Do you believe in the supernatural/otherworldly/etc?

[XangXu]

I think haunting and ghosts may be a combination of a science we don't yet understand combined with mankind's superstition.

[Low Hanging Fruit]

I believe there are things we certainly don't understand and that these things are often misinterpreted as ghosts and spirits. The deal in my mind is a whole lot of people have lived and died and often in a pretty concentrated area. I mean an ancient city like Rome should be utterly crawling with the things making it an obvious link to where they come from and why. But instead someone that slipped and fell on the side walk in Kentucky can instantly be a spirit that haunts the pub he walked out of that icy night so obviously? To hard to make a connection for me. I am not saying nothing odd is happening or that the two might not even be linked, but to jump to the conclusion Willy who slip on the ice is mad we didn't salt the stairs is the reason burbon shots get knocked over at midnight just seems like a stretch and that is the base level of a lot of these stories.

[Dhrizzle]

I don’t believe in ghosts or the supernatural because in the age of everything being captured and recorded, the verdict should be out already. And it is. No ghosts.

Mod Warning: Keep discussion to ghosts and harmless topics, not religion.

That's assuming that ghosts are something that reflect light in a way that a camera could capture, and not something we experience that the brain rationalises by showing creating an image.

- - - Updated - - -

Look here, look as closely as you can for there is no black hole in sight.



All I see is photons emitted from dust that is most certainly not a black hole nor is it within the event horizon of a black hole.

Not only that all I see is photons emitted from my computer screen.

Heck I don't even I see that, all I really see is data relayed from cones in my eyes that I then interpret as a black hole because I happen to know about the concept of a black hole... All perceptions come from a long chain of indirect events. And All observations are theory-laden

Bit of a bold assumption that you have eyes with cones to react to light and transfer the information. All you really know is you have a mind that perceives an image. Everything else is supposition and faith.

- - - Updated - - -

"Throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be NOT MAGIC." - Tim Minchin

That's all that needs to be said, really. It's all nonsense and wishful thinking.

In fairness that's only because we redefine magic once we have a good understanding of it. Most of the shit we do is pretty goddam magical if you ask me *continues bending nature to my will in order to argue inanities with people across the globe.*

- - - Updated - - -

Getting back to the question of the OP, I don't believe in anything "supernatural" or otherworldly but I like to keep an open mind. I enjoy playing with the concepts - what do these phenomena mean at face value? How can such things be fit into our current understanding of the workings of the universe? If they aren't what they appear to be, what do reports of these phenomena suggest about the individuals experiencing them or humanity as a whole?

[StayTuned]

I find it funny that some people who witnessed something that they cannot explain rationally are so eager to jump to it must have been ghosts. I am afraid that this universe is governed by electricity and gravity, by natural laws, by the very tiny objects that give our reality a physical shape. In our world, there is nothing that cannot be rationalized or measured. We're not able to accomplish that in perfection, of course. But assuming that in the vast, vast space of the universe, there's such a thing as a ghost...

Such an absurdly obscene thought even, as it is abundantly clear that ghosts are man made fiction. What? On planet earth we have human like ghosts, on planet Octhululu it's squid ghosts? Such nonsense.

Don't get me wrong. It's not like I wouldn't be open to it. I'd even wish for ghosts and all the other paranormal stuff to be real because it would open unlimited possibilities. Super powers, hidden otherworlds and what not. But there is nothing that ever pointed to any of that, other than humans misinterpreting coincidence or luck, hallucinations induced by heavy drugs or tumors in your brain. Whatever it is, it's not real.

[PC2]

Bit of a bold assumption that you have eyes with cones to react to light and transfer the information. All you really know is you have a mind that perceives an image. Everything else is supposition and faith.

Yes that's exactly right, I only assume I have eye cones because I think that constitutes a good explanation for how I receive sensory information. But I've never actually proved that I have eye cones so I do have to take it on supposition and faith that it's the best explanation. It's not that we want it to be this way it's that we don't have any choice on the matter.

[Muajin76]

anyone ever watch the spooky as fook doll vids on youtube?
i dunno..those give me the creeps somethin seriously.

[Shadowferal]

The next era of awakening of human intellect may well produce a method of understanding the qualitative content of equations. Today we cannot. Today we cannot see that the water flow equations contain such things as the barber poll structure of turbulence that one sees between rotating cylinders. Today we cannot see whether Schrodinger's equation contains frogs, musical composers or morality or whether it does not.
~~Richard Feynman

[kail]

We may not understand everything, but neither does some psychic or other group that claims to have it figured out.

I acknowledge what can be observed and tested. Claims of an afterlife so far lack both. I am not adamant that we go nowhere, but so far it is the only reasonable explanation until further discoveries prove otherwise.

[Polyxo]

I experience the supernatural every once in a while. I will have dreams that turn out to be the future. It's just my future, and it's usually nothing remarkable. The most interesting things have been my going to a restaurant that didn't exist yet with my friends, and just a nice day hanging out at home in a house that I hadn't lived in or been to yet. I don't have any way of proving it, and I've never dreamed of anything particularly important, but some of them do happen exactly as I dream them. My best guess for a natural explanation is that the universe is deterministic and something about REM sleep kind of picks up on snippets of brain states in the future.

