Do you believe in spirits?

[Nailed To Gold]

Originally Posted by SeaWeed

just talking about humans in general

Ok..... define what you mean by "spirit".

Here's the etymology of our English word Spirit....
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?...wed_in_frame=0


Do you mean a freaking ghost or are you talking about the Latin spiritus

Please clarify.

[Cognitive Defeat]

There's an assumption here that the term spirit/ghost/whatever is a post-death incarnation and therefore cannot logically exist. I can agree with that. What I don't necessarily believe is that it must then be a fault in sensory perception or simply a lie to have witnessed such a thing.

I like to consider that there could be the possibility of parallel universes, i.e. multiverse theory, and such anomalies are echoes of other probabilities.

But hey, I'm no akkademik.

[discombobulation]

+1 on Antaeos' remarks.

Considering how ridiculously fallible our senses are (and the complex psychology of why people like to fabricate stories), it's just the far more likely explanation for reported phenomena.

I think a lot of people place their senses, and in a broader sense their subjective experience, far too high on the list of things that produce a representative picture of the world.

Don't get me wrong, subjectivity is very important and is probably the higher meaning of life for the human species. But that does not equate to it being good at interpreting and representing the world as it really is.


BTW since you're in the UK, did you watch that Horizon on the unconscious mind? Really fascinating.

[FreshFlesh]

Originally Posted by Chromaticity

I do. 100%. I'll post a story later.

[Cognitive Defeat]

Originally Posted by discombobulation

BTW since you're in the UK, did you watch that Horizon on the unconscious mind? Really fascinating.

No, I really don't watch much TV at all so I missed this but I'd definitely like to check it out.

On a side note it seems to me that humanity is moving more in the direction of a collective mindset than individuation. The internet itself is like a collective hive of human intellect. Because of the internet the individual may now be more liberated than ever, but there seems to be a power shift happening from the old ideas of enterprise, hierarchical control and intellectual property toward anonymity, the free sharing of ideas, and power (i.e. hacktivism, the arab spring, occupy etc.)

[discombobulation]

Originally Posted by Cognitive Defeat

No, I really don't watch much TV at all so I missed this but I'd definitely like to check it out.

Ahh you have to scope it. Unfortunately it's not on iPlayer anymore, but some samaritan has ripped it here

Everyone should check that shit out.

[Spew]

I don't believe in ghosts, well... I did when I was a kid. I've got some cool stories though.

I grew up in an old house and lived across the road from a cemetary (So metal). Growing up I shared a bedroom with one of my brothers.

One night we were chatting away talking about crap and I was staring up at the ceiling. I was in the middle of saying something and I then saw a dark hand come down from the ceiling above my head. I was absolutely petrified.

All I could manage was a stammered: "J-J-J-Joel!?" (my brothers name) and he snapped up out of his bed and ran to turn the light on. As he ran to the light switch I saw the dark hand rise back up to the ceiling.

He ran over to me and I was freaking the fuck out. My brother is normally a pretty chill guy but he looked really worried. He said I was really pale and sweating like crazy. I told him what I saw and he believed me when I said I thought it was a ghost. He said he knew something was up when I went REALLY quiet mid-sentence and he ran over to the light when he heard me whimper his name lol.

In the morning, we told my Mum about it and she went pretty quiet for a couple of minutes. My Mum asked me where the hand landed and I told her it touched me with the tip of it's middle fingers on my forehead. She started to cry a little bit, gave me a hug and told me that's what her Dad used to do to say goodnight to her when he tucked her in. I was like: "TELL HIM TO LEAVE ME ALONEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!"

I later found out from my Antaeos-like friend that in reality I was just about to fall asleep and just half asleep, half awake. It makes sense though, still a cool story.

[Cognitive Defeat]

Originally Posted by Spew

I was just about to fall asleep and probably lucid dreaming (half asleep, half awake).

That's not lucid dreaming but yeah, that happens a lot to me.

[Spew]

Thanks. Edited so I don't confuse everyone.

