Are Ghosts Real? (a poll)

[Umbran]

(As proof, we are dumber than our ancestors from before agriculture

Woohoo! Is that assertion going to need a boatload of support!
Really, "As proof, here's a thing which is not proven!" That's your argument?

... The moment we can afford to be less smart, the moment we lose mental ability. Intelligence is costly, even now).

Now, we get to how this does not properly consider how our brains, or evolution, operates.

Yes, our brains use a whole lot of our biological energy budget. But, unless you are literally starving or freezing to death before you have kids - and the brain is thus using calories that could otherwise keep you alive - that expense is not providing a selective pressure against intelligence.

And, remember, AI isn't (yet) making our species dumber - AI has not been around long enough to impact the gene pool and select against genes for brains that work well.

If there is complex life out there, it is very unlikely to have developed into intelligent life. If intelligent life exists, why would it be necessarily as advanced as us? (Why would it necessarily be more advanced than us? Why would they wield essentially magic?).

Broadly speaking, the answer is: time.

The universe is something like 13-14 billion years old. We, as intelligent creatures, are between 3 million (Homo habillis) and 300,000 years old (early modern humans), depending how you want to count.

Simple statistics gives us that any other intelligent species out there is older than we are, because we are so new, on geologic and cosmic timescales. So, they've got the magic technology, because they've been around longer to develop technology.

And no, in this regard I get lots of appeals to the unknown (but you can't know how life could be in other planets, it doesn't need to be based on carbon and water which are among most abundant and reactive elements in the cosmos, it can be based on other elements that are less common and less reactive!

Water isn't an element. And, instead of being "most reactive", its benefit to us is that it is pretty stable - it provides an environment in which our chemical processes can take place without itself being altered

If the chemical basis for your life is too reactive, your required molecules keep falling apart in reactions. If the chemical basis for your life is too stable, the chemical processes of that life require significantly more energy. Carbon seems to be in a bit of a sweet spot - lots of covalent bonds, so it supports complex structures, and chemical activation energies that aren't too high or two low.

Oh no, but they can have other laws of physics).

No - they can know other laws of physics, for reasons of time mentioned above. But so far, but electrons and protons and neutrons are the same everywhere, so chemistry is the same everywhere.

 

[Umbran]

I'm going to have to defer to an actual physicist (or at least a physics major) on this one. I studied engineering, which doesn't dabble in stuff outside the Laws of Thermodynamics.

This is one of those "technically correct" statements that sounds more important than it is. It is nigh onto saying, "it is just a theory".

Yes, sure, the laws of thermodynamics are falsifiable. But, are you going to find a flaw with them? Probably not. They are probably the most tested laws in all of our scientific understanding: every single commercial chemical process, for example, tests the laws of thermodynamics. And we crunch a lot of chemicals.

 

[The Firebird]

Yes, our brains use a whole lot of our biological energy budget. But, unless you are literally starving or freezing to death before you have kids - and the brain is thus using calories that could otherwise keep you alive - that expense is not providing a selective pressure against intelligence.

There is a lot that is unknown here. In addition to the substantial energy costs, there are thoughts that the longer childhood, especially infancy, and difficult childbirth are all byproducts of intelligence. Then, very few species have progressed that far up the intelligence ladder, and humans have come very close to extinction before. That could be because intelligence is not typically a winner.

A bit different but on the same theme, there is also the idea that humans have the capability to wipe themselves out. If the more apocalyptic scenarios have some chance of being true, then too much intelligence is actually a negative in the long run.

Simple statistics gives us that any other intelligent species out there is older than we are, because we are so new, on geologic and cosmic timescales. So, they've got the magic technology, because they've been around longer to develop technology.

And, that is assuming the technological growth rate is in any way predictable. That depends a lot on the specifics of the environment. Humans, for example, have benefited from the widespread abundance of fossil fuels, which may not occur on a planet with a shorter history or different conditions.

---

The "intelligent life" part of the Drake equation is probably the least constrained. The origin of life is also unknown, but there has at least been some progress in the past 75 years.

