Why i don't believe in ghosts as potrayed in popular culture?

[ideasrule]

Getting back to Ivan's question, the problem with proving ghosts exist is that eyewitness accounts don't agree. Some say ghosts are invisible but can be felt; some say ghosts are translucent; some say they look and feel like ordinary people/pets; some say they're completely black; some say it can be seen but not photographed; some say it can be photographed but not seen. Some people are committing the fallacy of lumping all ghost reports together, as if they can possibly be describing the same phenomenon. As long as the ghost stories contradict each other, they can only be considered independent mysteries, not evidence supporting anything.

 

[waht]

No, I not only discussed it with my daughter, I wrote it down because it was so unsettling. Since I wrote it down when it happened, there is nothing to do with false memories.

I wouldn't dismiss this possibility because you could have formed false memories during the event before you wrote it down. I don't want to take this further because any suggestion is just a mere speculation. But I have a question, what is your theory on what actually happened?

 

[Evo]

I wouldn't dismiss this possibility because you could have formed false memories during the event before you wrote it down. I don't want to take this further because any suggestion is just a mere speculation. But I have a question, what is your theory on what actually happened?

Actually, the only thing that has changed is what I think it could have been. As time goes by, the absurdity of it makes me want to dismiss it. Like I said, I have no idea at this point.

 

[Hel]

It was a waterbed. There was no "under".

Clearly they were in your bed. Scuba diving.

I also wouldn't be so quick to claim that cats can't teleport. It's my experience that a cat can do anything it damn well pleases.

Think of the implications this has for Shrodinger's cat!


Documenting situations like these objectively is pretty much impossible.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm curious about these ghost stories. Ivan: how did you feel that somebody was sitting on the bed? Did you feel that the bed sheets were caving in towards the center of your legs? If so, did you see a depression between your legs? Did you try waving your hands above the bed to see if you could feel anything? Did you stick your hand between your legs to see if you could feel any pressure? After all, if the ghost (or whatever it was) can exert pressure on the bed, it should exert pressure on your hand too.

I'm guessing that you didn't do any of these experiments, which I'm not blaming you for--I would have been too frightened to do them too. It would have been interesting if you did, though: it's useful information for future investigations.

I sleep on my stomach and had just assumed the position. My feet were far enough apart that a person could have sat between them; again, my normal position. What I felt was indistinguishable from what one would expect to feel if a person had sat there. This goes back over twenty years now, but to best of my recollection I could feel the depression in the bed as well as the tightening of the blankets. I remember moving my foot to check for a presence and was surprised to feel one. My next thought was that there was an intruder in the room. When I looked and nothing was there, that was it - I was out of there. It probably took a few minutes at that point for the idea of a ghost to come to mind. At first my reaction was pure shock. I just couldn't accept what was happening and it was very confusing.

I would love to have that moment back and maintain my wits, but the reality of the situation was so unexpected that I simply reacted. You have to keep in mind that this came out of nowhere. I was a busy college student working on a physics degree, and the notion of a "ghostly encounter" was the last thing on my mind. It is a little embarrasing to admit that I simply jumped and ran, but that is what happened. I wish I hadn't.

Late Edit: I do recall lying on the couch in the livingroom for quite some time watching for someone to come sneaking out of the room. It is hard to be sure of the details this many years down the road, but I think it was some time before I was convinced that I really was alone in the apartment.

 

[DaveC426913]

I also wouldn't be so quick to claim that cats can't teleport. It's my experience that a cat can do anything it damn well pleases.

In his book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cat_Who_Walks_Through_Walls" , Heinlein had a cat character who was able to do just that.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Getting back to Ivan's question, the problem with proving ghosts exist is that eyewitness accounts don't agree. Some say ghosts are invisible but can be felt; some say ghosts are translucent; some say they look and feel like ordinary people/pets; some say they're completely black; some say it can be seen but not photographed; some say it can be photographed but not seen. Some people are committing the fallacy of lumping all ghost reports together, as if they can possibly be describing the same phenomenon. As long as the ghost stories contradict each other, they can only be considered independent mysteries, not evidence supporting anything.