[Shadowferal]

I experience the supernatural every once in a while. I will have dreams that turn out to be the future. It's just my future, and it's usually nothing remarkable.

Same here.
I explain it to myself that dreams sometimes touch upon the space-time connection in the human mind.

[PC2]

I experience the supernatural every once in a while. I will have dreams that turn out to be the future. It's just my future, and it's usually nothing remarkable. The most interesting things have been my going to a restaurant that didn't exist yet with my friends, and just a nice day hanging out at home in a house that I hadn't lived in or been to yet. I don't have any way of proving it, and I've never dreamed of anything particularly important, but some of them do happen exactly as I dream them. My best guess for a natural explanation is that the universe is deterministic and something about REM sleep kind of picks up on snippets of brain states in the future.

You dream the future lol, sounds absurd but you should try and exploit it in some kind of betting situation.

[Polyxo]

You dream the future lol, sounds absurd but you should try and exploit it in some kind of betting situation.

I mean, if there were ever something important, it would be useful, but it's generally not. Usually these dreams are like, I'm at work, I'm talking with some client or whatever, I finish up, go to my car, I'm driving home, check the mail, and then I wake up or whatever. It's usually just some snippet out of regular, daily life.

[Shadowferal]

I mean, if there were ever something important, it would be useful, but it's generally not. Usually these dreams are like, I'm at work, I'm talking with some client or whatever, I finish up, go to my car, I'm driving home, check the mail, and then I wake up or whatever. It's usually just some snippet out of regular, daily life.

That's probably because it's your personal timeline.
When it happens to me...I hate it.

[PC2]

The problem is you can't really dream the future because the information relating to what happens tomorrow won't be created until tomorrow comes. The only future information that you can have is limited to a theory such as "the sun will always rise each morning", however theories can't be right so there will come a day where even that is not true.

-Update-

Or you can run a computer simulation forward in time but that can't really give you much useful information either because it's mainly things like the economy that we care about which can't be simulated since we can't know what new choices people will make.

[Teleros]

I don’t believe in ghosts or the supernatural because in the age of everything being captured and recorded, the verdict should be out already. And it is. No ghosts.

I'm a Christian, so yes I do.

Anyway, in keeping with avoiding certain topics, here's the issue - you're assuming that SUPERnatural phenomena can be subjected to natural laws - ie the stuff that science is about. There's a huge difference between saying "the supernatural must be logical" (eg the law of non-contradiction must apply) and "the supernatural must be explicable by natural law" (ie scientific instruments & all that).

Think about the etymology of "supernatural", ie "superior to the natural", as in "not subject to the same constraints". It's not so much a case of comparing apples to oranges as comparing apples to motorbikes.

Obviously, if you're a materialist - ie you believe in nothing supernatural or immaterial (like the soul, or minds as anything other than the "operating system" of the entirely material brain etc), then the supernatural cannot exist by definition, because everything is subject to natural laws.

In addition, there are an awful lot of recorded things that make no sense based on our current understanding of science. Lots of inexplicable near-death experiences, or this miraculous recovery that defied medical knowledge, or the UFOs caught on US Navy jet cameras a few years back & recently in the news... the list goes on and on. Point is, an awful lot of inexplicable stuff IS recorded.

[Powerogue]

I'm a Christian, so yes I do.

Anyway, in keeping with avoiding certain topics, here's the issue - you're assuming that SUPERnatural phenomena can be subjected to natural laws - ie the stuff that science is about. There's a huge difference between saying "the supernatural must be logical" (eg the law of non-contradiction must apply) and "the supernatural must be explicable by natural law" (ie scientific instruments & all that).

Think about the etymology of "supernatural", ie "superior to the natural", as in "not subject to the same constraints". It's not so much a case of comparing apples to oranges as comparing apples to motorbikes.

Obviously, if you're a materialist - ie you believe in nothing supernatural or immaterial (like the soul, or minds as anything other than the "operating system" of the entirely material brain etc), then the supernatural cannot exist by definition, because everything is subject to natural laws.

In addition, there are an awful lot of recorded things that make no sense based on our current understanding of science. Lots of inexplicable near-death experiences, or this miraculous recovery that defied medical knowledge, or the UFOs caught on US Navy jet cameras a few years back & recently in the news... the list goes on and on. Point is, an awful lot of inexplicable stuff IS recorded.

That's the thing though: why should things labeled "supernatural" get this convenient loophole? Many, many things once thought unknowable and supernatural ultimately proved to have natural causes. No relevant demographic actually thinks Zeus and Thor are up there causing our weather anymore. If we had taken the claim of "those things are supernatural and therefore unknowable with science" as the end-all, we never would have learned what really causes weather.

So labeling things "supernatural" seems to be, historically, nothing but a hinderance to finding the real explanations, which have been, in 100% of all cases where we acquired a clear answer, not supernatural.

[Teleros]

That's the thing though: why should things labeled "supernatural" get this convenient loophole? Many, many things once thought unknowable and supernatural ultimately proved to have natural causes.

