ghosts don't want their existence proven

As a person who grew up in a county with more cattle (that's cows to you Easterners) than people, I would love to see how this could be accomplished.:confused: Alchemy, perhaps?
Actually, I'm surprised that this thread is still going, and has passed the hundred mark.
It is a frustrating exercise to try to prove the non-existence of anything. I prefer to accept that ghosts do NOT exist, until someone proves otherwise, anecdotal evidence notwithstanding. I don't know who is qualified to give evidence of ghostly experiences, but I do know that there is plenty of anecdotal evidence proving the existence of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. You just have to ask the right people.:)

Lindy

As an aside, I'm curious how many who believe in ghosts would also consider themselves atheists?

nope, chainsaw.


but as far as ghosts go....assuming they exist, and are 'super'natural they have the power to avoid definition documentation.

I mean, if you can believe they exist, you may as well believe they have the power to avoid being documented.

of course if you don't believe in them then all the semi documenting of them is bunk.

so far I haven't seen any way to nail it down any further than that.

This is a real ghost;
her name is Boo Ridley


http://i253.photobucket.com/albums/h...y/File0001.jpg

Hey Lasereth!

The Dunning-Kruger effect might give you some great insight into why so many people believe in ghosts without there ever being any proof to support their beliefs.

Human beings in general have inadequate knowledge about how their minds, memories and senses work making us much more likely to misinterpret experience.

One of my favorite illustrations of this the spinning dancer:
http://barelybad.com/images/spinning_dancer.gif

At first glance she is spinning in one direction but with some focus you can make her spin the other way.

It should also be noted that people who claim to believe in ghosts generally don’t have a theory outlining the subject. Their beliefs are constructed from emotion. They believe that they’ll identify a paranormal experience based on feeling rather than having a pre-defined set of parameters. Not exactly a consistent method of gathering information here.

Compounding all this is not understanding scientific principles. People who believe in ghost often think that we must find a non-scientific way to explain supernatural phenomenon – whatever that may be.

Science deals with gathering data and drawing conclusions about that data based on a hypothesis.

The most obvious sign of someone who doesn’t understand science is the statement: “well, science never disproved ghosts!”

So we are left with people who lack a hypothesis on what ghosts might be and have no consistent way of obtaining facts about the subject because they don’t even know where, how, or even why to start looking.

Fascinatingly this doesn’t stop people from seeing ghosts. Rather than labeling experiences they cannot explain as experiences they cannot explain people draw baseless conclusions. Not our fault. The spookiest thing of all is the un-explained. The brain is wired to label experiences. We have trouble leaving things as blanks.

The Dunning-Kruger effect might also be a reasonable explanation for why people try to use science to support their lack of belief in ghosts.

For instance, it seems like the overconfidence you have in your grasp of the scientific method has led you to draw an erroneous conclusion about the general nature of all supernatural experiences. The dancing lady can be made to turn different ways because she lacks definition. Sure, it speaks to the possibility that things can be misinterpreted. But everything can be misinterpreted. This doesn't mean that you can just assume that you can chalk every instance of implausibility up to human error. Arguably, the Dunning-Kruger effect is responsible for the assumption that a lack of scientific corroboration is proof that certain phenomena can't occur.

I have a fundamental, firsthand grasp of scientific principles. I don't know if ghosts exist, but I'm pretty sure that, in light of the basic limitations of the scientific method, the notion that science right now has anything to say about the fact of whether ghosts exist or not betrays a lack of understanding of science.

Regardless of what science says (or doesn't say), if my dead great grandmother appeared in front of me and told me to quit fucking around and marry my girlfriend, I might be inclined to believe in ghosts.

But would you believe in ghosts if that happened in the middle of the night, say at 2 AM when you're not entirely sure you were awake or not? Or would you just automatically believe it because it resulted in a strong emotional reaction?

If I wasn't sure I was awake, then I would probably assume that I was dreaming.

As for strong emotional reactions, I would assume that a strong emotional reaction would accompany any event where a ghost was perceived, regardless of whether the ghost actually existed or not. So the presence of strong emotions doesn't seem all that interesting to me as a way of determining the whether a perceived ghost was real or not.

I think we’re on the same page here. You are especially right to point out that the D-K effect influences people on both ends of the debate - myself certainly not excluded.


A collection of quotes from this thread:
I'm addressing the validity of above statements. Please correct me if I’m wrong…

Science and paranormal are very compatible. Our problem isn’t lack of instruments…we have our minds and that’s a start. The issue is that people claiming the existence of ghosts lack a hypothesis; fail to come up with conclusions based on that hypothesis and flail to come up with data which supports those conclusions.

