|
|
|
|
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/22/2008 6:22:56 PM | Well, he doesn't just take credit for a church advertised in a bestseller (The God Delusion) but he also converts the concept of "life force" and emotions residing in humans that has an energy basis, into "life form" that does all the things that a living being does. No, no one said that ghosts were a life form. It's a bit of a no brainer to say that they are a manifestation of death....
Dawkins of The God Delusion points out that many scientifically educated people are highly unlikely to believe in anything metaphysical, ergo, smart people don't think dumb stuff. The thing is, the very nature of scientific education is as passionately brainwashing as religious education. It is a religion unto itself that requires blind faith in its claimed absolute certainty. The same can be applied to two differing political view points of two people who are highly educated but educated from different sources. Each person BELIEVES through their FACTUAL education that the other is wrong. Each person accepts all of their education as fact because someone convinced them of it, or because the experienced and observed the proof themselves. As a researcher, I can promise you that you can write a statistic of a study to mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. After all the facts are compiled and the observations made, it ends with a SUBJECTIVE review of the results. You can't go a a month without some known scientific fact being proved wrong. There is no certainty in science. there is no absolute. Science is based upon experimental observation, so, truly, anything that fails to respond to experiments and even observation upon demand, cannot be scientifically reviewed. From the scientists' pov, it does not exist. The scientist is very correct from his point of view and his point of view is based upon his belief that science answers everything. It is based upon his unswerving FAITH that he has all the answers through science.
I love science, I love logic. I thrive upon reason. Reason, however, says that the more I know, the more I know that I don't know as much as I'd like to think I know and there is always somethings left for me to know. Ego says that I know all. Ego is not my logical mind, it is my emotional subconscious mind that is satisfied with all the conclusions of my logical mind simply because my logical mind told me it was true. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/22/2008 6:24:19 PM | Well, he doesn't just take credit for a church advertised in a bestseller (The God Delusion) but he also converts the concept of "life force" and emotions residing in humans that has an energy basis, into "life form" that does all the things that a living being does. No, no one said that ghosts were a life form. It's a bit of a no brainer to say that they are a manifestation of death....
Dawkins of The God Delusion points out that many scientifically educated people are highly unlikely to believe in anything metaphysical, ergo, smart people don't think dumb stuff. The thing is, the very nature of scientific education is as passionately brainwashing as religious education. It is a religion unto itself that requires blind faith in its claimed absolute certainty. The same can be applied to two differing political view points of two people who are highly educated but educated from different sources. Each person BELIEVES through their FACTUAL education that the other is wrong. Each person accepts all of their education as fact because someone convinced them of it, or because the experienced and observed the proof themselves. As a researcher, I can promise you that you can write a statistic of a study to mean pretty much anything you want it to mean. After all the facts are compiled and the observations made, it ends with a SUBJECTIVE review of the results. You can't go a a month without some known scientific fact being proved wrong. There is no certainty in science. there is no absolute. Science is based upon experimental observation, so, truly, anything that fails to respond to experiments and even observation upon demand, cannot be scientifically reviewed. From the scientists' pov, it does not exist. The scientist is very correct from his point of view and his point of view is based upon his belief that science answers everything. It is based upon his unswerving FAITH that he has all the answers through science.
I love science, I love logic. I thrive upon reason. Reason, however, says that the more I know, the more I know that I don't know as much as I'd like to think I know and there is always somethings left for me to know. Ego says that I know all. Ego is not my logical mind, it is my emotional subconscious mind that is satisfied with all the conclusions of my logical mind simply because my logical mind told me it was true. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/22/2008 6:43:09 PM | Jip, are radio waves real? Were they real 200 years ago? What will be real 200 years from now that we have yet to observe? There are a great many similar questions concerning quantum physics. How about the relationship between time, gravity, matter, and energy. Is time itself real?
By the way, don't assume I believe in ghosts. Such as assumption would be a false conclusion. I have said I have no experience or data that leads me to conclude they exist. I am far from inexperienced in science and yet there is nothing in science to rule out their existence. I can understand such a conclusion if one's science background is limited to Newtonian physics or less. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/23/2008 1:35:29 AM | >>> I have said I have no experience or data that leads me to conclude they exist.
