What percentage of Americans believe in ghosts?

[Chi Meson]

""To my mind, it's a case of where people typically say something is unexplained and all that means is they haven't worked hard enough to look for an explanation. They've given up," he said.
...
This case was solved through logic, scientific analysis and methodology," he said.

Of course.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Photographic evidence:

You'll believe in a lot more than that before APOD is done with you.

 

[BobG]

When it comes to finding natural explanations for "supernatural" experiences I like the following story about Richard Feynman from feynman online:

The Supernatural Clock

Once we were talking about the supernatural and the following anecdote involving his first wife Arline came up. Arline had tuberculosis and was confined to a hospital while Feynman was at Los Alamos. Next to her bed was an old clock. Arline told Feynman that the clock was a symbol of the time that they had together and that he should always remember that. Always look at the clock to remember the time we have together, she said. The day that Arline died in the hospital, Feynman was given a note from the nurse that indicated the time of death. Feynman noted that the clock had stopped at exactly that time. It was as the clock, which had been a symbol of their time together, had stopped at the moment of her death. Did you make a connection? I asked NO! NOT FOR A SECOND! I immediately began to think how this could have happened. And I realized that the clock was old and was always breaking. That the clock probably stopped some time before and the nurse coming into the room to record the time of death would have looked at the clock and jotted down the time from that. I never made any supernatural connection, not even for a second. I just wanted to figure out how it happened.

Problem is, I don't believe him. Or, at least he's splitting hairs on the duration of time he made a supernatural connection - maybe it was only for about 1.5015 milliseconds, or one cycle of his thought processes.

I remember a kayak class I took where the instructor was giving me 'roll practice'. He'd stand behind my kayak in a swimming pool, flip me upside down, and start shaking the kayak violently. The idea was to just sit tight and remain calm for a few seconds before trying to roll back right side up.

Next day, the last set of rapids we ran was practically a waterfall followed by a series of standing waves. I flipped in the hole at the bottom of the waterfall and the first few explanations that went through my mind for what my kayak was doing were definitely connected to the supernatural. Snake-like sea monster has grabbed my kayak and is trying to shake it to pieces? No, those don't exist, so it has to be a crocodile? No, not in these waters. It has to be an evil female water spirit that's trying to drown me! There's just absolutely no way I'm going to believe I've been shrunk and teleported into a Maytag washing machine, so it has to be the evil spirit of the river! The whole time I'm reaching 'upward' with my paddle getting set to roll and wondering if I'm even reaching in the right direction (I still don't know - my paddle never reached the surface, so I had to bail).

Afterward, I'm remarking that the 'practice' was nothing like the real thing, then realized, "Wait, yeah it was. It was exactly like a person standing behind my kayak and shaking it violently." It's just that the day before, I knew who was grabbing my kayak. In the river upside down, it just seemed inconceivable that there could be any logical reason for what was happening, even having been specifically prepared for it the day before.

I also remember swimming in the Gulf near Hurlburt Air Force Base and seeing a sea turtle. My first impression definitely wasn't sea turtle. It looked like a sea monster out of a horror movie.

There's a lot of things that happen where your first impression is formed by normal human fear and imagination. I don't think there's very many people whose first reaction is cold logic.

And, most importantly, I can post again (I thought I'd been banned ). I went to renew and realized I also needed to update my e-mail. If you change your e-mail address, evidently you can't do anything but read posts until you follow the link in the confirmation e-mail (which I was very slow to get around to reading).

Edit: Added story I was commenting on. (geez, zooby, how could you forget that story already when I only read it about 45 minutes ago?)

 

[zoobyshoe]

That link to the Feynman site just takes me to the main page. What's the specific story you're commenting on?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Ghost To Ghost is on tonight and I can't wait.
I don't care if people here think I'm silly. I love hearing Art Bell and spooky stories on Halloween night.

 

[EL]

That link to the Feynman site just takes me to the main page.

It's under "Anecdotes" then "Al Seckel" then "The Supernatural clock".

 

[zoobyshoe]

It's under "Anecdotes" then "Al Seckel" then "The Supernatural clock".