 

[Umbran]

There is a lot that is unknown here. In addition to the substantial energy costs, there are thoughts that the longer childhood, especially infancy, and difficult childbirth are all byproducts of intelligence.

So, yes, extended infancy and childhood is a result of that big brain.

But, again, there's no selection pressure against it unless it causes death before successful reproduction. Meanwhile, the human population of the planet has tripled in the last 75 years - our big brains mean too many kids are being born and growing to adulthood, not to few.

Also, this just shows that Thanos was an idiot. Cut the population in half? We'll regrow it in under a century!

Then, very few species have progressed that far up the intelligence ladder, and humans have come very close to extinction before. That could be because intelligence is not typically a winner.

Yes, humans have come close to extinction before. You suggest this "may have been" due to intelligence. But, barring some specific evidence, it "may have been" that we'd have gone extinct if we didn't have the intelligence. There's no real telling.

"May have been" is not a supported argument - it is an appeal to emotion.

A bit different but on the same theme, there is also the idea that humans have the capability to wipe themselves out. If the more apocalyptic scenarios have some chance of being true, then too much intelligence is actually a negative in the long run.

So, interestingly, do you realize that it is our insufficient intelligence that is driving us into dangerous scenarios? The apocalyptic ends become more likely because we still rely on emotion-based risk assessment that is very bad at understanding long-term impacts.

And, that is assuming the technological growth rate is in any way predictable. That depends a lot on the specifics of the environment. Humans, for example, have benefited from the widespread abundance of fossil fuels, which may not occur on a planet with a shorter history or different conditions.

Fossil fuels exist due to entirely natural processes where life buts up against geology. Living things die, get buried, and in the long run the fossilization process produces coal (from trees) and oil and natural gas (from plankton). If you have enough sea life, oil and natural gas deposits are pretty much inevitable, as far as we understand the process. Coal is a little more complicated, and less inevitable.

But even then, you can go a long way on charcoal. It just takes longer. But longer on human timescales, not geological ones.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Also, this just shows that Thanos was an idiot. Cut the population in half? We'll regrow it in under a century!

Yeah this was the utterly perplexing thing about his plan. Like, if he wanted to kill 99% of people, maybe that would profoundly change things, but 50%? All you did was make it so in a relatively short time things will be exactly the same again!

So, interestingly, do you realize that it is our insufficient intelligence that is driving us into dangerous scenarios? The apocalyptic ends become more likely because we still rely on emotion-based risk assessment that is very bad at understanding long-term impacts.

Never more evident than the last few years, especially the last year. As well as emotional risk assessment we have a huge problem with who should be listened to about societal planning and even scientific facts that's based hugely on social status, gender, ethnicity, age, wealth, and the most superficial possible charm, but absolutely not on qualifications, let alone on whether their suggestions are based on evidence and logic.

 

[Ryujin]

Yeah this was the utterly perplexing thing about his plan. Like, if he wanted to kill 99% of people, maybe that would profoundly change things, but 50%? All you did was make it so in a relatively short time things will be exactly the same again!


Never more evident than the last few years, especially the last year. As well as emotional risk assessment we have a huge problem with who should be listened to about societal planning and even scientific facts that's based hugely on social status, gender, ethnicity, age, wealth, and the most superficial possible charm, but absolutely not on qualifications, let alone on whether their suggestions are based on evidence and logic.

It goes even further with people who evidently never grew mentally/emotionally beyond 5th grade and actively bully "smart people."

 

[The Firebird]

But, again, there's no selection pressure against it unless it causes death before successful reproduction. Meanwhile, the human population of the planet has tripled in the last 75 years - our big brains mean too many kids are being born and growing to adulthood, not to few.

"Too many"? There is quite a bit to say about the assumptions underlying that claim, but I will not go that direction.

Yes, humans have come close to extinction before. You suggest this "may have been" due to intelligence. But, barring some specific evidence, it "may have been" that we'd have gone extinct if we didn't have the intelligence. There's no real telling.

I am not suggesting the extinction event was because of intelligence specifically. I'm speaking more generally--as far as we can tell, intelligence is evolved only rarely and it is not obvious that it has positive selection effects.