Then what is it you're arguing here?
Existence is not a three way street- its either something exists or it does not exist. I cannot even begin to imagine what something would be if it neither exists or does not exist.
>>>I am far from inexperienced in science and yet there is nothing in science to rule out their existence.
Doesn't that statement conclude that they do exist based on the fact that you could not rule out their existence?
I wonder how I came to the conclusion that you believed they exist- if not for the fact that you keep attempting to prove they could.
I dunno how many times we have to go over this- we have two contradicting hypothesizes- one hypothesis is life must physically exist to exist. The other hypothesis is life exists in an as of yet unknown form. There is mountains of evidence that life physically exists- there has been no recorded point where this has been observed otherwise.
The other belief is life exists in another form- a form that defies all laws of physics, since it allows them to jump back and forth between physical existence and not- a form that defies all laws of biology, since they do not age, are not born, cannot reproduce, and does not convert materials into energy to keep the organism alive- and you have to nerve to sit there and claim that there is nothing in science to rule out a life form that is born from death??? If we were to accept that that line of thought IS scientific would be admitting that all the knowledge humanity has gained throughout the centuries the years is false, under no other premise and with no further evidence than "....eh.....it could happen...."
If you seriously wish to continue having this discussion, maybe you could actually hypothesize how a life form could be born from death? How a life form could maintain its cells without converting any actual materials into energy to feed its cells? How a life form could walk through walls? How a life form could fade back and forth from physical existence at will? How a consciousness could exist without a brain?
All these facts defy the concept of ghosts. Its either what we know, from countless of empirical evidence and observations from every corner of the globe is wrong- that a life form does not need to eat in order to continue to exist- or what you assume is wrong. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/23/2008 5:47:41 AM | Jiperly
Ever watch the Shining? In that movie the ghosts were not considered living, but "echoes" of the past. I've never thought the concept of a ghost meant that they were alive and obviously the author of that work did not think so either.
So in terms of science not supporting a theory where something jumps back and forth between physical existence and not, you're probably right, but just maybe you are applying an incorrect hypothesis to the "ghost" phenomenon.
Just throwing something out there, but what about the theory of mulitiverses, where multiple universes exist at the same time? Maybe things are appearing between universes. The concept of multiverses is a scientific hypothesis or maybe even a theory (I'm not really up on my metaphysics), but it's studied by physicists and perhaps it can be used to explain some of the unexplainable.
Also, I would not 100% rely on our current mainstream laws of physics to explain everything. Stephen Hawking, for example, wrote how our perception of time is based on what we experience in this life, yet there are people who see glimpses of the future (not necessarily the people you see at a psychic fair, but people who erratically see things). He believes that they do see the future and he noted that as children we are much more open to the idea of time running in more than one direction. It's only our experience in this life that colours our perception of the concept.
I think that's what Ahoy is trying to get across; not that he believes in ghosts, but that the more we learn about particle science, the more we realize that our perception and laws of physics as humans might not be representative of the whole story | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/23/2008 10:44:12 AM | Thank you lass.
Our conclusions about what we observe or do not observe are not always true. As an example, we see color as a blend of three colors and even teach students that color is a mix of the primary colors. It gets a little confusing when you differentiate between a light emitter like a TV with Red Green and Blue or a light absorber like paint with Red Yellow and Blue as primary colors. The reality is that visible light is a spectrum of frequencies along one dimension and the intensity of each is another vector. A "real" color is typically a blend of a large number of frequencies or "primary colors" of light, not a blend of only three primary colors. That is a limitation of our eyes and our mind to differentiate color. For a person to see a "ghost", all that is needed is some stimulation of our limited senses or even more directly to our neurons in the brain. From a scientific standpoint, I know that such stimulation is quite possible and can enable a person to "see" something the brain interprets as something else. So how does one define what a ghost really is when our senses can be fooled so easily? If you can't determine the nature of the existence of a ghost, how can you rule out their existence?
