First of all, I would say that philosophy and science have fought against such explanations only since the Enlightenment/Rationalism era. Many of the philosophers until (including) the Victorian...
First of all, I would say that philosophy and science have fought against such explanations only since the Enlightenment/Rationalism era. Many of the philosophers until (including) the Victorian era were occult practitioners and/or believers in one religion or another. Even in the 20th century, a substantial fraction were, and I would venture that in this one many are as well. Wanting to describe reality accurately doesn't mean wanting to fight against certain explanations (which is imho pretty unscientific; you want to provide a better explanation for the sake of understanding, not for the sake of destroying something you don't like), and in fact, most scientists and philosophers that I know will only talk about their own field and will try to avoid entering murky waters. If what you meant is that for centuries (if not millennia) science and philosophy have provided explanations for phenomena that were better than the original ones and didn't require magical thinking then I agree to a certain extent (I mean if you follow the train of "reasons" and "causes" and "processes" and "systems" that produce an observable, then at some point you need assumptions; whether that a quantic soup exploded or that a brain synchronized or whatever you want... but most scientists will say to that that it is "out of the scope of this project").
Second, I would argue that "causes" are in many cases spooks too. Causality is very difficult to define mathematically, not to mention identifying causes and effects (which require a lot of untestable/unverifiable assumptions). I do agree that magical thinking can lead to negative effects but the belief in Rationalism with capital R can lead to just as much dogmatic thinking, misconceptions, fallacies, etc. as any other dogmatic belief. For example, could you describe in precision what do you mean by "correctly reason" and why is that the correct way to reason?
Speaking now only about ghosts, maybe people who see them are mentally ill, in which case we should study exactly the nature of that illness. Maybe they aren't but it's a natural and positive function of the brain to visualize certain parts of your identity and externalize them to be able to understand them, then we should probably study why is this good or why it isn't and act accordingly. Maybe there is some residual energy of some sort that we still can't quantify and some people that can pick on it. Or maybe there really are spirits of some sort. My problem with blanket statements like yours (yours was pretty mellow, so sorry if I'm being a bit too harsh on you, haha but I think it's an interesting discussion) is that they directly negate the premise of something being worthy of study just because of some sociological construct of what constitutes something rational and what doesn't.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! I find it really interesting too. This is generally my issue too. That we can't even talk about ghost or whatever on any level.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! I find it really interesting too.
My problem with blanket statements like yours ... is that they directly negate the premise of something being worthy of study just because of some sociological construct of what constitutes something rational and what doesn't.
This is generally my issue too. That we can't even talk about ghost or whatever on any level.
I believe that belief in the supernatural is irrational and not supported by facts, which is why I think it is something one must stoop to. Nothing in science suggests that ghosts exists and most...
I believe that belief in the supernatural is irrational and not supported by facts, which is why I think it is something one must stoop to. Nothing in science suggests that ghosts exists and most stories or "evidence" people bring up is easily explained as coincidence, an animal, miss-interpretation of the events, or just plain embellishment/lying.
I don't understand all the superstition on tildes, it's weird for a form with such a high concentration of people in IT to believe in something so contrary to modern science.
Tildes has a lot of IT folks, but I think it's pretty clear that it has a lot of range in the groups contained in that. The principles it's built on don't necessarily appeal as much to the kind of...
Tildes has a lot of IT folks, but I think it's pretty clear that it has a lot of range in the groups contained in that. The principles it's built on don't necessarily appeal as much to the kind of libertarian Dawkins-reading type that is often assumed to fill up tech-related spaces.
The idea that science is the only way to access truth (on a personal level, even) is pretty bold and not something that should be assumed as the default position for everyone you encounter.
Why would you need to believe in supernatural entities in order to lead an ethical life? Why not just be ethical for your own sake and that of your loved ones and fellow man? It is a failure of...
Why would you need to believe in supernatural entities in order to lead an ethical life? Why not just be ethical for your own sake and that of your loved ones and fellow man? It is a failure of character if the only thing that motivates you to be a good person is fear of other-worldly consequences. This reminds me of Steve Harvey and his "moral barometer".
