Jump to content

Do you believe in ghosts/ spirits


  

18 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you believe in ghosts/ spirits?

    • Yes, I've had personal experience with them
      2
    • Yes
      5
    • No
      11


Recommended Posts

Mooeypoo , sidenote , if I have a page in front of me for 10 mins it won't update if other people post . When I post it could go after a post I do not see on my screen . So , they are not in order !

 

It's okay that they're not, they should just be in CONTEXT: as in, "quote" whatever post you're answering to, and we know who you're answering to. It doesn't matter that you didn't see the most updated ones if you do that.

 

 

That said, you haven't answered quite a number of points Phi and I made a lot earlier in the thread. I assume you missed them, but if you can go back and go over our last 2-3 points, I think it can be a lot more helpful. This is a common thing that happens in a forum, that we all "talk" at the same time. That's why the QUOTE option is available -- to put things into context.

 

~mooey

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 61
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Our senses are flawed to an extent. That's why we try to use devices to measure for us. A good example:  

Is Klaynos a Puppet ? Klaynos , maybe you could take the time to read what is here ! You have defragmented a conversation that is totally relevant to the original posters questioning . These questions

i see the rules can be bent? just like time and space?

I just think that nobody is willing to say that ' evidence ' of weird things is ' things that were seen ' . People say there is no evidence , what are sightings ?

People see and hear all kinds of things they mistake for something else. If you're ghost-hunting, every creak of the foundation shifting is a ghost, every vague wind current is a spirit, every cold spot must have been made by a haunting instead of a thermal inversion. When things that exist are seen many times, we don't think twice about it. When something is unexplainable, we call it a sighting, and it remains unexplainable until... we explain it, and then we understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, one of the main problems with "Ghost Hunters" is that they come to their experiment/project already with a desired outcome (to find the ghosts) rather than with an intention to gather data and conclude upon it.

 

If you insist to find something, you'll fit the evidence to the conclusion, rather than reaching a conclusion based on the evidence you have.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, I'm not claiming people who claim they've seen ghosts are lying. They most probably felt SOMETHING they can't explain. What I am saying is that we need to *test* what they witnessed, and not jump to the conclusion that it's ghosts.

I call that critical thinking. I don't think it should only be done regarding intuitively implausible entities likes ghosts/spirits. The reason why I mention here is because I get tired of science limiting itself to disproving superstitions. I prefer a slightly more enlightening approach that actually explains the subjective experiences of things that are implausible.

 

That's the point of science, as you say. Explaining reality, even if reality is the not-immediately-intuitive explanation. It usually isn't.

Why is this issue of intuition coming up again? I guess it's good though, because it makes me realize that scientists often rely on plausibility intuition within the parameters of scientific knowledge they've accepted as legitimate and experience intuitive disbelief regarding things that seem unlikely. I.e. it is very difficult to be completely objective/neutral when you're thinking with a human brain.

 

There's a difference between evidence for court and evidence for science. For science, eye-wittness testimony is unreliable. For a courtroom, it sometimes is. Empirical testing and the ability to re-test claims are crucial in science, and they seem to be nonexistent in the claim for ghosts.

I agree. Just because someone thinks they observed something doesn't mean they should accept what they interpret themselves to have seen or thought uncritically.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that almost all "proof" of ghosts is anecdotal and any pictures or recordings may seem unreliable. If ghosts were real however, we wouldn't be able to see them and their appearance/ presence, if any, would be so scarce that it would be very difficult to prove their existence anyways. Nevertheless, just because we can't prove something doesn't mean it's not possible that it can exist - and maybe one day there will be proof - just like there is no proof of another existence (besides that on earth) in this universe, but maybe someday in the future there will be.

 

What do you guys think about Mary Ann Winkowski's ability to see and talk to ghosts - in the book I'm reading she has apparently turned non-believers into believers by demonstrating her ability to them. This could only really be proven by meeting with her personally, and even then, who would believe you when you tell them? It is very difficult to prove their existence - it's very easy for the scientific community to just say "prove it" and go no further.

 

Even before reading Sylvia Browne's book I did some research about her and found she isn't very reliable, I've actually stopped reading her book. However, Mary Ann's book was much better, and her position is also different as she is not a medium, but she isn't as famous as Sylvia Browne.

 

Finally I'd like to give you a quote from Winkowski: "The world would be awfully dull if we all believed the same thing."