Given that, is there any reason to disrespect someone who has experienced a ghost? Perhaps their senses are simply more acute than yours.
| |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/23/2008 6:02:54 PM | | I dont believe. I know. I have experinced things that have no other explanaition that would fit. A Rocking chair rocking violently across a room. Unexplained noises that old pipes definitley do not make, and other weirdness. One of those things until you have experinced it or seen it for yourself it is fair to doubt. I have no doubt. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/24/2008 6:04:32 AM |
Whew. My personal, direct, experiences notwithstanding, the evidence increasingly points much more often to the mystical than the material.
You need to get out of your own way, especially if you are truly "Into Art"--lighten, loosen and LEARN.
Wow. I never cease to be amazed by the hubris and audacity of those who think that my disagreeing with them means I should "learn" something. The fact is that those who believe in superstition and spiritual mumbo-jumbo are the ones who need to learn, since they are obviously ignorant of both the content of science and the scientific method itself.
Only the material is real. The mystical is purely a creation of the imagination, and no more real than smurfs or fire-breathing dragons. It is amazing and impressive that the human mind can invent such things, and it is certainly a wonderful source of entertainment, but none of it is real. As the old saying goes "It is fine to dream of castles in the sky. It is when you try to move in that you have a problem."
As for art, all art, no matter how "spirtual" it may appear, involves the creation of physical objects (eg paintings.) Mastery of the tools and theories needed to create these objects with the desired effects (eg perspective, color theory, gestalt perception) is what makes a great artist, not some nonexistent "source".
I am now going to go join the cult of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, because it makes as much sense as any conventional religious or spiritual belief (and more than most.) | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/24/2008 7:35:07 AM | Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster cult have joint meetings with the flat earth society?
Obviously, the Earth is flat, maybe a disk but certainly flat. Just look at the horizon.
I have heard art in the form of music that was nothing more than patterns imprinted in existing energy. No additional energy nor matter is required to express the art yet it conveys meaning and emotions that, as an earlier poster commented, become electrochemical representations in our brains and bodies. That would seem to indicate some energy exists in the form of information itself yet no such "energy" is detectable by our current physics.
There is comfort to be found in being so superior that you can reduce everything to something you can understand. On the other hand, I find great purpose in being open minded and seeking that which I do not yet understand. If I experience something I don't understand, that is a challenge to learn. I suppose it is counter to the Gestalt psychology in which much "art" is based as I tend to resist extrapolation to conclusions simply because they are comfortable. To me, the ultimate in art was the artist that used paint emema's and "blasted" images on the canvas. In Gestalt fashion, people extrapolate some meaning from these "expressions" (or is that expulsions?). | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/24/2008 4:30:56 PM |
Wow. I never cease to be amazed by the hubris and audacity of those who think that my disagreeing with them means I should "learn" something. The fact is that those who believe in superstition and spiritual mumbo-jumbo are the ones who need to learn, since they are obviously ignorant of both the content of science and the scientific method itself.
I find this to be a rather interesting paragraph. Unless I am misinterpreting, this seems to be rather contradictory. Intoart, you seem to be saying that those who disagree with your views are stating that you are incorrect and need to learn what they believe...which I do agree, would be a rather arrogant assumption to make. However, are you not doing the very same thing when you state that they are ignorant of your beliefs in science and the scientific method? My interpretation of what you've said tends to be that you are telling anyone who is defending their belief in ghosts, or anything that science has not proven to exist, that they are wrong, and you are right because you have the foundation of science behind you. Personally I think that no one can say that they are 100% correct and the other person's views are wrong, no matter what side of the fence they choose.
No offence intended, btw...just wanted to mention this... | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/24/2008 5:10:55 PM | Hell no. Ghosts are a figment of our imagination.
Well, I have my doubts actually. My boyfriend claim to have seen ghosts, and I know he doesn't BS. What am I suppose to make of that? It seems almost necessary to throw logic out the window when you try to verify the existence of ghosts (in fact, even coupled with personal experience.) | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/25/2008 6:55:04 AM |
However, are you not doing the very same thing when you state that they are ignorant of your beliefs in science and the scientific method?
