So does anyone believe in ghosts or aliens?

[MonoAccipiter]

"If it is there you can measure it."

 

This doesn't follow at all. You're making several rather large assumptions about the capacity of human ability â€‹(i.e. the reliability of our senses, the ability to discern reality from non-reality, the limitation of language upon the complexity of nature). 

 

The largest problem with metaphysics today is that people dismiss it as easily as you do. Somehow the general attitude towards philosophy seems to be that everyone can practice it properly, while other sciences requires a more rudimentary understanding. I actively follow and believe in the ability of science to improve upon our understanding of the world, but I don't see why that has to exclude views outside of the general paradigm. Frankly, I find it rather annoying that a 2600 year old science is treated as if it's a fun hobby.

[z929669]

@Pretendeavor

Agree. The human mind makes many predisposed assumptions and 'inserts' missing information according to the individual's expectations ... all of us do this, and we all are predisposed to seeing nothing and chalking it up to something. There are lots of examples of this from very simple (reading 'infromation' as 'information') to very profound (seeing a figure in the mist). Brain Games is a show that illustrates many examples that will probably surprise most of you ;)

 

@Sparrow & MonoAccipiter

I mean 'God' as that term is almost always invoked (and capitalized to illustrate): The conscious entity that (supposedly) created all life and thinks in terms like us (and is most often depicted as an old, wise, white man with a beard, no matter the culture) ... or any other conscious entity that supposedly acts with purpose. If either/both of you mean 'god', then I agree that there MUST be a 'god' (a non-purposeful, non-human-like-thinking entity/state/phenomenon/consciousness. Again, to believe in ghosts confers a belief in 'God' and other faith-based 'realities', since all of the evidence of 'ghosts' have logical explanations ... Occam's razor applies to everything in my view ... and those rare inexplicable things/events are so because we have not yet learned enough about our rational universe to properly postulate their rational explanations :P

 

aliens = logical 'fact'

ghosts = irrational assumption (a faith-based belief) ... not that there is anything wrong with this ... I am simply a non-subscriber ;)

[Aiyen]

Mono: 

We long since surpassed the human ability to reliably see what it is we measure. So many things today are based on what devices tell us, and we then track that information back to something we can relate too. We can do this because every single time it is done it is the same response. 

 

So again if it is there it is measurable, but we have not found the correct device to do so with yet. This brings me back to the whole premise of engineering not able to keep up. We have great minds and can think up great things... however we have no way of knowing if they are true or false, since we have no way to measure them.

 

Also I do not dismiss anything... I just expect that if someone has a great idea, that they have the ability to provide some tangible way to measure what they claim. Otherwise it is just a hypothesis. 

 

It would be amazing if some of the claims meta science people come with could be more readily reproduced... however the sad fact is that they almost never manage to figure out what actually cause the effect they see... and hence making the process of measuring it really rather hard. 

 

As I recall there was a story about some guy who once claimed he had made cold fusion in a cup..... turned out he was a con man trying to score some easy money. The idea was then dismissed for a great while.. then one found some deep sea creature which could actually create fusion like conditions to hunt with. It was not true cold fusion, but it sparked some interesting ideas on how to measure for people. As far as I know they still work on that, with the aim to create cold fusion in a cup. Just now with a bit more of an idea of how to go about it. 

 

Morale of the story.. something is meta science until you figure out how the heck it works. 

[MonoAccipiter]

"Meta-science" (by which I assume you actually mean pseudo-science, because that's what you're describing) and metaphysics (an actual field of study in which the attempt at understanding reality is made from arguments that can logically be proven without any reference to reality, such as the famous, though slightly incorrect sentence: dubio, ergo cognitum, ergo sum) are two very different things. Using examples about con men trying to prove natural theories (i.e. relating to the nature of things) in a cup as an example of why you don't give this field any weight just proves my entire point so well that I shouldn't even have to explain further. You're so clearly being dismissive (when you compare it to some guy with "cold fusion in a cup") of something you have very little understanding. You're even ridiculing it by comparing it to obvious cases of pseudo-science, which again is a completely different thing. I find it incredibly sad that you think of what is, again, a 2600 year old science/art still practiced, with a massive influence on pretty much every form of human knowledge from physics to politics, as the same thing as some arbitrary person making a completely arbitrary claim.

