Why can't anyone prove ghosts?
 

I have some more questions!

1. There are 7,000,000,000 people on this planet. A frightening amount of them will admit to having had a paranormal experience in their life, many saying they've actually seen a ghost or apparition or something of that manner. Ok, so if we have a pretty large sample size (say, in the billions) of people who believe in haunted houses and ghosts and stuff, why can't 1 of them show us an example? Think about it. You grow up hearing ghost stories and haunted houses and native american burial grounds. People who used to live in a house where someone died. Someone was walking through a graveyard and saw a ghost.

Ok ok ok. I know most people believe this stuff, but why can't one single damned person show us? No one can take me to a ghost right now. No one can take me to a haunted house. No one can show me how their candle moved 2 inches overnight. Why? If paranormal events are real, if ghosts are real, if spirits and apparitions really exist, why can't it be proven? Why aren't scientists knee deep in experiments and research parties at haunted houses? Why aren't we spending money on finding out why there's ghosts roaming graveyards? It's because when it's time to put the money where the mouth is, nothing is there. Can someone clear this up?

Also, I will secretly hate you if you give the "you can't have a paranormal experience unless you WANT to have a paranormal experience" bullshit answer.

It can't be proven, because you are asking for physical evidence of non-physical entities.

People like to make stuff up. Something wrong with their biochemistry, I guess. Look at all the religious people in the world. That's the same thing to me as believing in ghosts or other supernatural phenomena.

The real answer to the question is that it can't be proven because it doesn't exist.

Well if people saw the ghosts in the first place then why can't we see them again? People seeing a ghost is physical evidence. But it can never be replicated.

It's entirely possible (assuming non-physical entities do exist) that they don't physically "see" these entities. Their experience is that of what the "mind's eye" sees. Whenever I think of this concept, I tend to think of Wordsworth:
Essentially, if non-physical entities exist, they perhaps communicate by non-physical means. In humans, this communication is focused on the mind. The problem, however, is that we are sensory beings and tend to "physicalize" experience (think imagination, memory, music, scent, imagery, etc., and how they're all interconnected).

So, if we come into contact with a non-physical entity, perhaps we tend to think we see them when, in fact, we are merely projecting as having "seen" them. The mind's eye, when fully developed, and/or if we are sensitive to it, can be a powerful thing...especially when you have external entities entering the picture.

Perhaps it's just hard to see a ghost? I mean, I couldn't show you my fiancee right now, since she's at work, but that doesn't mean she doesn't exist.

Pretty much what BG said. The few people I know who claim to see entities/ghosts are very much..(not sure what to call it) inner being explorers. They meditate a lot and whether they're really seeing ghosts or not they have a gift for being in their inner world. We all have an inner world, a subconscious, an imagination, our dreams, our experiences, all of those things make up our inner world. Some people are just more focused outwardly and are plain old not as gifted.

And don't tell me the inner world isn't real, when someone can literally die from being sad (broken heart), that's as real as it gets.

Ghosts may or may not have a physical "real" side, but either way, they're certainly a part of our reality. Whether every person experiences them or not.

Your fiancee exists though. You can call her or show me her after work or see a picture or video. No one has any sort of proof of ghosts, period. You can't show me, call a ghost, ask it a question, or prove any existence of them.

when you say "no-one has evidence" what exactly are you talking about?

As in proof. Undisputable proof of existence. Can anyone on this planet show me something that has been "seen" by so many people? Photographs are so prone to oddities that no picture can prove their existence; same with video. So surely, if a huge portion of the population has seen a ghost or knows of a "haunted" area, 1 of them, just 1, can prove it?

so you mean proof in a kind of vaguely scientific-ish sense of the term.
so you discount the legion of traditions from all over the world that are geared one way or another around contact with ancestors and think that a photograph would be better.
just wondering.

if i put that part aside, the question you pose is really about standards of proof or evidence, which ones count and which ones don't.
you approach this from a particular viewpoint that you don't seem to recognize as particular but no matter-----anyway, if these vaguely science-y standards you're on about here are applied, what can you know about "ghosts" or whatever are these phenomena, if they're phenomena....these standards are mostly good for knowing something about the properties of objects at particular scales, under particular conditions, etc. and even that can be seen as problematic, but hey, we're not being serious so put that aside as well.

a ghost is not an object, so modes of knowing geared around the properties of objects at particular scales under particular conditions aren't likely to find much.

it is that simple isn't it?


o yeah--this isn't a question i particularly care about.
many things are as you imagine they are.

So you're saying we can't measure ghosts because we can't apply scientific principles to them. So do they exist or not? If something can't be proven, can't be replicated, can't be shown to someone else, can't even be seen under controlled conditions, how can it exist?

