I know a couple of highly regarded clinicians... just not sure if they are still in practice. Most of my cohorts are emeritus or have taken their shingle in, so I might have to get references to some of their students.
The amount of "influence" we have had to our galaxy, let alone the universe is so minuscule, that the probability of any advanced civilizations even if they were looking, seeing us in real time is so remote. Let's not forget that the light we see from distant stars and planets is many many light years old. Lots can go on in the intervals. Let's not forget that space is appearing to be expanding faster than the speed of light.
Gonna say it again, there might be something out there, but still, they haven't been here.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ripTDR For This Useful Post:
I'm still not clear on if we've also confirmed the existence of ghosts.
We have not, but it looks like we may have accidentally confirmed something about the after life similar to what I theorized (I doubt this is a unique theory) while I was in school, that our lives "flash before our eyes" at death establishing the heaven/hell scenario. This was a thought experiment assignment in response to a question about consciousness and near death experience scenario.
What I theorized was the near death experience (NDE) was a naturally created response to impending death as the body tries to save the brain. I hope that we can all agree that the last thing to die is the brain, and the brain runs on a soup of neurochemicals that allow function for minutes after physical death. As the brain senses impending death, the brain receives a "power surge" of blood and neurochemicals as the body attempts to protect the brain from the end. The change in chemistry connects massive numbers of neurons and floods what is left of our consciousness with the memories stored within those connections. Depending on the types of memories that recalled during this last moment of consciousness is whether you end up in light (heaven) or dark (hell). Of course this could not be tested and confirmed, which is probably why it was deemed a thought experiment.
This discovery doesn't go deep into the details of the physiological response to dying, but the brainwave activity disclosed is consistent with a push of neurotransmitters. This is pretty cool and does help explain the gateway to the afterlife and the perceptions people may have with the NDE.
Well if people who don’t have any mental defects claims to have seen ghosts you have to conclude they are credible. You just do
If you're going to trying to make a clever putdown at least be correct in what you're trying to put down. If people do not have an cognitive defects we must accept that they have memories of ghosts, or anything else they are claiming to remember. Unless we can prove otherwise.
It wasn’t a clever putdown. It was an example of how absurd your argument was. Most ghost claims can’t be proven false given the lack of physical evidence.
I’m not sure how one statement
You have to believe UFO abductee experiences
And
You have to believe Ghost encounter experiences
are so different that one is fact to base belief of extraterrestrial on and the other is a clever put down.
That you feel insulted by your own logic is on you.
Also you appear to have moved the goal post as you are now saying they have memories not that those memories are real.
Last edited by GGG; 03-05-2022 at 07:18 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Ghosts are extremely unlikely to exist. If your logic leads to believing they do, there is a flaw in your logic, premises, or both. If ghosts did exist, the multitude of attempts to obtain proof of them should have succeeded by now.
Unlike aliens, ghosts can be tied to a location or a person. That no one has found any evidence of them outside of people's memories is almost certainly due to there not being any ghosts to leave such evidence.
I guess my reductio ad absurdum didn't deter someone who is more willing to believe in the ridiculous rather than contemplate the thought he might be wrong.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I remember reading stuff about how the Anunnaki or Nephilim or whatever were ancient aliens, that all religions are based out of interactions with ancient aliens when I was a kid.
OMNI was one of my favourite magazines.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
It wasn’t a clever putdown. It was an example of how absurd your argument was. Most ghost claims can’t be proven false given the lack of physical evidence.
Hmmm, I never suggested ghosts were real. Just the opposite. That shows how ####ty your reading comprehension skills are.
Quote:
You have to believe UFO abductee experiences
And
You have to believe Ghost encounter experiences
Actually, you don't. The only thing you have to do is determine the validity of the memories. This is a determination of what the person believes to be true and trying to determine the reliability of the memory.
Quote:
That you feel insulted by your own logic is on you.
I don't feel insulted. I actually don't feel anything about this, or toward you, other than embarrassment for you. I felt sorry for you by your weak attempt at a put down. I've dealt with much smarter and wittier people than you, so your attempt was just so embarrassingly weak that I felt it best to give you tips on how to be better in your weak personal attacks.
Quote:
Also you appear to have moved the goal post as you are now saying they have memories not that those memories are real.
It's not moving the goalposts, its reality. The memories that people have are the memories that people have. For you to suggest that you know better without proper examination is a joke. How can you possibly know the condition of someone without either interviewing them, or placing the trust in the individua that did interview them? That's the thing. If the methodology is consistent, I tend to believe the clinician, because they are educated and versed in these interviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jammies
Ghosts are extremely unlikely to exist. If your logic leads to believing they do, there is a flaw in your logic, premises, or both. If ghosts did exist, the multitude of attempts to obtain proof of them should have succeeded by now.
Agreed. Which is why I don't think such entities exist.
