Serious dealings with supernatural/death?

[dugaal]

A somber topic, but one people might have experience in...
If anyone has heard of the Japanese forest Aokigahara (Jukai) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aokigahara I visited there this weekend with a bunch of other ex-pats... and suffice to say we saw some grizzly stuff.
we didn't see any signs of ghosts however, possibly due to our fault (not far enough in, not enough conviction of our group, not enough time)

despite the dangers and unease, I want to go ack and get better footage, go with more likeminded friends, and go deeper.

Anyone here ever done any supernatural exploration? looked for evidence of ghosts or other stuff? seen anything?

[x-esiv-4c]

Why would ghosts care if you weren't far enough in / not enough conviction (what ever that is...) or your schedule for the day?

[Yodhrin]

Why would ghosts care if you weren't far enough in / not enough conviction (what ever that is...) or your schedule for the day?

It's the standard excuse trotted out when the paranormal happenings people claim are going to happen don't, or when they are shown to be something else entirely. "You weren't believing hard enough" or "your skepticism has driven the spirits away" or somesuch.

As to the OP: it's impossible to have "serious dealings" with the supernatural, because the concept is oxymoronic. Either a phenomenon exists, and can be shown to exist through rational inquiry and empirical observation, in which case it is "natural", ie, part of nature, ie, part of reality; or it can't be shown to exist, in which case believing it does regardless seems silly, at least to me. The term "supernatural" is a cop-out, an attempt to put a claim above any kind of actual investigation, as it allows the claimant to pull the old "well the reason you can't see, touch, or measure in any way the phenomenon is because it's SUPERnatural! Aha!" trick.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

The term "supernatural" is a cop-out, an attempt to put a claim above any kind of actual investigation, as it allows the claimant to pull the old "well the reason you can't see, touch, or measure in any way the phenomenon is because it's SUPERnatural! Aha!" trick.

You mean like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Obligatory XKCD

[Spider]

It's the standard excuse trotted out when the paranormal happenings people claim are going to happen don't, or when they are shown to be something else entirely. "You weren't believing hard enough" or "your skepticism has driven the spirits away" or somesuch.

As to the OP: it's impossible to have "serious dealings" with the supernatural, because the concept is oxymoronic. Either a phenomenon exists, and can be shown to exist through rational inquiry and empirical observation, in which case it is "natural", ie, part of nature, ie, part of reality; or it can't be shown to exist, in which case believing it does regardless seems silly, at least to me. The term "supernatural" is a cop-out, an attempt to put a claim above any kind of actual investigation, as it allows the claimant to pull the old "well the reason you can't see, touch, or measure in any way the phenomenon is because it's SUPERnatural! Aha!" trick.

Exactly.

Besides, are the spooks so stupid that all thay can do is hang around graveyards and suchlike.

Surely there are better things to go and do if you are invisible.

[Easy E]

I want to Believe. I just don't really believe.

However, I thought the Scientific Method was to question your own assumptions and find new ways to observe and measure the natural world?

[Spider]

I want to Believe. I just don't really believe.

However, I thought the Scientific Method was to question your own assumptions and find new ways to observe and measure the natural world?

Yes, but part of that would entail the thing in question being testable (in principle at least).

Now whenever we look at "mysterious phenomena" we either find mundane explanations (that can themselves be interesting) or dishonest charlatans or honestly confused and basically wrong people.

We never, ever find evidence of the the supernatural.

And further, think about what a ghost is, then think about what that entails. What is a ghost made of? How does it think? (does if have a brain?) The notion of a ghost (or spirit or whatever) is flatly against what we actually do know about how this universe works.

Same goes for God really, but thats another thread. Lol.

[dugaal]

Just to be clear, I am an agnostic who is skeptical, But out of personal curiosity I wanted to discover proof in one of the most famous "hotspots" known. If I cannot find proof there its very likely evidence of the non-existence of ghosts. I'd rather check for myself in what has already been stated is a muddied field of entertainment documentaries and quackery.

As for seriousness? Well I'm not ouija boarding it or trying to creatively point out "faces" in what is in reality a bush or tree. Just trying to be professional with evidence collection and skeptical with its analysis.
As for conviction, well we had people in the group actively spoiling our footage, and being more pseudo-scientific.
And as for depth inside? well we could hear the highway from our location, and the number of suicides/remains is higher where less hikers/tourists care not to traverse.

[Chaos and Evil]

we didn't see any signs of ghosts however

That's because ghosts don't exist.