Does it not bother you that a gigantic amount of people on this planet believe they've seen something or experienced something that absolutely, under no circumstances, can be replicated?

Lasereth, I'm thinking of you right now. Okay, now try to prove that such a thought exists. I can replicate it for you at will. Just let me know when you want me to make it again.

But seriously, what is your definition of existence?

no lasareth-----all that stuff is embedded in *your* question. how can "we" know presupposes a particular set of conventions that define knowing. all i did was try to make them explicit.

my position is more relativist...that's why i wrote that many things are exactly as one imagines them to be---by imagining in this case, you can either take it in a subjective sense, or in a more social-historical sense---for the first, you repeat the social conventions that shape the world you project around you--for the second, you link collective projections as to the world back to a network of constraints that shape them---with the second, if the latter change, the former changes. that's what i mean by relativist in this situation.

there's a boatload of traditions that see no particular break between this plane of being and others, no particular break between past and present, ancestors and those who act in the present. maybe they're all wrong--but in relation to what? maybe they're not. or maybe the question is meaningless.

I think we have skipped to part 2 of the question without answering part 1. Part 1: why are supernatural experiences not replicable to others? Ever?

frame of reference...i've been reading quite a lot about native american views from northern new england--algonquin roughly---and while the translation is sometimes problematic (a function of who is writing or transcribing, what the language was, what english is and can do, etc---because different languages stage relations to the world, and these relations can vary really quite widely) theirs was a world of shape-shifting without particularly clear distinctions between physical and spirit planes in the context of which there was, from what one can tell, no particular problem with people recognizing the same spirit manifestation based on similar situations, triggers, etc. is this an example of repeatability? depends what you mean, doesn't it?

so what do you mean, lasareth?

You know what I mean! Person A says I see a ghost roughly twice a week in my house. Person B says no you don't, that's BS. Person B stays with Person A and never experiences the ghost. This is how it always happens. Why?

Are you saying that supernatural or spiritual experiences may be binded to its viewer only?

no, i'm not saying that.
i think i was pretty clear about what i meant.
you're operating from a particular viewpoint which for some reason you seem to think is absolute.
so you pose this question about ghosts or spirits or whatever you want to call them, and then ask, based on this viewpoint you have, whether they can be objects of knowledge in terms that are understood as "legit" within your frame of reference.

what i'm saying is that yours is not the only frame of reference, that others exist and have existed for which this is a non-problem, and that the explanation you are looking for probably lay in your own frame of reference,

and again, to be clear, i don't have a particular iron in this fire--i neither believe nor don't believe in ghosts---this isn't something that particularly interests me----but i am interested in how folk ask such questions.

no need to get snippy--i'm just trying to figure out what's going on here.

I think it is very clear what I am asking. Yes this is my viewpoint, yes this is my frame of reference, but this frame of reference is rather empirical so I don't find it terribly flawed or unnatural. It is a simple question: why are supernatural events never replicable to others?

Better yet, why are ghosts not in science books OR in a Ghost Bible?

The supernatural is neither scientific or religious yet so many claim to have experienced it.

Prove to me you have dreams. It's the exact same thing with ghosts, only everyone has dreams and only a few people see ghosts.

There is no proof, no hard evidence, that anyone else dreams but me. REM brain monitoring and what not doesn't prove anything, only that there is activity, not necessarily dreaming.

Right but there aren't millions of people out there that claim that dreams aren't real. Dreams are also explainable with science and happen to every human being on the Earth.

Ingest a major hallucinogenic. You'll see ghosts.

Actually there are plenty of people who never remember having dreams. And there is plenty of people (just not as much in our western world) who believe/seen ghosts. I'll bet the numbers are closer than you might think when talking world population.

And dreams are no more better explained by science as ghosts are. We still don't know their purpose, we can only guess. They're just more easily experienced by a larger amount of people so its all assumed, because it's a "normal" thing.

IMO I think the root of your problem is that you're using "can't prove anything" logic, only to a certain controversial subject. In reality you can't truly prove much at all. Many philosophers would argue that you can only prove yourself, to yourself ("I think therefore I am").

I guess a good summary for me is "ghosts are bullshit until I see proof of one." :thumbsup:

There are some crazy things on Ghost Hunters (Sci Fi channel). They also try to disprove any paranormal claims, which I like. But there are some things I've seen on that show that are unexplainable which I personally chalk up to paranormal.

You realize you're watching a Ghost Hunters show on television, right? :eek:

All of those shows are simply on there for pure entertainment and to make producers money. I cringe when that show is on it's so fake.

How do you touch something that is non-physical? If they are touching you then it makes them physical.