Thanks. It's weird: the first time I opened the thread to read BobG's post the internal quote from the story didn't show up on my screen. I've since gone offline and come back on and now it shows up.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Problem is, I don't believe him. Or, at least he's splitting hairs on the duration of time he made a supernatural connection - maybe it was only for about 1.5015 milliseconds, or one cycle of his thought processes.

In Feynman's case the emotional set up was quite different. He had been preparing himself for her death for a long time, and I expect had already talked himself into reacting with an analytical state of mind whenever he thought about it. If you remember from his books he accommodated her passing in stride and didn't grieve about it till several months later, when, passing a dress shop, he thought to himself "Arlene would like that dress." Then he realized she was gone and he broke down crying.

In general he seems to have reacted to all stories of the unusual with an analytical approach.

Edit: I see BobG is messing with my head regarding the quote.

 

[Bombini]

Ghosts

I believe in ghosts. Here in Norway there are so many ghost-stories from family to family. That they are almost hard to not believe in

 

[EL]

I believe in ghosts. Here in Norway there are so many ghost-stories from family to family. That they are almost hard to not believe in

Hey, you are Scandinavian and hence supposed to be rational! But I forgive you since you're only 15 (and Norwegian).

 

[zoobyshoe]

I believe in ghosts. Here in Norway there are so many ghost-stories from family to family. That they are almost hard to not believe in

You'd be shunned if you didn't believe. To stay in social harmony, you believe.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Does anyone think the reason why humans are apt to believe in ghosts is because of our shortcomings in night vision? For example, when all the lights are off in my house late at night and I head to the bathroom I see this red light flashing. At first, I didn't know what the source of it was and I was asking myself if I was having some sort of hallucination. Then when I took the time to focus in on the source I realized it was just the smoke detector light. I'm starting to get the sense that our vulnerability in the dark has a lot to do with our disposition towards believing in ghosts.

 

[Chi Meson]

Problem is, I don't believe him.

Don't you understand that you are REQUIRED to believe everything Feynman says about himself?
:)

 

[out of whack]

To stay in social harmony, you believe.

No, no, you make believe that you believe. That keeps you in social harmony but also within the realm of reason. Plus, you can then fake the occational act of bravery in situations others find spooky. "Of course, I believe in ghosts. But I can take them!"

 

[Bombini]

Hehe

Hey, you are Scandinavian and hence supposed to be rational! But I forgive you since you're only 15 (and Norwegian).

Well, since i don't believe in god. i need something else to believe in. I also believe in destiny.
And just the fact that I'm 15 doesn't mean that I'll believe in anything that doesn't make sense. But it's not actually just the ghosts i believe in, i believe that your body stays behind as some kind of energy

 

[rewebster]

Well, since i don't believe in god. i need something else to believe in. I also believe in destiny.
And just the fact that I'm 15 doesn't mean that I'll believe in anything that doesn't make sense. But it's not actually just the ghosts i believe in, i believe that your body stays behind as some kind of energy

if you believe in Einstein----then this forum is...









HAUNTED

 

[zoobyshoe]

But it's not actually just the ghosts i believe in, i believe that your body stays behind as some kind of energy

Why would your body stay behind as some kind of energy when it clearly already "stays behind" as some kind of matter? A dead body is not a mystery.

 

[Bombini]

Well...

Well, i believe in ghosts and you guys believe in Santa Claus. You don't hear me criticizing you Its just healthy to believe in something. I don't care if people don't believe i the same things i do

 

[Bombini]

And Einstein had theories about flying through wormholes to other dimensions. It's just as possible as ghosts xD

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, i believe in ghosts and you guys believe in Santa Claus.

No one here believes in Santa Claus.

Its just healthy to believe in something.

Why? Is that a common saying in your country?

 

[EL]

Well, i believe in ghosts and you guys believe in Santa Claus.

What? Is that the misinterpretation of the year or what!

Its just healthy to believe in something.

Trust me, it's not. I don't believe in anything, and I'm perfectly healthy!

 

[Chi Meson]

I believe in being healthy.

That and odors, of course.

 

[Evo]

No one here believes in Santa Claus.

Not now.

What next, no Easter Bunny?

 

[Math Jeans]

Trust me, it's not. I don't believe in anything, and I'm perfectly healthy!

Well...you believe that you are healthy! You also believe in the laws of physics and that you are a member of PF.