[/QUOTE]Unlike aliens, ghosts can be tied to a location or a person. That no one has found any evidence of them outside of people's memories is almost certainly due to there not being any ghosts to leave such evidence.[/QUOTE]
Preaching to the choir sister. I find it highly unlikely that ghosts exist, but unlike you, I am still open to the possibility, should someone present some convincing evidence. I have yet to see that, but if they did, I would reconsider my position. You? You made up your ignorant little mind a long time ago.
Quote:
I guess my reductio ad absurdum didn't deter someone who is more willing to believe in the ridiculous rather than contemplate the thought he might be wrong.
Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk
No one said ghosts exist. NO ONE. I didn't even suggest there was a possibility for them to be real, even though I try to maintain an open mind to the possibility should evidence be forwarded. What I actually presented was a case to explain away the NDE, which is very much the basis for the belief of the soul and the trapped soul explanation for paranormal activity. It is the brain making a last gasp as relevance before we depart this mortal coil, kind of like every single thought you have and try to pass off as being germane to any serious discussion. So take your reducto absurdum (I love the wikipedia generation) and stow it in your ignarus prope animo asino, because you completely swung at a pitch in the dirt and accused me of something I clearly did not suggest. Reading comprehension is strictly optional for the millennial set.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
No one said ghosts exist. NO ONE.
I said if the same standards for evidence of aliens you believe in was applied to other unsubstantiated human experiences - like ghosts - you must conclude that ghosts are also real. Despite your obfuscating attempts to avoid admitting it, you haven't made any cogent arguments that would invalidate this conclusion, so you have indirectly claimed that ghosts do exist. If you don't think the same standards of evidence should apply to ghosts as UFOs, and therefore also prove ghosts exist, why not?
Try answering in short sentences and in no more than one or two paragraphs. Also, for bonus credit, explain why stories of witches, or homeopathic medicine's efficacy, or religious miracles shouldn't be taken at face value as well - surely the same evidentiary rules you champion should apply to all phenomena?
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
I said if the same standards for evidence of aliens you believe in was applied to other unsubstantiated human experiences - like ghosts - you must conclude that ghosts are also real. Despite your obfuscating attempts to avoid admitting it, you haven't made any cogent arguments that would invalidate this conclusion, so you have indirectly claimed that ghosts do exist. If you don't think the same standards of evidence should apply to ghosts as UFOs, and therefore also prove ghosts exist, why not?
Try answering in short sentences and in no more than one or two paragraphs. Also, for bonus credit, explain why stories of witches, or homeopathic medicine's efficacy, or religious miracles shouldn't be taken at face value as well - surely the same evidentiary rules you champion should apply to all phenomena?
Bonus credit section...
I think if you approach these questions with the perspective that there is so much we simply cannot understand but should never stop trying, it's better than the approach you seem to take.
I thought this thread was about UFO's anyways, not ghosts or leprechauns or unicorns. Let's keep our eyes on the ball here, I think its an important discussion, it shouldn't be derailed.
Actually, you don't. The only thing you have to do is determine the validity of the memories. This is a determination of what the person believes to be true and trying to determine the reliability of the memory.
I don't feel insulted. I actually don't feel anything about this, or toward you, other than embarrassment for you. I felt sorry for you by your weak attempt at a put down. I've dealt with much smarter and wittier people than you, so your attempt was just so embarrassingly weak that I felt it best to give you tips on how to be better in your weak personal attacks.
It's not moving the goalposts, its reality. The memories that people have are the memories that people have. For you to suggest that you know better without proper examination is a joke. How can you possibly know the condition of someone without either interviewing them, or placing the trust in the individua that did interview them? That's the thing. If the methodology is consistent, I tend to believe the clinician, because they are educated and versed in these interviews.
Again I wasn’t attempting a personal attack. I was merely showing what I thought your position was was absurd. And I don’t really bother to read multi-quote diatribes. That style of posting is not productive on a message board. If you can’t make your post on your phone sitting on the toilet then you are being far to verbose an ineffective at communicating.
But anyway I took your position to be
That people of sound mind recalling an event after inspection by a qualified clinician should be accepted as evidence that the event occurred.
What I am hearing you now say is people of sound mind recalling an event after inspection by a qualified clinician should be believed that they have the memory that they state they have.
Can you in one sentence state your position.
I disagree with the first but agree with the second. I believe that some people believe they have been abducted by aliens this to me lends almost no evidence that aliens abductions occur.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I said if the same standards for evidence of aliens you believe in was applied to other unsubstantiated human experiences - like ghosts - you must conclude that ghosts are also real. Despite your obfuscating attempts to avoid admitting it, you haven't made any cogent arguments that would invalidate this conclusion, so you have indirectly claimed that ghosts do exist. If you don't think the same standards of evidence should apply to ghosts as UFOs, and therefore also prove ghosts exist, why not?
Try answering in short sentences and in no more than one or two paragraphs. Also, for bonus credit, explain why stories of witches, or homeopathic medicine's efficacy, or religious miracles shouldn't be taken at face value as well - surely the same evidentiary rules you champion should apply to all phenomena?
Would be nice but I suspect Lanny is a salesman or a politician in real life