Edited by Twinbird24
Link to post
Share on other sites

If ghosts were real however, we wouldn't be able to see them and their appearance/ presence, if any, would be so scarce that it would be very difficult to prove their existence anyways.

This is an interesting sentence. You start out sounding as if it is unknown if ghosts are real, and then proceed to make what sounds like a factual statement about them, which of course you cannot do unless the ghosts are real.

Link to post
Share on other sites

An important preliminary to this discussion is to clarify the distinction between phenomenology and ontology. It is of course true that many people sincerely believe and report that they experience phenomena which look to them like what are traditionally called 'ghosts,' but it is an entirely different, much more ambitious assertion to maintain that these experiences indicate that there are objective entities corresponding to them which are the spirits of dead people who somehow persist in being able to communicate with and influence the ordinary realm.

 

The former assertion -- that people really do see 'ghosts,' and that some scientifically controlled experiments have confirmed the existence of phenomena often associated with ghosts (photographic evidence, experiments with showing sudden weight loss when people die which cannot be accounted for by exhalation, reliable simultaneous testimony by groups of people not in contact with each other of the same ghostly experience, Raudive's electronic voice phenomena communicating accurate but previously inaccessible information to subjects who could not have known of it independently of that communication, etc.) -- is undeniable, but what it all means, what causes it, what it implies about existent things underlying it, is all unclear. Following the rule that extraordinary hypotheses require extraordinary proof, the ghost-hypothesis would need much better, much more specific evidence than anything that has so far emerged. Possibly many of the experiences people take as evidence of ghosts is in fact an indication of less startling things, such as some form of ESP (which Professor Rhine's experiments at Duke University have already established to exist, though in a form which rapidly attenuates), or some manifestation of quantum mechanics' particle entanglement. I think the physicist David Bell has argued that the physical world may have deeper layers of connection in it because of quantum mechanics, and that these may seem to generate what are now identified as 'mystical' resonances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I call that critical thinking. I don't think it should only be done regarding intuitively implausible entities likes ghosts/spirits. The reason why I mention here is because I get tired of science limiting itself to disproving superstitions. I prefer a slightly more enlightening approach that actually explains the subjective experiences of things that are implausible.

 

 

Why is this issue of intuition coming up again? I guess it's good though, because it makes me realize that scientists often rely on plausibility intuition within the parameters of scientific knowledge they've accepted as legitimate and experience intuitive disbelief regarding things that seem unlikely. I.e. it is very difficult to be completely objective/neutral when you're thinking with a human brain.

 

 

I agree. Just because someone thinks they observed something doesn't mean they should accept what they interpret themselves to have seen or thought uncritically.

 

Lemur, could you please clarify? I thought you were saying that the concept of ghosts/spirits are intuitively implausible, but you then seem to be saying that calling something intuitively implausible displays opinion rather than critical thought.

 

In general from both my reading and experience these "phenomena" fall into two distinct categories. "Ghosts" appear to be some sort of recording as they tend to follow the same pattern each time they are seen, "Spirits" appear to be conscious entities that can interact. If this is the case, then the methods for detecting one will probably not be suitable for the other, it would be like trying to detect radio waves with a microphone.

 

The main problem for ghost hunters is that except for some extremely vague "spiritual" concepts they have no underlying theory. If a ghost is a recrding, as a number surmise then the obvious questions are;

1. What is the means of recording?

2. What is the recording medium?

3. How does "replay" occur?

4. What is the recording "played" on?

 

By analogy, say I have a film to show. Unless I have the film, a projection machine, a working light in that machine, a power source to run the machine and a screen to project the picture on, I cannot show the film. A number of independent factors must come together in the right way and at the right time for the film to be viewed. In the case of ghosts we don't even have a basic theory as to what the factors are, let alone a knowledge of how they must be combined for the ghost to be "viewed".

 

The case is worse if spirits are in fact conscious entities because they can choose not to participate. (Note that this problem is true for all science into human psychology and physiology, if nobody chooses to participate in the experiments, then they cannot be replicable.)