[discombobulation]

What you're talking about is a hypnagogic state

[Cognitive Defeat]

On another side-note I'm trying to teach myself to become fully lucid, It's difficult.

[Hunter Drugs-Hendrix]

They exist and are delicious



this one is very rare and super yummy

[Grindmasterflesh]

I wonder how magnets work

[Popegina]

But what about a ghost shit? That is something that science truly cannot explain.

[Sculpy]

Originally Posted by discombobulation

+1 on Antaeos' remarks.

Considering how ridiculously fallible our senses are (and the complex psychology of why people like to fabricate stories), it's just the far more likely explanation for reported phenomena.

I think a lot of people place their senses, and in a broader sense their subjective experience, far too high on the list of things that produce a representative picture of the world.

Don't get me wrong, subjectivity is very important and is probably the higher meaning of life for the human species. But that does not equate to it being good at interpreting and representing the world as it really is.

Erm... and yet science is an empirical endeavor. There is no such thing as objectivity. Everything we understand through physical science is entirely dependent on the way humans perceive and understand things. It may have the benefit of some mass collective agreement, but it remains a mass consensus on subjective conditions and modes of thinking.

I'm no spirit or god nut, and i'm sooner an atheist than a deist, but to pretend that science is the answer for everything, or is somehow the only reality, is very nearly almost as ridiculous. Remember that science by definition proves nothing, it works only by continually disproving. The benefits of its exponential practical applications and seeming clarity should never be misconstrued as truth.

[Spew]

Cool post.

[discombobulation]

Originally Posted by Sculpy

Erm... and yet science is an empirical endeavor. There is no such thing as objectivity. Everything we understand through physical science is entirely dependent on the way humans perceive and understand things. It may have the benefit of some mass collective agreement, but it remains a mass consensus on subjective conditions and modes of thinking.

I'm no spirit or god nut, and i'm sooner an atheist than a deist, but to pretend that science is the answer for everything, or is somehow the only reality, is very nearly almost as ridiculous. Remember that science by definition proves nothing, it works only by continually disproving. The benefits of its exponential practical applications and seeming clarity should never be misconstrued as truth.

Science is an empirical endeavour, but the end goal is empirical evidence, which is different. I'm not sure how empirical evidence can not equate to objective evidence. I think it would be quite misleading to claim that science is dependent on subjective human perception and understanding – that has never been a theoretical ceiling to science, and in some sense science forms an advancement of these two facets of subjectivity; as we learn more about the world through science, our subjective perception and understanding of it changes. There is undoubtedly need for mass agreement, but it is intrinsically dependent on the statistical robustness of empirical evidence – not subjective thinking. The whole paradigm is based on a logical and rational methodology to acquire empirical evidence in order to eliminate subjective bias and step closer to the truth.

Regarding this truth, it does not mean that we are certain of it. Science has always been a field where falsifiability has been at the forefront. Your empirical evidence should prove (usually within a unanimously agreed probability) an objective truth, that could be later falsified by new empirical evidence. It is impossible to disprove something, only to prove something within a reasonable probability. Science offers no claim to certainty, but there is a justified claim to 'truth', as we best understand it using objective empirical evidence. I don't think anyone is claiming that science holds the answer to everything or that science is the ultimate reality. It is, however, the only type of truth that it makes sense to pursue.

In other words, science offers the truth, but cannot offer certainty about the truth. Yet, this is the only sensible way to seek the real nature of 'reality'.

[FreshFlesh]

There is no truth, only perception brom.

[quartertone]

Originally Posted by discombobulation

I don't think anyone is claiming that science holds the answer to everything or that science is the ultimate reality. It is, however, the only type of truth that it makes sense to pursue.

Hang on, you're not suggesting that scientific insights are the only kind of truth that matters in our lives, are you?

[discombobulation]

Originally Posted by quartertone

Hang on, you're not suggesting that scientific insights are the only kind of truth that matters in our lives, are you?

If truth = 'the current best explanation of the way things really are', then in that regard, yes.

What other truths are there to be known?