“Science” is not an instrument with flashing lights; it’s a process for obtaining truth. Science embraces the paranormal. Every scientific discovery was once an unknown. Evolution, quantum mechanics and astrology are all huge leaps for the human mind which involved much poking in the dark before instruments for adequate exploration existed. To say that something which cannot be explained by current scientific theories is incompatible with the scientific process is absurd.

There are several poor arguments that always come up in these discussions:

"We cannot detect ghost by any current means. "

Firsthand observation of ghosts by individuals will do just fine as a source of data. Many social and psychological concepts were investigated using the same source. We have a means of detecting ghosts and collecting data about them which can be perfectly scientific when combined with proper techniques: the mind.

"Ghosts are simply beyond our comprehension."

Everything, at some point, was beyond our comprehension. This never stopped us from exploring the unknown. Experiences of ghosts are no exception. We can collect the data and begin to derive ideas on the nature of these entities. From there we can begin to draw conclusions and make predictions about where ghosts might appear, who can see them and under what circumstances.

"Scientific minds are incompatible with paranormal experience. Therefore they will never see ghosts and never be able to prove their existence."

Think of all the great minds (Galileo, Copernicus, Hawking, Newton, Einstein, Darwin) who had to not only think outside the box but challenge preconceived notions of reality in order to take make their ideas work. Pigeonholing data into neat formulas is the end process of scientific pursuit - the final spellcheck – not to be confused with the whole process which involves creativity and an open mind above all else.

Science and logical thinking are perfectly compatible with exploration of paranormal events; which leaves us with the very interesting question of why can't anyone prove ghosts?

I stand with twistedmosaic’s point of view on this. This isn't about denying possibilities but seeing the absurdity in chasing ducks with trunks.

the thread came undone pretty early because none of the central terms were defined. for example, if the question is about "proving" something, the operative term is the verb, not the noun.

what does proof mean in this context?
turns out that it doesn't actually mean anything: some vague handwaving in the direction of Imaginary Boys in the Lab carrying out Important Investigations near flasks bubbling away over bunsen burners with cool tubes connecting them--you know, Science, that stuff carried out by the Boys in the Lab.

from there followed a series of more or less arbitrary professions of faith in the Magical Powers of the Scientific Method.

the relation between whatever that meme refers to and the question of proof never got posed, and then a streak of snippiness developed over "semantic" problems. in a philosophy thread, semantic questions are a problem? what the hell else is there but such problems? surely no-one in their right mind imagines that language is transparent enough so that you can brush aside such and move to directly manipulating the Things Themselves.

but no matter.

so we're in an environment that asks a question about proof without any coherent idea of what proof means.

ghosts: what they are is a function of the way the category works. ghost is a noun, so is made over as an object and so is made over into a phenomenon that has the basic characteristics of a noun---you know, a determinable x, a sequence of predicates---spread out in time, this would mean repeatability at the level of features or actions.

it may be that "proving" ghosts amounts to "proving" that a ghost is not an object at all.

but that supposes we know what "proving" means here.
and we don't.
and we never will, unless someone decides ok...this is what it is...

You are absolutely right Roachboy.

proof
–noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law. (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.
6. the effect of evidence in convincing the mind.

If I may rephrase your statement: - and correct me if it alters your intended message - we have nothing to prove.

Before we can prove something we must establish parameters. In most cases the term "Ghost" has no value at all. It is a linguistic placeholder for the unexplained. So instead of saying "something I can't explain happened to me" people claim "I saw a ghost!"

Proving something we can't explan is an oxymoron. Which gives us a major piece of the puzzle in answering the question: "why can't anyone prove ghosts?"

I just realized ghosts can be explained pretty easily by conjecture. Ok, all living things are made out of matter.. That's patently obvious at this point. Matter and energy are equivalent (conveniently expressed by E=mc^2). Now think about a tape recorder. What a tape recorder does is take patterns of energy from the present time and represent them in a way such that they can be reproduced exactly at a later time. Ghosts are basically the same idea as the soundwave that gets recorded on tape.. The pattern of energy that represents a living consciousness can be "recorded" by some phenomenon of nature and replayed at a later time, which patterns of energy existing at that time (such as living animals) perceive as ghosts. The only difference is in the number of dimensions and type of energy being represented. SO ghosts most certainly exist, at least for certain definitions of ghosts.

Being requires no proof.

I should have known this thread would turn into a debate on "what is proof" with all of the side stepping and bullshit flown around the philosophy section. When proving a magical being exists can't be done, then the best thing to do is attack the question, right?

Idiot that I am, I thought I was validating your question. Avoid the ditches, darlin'.

