Why i don't believe in ghosts as potrayed in popular culture?

[Ivan Seeking]

OK, Here is the argument.

Point 1. I take "credible" here to be in the context of science. I.e. repeatable empirical evidence.

Not all evidence is repeatable. Can you produce ball lightning on demand? Can you produce Earth lights or sprites on demand? Given that not all real phenomena can be produced on demand, we are forced to accept supporting evidence. Specifically what supporting evidence for ghosts would you accept?

Point 2. The semantic meaning of "ghost" I am taking in the usual context of a disembodied spirit of a once living person.

Okay, so in order for any reports to be credible, they must meet your criteria that they be reports of supernatural entities, and not possibly some other entity or phenomenon not yet identified. How precisely do you justify this constraint?

Point 3. The existence of ghosts presupposes a dualistic reality, i.e. both the existence of the material world and a spiritual world. (Note the gnostic version of the material world as "illusion" and only a spiritual world is invalidated by the positivist outlook. Its real because we experience it. The material world is the world of systematically classifiable experiences. Illusion= sensory perception contrary to material reality, we identify illusions by being systematic in our observations and so a.) if there is no reality to be contrary too you can't have an illusion and b.) systematic observations cannot be contrary to themselves.)

That is an assumption designed to invalidate your artificial constraint. What's more, a seat of the pants philosophical argument has never been proof of anything.

Point 4. The manifestation of ghosts presupposes that the spiritual and material world may interact and thus that we may through repeatable experiment affect and observe this "spiritual world".

How do you assume that observations be repeatable as if on demand? Given your premise, do we assume that Casper agrees to take a test?

This either through material manifestations of ghostly effects (emitted photons and such) which we can record or more directly the fact that a "ghost" is supposed to formerly be an occupant of a material corpus which it affects and is affected by during its life, or that a ghost may directly influence the spiritual component of a living person.

Okay, so now we are supposing the characteristics of the soul? Isn't that a bit of a leap?

Point 5. Such interactions would most likely have been measurable and observed in the laboratory.

Most likely? Based on what information?

Given they interact we really cannot draw a line between material and spiritual realms. One is really just supposing an extension of the empirically observable universe beyond what we have empirically observed in our history of systematic investigations of nature. Its like asserting that an elephant has been living in your back yard for years and you just haven't noticed the footprints.

Really! I say centuries of reports constitute an elephant.

Point 6. The "ghost" idea has very strong emotional baggage in our culture as it ties in with our fear of death and sorrow at the loss of family and friends who have "ceased to function on the material plane". Thus stories tend to be wrapped around expectations and fears, subject to intentional fakery, exaggeration, and out-right delusion. All of this undermines any credibility a story may have.

So you can show that this applies in all cases; or even in most cases? Or are you generalizing to satisfy your own expectations?

Point 7. We're talking Ghosts here fourkricesake! Do I need to cite references to argue that "credible stories of Santa Claus" and "credible stories of the Easter Bunny" are likewise oxymorons?

How many adults report encounters with Santa or the Easter bunny?

And if my position here offends your belief systems then that's just tough cookies. Get over it.

You are now acting like a child. If you cannot conduct yourself in a respectable manner, then do not participate in this forum.

 

[resolvent]

Why not believe that ghosts are the souls of the departed? Other than the fact there is no evidence that souls exist, none.

Souls - consciousness - what's the difference?
You're conscious, right (unless you're really a Turing machine)?
Why split hairs and create contention over nothing but silly unnecessary semantics?

 

[nietzsche]

well, i know it's a little late to be talking about the OP's post, but

when a person dreams, their eyes are closed, and they are not necessarily "detecting" any visible light. but you still have visions when you dream.

 

[DaveC426913]

Souls - consciousness - what's the difference?
You're conscious, right (unless you're really a Turing machine)?
Why split hairs and create contention over nothing but silly unnecessary semantics?

They are not the same thing at all.

A soul, by common definition, survives death.

If you use the word soul, people will rightfully assume this definition.