Are ghosts real or just a scientific phenomenon?

[Ryan_m_b]

I disagree. As I have stated a number of times, there are cases involving multiple witnesses that leave little doubt, if the stories are truthful. The ability to know the memory is real would be even more helpful, but a reliable lie detector could go a long way towards changing the landscape. Again, I cite the Travis Walton case as a great example. And by the way, a lie detector was used in that case. IIRC, four of five witnesses passed and the other was hiding a criminal record. But the test could be flawed, so it means nothing.

A reliable test may not stand as proof of what happened, but stories like this would unavoidably take on much greater credibility if the witnesses could be reliably tested for truthfulness... and they passed.

I'm not sure why we're still stuck on this, perhaps I'm missing something. Where is the research that can tell if a memory is false without having to have the participant in the machine when the memory is laid down?

Also lie detectors as in the polygraph are not a credible machine. AFAIK no polygraph test has ever stood up to a properly done blinded peer review test.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm not sure why we're still stuck on this, perhaps I'm missing something. Where is the research that can tell if a memory is false without having to have the participant in the machine when the memory is laid down?

Also lie detectors as in the polygraph are not a credible machine. AFAIK no polygraph test has ever stood up to a properly done blinded peer review test.

My point was that we don't need the ability to determine if a memory is real, though it would be helpful. Reliable lie detection using brain imaging technology seems to be available now, or nearly so. At very least it seems to be reasonable to hope for this soon. That alone would be tremendously helpful. For example, when we have five or six witnesses to an alleged event with distinctive details, such as "a beam of light from the UFO lifted Travis several feet off the ground and threw him backwards fifty feet, and at that point we thought he was dead" [actually a paraphrase, not a direct quote], and if it can be shown that Travis Walton wasn't involved in a hoax, then what is left?

There is an entire world of skepticism that depends solely on the claim that the witnesses of the alleged event X were lying.

We saw that here with the Iran 1976 UFO discussion. When all else fails, the skeptical explanation defaults to a cheesy conspiracy theory.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

My point was that we don't need the ability to determine if a memory is real, though it would be helpful. Reliable lie detection using brain imaging technology seems to be available now, or nearly so. At very least it seems to be reasonable to hope for this soon. That alone would be tremendously helpful. For example, when we have five or six witnesses to an alleged event with distinctive details, such as "a beam of light from the UFO lifted Travis several feet off the ground and threw him backwards fifty feet, and at that point we though he was dead", and if it can be shown that Travis Walton wasn't involved in a hoax, then what is left?

There is an entire world of skepticism that depends solely on the claim that the witnesses of the alleged event X were lying.

We saw that here with the Iran 1976 UFO discussion. When all else fails, the skeptical explanation defaults to a cheesy conspiracy theory.

True but I wonder if there will be some backfire when a group of witnesses are determined to be telling the "truth". None of them may be lying but they could be A) telling false memories and B) making conclusions based on faulty reasoning.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

True but I wonder if there will be some backfire when a group of witnesses are determined to be telling the "truth". None of them may be lying but they could be A) telling false memories and B) making conclusions based on faulty reasoning.

Well, explain how that would be possible in the Travis Walton case. I use this as an example because it is difficult to imagine any other reasonable explanation, except that it was either an elaborate hoax played by Walton, or they were all lying. What else is possible?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Well, explain how that would be possible in the Travis Walton case. I use this as an example because it is difficult to imagine any other reasonable explanation, except that it was either an elaborate hoax played by Walton, or they were all lying. What else is possible?

I don't know what the Travis Walton case is. If it wasn't a scam, a lie, mass confabulation and there is no reasonable explanation for whatever occurred then it is an unknown event.

 

[micromass]

Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asch_conformity_experiments

 

[alt]

Well, explain how that would be possible in the Travis Walton case. I use this as an example because it is difficult to imagine any other reasonable explanation, except that it was either an elaborate hoax played by Walton, or they were all lying. What else is possible?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

Reading this and your previous posts on the TW case, I'm not sure how you feel about it. Are you saying it's credible ?

IMO, it is a not so elaborate hoax. For monetary gain - to invoke the 'act of god clause' because his brother in law was behind in his contractual obligations.

Also, TW's descriptons of the interior of the so called spacecraft , and the aliens, is so 'pop sci fi' it made me chuckle ..

 

[micromass]

IIRC, four of five witnesses passed and the other was hiding a criminal record. But the test could be flawed, so it means nothing.

This is misinformation. Walton himself did not pass the first lie detector test (he passed the subsequent ones though). And the one who administered it said he tried to fool the lie detector. I find it odd that you failed to mention that.

 

[zoobyshoe]

I disagree. As I have stated a number of times, there are cases involving multiple witnesses that leave little doubt, if the stories are truthful. The ability to know the memory is real would be even more helpful, but a reliable lie detector could go a long way towards changing the landscape. Again, I cite the Travis Walton case as a great example. And by the way, a lie detector was used in that case. IIRC, four of five witnesses passed and the other was hiding a criminal record. But the test could be flawed, so it means nothing.