For this not to be true, then this world would have to be a dream to you, you are actually lying in a hospital bed asleep and in bad condition, not an owner of a computer, and living in a world where there is a completely new set of physical laws.

Generally, if you don't believe in anything, you are medically brain dead.

 

[turbo]

Not now.

What next, no Easter Bunny?

No, and no Red Rum, either! Get a grip or you'll shoot your eye out!

 

[Math Jeans]

No, and no Red Rum, either! Get a grip or you'll shoot your eye out!

No. I don't think that muR deR is going to go away.

 

[Evo]

No, and no Red Rum, either! Get a grip or you'll shoot your eye out!

...bbut...he write's to me...wonderful missives... I just got a new one tonight. I'd pay him for these. (don't tell him I said that)

 

[turbo]

...bbut...he write's to me...wonderful missives... I just got a new one tonight. I'd pay him for these. (don't tell him I said that)

Go back to the ballroom, deny the existence of the apparitions, and concentrate on the real. No power tools for you, no pellet guns or BB guns, and nothing that can cause large cuts, dismemberments, or random mechanical failures.

If you don't get some smarts, you've got to move into a save to survive!

 

[Huckleberry]

Does anyone think the reason why humans are apt to believe in ghosts is because of our shortcomings in night vision? For example, when all the lights are off in my house late at night and I head to the bathroom I see this red light flashing. At first, I didn't know what the source of it was and I was asking myself if I was having some sort of hallucination. Then when I took the time to focus in on the source I realized it was just the smoke detector light. I'm starting to get the sense that our vulnerability in the dark has a lot to do with our disposition towards believing in ghosts.

I think that when a person's vision is rendered useless then they must rely on their other senses to identify their surroundings. We rely heavily on our vision, so when it is removed we have to be more imaginitive in drawing conclusions. If someone believes in ghosts then any unidentified sensory input could be attributed to such a thing. Maybe this is why ghosts often appear at night when people are afraid.

I don't know how much the dark causes belief in ghosts. A rational mind seeks a cause to an effect. Without vision there are more unknown sensory inputs and more opportunities to attribute the cause to a supernatural entity. It seems simpler to me to just say 'I don't know what that is' than to demand of myself some rationalization of the world.

What ratio of blind people believe in ghosts and how does that compare to sighted people?

 

[rhuthwaite]

I went to a ghost town the other day... it was scary! It's an old abandoned lumbar jack village that no one has lived in for over half a century. The houses are all falling appart and it's in the middle of nowhere (no cellphone reception or electricity!)
And apparently a ghost of a little girl haunts the area...

The story is that one evening she went to call her dad for dinner, she was seen at one second standing on a huge mound (like a small hill size mound of compressed saw duct/wood shavings) and the next moment she was gone. The villagers believed that she had sunken into the sawdust moud and they spent days digging trying to find the body, but they never did. There have been many sightings of her in the village when people lived their and then she would vanish as though they had been hallucinating.

I was standing on that very hill of saw dust looking down at the village when I was told that story, very spooky!

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well...you believe that you are healthy! You also believe in the laws of physics and that you are a member of PF.

For this not to be true, then this world would have to be a dream to you, you are actually lying in a hospital bed asleep and in bad condition, not an owner of a computer, and living in a world where there is a completely new set of physical laws.

Generally, if you don't believe in anything, you are medically brain dead.

The Norwegian meant something religious or paranormal.

 

[EL]

Well...you believe that you are healthy! You also believe in the laws of physics and that you are a member of PF.

No, I accept the fact that I'm healthy. I accept the fact that the laws of physics work well. I accept the fact that I am a member of PF.
Facts are supported by (scientific) evidence. Belief is not.

Generally, if you don't believe in anything, you are medically brain dead.

Thanks, I'll remember that one!

 

[Bombini]

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged (my father dropped me on the floor long time ago xD). This threads name is "do you believe in ghosts?". I just showed my opinion. AND even some of the greatest minds of the world were religious as can be. So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

 

[rewebster]

Bombini----you're part of a Mensa experiment

 

[EL]

So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

I'll go for the "get a life"-option then.

 

[Moridin]

Well...you believe that you are healthy! You also believe in the laws of physics and that you are a member of PF.

