Quote:
Originally Posted by Zeraph
KnifeMissle- so many assumptions in that argument, and so much of an ethnocentric viewpoint.
|
This is a pretty narrow interpretation of my post. It's as if you
want to be insulted...
Quote:
I agree to some extent that dreams aren't the best analogy. Though I have *met* people who have claimed to never have dreamed before. And if someone was seeing a ghost and happened to be hooked up to instruments, I'm sure they could read brain activity too. And duh we have more confidence in dreams  that is part of my point.
|
They may read brain activity but would it be consistent brain activity? Furthermore, if these things only exist in the mind how are they not just hallucinations or day dreams?
If we can get several people to consistently see the same thing then we'd have evidence for ghosts!
Quote:
|
But essentially you're saying you know everything there is to know about the lack of proof of ghosts existing and since no one has given *you* reasonable evidence this should somehow dictate how the rest of the world thinks. Youre basically stating that because most people you know don't believe, ghosts don't exist. Well guess how many people there are on earth, and now guess how many you know.
|
Your last point is actually quite specious. You don't need your sample size to be a large proportion of the population for it to be accurate. If you did then sampling wouldn't be very useful. It's more accurate to say that the people you know aren't randomly selected and thus make a poor sample.
Sadly, your point here is just flawed. I'm not saying that people should disbelieve ghosts 'cause I do. I'm saying that people should disbelieve ghosts 'cause the idea is stupid. There's a big difference. I'm not telling people that they should like the medical drama
House because I do. I'm saying that people should accept that
Australia exists. That I also believe in Australia does not mean I want people to think as I do...
You're pulling out conclusions that you want to be true rather than conclusions that follow from what was said. I suspect you're doing this 'cause you're so angry over the alleged ethnocentricity of my post.
I'm saying that there's no reason to believe in ghosts. Like Lasereth said in this thread's initial post: with all these people after all this time, why can't anyone show any real evidence? The answer is obvious...
Quote:
|
By your own logic let me put it another way since you just implied dreams are real and not fantasies like ghosts. Say I have regular dreams of a dead relative, we have conversations and everything. So I'm conversing with a ghost in my dreams. So by your logic ghosts are fantasies, but dreams are not. But since dreams are real, by inclusion then ghosts are real too since they appear in dreams.
|
This is a seriously disingenuous argument. There's a big difference between the existence of dreams being real and what's happening in the dream being real. That I have dreams is real. The things that happen in my dreams aren't real. You just tried to equate the two, again, probably because you're desperate to make any kind of point, coherent or not, because you're so offended by my alleged ethnocentricity. Let it go...
Quote:
|
Sorry if that came off a little harsh, it's not you personally. Just a bit pissed off at how ethnocentric people can be, it disgusts me. There are more ancestor worship-believe in ghost cultures in the world than there are not. People think just because theyre well off compared to the rest of the world that that somehow makes them better and wiser.
|
I'd be embarrassed if I found anything in this post "harsh."
Oh, and I suppose I could have deduced your anguish over ethnocentrism from this paragraph where you simply say so, rather than psychoanalyzing your post. Oh well, my conclusions turned out to correct, didn't they?!
Look past your disgust and see that I don't say these things 'cause I'm looking for a way to establish my superiority. By the way, when did my status of "well off" enter the discussion? Are you suggesting that the only reason I may be skeptical of phantasmal claims is because I enjoy a comfortable life in a first world country? What do you mean?
I'm a little surprised to see how little you know me. I could have sworn that we've interacted before.
Argumentum ad populum is deeply unimpressive to me. I don't care how many credulous morons you push in front of me, that doesn't make their beliefs any more true...
Quote:
|
Or maybe it's because you said "Hey, there are some... credulous people back here on the TFP!" and then picked on only my posts.
|
This is the first sensible thing you've said!
I'm sorry I singled you out. It's just that you're a (if not
the) major proponent of their existence and you have the largest most interesting posts to respond to. It was nothing personal, I assure you...
---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru
It's entirely possible (assuming non-physical entities do exist) that they don't physically "see" these entities. Their experience is that of what the "mind's eye" sees. Whenever I think of this concept, I tend to think of Wordsworth:
|
I've never understood this argument.
I don't know if you realize this or not but your brain is a "physical" thing. If something affects your mind then it too, by definition, is physical. Perhaps you're using a different meaning of "physical" than I am?
Quote:
|
Essentially, if non-physical entities exist, they perhaps communicate by non-physical means. In humans, this communication is focused on the mind. The problem, however, is that we are sensory beings and tend to "physicalize" experience (think imagination, memory, music, scent, imagery, etc., and how they're all interconnected).
|
Again, the mind is a physical object. If ghosts have a physical affect on you then they are physical too!
Quote:
|
So, if we come into contact with a non-physical entity, perhaps we tend to think we see them when, in fact, we are merely projecting as having "seen" them. The mind's eye, when fully developed, and/or if we are sensitive to it, can be a powerful thing...especially when you have external entities entering the picture.
|
Maybe we really are using different notions of the word "physical."
Do you consider
electromagnetic radiation to be physical?
When I say physical, I mean something that can affects things. In essence, I'm saying "anything that is real." It sounds like an all encompassing definition but people often claim contradictory things like that ghosts can't be detected by anything 'cause they're "not physical" and then turn around to say that ghosts have been seen or heard. It's ridiculous!