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.

I don't know what is it you're trying to ask if you're going to shoot down the very purported evidence that you seek. While Wilson and Hawes' methods are pretty loose, their aims are genuine. Ghost Hunters is the documenting of a paranormal investigation group that already existed before the show came on.

That said, I'm not surprised that they pretty much never get anything conclusive. They're never at any given site for more than two days. Alleged paranormal manifestations can lay dormant for weeks and even months in some cases. If TAPS really wanted a challenge, they'd stay in one location for like a month solid. But of course, if they don't get anything, people stop watching the show. So TAPS has to settle for ambiguous EVP, some EMF fluctuations, and maybe an odd-looking photograph or video clip. The show's format doesn't let them dig below the surface of any alleged haunting. They also rarely return to the same location.

There's also the question of how the (purported) manifestation occurs. If you're familiar with the holographic universe model, then a lot of paranormal phenomena becomes plausible. Your mind's eye can detect things that a scientific instrument cannot, and vice versa. The very nature of tangibility becomes more complex.

You guys (the adamant non-believers) aren't even considering our viewpoints. So this is hopefully my last post in this thread cause I'm sick of arguing with a brick wall.

Your gasping disbelief is just as great as my own to you saying thoughts, dreams, emotions, etc. aren't real. They so clearly are, they strongly effect the world around us and I just cannot grasp how anyone can't see that. In fact, now I feel quite sorry for you :(

If you read my posts, you'll see that I did consider them. That I'm unmoved by your arguments says more about your arguments than it does about me!

Your response here is pathetic. Again, that dreams exist is real but the content in them is not. The novel Nineteen Eighty-Four impacted society and is referenced to this very day as relevant. Does that make it non-fiction?

You realize something can be real *and* fiction right?

No, you really didn't consider my points. Those (I hesitate to even call them arguments) points were to try to show lasereth how difficult it is to define reality and what's "real". They were not meant as stand alone points to prove the existence of ghosts. I never even said I could prove it, or that it's possible.

You come in here in the middle of a conversation, ignore the flow, and attack me personally by trying to prove my posts didn't prove the existence of ghosts. Well no shit sherlock. Maybe if you read my responses in context you wouldn't see them as so pathetic instead of being a dick about it. You're clearly taking this way more seriously than anyone else here. I don't know who put the stick up your ass about this subject but it wasn't me. Go find that person and beat each other up if it makes you feel better and try to have some decency for people on the tfp or get the fuck out.

Fascinating. Some people will allow for the "possibility" of the supernatural, but are adamant about atheism. And the arguments they use to accept the "possibility" of the supernatural are the very arguments they mock when the discussion involves deity.

I don't believe in either, but I'm willing to accept that there are phenomena beyond the understanding of science.

This show exists to make money. The best way to increase ratings is to find conclusive proof. So why isn't the show taking your advice? Why isn't the show staying in one location for months and revisiting old locations? I think it is because it would be a waste of time. They are charlatans.

I'll accept that there are many things beyond the current repertoire of scientific knowledge. What we appear to be dealing with here is a non-falsifiable proposition, which makes the discussion nearly pointless. My scientific approach views ghosts as phenomena that violate conservation of energy and thermodynamics. It's like anything not strictly scientific -- if something can't be proven, the minimum I ask is that someone proposes a mechanism of action by which it could exist.

'Ghosts' aren't real. Period. Any more than faeries, pixies, dragons, etc.

Not real.

Until they're proven real, anyway. No reason to believe in ghosts any more than any other fantasy without proof. And there are a lot of fantasies out there.

Why would anyone assume that the existence of something depends on arbitrary definitions of proof?

Every fact that has been "proven" with "evidence" was true prior to being "proven" with "evidence."

Well, I don't believe in God, or any form of religion, and a lot of people believe in something they've never seen or heard. It bothers me to some extent, but I think that there's not many ways out of it, as most people will share their parents' beliefs, IMO.