 

However, since you seem to have placed me in the same box as people who believe in the healing property of channeling universal energy, or any other pseudo-science, I will talk no further of this. I'm simply sorry you feel this way, and feel you lay an unfair and incorrect assessment on a field of study.

 

@Z: This is pretty much the same belief I hold to. I simply don't chose to dismiss what hasn't been described by science yet because I believe that science functions much like a map, having its appearance changed as new features of the terrain are discovered. I find it unlikely that there are such things as ghosts too, but subscribing completely to the current scientific paradigm seems as unwise as ignoring it (which I don't, I enjoy reading and believing in scientific discoveries and my world view is heavily based upon them). I disagree the God is depicted the same way in almost every culture though, that's an ignorant and easily falsifiable statement. Most of the Abrahamitic religions have the same image as the Mediterranean religions because they influence each other through art and tradition (hence Zeus is often depicted in the same way as the classical God). Oriental religions, or ancient religions from the South American region have very different idols, art and mythological depictions. You go on to say "since all of the evidence of 'ghosts' have logical explanations", this is essentially a logical fallacy (though I actually agree that it is most likely the case) as you're making the assumption that since whatever cases you've seen have "logical explanations", it is logical to assume that all cases have "logical explanations", and that simply does not follow. Your last statement I completely agree (about Occam's Razor) with however, it's just important not to assume that most likely equates to thus.

 

A belief in ghost doesn't necessarily have to be a faith-based belief either, though that depends on how you define faith-based. If you think it necessarily needs to have its progenitor be a faith/religion, you are wrong, as it's mostly originated from seeing an inexplicable event and making an assumption about its nature. If, however you mean to say that it's a faith based belief because it's in nature based off of having faith in a theory which at best is an educated guess at an explanation, you are correct, but you'd be wise to remember that that's how almost every scientific theory began. Observation leads into making connections, which leads into postulating a theory. I'm of the same mind as you, but I think our approach to the matter (which I find extremely important in this case) is fundamentally different.

[Aiyen]

Mono: I am not placing you in any box or anything like that what so ever. If you got that impression I am sorry. I find people who want to think different than me quite impressive, since as you obviously noticed I am a bit more technical and empirically minded. However I do think that I am quite a bit more open minded than quite a few other people around the world. 

 

Also meta = pseudo in my vocabulary.. at least I use them interchangeably. If it is strictly semantically wrong then sorry... But I tend to do that sort of thing. 

 

I guess a different way to describe how I see things is that just about everything start as pseudo, meta whatever you want to call it science. I guess we can just go with crazy idea. However at some point someone figures out how to measure something new, and then it goes from being hypothetical interesting (crazy) ideas, into being science. 

 

Since you mention healing then that is something I have actually delved into for years. I know that is a topic which have been hotly debated for a long time now. I am sure you know that healers and their ideas have been the target for not being able to produce concrete evidence for a long time now. However now enough statistical data is starting to pile up and so far it seems to support at great deal of statements healers have come with for years. 

 

You do not have to go many years back to have just about every doctor dismiss the very idea that mood affected anything significant. Now it is shown that mood and general state of mind affect a great deal about the body and how it functions. If I might put it a bit on edge I guess I see it like this. There have still not been found any strict empirical evidence that says moon rock A works like this... but there is enough evidence to say that moon rock A will probably have a positive effect X % of the time. As to why it has this effect.. we will have to wait for more ideas and measurements. 

 

If I was just clearly as dismissive of everything as you make me sound, I would still be in the box of people who still outright just says "They are full of bollocks and they are all con men"... instead I am looking at what is said and then say... lets see if we can gather enough measurements to hopefully see if there is something here. 