 

I have gone out with ghost hunters and been singularly unimpressed with the methodologies and attitudes involved. Aside from a large number of "Orbs" (glowing balls that show up in photos but are not visible generally) there was nothing. I must add that "Orbs" tend to show up at night when a flash is being used and I think that rather than ghosts or spirits they are simply getting photos of the flash being reflected off the wings of small bugs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are many things that can be the explanation of such videos. Case in point:

BTW, ALL of Captain Disillusion's videos are excellent and highly recommended.

 

Not all ghosts on video are bugs, but some are, some are illuminations, problems with the camera, optical illusions and problems with the equipment. Some are simply paraedolia.

 

In the presence of a few possible explanations, the explanation that requires the least extraordinary assumptions wins. Ghosts are last on that list, really, since assuming that would require proving first that ghosts exist, can come to our world, and can be caught on camera without anyone else seeing them.

 

~mooey

 

This is a good one too:

(shows how gullible people can be when they LOOK for stuff to see, rather than check what's going on objectively).

Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO< The (ghost) people refer to simply things they see but interpert it into somthing meaningful, Maybe a subconscience way to make them feel better about there time to expire. And HAL, the diffrence is when that scientist is doing an experiment he/she writes down the results and test's completed. Therfore any scientist after can follow there method and reproduce the same effect time and time again. With ghost that really cannot be done to achieve any proper result.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I got the impression you didn't watch my video till the end :)

 

I posted the videos regardless, I was planning to, since they're relevant (and Captain Disillusion is awesome), but you're right, I started and had to run. ;) I shall re-watch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a badly constructed poll. Objectively I had to pick the first option since I have had two personal instances where I saw a ghost. They matched all the characteristics of many of the ghost sightings by persons who believe them to be departed spirits. In each case I know, from various matters I shan't bore you with, that they were simply hallucinations (no drugs or insanity involved).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the London Dungeon might have an ulterior motive for posting an unexplained video I do still think the video Michel posted merits close attention.

 

I must admit Mooey that I was less than impressed with Capt Disillusion's debunking - whilst I give absolutely no credence to these videos showing a supernatural phenomenon, just blankly saying they don't show anything weird and giving explanations that just as unsubstantiated (although much more believable) does nothing to convince. As an example - a five second clip of a controlled demo of bug on a cctv camera showing up as a blue (coloured) blur would have totally demolished the argument that it was a ghost; however, all he did was offer a bald assertion and take the mickey out of those within the news report.

 

I passionately believe in debunking and demystifying - and the evidence from your website is that you do too - and I think this is best done without expressions of amazement at how stupid the member of the public are that have fallen for the bunkem-sellers and crystal-healers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst the London Dungeon might have an ulterior motive for posting an unexplained video I do still think the video Michel posted merits close attention.

 

 

I'd second this, close analysis is clearly needed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This was a badly constructed poll. Objectively I had to pick the first option since I have had two personal instances where I saw a ghost. They matched all the characteristics of many of the ghost sightings by persons who believe them to be departed spirits. In each case I know, from various matters I shan't bore you with, that they were simply hallucinations (no drugs or insanity involved).

 

That's a good point. Beyond the fact that this poll asks for a belief question which, in science, isn't too relevant to the actual existence of ghosts (personal experience is not a good evidence), I didn't think about the fact that things can go the other way.

 

This is actually ironic, since, thinking about it, I, too, had a couple of experiences that fit the common "ghost" description. They were all explainable after a brief test, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a child, perhaps about three years old, I saw white, transparent 'people' silently moving around the cellar of the old Victorian house I lived in. Since I was at that time not yet familiar with the concept of ghosts, I was not frightened of them, and what most impressed me about them was the puffed up, blocky appearance of their shoulders, possibly because they were wearing old-fashioned clothing. I asked my mother who those 'square people' living in the cellar were, and since she explained that there were no other people living in our house except our family, I simply let the matter drop, as children often do when adults correct them. I did, however, spend a lot of time working out my feelings about this conflict between what I 'knew' I had seen and what my mother said, and I expressed this by filling many pieces of paper with illustrations of the 'square people.'

 

When my father died last year I inherited all the contents of our old house and found among them the very large number of drawings I had made so long ago of the 'square people,' confirming at least that my sense of having perceived something like that had once occurred, albeit not that such things existed outside my perception or corresponded to what popular mythology thinks of as the souls of the dead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Re popup videos

 

And he still got me - even though it was clearly coming laugh.gif

 

I am rational - I will not jump, I will not start, I will not react ...I jumped, I started, i reacted

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.