ago, ducon said:

Yes, each theory breaks another theory but each valid theory is compatible with facts and scientific experiences. A theory is a set of models that are not opposed one another but of course, no theory covers all the reality.

Ghosts are compatible with no scientific theory and their existence has not been proven.

Yet your reason to dismiss the supernatural is because it's not compatible with our modern understanding of reality...whataver that means if mathematics doesn't actualy mean anything like you said...how is that logical? You can say you don't know, but you can't make statementes like "unlikely", that's NOT a statement of science, that's just your personal opinion. If the supernatural exists it would be as much part of nature as quantum mechanics and chemistry, we already know that Einstein's theory is wrong/incomplete and we need a theory of everything and quantum gravity, yall remember when a random dude said we already knew almost all of physics and then we discovered quantum mechanics or some shit like that? You couldn't possible know.

[CBM]

9 minutes ago, lwks said:

Language does not describe reality. Does this thing you wrote describe reality? If this logic statemente is true then this logic statement is false. When you say "It is raining" it is either TRUE or FALSE. If language did not refer to reality we would not be able to communicate with one another because everything would be subjective. Logic is the most fundamental form of knowledge, everything else springs from it, if you can't grasp it then I don't know what to tell you.

 

 

Do you need proof to trust the laws of logic and mathematics as well or do you just accept them based on your subjective personal experience like everybody else? Because that's the same reason @CBM uses to ground his belief on the supernatural. There's no such a thing as scientific proof, the whole thing is built on assumptions and axioms, science is cool, it's interesting, but it's not the only way to the truth.

 

Am I sensing despise for religious faith here?

 

Completely false, for example we can prove there isn't a second star in the center of our solar system, I can prove there are no elephants in the room I'm in right now, etc.

 

A way better and more logical aproach.

 

Yet your reason to dismiss the supernatural is because it's not compatible with our modern understanding of reality...whataver that means if mathematics doesn't actualy mean anything like you said...how is that logical? You can say you don't know, but you can't make statementes like "unlikely", that's NOT a statement of science, that's just your personal opinion. If the supernatural exists it would be as much part of nature as quantum mechanics and chemistry, we already know that Einstein's theory is wrong/incomplete and we need a theory of everything and quantum gravity, yall remember when a random dude said we already knew almost all of physics and then we discovered quantum mechanics or some shit like that? You couldn't possible know.

I completely agree.

 

Science can only tell us what we know so far, and what we know so far are the things that can be proven to exist or to not exist beyond any shadow of doubt... and even then, we can be forced to change our mind as science uncovers new information as time passes

 

therefore we can not say with 100% certainty that ghosts, time travellers, aliens, magic, ... etc... doesnt exists

 

but we can say that based on our current understanding of the universe, that the earth is round, 1+1 is 2 etc...

 

and we can say that giant insects from the past doesnt exist any longer based on our understanding of the conditions needed for them to exist, etc..

Edited September 7, 2021 by CBM

[MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai]

36 minutes ago, TheMagicMushroomMan said:

It's okay, my reply was pretty condescending anyway, sorry for that. I also think sham journalists are a huge problem. People who automatically assume someone's credentials are real, or that credentials automatically make someone correct, are doing themselves a great disservice. Journalists take advantage of people who aren't educated, or people who are naive, and that's one of the biggest problems the world is facing now in terms of science and politics. Especially America.

 

And your English is great, so don't worry about that! Sorry again for being an ass, hope you feel better soon.

Thanks man apreciate your support. The reason I´m stressed is that I have my finals (University) in just four hours, so I´m realy anxious rn ;)

Edited September 7, 2021 by MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai

[Murdoch]

11 minutes ago, MS-06FZ Zaku II Kai said:

Thanks man apreciate your support. The reason I´m stressed is that I have my finals (University) in just four hours, so I´m realy anxious rn ;)

 

Good luck.

 

36 minutes ago, CBM said:

therefore we can not say with 100% certainty that ghosts, time travellers, aliens, magic, ... etc... doesnt exists

 

I think magic arguably does exist.

 

Think of all the stories of non Christian deities. At their heart many are essentially somewhat melodramatic retellings of actual things, embellished with time. Zeus is thunder and lightning. Osiris and the myth of his death and rebirth is sunset and sunrise etc.

 

The village eccentric starts experimenting with chemicals and creates some weird clouds, noises, maybe an explosion or two. The locals talk at the inn, the inevitable exaggeration happens and suddenly an early chemist is a wizard. Maybe a woman figures out certain plants have medicinal effects etc etc. You get the idea.

[CBM]

7 minutes ago, Murdoch said:

 

Good luck.

 

 

I think magic arguably does exist.

 

Think of all the stories of non Christian deities. At their heart many are essentially somewhat melodramatic retellings of actual things, embellished with time. Zeus is thunder and lightning. Osiris and the myth of his death and rebirth is sunset and sunrise etc.

