Spirits and other incorporial things

Spirits are apparently beings that can have thoughts and can interact with the material world, but are not themselves material, that is they are made out of something that is not matter.How is this possible? Are they made out of something that is above matter, meaning it can decend to interact with matter but doesnt have to? If so isn't this just another form of matter?Or is it possible to have something that has thoughts but is completely immaterial.Perhaps you are a materialist and beleive that there is nothing other than matter, if so you would dismiss sprits as faulty beliefs. If so what is the evolutionary advantage of such beliefs? (I have my own theorys but am interested what others think).

Sooo, good idea, bad idea, needs work, whats the verdict?

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This is a very interesting question Dormamu.
It is the one that has always given me the biggest problem when it comes to whether or not to believe in God or not.My dilema is that I grew up in a house that was quite obviously haunted by something, in fact a group of somethings, that equally obviously were not made of matter. At least they weren't matter as I understand the term.I was also brought up in the unusual position of having a religious mother and a non-religious father. However, both of them (also my younger brother and I) saw and experienced things which could not be explained by conventional science. Things moving on their own, strange inexplicable noises and voices from nowhere, the occasional sighting of some glowing figure walking through the house.In all there seemed to be 5 different entities (and I use that word loosely) inhabiting the house with us. None appeared to be malicious and at least one was almost a friend to me while I was young.As far as science goes I have no explanation for any of this. All I know is that something is going on that we can't catagorise with known scientific facts. Equally, religion tends to view such entities either as evil or as signs from God. I don't subscribe to either viewpoint. I just know something is there. This isn't faith. It is personal experience backed up by any number of family members and friends who have been there during inexplicable episodes and saw, felt, heard exactly the same as I did.I welcome anyone who would like to explain any of this in a logical and non biased manner.PYPS I seem to keep bumping into you Dormamu. Maybe I am drawn to the same threads as you.

And in the time you were there, did you taske any photographs, video, audio recordings, anything?

Nope. Can't say that I did. We didn't actually own a video camera, tape recorder or anything beyond a very basic TV with 2 channels in those days.All this means is that I can't prove any of this stuff to you or anyone else. If you were there at the time then I assume that you would have saw, felt, heard the same as I did but from an evidence point of view, I don't have a jot of it. Just like I have no evidence to prove catagorically that I put on a clean shirt this morning. Completely besides the point I know, but I know I did just like I know what I saw. I have heard all the arguments about hallucination and group hysteria and I don't buy any of them. They have less evidence than I do. I saw what I saw while they are just making suppositions.All I am saying is that something inexplicable happened.PY

Technically, they have more evidence than you do. All the evidence you have are memories, which we have proven over many times that they cannot be trusted.Memories aren't like photographs where everything stays the same. Over the years, things are added onto them and in some cases they become comletely different things. The phenomenon is called false memory syndrome. I have false memories just like everybody else. Tell you the truth, I can remember things that never happenned.I am not trying to say that you are wrong. I don't know you and I don't have enough evidence to go either way, though the total lack of evidence would lead me to believe that there were no such things that you described.My question is how come claims of paranormal activities almost always have no evidence at all? Even when there are photographs or video, they would be out of focus.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

Hi Lam

quote:

---

My question is how come claims of paranormal activities almost always have no evidence at all? Even when there are photographs or video, they would be out of focus.

---

I have often wondered the same thing myself. I always watch all the shows I find that relate to this on TV and I am amazed that nobody has ever put forward one ounce of credible evidence (that I know of)for paranormal activities

quote:

---

Technically, they have more evidence than you do. All the evidence you have are memories, which we have proven over many times that they cannot be trusted.

---

I don't quite agree with this but I do see your point. I would say that eyewitness testimony would always be considered as better evidence than someones unfounded theory to explain away what happened, particularly when the events were witnessed by multiple people who will all swear to the same story.I agree that memories become embelished over time and tend to become more exagerated with each retelling of the story. I recognize that in myself just as any rational and honest person has to. I have had dreams that have become very powerful memories and are extremely difficult if not impossible to distinguish from real life on occasion.Anyway, my point was that I propose that there are a lot of different things, states of matter (or not-matter) included, that science cannot explain (yet). My hope is that these kind of things can be investigated by mainstream science and not relegated to the realms of "crackpot" psychic investigators. Science in general does not seem willing to either beleive in or look for anything supernatural.Who knows? There might be a whole new feild of science just waiting to be discovered.PY

It is not. Above matter? As in superior to? This statement is nonsensical. In order for 'something to have thoughts, it must first think. Thinking is a function of a brain. So it is not possible to have something that has "thoughts" if it is immaterial. Not faulty, just silly. Evolution has nothing to do with primitive superstitions. *edit mis quote.*This message has been edited by 1.61803, 11-18-2004 02:36 PM