Personally, I don't believe it's about need, but about being reminded. There's more than just leading an ethical life. It's also about justice for those that no longer have a voice. When I listen...
Why would you need to believe in supernatural entities in order to lead an ethical life?
Personally, I don't believe it's about need, but about being reminded. There's more than just leading an ethical life. It's also about justice for those that no longer have a voice. When I listen to haunting stories about massacres, I'm not thinking "I shouldn't murder people", I'm reminded of the history there.
The only reason to hold any assertion to be true is because there is solid evidence supporting it. Positive affects of belief are irrelevant. The only way a person can "choose" to believe...
The only reason to hold any assertion to be true is because there is solid evidence supporting it. Positive affects of belief are irrelevant. The only way a person can "choose" to believe something is if they don't actually care if their beliefs accurately reflect reality or not.
I know when my grandmother died, I knew the exact moment. I had been walking around her farm while she was in the hospital when I got a feeling of a hand on my shoulder and a chill hit me. I...
I know when my grandmother died, I knew the exact moment. I had been walking around her farm while she was in the hospital when I got a feeling of a hand on my shoulder and a chill hit me. I walked back to the house and when I walked through the door, my sister was on the phone with my dad, learning of the death. From that moment, I have always believed in ghosts. Many years later, my daughter was supposed to be sleeping while she was around 5 or 6. My wife heard her talking and went into the room to find my daughter sitting in bed and having a conversation with my wife's recently deceased grandpa.
Take a moment and consider what you experienced. Neither of those accounts should in anyway lead you to a belief in ghosts. Even if you somehow sensed that something was wrong when your...
Take a moment and consider what you experienced. Neither of those accounts should in anyway lead you to a belief in ghosts. Even if you somehow sensed that something was wrong when your grandmother died, that would be a completely separate phenomenon to ghosts. As for your daughter having a conversation with your wife's late grandpa, I don't find that particularly compelling considering their age.
The fact is these experiences are strange, but they should not in anyway compel you to believe in ghosts. To do so is to rob yourself of fully exploring reality. We shouldn't explain things we don't understand with convenient superstitions. The world is much more interesting than any of that and we have the tools at our disposal to investigate it.
Logically, sure there's probably not ghosts and I don't run around attributing random things I don't understand to ghosts or the supernatural. However, there are some things that I have...
Exemplary
Logically, sure there's probably not ghosts and I don't run around attributing random things I don't understand to ghosts or the supernatural. However, there are some things that I have experienced and there are no logical explanations that I am able to come up with. Certain things that I have seen/felt have compelled me to believe in forces that we have no way to detect at this moment in time. Perhaps it's all just weird coincidences, but it doesn't harm me or anyone around me for me to attribute those illogical coincidences to an external unknown force that I can't see or control. At the same time, if science is able to explain why I experienced what I did, or why my daughter experienced what she did I would likely have no problems accepting that answer. But I will never be able to travel back in time 20 years and run tests or experiments as to what else was happening when I first felt a ghost. Realistically, it was/is probably just my mind playing tricks on me but the world is too interesting to me to get hung up on whether something like ghosts could be real or not. Instead I accept that there's something that I don't understand, I attribute it to a "ghost" and I go about my life. Maybe it's some sort of electro-magnetic field that 99.99% of the time we ignore but at certain moments we are susceptible to sense it. The actual and scientific answer doesn't matter all that much to me, what matters is that fact that at more than one point in my life it's helped me to cope with certain situations.
I don't see how this is true. I could just as easily say that you have an impoverished understanding of reality, because you don't experience a belief in ghosts. To say that the naturalistic...
To do so is to rob yourself of fully exploring reality.
I don't see how this is true. I could just as easily say that you have an impoverished understanding of reality, because you don't experience a belief in ghosts. To say that the naturalistic interpretation is "more interesting" is totally subjective. The "scientific" view isn't bigger or better, it's just more empirical.
There are those who see what a naturalistic interpretation of reality has lead to. All that empirical science as revealed and those that reject it all because we can't be sure about it's...