I wasn't speaking to anyone in particular, just commenting on the epic derail that this thread has gone through.

so wait.

you post a question about proof (why can't they prove ghosts)
you do not define the term, which is the verb in your own sentence fragment.
then you're pissy that folk talk about this obvious problem with your post.

what do you imagine philosophy to be?
do you imagine it as what you call those stoner Deep Thoughts that one remembers long enough to write down?

seems to me that if you had the first idea of how philosophy works, even in its barnes & noble bookshelf variant (which is mostly what this forum is) you'd not only not be surprised by the thread, but might even think of it as a success.

Maybe this thread belongs in the Tilted Paranoia section.

What about....
 

Ok I know religion is yet another highly contested subject but I believe it is relevant. How many people around the world believe in a higher being who's existence is impossible to prove?

Referring to the dream argument, it was argued that dreams cannot be proven but are significant because everyone has them. So it's safe to say you are arguing for majority rule? If that's your argument then wouldn't that also apply to religion? If billions of people believe in a higher being can that be counted as "irrefutable proof?"

I believe that if ghosts exist, the reason most of us can't see them is based on the filters we construct for ourselves. We have (as proven by this discussion) the need to apply logic and reason to the world and we tend to fear anything that we don't understand or can't explain. In the case of ghosts they are associated with death which is a primal fear therefore I believe that the fear is strong enough we develop to ability to block them out.

Personally I am on the fence about ghosts. There are a lot of things in this world we have yet to discover so I have my eyes and mind open to possibilities.

---------- Post added at 11:43 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:05 AM ----------

Oh and as far as science and empirical evidence, there is no such thing as "proof" in science. There are only accepted theories. Many of those theories were thought to just as ridiculous as the theory of the existence of ghosts (like flight).

No. Its status as a belief substitutes faith for proof, therefore it's nonfalsifiable and not a matter for science to decide. If individuals want to attribute observable and quantifiable values to a higher being, then they are fair game to be objectively and scientifically tested.

I would love for something, anything paranormal to be proven, but until there's evidence, all you have is a belief that I don't share.

SUSY, Kaluza-Klein, fermions, and bosons are difficult for me to comprehend. Many here may have a solid grasp. Do you think there are other dimensions?

This thread outright angers me. I'm sorry. If I showed you a picture of a ghost right now, you'd say it was photoshopped. 50 years ago there was no photoshop, but there were other ways.

The bottom line is, there will always be enough skepticism and enough ambiguity. I mean, really... you have people on drugs who report ghosts. So say for every 1 real ghost (hypothetically), you get 10 people who report fake ones and it gets disproved, or they are on drugs. Really casts doubt on the whole thing, obviously and necessarily.

It doesn't matter how many people there are. In fact, it only makes it worse.

The one thing that we as humans tend to forget is that we are human. Our bodies are so complex that no matter how far advanced we are in science we still can not explain many things. So how our bodies react to the world and the things in it are still a hypothesis at best. A few years back there was a study done on humans. One of the things that they found was that a branch breaking at the right point next to the temple could cause a human to be knocked unconscious by the transfer of energy. That being said things such as Gost, Dragons, Bigfoots, Gods and things of the like have been found in ever culture in this world. I know that it's a corny reference at best, but the 1998 movie Merlin made a very good point about the supernatural and how humans enteract with it. We have the ability to create with our minds, Gost, Dragons, Bigfoots, Gods and many other things. Back to my corny reference, When we choose to beleave in something wholeheartedly it becomes as real as you or I in the physical realm because we project it from our mind to our world. Take a stalker and their obsession. To them that person is in love with them and no matter what you say to them it will not change their views on the matter because they beleave it wholeheartedly. The same can be said for any religion. The answer to your question is in the eyes of the beholder.

That is a terrible analogy. The difference is you can show us your fiance when she gets off work, while a person can never show someone else a ghost on that simple a whim.

but there are endless things I can't see that I know exist.

First, the scientific perspective: I think it very important to consider the specific nature of "proof" for the existence of "ghosts"; sight, sound, magnetic field interference, gravity - some generally accepted and measurable means to quantify the existence of an object, whether to use traditional physics or quantum physics is up to you.

Now the philosophical answer (since this is the correct forum): Most people believe ghosts exist because they want them to. The existence of an entity that was once "alive", but now "dead" as we understand the terms is of great import to the human mind - that of immortality.

Am I on the right track to answering your fundamental question?

Yes, its possible to see ghosts but might cost money + time
 

What you are asking is very difficult but not impossible. When I was a kid I had a few incidences of seeing demons in my bed room and scared the s**t out of me.

My grandma wanted to go to Hajj(prayer in Mecca) but had to take care of my grandfather because his foot was severely injured in an accident. Her neighbors went to hajj that year then came back. They told her we saw you there. She told them she didn't go. You might believe me or not but I believe my grandma 100% and have no reason to believe her loving neighbors would lie to her.