No, not at all. Belief in the supernatural is just that: belief. It must necessarily be taken on faith because no proof is possible and logic does not apply.
By contrast, there is no such thing as "belief in science". Science has never been a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact. Scientific statements never have to be taken on faith, because they are always proven.
In addition science, unlike faith, is open-minded. The scientific method allows the acceptance of a new theory as long as it both explains the known facts at least as well as the old theory and predicts new facts which are proven true by experiment. (This is what happened, for example, when general relativity replaced Newtonian mechanics.)
In short, science is not belief, it is knowledge.
Once again, the reason that ghosts are false is not because they have not been verified scientifically, but because they violate known laws of science. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/25/2008 7:32:32 AM |
Science has never been a matter of belief, it is a matter of fact.
Nope. Science is a matter of conclusions based on observations forever subject to revision as we learn more. Once it becomes "fact", it is a belief. When scientific conclusion become thought of as fact, they often come in conflict with religion, superstitions, mythology, etc. as all these deal with unquestioned "facts". Many beliefs in the supernatural come from "science" that became frozen as "fact". True science requires an open mind. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/26/2008 1:13:59 AM | >>>In that movie the ghosts were not considered living, but "echoes" of the past. ..... but what about the theory of mulitiverses, where multiple universes exist at the same time?
Frankly, I'll admit- its a far more logical theory that the dead rising from the grave- but it doesn't exactly prove me wrong either.
There is (now) three different opinions on the Ghost phenomenon- One group honestly believes they are the dead risen back. Another group, the one I'm a part of, believes every single instance of ghosts has a logical explanation, and that the people who are witnesses are mistaken, and misinterpreted the situation, whether through confusion or mental instability. The third, your part, contends that there is a force that has yet to be explained that causes these events- which......you know....would mean that the people who are witnesses are mistaken, and misinterpreted the situation- only this time, its because we, as a collective observers, do not honestly understand what is happening in that situation, rather than the single individual.
So its not like we're disagreeing completely- but clearly we both agree that there is no such things as ghosts.
Now to challenge your beliefs- the most obvious question would how common do you believe these multiverse mess ups occur? After all, if they are incredibly common, then surely we can study them fairly readily, which would then validate or invalidate your hypothesis. And if they are incredibly common it would explain hundreds of inexplicable events- but the fact that we have yet to study one under controlled circumstances brings doubt to how common they are. And if they are incredibly rare, then my own hypothesis, that a number of things from people being confused and misinterpreting the situation, would still apply for a large bulk of these occurrences- that for every million people who claim to see ghosts, only one really experienced the multiverse, whilst the rest have perfectly logical explanations.
>>> Stephen Hawking....believes that they do see the future
And he's free to believe that- but I disagree.
---
>>>So how does one define what a ghost really is when our senses can be fooled so easily?
And that very point is the cornerstone to my belief- our senses can be easily fooled. I think its far more logical and likely that a person is mistaken than they see a being who exists without existence or experienced a slip in the multiverse.
>>>Perhaps their senses are simply more acute than yours.
Well, there have been literally trillions of examples throughout the centuries of people's senses failing them. I am not aware of any evidence of people who hold "Time Warp Senses"
I think its far more accurate and likely that their senses are NOT more acute than mine, but are just as likely to fail as mine- theres a coat rack in my house that I think is a monster every time I look at it at night- but its my senses failing me, as the monster reverts back to a coat rack once I shine light on it. Would it be equally logical to assume that my senses are superior to everyone else, and I'm seeing a universe filled with monsters who resemble coat racks in the dark, but disappear in the light?
>>>Unless I am misinterpreting, this seems to be rather contradictory.
I gotta agree- although Intoart believes for different reasons, that being tested and true evidence over conjecture, it is still a belief. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/26/2008 9:03:37 AM | | I believe in ghosts or spirits. Just most people arent tuned enough to their senses to feel them. The energy is there. Man is growing further away each day from his senses, which is a sad thing. As a whole our intuition has suffered due to "progress." Most people cant feel the energy of spirits and the world around him anymore. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/26/2008 10:21:26 AM | There is more to this world than meets the scientific mind. Most curious scientists will agree; those who are stuck in a rigid dogmatic mindset will not - so be it.
