/sci/ - Science & Math

>>5952834

I'm bored. So troll or no, i'll bite.

>Are there any scientific explanations which explain ghosts?

No. There hasn't been any scientific verification of their existence to require an explanation.

> ghosts implies having a soul which implies religion

Why?

> science>religion

There's no real reference point in for this comparison, but if it's your opinion, very well.

> I'm not religious but believe in ghosts/paranormal entities through experience

Ah, I see. I take it you're spiritual? Beware of the relativists in groups that consider themselves spiritual. Their intentions are in the right place, i'm sure, but it's a horrible misjudgment to believe that relative truths that are actually relative, mean that they can disagree. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism

That being said, you can keep your experiences that you claim to have had with ghosts. But beware of ALL other claims of such. Why? for the same reason I have to beware of your claim: It's easy to discount, and hard to prove. My brother, for instance, can come up to me with a vivid story about how he was abducted by aliens, saw this, saw that, did this, did that. And I generally trust my brother to understand reality well enough to know if something... actually happened to him or not. But the more outlandish it gets, the more I have to see it to truly believe it. I can humor him, I can listen to him, I can accept he believe it happened to him. But that's... that's about all I can do.

>>4590210

Qualia is supposed to be this epiphenomena quality of an experience, kind of like the REDNESS of the color red. It is supposed to be a purely subjective thing.

So, the brain and peripheral nervous system are physical systems that allow the words to be said, and are thus effected by the mind as surely as the fact that what I say is what my mind wanted to say. Indeed, I am saying I experience qualia. So how is this possible if raw subjectivity can not be experienced?