There are those who see what a naturalistic interpretation of reality has lead to. All that empirical science as revealed and those that reject it all because we can't be sure about it's fundamental axioms. I know it can be wrong and I know it can't be proven correct. However I don't have any interest in talking with someone who trusts their own experiences beyond everything else. It's unproductive if our fundamental assumptions are so different.
People underestimate just how fucking weird PEOPLE are, cuz of taboos and stuff. It forces people to come up with extra explanation for stuff that's happened. Going from weird experience to...
People underestimate just how fucking weird PEOPLE are, cuz of taboos and stuff. It forces people to come up with extra explanation for stuff that's happened. Going from weird experience to believing in ghosts is a massive jump in logic, IMO.
It reminds me of when I was a youth, a big family story that went around was that my Aunt was held down by a ghost, as it "ghost raped" her. Like, she was traumatized, the family came together and people talked about it for YEARS. There was no proof of anything of course, because her and her husband were divorced so she slept alone and since it was a "ghost" doing all of this, of course there was no physical signs of abuse.
Turns out she has pretty serious issues staying asleep and was experiencing her first bout of sleep paralysis. She literally waited a decade to talk to a doctor about it. She was so terrified about the non-existant figure over her that she even assigned the damn thing some intentions (to rape), and a backstory (dead rapist killed by wife, IIRC). Anyways, she's way less crazy now and all it took was the doctor being like, "yeah that happens to people."
I have similar stories too. I remember when my grandmother passed away, on the seventh night (which is when our dead returns to see us one last time), my cat went crazy and was just playing and...
I have similar stories too. I remember when my grandmother passed away, on the seventh night (which is when our dead returns to see us one last time), my cat went crazy and was just playing and jumping after an invisible ribbon following, we think our grandma, as she went to each of our rooms. My grandma was buried with a dress that had a dangling ribbon. Our cat has never done anything like that before or since. Of course, we'll never know for sure if she came back to say goodbye as a ghost, but I still find it nice to think she did.
I have a relative who is diagnosed with Schizophrenia. He converses with people who aren't there, just like John Nash did in real life and in A Beautiful Mind. I have a friend who sees auras....
Speaking now only about ghosts, maybe people who see them are mentally ill, in which case we should study exactly the nature of that illness. Maybe they aren't but it's a natural and positive function of the brain to visualize certain parts of your identity and externalize them to be able to understand them, then we should probably study why is this good or why it isn't and act accordingly.
I have a relative who is diagnosed with Schizophrenia. He converses with people who aren't there, just like John Nash did in real life and in A Beautiful Mind. I have a friend who sees auras. There are people who see 'colors' of numbers. It's a condition called Synesthesia. Labelling such conditions as simply a defect or illness doesn't account for why they exist in the first place. This is a 'dark' area that Science is just beginning to explore, in my opinion. It may be that useful knowledge of this area is simply beyond the limited rational capability of humans. In that case, it's entirely possible that machine learning would someday get to that point of 'understanding', as machines are now able to exceed the ability of humans to play games such as Chess and Go.
In any case, these 'abnormal' people are still humans, and deserve study by someone or something and right now deserve help when their lives are admittedly difficult. Is filtering out a potential genetic basis for this 'illness' desirable for our society? On the face of it, the answer is yes. Further experience and study will tell.
First of all, I would say that philosophy and science have fought against such explanations only since the Enlightenment/Rationalism era. Many of the philosophers until (including) the Victorian era were occult practitioners and/or believers in one religion or another. Even in the 20th century, a substantial fraction were, and I would venture that in this one many are as well. Wanting to describe reality accurately doesn't mean wanting to fight against certain explanations (which is imho pretty unscientific; you want to provide a better explanation for the sake of understanding, not for the sake of destroying something you don't like), and in fact, most scientists and philosophers that I know will only talk about their own field and will try to avoid entering murky waters. If what you meant is that for centuries (if not millennia) science and philosophy have provided explanations for phenomena that were better than the original ones and didn't require magical thinking then I agree to a certain extent (I mean if you follow the train of "reasons" and "causes" and "processes" and "systems" that produce an observable, then at some point you need assumptions; whether that a quantic soup exploded or that a brain synchronized or whatever you want... but most scientists will say to that that it is "out of the scope of this project").