The frustrating part is that those of you who think you know just what is and isn't in this vast and mysterious universe are so unwilling to even entertain even the hypothetical that something may not fall into your scientific kenning. To me, it seems like an insecurity issue - that if the rules were to suddenly change on you, you would freak out and run off babbling Newton's Laws of Physics - as if black and white are the only options in our spectrum of color.
I am confident enough in my ability to reason and deduce that I can entertain the concept that the scientific community does not know everything and that there are some areas of gray that defy scientific scrutiny. I have a degree in science, love the logic of the scientific method and yet, I also have experienced many things that cannot (at this point in time) be scientifically explained. My mother sees auras, my brother can too. I have precognative dreams and sometimes see things that don't fit into the normal world. I filter a lot of this stuff out because it is a bit too distracting for me but I know that there is much to this world that defies explanation.
PS - I love FSM society and I wish people would quit trying to co-opt its wonderful sense of humor and needed sense of optimism into their own agenda. If those of you who think you know everything could actually laugh at yourself now and again, like the FSM society encourages, then maybe, just maybe, you could relax those scrunched up muscles and see that there are many ways to see the same object and all are valid and possibly necessary. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/27/2008 6:12:02 PM | You see, science doesn't work like that. I could say that all my hunger phsyically exists in my Stomach- and when I die, it leaves my body- thats all fine and well, but when we discovered what causes hunger pains, I can't be projecting my expectations in hopes to find the phsyical manifestation of my hunger, which conviently enough I announced exists in a form invisable to all forms of sense, including those which we do not possess, and is entirely impossible prove it exists. Just like how we understand what causes hunger, we understand where our thoughts come from- remove the brain from the equation, and all thoughts end- so to say that all thoughts require a brain, but once you die an invisible force that cannot be proven to exist leaves your body, and the fact that you cannot disprove its existance proves its existance- DOES NOT PROVE IT EXISTS.
Jiperly, this was a good argument, but I must say that the soul does not necessarily leave the body. The soul may stay right in the body or with the body if you prefer, at death and beyond the point of death. There is no indication why that should be otherwise. The guy looks dead -- he's dead all right -- all biological functions stopped. But since the soul cannot be measured to exist, why do you say that it leaves the body at the time of death? It may be staying there with it. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/27/2008 8:43:03 PM | | Granted, but the whole ghost argument lies in the belief that the soul leaves the body- that the explaination of "what is a ghost?" is the conciousness of a being existing past the actual phsyical existance . | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 11/28/2008 4:21:43 PM |
Granted, but the whole ghost argument lies in the belief that the soul leaves the body- that the explaination of "what is a ghost?" is the conciousness of a being existing past the actual phsyical existance
Repeatedly, people are basing their belief that ghosts don't exist, upon their own definition of what a ghost is, and people who believe that ghosts exist, use their definition of what a ghost is to validate their belief. Repeatedly, these definitions are quite different from each other.
Myself, I define a ghost as a manifestation of some very powerful emotional energy/force (usually trauma) that is trapped in a locality or attached to an object. A ghost is not a *being* at all. It is not *life* at all. It is a memory on constant playback that some people can sense even after the physical and mental source of the memory is long gone. Most people who have a little extra sense, from auras to more, can tell you that precious objects have leftover energy of a person, living or dead, and so do places. You can feel the love in a home, but these are not solitary manifestations as a ghost is, these are collective emotions that saturate and radiate and make a locality sacred or just full of good.
A spirit/soul trapped in transition, from inhabiting a physical body to whatever comes next, or perhaps on a mission, I define differently than a ghost. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 12/1/2008 7:06:43 AM |
Myself, I define a ghost as a manifestation of some very powerful emotional energy/force (usually trauma) that is trapped in a locality or attached to an object. A ghost is not a *being* at all. It is not *life* at all. It is a memory on constant playback that some people can sense even after the physical and mental source of the memory is long gone.
Localities and objects cannot store memories, they can only trigger them in people. Only living brains can store memories.
