Ghosts galore

[Stranger]

We cannot objectivize everything and expect concrete external analysis of everything.  Our mind is not independent of observed phenomena.  QM tells us that.

No, it doesn't. That's just one interpretation (amongst many) of QM.

Certain mental states could open up our observation of certain phenomena that would otherwise be unknown.

Even though the classical world behaves in predictable and measurable ways...we could also be governed by non classical factors that fall outside our normal perceptions. These non classical factors could be exotic and may not be what we expect normally. These could be what you people like to dub as 'supernatural'...though there is nothing 'super' about them.

Hand-waving guesswork (at best). Why should we take it seriously? What does it even mean? How would we test it?

One problem many of you seem to have is clubbing such non classical phenomena together with religious beliefs and mythology That is a mistake.

Firstly, you haven't defined these "non classical phenomena", and the term itself has a perfectly good scientific meaning that has nothing to do with your hand-waving guesswork so trying to co-opt it is confusing at best and frankly seems somewhat less than honest.

Secondly, your views are quite obviously based on your religious beliefs.

[ekim]

I seem to have hit a nerve here.

Well, I can't see the point of gagging them or blocking their ears, and definitely tying their hands behind them would be counterproductive, but blindfolding them would tend to eliminate any human driven impulses and would reduce the risk of simply  having an entertaining parlour game with no other particular merit. It isn't my fault that the evidence seems to suggest that blindfolding them would spoil the fun, if that's what you're interested in.

And rather than 'move along' I think that it would be far more interesting to explore the reasons why people find such activities so fascinating.

No, no raw nerves here.  Move along, please.  I was just being facetious. 

It seemed from your previous comment that you had predicted the outcome and proved that prediction by blindfolding the participants i.e. cutting off the faculty necessary to view the cards in connection with motor responses.  On most of the occasions I took part, I can't say I got any fun from it.  In fact I found it quite boring until the event I described when the glass seemed to move at a speed that did not give time to pre select the letters and also the German incident.  Rather than exploring the reasons why people find the activities fascinating, which I would guess could be excitement, support for preconceived ideas and, as you have claimed for yourself, resolution of the unexplained, I would have been more interested in the latter, particularly in connection with the collective psychology of the participants.  As regards 'ghosts', we are up against definitions again.  If they exist and their bodies have long since disappeared, I doubt whether they would have eyes to view playing cards with but might need the eyes of the living to do so.

[Sriram]

No, no raw nerves here.  Move along, please.  I was just being facetious. 

It seemed from your previous comment that you had predicted the outcome and proved that prediction by blindfolding the participants i.e. cutting off the faculty necessary to view the cards in connection with motor responses.  On most of the occasions I took part, I can't say I got any fun from it.  In fact I found it quite boring until the event I described when the glass seemed to move at a speed that did not give time to pre select the letters and also the German incident.  Rather than exploring the reasons why people find the activities fascinating, which I would guess could be excitement, support for preconceived ideas and, as you have claimed for yourself, resolution of the unexplained, I would have been more interested in the latter, particularly in connection with the collective psychology of the participants.  As regards 'ghosts', we are up against definitions again.  If they exist and their bodies have long since disappeared, I doubt whether they would have eyes to view playing cards with but might need the eyes of the living to do so.

I don't think spirits/souls/ghosts need physical eyes to see things. We have seen in cases of NDE's that they can see and hear everything very well. 

If you are sitting inside a robot and seeing things through its cameras, it does not mean that when you are outside the robot you cannot see. You can see better and more vividly.

As regards interactions...yes... for that, one might need a body.  Just as a person might need the robot to pick up something from the ocean floor, for example. You cannot do it directly.

[Udayana]

...
As regards interactions...yes... for that, one might need a body.  Just as a person might need the robot to pick up something from the ocean floor, for example. You cannot do it directly.

Don't see why ... what about "ghosts" that throw things around, levitate tables, start storms, draw things on walls... or poltergeists?

How can you answer questions without any reliable, fact based, underlying structure to your "theory"?
 

[Sriram]

Scientists have been studying electrons for decades, spending billions of dollars, and you still don't know if it is a particle or a wave or a field....or why it behaves like  a particle when observed and like a wave when not observed. 

Yet, you want a complete theory with everything tied up neat and clean....for ghosts!!

[Stranger]

Scientists have been studying electrons for decades, spending billions of dollars, and you still don't know if it is a particle or a wave or a field....or why it behaves like  a particle when observed and like a wave when not observed. 

An electron is an excitation of a quantum field, as are electron waves. The quantum field doesn't behave like a wave when it's not observed, it does so if you observe a wavelike property such as wavelength. Quantum field theory (at least the quantum electrodynamics part) is one of the most precise and best tested theories in the history of science.

