I’ve just tried having a conversation with ChatGPT.
Ian
Is it likely that ghosts exist?
ChatGPT
There is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality. Some people may claim to have had experiences that they interpret as encounters with ghosts, but these experiences can often be explained by natural causes or psychological factors. In summary, while the idea of ghosts is a popular cultural belief, there is no scientific evidence to support their existence.
Ian
There's currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of consciousness either, would you likewise conclude that no-one is conscious?
Also, the assertion that an experience of what one takes to be a ghost can be explained "by natural causes or psychological factors" is a blanket statement that might be applicable to many such alleged encounters, but scarcely all.ChatGPT
You are correct that consciousness is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon, and there is ongoing debate in the scientific community about its nature and underlying mechanisms. However, there is a wealth of evidence from neuroscience, psychology, and philosophy that suggests consciousness exists and plays a vital role in our experience of the world.
Regarding ghosts, while some alleged encounters with ghosts might be explainable by natural causes or psychological factors, that doesn't mean that all such encounters can be explained in this way. However, it is important to note that the absence of scientific evidence for ghosts does not necessarily mean they do not exist, but it does make it less likely. The burden of proof is on those who claim that ghosts do exist to provide evidence for their existence.
In summary, consciousness is a complex and not fully understood phenomenon, but there is a lot of evidence to support its existence. In contrast, there is currently no scientific evidence to support the existence of ghosts, but it does not mean they do not exist.
Ian
Regarding the first paragraph. Firstly, it's not the fact that consciousness is not fully understood, rather it is wholly left out in a scientific description of the world. You are merely repeating what skeptics assert.
Secondly, academic opinion almost universally holds that the physical world is closed. That is to say, that all change in the world is caused by prior physical events. This then means that consciousness has no causal role. Hence, contrary to what you assert, unless you're a materialist of some type there is and can be no evidence for consciousness. You are a materialist? Well, first of all, I would deny that materialism, or at least reductive materialism, is intelligible -- it is simply incompatible with the existence of consciousness. But let's leave that aside. Even if we do assume materialism, clearly this would be question-begging against the existence of ghosts since a believer in ghosts would hardly likely to be a materialist. Moreover, you claim that the reason ghosts are unlikely is due to the lack of scientific evidence, NOT because materialism is correct.
Regarding the second paragraph. You can only have scientific evidence for that which is quantifiable, or that which is measurable. If something is non-physical and hence has no causal impact on the physical world, then there will be no effects that can be measured. Given this, it cannot be the case that the lack of such evidence makes it less likely. One might likewise argue that the failure of metal detectors to detect plastic makes the existence of plastic less likely. But, of course, that simply does not follow.
And stating the burden of proof is on the believer of ghosts needs to be argued for. Why should the default assumption be that there are no ghosts when people throughout history and across all cultures have reported experiences of seeing ghosts?
ChatGPT
You are correct that the nature and existence of consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate and research in the scientific community, and that different perspectives and theories exist. Materialism, which is the belief that everything in the universe can be explained by physical processes and properties, is one such perspective, but there are also other theories that propose different explanations for consciousness.
Regarding the existence of ghosts, you are also correct that the lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean that ghosts do not exist. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality. However, it's also important to note that ghosts and other supernatural entities are not considered to be part of the natural world and therefore, their existence cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means.
Regarding the burden of proof, it's a principle in logic and science that the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, rather than those who reject the claim. This principle is based on the idea that it's more reasonable to assume that a claim is false until evidence is provided to support it. Given that the existence of ghosts is a claim about something that does not fit into our current understanding of the natural world, it is reasonable to require evidence in order to accept the claim as true.
In summary, The nature and existence of consciousness is still a topic of ongoing debate and research in the scientific community, and that different perspectives and theories exist. The idea of ghosts is often explained as a product of superstition, folklore, and religious belief, rather than a physical reality, and the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim of their existence.
Ian
Most of this is simply repeating what you have already said. And I know why. You are simply copying and pasting what skeptics say on the net and elsewhere. But they never have responses to my counter-arguments, hence you have nothing to draw on in response, so you simply repeat yourself.
But I'll just address this burden of proof issue. Whoever said that "the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim, rather than those who reject the claim", is incorrect. In our observations of the world we note that the Universe appears to be described by physical laws. It seems that these laws have universal applicability -- that is the very same laws apply throughout the Universe. Hence, we know what entities to expect and what not to expect -- thus our expectation is that stars will have planets orbiting them, and not flying teapots. In short, if someone asserts that x exists, but x would be unexpected given our understanding of physical laws, then the burden of proof ought to be on the one making the assertion. Note, though, that strictly speaking there is no distinction between positive and negative assertions. Hence, we surmise there are galaxies beyond the cosmic horizon even though in principle we can never detect them. So, contrary to what people maintain, the burden of proof is not on the one asserting something exists, but rather it's on the one asserting something exists which we would not expect given our understanding of physical laws. However, clearly this only applies to PHYSICAL existents. That is, it only applies to objects and processes that have a material existence and for which the laws of nature describe.
Also, I should point out that I have not claimed that ghosts exist, even though I don't think there is any good reason to doubt their existence. You have not provided any such reasons but are simply regurgitating the standard skeptic spiel and not addressing my counter-arguments.
I do not think there is any further purpose to this conversation. Thanks for the chat.
ChatGPT
You are correct that the burden of proof principle is a matter of ongoing debate and different perspectives exist. In the context of scientific inquiry, the principle that the burden of proof falls on the person making a claim is based on the idea that it's more reasonable to assume that a claim is false until evidence is provided to support it.
Regarding the existence of ghosts, it is important to note that ghosts and other supernatural entities are not considered to be part of the natural world and therefore, their existence cannot be proven or disproven through scientific means. I apologize if it seemed that I was only repeating the standard skeptical viewpoint, but my goal is to provide a balanced and neutral perspective.
I understand that you have not claimed that ghosts exist, but rather you have argued that it is likely that ghosts exist, and that there is no good reason to doubt their existence. However, as I stated earlier, the lack of scientific evidence does not necessarily mean that ghosts do not exist, but it does make it less likely.
I apologize if my previous responses did not address your counter-arguments fully. My apologies if it seemed that I was simply repeating what skeptics say, as a language model, my goal is to provide an objective and neutral perspective on any given topic.
Thank you for the stimulating conversation and I apologize if it seemed unproductive.