 

And all this brings me back to my original statement and morale.. if it is there it can be measured... we just have to figure out how.

I am not sure if there are fancy technical terms for my way of looking at things, but I know it is not strictly old school empiricism. 

If you know then please let me know... you are obviously more of a philosophy student than me! :) 

[z929669]

@MonoAccipiter

 

'God' (the christian proper noun, not the generic term that can be applied to the "supreme being" of any religion) DOES seem to be mostly depicted as an old, bearded white man (like Zeus), no matter the culture (including non-white cultures). I have not done an exhaustive study on this, but I have observed in to be true in my world travels (I have been around). Just a personal observation, not a fact. I think it is funny albeit a bit sad though.

 

Agree that EVERYTHING has a logical explanation ... I meant that some assumptions are leaps to magical thinking rather than rational explanation (e.g., my toast has the image of Jesus, so this must be a purposeful sign that God is speaking to me; the universe is so functionally complex, so God must have created it [because I cannot understand the rational hypotheses that might explain it]; I hear sounds and see inexpiable things in the Forbidden Forest, so these are most likely ghosts.).

 

By "faith based" I mean the literal interpretation, not the religious one. I don't recognize the concept of 'faith' personally, although I understand that many people rely on it to explain what they don't understand. I just admit my own ignorance and insignificance :P

 

Finally, 'metaphysics'; etymologically should mean "the physics of physics", and it seems a worthy endeavor, simply because it is impossible to rationalize some of the most fundamental properties of the universe (e.g., aspects of quantum physics really could be considered a branch of metaphysics, it would seem to me). Exploring/hypothesizing/testing possibilities seems essentially objective and constructive, but jumping to conclusions with magical thinking is purely subjective.

 

I really wish there were ghosts and magic though, and I have been very disappointed since I discovered for myself that these things are the stuff of dreams :(

[MonoAccipiter]

@Aiyen:

 

Meta in philosophical terms has a very different meaning than pseudo, so for this subject matter the distinction is important. When I used healing as an example I was referring to the basis of the oft-presented truth of that ability, not whether it had any truth to it, as I haven't really given that matter much thought, seeing as I've never been in contact with it, and therefore consider myself a terrible judge. I simply wished to point out that there's a vast chasm in between the backing of a philosophical argument, and the backing of any given statement about an unmeasured article. Just because neither statement has the traditional scientific approach to proof, does not mean they are the same. 

 

The entire field of metaphysics, for example, simply want to arrive at conclusions about reality that aren't contingent on the state of the human observer. There's still an ocean of rules and history to follow, just like in the field of physics, though these have been arrived at and subsequently (if necessary) debased by the use of plausible exterior (meta) logic. In fact, with how far the field of quantum physics have developed, several physicists have been touching upon this very field, though from a different angle. The sometimes sad effect of this is when people like Stephen Hawking declares "Philosophy is dead." and "Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.", only to follow it up by making what would to any practitioner of philosophy be a rather elementary mistake. Namely proposing a theory about the Universe creating itself from nothing through the same law of gravity he just finished postulated came into existence after the Singularity. 

 

@Z:

First off, "I just admit my own ignorance and insignificance :P". This, I think, has always been the more natural thing for me to believe too. I'm less worried about what is actually true than you though, as I tend to view the world as being seen through a lense either way, hence I see no reason to exclude any properties that doesn't seem to fit the current lens unless those things can be explained on a particular (i.e. relating to the particular cases) basis. Nietzsche once postulated that nature (i.e. anything relating to the absolute state of things) is infinite, and that any understanding of it would be limited by language (e.g. the language of our minds - anything seeking to describe something really), and while the premise of that statement is fairly non-verifiable, the implication of it is still rather interesting, and something science as a whole has moved towards. My previous "bad guy", Mr Hawking, is actually rather good at making a point of this, once stating "I don’t demand that a theory corresponds to reality, because I don't know what it is.". In the end you seem to have gotten the essence of the matter right, in any case, with "Exploring/hypothesizing/testing possibilities seems essentially objective and constructive, but jumping to conclusions with magical thinking is purely subjective.", which I wholeheartedly agree with.