[kyussinchains]

Our ancestors learned to spot things out of the corner of their eyes, it might have been a blade of grass moving, it might have been a lion, we are descended from the people who always ran, who always saw the lion, even if it wasn't there, it has been bred into us over thousands of generations and tens of thousands of years, this is why people see ghosts and feel fear when they percieve them to be around

[Arnizipal]

Just a small reminder to keep it on topic and friendly
Topics like these can get out of hand quickly so I be monitoring this thread.

Arnizipal,

++ The Warseer Moderation Team ++

[blackcherry]

Wheres NCK? This is his sort of topic and hes very knowledgeable on the topic.

[DarthSte]

Wheres NCK? This is his sort of topic and hes very knowledgeable on the topic.

Isn't it like 3am where he is?

[Yodhrin]

You mean like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

Obligatory XKCD

Is that meant to be an attempt to equate science with random speculation and assumptions, because if so you chose a poor point of comparison; the Uncertainty Principle is a mathematically valid concept which has predictive as well as explanatory value and is thus, in principle, testable. It's a core component of Quantum Mechanics, ie, the scientific discipline without which our computers, and the internet itself, would not exist. You could perhaps try and equate the supernatural with String Theory, since as yet there is no adequate explanation of how its predictions could be tested experimentally, but even that's a stretch since you won't find any reputable scientists who consider String Theory to be anything more than interesting speculation, and in scientific terms it's not even a theory, it's an hypothesis.

The following is a general comment not aimed at you specifically, but it needs to be said: science is not dogma, and do you know who would be the most excited people in the event anyone ever produced valid evidence in favour of "spirits" or whatever you want to call it would be? Scientists, physicists in particular, because it would open up whole new avenues for us to investigate, and we love to investigate things. The issue is that nobody has produced any such evidence, and that what has been produced and claimed as evidence has been universally shown to be a misinterpretation of the mundane or outright fraud.

I don't think it's out of line to request that there be some rational standard of required proof before we treat a subject seriously, surely?

[BigbyWolf]

That's because ghosts don't exist.

Surely the correct term is "I believe ghosts don't exist"? I'm pretty sure it was statements like the above that caused the previous threads to dissolve into anarchy.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

Is that meant to be an attempt to equate science with random speculation and assumptions, because if so you chose a poor point of comparison

Yes. Sorta. I tend to speak in rough analogies a lot. I wasn't trying to equate science and random speculation. I was trying to draw a parallel. Subtle distinction.

Personally, my own attitude towards "knowing things" is that it's all a crock anyway. Knowledge and proof won't bring anyone to a grand, wise, overarching understanding or comfort within their own lives, because nihilism. None of us really matter and the truth or falsehood of our own perceptions matters so little when compared to the cogs of the universe.

Before Newton posed his (erroneous) theory of gravity, anyone could have said "Things fall because invisible gremlins pull them to the ground." And you know what? For anyone seriously exploring Quantum Physics, both explanations are equally nonsensical. As a human race, we are far too willing to accept any explanation for whatever we can't understand; with the difference between science and random speculation being that the scientist finds more and more things that he can only-sort-of functionally explain (using "logic" or whatever you want to call it), and the random speculator tragically stops at gremlins.

I love science. It has given us some amazing tools. But if we don't stop to challenge what science has established every once and a while, we (as living beings) are robbing ourselves of a critical area in which we can develop our non-brain related understanding of the world around us; and even possibly overlooking some unexplored alternative explanations which could shake the foundations of scientific world.

I get the feeling that if I continue, I'll be in violation of at least one forum rule. So here I stop.

EDIT: Just updated my sig. I suppose I agree pretty much with Don Quixote, regarding the "truth." Or maybe I just grew up in a really weird family where nothing is true and everything is permitted.

[Freak Ona Leash]

Yes. Sorta. I tend to speak in rough analogies a lot. I wasn't trying to equate science and random speculation. I was trying to draw a parallel. Subtle distinction.

Personally, my own attitude towards "knowing things" is that it's all a crock anyway. Knowledge and proof won't bring anyone to a grand, wise, overarching understanding or comfort within their own lives, because nihilism. None of us really matter and the truth or falsehood of our own perceptions matters so little when compared to the cogs of the universe.