Yet, you want a complete theory with everything tied up neat and clean....for ghosts!!

No. The point is that if all you've got is baseless, vague and untestable hand-waving, it's indistinguishable from making stuff up - blind guessing at best.

[Sriram]

We have fairly consistent experiences of thousands of people across the world. That is good enough to formulate a hypothesis....leaving out scientism.   

[Stranger]

We have fairly consistent experiences of thousands of people across the world.

True of NDEs but ghosts is another matter and can refer to all sorts of different experiences.

That is good enough to formulate a hypothesis....leaving out scientism.

Do feel free, but vague and untestable hand-waving is not a hypothesis.

[Udayana]

Scientists have been studying electrons for decades, spending billions of dollars, and you still don't know if it is a particle or a wave or a field....or why it behaves like  a particle when observed and like a wave when not observed. 

 It doesn't matter at all what an electron is or is not, or is not real - the point is that we have models good enough at predicting events that we can power our various inventions and devices and communicate across the world.

Yet, you want a complete theory with everything tied up neat and clean....for ghosts!!

Not at all. One reliable outcome would be enough.
 

[Udayana]

We have fairly consistent experiences of thousands of people across the world. That is good enough to formulate a hypothesis....leaving out scientism.

They are not consistent. If they were, you would be able to give us something other than wild guesses.

[Enki]

No, no raw nerves here.  Move along, please.  I was just being facetious. 

It seemed from your previous comment that you had predicted the outcome and proved that prediction by blindfolding the participants i.e. cutting off the faculty necessary to view the cards in connection with motor responses.  On most of the occasions I took part, I can't say I got any fun from it.  In fact I found it quite boring until the event I described when the glass seemed to move at a speed that did not give time to pre select the letters and also the German incident.  Rather than exploring the reasons why people find the activities fascinating, which I would guess could be excitement, support for preconceived ideas and, as you have claimed for yourself, resolution of the unexplained, I would have been more interested in the latter, particularly in connection with the collective psychology of the participants.  As regards 'ghosts', we are up against definitions again.  If they exist and their bodies have long since disappeared, I doubt whether they would have eyes to view playing cards with but might need the eyes of the living to do so.

Ekim,

You do realise that I was responding to Sweet Pea's question about whether "the Ouija Board experience be explained away by science" don't you?   Consequentially I see no reason at all not to be interested in what might be the result under controlled conditions, such as blindfolding the participants. I make no apology at all for that.

At no time did I suggest that, by using the word 'predictably' I had 'proved' anything, so I find that accusation unwarranted. I used 'predictably' quite reasonably because the evidence shows that when such conditions have been adhered to in various experiments, the results have been meaningless. Hence this is what I would predict in any similar experiment, including yours. That doesn't mean to say that my prediction must be true, of course. That would be foolish.

Tell me, if you bound their hands behind them, would they have to use their feet or their noses to move the planchette or glass! 

[jeremyp]

Scientists have been studying electrons for decades, spending billions of dollars, and you still don't know if it is a particle or a wave or a field....or why it behaves like  a particle when observed and like a wave when not observed. 

Actually quantum electrodynamics is ne of the best tested theories we have got. It precisely predicts the behaviour of electrons with a great degree of accuracy.

Yet, you want a complete theory with everything tied up neat and clean....for ghosts!!

No, we just want evidence.

[jeremyp]

We have fairly consistent experiences of thousands of people across the world. That is good enough to formulate a hypothesis....leaving out scientism.

Good. What is your hypothesis and how can we test it to find out if it is right?

[Sriram]

Ok...this could go on forever.  So, let me just summarize quickly....   

1. Ghosts (as also the related phenomenon of NDE's) are real experiences.  They are not imagined.

2. What ghosts are, is not clear. 

3. There are a variety of 'ghosts' which could include loving, smiling, scary ones or just images floating around. Could even be animals, buildings and trains.  There are even interactive ones that can move objects.

4. All of the above need not be the same phenomenon or have the same cause. 

5. They all are exotic or non-classical phenomena. Normal classical explanation of these is not possible.

6. Some of them could be disembodied spirits since they relate directly to specific individuals.  Others could be energies of some kind that are retained even after the objects are gone. 

7. Our mental states could determine why and how we perceive and interact with such phenomena.

8. Clear and concrete explanations of such things is not possible. They need to be investigated further at various levels and not dismissed away.

9. All these are secular phenomena which anyone around the world can experience. They are not connected to religious mythology or specific cultures.

Cheers.

Sriram

 

[torridon]

Ok...this could go on forever.  So, let me just summarize quickly....   

