Amie

I agree with you on this Seraphim. I've seen an angel and I am completely sane and serious. I know what I saw

can I get some water to douse the flames that may be coming my way

[ December 09, 2002: Message edited by: Amie ]</p>

fando

Incentive dialogue never helps. Let me address your question in a cool way.

Have you ever had the opportunity to read Carl Sagan's Demon Haunted World? He presents a very convincing set of hypotheses about why people believe in ghosts from a skeptical viewpoint. Since what I feel about paranormal stuff is pretty much the same as Sagan, I will defer to his book to answer your question.

Also please be careful about labeling parapsychology as science. It isn't science. It claims to be science, but it is nothing more than a dishonest approach to gaining credibility. If it were a science, I'm sure we'd have ghosts for pets by now.

Amie

No I have not read that book.

By calling it a dishonest approach you are implying that people are intending to deceive the population. I don't think most people are like that. It seems to me that they must believe in what they are doing to some extent...

echidna

No offence Amie, but Seraphim, you see what I mean ?

I mean OK, Amie’s not asking me to convert to Catholicism (at least I don’t think so), but I’m sure you get the gist. Ghosts, angels, the entity I fear the most is still the alien proctologist. Please no one claim an encounter of the First Kind with one of those. Hell it’s only a trailer park to everyone else, but to me it’s home.

Philosoft

Re: Ghosts - there have always been some things that didn't make sense to me. First, how is it we are allegedly able to see them? Are they made of matter? The only ways I know of to experience 'sight' are 1) photons that reflect off matter strike the receptors that make up the retina which stimulate neural pathways to generate an image; 2) a chemical directly stimulates a neuron or group of neurons that make up a visual pathway. So, either ghosts are made of matter, or they somehow "cause at a distance" our brain to chemically induce the appearance of sight. The same objections apply to other senses, like those who claim the ghosts speak, or make noises of some kind.

Second, are ghosts equipped with the personalities/memories of the bodies they once inhabitied? This is, of course, a variation of the same objection made to the notion of a soul. It seems that, if these 'ethereal people' retained all or most mental faculties, this would render the brain mostly or entirely superfluous. If not, is there some mechanism that triggers a "haunt here" directive when the spirit leaves the body?

fando

I don't see how that implication follows. Perhaps it's the use of the word dishonest that suggests this. Dishonest in this context means lacking truthfulness, not deception. Let me use a better word: improper. To call parapsychology a science is improper. Those that insist that it is a science are possibly dishonest or just ignorant.

Amie

First: Philosoft will you marry me in the afterlife?

second: If it was our brains that caused the sight of them, do you think outside equipment would be able to pick up on any energy fields present aside from our own?

Third: How would you explain any mediums? do you believe those people that somehow "sense" ghosts are fabricating all of it?

The Lone Ranger

The human eye functions in precisely the same manner as does a camera. If "ghosts" can be detected by the human eye, then they can be photographed.

The fact that no one has ever produced a convincing photograph of a ghost casts strong doubt upon the existence of such entities.

Quote:

How would you explain any mediums? do you believe those people that somehow "sense" ghosts are fabricating all of it?

Many mediums are frauds. Houdini used to make a living showing how the more famous mediums of his day were faking it. James Randi has exposed quite a few as fakes, too.

Some, however, probably genuinely believe that they're in contact with the spirits of the dead.

One should never underestimate the human capacity to believe that what we want to be true is true, a total lack of evidence notwithstanding.

Cheers,

Michael

Amie

Hi fando

I view it as the study of paranormal activity or paranormal phenomenon...

many people view it as a "science". Many earn their degrees in this field of study. I would not call them dishonest or ignorant for believing it to be the scientific study of paranormal...
perhaps "field of study" would be the better term though...

Philosoft

Okay, but you have to move to hell with me because I'm not leaving my friends.

I suppose if we were able to take PET scans or something during a subject's ghost-viewing experience, we could at least determine where the neural activity is, but observing any interaction with a measurable outside energy seems unlikely at best.

<strong> I think some genuinely believe they are interacting with "spirits," just as some believe the Ouija board moves on its own. I belive some, however, such as John Edward, James Van Praagh, the ones that tend to make a financial spectacle of themselves and their "powers," are such flagrant charlatans, they should be prosecuted for fraud. It is very disturbing to see our government, which is at least a buffer to prevent ignoble manipulation of the ignorant masses, turn a blind eye toward this spiritual charlatanry. I'm ranting, I'll shut up now.