There are what I refer to as common classes of reports. For example, there are the reports of apparitions that act as if oblivious to the observers. Many people have described them as being like a movie segment playing over and over again. There are reports of apparitions that do interact with observers. There are reports of people being pushed, scratched, grabbed, or assaulted in some other physical way. There are reports of common objects moving inexplicably, inexplicably isolated cold spots, odors, and smoky or vaporous blobs moving around the house. Then there are the thumps, bangs, and creaks.

So there are classes of reports in which the key aspects of a many different reports are identical, or nearly so. My position is that we have strong anecdotal evidence for some classes of reports, but nothing to show distinctly that one class of reports has anything to do with the others. Some so-called hauntings do claim many different phenomena, but the number of reports claiming many types of activity is small compared to the number of claims of one or two types of activity.

I would imagine it is also true that even if someone has experienced something very strange - seemingly inexplicable - they are then primed to overreact to other events. So it is probably fair to assume that even credible reports could be peppered with irrational interpretations of unrelated events. For example, it was very hard to not assume that the smells we encountered were somehow related to our other two experiences, but we had no good reason to make the leap in logic. The only common feature was that we couldn't explain any of it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's my experience that a cat can do anything it damn well pleases.

No cat owner can argue with that one!

 

[ideasrule]

Unfortunately, I don't have my own ghost story to share. I've had hallucinations, sure, but only weak auditory ones. I've also sometimes lied in bed in a semi-awake state while pondering something, and felt my thoughts turn from logical reasoning to nonsense and from nonsense to fantasy. Yet, still nothing paranormal.

I wonder what I would do if I had a paranormal experience. Having been afraid of the dark for my entire childhood, I'd probably freeze in fear or run as fast as I could. But if I could keep calm--what a great opportunity for scientific experiments that would be.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Unfortunately, I don't have my own ghost story to share. I've had hallucinations, sure, but only weak auditory ones. I've also sometimes lied in bed in a semi-awake state while pondering something, and felt my thoughts turn from logical reasoning to nonsense and from nonsense to fantasy. Yet, still nothing paranormal.

I wonder what I would do if I had a paranormal experience. Having been afraid of the dark for my entire childhood, I'd probably freeze in fear or run as fast as I could. But if I could keep calm--what a great opportunity for scientific experiments that would be.

Why do you keep assuming that there is anything paranormal involved? They could be real events that are not paranormal.

Imo, the paranormal tag is a bit of a cheat for skeptics. It is an easy way to seemingly discredit a claim that we simply don't know how to explain. If the inability to explain an observation is what defines something as being paranormal, then we would would have to include everything else in science that we don't yet understand.

 

[ideasrule]

What I felt was indistinguishable from what one would expect to feel if a person had sat there. This goes back over twenty years now, but to best of my recollection I could feel the depression in the bed as well as the tightening of the blankets. I remember moving my foot to check for a presence and was surprised to feel one. My next thought was that there was an intruder in the room. When I looked and nothing was there, that was it - I was out of there.

Interesting that you actually felt a presence. Did it feel exactly like a human being would? When you looked to check for an intruder, I'm guessing you didn't turn your head far enough to see where the depression should have been; is that right? Too bad; if you actually saw a depression, that would be intriguing indeed, although almost everybody (including me) would probably have jumped like you did.

 

[ideasrule]

Why do you keep assuming that there is anything paranormal involved? They could be real events that are not paranormal.

Imo, the paranormal tag is a bit of a cheat for skeptics. It is an easy way to seemingly discredit a claim that we simply don't know how to explain. If the inability to explain an observation is what defines something as being paranormal, then we would would have to include everything else in science that we don't yet understand.

I'm using the word "paranormal" very liberally, to mean everything that doesn't yet have an explanation and seems to be inexplicable with existing science. So, ball lightning? I'd call that paranormal. Pioneer anomaly? Paranormal. Flyby anomaly & lack of CP violation with the strong force? Paranormal.

I know this isn't the usual meaning of the word, but it's the meaning I meant when I said I wanted to experience something paranormal. Whether ghosts are actually involved or not doesn't matter.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting that you actually felt a presence. Did it feel exactly like a human being would? When you looked to check for an intruder, I'm guessing you didn't turn your head far enough to see where the depression should have been; is that right? Too bad; if you actually saw a depression, that would be intriguing indeed, although almost everybody (including me) would probably have jumped like you did.

I don't recall actually seeing a depression in the bed. The room was dimly lit from the streetlight outside of the window, so it was possible to see some details in the dark, but I only remember looking for a person and seeing none. At that point my focus was on the doorway.

