ghosts

[Walsingham]

UFO topic

 

 

In the old topic we were looking at means of producing credible scientific proof of 'weird goings on'.

 

i was going to suggest two things:

 

1. We try to take a naturalistic proof, which we'd accept, and extract the key features of that proof

2. We try to suggest novel proofs, we hadn't considered.

 

 

On, perhaps, both options I'd suggest one I'd accept is destroying a ghost. That is, if one can define a ghost as purposive system, then one can break it. break the ghost, break the ghostly phenomena. Break the phenomena, measurable effect. My suggestion is, therefore, that we range the various hypthetical causes for a ghostly phenomena and then find something which will break ONLY the paranormal explanation. Apply the intervention, measure the result.

 

... and yes, I may well be a violent maniac.

[taks]

i killed a few ghosts in devil may cry 4 last night... does that count?

 

my friends, one of whom i went to college with, i.e., another trained engineer, believe in all manner of ghosts and supernatural stuff. drives me nuts.

 

in all the years that we've been trying (as a society) and with all the technical capabilities we have, there is even less evidence of "ghosts" than there is of UFOs. in fact, i would wager that of the various phenomena, the probability of aliens/UFOs is the greatest, and ghosts the lowest. these are the things that likely have natural, physical explanations, though that does not mean they are the result of phenomena we fully understand yet.

 

taks

Edited November 14, 2008 by taks

[Gorgon]

I think it comes back to subjectivity, philosophy, the very definition of what is 'real'. We aren't a completely empirically based species. In response to what we can't explain, we make things up, then we perpetuate them through suggestion and tradition. How else could organized religion have survived this long.

 

I can't help but notice how paranormal encounters always seem to happen to people who are already believers, logically enough since paranormal phenomena are part of their available solutions to unexplained phenomena. A skeptic would not be satisfied that an unexplained sound is indicative of a poltergeist after all.

[Slowtrain]

[, if one can define a ghost as purposive system,

 

Can you be more specific? Establishing a working definition of what would constitute a ghost would seem pretty critical. "ghosts" might exist for example, but they might not be the disembodied remains of departed humans.

 

 

@taks: not that I am disagreeing with you but what it is about the concept of "ghosts" that makes you see their potential existence as so less possible than UFOs?

[Walsingham]

Well UFOs are more tangible, theoretically speaking. We exist as intelligent life, say the scientists, as the consequence of mundane chemical interactions. These chemicals exist elsewhere in the universe. Therefore intelligent life is possible elsewhere. The question then becomes simply whether it is nearby.

 

Ghosts are not the same thing, because they are asking us to believe in a new phenomenon. Or I should say, actually, a newly questioned phenomenon.

 

A further distinction is that if UFOs exist then they are more dynamic pehenomenon. Who is to say what they might do in the future? This demands study and consideration. If ghosts arise simply from humans, then their behaviour is probably less dynamic, and we can more or less continue to ignore them.

[Hell Kitty]

I like the theory of ghosts as a memory/recording of a particularly emotional event. Maybe not quite as exciting as spirits trapped between this world and the next.

 

My favourite supposedly real ghost/demon/supernaturalwhatsamathingy is this. That **** creeps me out. Also, I like that they have pistols to shoot at this stuff. Real scientific guys.

[Walsingham]

My favoured hypothesis is that the humans witnesses to ghostly phenomena are picking up on tiny cues in the environment. These cues are interpreted pre-consciously and expressed pre-consciously as an emotional matrix.

[taks]

@taks: not that I am disagreeing with you but what it is about the concept of "ghosts" that makes you see their potential existence as so less possible than UFOs?

"ghosts"* require an afterlife populated by... souls. i am an atheist, you know. alien life doesn't really require any stretch in imagination (or faith) other than the simple concept that we may not be alone, and the other life out there could easily be significantly more advanced than we are.

 

other than that, less evidence that remains unexplained in spite of gobs more "sightings" throughout history. even hell kitty's link is, well, a joke (creepy, yes). first of all, how does something "feel evil and malevolent." the thing hung out and observed them all freaking night, even allowing them to throw things at it, yet did nothing. not very evil if you ask me. also, the room got colder but the thermometer didn't show it? sounds like something imaginary to me. you can tell by the beginning of the story that they went in to the place with the implicit assumption that something was there (heck, the guy had "psychic training" ). it is not a stretch to think their own minds perpetrated the hoax.

