Thread: Anybody ever see Pee (Ghosts) in Thailand?

It seems there are 4 types of arguments about ghosts.

1: The people who have seen and experienced things that made them believe. I fall into this catagory.

2: The people who have never seen anything so dont believe. Most people I think.

3: The people who have seen something but insist it has some rational scientific explanation.

4: People who have never seen anything but will believe anything.

Im sorry I forgot the 5th. People who just stay on the fence and dont pick sides.

As for the temporal lobe epilepsy mentioned above I have read a lot about that condition and think it is quite possible that I do indeed suffer from this.

Had some strange DeJa'Vu stuff happen to me years back. The strange thing was it would last for about 30 minutes. It felt like I could see the future but only as it was happening. Wake up the next day and felt like I could do anything. Had what would be called a God complex after these episodes also which is supposed to be part of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

The thing is that the Temporal Lobe is supposed to be where all the extra sensory stuff orignates, so wouldnt having epilepsy there possibly give you some of these abilities?

jacksonian Epilepsy?

Believing in "Pee " is as daft as listening to politicions . Buying Lottery tickets or reading DD recipies !!

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

This is about as credible evidence as you can get, but you still refuse to believe???

I believe it was a man in a Santa suit, yes. Is he the Santa that comes down chimneys and circles the Earth in a single evening? No. There is no evidence of such a person. Your argument is weak.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Yet blurred pictures of "something" taken by unnamed individuals are taken as solid proof of the existence of ghosts.

There's a lot more than that out there. Doing a bit of research on something before you spout off might make your argument more credible.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

Daffy is spot on - we do have some gullible and naive individuals here.....

Yes, as gullible as some of these people:

Hippocrates, Einstein, Darwin, and everyone else who was mocked because their beliefs didn't jive with their overly narrow-minded peers at the time.

I'll repeat what I said before since it has been conveniently ignored by the incurious among us:

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

I have found that a preponderance of the evidence points to things happening beyond the realm that our current technology can barely detect and our science cannot fathom

Maybe, like Plorf, your satisfied to put a big question mark over that and continue on, but I'd rather look into it and try to figure it out.

Originally Posted by BrucefarmerFANG

Believing in "Pee " is as daft as listening to politicions . Buying Lottery tickets or reading DD recipies

You certainly are the life and soul of the party

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

As for the temporal lobe epilepsy mentioned above I have read a lot about that condition and think it is quite possible that I do indeed suffer from this.

They can diagnose it rather easily these days - I'm sure Bumrungrad neurologists can help you with that.

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

Had some strange DeJa'Vu stuff happen to me years back. The strange thing was it would last for about 30 minutes. It felt like I could see the future but only as it was happening. Wake up the next day and felt like I could do anything. Had what would be called a God complex after these episodes also which is supposed to be part of Temporal Lobe Epilepsy.

You are describing the classic symptoms.

Originally Posted by beazalbob69

The thing is that the Temporal Lobe is supposed to be where all the extra sensory stuff orignates, so wouldnt having epilepsy there possibly give you some of these abilities?

Nice try -- but no. It only makes you *believe* that you have these abilities, or perceptions. The best metaphor would be something that makes you *believe* you can fly -- that belief is maintained until you jump off a Pattaya Condo balcony, and end up splattering all over the pavement - the point: Just because you believe it, doesn't make it so.

Plenty of people *believe* something to be real (example: you, or Jet, believe that ghosts are real), that does not make it so. For all you know, what you witnessed could have been a figment of your imagination, or you witnessed a real physical phenomenon, and your mind dressed it up in the closest approximate explanation that fits your cultural background / experience. So, to you it was a 'pee'.

Either way, you are one step further along, as you are both aware of TLE, and are open minded enough to consider the possibility that your experiences are caused by TLE. Jet apparently won't even consider that - after all, she *knows* (right).

Ok Daffy I understand where you are coming from but how would you explain the Abilities that I had as a child mentioned in an earlier reply? This was physical not imaginary and was witnessed by others and repeated more than once. It defied the law of probabilities.

Also when I was a child my family had some poltergist activity stuff moving on its own, locked doors unlocking themselves and opening, and whatnot.

Poltergist activity is usually linked to a child in this case the child was me. I have no reason to lie about any of this as I realise how it makes me sound but these are my experiences.

I dont understand how you cannot believe in something or at least not totally disagree with something that has not been proven true or untrue yet.