A reliable test may not stand as proof of what happened, but stories like this would unavoidably take on much greater credibility if the witnesses could be reliably tested for truthfulness... and they passed.

I always assume people are telling the truth. The assumption, or even proof, someone is telling the truth still says nothing definite about the phenomenon they are reporting.

Every single Indian who saw a portrait by George Catlin saw the same unnerving thing: when they walked from one place to another in front of the portrait the eyes of the portrait followed them. No matter where they stood, the portrait was looking at them.

None were lying, and you know it. BUT the eyes weren't actually moving and you know that as well.

Catlin tried a few times to explain the illusion, but they wouldn't listen, because they had seen the eyes moving with their own eyes! Their conclusion: when he painted someone's portrait he took some of the life out of them and gave it to the picture. That made them afraid of him: he had big mojo!

 

[HallsofIvy]

'Ghost Hunters' is a good example of the logic [or lack thereof] that relies on 'did you hear/see/feel/smell/taste that?' evidence. Hard to criticize those guys given they made a living off it.

Would you find it "hard to criticize" a person who makes a living by robbing banks or mugging the elderly? In other words, what does "making a living" have to do with it?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is misinformation. Walton himself did not pass the first lie detector test (he passed the subsequent ones though). And the one who administered it said he tried to fool the lie detector. I find it odd that you failed to mention that.

I didn't say anything about Walton. I was talking about the witnesses, as per this examiners report.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/Travis_walton_abduction_polygraph_1.jpg/460px-Travis_walton_abduction_polygraph_1.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Travis_walton_abduction_polygraph_2.jpg/460px-Travis_walton_abduction_polygraph_2.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travis_Walton

 

[micromass]

I didn't say anything about Walton. I was talking about the witnesses, as per this examiners report.

That's exactly the point. You didn't mention Walton. I still find it odd that you didn't do so.
I don't like it when people omit information to let the case look more plausible. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I didn't say anything about Walton. I was talking about the witnesses, as per this examiners report.

As I said above, polygraphs are not reliable and are not supported by scientific evidence.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Would you find it "hard to criticize" a person who makes a living by robbing banks or mugging the elderly? In other words, what does "making a living" have to do with it?

Why do you assume there is deception involved?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

As I said above, polygraphs are not reliable and are not supported by scientific evidence.

I never said they were. I was simply supporting my previous statement which was challenged without due diligence.

Recall that this entire discussion was initiated based on my statement that reliable lie detection would be extremely useful in some cases. This by definition means that we don't have this ability yet.

 

[micromass]

I never said they were. I was simply supporting my previous statement which was challenged without due diligence.

Why did you bring them up then if you knew they were not scientific evidence??

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's exactly the point. You didn't mention Walton. I still find it odd that you didn't do so.
I don't like it when people omit information to let the case look more plausible. But I'm sure that wasn't your intention.

The fact is that you falsely accused me of misinformation, right? At the time I was focusing on the idea of witnesses, and Walton himself remains a question.

My point was to show the value of reliable lie detection. That is the only point I have been trying to make.

 

[CDTOE]

I had interest in this subject a few years ago. One of the researches I enjoyed reading on this, is titled Ghost in the Machine (a link). I think that most of you are already aware of the infrasound view on this subject, but do you have any criticism about this research?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I had interest in this subject a few years ago. One of the researches I enjoyed reading on this, is titled Ghost in the Machine (a link). I think that most of you are already aware of the infrasound view on this subject, but do you have any criticism about this research?

We had a long thread about Vic Tandy a few years back:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=13559

 

[thumpy]

im new here so forgive me if I am in the wrong thread. but I am curious about the question that started this thread which was as follows...


Don't worry, I'm not one of those wackos trying to convince you ghosts exist. I don't even believe in spirits. What I do believe is that people are really experiencing real things, but I believe that there is a scientific explanation to it all. I'm not a physics wiz, so I'm hoping to get some knowledge from you guys. Is there any possible scientific cause to explain ghosts? By ghosts I mean apparitions, if you will, that appear in human form, and appear and disappear. Thanks, looking for a good SCIENTIFIC answer.

i myself lived in what i believed at the time was a haunted house for ten years. i'll try not to borer with details. but i was 10 at the time and saw and heard footsteps, doors opening and closing, things thrown from cupboards lights going on and off etc. that was 40 years ago and i look back and think it was all just the imagination of a child. even though everyone else in the house experienced the same thing. at my age i just refuse to believe it was super natural. however, a few weeks ago. for the first time in 40 years i seen an apparition. i could describe the (person) in exact detail,, bare feet, middle aged man with short brown hair parted on side wearing brown polyester pants and short sleeve pocketed,yellow button shirt...he took three steps in front of me and then disappeared right in front of my eyes. the person i was with asked me if i had seen it. i said "see what"? they described with the exact detail the same (person ) i saw. i of course lied and said i saw nothing.

at my age i still refuse to believe in the supernatural. but would really like to know if there is any scientific explanation. and I am in greta health so let's try to leave out any menatal issues. i was also sober

 

[PAllen]

I propose this thread is misnamed. Shouldn't it be: Real Dead Ghosts?