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

Well, it's not just an unfounded theory. There have been experiments that showed that you can reproduce the same kinds of paranormal experience in laboratory conditions.Take alien abduction, for example. Scientists have been able to observe people being "abducted" in laboratories. After those experiments, all of the subjects swore that they were indeed abducted by aliens the previous night when in fact they were in the the beds in the lab the whole time. What happenned? The scientists didn't do anything. Those people experienced what we call sleep paralysis.So, when you speak of eye witness accounts, you need to also think of the eye witnesses that you are talking about. Untrained people tend to jump to conclusions at the slightest hint of whatever it is they are looking for. Combine that with a simple dream, many years afterward, and false memory syndrome and you get a fantastic story of paranormal experience.In laboratory conditions, scientists have video footages that can prove that things happenned. People's memories versus video tapes. You decide which ones are more reliable. As an objective person, I completely agree. There is one thing we know for certain. What we don't know is a lot more than what we do know. Yup. I've always wondered why psychic powers don't work if we have an unbeliever in the room. Just why is that?I've read many accounts and I've been to one of those psychic readings with some friends. They all seem to share the same introduction: if there is an unbeliever in this room, my "gift" won't work.I mean, what the hell is that? Does a tv not work if you don't believe in it? Does your computer not work if you don't believe in it? Here is why. Science deal with things that are consistent and things that can have a direct effect to their surrounding environment. By definition, supernatural "stuff" are not consistent and by golly they don't seem to have any affect on their surrounding environment.If we can't measure or see, how the hell can we find out how much the car weighs?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

quote:

---

Well, it's not just an unfounded theory. There have been experiments that showed that you can reproduce the same kinds of paranormal experience in laboratory conditions.

---

The unfounded theory I was talking about was actually "group hysteria" which seems to be the favorite put down for anything involving masses (more than 2 or 3 anyway) of people who all see the same inexplicable thing at the same time. I don't know whether you were talking about the same thing or not since I don't know anything about these lab experiments regarding alien abduction.

quote:

---

So, when you speak of eye witness accounts, you need to also think of the eye witnesses that you are talking about. Untrained people tend to jump to conclusions at the slightest hint of whatever it is they are looking for. Combine that with a simple dream, many years afterward, and false memory syndrome and you get a fantastic story of paranormal experience.

---

All very true and reasonable. It quite possibly explains a whole bunch of otherwise inexplicable things that people remember. In this particular case though, I am not refering to a single incident but to something that I lived with for 25 years with hardly a day going by without something strange happening.All I really know for sure is I grew up in one heck of a weird house. Something was totally not right about the place. I think it would be pushing it a little too far to assume that every one of my thousands of distinct memories is completely false. Some may be. Some may be exagerated. A few might be dreams even, but too much stuff happened over too long a period to dismiss it out of hand.

quote:

---

I've read many accounts and I've been to one of those psychic readings with some friends. They all seem to share the same introduction: if there is an unbeliever in this room, my "gift" won't work.

---

Been there. Done that. Bought the T-Shirt. Came to exactly the same conclusion. I have yet to come across any kind of pshychic that isn't a bare faced charlatan (prove me wrong Anyone!) out to deceive the unwary and divest them of their cash.
I have tried all kinds of stuff to find sensible answers but either nobody has any or they ain't talking.

quote:

---

Here is why. Science deal with things that are consistent and things that can have a direct effect to their surrounding environment. By definition, supernatural "stuff" are not consistent and by golly they don't seem to have any affect on their surrounding environment.

---

This is the point where we might disagree depending on how open minded you are. From reading your posts in other threads I would say that you are pretty much so maybe you will see my point.Science does indeed deal with facts and reproducible universal constants but in certain scientific circles there does seem to be a certain mind set that sets out with the bias of dis-proving something simply because it doesn't quite agree with the conventional view. This has always been the case. Every scientist deviating from these views (with very few exceptions) has been initially greeted with ridicule or open hostility. There was a time when belief in a ball shaped world or that the sun doesn't revolve around the Earth, were punishable by all kinds of horrible things.I just feel that in some instances, science can be self blinding and this more than anything else, holds back the progress of new theories.Maybe there is something other than regular matter out there. Stuff that can pass through regular matter like it isn't there. Maybe "ghosts" or other "spirits" exist in another parallel universe but are occasionally able to affect ours.
I don't know the answers and I don't really know if anyone is seriously trying to find out. The fact that it is possible to reproduce "Alien abductions" in a controlled laboratory experiment does not prove that no real alien abductions have taken place. It just shows another possible explanation.It seems to me that this field has too many questions and not enough real answers.PY