But, yes, it felt exactly like someone was sitting there. My first thought was one of near certainty that an intruder was in the room. I fully expected to see someone sitting on the bed when I turned to look. On a gut level, it was definitely a fight or flight moment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm using the word "paranormal" very liberally...

Let's not.

 

[jambaugh]

I've never heard of a credible ghost story. Its an oxymoron.

 

[DaveC426913]

Pioneer anomaly? Paranormal.
I wanted to experience something paranormal.

By your own liberal definition you have experienced paranormal events. The Pioneer anomaly data is as available to you as to anyone else.

Seriously though, let's not use personal definitions of existing words.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I've never heard of a credible ghost story. Its an oxymoron.

Please provide evidence to support your claim. Statements of faith cannot be stated as a fact.

 

[jambaugh]

Please provide evidence to support your claim. Statements of faith cannot be stated as a fact.

OK, Here is the argument.

Point 1. I take "credible" here to be in the context of science. I.e. repeatable empirical evidence.

Point 2. The semantic meaning of "ghost" I am taking in the usual context of a disembodied spirit of a once living person.

Point 3. The existence of ghosts presupposes a dualistic reality, i.e. both the existence of the material world and a spiritual world. (Note the gnostic version of the material world as "illusion" and only a spiritual world is invalidated by the positivist outlook. Its real because we experience it. The material world is the world of systematically classifiable experiences. Illusion= sensory perception contrary to material reality, we identify illusions by being systematic in our observations and so a.) if there is no reality to be contrary too you can't have an illusion and b.) systematic observations cannot be contrary to themselves.)

Point 4. The manifestation of ghosts presupposes that the spiritual and material world may interact and thus that we may through repeatable experiment affect and observe this "spiritual world". This either through material manifestations of ghostly effects (emitted photons and such) which we can record or more directly the fact that a "ghost" is supposed to formerly be an occupant of a material corpus which it affects and is affected by during its life, or that a ghost may directly influence the spiritual component of a living person.

Point 5. Such interactions would most likely have been measurable and observed in the laboratory. Given they interact we really cannot draw a line between material and spiritual realms. One is really just supposing an extension of the empirically observable universe beyond what we have empirically observed in our history of systematic investigations of nature. Its like asserting that an elephant has been living in your back yard for years and you just haven't noticed the footprints.

Point 6. The "ghost" idea has very strong emotional baggage in our culture as it ties in with our fear of death and sorrow at the loss of family and friends who have "ceased to function on the material plane". Thus stories tend to be wrapped around expectations and fears, subject to intentional fakery, exaggeration, and out-right delusion. All of this undermines any credibility a story may have.

Point 7. We're talking Ghosts here fourkricesake! Do I need to cite references to argue that "credible stories of Santa Claus" and "credible stories of the Easter Bunny" are likewise oxymorons?

And if my position here offends your belief systems then that's just tough cookies. Get over it.

By the way there also is no such thing as the Tooth Fairy! So there!

 

[ideasrule]

When I said "credible ghost story", I meant that it had to be credible--which means multiple witnesses, possibly footage and physical evidence, etc--and a ghost story. The ghost story doesn't actually have to prove that ghosts exist. (Ivan's didn't, but most people would consider it a ghost story. Ditto for an account where a chair flies across the room.) Basically, I'm interested in reading credible accounts of anomalies that a substantial number of people think have to do with ghosts.

 

[jambaugh]

Basically, I'm interested in reading credible accounts of anomalies that a substantial number of people think have to do with ghosts.

But whether a number of people think "an anomaly" has to do with ghosts is a function of the person more than the circumstances. Some may think it has to do with psychic phenomena, others demons or evil spirits, others aliens from dimension X, others the power of suggestion coupled with "spooky environments".

And then how are you defining "anomaly". I watch a magician do slight of hand. I know its slight of hand but he's so good I don't know how he does it. This I take it is NOT what you mean by an anomaly. But then you don not just mean "unexplained phenomena".

"Unexplainable phenomena" begs the question "how can you know it is unexplainable?" so what else is there to distinguish a phenomenon as "anomalous"?