Daffy thinks he knows everything, he is God

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Hippocrates, Einstein, Darwin, and everyone else who was mocked because their beliefs didn't jive with their overly narrow-minded peers at the time.

I think you'll find that Einstein and Darwin had a scientific explanation to back their ideas up and didn't just come out with "Well, it must be true because I think so".

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

Originally Posted by Agent_Smith

Hippocrates, Einstein, Darwin, and everyone else who was mocked because their beliefs didn't jive with their overly narrow-minded peers at the time.

I think you'll find that Einstein and Darwin had a scientific explanation to back their ideas up and didn't just come out with "Well, it must be true because I think so".

I believe Darwin's theoretical experimentations were largely based upon his spiritual indoctrination, less scientific.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

I believe Darwin's theoretical experimentations were largely based upon his spiritual indoctrination, less scientific.

Actually, they were largely based upon someone else's work, the thieving little git.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

I am waiting for a link, 'cause I certainly have yet to see anything convincing.

I would be happy to do your research for you! I charge US$50 per hour (plus expenses), first ten hours up front.

Originally Posted by Marmite the Dog

I think you'll find that Einstein and Darwin had a scientific explanation to back their ideas up

I agree. I would like some scientific explanations for ghostly phenomena as well.

Originally Posted by Whiteshiva

OK, so what if it there had been no actual witnesses, but presents had appeared overnight, and I had managed to produce a grainy picture of what appeared to be a figure with a white beard dressed in red leaving my house through the front door (we don't have a chimney, but I believe Santa visits all good children regardless of their domestic heating arrangements), would that have been more convincing to you?

Only proves that someone broke into your home and possibly left some gifts, doesn't prove he can fly or lives with elves. Please look up the definition of supernatural.

I find those "science is just another religion and requires belief" comments extremely silly, the favourite argument of religious nutters and evangelists but apparently ghost-lovers belong in the same category, I always thought they're slightly smarter.

^ oversimplification,

in pure logic exercise and philosophy, Science has been proved to be another religion

^Not exactly, no. But I am too lazy to google it for you. Just because some scientific theories aren't falsifiable does NOT mean that there's anything religious about them. Only if a scientists proposes a thesis he does not care to explain, does not support with evidence, and instead asks for faith and devotion towards that thesis would that put it on the same page as religion.
One obvious author has to be quoted I guess:

Originally Posted by Richard Dawkins

One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.

Sciencific theories are debated, tested, improved and if necessary debunked. There is nothing static about it, the only belief necessary is in the integrity of the scientist in question.

I don't see the slightest hint of that here in our ghost discussion. Ample evidence and theories posted by those who do not think ghosts exist. Only personal accounts and self-invented theories by those who do. If there is the slightest shred of evidence to suggest they do indeed exist please post it here.
For example, nobody can prove so far that reincarnation exists.
But those in favour of it could propose the fact that there are kids who possess a skill (language, music) about which they could not possess any knowledge in this life, suggesting that there might be such a thing as reincarnation. Valid argument, not a scientific theory but certainly good enough for a philosophical discussion.
That's what's lacking here imho. I am no religious nutter, therefore I am open to good arguments for the existance of ghosts even if it isn't a definite proof.

^ Ok, but then either we just leave it at that, and those who believe in ghosts do so privately due to their experience, or we degrade it to the same level as religion where we force others to "just believe". After all, a lot of people on here seem to try to convince others that there are ghosts.. which is a bit like asking to believe in speaking snakes. And they speak a lot about there being evidence everywhere bla bla but refuse to post any. And the term supernatural says just that, outside of nature. Therefore not observable through nature. There might well be ghosts or God(s), but there's not the slightest shred of evidence suggesting that they're participating in an active, manipulative way in our world. Indeed we could extremely easily debunk praying, lucky charms or any other mumbo jumbo by proving that their share of fortune and misfortune of any type (rolling dices for example) is entirely statistically determined. Or what I would find extremely funny to study: How many percent of traffic victims did wear a protective charm from a buddhist temple vs. the absolute percentage of charm-owners among drivers.
So if there are ghosts they must with an almost absolute certainty be passive and non-interferring in our physical world.
After all, what good is a protective charm or a guardian spirit if it doesn't prevent you in a statistically relevant manner of being involved in such incidents ?
Therefore all buddhist temples should have an interest in such studies, assuming their intellectual honesty of course.