Second, I would argue that "causes" are in many cases spooks too. Causality is very difficult to define mathematically, not to mention identifying causes and effects (which require a lot of untestable/unverifiable assumptions). I do agree that magical thinking can lead to negative effects but the belief in Rationalism with capital R can lead to just as much dogmatic thinking, misconceptions, fallacies, etc. as any other dogmatic belief. For example, could you describe in precision what do you mean by "correctly reason" and why is that the correct way to reason?
Speaking now only about ghosts, maybe people who see them are mentally ill, in which case we should study exactly the nature of that illness. Maybe they aren't but it's a natural and positive function of the brain to visualize certain parts of your identity and externalize them to be able to understand them, then we should probably study why is this good or why it isn't and act accordingly. Maybe there is some residual energy of some sort that we still can't quantify and some people that can pick on it. Or maybe there really are spirits of some sort. My problem with blanket statements like yours (yours was pretty mellow, so sorry if I'm being a bit too harsh on you, haha but I think it's an interesting discussion) is that they directly negate the premise of something being worthy of study just because of some sociological construct of what constitutes something rational and what doesn't.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this! I find it really interesting too.
This is generally my issue too. That we can't even talk about ghost or whatever on any level.
I believe that belief in the supernatural is irrational and not supported by facts, which is why I think it is something one must stoop to. Nothing in science suggests that ghosts exists and most stories or "evidence" people bring up is easily explained as coincidence, an animal, miss-interpretation of the events, or just plain embellishment/lying.
I don't understand all the superstition on tildes, it's weird for a form with such a high concentration of people in IT to believe in something so contrary to modern science.
Tildes has a lot of IT folks, but I think it's pretty clear that it has a lot of range in the groups contained in that. The principles it's built on don't necessarily appeal as much to the kind of libertarian Dawkins-reading type that is often assumed to fill up tech-related spaces.
The idea that science is the only way to access truth (on a personal level, even) is pretty bold and not something that should be assumed as the default position for everyone you encounter.
I don't think that the article was literally telling you to believe in ghosts. It's just a fun headline.
Why would you need to believe in supernatural entities in order to lead an ethical life? Why not just be ethical for your own sake and that of your loved ones and fellow man? It is a failure of character if the only thing that motivates you to be a good person is fear of other-worldly consequences. This reminds me of Steve Harvey and his "moral barometer".
Personally, I don't believe it's about need, but about being reminded. There's more than just leading an ethical life. It's also about justice for those that no longer have a voice. When I listen to haunting stories about massacres, I'm not thinking "I shouldn't murder people", I'm reminded of the history there.
The only reason to hold any assertion to be true is because there is solid evidence supporting it. Positive affects of belief are irrelevant. The only way a person can "choose" to believe something is if they don't actually care if their beliefs accurately reflect reality or not.
I know when my grandmother died, I knew the exact moment. I had been walking around her farm while she was in the hospital when I got a feeling of a hand on my shoulder and a chill hit me. I walked back to the house and when I walked through the door, my sister was on the phone with my dad, learning of the death. From that moment, I have always believed in ghosts. Many years later, my daughter was supposed to be sleeping while she was around 5 or 6. My wife heard her talking and went into the room to find my daughter sitting in bed and having a conversation with my wife's recently deceased grandpa.
Take a moment and consider what you experienced. Neither of those accounts should in anyway lead you to a belief in ghosts. Even if you somehow sensed that something was wrong when your grandmother died, that would be a completely separate phenomenon to ghosts. As for your daughter having a conversation with your wife's late grandpa, I don't find that particularly compelling considering their age.
The fact is these experiences are strange, but they should not in anyway compel you to believe in ghosts. To do so is to rob yourself of fully exploring reality. We shouldn't explain things we don't understand with convenient superstitions. The world is much more interesting than any of that and we have the tools at our disposal to investigate it.
