Do You Believe in Ghosts and Spirits?

[Erebus]

I've seen too much myself to not believe in an afterlife, ghosts and daemons. I'm aware of the limitations of the human mind and so I could never say that I know 100% that I'm right. Even so, it would be idiotic of me to ignore my own experience simply because some people think I'm wrong.

 

[ZooGirl02]

I voted "yes" but I must explain my answer. I do not believe that ghosts are the souls of people who did not go to the afterlife or who had uncompleted business. I do believe in spirits though. I also believe that ghosts exist but not as the souls of people as I said above.

Basically I believe that when a person sees a ghost they are likely either hallucinating or are seeing a demonic apparition.

That said, I believe in two kinds of spirits: good and evil. I believe in angels and demons. Angels are good spirits who serve God and demons are evil spirits that were originally good angels but rebelled against God and so they became demons.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've seen too much myself to not believe in an afterlife, ghosts and daemons. I'm aware of the limitations of the human mind and so I could never say that I know 100% that I'm right. Even so, it would be idiotic of me to ignore my own experience simply because some people think I'm wrong.

And I've seen too much to believe in an afterlife. If virtually every aspect of a person can disappear one by one before the death of their body, exactly what of them is left that might survive in an afterlife?

If we're so rooted in the physical that things like brain injuries can completely change a person (or sometimes create two different people occupying the same skull), then how could we be "us" without the physical?

 

[Quintessence]

And I've seen too much to believe in an afterlife. If virtually every aspect of a person can disappear one by one before the death of their body, exactly what of them is left that might survive in an afterlife?

If we're so rooted in the physical that things like brain injuries can completely change a person (or sometimes create two different people occupying the same skull), then how could we be "us" without the physical?

By not constraining our ideas about reality, "us" or otherwise, to the immediate present and the tangible. We don't do this anyway in practice, but we don't tend to frame the conversation in that fashion.

For instance, when we think about a person we know, are we thinking about that person or a constructed understanding of that person (aka, ideas about that person)? There is no reason to suppose the intangible aspects of a thing vanish when its tangible aspects cease to be present in our specific time and space. If a person leaves a room, the idea of them doesn't suddenly vanish. If a person dies and is buried six feet under, the ideas about that person, the memories, things written and unwritten that related to them don't suddenly vanish either.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

By not constraining our ideas about reality, "us" or otherwise, to the immediate present and the tangible. We don't do this anyway in practice, but we don't tend to frame the conversation in that fashion.

For instance, when we think about a person we know, are we thinking about that person or a constructed understanding of that person (aka, ideas about that person)? There is no reason to suppose the intangible aspects of a thing vanish when its tangible aspects cease to be present in our specific time and space. If a person leaves a room, the idea of them doesn't suddenly vanish. If a person dies and is buried six feet under, the ideas about that person, the memories, things written and unwritten that related to them don't suddenly vanish either.

I think you're conflating ideas. Just as we shouldn't confuse the tangible and the intangible, we also shouldn't confuse different types of intangible. There's a difference between "Bob the concept" and "Bob the ghost".

 

[Quintessence]

I think you're conflating ideas. Just as we shouldn't confuse the tangible and the intangible, we also shouldn't confuse different types of intangible. There's a difference between "Bob the concept" and "Bob the ghost".

Depends on one's understanding of spirits. One of the reasons I have a hard time taking conventional ghost-belief seriously is precisely because it sees some herculean difference between these two. But this is probably neither here nor there.

 

[CynthiaCypher]

I think ghost are tulpas.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Depends on one's understanding of spirits.

Yes, I suppose that if you use the term "spirits" in a way that's completely at odds with how everyone else is using the term, you may come to different conclusions about spirits.

 

[Thruve]

I Do. I also believe in what another member stated that when we die, we all become a singular consciousness because we shall be all knowing. Something tells me they know better than to directly reveal to the world at large that they exist, that would do the world no good. I know they are there, I Just know they are obviously wise and over'seers rather than spooky beings OoOOooOo.

 

[Quintessence]

Yes, I suppose that if you use the term "spirits" in a way that's completely at odds with how everyone else is using the term, you may come to different conclusions about spirits.

I'm pretty sure even a standard dictionary includes something to the degree of "spirit is that which is regarded as the essential qualities or characteristics of a thing." Besides, a non-dualist is going to regard the idea differently than a dualist, and it's not like I'm the only person on the planet who doesn't accept a stark division between "matter" and "spirit."

 

[George-ananda]

If virtually every aspect of a person can disappear one by one before the death of their body, exactly what of them is left that might survive in an afterlife?

The alternate viewpoint is the physical body does not create consciousness but allows consciousness to incarnate and learn from experiences in the physical world. This incarnation is effected by the sophistication and health of the physical body.

If you damage or destroy a reflection of the moon, is the moon lost? Another analogy is the physical body is like the outer ring of an onion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm pretty sure even a standard dictionary includes something to the degree of "spirit is that which is regarded as the essential qualities or characteristics of a thing." Besides, a non-dualist is going to regard the idea differently than a dualist, and it's not like I'm the only person on the planet who doesn't accept a stark division between "matter" and "spirit."

I think you know perfectly well that when someone says something like what Shyanekh said a few posts back, they're making a claim about having actually experienced some real apparition or phenomenon and that they're not making some claim about having experienced the "essential qualities" of a thing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The alternate viewpoint is the physical body does not create consciousness but allows consciousness to incarnate and learn from experiences in the physical world. This incarnation is effected by the sophistication and health of the physical body.

If you damage or destroy a reflection of the moon, is the moon lost? Another analogy is the physical body is like the outer ring of an onion.

And I think these analogies fail in the face of modern neuroscience.

I've heard the argument that the brain is just the antenna that connects the soul to the body. The problem with this is that a damaged brain doesn't behave like a damaged antenna. When we're watching a news program and the TV antenna gets damaged, we get a news program with static; we don't get the anchors and correspondents acting out a sitcom.

 

[George-ananda]

And I think these analogies fail in the face of modern neuroscience.

I've heard the argument that the brain is just the antenna that connects the soul to the body. The problem with this is that a damaged brain doesn't behave like a damaged antenna. When we're watching a news program and the TV antenna gets damaged, we get a news program with static; we don't get the anchors and correspondents acting out a sitcom.

I've not heard the 'antenna' analogy quite like that. I have heard people use the analogy of the brain as a receiver of the signal.

But putting analogies aside consciousness reflects through the soul, the Mental Body, the Astral Body and the Physical Body. At death, the physical body drops off the chain of sympathetic vibrations and people barely realize they are 'dead' and they are better without the outer clunky layer (as I believe is accurately described in the NDE). People with brain damage will no longer be operating through a thick fog of confusion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I've not heard the 'antenna' analogy quite like that. I have heard people use the analogy of the brain as a receiver of the signal.

But putting analogies aside consciousness reflects through the soul, the Mental Body, the Astral Body and the Physical Body. At death, the physical body drops off the chain of sympathetic vibrations and people barely realize they are 'dead' and they are better without the outer clunky layer (as I believe is accurately described in the NDE). People with brain damage will no longer be operating through a thick fog of confusion.

When a brain injury causes two distinct personalities, which one gets "dropped off" as part of the physical body?

... and if a distinct personality doesn't indicate the presence of an "astral body" in those cases, why would we assume that each distinct personality has an "astral body" in other contexts?

 

[Erebus]

exactly what of them is left that might survive in an afterlife?

I'm not sure. I didn't stick around to talk.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not sure. I didn't stick around to talk.

So then what made you conclude that whatever you saw were ghosts specifically (as opposed to just "somethings")?

 

[Erebus]

So then what made you conclude that whatever you saw were ghosts specifically (as opposed to just "somethings")?

The old fashioned clothing, translucent grey body, deep pits in place of eyes and the fact that it scared me witless.

Ok I think I know what you really meant. What makes me think that this is some left over part of a person who died? In truth I don't know what ghosts are, I find the argument that they are the souls of the dead to be as plausible as the argument that they're some form of emotional/electrical afterimage.
The only thing I'm certain* of is that what commonly gets called a "ghost" does in fact exist.

My belief in an afterlife is kind of separate from my belief in ghosts (since I don't know for a fact that ghosts are conscious entities). It's based more on my passing interest in Necromancy and the little scraps I've gleaned from that.
My belief in the afterlife is the shakier of the two beliefs. I believe, but I don't know. I also hold that nobody will truly know until they're dead, and even then that's assuming they have a consciousness sufficient to understand their situation (which I'm skeptical of for the most part).

*As certain as I ever am about anything.

 

[George-ananda]

When a brain injury causes two distinct personalities, which one gets "dropped off" as part of the physical body?

... and if a distinct personality doesn't indicate the presence of an "astral body" in those cases, why would we assume that each distinct personality has an "astral body" in other contexts?

Well I actually remember seeing a discussion a couple decades back discussing various types of mental disorders (including multiple personality types) from a spiritualist viewpoint. I would have to research the details but I think some type of separating boundary is formed in these bodies. Upon death I would guess the boundary may continue for a time in the remaining bodies. In other words both personalities can exist in the astral body but remember even astral bodies are not permanent and are subject to change.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The old fashioned clothing, translucent grey body, deep pits in place of eyes and the fact that it scared me witless.

Ok I think I know what you really meant. What makes me think that this is some left over part of a person who died? In truth I don't know what ghosts are, I find the argument that they are the souls of the dead to be as plausible as the argument that they're some form of emotional/electrical afterimage.

You find it plausible that not only people's souls survive their deaths, but the souls of their clothes, too?

The only thing I'm certain* of is that what commonly gets called a "ghost" does in fact exist.

My belief in an afterlife is kind of separate from my belief in ghosts (since I don't know for a fact that ghosts are conscious entities). It's based more on my passing interest in Necromancy and the little scraps I've gleaned from that.
My belief in the afterlife is the shakier of the two beliefs. I believe, but I don't know. I also hold that nobody will truly know until they're dead, and even then that's assuming they have a consciousness sufficient to understand their situation (which I'm skeptical of for the most part).

*As certain as I ever am about anything.

I have a memory - as clear as any other memory I have from that age, if not moreso - that when I was 5 years old, I crawled under the fence between my back yard and the yard of the house next door and saw that the whole rear wall of the house was missing. Not collapsed, just removed, and I could see all through the house. Nobody seemed concerned at all - they were having a large party, in fact, and the house was filled with people holding drinks and chatting. My next door neighbour spotted me as I popped out from under the fence, smiled, and said "well, hello there!"

I remember this more vividly than even the school I attended at the time.

Looking back, I recognize that it was probably a dream (except for that day, the house next door always had all its walls) even though it absolutely doesn't feel like one.

I recognize that I can be fooled. Why should I assume that what you saw exists outside your head? It seems to me that the main difference between what you saw and what I saw was that I was able to come back later and try to confirm what I saw.