Still, this is a more reasonable definition of ghosts than "non-corporeal beings". The next step is to recognize the fact that these memories exist ONLY in the mind of the individual "seeing" the ghost, and thus that ghost sightings are purely psychological phenomena with no basis in external reality. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 12/1/2008 5:42:25 PM | If I take something and destroy it in some way, there is still something left even if it changes form. Wood burns and turns into smoke and ash. Brain activity is electrical and chemical. Personally I think that sometimes there is enough emotion that can be forced out of a person that leaves an electrical "stain" on an area. I think all people to a certain extent have the ability to pick up on some of those things, just like the ability to draw or to be mathmatically inclined. Can we currently measure it? There are measurable cold spots, areas where large temperature variations can be measured. We can pick up odd things on sensitive materials like film or audio tape but anything you decide you want to discount, you can find a way to blame on something else. It just depends on your viewpoint.
I do tend to believe in ghosts and the continuation of life after death. Just like here, some are happy and some are lost. Happy ones usuallly know where to go and don't stay around long, just checking back in every now and then. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 12/1/2008 6:01:54 PM | | "I do believe in ghosts, I do, I do, I do believe in ghosts!" Come to think of it, didn't the Cowardly Lion say that? Anyway, I sure do. I've experienced "them" personally twice (once at an haunted inn in Nantucket) and after my mom passed. I was also present during a friend's session with a medium wherein the medium conveyed something to my friend that sent her running out the door. Freaky but cool! | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 12/2/2008 2:02:44 AM | Anything is possible.
We are here in this existance for a set amount of time before we... okay, no one ever comes back and tells us what the scoop is? What's the deal?
One thing I am sure of.... No living being here on this planet has the answer AT ALL.
No one has a clue as to who or what...changes our fishbowl? So how could any of us put down the idea of ....ghosts?
My chair, my desk, and all my possessions are solid to the touch... but I know that deep down, they are all made up of very tiny particles madly spinning around?
I have a personal belief that I've been visited by ghosts. I've heard them and felt them. But I can't prove it? I didn't actually "see" with my eyes... but I felt the presence and I heard them molecules moving around as the "ghosts" intermingled with (semi) solid mass?
I don't know about echoes... but I do subcribe to some of the ideas Stephen King came up with in his book The Shining. The Overlook Hotel.... a huge battery... storing..... who knows what? | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 12/2/2008 7:51:19 AM | Localities and objects cannot store memories, they can only trigger them in people. Only living brains can store memories.
Still, this is a more reasonable definition of ghosts than "non-corporeal beings". The next step is to recognize the fact that these memories exist ONLY in the mind of the individual "seeing" the ghost, and thus that ghost sightings are purely psychological phenomena with no basis in external reality.
The next step. LOL
OK, so "memories" is not a perfect choice of word, I stretched the meaning of it a little. Think "recording". Think fingerprint of emotion. I agree that it is a psychological phenomena - but it can be one that many people experience in the same way at the same locality though those person have no contact with each other or knowledge of the *ghost* before experiencing it. This is why I say it is on playback, repeating, and not a a being, because it plays the same everytime it is turned on, regardless of who turns it on. There are different phenomena that don't fit this type, but this is the most common of them.
Now the next step from realizing that it is a psychological phenomena is realizing that anything that is a phenomena is outside our kenning, AT THIS TIME, and our consciousness, which is, basically, our *internal reality*, is something that continues to baffle science. Even psychologists. | |
|
| Do You Believe In Ghosts?
Posted: 12/2/2008 9:56:49 AM |
Now the next step from realizing that it is a psychological phenomena is realizing that anything that is a phenomena is outside our kenning, AT THIS TIME, and our consciousness, which is, basically, our *internal reality*, is something that continues to baffle science. Even psychologists.
Internal "reality" can be anything. Dreams and drug experiences prove that. The ability to distinguish between internal and actual (which is to say external) reality is of fundamental importance for remaining sane. Believing that ghosts actually exist is a sign of losing that distinction, and therefore troubling.
As mentioned before, we all build castles in the sky, it is those who try to move in that have a problem! | |
|
|
| Page 5 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