 

The village eccentric starts experimenting with chemicals and creates some weird clouds, noises, maybe an explosion or two. The locals talk at the inn, the inevitable exaggeration happens and suddenly an early chemist is a wizard. Maybe a woman figures out certain plants have medicinal effects etc etc. You get the idea.

indeed

 

however, in theory something like actual harry potter like magic or starwars like psionics could in theory also exist, perhaps due to some kind of yet unknown force?

 

we really dont know for sure right now...

 

all we know is that there are people who claim to have such abilities (like tibetan munks who can apparently levitate by using the power of their mind, magicians with what looks like magic, regular people that claim to be able to cast spells, etc..) and that apparently are able to show them off... however... this is also among the stuff I need to see for myself to believe it...

 

If I am ever in Tibet and visits a monestary then I think I will try to convince one of the monks to levitate for me :-)

Edited September 7, 2021 by CBM

[ducon]

57 minutes ago, lwks said:

Language does not describe reality. Does this thing you wrote describe reality? If this logic statemente is true then this logic statement is false. When you say "It is raining" it is either TRUE or FALSE. If language did not refer to reality we would not be able to communicate with one another because everything would be subjective. Logic is the most fundamental form of knowledge, everything else springs from it, if you can't grasp it then I don't know what to tell you.

 

It does not describe reality exactly, it’s an approximation, and I’m no relativist either.

Logic is a game with rules, so are mathematics. Mathematics do not care about common sense.

 

57 minutes ago, lwks said:

Do you need proof to trust the laws of logic and mathematics as well or do you just accept them based on your subjective personal experience like everybody else? Because that's the same reason @CBM uses to ground his belief on the supernatural. There's no such a thing as scientific proof, the whole thing is built on assumptions and axioms, science is cool, it's interesting, but it's not the only way to the truth.

 

There is no scientific proof (we are no more in the XIX^th century, we don’t believe in this anymore), there is a pyramid of quality of evidence.

If someone says that there are ghosts, he must begin with a correct paper, with an experience, not just with his beliefs.

 

57 minutes ago, lwks said:

Am I sensing despise for religious faith here?

 

Huh, what?

It’s not the point.

 

57 minutes ago, lwks said:

Completely false, for example we can prove there isn't a second star in the center of our solar system, I can prove there are no elephants in the room I'm in right now, etc.

 

We are talking about ghosts, not about the ton of gold I own in my cellar.

 

57 minutes ago, lwks said:

Yet your reason to dismiss the supernatural is because it's not compatible with our modern understanding of reality...whataver that means if mathematics doesn't actualy mean anything like you said...how is that logical? You can say you don't know, but you can't make statementes like "unlikely", that's NOT a statement of science, that's just your personal opinion. If the supernatural exists it would be as much part of nature as quantum mechanics and chemistry, we already know that Einstein's theory is wrong/incomplete and we need a theory of everything and quantum gravity, yall remember when a random dude said we already knew almost all of physics and then we discovered quantum mechanics or some shit like that? You couldn't possible know.

 

No scientific theory is complete, even in mathematics (oh, only boolean logic is complete). No scientific theory describes the complete world, each theory tries to describe powerfully the part of the world it’s designed to describe.

At the moment, ghosts fit in zero scientific theory and nobody was able to show the beginning of a proof of their existence.

[lwks]

6 hours ago, ducon said:

There is no scientific proof (we are no more in the XIX^th century, we don’t believe in this anymore), there is a pyramid of quality of evidence.

If someone says that there are ghosts, he must begin with a correct paper, with an experience, not just with his beliefs.

 

We are talking about ghosts, not about the ton of gold I own in my cellar. 

So we just switched one arbitrary methodology for another?

 

You're saying my inability to go where you are and check it for myself or your lack of evidence implies the objective impossibility proof? (I also noticed you refered about proof of, not proof of inexistence).

[ducon]

When I say proof, I don’t say definitive proof, as in the XIX^th century.

When I talk about the proof of non existence, I talk about the non-existence of a generality, not of a special case.

By the way, the existence of ghosts is highly dubious, according to today’s knowledge.

[lwks]

Oh I see it now, I just find it slightly annoying when people presupose science to be the one and only holy way to get to conclusions, they hear strange stories and automaticaly presupose supernaturalism to be wrong and proceed: we got a scientific explanation this time? ok cool. we didn't? ehh nevermind...

It leads to a mentality that looks like it's never supernaturalism, it doesn't matter how crazy the story is, it's gotta be natural and I'll just move on and forget about it, and in my view I find it weird, for exemple we can infer that reallity either came into being literally from nothing or it is literally past eternal, and I look at supernaturalism and I strugle to see how is it any more weird than the previous alternatives, and I'm like bruh