 

Might want to tone down on throwing around the absolutes (e.g. "are the stuff of dreams") when following up on a statement about realizing your own limitations though. 

[z929669]

I'm not really worried about the truth (in the context of known truths versus exploration currently in the realm of metaphysics), because I already know it ... and I know when I don't know it, and by definition, actual truth isn't subjective, but it is subjectively interpreted. I am only worried about what certain influential other people (not anybody here ... think politics/corporations/Hollywood) conclude as the truth, because we all make decisions based upon what we 'believe' to be the truth. Magical thinking is the subjective jump that 'faith' allows, giving us an open door to dismissing our ignorance of the truth as something for a higher power to manage for us. Sometimes, this can halt further pursuit of explanation and mental growth (i.e., innovation & creativity) ... at the societal level when persons of influence base their decisions on certain flawed assumptions of the real truth or its dismissal altogether.

 

Yeah, so I am probably a bit too hell bent on being 'right' ... but I had a Subway recently, so it's OK ;)

 

Also, "... [i discovered for myself that these things] are the stuff of dreams" is the full context, so it is not stated as an absolute for anyone but me ... just my subjective metaphysical interpretation of the logically inexplicable

 

@Sparrow

So your belief in ghosts does not concern me at all, especially if it sparks your persistence and creativity

[EssArrBee]

How come there's no new ghosts? Why is always some old place that has spirits? Also, why isn't every inch of the world haunted? There have been around 100 billion people through history. That means someone died and died horribly on every inch of the planet. The world should be crowded with ghosts. 

[MonoAccipiter]

 

I am only worried about what certain influential other people (not anybody here ... think politics/corporations/Hollywood) conclude as the truth, because we all make decisions based upon what we 'believe' to be the truth. Magical thinking is the subjective jump that 'faith' allows, giving us an open door to dismissing our ignorance of the truth as something for a higher power to manage for us. Sometimes, this can halt further pursuit of explanation and mental growth (i.e., innovation & creativity) ... at the societal level when persons of influence base their decisions on certain flawed assumptions of the real truth truth or its dismissal altogether.

This is very true. I agree with pretty much all of it.

 

 

actual truth isn't subjective, but it is subjectively interpreted.

Eh, hate to say it, but just because that is the most commonly accepted definition, does not mean it's correct. It's kind of a petitio principii fallacy (otherwise known as begging the question; I only use the Latin term because it's one of the most misunderstood phrases in the English language) as your argument is based on a proof (actual truth isn't subjective) which also requires proof. There's also the fact that it's a false dichotomy because the fact that it's not the first option does not equate to meaning it's the second option. My initial reason for disagreeing with your conclusion can be found in my last post.

 

The reason I took no interest in your usage of real truth in the first thing I quoted is because it simply doesn't matter. In that case, the generally applicable truth (i.e. something a larger audience can simultaneously view and understand in the same fashion) and actual objective truth serves the exacts same purpose. Whether it exists or not becomes irrelevant. When you move onto a more meta-scientific (here meaning beyond scientific) subject, it requires an entirely different approach however, and this is where philosophy becomes important. Try telling this page that truth can be easily defined with a single sentence, and you'll see what I mean.

 

 

How come there's no new ghosts? Why is always some old place that has spirits? Also, why isn't every inch of the world haunted? There have been around 100 billion people through history. That means someone died and died horribly on every inch of the planet. The world should be crowded with ghosts.

 Maybe haunting requires a really arduous safety course. ::  

[Spock]

I don't believe in ghosts. Our minds play us so many tricks, I think ghosts are one of them.