Before Newton posed his (erroneous) theory of gravity, anyone could have said "Things fall because invisible gremlins pull them to the ground." And you know what? For anyone seriously exploring Quantum Physics, both explanations are equally nonsensical. As a human race, we are far too willing to accept any explanation for whatever we can't understand; with the difference between science and random speculation being that the scientist finds more and more things that he can only-sort-of functionally explain (using "logic" or whatever you want to call it), and the random speculator tragically stops at gremlins.

I love science. It has given us some amazing tools. But if we don't stop to challenge what science has established every once and a while, we (as living beings) are robbing ourselves of a critical area in which we can develop our non-brain related understanding of the world around us; and even possibly overlooking some unexplored alternative explanations which could shake the foundations of scientific world.

I get the feeling that if I continue, I'll be in violation of at least one forum rule. So here I stop.

The counter to this in my mind is that scientists routinely challenge what other scientists say, indeed academics in general do this and it is considered an essential disciplinary focus not only in "hard" sciences such as physics but also in the social sciences such as history (historiography, I suppose) and sociology, and indeed analysis through argument and counter-argument supported by evidence forms the basis of serious discourse in other disciplines usually seen as quite removed from science. English literature, for example . So saying that one must go beyond science in order to challenge science appears a redundancy, because scientists themselves go beyond supposed dogma and "fact" as a matter of routine while pursuing their own hypotheses and theories. I am not also not quite sure what you mean by "our non-brain related understanding of the world": our understanding of the world has everything to do with our brains, and I hesitate to think of how you would experience anything except through that wrinkly neural apparatus

As to your first point, regarding nihilism or whatever, I revert with some reluctance to the First Law of Dude: that's just like, your opinion, man. Perhaps for you, knowledge about the world or knowledge about the self is an illusory concept. However, I can assure you, that truth of yours does not translate to a truth for others: for example, while I may agree that in principle none of us are born with some sort of purpose or providence, one can definitely create a purpose, and said purpose can involve pursuing a deeper understanding the world or one's self through scientific observation and experimentation. One the other hand, if your definition of a purposeful life runs contrary to the above scientific ideal, then I would consider that equally valid.

[Scaryscarymushroom]

I revert with some reluctance to the First Law of Dude: that's just like, your opinion, man.

Which is why I put "personally" in front of it. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

I see value in my own perspective and I wanted to share it with people, that's all. I'm just not so ready to discount the supernatural as myth simply because we have no good evidence. (Indeed, no evidence at all.) Not that I believe in it either. I guess I'm the kind of guy that thinks to himself when he puts on his socks "who decided that we should call the color of these socks 'red' anyway? Despite all factual evidence pointing to the contrary, today these socks are blue if for no other reason than 'I said so.' And when I drive my car, I'll only stop for blue lights."

I mean, if I want people to understand me, I use the term 'red.' I'm not so deranged that I think I can unwittingly drag people into my delusion.



I'm with you though. Whatever a person wants to believe is all good with me.

[Freak Ona Leash]

Which is why I put "personally" in front of it. Sorry if I offended you or anyone else.

I see value in my own perspective and I wanted to share it with people, that's all. I'm just not so ready to discount the supernatural as myth simply because we have no good evidence. (Indeed, no evidence at all.) Not that I believe in it either. I guess I'm the kind of guy that thinks to himself when he puts on his socks "who decided that we should call the color of these socks 'red' anyway? Today these socks are blue. And when I drive my car, I'll only stop for blue lights."



I'm with you though. Whatever a person wants to believe is all good with me.

I wasn't offended. Thank you though Your thoughts were interesting and I was responding, I didn't intend to sound angry. I agree with you on the "Screw red, my socks are blue" thing all the way. Caveat: I am color-blind

[dugaal]

So I opened a can of worms,but thank you for sharing your insights on the nature of truth and science but let's refocus.
The pseudoscience, lack of evidence etc. has been discussed. Strengthening the case for nonexistence.
Has the phenomenon known as 21 grams been reliably dis proven? Debunked any other photographic evidence personally?

I am in a unique position to be able to document without bias what the Japanese (superstitious by culture) consider to be a truly haunted forest. Irregardless of sightings it's a freaky place many armchair skeptics wouldn't want to traverse.
I agree with Kyussinchains that uncertainty must lead to fear and fight or flight, or we wouldn't be here. As conscious beings we get rather creative interpreting our subconscious urgency. As a social experiment alone it was intriguing watching the reaction of my camping mates when we discovered remains or when attempting to keep dark and silent at 1am

If I go back, any suggestions on how to structure my search, spend time etc? basically Build an experiment to test the hypothisis of the existence of unexplained ghosts/apparitions/whatever?