It's kind of the same thing. Some people have told me they've seen ghosts, and I don't know quite what to reply. I haven't experienced it, and I don't want to call them a liar. It's just a case of someone "knowing" that X is true, while others "knowing" that Y is true. Arguing over it seems a bit futile.
Now I do have a problem with people getting suckered out of their money because of these things by psychics and other things, but it's their life, after all.

The Scientific community's consensus is that proof should be something that is verifiable and repeatable. This standard has stood the test of time. When evidence cannot be verified, its authenticity is suspect. If an observation cannot be made again and an observation to the contrary of what is claimed can be repeated, then the original observation must be discarded as error. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

I don't disagree with you, Mr. SD.

It's just that the only instances where scientific standards of evidence have any sway are instances where they've been applied.

I think there is a tendency to attemp to extend the application of the scientific method, something that only functions with regards to specific sets of data, to more general phenomena for which there isn't even agreement on what constitutes data.

The scientific method only applies when it can be applied. Even in ghost-related instances where it can be applied, it doesn't really say anything about whether ghosts actually exist or not.

Really, the scientific method is irrelevant here. Someday it might not be.

To prove the existence of ghosts and the paranormal would take an actual science to study into it. Right now that's what we're doing.. but since it's only been recently accepted by the mainstream as a worthwhile effort we are still in the early stages of forming a basis for the science. Just like every other science... especially psychology.. there's no way of truly proving something. Everything "proven" will always actually be a theory. So, even if ghosts are proven, how are we able to truly know they exist?

I feel that eventually there will be some explanation for why ghosts exist (fake or not) that most everyone will accept as fact... but we don't know enough about ghosts right now to even come up with something like that.

Every show exists to make money. I already explained why it might be hazardous to stay in one place for too long. They use a shotgun method instead, and get shallow findings. They believe in ghosts. You don't. That doesn't make them "charlatans."

We still know very little about how the human mind works, and we can only control it in very crude ways. Ghosts appear to be the result of some kind of electromagnetic interference with the brain's normal operation. But we really have no clue how electromagnetism works in the brain, all we know is that it exists and vaguely how it is transmitted between cells. It is very hard to measure this stuff and analyze it even in animal models. And animals can't tell you whether they just saw a ghost.

vanblah: thanks for educating me. I'd never heard about the Bicameralism theory so far... It makes alot of sense from what I've gathered so far on the intarwebz. Definitly going to be looking out for Jaynes' book.
I don't find it that difficult to wrap my head around it though. Ancient texts always seemed to lack something when I read them. This pinpoints exactly what I was missing.

I've never seen a ghost, but 98% of people if they were me would think they had. What does this mean? It shows how easily it is for people to be duped and for something that doesn't exist to get spread.

When I was asleep one night I had sleep paralysis and i opened my eyes I was in my living room, I could see it physically this wasn't a "dream" so to speak yet it wasn't not a dream at the same time. Basically there are times in sleep paralysis for example where you're not awake nor asleep but sort of in between, so you can see hallucinations, in other words your mind's eye so to speak merges with what you can visually see in real life. So I saw what many would chalk up to being a ghost, but there's no reason to believe it to be so considering the circumstances. I saw a woman who was maybe 40 yrs old who I don't believe I had ever seen before in my life. Situations like this where we are asleep or were just asleep where potentially we can hallucinate images because we're still asleep but for some reason our eyes are open because we're in a hyper aware state while still being in a dream state should not be taken seriously, in terms of putting stock into it's validity of what you see being a ghost.

I know people who for instance attribute their shirt you know when it is caught on your pants and it falls down, they think they're being tugged at by a ghost. Or they misplace something and find it somehwere else and thin ka ghost moved it. Or they see a shadow or hear a noise at night and think they saw a ghost. I think they're letting their imagination get carried away and conjuring up grand stories and buying into it based on prior beliefs.