My brother reluctantly concluded that he believed in ghosts because he realized the reason he didn't believe in ghost was so that ghost would leave him alone. Seems to have worked so can ghosts read our minds or what?Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go awayWhen I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn't see him there at allI've seen several attributions most common to Hugh Mearns.lfen

Well, you are half way right but not completely. There seem to be certain mindset that sets out to disprove something that doesn't agree with conventional view because that is exactly the case. Officially, that is what a scientist is suppose to do, set out with the goal to disprove anything that isn't conventional. When he realizes that he can't disprove it, then it becomes part of the conventional.In a way, modern science is largely influenced by 2 major philosophies of all times: Pragmatism and Skepticism. According to both of these philosophies, you question before you believe. The purpose is to avoid any possibility of "group think" in which one agrees simply because everybody else seems to agree.So, if there is something that comes up that isn't part of mainstream science, it will have to stand up to much scrutiny before it can be accepted as part of modern science. A classic example is the big bang theory. There was a time when almost every physicist and astronomer in the world was skeptical of the theory. Well, in a way you are right but in another way you are wrong. It is science's greatest strength to criticize itself and any new aspect of it. It was a great leap foward when philosophers came up with skepticism and showed that the old scientific method (if there was such a thing), which was based heavily on indoctrination and conclusion-before-experimentation, was inadequate when dealing with direct observations.For example, projectiles when fired parallel to teh ground seemed to always fall in a parabolic shape, and yet people insisted that they go in a straight line and take a 90 degree turn toward the ground when they run out of "horizontal energy" as was predicted by Aristotle.So, I would say that what you described is a weakness because sometimes it takes a long time for progressive ideas to be accepted. However, it is also one of science's greatest strength because it weeds out the "crackpot" ideas that people come up with. An example is creationism You are right. Right now the official name for it is dark matter. We also have a name for such matter. It is called neutrinos. Pretty cool hypothesis. I believe there are those that are trying to make the study of supernatural phenomenon a valid branch of science. However, this group of people are currently standing up to scientific scrutiny that darwinists used to face. You are right. However, it does prove that at least some of the reported cases of alien abductions are nothing more than sleep paralysis and that we need to be critical, not necessarily skeptical, of alien abduction in general. Truer words can't be said.

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!

So it looks as if we are pretty much in agreement across the board other than a few minor quibbles about scientific methodology. I still asert that some (but not all) scientists set out to disprove a proposal with a very closed mind and actively try to find information within the experimental results, which they can use to affirm their position that the thing in question doesn't exist or is preposterous or some other terminology. (takes a breath)It is very healthy to set out with a skeptical attitude when examining a hypothesis but is is unhealthy in the extreme when the sole reason for the investigation is to disprove the theory rather than discover the unbiased truth in it. If an honestly investigated experiment yeilds an unbiased result that refutes the hypothesis then science is one step closer to affirming that the hypothesis is wrong. This is not always the case though.
Sometimes it appears that scientists are so set in their ways as to almost be a religion where it is sacraligious to even suggest anything against the commonly (but not always correctly) held view.

quote:

---

PurpleYouko writes:
Maybe there is something other than regular matter out there.
You are right. Right now the official name for it is dark matter.

​

Stuff that can pass through regular matter like it isn't there.

​

We also have a name for such matter. It is called neutrinos.

---

I considered saying "other than dark matter" in my original comment. I don't think anyone has ever shown that dark matter exists on our planet but then I am not an expert in that field.Neutrinos are subatomic particles aren't they? I doubt they could be responsible for "ghost" sitings but who knows?Perhaps there are consciencious researchers out there who are really looking for answers with an unbiased mind. I hope there are. Trouble is that they are all likely to be labeled as cranks and crackpots and are very unlikely to get any serious funding for their research.
Take the "Ghostbusters" as an example of how people view this kind of research.
Yes I know they weren't real. Even my memories aren't quite that distorted
It is just that the story does kind of ring true in the sense that their funding got cut just as they were starting to make headway.PY

But how are you suppose to know if the "theory" is valid or not unless you've illuminated every possibility that could potentially make the thoery invalid? The only way for you to be able to illuminate those possibilities is to be skeptical of the theory itself and seek out and investigate those possibilities.It may seem like closemindedness but I assure you it is the best way to make sure mainstream science doesn't turn into a joke.Besides, if a theory is really valid, why would it be afraid to stand up to scrutiny?

---

Hate world.Revenge soon!