Logically, sure there's probably not ghosts and I don't run around attributing random things I don't understand to ghosts or the supernatural. However, there are some things that I have experienced and there are no logical explanations that I am able to come up with. Certain things that I have seen/felt have compelled me to believe in forces that we have no way to detect at this moment in time. Perhaps it's all just weird coincidences, but it doesn't harm me or anyone around me for me to attribute those illogical coincidences to an external unknown force that I can't see or control. At the same time, if science is able to explain why I experienced what I did, or why my daughter experienced what she did I would likely have no problems accepting that answer. But I will never be able to travel back in time 20 years and run tests or experiments as to what else was happening when I first felt a ghost. Realistically, it was/is probably just my mind playing tricks on me but the world is too interesting to me to get hung up on whether something like ghosts could be real or not. Instead I accept that there's something that I don't understand, I attribute it to a "ghost" and I go about my life. Maybe it's some sort of electro-magnetic field that 99.99% of the time we ignore but at certain moments we are susceptible to sense it. The actual and scientific answer doesn't matter all that much to me, what matters is that fact that at more than one point in my life it's helped me to cope with certain situations.
I don't see how this is true. I could just as easily say that you have an impoverished understanding of reality, because you don't experience a belief in ghosts. To say that the naturalistic interpretation is "more interesting" is totally subjective. The "scientific" view isn't bigger or better, it's just more empirical.
There are those who see what a naturalistic interpretation of reality has lead to. All that empirical science as revealed and those that reject it all because we can't be sure about it's fundamental axioms. I know it can be wrong and I know it can't be proven correct. However I don't have any interest in talking with someone who trusts their own experiences beyond everything else. It's unproductive if our fundamental assumptions are so different.
People underestimate just how fucking weird PEOPLE are, cuz of taboos and stuff. It forces people to come up with extra explanation for stuff that's happened. Going from weird experience to believing in ghosts is a massive jump in logic, IMO.
It reminds me of when I was a youth, a big family story that went around was that my Aunt was held down by a ghost, as it "ghost raped" her. Like, she was traumatized, the family came together and people talked about it for YEARS. There was no proof of anything of course, because her and her husband were divorced so she slept alone and since it was a "ghost" doing all of this, of course there was no physical signs of abuse.
Turns out she has pretty serious issues staying asleep and was experiencing her first bout of sleep paralysis. She literally waited a decade to talk to a doctor about it. She was so terrified about the non-existant figure over her that she even assigned the damn thing some intentions (to rape), and a backstory (dead rapist killed by wife, IIRC). Anyways, she's way less crazy now and all it took was the doctor being like, "yeah that happens to people."
She fuckin' sold the house, for christ's sake.
I have similar stories too. I remember when my grandmother passed away, on the seventh night (which is when our dead returns to see us one last time), my cat went crazy and was just playing and jumping after an invisible ribbon following, we think our grandma, as she went to each of our rooms. My grandma was buried with a dress that had a dangling ribbon. Our cat has never done anything like that before or since. Of course, we'll never know for sure if she came back to say goodbye as a ghost, but I still find it nice to think she did.
I have a relative who is diagnosed with Schizophrenia. He converses with people who aren't there, just like John Nash did in real life and in A Beautiful Mind. I have a friend who sees auras. There are people who see 'colors' of numbers. It's a condition called Synesthesia. Labelling such conditions as simply a defect or illness doesn't account for why they exist in the first place. This is a 'dark' area that Science is just beginning to explore, in my opinion. It may be that useful knowledge of this area is simply beyond the limited rational capability of humans. In that case, it's entirely possible that machine learning would someday get to that point of 'understanding', as machines are now able to exceed the ability of humans to play games such as Chess and Go.
In any case, these 'abnormal' people are still humans, and deserve study by someone or something and right now deserve help when their lives are admittedly difficult. Is filtering out a potential genetic basis for this 'illness' desirable for our society? On the face of it, the answer is yes. Further experience and study will tell.