Ghosts and paranormal activity in ED & PR

[NewWave]

Root is just an idiot clearly.

And someone who is also obviously very bitter about something.

[Robert Poste's Child]

> Show me the evidence, otherwise I can recommend

> you to mental health professionals who can help

> with your psychosis.

And I can recommend to you health professionals who can help you understand that this is not psychosis, and that when you mis-use the word in order to dismiss someone else's opinion you're trivialising a horrible and frightening illness.

[root]

Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> > Show me the evidence, otherwise I can recommend

> > you to mental health professionals who can help

> > with your psychosis.

>

> And I can recommend to you health professionals

> who can help you understand that this is not

> psychosis, and that when you mis-use the word in

> order to dismiss someone else's opinion you're

> trivialising a horrible and frightening illness.

Quoting from a book that came up in a casual random search (Fundamentals of International Health), Psychosis is defined as "a generic psychiatric term for a metnal state or condition often described as involving a loss of contact with reality. [snip] People experiencing psychosis maya report hallucinations or delusions and may exhibit personality changes and disorganised thinking."

This seems to describe anyone who believes in fairies just because they are an unfalsifiable claim quite accurately.

[Otta]

NewWave Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Root is just an idiot clearly.

> And someone who is also obviously very bitter

> about something.

I don't think root is an idiot, I don't really disagree with anything root has said,just the way he or she has said it.

[Jeremy]

I basically agree with everything root said (even if I would have put it slightly differently). Whether we're talking about homeopathy, religion, ghosts, or any other supernatural/magic phenomenon.. the only thing that supports any of it, is that people want it to be true. "How can you prove this DOESN'T exist" is a poor defence of any belief. If you can't do better than that, then surely you must have doubts in your own mind?

[Alan Medic]

Jeremy Wrote:

"How can

> you prove this DOESN'T exist" is a poor defence of

> any belief. If you can't do better than that, then

> surely you must have doubts in your own mind?

If this is referring to my take on it Jeremy, I should point out I don't believe in some/all of what root referred to. If I'm defending anything, it is that a belief either way does not prove anything. If you don't believe in ghosts, life after death, fair enough. I will believe in both if I ever experiece either. Until then, I don't know.

[Robert Poste's Child]

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Robert Poste's Child Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > > Show me the evidence, otherwise I can

> recommend

> > > you to mental health professionals who can

> help

> > > with your psychosis.

> >

> > And I can recommend to you health professionals

> > who can help you understand that this is not

> > psychosis, and that when you mis-use the word

> in

> > order to dismiss someone else's opinion you're

> > trivialising a horrible and frightening

> illness.

>

> Quoting from a book that came up in a casual

> random search (Fundamentals of International

> Health), Psychosis is defined as "a generic

> psychiatric term for a metnal state or condition

> often described as involving a loss of contact

> with reality. People experiencing psychosis maya

> report hallucinations or delusions and may exhibit

> personality changes and disorganised thinking."

>

> This seems to describe anyone who believes in

> fairies just because they are an unfalsifiable

> claim quite accurately.

As I understand it, the definition excludes things that fall within the bounds of normal human belief and practice as otherwise you could label everyone psychotic. The truth is neither side can prove their point so it's just a matter of personal belief really.

It's a term used for a serious mental illness. Talking to God (praying) isn't psychotic; God talking to you is.

[root]

Alan Medic Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Jeremy Wrote:

> "How can

> > you prove this DOESN'T exist" is a poor defence

> of

> > any belief. If you can't do better than that,

> then

> > surely you must have doubts in your own mind?

>

> If this is referring to my take on it Jeremy, I

> should point out I don't believe in some/all of

> what root referred to. If I'm defending anything,

> it is that a belief either way does not prove

> anything. If you don't believe in ghosts, life

> after death, fair enough. I will believe in both

> if I ever experiece either. Until then, I don't

> know.

What is coming across is that beliefs, no matter how unsubstantiated, are worthy of some degree of respect.

Let's take ghosts? Do I believe in ghosts? What is a ghost for starters? Can it be defined in some way that I can assume some reasoning has gone into it that it's not just some random gibberish pulled out of a hat? Once we have a clear understanding of what is meant by ghost, what evidence is there to back it up? What tests can be carried out and reproduced, what predictions can be made? Above all, is there something I could test that would invalidate the claim that your o̶n̶e̶ ̶t̶r̶u̶e̶ ̶g̶o̶d̶ ghost is real?

If you cannot then there is no reason why I, or anyone should believe in it. It's not that there isn't the possibility no matter how small that it may exist, is that there is no strong enough a case to even toy with the idea. The contrary is not comparable.