So maybe by contact you meant non-physical entities communicating with your brain? So now the non-physical entities are pushing the electrons in my brain around.

How can you contact a non-physical entity?

If ducks are elephants, why don't they have trunks?

http://i40.tinypic.com/rcj1gj.jpg

Paranormal experiences are real...the brain is a complicated and easily tampered with piece of equipment. Want to see ghosts? Get depressed and shroom.

Wait, you just said that paranormal experiences are all in your head. That's not paranormal, that's called making up shit in your head, even if it's drug induced.

I'm saying accusing people who have had paranormal experiences of being liars is not useful or accurate. They're not making shit up to fuck with you, they believe it.

Case in point: An otherwise-rational friend called me over to her house once, terrified that her carpet was going to eat her--it was a bad shrooms trip. Once I got there, she had me cover all the mirrors in the house so the ghosts couldn't get out, and I had to go have a nice discussion with the ghost (who she described in vivid detail) that was standing in her kitchen staring at her, asking him to go away. I of course did all of these things. This experience was very real for her at the time. Should this experience make me believe in ghosts?

No it should not because the shrooms were making her see stuff that isn't there. Is Not There.

Hey, there are some... credulous people back here on the TFP!

No there are not. There are plenty of people who almost never remember their dreams of which I am one. However, I'm pretty sure everyone remembers having had dreams, even if they don't recall any details. There's a distinction...


It depends on what you mean by "explained."

We have far more confidence in the existence of dreams than we do ghosts. Everyone claims to have dreams. We can see physical manifestations of dreams, like talking in ones sleep or waking up from nightmares. We can reliably correlate dreams to brain activity measured empirical by instruments. We have a realistic mechanism by which dreams may manifest. That is to say, there's nothing implausible about one's mind thinking up vivid thoughts during a period of sleep. All these things separate the reality of dreams from the fantasies of ghosts...

It's true that we don't know what dreams are for, if anything. Personally, I think they're a side effect of something else going on in the brain during sleep...


Most people don't use a strict meaning of "proof" in casual conversation of which I include web forums such as this one.

Even colloquially speaking, no one has ever proven that ghosts exist. No one has even shown that it is a reasonable thing to believe. You might as well throw salt over your shoulder if you spill any; it makes just as much sense!

KnifeMissle- so many assumptions in that argument, and so much of an ethnocentric viewpoint.

I agree to some extent that dreams aren't the best analogy. Though I have *met* people who have claimed to never have dreamed before. And if someone was seeing a ghost and happened to be hooked up to instruments, I'm sure they could read brain activity too. And duh we have more confidence in dreams :) that is part of my point.

But essentially you're saying you know everything there is to know about the lack of proof of ghosts existing and since no one has given *you* reasonable evidence this should somehow dictate how the rest of the world thinks. Youre basically stating that because most people you know don't believe, ghosts don't exist. Well guess how many people there are on earth, and now guess how many you know.

By your own logic let me put it another way since you just implied dreams are real and not fantasies like ghosts. Say I have regular dreams of a dead relative, we have conversations and everything. So I'm conversing with a ghost in my dreams. So by your logic ghosts are fantasies, but dreams are not. But since dreams are real, by inclusion then ghosts are real too since they appear in dreams.

Sorry if that came off a little harsh, it's not you personally. Just a bit pissed off at how ethnocentric people can be, it disgusts me. There are more ancestor worship-believe in ghost cultures in the world than there are not. People think just because theyre well off compared to the rest of the world that that somehow makes them better and wiser.

Or maybe it's because you said "Hey, there are some... credulous people back here on the TFP!" and then picked on only my posts.

Why are you confident it wasn't there? What if mushrooms just remove whatever veil exists that prevents us from seeing and sensing the spirit world? This is a relatively common belief among shaman-based religions.

I am currently reading "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes. His theory is that ancient man was not conscious in the sense that we are conscious today. It's a fascinating theory and kind of hard to get your head around. If you believe that Jaynes' theory is correct then we see and hear ghosts (dead ancestors) because we are "wired" to see them. He doesn't say as much in the book but it's not much of a stretch.

Check it out:

Julian Jaynes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bicameralism (psychology) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course, this doesn't answer why the existence of ghosts can't be "proven" in a material way. There are those who would say that our senses deceive us.

Personally, I'm a materialist. I don't think that the brain has "hidden" areas that pick up on supernatural "vibrations." That's me though. I could be wrong. It would be cool if I am wrong. The areas of the brain Jaynes' claims are responsible for bicameralism are pretty much well-documented (and have other purposes as well).

but if there's a socially adaptive dimension to the embodied cognition, it'd follow that different social environments would generate different types of structures/associations that would lead those who live entirely within them to experience the world in quite different ways that someone who came up in the space we're conditioned by, and that these differences would go way beyond matters of opinion....just a correlate of the claim that consciousness is a variable, variably structured by different types of environments.

this is another way into the ethnocentrism point i was making a few times earlier.

