I dont have to.

So many people think that you need proof to not believe something. Its the other way around bud.

Its called credulity, if a lack of evidence makes you believe something you are credulous. I myself am incredulous. Please provide actual evidence that can be verified and examined, or else its not something I feel obliged to consider real.

If you are honest with yourself you would do the same.

Where most people draw the line is with popular opinion, or if someone they respect and believe to be an authority says so. That goes straight to the heart of credulity.

Bias is bias.

To be objective means to regard anything as possible but nothing as actual until demonstrated vigorously.

Well, that precisely where I'm coming from.

I'm not claiming that spirit exists.

All I'm saying is that spirit hasn't been ruled out.

If it hasn't been ruled out then it's just as valid to look into it as anything else.

Even scientists do experiments to rule things out.

But before I can rule them out I must do those experiments.

Especially with regard to something like contacting potential spiritual consciouness.

You can tell me that you've done the experiment and found no evidence of spirits to contact.

I wouldn't question that.

But since spirits are indeed presumed to have their own free will, then your experiments may not apply to me. Maybe, for whatever reason, these spiritual beings weren't prepared to communicate with you, but maybe they are willing to communicate with me.

That's the problem when we're working with free will consciousness.

The 'repeatablity' of the experiment vanishes.

You might make contact with spirits and tell me precisely what you did. I do the same thing and get no answer.

Why? Because spirits have free will and maybe they just weren't intersted in talking to me.

The very fact that spirits have free will (presumably if they exist at all) throws a wrench in the normal Scientific Method.

That's the only point I would make.

In other words, no one else can rule spirit communication out for me. Only I can do that.

And if I should succeed in contacting a spirit, that doesn't gaurantee that you could do it.

And the whole reason is because the spirits would be the ones to decide who they will reveal themselves to.

Perhaps we can't force them to do that if they aren't willing?

That's hypothesis that you'd have to consider.

You see, if you were using any good evidence, you would not have used wikipedia. Anyone can put whatever they want on there. Not the most cedible source.

Secondly, While you make that argument, will we ever know if there is valid evidence? Really think about it. If I show you a picture, you'll think it's fake. People claim that science can prove it wrong, but a simple picture will be dismissed. A simple video capturing one will be dismissed.

http://www.easternstate.org/halloween/sightings/

I am not stating the evidence is right or wrong. Are you capable of proving these wrong? You can theorize, and state any sort of law of physics. But really can we say it's wrong?

This is indeed an interesting thread.
I am part of a local (To my area) paranormal investigation team titled "Greater Hazleton Area Paranormal Society" (GHAPS: Pronounced GAPS) For one, the start of each investigation starts mentally. We are going into these places that are "haunted" with the idea that there IS indeed a logical explanation. I was the disprover in the team when I joined. I didn't believe at all.. And that was exactly why I was drafted to the team. I didn't believe in it. But after so long, there weren't any logical explanations or any sensible reasons why certain things happened. That's why I wound up getting laid off of the team for a brief period of time, because I didn't believe in their non-existence anymore. I got put back on 9 months ago as investigation coordinator and since then, ended up being in charge of investigation operations of the team. Most "hauntings" or "ghost sightings" aren't real, but I will say this.. After 5 years of experience, you find that some things are not explainable and that some things are real.

Wow you dont get it at all. One does not prove things wrong. One gathers evidence to prove something exists, then does tests to rule out things like forgeries . . . .

So if I told you I live with a Sasquatch in log cabin in the middle of the forest and 7 dwarves rent the upstairs, you would believe me until you could prove me wrong? That is not logical thinking, that is gullibility.

I love reading those old Irish or Scottish Ghost Stories for entertainment, yet when I did visit these countries many believe them to be true. That earlier Kings and Queens without heads roam the castles still today.

It could be propaganda to have more visitors come or it could be real. That is something everyone will have to decide on their own.

for everything else there is mastercard. lol

You know what I find to be sooooo much fun.

When with a group of friends or even people I have just met at this type of location (supposedly haunted), I will REALLY play this up and get people really on edge, then I will bust into the room and trying to scare the pants off of everyone, or setup spooky looking things in dark corners and see who runs and who wets themselves.

I am so happy to be the only person absolutely not phased at all. One time I was dared to spend the night in a haunted celler and the guy who dared me was soo convinced it was haunted and that I would end up dead that he bet me $200, the sad fact was the next day when I went to collect he was full of excuses and I did not get my money, but its a hoot to really rub it in that type of persons nose.

The excuses usually end up something like this . . . . . well you didn't believe so they wont show themselves to you . . . or your assertive nature scares them off, or . . . blah blah blah.