Now why do I get so annoyed with people making claims of ghost and prophets and gods and water with memory and all that stuff? Because they demand to be accepted as valid opinions that deserve to be privileged/protected/respected/whatever. We have that plain moron of Tredinnick not only re-elected but now nominated by fellow Tories to the health committee. And criticism of religions especially in the wake of Charlie Hebdo. Including protests in front of Westminster that free speech should not extend to mockery of people's deeply held deviant superstitions.

[Alan Medic]

I would say that beliefs, no matter how unsubstantiated, are not worthy of disrespect.This is not where you are coming from root. So I disagree with you.

[maxxi]

So, this thread boils down to those who say that giant invisible pixies exist and that anyone who says this is bollocks is being disrespectful or bitter and is challenged to 'prove' this non existence.

You couldn't make it up.

[Alan Medic]

You've never seen a giant invisible pixie maxxi? Open your eyes.

[Burbage]

root Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Now why do I get so annoyed with people making

> claims of ghost and prophets and gods and water

> with memory and all that stuff? Because they

> demand to be accepted as valid opinions that

> deserve to be

> privileged/protected/respected/whatever.

I don't think that's the reason at all.

But never mind that. As all good rationalists know, the most rigorous and objective of scientific inquiry can only disprove an idea, it can never entirely prove one. And in order for science to function at all, it has to start with an unproven idea.

The business of coming up with unproven ideas is, though part of science, not necessarily scientific in itself. And vice versa, naturally. So the Christian Bible, for example, can teach us much good stuff about the behaviour of ostriches, provided you remember that some translations deferred to English-speaking audiences by substituting owls, and thus cannot be dismissed out of hand, even though it's considered religious and thus nonsense well beyond the grasp of strict, Gradgrindian rationalists.

But once you accept, as the wise always do, that even science can't prove anything, then the umproven becomes as possible as it is. Which makes it open to inquiry. But how can you possible know that. As a good rationlist, you obviously have no soul or spirit. But you do have a consciousness? How's that any different? And if you're going to acknowledge having consciousness, then you can't easily deny the existence of thought, even though thougt itself is an almost undefinable and often, according to as valuable as source as yourself, delusional. Thought, when it comes down to it, is an instance of an abstract thing that's unavoidably, necessarily and purely imaginary in itself. In which case, either you can't think at all, or you're stuck with the existence of imagination which, though essential for science itself, remains as indefinable, and thus as valid, as any ghost, soul or spirit.

I may be wrong, but that seems the inevitable conclusion of your line of thinking. So I'd respectfully suggest you reconsider your premise in the light of, among other things, what you consider to be your motivation, and try again. This time, without feeling.

[Jeremy]

Just trying to decypher all that. So you think the process of thought is purely imaginary? And therefore your conclusion is that we cannot dismiss the potential value of other imaginary concepts?

I'd partly agree with the conclusion, even if its based in a flawed premise. Nobody should totally "dismiss" any major religion, it is hard to deny the vast historical and cultural significance. The mythology of the past, the role is played in society and the art, music, architecture, etc that it inspired are, IMO, worthy of respect. But beliefs which have no basis other than historical continuity are not.

[Burbage]

Not quite. But I don't think you can separate thought from imagination in any meaningful way. You might claim that imagination is just a type of thought, but it's difficult to think of, or about, anything without using imagination.

As for imaginary concepts, they're the foundation of whole branches of mathematics and much of what we consider we 'know' about the universe. Over the last ninety years, quantum mechanics has become the foundation of much progress in science and technology. But the fundamental equations of quantum mechanics are based on a 'wavefunction', and not even physicists know exactly what that is, or if it's real. A recent experiment suggests it's real but, as the authors carefully noted, that's only "assuming that a notion of objective reality exists".

We have also seen, in recent years, confirmation of the 'spooky action at a distance' that Einstein's theories predicted, but which Einstein himself was unable to accept on account of it being 'so weird'. In other words, even Einstein couldn't avoid being trapped by historical continuity, even when it went against his own thinking.

This sort of "paradigm lock", as Thomas Kuhn termed it, isn't confined to physics. In biology, the waggle dance has been accepted as a symbolic language giving precise information about food sources between honey bees by a majority of biologists since it was first described as such in the sixties. But forty years on,it's still the subject of some dispute still rumble on.

As I see it, there's not a great difference between the belief of a scientist in a theory they've inadequately challenged and that of a priest, nor reason why there should be. Science is, after all, just as much a social construct as religion. It follows a set of conventions and attempts to explain the world. The difference is only that science tries to do so objectively, rather than subjectively. That 'only' might seem a stretch, but any attempt at objectivity rests on the assumption of the wavefunction-botherers - the assumption that an objective reality exists - and assumption is the mother of all infelicities.

As to whether ghosts exist, the absence of convincing evidence gives us an opportunity to hypothesise in any way we choose. And in the absence of any sensible way to acquire convincing evidence, we can choose what to believe. The mistake the rationalists make is in believing that nothing that can't be disproven can possibly exist. They fall into the trap of believing there's nothing beyond science.