 

overall, the ghost phenomenon is a bit easier to falsify scientifically. so far, i haven't seen anything that passes the smell test.

 

taks

 

* the term ghost should not be used when a readily available, albeit odd, phenomenon exists by which it could be explained. there are things that may seem supernatural, but they really don't have any actual link to prior human existence of any sort.

Edited November 14, 2008 by taks

[taks]

I can't help but notice how paranormal encounters always seem to happen to people who are already believers, logically enough since paranormal phenomena are part of their available solutions to unexplained phenomena. A skeptic would not be satisfied that an unexplained sound is indicative of a poltergeist after all.

exactly what i was getting at in my last post. nail, head, meet hammer.

 

it's not a surprise that someone like me views religion in the same manner. not that i want to get into the religion discussion, just that i tend to be of the "show me the evidence" slant before i put my faith into anything. ghosts, like religion, are ill supported by physical evidence.

 

taks

[alanschu]

SOrry but I have to.

 

If there are ghost...who are you gonna call?

[Amentep]

@taks: not that I am disagreeing with you but what it is about the concept of "ghosts" that makes you see their potential existence as so less possible than UFOs?

"ghosts"* require an afterlife populated by... souls. i am an atheist, you know. alien life doesn't really require any stretch in imagination (or faith) other than the simple concept that we may not be alone, and the other life out there could easily be significantly more advanced than we are.

 

other than that, less evidence that remains unexplained in spite of gobs more "sightings" throughout history. even hell kitty's link is, well, a joke (creepy, yes). first of all, how does something "feel evil and malevolent." the thing hung out and observed them all freaking night, even allowing them to throw things at it, yet did nothing. not very evil if you ask me. also, the room got colder but the thermometer didn't show it? sounds like something imaginary to me. you can tell by the beginning of the story that they went in to the place with the implicit assumption that something was there (heck, the guy had "psychic training" ). it is not a stretch to think their own minds perpetrated the hoax.

 

overall, the ghost phenomenon is a bit easier to falsify scientifically. so far, i haven't seen anything that passes the smell test.

 

taks

 

* the term ghost should not be used when a readily available, albeit odd, phenomenon exists by which it could be explained. there are things that may seem supernatural, but they really don't have any actual link to prior human existence of any sort.

 

Are souls (and thus incarnations of souls) really supernatural if they are a part of the natural world (ie, what distinguishes a soul's existence in this realm rather than the afterlife not an explicable phenomenon *if* souls exist)?

 

Also a ghost created because of something like a time distortion or psychic imprinting would technically link to a prior human existence without actually necessitating a soul.

 

Alternatively, I could be missing the point.

[taks]

i was talking souls in the religious sense... that wouldn't rule out possibilities of some underlying energy source that persists after we die, but to date, nothing like that has even come close to being shown to be true, let alone even possible.

 

taks

[samm]

The most believable explanation of ghost phenomena I heard so far, was the one with infra sound. It can cause all kinds of visual and audible effects due to "interpretation errors" of the brain (or is it the resonance of eyes / mid-ear that really causes it? I don't remember ) The effects are increased by the fear induced by very low noise. It would also explain why old houses, castles and dungeons are the place for ghosts, and why also non-believers can suddenly become convinced they exist (because yes, they can, I know it first hand).

 

If ghosts were any kind of... life, then I would be strongly against trying to break them just to proof them - a typical human approach that yes, Walsingham, in my opinion is much too violent and would cause nothing but greif for all those involved: Ghosts would suffer, humans would likely be haunted or cursed or whatever, if ghosts were any kind of life similar to what is attributed to them.

Edited November 14, 2008 by samm

[taks]

yeah, but if ghosts are really malevolent, don't we have a right, nay, a responsibility to save humanity from them? down with ghosts! long live... uh, up with alive people! if we don't get rid of the problem now, next thing you know ghosts will be demanding fair treatment under all of the equal opportunity acts and clauses. it could get ugly. just imagine the first time ghosts attempt to marry.

 

taks

[SteveThaiBinh]

SOrry but I have to.

 

If there are ghost...who are you gonna call?

Probably the coastguard. Ghosts can't swim.