 

[zoobyshoe]

I propose this thread is misnamed. Shouldn't it be: Real Dead Ghosts?

No, the thread title is Real Life Ghosts, not Real Live Ghosts, so the proper correction, if one is needed (which is debatable), would be Real Afterlife Ghosts.

 

[thumpy]

but can you use the word" REAL"

 

[Ryan_m_b]

What I do believe is that people are really experiencing real things, but I believe that there is a scientific explanation to it all. I'm not a physics wiz, so I'm hoping to get some knowledge from you guys. Is there any possible scientific cause to explain ghosts? By ghosts I mean apparitions, if you will, that appear in human form, and appear and disappear. Thanks, looking for a good SCIENTIFIC answer.

Even if we assume that people aren't lying and are in good mental health that doesn't mean their experience was real. It could be a visual illusion (think seeing a person in the corner of your eye that turns out to be a coat on a chair) or even confabulation.

Furthermore most anecdotes of ghostly experience come as you have presented them; many accountings of unexplained noises, movements etc which build up an expectation in the person that something is connecting all these things. This leads to confirmation bias and if there is already the assumption that the supernatural is a valid hypothesis then anything strange is used as evidence for this hypothesis.

If you want a scientific explanation it's not physics you need to look to but psychology and neuroscience.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

for the first time in 40 years i seen an apparition. i could describe the (person) in exact detail,, bare feet, middle aged man with short brown hair parted on side wearing brown polyester pants and short sleeve pocketed,yellow button shirt...he took three steps in front of me and then disappeared right in front of my eyes. the person i was with asked me if i had seen it. i said "see what"? they described with the exact detail the same (person ) i saw. i of course lied and said i saw nothing.

Even if we assume that people aren't lying and are in good mental health that doesn't mean their experience was real. It could be a visual illusion (think seeing a person in the corner of your eye that turns out to be a coat on a chair) or even confabulation.

...leads to confirmation bias and if there is already the assumption that the supernatural is a valid hypothesis then anything strange is used as evidence for this hypothesis.

If you want a scientific explanation it's not physics you need to look to but psychology and neuroscience.

His account is far more detailed than a simple flash out of the corner of the eye. Also, he claims two people saw it. How does your explanation speak to his account?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

His account is far more detailed than a simple flash out of the corner of the eye. Also, he claims two people saw it. How does your explanation speak to his account?

It doesn't but it wasn't intended to (note the section of the post I was responding to). I was addressing supernatural accounts broadly, his account I have no explanation for.

 

[zoobyshoe]

but can you use the word" REAL"

I reread the opening post a couple times and I think what he implies by using the term "real life" is "non-fictional". "Fictional" would be ghosts as depicted in movies and novels, which, of course, don't have to be debunked, it being understood they're invented for dramatic purposes. "Real life ghosts" are the anecdotes of apparitions that come from "real life" as opposed to movies, etc. The adjective "real" modifies the noun "life", not "ghosts", and the two words together become what's called a compound adjective:

http://www.grammar-monster.com/lessons/adjectives_compound_adjectives.htm

You can see from that link he should have put a hyphen between "real" and "life" to be completely correct, which would make the corrected thread title, "Real-Life Ghosts". So, you can use the word "real" here, in your compound adjective, without automatically meaning you think the ghosts are real.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It doesn't but it wasn't intended to (note the section of the post I was responding to). I was addressing supernatural accounts broadly, his account I have no explanation for.

Just to be clear, the section you selected from thumpy's post actually comes from the OP. Thumpy copied and pasted it without even using quotation marks.

 

[SpringCreek]

Is there any possible scientific cause to explain ghosts? By ghosts I mean apparitions, if you will, that appear in human form, and appear and disappear. Thanks, looking for a good SCIENTIFIC answer.

I recommend The Third Man Factor by John Geiger. Here's a synopsis article from the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-felt-sudden-presence-inspiring-survive.html

 

[zoobyshoe]

I recommend The Third Man Factor by John Geiger. Here's a synopsis article from the Daily Mail.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...l-felt-sudden-presence-inspiring-survive.html

The sense of a presence is a relatively frequently reported simple partial seizure symptom. I'm glad the article offered the electrically stimulated epileptic woman as evidence this isn't necessarily supernatural at all. This might or might not come into play when someone "sees" a ghost. The erroneously triggered sense of a presence might, in some cases, lead to the visual hallucination of a person.