Debate:Ghosts

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Debate.png This is a Debate page.
Feel free to add your own spin on the story. Please keep it civil!
Information icon.svg This debate was created by Your name goes in here.


Proposition[edit]

The True Nature of Ghosts and Hauntings:

Ghosts, or rather the biochemical trigger that causes us to believe in ghosts, has a single evolved purpose, to get us to leave a place where we sense the death of others of our species. This is one of the most ubiquitous survival mechanisms in nature and all creatures so evolved (even Great White Sharks) do it the same way, with biological chemistry. It doesn't take much imagination to realize that we did not evolve here in our modern construct, we evolved in a savage world of super-predators, where going into the wrong cave, the wrong thicket, was likely to be the last mistake anyone ever made. Nature provided us with a mechanism that is capable (for some) of detecting these lingering death markers of our kind, and this triggers two basic reactions depending on genotype. One type is the alarm, and the other is the clean up crew. That is, one genotype warns us it is there long before we can see it, and the other is evolved to fearlessly hunt and kill the super-predator as was essential to our survival as a species. Ghosts, or rather, the chemical con-specific death markers that cause the subjective affect and subsequent belief in them, are matter and not energy. Consequently, it makes sense that we will NEVER be able to catch a ghost on camera, or any other currently used device, and all that the, so called, evidence really proves is that we are so afraid of dying that we will believe anything to manage our fear of our own mortality. There is not a single haunted place, which can be independently verified, as was illuminated by Wiseman's research in the haunted vaults of Edinburgh, that will not have biological contamination caused by human remains, which can be and often is absorbed into the structure or environment itself. There are two very good reasons why the "Skeptics" have all but ignored this ability and all current research on this most ancient of all our senses. The first is that they (Skeptics) will be overwhelmingly over-represented by the genotype that is evolved to -not- get it, and the second is that admission after a century and a half of collective denial will make them look either like fools or liars. Science already supports all necessary components of this theory and the evidence of this being correct is overwhelming. Do we possess the mechanism? (only non-MAOA genotypes) Yes. Do we posses the sensitivity? (only non-MAOA genotypes) Yes, some, as the sensitivity range in chemo-detection is many times that of any other sense. Are all necessary elements present in places believed to be haunted? (All of the top "most haunted" places will meet the necessary criteria, as will any other "haunted" place that can be independently verified by individuals with no prior knowledge (as demonstrated by Wiseman's research at the Haunted Vaults of Edinburgh). Is there a known mechanism that causes the subjective experience? Yes, our TAAR receptors act like alarm signals for "warning" chemical compounds (amines and diamines), which result form the natural breakdown of human remains, and they trigger the release of both amphetamine and hallucinogenic compounds, and the MAOA-L "Warrior" genotype lacks the agonist to receive the hallucinogenic aspect of the effect. This is exactly why we have skeptics and believers. Do we have precedence in the natural world? This is perhaps the most common survival strategy in nature. (Yes) Does the theory adequately explain the descriptions as told by those who claim to sense ghosts? The theory literally fits hand to glove, once the mythology surrounding it is removed. Are there peer reviewed research papers that demonstrate the legitimacy of the theory? Not the whole theory, but the amount of peer-reviewed evidence, necessary for each essential part of the equation necessary to generate the effect and affect are numerous. That Which Remians (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC) Paul McGill (Max) Author: That Which Remains: The True Nature of Ghosts and Hauntings Revealed.

Counter-point: people see ghosts in places they've been primed culturally to see ghosts. Basements and old abandoned houses, regardless of deaths that have taken place there, are very common choices. Both of these post-date any chance of evolutionary psychological influences. While it's not beyond reason that the mechanisms you describe are plausible, suggesting they are a complete story is just counter-evidential. Ikanreed (talk) 20:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

P. McGill writes: Some people believe ghosts are everywhere, but they are not relevant to our theory. We specifically suggested that this will be relevant where individuals without prior knowledge correctly (beyond chance) identify the historically haunted location (i.e., Wiseman, Haunted Vaults), We did not suggest "they are a complete story," but rather that this is the root of the mythology. Furthermore, our observations are not incongruent with the assertions of the Skeptic's; they just complete them. Below find an excerpt from our current book (That Which Remains: Skeleton Key) available soon on Amazon.