And yes, I am hedging my statements because I think the state of knowledge is quite limited.

So, interestingly, do you realize that it is our insufficient intelligence that is driving us into dangerous scenarios? The apocalyptic ends become more likely because we still rely on emotion-based risk assessment that is very bad at understanding long-term impacts.

Is it? I think you are pushing too far with what is known. Those emotions and the feeling of altruism also do a lot to mitigate risk.

Fossil fuels exist due to entirely natural processes where life buts up against geology. Living things die, get buried, and in the long run the fossilization process produces coal (from trees) and oil and natural gas (from plankton). If you have enough sea life, oil and natural gas deposits are pretty much inevitable, as far as we understand the process. Coal is a little more complicated, and less inevitable.

But even then, you can go a long way on charcoal. It just takes longer. But longer on human timescales, not geological ones.

I mentioned shorter planetary lifetimes as one example. If complex life evolved more rapidly, then there may not be as large reservoirs. Many planets (e.g., Mars) have shorter habitability windows.

But, 'inevitable' oil or gas is also not true especially given the sample space of planetary environments. If the organic material is oxidized or the kerogen isn't heated properly, for example, it won't work. You will also struggle without plate tectonics. The amount of oil produced on Earth is quite variable with geological period. On very different planets, or ocean worlds like Enceladus, it will not be so easy.

 

[MoonSong]

(Also, which is more arrogant: assuming that humanity is the only intelligent life in a near-infinite universe? or assuming that in a near-infinite universe, humanity is interesting enough to visit?)

The thing is, we don't even know if the universe is infinite. We are trapped inside a relatively small (but actually immense) bubble outside of which we cannot know anything. And as time passes, that bubble will turn smaller and more stuff will be outside.

There's nothing whatsoever in actual science to support this belief (though I have heard it before). This is at best wild and unsupported speculation, at worst, it's fantasy writing masquerading as science (often promoted by the very worst kinds of people with the worst intentions - I'm not saying you are, but generally white supremacist conspiracy theorists and the like are not great people to line up with). I am prepared to defend this position with specifics - it's something that's been of interest to me. Let's not start with nonsense like the CC'age of brains alone indicating intelligence. We know for a fact that it doesn't.

Maybe not intelligence, but at least memory. The brain consumes a lot of energy to work and develop. And the fact is, our brains are smaller than our pre-sedentary ancestors'. There is a selective pressure for them to not be as big, otherwise the reduced capacity wouldn't have been preserved.
This pressure remains and is observable with stuff as simple as reliance on GPS navigation. The areas for orientation in heavy users of Waze and Maps are smaller than in people who don't use them as much. (And traditional Taxi drivers have these areas overdeveloped) We have the biological potential for a lot of activities, but when we don't do these, the brain parts related to that ability shut down. The brain actively resists using it despite not being malnourished -though stress is also a factor-.

 

[MoonSong]

Broadly speaking, the answer is: time.

The universe is something like 13-14 billion years old. We, as intelligent creatures, are between 3 million (Homo habillis) and 300,000 years old (early modern humans), depending how you want to count.

Simple statistics gives us that any other intelligent species out there is older than we are, because we are so new, on geologic and cosmic timescales. So, they've got the magic technology, because they've been around longer to develop technology.

The main point of your argument assumes a steady state of the universe. The original stars (and the first ones after them) didn't have planets and were made of only hydrogen and helium. Only newer stars had enough elements available in their formation to have planets. Yes our Sun might not be among the oldest stars with planets, but it isn't that new either. In cosmic terms is at worst a teen amongst young adults. And look how long it took for live to appear on Earth after the Sun formed. It isn't a fast process. Every step towards us took a while, and it wasn't a straightforward process (because evolution is aimless. It wasn't pointing to us; it doesn't point towards anything. Intelligent life capable of civilization isn't guaranteed unless you have infinite time)

Even if there are other species capable of civilization, nothing guaranties that they are older than us. Even if they are older, nothing guaranties they have discovered what is functionally magic.