Oh come on. Dreams are real but the material in them isn't. It's just shit made up in your head, in your own thoughts and mind. That paragraph right there isn't logic period, it's a gigantic fallacy!!!! That's the same as saying the events in a fictional book are real because you read them. If you use that twisted logic, then that is basically proof that ghosts are made up shit in your head, just like dreams.

This is a pretty narrow interpretation of my post. It's as if you want to be insulted...

They may read brain activity but would it be consistent brain activity? Furthermore, if these things only exist in the mind how are they not just hallucinations or day dreams?

If we can get several people to consistently see the same thing then we'd have evidence for ghosts!

Your last point is actually quite specious. You don't need your sample size to be a large proportion of the population for it to be accurate. If you did then sampling wouldn't be very useful. It's more accurate to say that the people you know aren't randomly selected and thus make a poor sample.

Sadly, your point here is just flawed. I'm not saying that people should disbelieve ghosts 'cause I do. I'm saying that people should disbelieve ghosts 'cause the idea is stupid. There's a big difference. I'm not telling people that they should like the medical drama House because I do. I'm saying that people should accept that Australia exists. That I also believe in Australia does not mean I want people to think as I do...

You're pulling out conclusions that you want to be true rather than conclusions that follow from what was said. I suspect you're doing this 'cause you're so angry over the alleged ethnocentricity of my post.

I'm saying that there's no reason to believe in ghosts. Like Lasereth said in this thread's initial post: with all these people after all this time, why can't anyone show any real evidence? The answer is obvious...

This is a seriously disingenuous argument. There's a big difference between the existence of dreams being real and what's happening in the dream being real. That I have dreams is real. The things that happen in my dreams aren't real. You just tried to equate the two, again, probably because you're desperate to make any kind of point, coherent or not, because you're so offended by my alleged ethnocentricity. Let it go...

I'd be embarrassed if I found anything in this post "harsh."

Oh, and I suppose I could have deduced your anguish over ethnocentrism from this paragraph where you simply say so, rather than psychoanalyzing your post. Oh well, my conclusions turned out to correct, didn't they?!

Look past your disgust and see that I don't say these things 'cause I'm looking for a way to establish my superiority. By the way, when did my status of "well off" enter the discussion? Are you suggesting that the only reason I may be skeptical of phantasmal claims is because I enjoy a comfortable life in a first world country? What do you mean?

I'm a little surprised to see how little you know me. I could have sworn that we've interacted before. Argumentum ad populum is deeply unimpressive to me. I don't care how many credulous morons you push in front of me, that doesn't make their beliefs any more true...

This is the first sensible thing you've said!

I'm sorry I singled you out. It's just that you're a (if not the) major proponent of their existence and you have the largest most interesting posts to respond to. It was nothing personal, I assure you...

---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

I've never understood this argument.

I don't know if you realize this or not but your brain is a "physical" thing. If something affects your mind then it too, by definition, is physical. Perhaps you're using a different meaning of "physical" than I am?

Again, the mind is a physical object. If ghosts have a physical affect on you then they are physical too!

Maybe we really are using different notions of the word "physical."

Do you consider electromagnetic radiation to be physical?

When I say physical, I mean something that can affects things. In essence, I'm saying "anything that is real." It sounds like an all encompassing definition but people often claim contradictory things like that ghosts can't be detected by anything 'cause they're "not physical" and then turn around to say that ghosts have been seen or heard. It's ridiculous!

They can't be proved because they don't exist in a 'form' that we can document and understand.

:confused:
A member of another forum I'm on wrote a bit about working with TAPS, and concluded by saying that, while it's fun, it convinced him 100% that ghosts are not real.

I also watch the show from time to time, and I see case after case of confirmation bias with very little proof of anything.
Anatole France put it best: "If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." Appealing to tradition is a fallacy, as is appealing to the majority. Assuming that we disbelieve because we think our culture (which, by the way, is just as full of magical thinking and fallacious beliefs as most others,) is better than theirs is simply not true and I don't appreciate the implication that I am maliciously ethnocentric because I demand that things I am told I are true should be backed by evidence. If a belief is backed with evidence, or even simply provides a coherent, cogent set of propositions that can be tested, I am open to it. I am willing to review any evidence or claims of ghosts' existence made to me, but those who believe should be equally willing to change their minds if proven wrong. In my experience, believers are largely unwilling to do that.