Oh yeah, there's all kinds of things that can freak people out but can be conventionally explained. What you just described, for example, is a subset of hypnagogia. Sleep deprivation can also cause vivid hallucinations, as well as side effects of medication and recreational drug use. Then there's mental illness and brain damage. A sufficiently strong electromagnetic field, such as produced by a large circuit box, can also generate the sensation of uneasiness, feeling watched, and even seeing things out of the corner of your eye.

So whenever something freaky happens to you, it's good to have a list of explanations to handle the situation.

What's interesting about hypnagogia is that, while the manifestations are really just being projected from inside your mind, they can give you insight into your personal state of affairs, in the same way as a psychotropic drug.

I just want to point out that there isn't necessarily anything scientific about having a stock supply of "reasonable" answers.

The need for ghosts to not exist can be just as irrational as the need for ghosts to exist.

There are contests with ridiculously large cash prizes to anyone who can prove anything even remotely supernatural.

Can you tell the future? Prove it. Got some ghosts up in your attic? Prove it. Can you levitate objects without using otherwise scientifically explained principles? Prove it.

The first time someone -proves- one of these things, they are going to be a very, very rich person. And the next day the scientific community will implode (mild exaggeration, just new areas of study will be created).

Until then, I don't believe in a whit of supernatural activity. My spiritual beliefs are entirely unrelated. I choose to believe in some creative force because I can think of no better explanation for the creation of the universe, and I choose to believe in an afterlife simply because I prefer the outlook on life that it gives me. That's pretty much my only two unscientific thoughts. Anything else has to buck up and face science :P

OK. Let me try a different concept to see if this can give you maybe a little insight. Do you believe that love exists? I know I do. Can I bring you PHYSICAL evidence of love? Can I show you a picture of love? No I can't. Does that mean then that love does not exist?

Ghosts, entities, paranormal contacts are all classifiable as something that is not what we normally experience in a physical world. I can FEEL love, that feeling i get in my stomach when I see my wife after she has been visiting family for a few days. I cant take a picture of it, but it is there. I have had a few abnormal encounters in my life. A figure I have seen standing at the foot of my bed when I was a child. Having a conversation with my best friend one afternoon when I find out later that evening that he died in a car accident the day before. I can't explain it. I can't PROVE it. But I know in my heart that they are real and exist. Now if someone were there WITH me, would THEY have seen my friend? I don't know. Maybe not, maybe it was only meant for me to see? I can't explain that part.

Love is liking someone a lot and having an emotional attachment to them which can be scientifically measured. Butterflies in your stomach are explainable with science (they're actually neurotransmitters and neurons in your stomach that have learned to react to certain people/events). You can't compare an attraction and emotional attachment to someone to seeing a ghost. That is comparing a feeling to an event.

Caveat: I am not saying that people who have experienced ghosts or other unexplainable phenomena are insane.

Who is to say that seeing a ghost is an event? Also, just because something is a feeling doesn't mean it's NOT an event. Those butterflies, the heart racing and the feeling of euphoria caused by "love" are events.

Paranoid schizophrenics have auditory hallucinations that are incredibly real (to them). In fact, surgeons have induced auditory hallucinations in non-schizophrenic people. These people are certain that their "dead mother," or someone is talking to them; or they hear music or whispering ... whatever.

I have had sleep-paralysis and awakened to a "presence in my room" and auditory hallucinations--my memories of these events are that it was very real and actually happening. In my opinion (memories notwithstanding), this is all taking place in my brain. Someone else may not feel the same way.