Belief can both mean 'conviction/accept thing with evidence' and 'accept things without evidence'.

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged

Well, cognitive hallucinations are nothing strange - people get it all the time.

 

[EL]

Belief can both mean 'conviction/accept thing with evidence' and 'accept things without evidence'.

And since there are no (scientific) evidence for ghosts, a belief in them certainly belongs to the second class.

 

[Math Jeans]

No, I accept the fact that I'm healthy. I accept the fact that the laws of physics work well. I accept the fact that I am a member of PF.
Facts are supported by (scientific) evidence. Belief is not.

Ok. Let me phrase it this way. You can change the meaning of belief to acceptance in any form if this is true.

If you believe that Santa exists, then you can say that you accept that Santa exists.

If that cannot be rephrased, then you (who claims not to believe in anything), could then say that you believe in Santa's non-existance.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged (my father dropped me on the floor long time ago xD). This threads name is "do you believe in ghosts?". I just showed my opinion. AND even some of the greatest minds of the world were religious as can be. So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

Any teasing aside, if you're interested in science you need to be able to examine any extraordinary belief like this and ask yourself why you believe it and if there's any real evidence to support the belief.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, cognitive hallucinations are nothing strange - people get it all the time.

What's a "cognitive" hallucination?

 

[Huckleberry]

It seems to some of you guys that you think that people who believes in ghosts are brain-damaged (my father dropped me on the floor long time ago xD). This threads name is "do you believe in ghosts?". I just showed my opinion. AND even some of the greatest minds of the world were religious as can be. So start by teasing them instead of a guy who believes in ghosts or get a life!

Relax. There are facts and there are many ways to interpret them. Even people whos job it is to understand these things don't always agree. Nor can anyone claim that their understanding is complete. A single new fact could have implications that change how all the others are interpreted. Some people believe in fantastic potential outside our current understanding and others do not. The world needs all types imo, but EL and others are right to say that belief in ghosts is not scientific. There are no reproducible data or testable theories and many of the claims of ghosts defy the current understanding of nature.

A little light-hearted teasing should probably be expected. After all, you are in a physics forum. I'm sure many of the spiritual great minds that contributed to science had to deal with the occassional ribbing also. Don't worry, it won't be allowed to get out of hand by you or anyone. Nobody here can remove your choice from you against your will.

 

[Moridin]

If you believe that Santa exists, then you can say that you accept that Santa exists.

If that cannot be rephrased, then you (who claims not to believe in anything), could then say that you believe in Santa's non-existance.

You are making a fallacy called an equivocation fallacy, where you attempt to claim that a word, that has to separate, distinct definitions, do not.

Example:

'Either we hang together, or we hang separately'.

Hang in the first mention means 'to cooperate', while the second hang refers to a method of execution.

The same goes for the term 'Belief'. The standard definition says that if you believe someone, you are convicted of it. It is about where you would bet your money on. Another definition, popularized by religion is belief as the 'faith in something that cannot be supported by evidence' or 'accept something to be dogmatically true without evidence'.

EL certainly have convictions, but probably does not accept something as absolute truth without evidence. The statement:

'Supernaturalists believe in the supernatural and scientists believe in science' (for a lack of better terms) thus makes the appeal to the same sort of fallacy. Sure, both of them have convictions, but only supernaturalists accept things as true without evidence.

You do understand the semantic difference between belief as a conviction and belief as the a priori acceptance of something without evidence? There are good reasons for believing in something and then there are bad reasons for believing in something.

 

[Moridin]

What's a "cognitive" hallucination?

Not sure. Sounded on the top of my head like a term that I could use

 

[EL]

Ok. Let me phrase it this way. You can change the meaning of belief to acceptance in any form if this is true.

No, what I am saying is that I accept facts. Facts are backed up by scientific evidence. A "belief" is acceptance without requiring any evidence.

 

[Huckleberry]

Do you know for a fact that the next time you get in your car you will arrive safely at your destination, or do you just believe it? Is there scientific evidence that proves that your parents love you? If there is, have you seen it? How do you decide if a person is attractive to you or not, or is every person equally appealing? You don't have a single opinion of the world that you can't show scientific evidence to back it up? That's kind of creepy to me.