It's a matter of definitions and evidence.

For example, ghosts are generally supposed to be able to walk through walls & other solid objects. Based on our current scientific understanding, that's flat-out impossible. Thus either our understanding of physics is very, very wrong, or some things get to cheat.

If we had taken the claim of "those things are supernatural and therefore unknowable with science" as the end-all, we never would have learned what really causes weather.

On the contrary, you can still learn a lot without having to resort to science. Philosophy & reason can do an awful lot of work, and much like science can be considered natural philosophy, so too can theology be considered something like supernatural philosophy. Remember too that there are whole branches of knowledge today for which there is zero scientific evidence, but which is nonetheless true. All sorts of immaterial things like ideas are used & discussed despite the total lack of scientific evidence for them.

[Powerogue]

It's a matter of definitions and evidence.

For example, ghosts are generally supposed to be able to walk through walls & other solid objects. Based on our current scientific understanding, that's flat-out impossible. Thus either our understanding of physics is very, very wrong, or some things get to cheat.

Or, notably exempt from consideration here for some reason, that ghosts aren't real. Billions upon billions of people and other organisms have lived and died, and I'm expected to believe only a tiny shred of those died with "unfinished business" and for some baffling reason are always depicted wearing clothes? By all accounts the expected evidence to prove ghosts should be extremely easy: Just have one of those ghosts on film, in broad daylight, subject themselves to scientific testing. We should have so many of them to spare they should be overlapping each other by now.

The expectations set by the claim are not met. Unless you change the claim to that ghosts are completely invisible and undetectable by all senses, which throws out anyone claiming to have encountered ghosts.

There's the problem, and the reason things get labeled "supernatural." Once we try to define these things, and our expectations of evidence from that hypothesis, they fall apart immediately. It's only by stopping asking questions that we're able to hold up anything as supernatural.

I don't see why you'd bring up philosophy. Everyone knows ideas don't have to manifest as physical objects in reality.

so too can theology be considered something like supernatural philosophy.

Rebranding doesn't change anything. If these ideas can't be demonstrated to be a part of our physical reality, then they indeed remain entirely concepts held in philosophy. Also known as imagination.

[Teleros]

Or, notably exempt from consideration here for some reason, that ghosts aren't real.

I thought the assumption that ghosts were real for my argument didn't need stating :P .

Billions upon billions of people and other organisms have lived and died, and I'm expected to believe only a tiny shred of those died with "unfinished business" and for some baffling reason are always depicted wearing clothes? By all accounts the expected evidence to prove ghosts should be extremely easy: Just have one of those ghosts on film, in broad daylight, subject themselves to scientific testing. We should have so many of them to spare they should be overlapping each other by now.

I've no idea how such things work. For example, per the standard Christian worldview, animals don't have immortal souls, so you shouldn't expect all these random animals to hang around after dying: they die and poof - are gone. Now for those beings with immortal souls, what are the conditions for (a) hanging around, (b) being visible etc, and (c) moving on, if at all...? Search me. You're making far more assumptions about these things than I am.

I don't see why you'd bring up philosophy. Everyone knows ideas don't have to manifest as physical objects in reality.

My point was that there's no scientific evidence for ideas, yet we know they're real - ie, they're an example of something that is immaterial but real. Science cannot analyse such things - you cannot measure the electrical charge of an idea, or compute its velocity, or rest mass, or the extent to which it warps space-time or whatever. Thus, there exist things that science cannot measure, and thus there are limits to science beyond which real things can exist.

[Powerogue]

My point was that there's no scientific evidence for ideas, yet we know they're real - ie, they're an example of something that is immaterial but real. Science cannot analyse such things - you cannot measure the electrical charge of an idea, or compute its velocity, or rest mass, or the extent to which it warps space-time or whatever. Thus, there exist things that science cannot measure, and thus there are limits to science beyond which real things can exist.

Something only "existing" to that state is hardly worth talking about though. If that's as "real" as ghosts are, then ghosts are as real as Russel's teapot floating around in space or the invisible pink unicorn I like to think lives in my front yard. Amusing to talk about, and that's it.

The thing is I could start prodding you with questions on your definition of ghosts, but, dependably, every time I prove you wrong you'll just change the definition. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

That's why I set down a clear, falsifiable definition of what a ghost is, based off common claims, and we were able to see it fall apart in seconds. The only way people keep claiming ghosts exist is by intentionally avoiding ever making it clear. If something is intentionally written to be undemonstrable, then it can't be falsified, and people can be duped into taking it seriously even though it has as little evidence of being a part of reality as the unicorn or space teapot.

It's very straightforward: If something is unfalsifiable, you can't honestly claim that it's true, because you can't determine that it's not false.

That's why, with any claim brought up, supernatural or otherwise, the first question to ask is "how would we prove this false?" Or, as I had heard it put in a debate, "What, if anything, would ever change your mind?"

(On another note re-reading your post, we can measure the electrical charge of ideas as they pulse throughout the brain, and even have a decent understanding of which ideas and emotions correspond to which areas of the brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain)