Evidence of the Non-Physical

[lewisnotmiller]

Man's capacity for intelligence would demand a practical lifestyle and infrastructure on earth, but, on the whole, it's the exact opposite that we see.

Both God and the devil exist, the proof is in the pudding.

Or...just putting it out there...humans are not so different from any other animal. We have a range of often competing drives, most of which we are better in analysing in others than ourselves.

If I'm hungry, I eat. Simple, right?

But is it the most nutritious food? Is it the tastiest? The quickest to access? The one with no animal products? The one recently advertised during a tv show I was watching? The one currently running a promotion meaning I could win a car?

And if I'm in a group, even just a pair, now there are complex negotiations at play. Who is dominant? Who is fussy? Who chose last time? Who is paying? Who is cooking? Who's going to pick it up? What about dishes? Who has to clean up?

Meh...you get the idea. Human interactions are complex in myriad ways. Reducing them to a battle between external binary forces isn't required for us to move from an 'intelligent' position to a more confused one. A mere nod to the complexity inherent in our existence...largely CAUSED by our intelligence...is enough.

 

[Nakosis]

'Wrong' isn't how I'd frame it. Perhaps 'limiting' though.

I think the risk is that this is a reductionist position, and you're limiting yourself along the lines of what we can test scientifically.

To be clear, I think science is limited to the material. So if you are purely talking about 'belief' in terms of validating hypothesis, then it's a different answer.

What else is there or what else do you think there needs to be?

I don't see a limitation to the material, certainly not one which should cause us any concern. Maybe you just see a limitation in materialism which doesn't exist.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What else is there or what else do you think there needs to be?

No idea. Perhaps nothing. I merely separate our process for testing knowledge (science) from the rest. I'm a methodological naturalist, basically.

I don't see a limitation to the material, certainly not one which should cause us any concern. Maybe you just see a limitation in materialism which doesn't exist.

Meh...if you're suggesting there are limits to what I know, and I might be wrong, then of course this is true. But getting a materialist to explain love is somewhat akin to getting a piano tuner to explain Tchaikovsky. Whether his explanation of the notes is 'right' or 'wrong' is hardly the point. That was what I meant by the risk of reductionism. The materialist doesn't need to be 'wrong' in any measurable sense for me to see it as potentially limiting as a way of looking at the world.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Both our mental representation of reality are in reality it doesn't "pass through one and goes into the other". We both live in reality. Our perception of it differs for a variety of reasons and we share our perception on the subject with the use of words on the internet.

So this variety of reasons, is there any methodology to solve that? Or is it a case of cognitive, moral and cultural relativism?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The ability to have a mental subjective rule requires a brain or not?

If you believe a mental subjective rule could exist without a brain that would certainly be non-detectable.

Well, yes, but your one is one the only one in town. And since all rules are subjective, there is no way to decide which one is objective and which one are objective wrong.

 

[RestlessSoul]

We need subjects/participants to TELL us about what they are doing (or at least assume they are following the tasks) in order to get even basic interpretations of neural correlate data off of the ground. What we can't do is make the leap from the assumption that brain imaging data is correlated with particular cognitive processes to the conclusion all cognitive processes or consciousness or the mind is physical (apart from a priori assumptions).

By that logic, I've seen people "detect" the presence of ghosts and other paranormal activity.


I don't think it makes much sense. In physics, we deal with things all of the time that we don't really regard as being "physical" in the same sense the term is usually used colloquially. A lot of "fundamental" physical processes and constituents are in fact book-keeping devices for extracting data from experiments in HEP physics or in other similar arenas. Elsewhere, the problem is circumvented by using terms like "information" which is claimed to be more fundamental and treated as such because it is abstract to begin with and we don't have to worry about metaphysics.
We still make claims, however, about the very physical nature of things like probability currents and probability conservation, which is not physical in any meaningful sense but absolutely vital to our understanding of fundamental physics and its foundations.
On the other hand, absolutely basic components of physical experiences are excluded a priori from physics because we need to do experiments, Thus we need to pretend that we can set initial conditions for physical systems (with or without interaction or environment) in an idealized manner.
As a result, something as basic as "time" enters into fundamental physics as a parameter (even when we have to rename it as e.g., proper time because we need a temporal dimension to physical space).
Most of what is called "physical" in HEP, quantum many-body physics, quantum field theories, etc., consists of virtual processes and particles that are not physical in the sense the term is usually meant.
Additionally, the governing laws themselves (as well as governing principles such as the action) are postulated to have real physical consequences at cosmic and microcosmic scales but to have no physical existence.

So at the fundamental level, there is no tangible substance to the fabric of the material world? There is only the probability of phenomena manifesting in particular ways, determined by laws which are themselves abstractions?

 

[Truthseeker]

So at the fundamental level, there is no tangible substance to the fabric of the material world? There is only the probability of phenomena manifesting in particular ways, determined by laws which are themselves abstractions?

I didn't understand all of what this person said, but I do know that in a sense what we call material is very intangible. Quantum physics says that all phenomenon is probabilistic.

In one experiment, if you measure where an electron goes through two slits, it goes through one slit of the two, and creates the pattern on a screen that indicates this. But if it is not observed what slit it goes through, there is a pattern on the screen that indicates that the electron went through both slits at the same time. So observation changes what happens. Electrons are at different places if you don't observe them. Once you observe them, they are at one location.

 

[firedragon]

Well it needs to be detectable to the human senses or detectable to instruments. IOW it has to have some measurable property.

For example we can physically detect voltage if it is large enough. However a voltmeter can detect voltage that wouldn't be large enough for us to detect through touch.

There exists a lot of things we can physically detect, like brain waves. EEGs can measure brainwaves so the measurement of brainwaves can be used to support a claim or theory.

So I'm not really asking for what one would physically use as evidence. I'm all good with using something physical to support what a person accepts as knowledge. Even if I may not agree with the conclusion. I curious what an example of non-physical evidence might be.

For example spiritual knowledge. As spiritual relates to the non-physical.

If you want to question my epistemology whilst I question whether Ontology has a non-physical source, that's ok I suppose.

Different people use the word question in different ways.

Nevertheless, it is imperative to know the others epistemology prior to any engagement. because one person has one view and the other another. There is no reconciliation.

Though you have brought in detection in a different manner speaking of voltages and metres it is still physical. It is considered physical. Fundamentally, you are an empiricist by the way you have explained yourself.

Also I think you are using ontology form a materialistic point of view. So your question about non-physical source was extensively discussed on the mind. That is not the real question here. N worries though, of course you can question it. You seem to be an epistemic empiricist by your explanation above. That cannot be applied to a metaphysical. Impossible.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I didn't understand all of what this person said, but I do know that in a sense what we call material is very intangible. Quantum physics says that all phenomenon is probabilistic.

In one experiment, if you measure where an electron goes through two slits, it goes through one slit of the two, and creates the pattern on a screen that indicates this. But if it is not observed what slit it goes through, there is a pattern on the screen that indicates that the electron went through both slits at the same time. So observation changes what happens. Electrons are at different places if you don't observe them. Once you observe them, they are at one location.

Indeed.

“The solidity of the classical vision of the world is nothing other than our own myopia. The certainties of classical physics are just probabilities. The well defined and solid picture of the world given by the old physics is an illusion.”
- Carlo Rovelli

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Ok,
Yes, this, to my understanding is a physical process of the brain. While I may not agree with the conclusion, that ghosts exist external to this internal process, the internal process of detection was physical.

I wasn't talking about brain imaging as a method of ghost detection. I was taking issue with your claim that detectability is a fundamental, or reliable, or even coherent account or criterion for the "thing-detected" to be physical.
I was saying that by your logic here:

Something is different and that difference is detectible therefore physical.

Which you repeated here:

Physical means it is something detectable.

then ghosts and whatnot are real because we can build devices that "detect" them, as in this kind of nonsense:
7 Ghost-Hunting Tools Recommended by Paranormal Investigators
Detection doesn't mean detecting something real or physical, as the process is heavily theory-dependent, context-dependent, and prone to a variety of issues ranging from a "detector" that registers ghosts because people assume so to the kinds of problems you actually run into in neuroscience when you aren't careful enough because you are ultimately relying not on the detection but on signal analysis and correlations in data given by the generated signal and the responses of participants (all of which depend crucially on a variety of theoretical frameworks, from the quantum-mechanical principles underlying NMR spin in e.g., BOLD contrast or other fMRI schemes to the neuron doctrine to construct validity concerning the unobservable abstractions as those in the study behind the popular science bunk you linked to that involve the nature of concepts/semantics as they are realized in language and then how these in turn are instantiated through postulated mechanisms in the brain).
As an example of how we can see "ghost" detection problems in a more serious, realistic case without leaving brain imagining methods, it has been "shown" that we can detect the neural responses to visual stimuli in subjects that are not only non-human, but which are quite clearly dead. This is an easy one, as I just wrote about it elsewhere:
"In 2009, a highly remarkable scientific experiment was performed by Bennett, Baird, Miller and Wolford, four American brain researchers. They used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a brain imaging technique, to determine which brain areas respond to emotional stimuli in a test subject. The subject was shown several emotionally laden pictures and was asked to verbalize the emotion shown. The display of pictures was alternated with rest, and by comparing the brain readings between exposure and rest, the researchers were able to clearly identify a brain area that showed a response to the stimulus offered (Bennett et al. 2011).
What was so remarkable about this experiment? Certainly not the idea of measuring brain response to pictures using fMRI; this had been done countless times by other researchers in the past. Also not the statistical methods used to find the relevant brain regions by comparing exposure and rest states; the same techniques had been used in many influential publications in brain imaging before. The originality of the study lay in the choice of the test subject. This was not, as usual, a human, but an Atlantic salmon. Moreover, the salmon was stone dead, having been bought in the local supermarket on the very morning of the experiment." (emphasis added)
Goeman J.J. (2016) Randomness and the Games of Science. In: Landsman K., van Wolde E. (eds) The Challenge of Chance. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_5
Here is the original dead salmon imaging experiment:
"Neural Correlates of Interspecies Perspective Taking in the Post-Mortem Atlantic Salmon: An Argument For Proper Multiple Comparisons Correction"

If you can use your senses to perceive it or use instrument to detect it it fit the definition of physical.

Again, then, we run first into the issue that there are instruments and detectors built to "detect" things we don't believe to exist. So using your criterion doesn't mean much as it doesn't allow one to distinguish how rosary beads can be used to detect god from the ways in which fMRI detects brain function or how we can use particle colliders and whatnot that could be detecting pions or not because pion "interactions are independent of whether they are composed of QCD fields or of little green aliens"
from p. 568 of
Schwartz, M. D. (2014). Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press.

 

[stvdv]

Physical:
2a: having material existence : perceptible especially through the senses and subject to the laws of nature
everything physical is measurable by weight, motion, and resistance
— Thomas De Quincey
b: of or relating to material things

Clear definition, talks about senses and material facts

As a "materialist", evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify belief.

Almost correct

Is that position wrong?

Better would be something like:
As a "materialist", material evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify "material belief"

What is your evidence of the existence of the non-physical?

It's actually quite simple IMO:
Outer senses are used to prove material beliefs
Inner senses are used to prove spiritual beliefs

or

Science is below the mind (outer senses)
Spirituality is beyond the mind (inner senses)

Note:
One is not more/less than the other. It's like male and female. Both are useful and needed to create life. Similar, Science and Spirituality are both needed to understand "creation"

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I wasn't talking about brain imaging as a method of ghost detection. I was taking issue with your claim that detectability is a fundamental, or reliable, or even coherent account or criterion for the "thing-detected" to be physical.
I was saying that by your logic here:

Which you repeated here:

The ghosts and whatnot are real because we can build devices that "detect" them, as in this kind of nonsense:
7 Ghost-Hunting Tools Recommended by Paranormal Investigators
Detection doesn't mean, as it is heavily theory-dependent, context-dependent, and prone to a variety of issues ranging from a "detector" that registers ghosts because people assume so to the kinds of problems you actually run into in neuroscience when you aren't careful enough because you are ultimately relying not on the detection but on signal analysis and correlations in data given by the generated signal and the responses of participants (all of which depend crucially on a variety of theoretical frameworks, from the quantum-mechanical principles underlying NMR spin in e.g., BOLD contrast or other fMRI schemes to the neuron doctrine to construct validity concerning the unobservable abstractions as those in the study behind the popular science bunk you linked to that involve the nature of concepts/semantics as they are realized in language and then how these in turn are instantiated through postulated mechanisms in the brain).
As an example of how we can see "ghost" detection problems in a more serious, realistic case without leaving brain imagining methods, it has been "shown" that we can detect the neural responses to visual stimuli in subjects that are not only non-human, but which are quite clearly dead. This is an easy one, as I just wrote about it elsewhere:
"In 2009, a highly remarkable scientific experiment was performed by Bennett, Baird, Miller and Wolford, four American brain researchers. They used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a brain imaging technique, to determine which brain areas respond to emotional stimuli in a test subject. The subject was shown several emotionally laden pictures and was asked to verbalize the emotion shown. The display of pictures was alternated with rest, and by comparing the brain readings between exposure and rest, the researchers were able to clearly identify a brain area that showed a response to the stimulus offered (Bennett et al. 2011).
What was so remarkable about this experiment? Certainly not the idea of measuring brain response to pictures using fMRI; this had been done countless times by other researchers in the past. Also not the statistical methods used to find the relevant brain regions by comparing exposure and rest states; the same techniques had been used in many influential publications in brain imaging before. The originality of the study lay in the choice of the test subject. This was not, as usual, a human, but an Atlantic salmon. Moreover, the salmon was stone dead, having been bought in the local supermarket on the very morning of the experiment." (emphasis added)
Goeman J.J. (2016) Randomness and the Games of Science. In: Landsman K., van Wolde E. (eds) The Challenge of Chance. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_5
Here is the original dead salmon imaging experiment:
"Neural Correlates of Interspecies Perspective Taking in the Post-Mortem Atlantic Salmon: An Argument For Proper Multiple Comparisons Correction"

Again, then, we run first into the issue that there are instruments and detectors built to "detect" things we don't believe to exist. So using your criterion doesn't mean much as it doesn't allow one to distinguish how rosary beads can be used to detect god from the ways in which fMRI detects brain function or how we can use particle colliders and whatnot that could be detecting pions or not because pion "interactions are independent of whether they are composed of QCD fields or of little green aliens"
from p. 568 of
Schwartz, M. D. (2014). Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press.

You know your stuff.
I am a bit more primitive.
I just apply this: "Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." and other simple philosophical standards for checking for subjective in another poster's words.
So far in the 25 years I have done this, I have no come across any claim of what the world really is, that avoid limited relativism. That includes myself and not just everybody else.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

So at the fundamental level, there is no tangible substance to the fabric of the material world? There is only the probability of phenomena manifesting in particular ways, determined by laws which are themselves abstractions?

"According to quantum mechanics, material reality is neither composed of any kind of context-independent building blocks nor are there objects in the sense of an absolute ontology. In quantum field theory, “particles” are small amplitude excitations of a quantum field. Therefore it is illegitimate to say that the world is made of molecules, atoms, electrons or quarks. Rather, a description based on such theoretical concepts may, in a particular context, be useful or even the best possible one. Matter, as described by the first principles of quantum theory, resembles matter in the Aristotelian sense: It is not a substance, but the capacity to form patterns.” (p. 92)
H. Primas (2017). Bottom-Up Approaches in Physics. In H. Atmanspacher (Ed.) Knowledge and Time (pp. 91-153). Springer.
Or for some nice and clearly overly simplistic quips one finds in the quantum foundations (and similar physics) literature:
"The notion of Physical Object is Untenable”
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.

“The only reality is mind and observations”
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe. Nature, 436(7047), 29-29.

Most of that is simply clever quips. But there is absolutely a sense in which our best and most fundamental theories do not allow for a worldview in which an observer-independent reality and to the extent that they can we immediately run into issues of contextuality as well as interpretations of formalisms that yield differing results (e.g., a vacuum state at rest with respect to Lab A will be a "plenum" of sorts, filled with observablle particles, from Lab B moving uniformily with respect to the would-be vacuum).
Then there is the fact that the probabilities and interpretation problems of non-relativistic quantum theory of made considerably more difficult and problematic once one factors in the general ways in which Lorentz-covariance is obtained from the (Galilean) symmetries of non-relativistic QM without sacrificing the crucial component of unitary evolution and whilst maintaining the causal structures supposed to exist in spacetime(s).
Basically, one forces the theory into a constraint on detectors alongside a reinterpretation of what physical states are (promoting observables in QM to actual physical states in QFT that act not on systems as in QM but on, ultimately, the would-be vacuum state) and a host of other difficulties:
“It might be objected that we can observe virtual particles, namely if we make a measurement while the interaction is taking place we will find some of the particles indicated by the Feynman diagrams. Well, first of all, this cannot be strictly correct because virtual particles are off mass shell while any observed particle will be on mass shell, but perhaps the measurement forces them onto the mass shell. Second, it does not follow that the particles we detect when we interrupt an interaction would have been there if we had not made the measurement, or were there just before the measurement.” (p. 47).
Weingard, R. (1988). Virtual Particles and the Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory. In H. R. Brown & R. Harré (Eds.) Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (pp. 43-58). Oxford University Press.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

"According to quantum mechanics, material reality is neither composed of any kind of context-independent building blocks nor are there objects in the sense of an absolute ontology. In quantum field theory, “particles” are small amplitude excitations of a quantum field. Therefore it is illegitimate to say that the world is made of molecules, atoms, electrons or quarks. Rather, a description based on such theoretical concepts may, in a particular context, be useful or even the best possible one. Matter, as described by the first principles of quantum theory, resembles matter in the Aristotelian sense: It is not a substance, but the capacity to form patterns.” (p. 92)
H. Primas (2017). Bottom-Up Approaches in Physics. In H. Atmanspacher (Ed.) Knowledge and Time (pp. 91-153). Springer.
Or for some nice and clearly overly simplistic quips one finds in the quantum foundations (and similar physics) literature:
"The notion of Physical Object is Untenable”
D’Ariano, G. M. (2015). It from Qubit. In It From Bit or Bit From It? (pp. 25-35). Springer.

"We now know that the moon is demonstrably not there when nobody looks."
Mermin, N. D. (1981). Quantum mysteries for anyone. The Journal of Philosophy, 78(7), 397-408.

“The only reality is mind and observations”
Henry, R. C. (2005). The mental universe. Nature, 436(7047), 29-29.

Most of that is simply clever quips. But there is absolutely a sense in which our best and most fundamental theories do not allow for a worldview in which an observer-independent reality and to the extent that they can we immediately run into issues of contextuality as well as interpretations of formalisms that yield differing results (e.g., a vacuum state at rest with respect to Lab A will be a "plenum" of sorts, filled with observablle particles, from Lab B moving uniformily with respect to the would-be vacuum).
Then there is the fact that the probabilities and interpretation problems of non-relativistic quantum theory of made considerably more difficult and problematic once one factors in the general ways in which Lorentz-covariance is obtained from the (Galilean) symmetries of non-relativistic QM without sacrificing the crucial component of unitary evolution and whilst maintaining the causal structures supposed to exist in spacetime(s).
Basically, one forces the theory into a constraint on detectors alongside a reinterpretation of what physical states are (promoting observables in QM to actual physical states in QFT that act not on systems as in QM but on, ultimately, the would-be vacuum state) and a host of other difficulties:
“It might be objected that we can observe virtual particles, namely if we make a measurement while the interaction is taking place we will find some of the particles indicated by the Feynman diagrams. Well, first of all, this cannot be strictly correct because virtual particles are off mass shell while any observed particle will be on mass shell, but perhaps the measurement forces them onto the mass shell. Second, it does not follow that the particles we detect when we interrupt an interaction would have been there if we had not made the measurement, or were there just before the measurement.” (p. 47).
Weingard, R. (1988). Virtual Particles and the Interpretation of Quantum Field Theory. In H. R. Brown & R. Harré (Eds.) Philosophical Foundations of Quantum Field Theory (pp. 43-58). Oxford University Press.

If we're doing quips about the substantive nature of the universe, I feel compelled to offer this one...it is somewhat less learned than yours, but then again, that is probably apt...lol

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.”

(Terry Pratchett - Hogfather)

@ChristineM , I'm giving me kudos for using that in context.

 

[ChristineM]

If we're doing quips about the substantive nature of the universe, I feel compelled to offer this one...it is somewhat less learned than yours, but then again, that is probably apt...lol


@ChristineM , I'm giving me kudos for using that in context.

You quoted a very wise man...

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is your problem? Religion is apart of the world and as real as gravity, since everything is physical.

There is a distinct difference between "religion" being real and the mental artifacts of religion having actual presence outside of the abstract realm of people's thoughts and ideas. As in, if someone claims "god" using nothing but the thoughts from their mind, then there is no reason to conclude that there is an actual reality to "god" that can be experienced outside that person's mind. No reason. So that's the distinct difference. "Religion" is something we can actually come in contact with outside of our experience with any one person claiming things about it. "God" isn't like that. "God" is a mental artifact related to the thing that actually has presence in reality, but nothing more than that. To the point that while people's thoughts about God can be demonstrated to be real, God itself cannot be. There is an ocean of difference there... which you would like reduced to a rain drop because "subjectivity." I deny you this. It will not be that easy.

 

[Nakosis]

Clear definition, talks about senses and material facts


Almost correct


Better would be something like:
As a "materialist", material evidence requires some physicality. If it is not physical, it is not usable to justify "material belief"


It's actually quite simple IMO:
Outer senses are used to prove material beliefs
Inner senses are used to prove spiritual beliefs

or

Science is below the mind (outer senses)
Spirituality is beyond the mind (inner senses)

Note:
One is not more/less than the other. It's like male and female. Both are useful and needed to create life. Similar, Science and Spirituality are both needed to understand "creation"

I'll assume you believe your inner senses to be non-physical?

To me from a number of neuroscience articles and studies I've read, your "inner senses" are physical processes.

 

[Nakosis]

I wasn't talking about brain imaging as a method of ghost detection. I was taking issue with your claim that detectability is a fundamental, or reliable, or even coherent account or criterion for the "thing-detected" to be physical.
I was saying that by your logic here:

Which you repeated here:

then ghosts and whatnot are real because we can build devices that "detect" them, as in this kind of nonsense:
7 Ghost-Hunting Tools Recommended by Paranormal Investigators
Detection doesn't mean detecting something real or physical, as the process is heavily theory-dependent, context-dependent, and prone to a variety of issues ranging from a "detector" that registers ghosts because people assume so to the kinds of problems you actually run into in neuroscience when you aren't careful enough because you are ultimately relying not on the detection but on signal analysis and correlations in data given by the generated signal and the responses of participants (all of which depend crucially on a variety of theoretical frameworks, from the quantum-mechanical principles underlying NMR spin in e.g., BOLD contrast or other fMRI schemes to the neuron doctrine to construct validity concerning the unobservable abstractions as those in the study behind the popular science bunk you linked to that involve the nature of concepts/semantics as they are realized in language and then how these in turn are instantiated through postulated mechanisms in the brain).
As an example of how we can see "ghost" detection problems in a more serious, realistic case without leaving brain imagining methods, it has been "shown" that we can detect the neural responses to visual stimuli in subjects that are not only non-human, but which are quite clearly dead. This is an easy one, as I just wrote about it elsewhere:
"In 2009, a highly remarkable scientific experiment was performed by Bennett, Baird, Miller and Wolford, four American brain researchers. They used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), a brain imaging technique, to determine which brain areas respond to emotional stimuli in a test subject. The subject was shown several emotionally laden pictures and was asked to verbalize the emotion shown. The display of pictures was alternated with rest, and by comparing the brain readings between exposure and rest, the researchers were able to clearly identify a brain area that showed a response to the stimulus offered (Bennett et al. 2011).
What was so remarkable about this experiment? Certainly not the idea of measuring brain response to pictures using fMRI; this had been done countless times by other researchers in the past. Also not the statistical methods used to find the relevant brain regions by comparing exposure and rest states; the same techniques had been used in many influential publications in brain imaging before. The originality of the study lay in the choice of the test subject. This was not, as usual, a human, but an Atlantic salmon. Moreover, the salmon was stone dead, having been bought in the local supermarket on the very morning of the experiment." (emphasis added)
Goeman J.J. (2016) Randomness and the Games of Science. In: Landsman K., van Wolde E. (eds) The Challenge of Chance. The Frontiers Collection. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26300-7_5
Here is the original dead salmon imaging experiment:
"Neural Correlates of Interspecies Perspective Taking in the Post-Mortem Atlantic Salmon: An Argument For Proper Multiple Comparisons Correction"

Again, then, we run first into the issue that there are instruments and detectors built to "detect" things we don't believe to exist. So using your criterion doesn't mean much as it doesn't allow one to distinguish how rosary beads can be used to detect god from the ways in which fMRI detects brain function or how we can use particle colliders and whatnot that could be detecting pions or not because pion "interactions are independent of whether they are composed of QCD fields or of little green aliens"
from p. 568 of
Schwartz, M. D. (2014). Quantum Field Theory and the Standard Model. Cambridge University Press.

How can rosary beads detect anything?
I suppose if you hang them from a tree one can detect whether the wind is blowing or not.

Anyway we not into the analysis of what is being detected only that something is being detected. One can assume a cold spot is a ghost or a draft. Someone looking for ghosts will assume the former and not investigate further which is not really my problem.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, yes, but your one is one the only one in town. And since all rules are subjective, there is no way to decide which one is objective and which one are objective wrong.

Some rules can be physically verified and some can't, correct?

Our rules don't have to be the same. I may even have rules myself which are not physically supported. However my point is any rules I may have that I can't physically support, I wouldn't expect your or anyone else to accept in support of a belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some rules can be physically verified and some can't, correct?

Our rules don't have to be the same. I may even have rules myself which are not physically supported. However my point is any rules I may have that I can't physically support, I wouldn't expect your or anyone else to accept in support of a belief.

No, you end up in a regress. You compare 2 different rule you need a 3rd rule, a meta rule to figure out which of the 2 one are correct. The problem is that you don't know if the meta rule is correct. For that you need a meta-meta rule and so on. It is an infinite regress.

It has already been test. All rules are in the mind and that is the limit of epistemological rationalism- For the physical you do this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

The problem is that there is no one set of rules for what science is or what the physical is and we are back to the problem again. Science is a belief system that apparently works, but it is not the only one.