 

I think samm makes the key point. If we investigate ghosts with seriousness, we must allow the possibility that they exist, and therefore, that they can suffer. In that case, investigation that might cause harm would be unethical.

[Gorgon]

Whenever my boundless pessimism and skepticism regarding spirituality comes up as I'm talking with my friends, I am always berated with the knowitall phrase 'there is more between heaven and earth', and the smug bastards all fall over each other priding themselves on being more open minded than me.

 

It's not like it takes any effort to believe in Santa, Jesus, Asmodeus or the tooth fairy, and they never qualify why it's better to jump to conclusions you can't support.

[taks]

please, oh please, let's not let this devolve into the religious argument as it is wont to do. there's way too many good jokes in the ethical treatment of ghost thingies to lose it all because we simply can't help ourselves. hmmm, i guess in the other thread we should be discussing the ethical treatment of extra terrestrials, or ET of ET. of course, those buggers are likely in the "ethical treatment of" department just due to advanced technology they hold compared to us (barring some strange virus they suddenly don't know how to cure), so really it becomes extra terrestrial ethical treatment of catt... er, humans. ETETH.

 

taks

[Gorgon]

Well surely if you believe in God you believe in satan, angles, miracles and ghosts by extension.

[SteveThaiBinh]

I agree with taks - discussion of religious beliefs is off-topic. For complete understanding of ghosts, we would at some point need a convincing theory as to why they exist (or don't), but for the sake of this thread let's stick to methods for establishing and testing that they do or do not exist.

[taks]

hmmm, i wonder what god thinks about my new organizations which i will henceforth refer to as TEETH and ETGTs.

 

taks

[taks]

I agree with taks - discussion of religious beliefs is off-topic.

nice try, but you know how we operate... ahem.

 

btw, my last comment was a cross-post with you. but a joke nonetheless.

 

taks

[Slowtrain]

Like taks, I am an atheist, but I see no reason that ghosts must link directly to religion. If ghosts exist more likely than not they have been co-opted by religion to serve a religious purpose, but are not religious entities themselves.

 

Usually, when discussing paranormal entities, a distinction is drawn between "ghosts", as generally being in some connected to something that once existed as a human, and "non-human" entities which never existed as a human. Maleveolence and evil is rarely associated with ghosts but rather with non-human entities. Non-human entities may also have been co-opted by religion as demons and devils and what not.

[Slowtrain]

@HK:

 

I remember when you posted that link to that story once before. Believe it or not this line still cracks me up. I quoted it before and I am going to do again because I love it so much.

 

 

I did not shoot at it with my pistol nor did I attempt to strike it with either sword or staff.

.

 

 

lol. Who the hell would carry a pistol and a sword and staff on a paranormal investigation? I wonder if he was wearing chainmail and a cape.

[Gorth]

@HK:

 

I remember when you posted that link to that story once before. Believe it or not this line still cracks me up. I quoted it before and I am going to do again because I love it so much.

 

 

I did not shoot at it with my pistol nor did I attempt to strike it with either sword or staff.

.

 

 

lol. Who the hell would carry a pistol and a sword and staff on a paranormal investigation? I wonder if he was wearing chainmail and a cape.

Maybe it was a silver sword? Everybody knows that ghosts and lycanthropes have a thing regarding silver. Never leave home without at least a silver dagger

 

It would probably be easier if people knew what they were looking for. Sentinent beings with an agenda or a purpose? Primal forces like an "imprint" of hate/rage/anger? Odd manifestations of kinetic energy? Strange visuals?

 

What exactly is it we want to set up a scientific approach for? A zoologist that declares that he wants to study "animals" is likely to be ridiculed by his peers

[samm]

Haha Some great posts here!

 

It would probably be easier if people knew what they were looking for. Sentinent beings with an agenda or a purpose? Primal forces like an "imprint" of hate/rage/anger? Odd manifestations of kinetic energy? Strange visuals?

That is a problem. However, discoveries have been made while looking for something totally different or nothing at all. Take america for example, post-it or x-rays. So, it's not wrong to assume something, equip for that and well, do the research With ghosts there's the additional problem that most probably no one seriously considers this to be a possible source of money*, progress or whatnot, so serious research in this (or any 'paranormal') field is rare if existant at all. We can only hope for amatures to make an accidental discovery.

 

*exceptions: tv shows, estate agents for old spook mansions