My dear friend went to a house that was said to be haunted. His friend tricked him one night and started playing with the switches of light without him knowing. It scared the hell out of him thinking it was ghosts. Then he told him and my friend who was afraid got mad at him. Then moments later the light started playing again. He said stop it, his friend said it wasn't me. Then they both got scared and left.

I had a drawing school teacher when I was young who was also an exorcist. He was known for his second job as an exorcist and used to go to homes of people who's members may had spells or devils. He's a true person and doesn't lie. I know liers/exagerators easily because I don't lie even when I get ideas. I only lie to my parents sometimes if I'm very embarrassed about something and I usually tell them later.

I would think most if not all people in the world has encountered at least one or more supernatural incidences in their life.

Creatures of the other world whether good or bad seem to appear more to the faith full as an "Aya" or evidence of creation in my humble opinion. Evidences come as a gift from God either by a person seeking knowledge of the creator or by you believing in him. In my religion same as Christianity, you have to pray for God at night in good faith to see prophet Mohammad if you want to see him in your dreams. And this also comes as a gift for the faithful.

If you want to see ghost its very possible but costs money. You have to travel around the world to places where people said they seen ghosts like diplomat hotel shown on youtube in a far eastern country. And you have to stay in for the night if you are not afraid. I don't think I would do it or if I want to do it, I would have a motorcycle with remote control ignition nearby.

In essence, yes its possible. Travel the world go to places, but you have to spend money to stay in different places for a few nights each.

Cellfactor -

Please, do describe your experience and help us to understand how you are sure that you saw "demons". Try to explain it in a way that we (who were not there) can be convinced.

That should go a long way to answer the OP's question.

Personally, I have not seen a ghost. But several people I know have including my best friend and my nan who has apparently seen "many over the years".

I laugh at the debate. Lasereth, I know you'll hate reading that, to some degree :lol:

I see them all the time. Lately more than usual. Not sure why the slight change, but anyways..

I have had experiences that included other people, so it was not some "figment of imagination" or "dreaming". When something screams several feet away from you at a very high volume in the middle of a field under open sky, with a witness, and the voice comes from nothing apparent in the direction you turn to look at, you know you've experienced something few ever do.

I've seen forms of energy invisible to others many times, sometimes "feeling" them externally (there's that subjective term) before the experience. I've heard random voices since I was a child, sometimes even to the point that I went to my family to see who was calling me while I was in the bedroom playing with toys. That went away for decades until a month ago, when I heard the first real voice, that I hadn't experienced since I was a kid. It was a simple request made to me, nothing like a schizophrenic experience or something of that nature. The request was personal and not to be talked about here.

About 2 months ago I watched a human form walk across the room and go through my closet door. It was very apparent and completely ignored my wife and I, like a passerby. I was nowhere near sleeping at the time, and it was not some random shadow made up by my overworked brain. It was surprising enough and it lasted long enough that I was able to stop, widen my eyes and take stock of the shape before it moved on. Around 2 seconds, which is actually a long time for this sort of experience.

I got blasted by a "feeling" as I was walking downstairs at 4AM 2 days ago. I turned to see white light near the ceiling, shooting out of view quickly. I detected more movement around 5 feet high that was subtle, then more light near the ceiling again, this time in plain view. I just shrugged it off, said "I'm going to bed, don't bother my family. If you're friendly, you're ok." and went to bed. Whatever.

People are locking down ways to show existence, but in the meantime it will remain a subjective experience for those that happen to notice.

In the meantime I have zero doubt of the reality of another reality, but not everyone is going to experience that. Thus is life. Keeping debating :)

Thought I'd actually attempt to answer the question. There are still many theories or beliefs that exist in the universe held by different people and cultures that are not empirically proven...if ghosts do indeed exist is there a way in which they can be empirically proven to everyone's satisfaction, I doubt it.

Furthermore, surely the mass accounts of ghostly experiences must count for something. It cannot be said that every account of a ghostly experience is either a lie or a mistake, even if most are.

I can tell you now, it means nothing if it is not a personal experience for many people here (shocked into belief) or scientifically reproduceable (unable to be argued against). Even so, look at how many people still argue against evolution, yet it damn near slaps you in the face when you look at the evidence.

My wife and I know things now that we share through personal experiences, that only a handful of people will ever understand. As we sat and talked last night, we shed tears at the profound nature of our knowledge, and that so many billions of people will never see or understand it. These things that we have experienced will never be explained to people and if they were explained, 99.9999% wouldn't believe or understand anyways.

Ghosts are what they are. If you get it, great. If you don't, that's great as well. If you have an open mind you have a chance of understanding, if you do not, there is no reason to blame or judge. Some people live here in this plane, and some people don't. Pun intended :p