Of course I'm unfairly putting you on the spot demanding a rigorous definition. I can accept a "pornography" type definition i.e. "you know it when you see it". But my point in parsing definitions is that it is not quite clear what criterion "credible" should have. Is it credibility in terms of sincerity of the witness(es) or in terms of their objectivity or in the physicality of the experiential phenomenon e.g. supporting physical recordings?

I still assert that a "ghost story" is by definition "incredible" and that you should replace chose a different qualifier like "not easily dismissed" or something. But I am not really contributing to this thread by beating this mule further so I'll leave it alone.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

OK, Here is the argument.

Point 1. I take "credible" here to be in the context of science. I.e. repeatable empirical evidence.

Not all evidence is repeatable. Can you produce ball lightning on demand? Can you produce Earth lights or sprites on demand? Given that not all real phenomena can be produced on demand, we are forced to accept supporting evidence. Specifically what supporting evidence for ghosts would you accept?

Point 2. The semantic meaning of "ghost" I am taking in the usual context of a disembodied spirit of a once living person.

Okay, so in order for any reports to be credible, they must meet your criteria that they be reports of supernatural entities, and not possibly some other entity or phenomenon not yet identified. How precisely do you justify this constraint?

Point 3. The existence of ghosts presupposes a dualistic reality, i.e. both the existence of the material world and a spiritual world. (Note the gnostic version of the material world as "illusion" and only a spiritual world is invalidated by the positivist outlook. Its real because we experience it. The material world is the world of systematically classifiable experiences. Illusion= sensory perception contrary to material reality, we identify illusions by being systematic in our observations and so a.) if there is no reality to be contrary too you can't have an illusion and b.) systematic observations cannot be contrary to themselves.)

That is an assumption designed to invalidate your artificial constraint. What's more, a seat of the pants philosophical argument has never been proof of anything.

Point 4. The manifestation of ghosts presupposes that the spiritual and material world may interact and thus that we may through repeatable experiment affect and observe this "spiritual world".

How do you assume that observations be repeatable as if on demand? Given your premise, do we assume that Casper agrees to take a test?

This either through material manifestations of ghostly effects (emitted photons and such) which we can record or more directly the fact that a "ghost" is supposed to formerly be an occupant of a material corpus which it affects and is affected by during its life, or that a ghost may directly influence the spiritual component of a living person.

Okay, so now we are supposing the characteristics of the soul? Isn't that a bit of a leap?

Point 5. Such interactions would most likely have been measurable and observed in the laboratory.

Most likely? Based on what information?

Given they interact we really cannot draw a line between material and spiritual realms. One is really just supposing an extension of the empirically observable universe beyond what we have empirically observed in our history of systematic investigations of nature. Its like asserting that an elephant has been living in your back yard for years and you just haven't noticed the footprints.

Really! I say centuries of reports constitute an elephant.

Point 6. The "ghost" idea has very strong emotional baggage in our culture as it ties in with our fear of death and sorrow at the loss of family and friends who have "ceased to function on the material plane". Thus stories tend to be wrapped around expectations and fears, subject to intentional fakery, exaggeration, and out-right delusion. All of this undermines any credibility a story may have.

So you can show that this applies in all cases; or even in most cases? Or are you generalizing to satisfy your own expectations?

Point 7. We're talking Ghosts here fourkricesake! Do I need to cite references to argue that "credible stories of Santa Claus" and "credible stories of the Easter Bunny" are likewise oxymorons?

How many adults report encounters with Santa or the Easter bunny?

And if my position here offends your belief systems then that's just tough cookies. Get over it.

You are now acting like a child. If you cannot conduct yourself in a respectable manner, then do not participate in this forum.

 

[resolvent]

Why not believe that ghosts are the souls of the departed? Other than the fact there is no evidence that souls exist, none.

Souls - consciousness - what's the difference?
You're conscious, right (unless you're really a Turing machine)?
Why split hairs and create contention over nothing but silly unnecessary semantics?

 

[nietzsche]

well, i know it's a little late to be talking about the OP's post, but

when a person dreams, their eyes are closed, and they are not necessarily "detecting" any visible light. but you still have visions when you dream.

 

[DaveC426913]

Souls - consciousness - what's the difference?
You're conscious, right (unless you're really a Turing machine)?
Why split hairs and create contention over nothing but silly unnecessary semantics?

They are not the same thing at all.

A soul, by common definition, survives death.

If you use the word soul, people will rightfully assume this definition.