Water isn't an element. And, instead of being "most reactive", its benefit to us is that it is pretty stable - it provides an environment in which our chemical processes can take place without itself being altered

If the chemical basis for your life is too reactive, your required molecules keep falling apart in reactions. If the chemical basis for your life is too stable, the chemical processes of that life require significantly more energy. Carbon seems to be in a bit of a sweet spot - lots of covalent bonds, so it supports complex structures, and chemical activation energies that aren't too high or two low.

I was in a bit of a hurry, so I couldn't explain myself properly. I knew I wasn't being accurate, but I thought the nitpick wouldn't matter. Oh well, let me rephrase myself.

Our biochemistry needs a very specific set of conditions, but it is also the most likely. Carbon and the elements of water are among the oldest and most common chemical elements in the universe. All other alternatives are heavier elements that are less common and less reactive. (Silicon is a potential alternative to Carbon, but it requires a lot more energy to react. It is even more common than Carbon here on Earth yet life as we know it doesn't use it)

 

[Clint_L]

I mean, sort of.

Here's a quick rundown of the scientific method:
Step 1: Observe
Step 2: Question
Step 3: Make a hypothesis
Step 4: Experiment
Step 5: Analyze
Step 6: Draw a conclusion

Let's assume we have already observed something we can't explain (step 1), then we asked, "woah, what was that?" (step 2), and a friend said, "I think it was a ghost" (step 3). So we can skip ahead to step 4, building the experiment. And here's where it all goes to hell.

Experiments must define and measure variables. So if you are trying to explain something you saw, your experiment would focus on visible objects and phenomena. To make sure you are measuring only ghosts, you would need to eliminate all non-ghost variables. Let me reaffirm that part: I said eliminate, as in "remove from the data set completely." This is not the same thing as "explain it." It has to be removed from the experiment completely, or it will influence the results of your data.

First, since this was an observation, you need to eliminate anything that could affect cognition. Was it dark? Was it foggy, rainy, or windy? Do you wear eye correction, and if so, how old is your prescription? Are you taking any medication? How long had it been since you last ate something? Were you intoxicated? Were you well-rested? Were you disoriented or anxious? Any of these will affect your ability to see something and/or interpret what you saw--which is why so many ghost sightings happen late at night (when lighting is poor, it's been several hours since the observer last ate something, it's past the observer's bedtime) and they're stressed about running late or being lost. If you can't eliminate these variables from your experiment, it won't be measuring ghosts...it'll end up measuring your own vision and cognitive ability in that moment.

Then you do this again for environmental factors: was it windy, was the building drafty, were there curtains near an open window, etc. And then you do it again for social factors: do you own a pet, are you certain you were alone, was the area open to the public, was any wildlife in the area? And so on, and so on, until you have eliminated all non-ghost variables from your experiment....otherwise you aren't measuring ghosts. (It's no coincidence that so many ghost sightings happen in public areas like parks, graveyards, or roadsides where the observer can't guarantee they were alone, or in abandoned places where vagrants, scavengers, and teenagers are often found.)

I think it's the rigorous elimination of variables that folks are referring to when they say "disproving theories." You're not trying to discredit the observer, you are trying to refine the experiment.

Then there's confirmation bias, and I think that's the worst variable of all. All of the "paranormal investigators" you read about have already decided that the paranormal exists (there's a clue in their name, you see), so they are only interested in proving what they have already accepted as fact. This will shape the experiment in several ways, but it usually takes the form of cherry-picking variables and data to support the hypothesis. Because it just has to be a ghost, right? What else could it possibly be? (except for that, or that, or that, or that, or that, or that, or...) And bias is almost impossible to detect and eliminate, and usually requires parallel tests and peer review.

Sorry for the long essay about How To Do A Science. I would love to see an actual scientific experiment involving ghosts, but so far, nobody has been able to design one.

Sorry, but step 4 isn't possible until your friend clearly defines what "ghost" means in quantifiable terms. Otherwise, you can't even know what the variables are. So they've already failed to pass step 3.

You can't build a hypothesis off of a supernatural entity. This is why "God did it" can never be science. Same thing goes for ghosts.

I teach a Theory of Knowledge unit on the scientific method, BTW, though I appreciate your explanation.