After half-a-decade of waiting, on August 18, 2015, the first evidence of our “smoking gun” was published (R. Wisman A, Shrira I, 2015) We have listed the results below, which were quoted directly from the abstract. “...Experiment 1, putrescine increased vigilance, as measured by a reaction time task. In Experiments 2 and 3, brief exposure to putrescine (vs. ammonia and a scentless control condition) prompted participants to walk away faster from the exposure site. Experiment 3 also showed that putrescine elicited implicit cognitions related to escape and threat. Experiment 4 found that exposure to putrescine, presented here below the threshold of conscious awareness, increased hostility toward an out-group member. Together, the results are the first to indicate that humans can process putrescine as a warning signal that mobilizes protective responses to deal with relevant threats.”

The results were exactly as we predicted, and if we take these results out of the lab and into a “haunted” location, turn out the lights, and let the fun begin, the truth becomes obvious.

The Ghost page needs rethinking with a more open mind[edit]

Only just come across this wiki, and initially found it humorous. Was also pleased to read what, logically, is the truth about a number of issues. However, I'm very disappointed by the Ghost article. I apologise if I'm submitting this incorrectly - I'm new to this, and don't have time to read up on everything I, ideally, need to know.

Having seen numerous ghosts (please don't give up reading at this point), I'm 100% convinced that they aren't dead 'spirits'. They're very much alive - at least, all human and the 1 dog seen were alive. The highest-respected cosmologists, such as Stephen Hawking, believe in parallel (multiple) universes. It could, however, be that time periods - past & present - can overlap. i.e. When we see ghosts, we're seeing the past to us, but it's the present to them. In every one of my experiences, they've been able to see me, and on realising I could see them, were as troubled by the situation as I felt.

The 'pattern' referred to (apophenia) doesn't apply in any sense at all. I can't actually see its connection to the article, except that it's been a suggestion by certain people who haven't had the experience themselves. I was the resident landlord of a haunted house. I never mentioned this to tenants, as I didn't want to put them off moving in. They always ended up telling me, though - and it always fitted with the ghost I'd seen. As my tenants were students who each stayed just 1 academic year, there was no overlap between them. Therefore, none had the opportunity to tell another who lived there at a later time. When I saw a dog ghost, my dog saw it too.

In my experience, you can't just see them at will. It happens when it happens. No idea why. But, on occasion at least, they'll make themselves known if they have a need.

Not sure how Debates work, but if able to alter what I've typed, I'd be grateful if you didn't. Please, instead, add to it afterwards. Thank you.

--AndrewDillon (talk) 09:25, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

You'll find that without scientific peer-reviewed papers to back you up, it'll be extremely difficult to convince anyone who hasn't witnessed the supernatural him-/herself that you haven't made all this up. Sorry, but this probably won't go anywhere.
Also, if you have issues with a specific article, it would be appreciated if you posted those issues on said article's talk page. In this case it would be this page: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Ghost
Just use the 'add topic' button to begin a new topic on said talk page. Nullahnung (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Andrew claims to have seen many ghosts so this may be a place to debate with him rather than just over the content of the article. Redchuck.gif ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.Moderator 10:47, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi Andrew. You maintain you have seen a ghost. OK, I'll believe that you believe that.
But that is your subjective experience. How would you go about providing evidence to people who do not believe ghosts exist? I'm afraid that your personal experience isn't enough. You might believe that you had been taken to hell and had a conversation with Lucifer - but, no matter how much you believed it, your personal belief in the experience wouldn't be enough to convince others that it had actually happened.
So how would you convince a skeptic that they should believe in ghosts?--Weirdstuff (talk) 11:18, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Interesting... I believe that some of our more tenuous perceptions may be a way for our unconscious cognitive apparatus to present the waking mind with a grokkable summary of what I provisionally call an intuitive Gestalt. Some folks may call them illusions, but even a hallucination, in some of its particular features, may provide the seeds of insight. That said, taking too much stock in fortune tellers can be a distraction, an obstacle to liberation from delusion. I've been around a similar track here at RW before, and will be watching this with interest. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

See? I'm not crazy! Durk Titanium (talk) 14:10, 15 September 2013 (UTC)