I love scaring people, you would be amazed what poeple see when they are scared . . .

I think science is putting cabosh on most of this stuff, but it makes the world a less interesting place

Maybe, but then it makes the human psyche all the more interesting.

Hypnopompia


So just because someone made up a name for this state of consciousness, you call that science or "fact?" That is so much crap I can't believe you accept that lame explanation as science or as fact.

The level of consciousness this article describes is what Robert Monroe calls "Level 10" It is when the body is asleep and the mind is still aware or awake. This level of consciousness can be learned and practiced and it is the state one must get into before doing astral or out of body activities or 'travel.'

Martial artist and Ninja fighters and other fighting arts learn how to reach this state so that they can detect when their enemy is sneaking up on them even when they are apparently sound asleep.

So someone decides to call it "hallucination" because what is seen and experienced by the individual who is in this state cannot be seen and experienced by an outside observer. Blah blah balh.. but I'm not surprised by that at all.

Even Robert Monroe thought he was hallucinating or insane when he started doing this and when he started doing out of body travel and meeting entities (non human life forms). He went to several psychiatrists and they told him he was not insane or psychotic.

This is where one might get into the discussion about what is real. To the mind, if it has a real effect on you, and it looks real and feels real and is indistinguishable from 'reality' then who determines if it is real?

If a state of consciousness CAN exist that can convince the observer that what he sees IS REAL, then logic follows that this current reality that we all see (together) and AGREE UPON can very possibly also be a so-called "hallucination."

What makes it "reality" then, is that we all share the same experience, see the same thing and we all agree that it is "real."

So as Skyhook has always asserted, reality is determined by agreement.

So what other things about this reality makes it appear to be real? Well, its duration. It is not here one minute and gone the next. It seems to be a persistent illusion or a persistent hallucination (as Einstein called it.)

Also, the senses we have are so enhanced that we can feel, touch, taste, smell, hear and see things and interpret them as "real" things because they last as long or longer than we (observers) do.

But what science defines as an "Hallucination," cannot be seen or verified by the community or group, so they have AGREED that it is NOT real but a hallucination.

But they are not the final authority of what reality is. They are just a community who agrees what it is and they assert their authority upon others.

As far as 'ghosts' are concerned, they probably do exist, but I don't take much interest in them. They can't have much power because they have no way of functioning in this reality being disembodied. (no body)

Scientific advances has always been about unpopular ideas held by a few, or even one, who went out and proved it through experimentation while being mocked by the current system of belief/science. NO ONE ever discovered anything without believing in the possibility first. In some cases the findings were disregarded for years before being widely accepted. (such as the world being flat/center of the universe... need I go on.) I am not saying you should believe something to be true without evidence, I am just saying to actively disbelieve without evidence to the contrary is shortsighted. Who knows what is possible and what is not, we only perceive a very small part of reality. That being said I don't know what the paranormal is... be it ghosts, demons, angels, overactive imagination, spirits or something we have not even conceived of yet.

This is so so flawed!!!

So if I disagree, then reality itself does not exist?

I knew this was all a dream!

Why do people think that ghosts can harm them? How would you "end up dead?" Via a ghost? Ghosts, if they exist can't go around killing people.

Now inter dimensional aliens who come through a vortex to our dimension... now thats another story.. LOL

That is not what I said.

You do agree with the scientific community about reality correct?

Why?

Probably because of some of their findings and because of what they call "evidence." But why to you believe that? Probably because you accepted their logic and conclusions. You were not there personally conducting all the experiments. You just agreed with their findings.

Did you not?

If you did not agree with them, "reality" (as you believe it to be)would not cease to exist. But for you, it would just be different than theirs. You would see things differently. And you would disagree with them. You would believe your own version.

You could be right and they could be wrong.

But because they are the majority, you would be laughed at or ignored and they would tell you to "prove" your version.

You could offer you version of "proof" and they could accept it or reject it or ignore it.

It is all about agreement.

Yeah that can be fun. I do this all the time with my family. Keeps the heartbeat going

Try going to a old European castle one day where the locals truly believe ghosts live there. That is a bunch of fun to see how the people react when you talk about it.

The big question is, if everyone shares the same belief because of certain evidence and agrees on something does that make it true?

I don't think so personally.

But again if EVERYONE said it did, the single person (if one existed) who knew the real truth would be looked upon as a moron or an insane person.

This scenario implies the possibility that even if we think we know truth, and even if we all agree, we could be wrong.

Actually if a ghost does exist, I wouldn't mind meeting one. That would actually be fascinating.

To bad Hollywood makes ghosts into something gruesome and dangerous.

Come on! How can you not like Casper the friendly ghost