Fact is a hefty word. It implies existence, reality, truth. I'm not even sure that we can know such things. I think maybe the best we can do is use evidence to imply fact. The next fact we discover could change how we perceive the last one. The reality isn't changing, but our perception of it can. This happens often when we learn something new and apply it to the rest of our understanding. Evidence is not always correct and intuition is not always wrong. Granted, the tried and true is the safer bet, but that isn't always an option.

There are good reasons for believing in something and then there are bad reasons for believing in something.

There are facts and there are opinions. This is your opinion. I guess it depends on how you define good and bad. Good luck getting everyone to agree on that.

edit - these look like cases of logic vs. intuition to me, and not everyone is built the same way when it comes to these things. I don't believe that one is inherently better than the other.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Not sure. Sounded on the top of my head like a term that I could use

Hallucinations are primarily sensory. I can't think of anything that might properly be called a "cognitive" hallucination. Anything that might be a candidate already comes under the heading of a "delusion": a false belief.

To the extent an hallucination is an experience erroneously triggered from within the brain as opposed to a reaction to external stimuli it is probably possible to speak of an "emotional" hallucination. This happens in simple partial seizures where a strong emotion is triggered from within having nothing whatever to do with anything in the environment. Common simple partials involving emotion are rage, fear/dread, and euphoria/ecstacy and the garden variety deja vu, the intense feeling that things are much more familiar than you know them to actually be.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Do you know for a fact that the next time you get in your car you will arrive safely at your destination, or do you just believe it? Is there scientific evidence that proves that your parents love you? If there is, have you seen it? How do you decide if a person is attractive to you or not, or is every person equally appealing? You don't have a single opinion of the world that you can't show scientific evidence to back it up? That's kind of creepy to me.

Fact is a hefty word. It implies existence, reality, truth. I'm not even sure that we can know such things. I think maybe the best we can do is use evidence to imply fact. The next fact we discover could change how we perceive the last one. The reality isn't changing, but our perception of it can. This happens often when we learn something new and apply it to the rest of our understanding. Evidence is not always correct and intuition is not always wrong. Granted, the tried and true is the safer bet, but that isn't always an option.

There are facts and there are opinions. This is your opinion. I guess it depends on how you define good and bad. Good luck getting everyone to agree on that.

edit - these look like cases of logic vs. intuition to me, and not everyone is built the same way when it comes to these things. I don't believe that one is inherently better than the other.

Huck, did you see this video:

 

[Evo]

Hallucinations are primarily sensory. I can't think of anything that might properly be called a "cognitive" hallucination. Anything that might be a candidate already comes under the heading of a "delusion": a false belief.

It may not be a term, but I'd call a "cognitive" hallucination one where you are aware that you are having a hallucination and know it's not real.

 

[zoobyshoe]

It may not be a term, but I'd call a "cognitive" hallucination one where you are aware that you are having a hallucination and know it's not real.

When that happens psychiatrists just say the person has "insight". It's a term meaning the patient is pretty much aware there's something wrong with their mind. There is a guy who hangs out at the cafe who constantly hears voices, but he has "insight" that they're not real, and he ignores them as best he can. He keeps an ipod with ear buds around to drown them out, but when he gets into a good conversation with the real people there the voices fade away and he can fully participate.

I have also heard the term "non-psychotic hallucinations" applied to situations where the person never had any doubt but that they were seeing things that weren't there. This can happen with certain eye diseases.

 

[Huckleberry]

Huck, did you see this video:

I hadn't seen this video before, but I did see the one you posted of the invisible man. They are very interesting videos. Do you know if the subjects in these videos were conditioned prior to taping? The effect of Derren Browns suggestions seem incredible. I think the subjects may have been affected so profoundly because they were prepared to listen to him, whereas if a person came to them on the street they perhaps would not give much consideration to what he was saying.

So far in both of the videos Derren has made suggestions that his subjects are particularly vulnerable to. The film student believed the reenactment of the invisible man and the faith medicine woman believed in the power of the voodoo doll. Other people would have different vulnerabilities depending on their philosophies, including scientific people. I think all that is necessary to be vulnerable to this type of influence is the inability to question the tenets of one's own philosophy.

Why did you show this to me in particular?