Subjectivity is fun, but doesn't tell you anything about the 'truth'

[Grindmasterflesh]

Originally Posted by quartertone

Hang on, you're not suggesting that scientific insights are the only kind of truth that matters in our lives, are you?

only death is real!

[GEEsu5]

[Darcangelo]

..who you gonna call?

[quartertone]

Originally Posted by discombobulation

If truth = 'the current best explanation of the way things really are', then in that regard, yes.

What other truths are there to be known?

Er... truths about things emotional, interpersonal, character-developmental etc. etc. etc.? Life's lessons and all that jazz.

[ShadowHunter]

Originally Posted by quartertone

Er... truths about things emotional, interpersonal, character-developmental etc. etc. etc.? Life's lessons and all that jazz.

bah.. that pales in comparison to the truths about the fundamental workings of the universe or the human mind... fucking particles (or strings or whatever turns out to be true), how do they work? and all that jazz :P

[discombobulation]

Originally Posted by quartertone

Er... truths about things emotional, interpersonal, character-developmental etc. etc. etc.? Life's lessons and all that jazz.

Emotions, whilst thoroughly enjoyable as part of the subjective experience of consciousness, do not tell me anything about reality – particularly compared to scientific method. They don't bring me any closer to 'truth' or 'the way things really are'. They are just the subjective emotional response generated by the precise neuroarchitecture of my brain, in response to external stimuli. Fun, but not providing 'truth'.

Interpersonal truth? Not even sure what that really is. But I feel like I would be hard-pressed to have some interaction with someone else shine light on a 'truth', unless that interaction involved some form of convincing argument, ie. one utilising objective evidence to modulate my understanding of the world.

And what is 'character developmental truth'?

My point is that emotions, subjective experience etc. are valuable experiences. But only for self-gratification. I would even go so far as to say that they influence our choices in life, because after all, we make choices to maximise subjective happiness and minimise subjective unhappiness. But they don't tell you more about the fundamental 'reality'.

To be honest, subjectivity itself is just something that has not yet been explained objectively. It is ultimately the product of neuronal firing, nothing more. Consciousness and subjectivity can theoretically be explained objectively, but since it has not yet been fully understood, we refer to it as subjectivity. Once it is objectively explained, we will likely refer to it as the subjective experience. Almost a meta-qualia. This is just my projection though, and I will admit I have not read nearly as much in and around this topic as I'd like to have.

[Goaters]

Originally Posted by Popegina

But what about a ghost shit? That is something that science truly cannot explain.

It's called a ghost wipe where I come from and it's always a sign for good things to come.

[Popegina]

Originally Posted by Goaters

It's called a ghost wipe where I come from and it's always a sign for good things to come.

A ghost shit and a ghost wipe are two different things. The worst is when you take a ghost shit but don't have a ghost wipe.

[ShadowHunter]

Originally Posted by discombobulation

To be honest, subjectivity itself is just something that has not yet been explained objectively. It is ultimately the product of neuronal firing, nothing more. Consciousness and subjectivity can theoretically be explained objectively, but since it has not yet been fully understood, we refer to it as subjectivity. Once it is objectively explained, we will likely refer to it as the subjective experience. Almost a meta-qualia. This is just my projection though, and I will admit I have not read nearly as much in and around this topic as I'd like to have.

i'll just leave this here. pretty cool read and somewhat related ;)

[discombobulation]

Originally Posted by ShadowHunter

i'll just leave this here. pretty cool read and somewhat related ;)

Excellent stuff Scunter, old chap! . I am assuming that this is an offshoot from your computational science shiz.

I just read through it with a margin of haste, as it is 3AM and my elephant is unlikely to fully grasp it at this time of night. This bit tickled me though:

By marking the limit of differentiation they endow us with the illusion of a soul.

As an aside, I will set up a thread after my exams for thought-provoking videos and articles. I need to watch Dan Dennetts stuff too, as I am not familiar with his viewpoints.

I've been in a deep philosophical train of thought over the past few days, unfortunately it is winning my interest far more than my exam content. BAD.