 

There is something philosophical I would like to share though from a rationalists point of view:

Did you ever go blank from a higher dose of Alcohol? It happened to me once. At the time, everything is 'normal' but because you forget afterwards, it feels like the time in between never happened. If we die and forget, shouldn't life feel like going blank?

 

About Aliens:

Very, very likely! Complex aliens like in Scifi Movies: Probably not in a distance we can presently observe. My explaination for the Fermi-Paradox is, that the Universe is still too young. It takes time to gather all the heavy materials in sufficient quantities in enough places to raise sufficiently raise the chance for life. That life takes time to develop technology and even much much more time to colonize any other star system. Given that most of what we see of the Universe is much younger then us, we probably still have to wait for a very long time.

 

[edit]About the logic/belief discussion:

I just wanted to throw in, that Goedel demonstrated that every mathematical system is incomplete or false. So logic has it's limits.

Edited March 3, 2016 by Spock

[Aiyen]

If item/object etc. A exist, it should be measurable. Directly, indirectly, somehow. If it is not, does a discussion of it´s existence really matter ? If it has no influence on what we as observers can observe it might as well not exist no ? 

 

I once read a bit about the concept of ideas and how and if they exist... and the argument was that you can see the effect of ideas, even though they are intangible, and non physical. 

[MonoAccipiter]

 

If item/object etc. A exist, it should be measurable.

 

That's a non sequitur. Just because a measurable phenomenon exists, does not mean an existing phenomenon is measurable.

 

 

If it is not, does a discussion of it´s existence really matter ?

Well for there to be a discussion about it's existence there has to be the possibility of an argument for its existence. Your kind of using your conclusion from the previous sentence to prove your point here, so it doesn't really follow.

 

 

I once read a bit about the concept of ideas and how and if they exist... and the argument was that you can see the effect of ideas, even though they are intangible, and non physical. 

Sounds like a scientists approach to a philosophical subject. 

 

Why do you have to see the effect of an idea for it to be real. Dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum. I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am. Though technically incorrect about the "I" part, it's more like something is doubting, therefore something is thinking, therefore something is, it serves well enough to demonstrate that you can determine the existence of this something without needing the crutch that is assumed reality to support it.

 

 

If we die and forget, shouldn't life feel like going blank?

 

Not entirely sure what you mean by this, Spock, as it's unclear whether you mean die and forget as something you do in life, where Wittgenstein would put it best with "Death is not an event in life", or whether you mean die and forget as in when we die we somehow continue to exists in a fashion, but without the memory of who we were. 

 

You don't forget (talking about the first case here) in a consistent fashion though, otherwise your personality would be very strangely impacted. The human sense of time is also heavily influence by measurements, routing, age and similar cases, hence you'd need to do a whole lot of forgetting for it to feel like the time disappeared.

Edited March 3, 2016 by MonoAccipiter

[Pretendeavor]

Given that most of what we see of the Universe is much younger then us, we probably still have to wait for a very long time.

Of course the possibility exists that we are the only ones who have developed this far, but to say that most of what we see is younger than us is simply not true. Sure, when looking at the universe we are looking back in time, but we can already see stars in (almost) every phase of their development, it's why we already know the fate of our own star. Organic molecules have also already been found aplenty in multiple places

[Aiyen]

I am clearly not drunk enough to do philosophy! It is like discussing space time and quantum effects.. it gets progressively easier with the amount of beers! 

 

 

But my question is, if something does exist and is non measurable... how will it ever influence us in any way? We as observers would be oblivious to it. 

The reason I found the other part interesting is that I guess we can have the idea about something that does not exist, but does it then exist... so to speak, since that idea will have an effect on how we think, and then indirectly alter our perception.  

 

This brought on by the idea of ghosts.... they may or may not exist, and we may or may not be able to measure something about them. However the idea of them, both in terms of fascination, terror and what have you, will alter the way we behave and go about in life. Hence ghosts, or just the idea of them does have a measurable effect. 

 

I hope that made a sort of sense lol ! :D