1. Ghosts (as also the related phenomenon of NDE's) are real experiences.  They are not imagined.

2. What ghosts are, is not clear. 

3. There are a variety of 'ghosts' which could include loving, smiling, scary ones or just images floating around. Could even be animals, buildings and trains.  There are even interactive ones that can move objects.

4. All of the above need not be the same phenomenon or have the same cause. 

5. They all are exotic or non-classical phenomena. Normal classical explanation of these is not possible.

6. Some of them could be disembodied spirits since they relate directly to specific individuals.  Others could be energies of some kind that are retained even after the objects are gone. 

7. Our mental states could determine why and how we perceive and interact with such phenomena.

8. Clear and concrete explanations of such things is not possible. They need to be investigated further at various levels and not dismissed away.

9. All these are secular phenomena which anyone around the world can experience. They are not connected to religious mythology or specific cultures.

Cheers.

Sriram

They might not be connected directly to religions, but belief in ghosts likely share common roots with them in terms of widespread underlying psychological biases, superstitions, wishful thinking, the power of suggestion etc.  It's the common signature of beliefs that owe to our underlying predispositions that there is no hard evidence for them.

[Gordon]

Ok...this could go on forever.  So, let me just summarize quickly....   

1. Ghosts (as also the related phenomenon of NDE's) are real experiences.  They are not imagined.

2. What ghosts are, is not clear. 

3. There are a variety of 'ghosts' which could include loving, smiling, scary ones or just images floating around. Could even be animals, buildings and trains.  There are even interactive ones that can move objects.

4. All of the above need not be the same phenomenon or have the same cause. 

5. They all are exotic or non-classical phenomena. Normal classical explanation of these is not possible.

6. Some of them could be disembodied spirits since they relate directly to specific individuals.  Others could be energies of some kind that are retained even after the objects are gone. 

7. Our mental states could determine why and how we perceive and interact with such phenomena.

8. Clear and concrete explanations of such things is not possible. They need to be investigated further at various levels and not dismissed away.

9. All these are secular phenomena which anyone around the world can experience. They are not connected to religious mythology or specific cultures.

Cheers.

Sriram

You're still begging the question throughout most of this list, and you've not included the option that those claiming encounters with 'ghosts' are wrong by being mistaken, or by being misled (by themselves or others), or are lying: these being risks that would need to be excluded before coming to the view that anecdotal accounts involving 'ghosts' were worthy of systematic investigation.

Therefore you'd need some kind of hypothesis that included proposed definitions of characteristics of 'ghosts' and a related method to determine that something meeting these characteristics has been detected: in your point 6 you say "Some of them could be disembodied spirits since they relate directly to specific individuals.  Others could be energies of some kind that are retained even after the objects are gone. " - so how would you investigate these specific possibilities?

I can't see any basis to conclude that 'ghost' claims are any more than just superstitious beliefs that attract the credulous, hence the long history of fraud associated with exploiting the gullible.



 

[Stranger]

1. Ghosts (as also the related phenomenon of NDE's) are real experiences.  They are not imagined.

If you mean that they are caused by objectively real external to the mind phenomena, then this is just an assertion. If I were a betting man, I'd be tempted to put a fair sized amount on a lot of the reported ghosts being entirely imaginary or some sort of illusion (it's quite easy to trick the mind into 'seeing' things that aren't there).

5. They all are exotic or non-classical phenomena. Normal classical explanation of these is not possible.

You appear again to be using the word 'classical' in a non-standard way (it is generally understood to mean pre quantum mechanics and relativity). Assuming you mean something like 'current science', then this is yet another assertion.

6. Some of them could be disembodied spirits since they relate directly to specific individuals.

Why do you think that and how would we test it?

Others could be energies of some kind that are retained even after the objects are gone. 

Nothing is energy, so this doesn't even make sense.

8. Clear and concrete explanations of such things is not possible.

Yet another assertion.

They need to be investigated further...

NDEs are being investigated and ghosts have been investigated for a long time with no concrete evidence. What else do you propose?

9. All these are secular phenomena which anyone around the world can experience. They are not connected to religious mythology or specific cultures.

Your bias towards what sort of explanation you want to be the case, on the other hand, clearly is.

[jeremyp]

Ok...this could go on forever.  So, let me just summarize quickly....   

1. Ghosts (as also the related phenomenon of NDE's) are real experiences.

Of what?

  They are not imagined.

Imagination is the only credible explanation we have got so far. The inability of anybody to come up with some alternative is telling.

2. What ghosts are, is not clear. 

It's clear to me.

3. ...  There are even interactive ones that can move objects.

Any evidence for ghosts that can move objects? That ought to be pretty easy to demonstrate.

6. Some of them could be disembodied spirits since they relate directly to specific individuals.  Others could be energies of some kind that are retained even after the objects are gone. 