The cultural sphere isn't just for putting in museums and admiring. Even now, cancer scientists are riffling through the ancient recipes of shamans and old wives, seeking potential candidate drugs for investigation, synthesis and trials that may result in new conventional drugs to bring help to millions. And all the while, the millions who believe the shamans and the old wives' tales may very well be benefitting already.

Acupuncture is a good example. It emerges from an ancient set of belief-driven traditions, but still it has a provable anaalgesic effect. The rationalists might scoff, saying it's often no better than placebo, has no long-term effects and that we have no clear idea of exactly how it works. But the rationalists forget that exactly the same can be said of paracetamol and iboprufen. So it really comes down to who you believe, and what historical continuity you find most convincing.

[Jeremy]

In Science, apparent contradictions are treated as discoveries, which lead to new knowledge. Our theories are refined, and built upon. The apparent paradox of "action at a distance" is actually a great example of this... when you discover something which contradicts what you previously believed, then your theories are either incorrect, or only hold true in certain circumstances. So you refine. You grow.

What is the equivalent in religion? You slowly remove the parts of it that no longer fit a modern worldview. Tales which are clearly absurd become recategorised as "metaphorical". Moral teachings which are now found abhorrent are quietly ignored. You pick and choose the bits you like.

Not all abstract social constructs are equal..

[Jah Lush]

That is all I have to say.

http://i1369.photobucket.com/albums/ag237/jahlushhead/10171292_818829754804704_2706684750159589596_n_zpsbboxmdmy.jpg

[root]

Burbage Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> As I see it, there's not a great difference

> between the belief of a scientist in a theory

> they've inadequately challenged and that of a

> priest, nor reason why there should be. Science

> is, after all, just as much a social construct as

> religion. It follows a set of conventions and

> attempts to explain the world. The difference is

> only that science tries to do so objectively,

> rather than subjectively. That 'only' might seem a

> stretch, but any attempt at objectivity rests on

> the assumption of the wavefunction-botherers - the

> assumption that an objective reality exists - and

> assumption is the mother of all infelicities.

>

By that token gravity is only a theory, a social constract as God. I know of many people who jump off planes with parachutes trusting in the belief that gravity will pull them down and the plethora of aerodynamics theories that model he will safely hit the ground at a reasonable velocity.

What I do not see are men of faith throwing themselves off cliffs steadfast in the belief that God will save them.

[Jah Lush]

.

[edcam]

This thread is much more boring than the title suggests.

[Louisa]

That's because no one is talking about paranormal activity or ghostly sightings. It was a fun thread for people with an interest in the topic, but it's been hijacked by people who want to discuss the boring science behind it all. Hence why I gave up on it.

Back on topic for a second. The spirit of a possible farm hand who worked at Heaton's Folly, a former manor close to Rye Lane and Peckham Rye has now been spotted by at least half a dozen people in and around Sternhall Lane, which is an ancient thoroughfare going back into Peckham's rural past. Are there any people who live on or near this road who've experienced or seen anything out of the ordinary?

Louisa.

[edcam]

Indeed, I want spooky stories, not a science lecture.

[root]

edcam Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Indeed, I want spooky stories, not a science

> lecture.

Then go to your local church or mosque.

[Jeremy]

Out of interest Louisa, how did you find out about these sightings around Sternhall Lane? And how did the witnesses deduce that this individual had worked at Heaton's Folly?

[aquarius moon]

root,

Just because you don't believe in something, don't belittle those that do.

As for the 'mind over matter' comment you made, I can assure you it works, otherwise I might not be here now.

If you were a regular poster and I knew you, I'd be able to prove it by going into more detail.

But I don't, so I won't.

If you personally haven't experienced something yet, doesn't mean it won't happen, so why not keep an open mind?

In case it does.

[Louisa]

Jeremy a good friend of mine lived on Sternhall Lane during the mid to late 1970's. Her husband owned a fruit and veg stall on Chourmert Road at the time. She had seen in her front garden what she described as a man in a large straw style hat with a white dirty open top shirt and jodhpur type baggy trousers, minus any feet. He was apparently pushing something into the ground and walking very slowly and went along the side of the road into a wall and disappeared. She was terrified, a total non-believer too. A next door neighbour of hers, elderly lady, told us stories about the old farm hand as he become known who would be seen appearing in the same clothes, always busy doing something like what appeared to be fruit picking and hay making. Well a psychic lady I knew many years ago had told me about various images she had picked up around the Heaton Road/Sternhall Lane junction. She always pictured the old folly first, and a man farming. I don't personally know the precise location of the old folly, or indeed where Sternhall lane lead to. But I would assume from these sightings the farm land of the old manor would have been surrounding it in this area. I would love for some present residents of the area to come forward with some stories. Anyone?

Louisa.