So you've got no idea what ghosts are or even that they are all the same thing. Furthermore, you admit that the human mind is mysterious but you still insist that ghosts are not the product of human imagination.

8. Clear and concrete explanations of such things is not possible. They need to be investigated further at various levels and not dismissed away.

They have been investigated over decades and decades and still there is no evidence that they have any objective existence. How long do we have to keep searching the room before you will be convinced that there is no elephant in it?

[Steve H]

Just now, I was sitting here reading the utter bollocks some of you post, when I saw, through the front window, an elderly, white-haired man wearing a black coat come down my garden path. I waited for a knock on the door, but none came, so I got up and went to the side window and looked through it, No elderly man was in sight, and he hadn't returned down the path. Explain that, cynics!

(N.B. - this really happened, but I'm not seriously claiming it as a ghostly encounter. This explanation is necessary, because some posters on here apparently lack a sense of humour.)

[ekim]

Tell me, if you bound their hands behind them, would they have to use their feet or their noses to move the planchette or glass! 

No, the solution is simple.  They just have to summon up a Poltergeist who will do it for them and hope it doesn't just throw the glass around the room. 

[Bramble]

For an authoritative examination of ghosts see https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00049t9/ghosts

Sharp observers might note that ghosts exhibit the peculiar characteristic of being supported by horizontal surfaces whilst retaining the ability to pass through vertical ones unimpeded.

[Steve H]

For an authoritative examination of ghosts see https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/m00049t9/ghosts

Sharp observers might note that ghosts exhibit the peculiar characteristic of being supported by horizontal surfaces whilst retaining the ability to pass through vertical ones unimpeded.

Haunting ghosts appear to exist in the world as it was when they were alive. At least one ghost always appeared cut off at the ankles. It was later discovered that the floor had been raised. When they pass through walls, they are presumably going through a door that has since been blocked up. It would seem that what we are seeing with a haunting ghost is a re-run of the person when they were alive - something like a video. That would also explain why they ignore watchers. They also fade over time, and eventually disappear. One frequently-seen female ghost was reported in the early 18th century as wearing a red dress. By the late 18th Century it was a pink dress, and by the 19th Century a white dress. By the early 20th Century she had disappeared from sight, but was sometimes heard.
NB - I am claiming nothing one way or the other about the reality of ghosts.

[Bramble]

Haunting ghosts appear to exist in the world as it was when they were alive. At least one ghost always appeared cut off at the ankles. It was later discovered that the floor had been raised. When they pass through walls, they are presumably going through a door that has since been blocked up. It would seem that what we are seeing with a haunting ghost is a re-run of the person when they were alive - something like a video. That would also explain why they ignore watchers. They also fade over time, and eventually disappear. One frequently-seen female ghost was reported in the early 18th century as wearing a red dress. By the late 18th Century it was a pink dress, and by the 19th Century a white dress. By the early 20th Century she had disappeared from sight, but was sometimes heard.
NB - I am claiming nothing one way or the other about the reality of ghosts.

I wonder how many people would see ghosts if they hadn't been brought up in a culture that 'did' ghosts. Don't we tend to see the things we expect to see? Well established local ghosts would almost certainly invite further sightings from people predisposed to interpret suitable tricks of the light accordingly.

I know someone who sees 'dead people' all the time, just wandering around. He always has done, and these ghosts are simply a normal part of his life. Perhaps it's not surprising really. If the brain can conjure up a VR world and dream things that exist only within its sleeping imagination, why shouldn't it be able to conjure up ghosts, gods or even leprechauns? How much more likely are we to populate our world with such entities if we have been brought up to think of them as possibilities?

Some years ago, in the building where my wife works, a smell like rotting cauliflower was suddenly noticed. People would detect it in different locations in the building, as if it was moving around. Then one of the other tenants, inclined to such interpretations, confided in my wife that he thought the smell was some kind of ghost. When the smell seemed to linger in the corridor outside my wife's room she tried asking it politely to move on and it duly obliged, though it didn't leave the building. Eventually, the spook-friendly tenant brought in an exorcist and after some kind of ritual banishment the smell did disappear - only to turn up next door in the Leeds Building Society. They brought in Environmental Health, who did a thorough inspection of the drains but to no avail, so the exorcist was further employed (covertly) to expel it from its new home, whereupon it returned to my wife's building. There it remained until, in desperation, some heavyweight 'ghostbusters' were recruited to do an all-night exorcism, since when it's not been smelt again.

[Outrider]

Ok...if you and your wife together see a dead relative standing in front of you and smiling at you.  What is the 'scientific' explanation you would offer?

First instinct would be that reports of their death had been exaggerated, possibly followed by holography.

O.