I can't prove that it wasn't real any more than someone else can prove that it was. This is how I feel about ghosts (among other things). Is it possible that it's all taking place in the person's head due to some chemical reaction? Sure. Is it possible that it is actually taking place "in the real world?" Sure. Why not? Until I (or anyone else) can prove without a doubt one way or the other--I'm open. Everything else is just opinion.

i love the oed.

this is the story of the word ghost.

there's a reason for this beyond the fact that i think this is cool.
ok well maybe there isn't really, but we'll proceed anyway.

ghost is related to geist or spirit, but mostly to the negative/scary connotations of it--it's a kind of inversion of the notion of spirit or soul--so where spirit or soul was maybe higher and more universal (associated with the god-function) ghost is more lower (death) and particular/singular (you give up the ghost, but once upon a time what giving up the ghost referred to was the departure of the soul from it's meat puppet)....so ghost ends up a particularity. made over in the form of a noun, ghost becomes a kind of object, even though if you think about it, it's an anti-object. nonetheless, the characteristics of an object (repeatable essence or set of features that repeat autonomously, much in the way, say, that rock-ness is not entirely dependent on the perception of a social subject) are imputed to "ghost" across the category that has come to be assigned to it.

what "science" in the dilletante sense that it's been thrown around in this thread does is to conflate the properties of category in general with the properties of particular categories---so now "ghost" is an object that can be subjected to whatever arbitrary assemblage of pseudo-scientific statements you feel aesthetically compelled to bring to bear on the question of "proof".

you can track this stuff through the fabulous map that is the oed definition...the binaries, the separations, the rendering-discrete, the associations--the history of the word-object or word-machine "ghost"....

the assumptions that enframe the word-machine also enframe the modes of asking questions about--well what, really? the word-machine as collapsed into a phenomena or the phenomena? it's impossible to say, really, because for the "science" that's been tossed about here, there's no distinction.

o the fun and excitement to be had from the oed....

One of the great things about the OED is how it allows for the way words change. It's the same thing that makes the English language great ... words can change as ideas and knowledge change. The OED tries to keep up with the language where other dictionaries go out-of-date fairly quickly (you mean "bad" can also mean "good?" ... section IV, definition 12 of the word "bad" in the OED; interestingly it's been in use like this since the late 1800's. And here I thought it was Michael Jackson who made it popular :) )

It's a great tool for semanticists and I love the fact that I work at a place that has a subscription to it.

Are we now going to talk about what the OP meant by the word ghost? Would it be wrong of me to infer what the OP meant? I was thinking that we could just use the following interpretation of the word: 8. a. The soul of a deceased person, spoken of as appearing in a visible form, or otherwise manifesting its presence, to the living. (Now the prevailing sense.). The last part of definition 8a is what brought about my inference I'm sure: now the prevailing sense.

However, I'm an atheist so I don't believe that ghosts exist because I don't believe humans have souls. That doesn't mean I can't be proven wrong at some point.

rb: can you elaborate on your post or at least clarify? Your writing style, while sometimes elegant, makes it difficult [for me] to follow your line of thought.

o--what i was trying to say is basically that "ghost" has come to designate a type of object and that "science" investigates that object.
behind that, there's a confusion of what nouns like "ghost" to do enframe (delimit as an object, say, at the level of a signified) and the phenomena (the referent)...

the rest of it is a short sequence of riffs based on the oed material, so the splits and separations you can see that shape how ghost currently operates.

So ghost isn't a real thing? Or maybe we can get a definition of "real" that satisfies that ghosts are provably "real".

The truth is that science does not prove that a thing does not exist, simply because of lack of physical evidence. The science does bear out the probability that if it can't be proven, then it most likely doesn't happen, or has been misinterpreted.

All you anti-science people look up what human beings accomplished in the hundred or so thousands of years prior to the scientific method being adopted, and compare that to the very "real" accomplishments of humanity in the hundreds of years since its application. All those ethnic traditions got us was rocks, sticks, mud huts, a quick death, and slavery. Thanks Traditions!!!!

I'll side with science. It's not real for me, without some proof. Very real proof, based on empirical evidence, and the scientific method.....

We know that people have these experiences, we just don't know why yet. Ta da

Who is anti-science?

If anything, this thread is full of people whose knowledge of science is far outweighed by a desire to justify their skepticism.

I am fully willing to accept and even admit that this is what is actually going on. But what you just wrote is an argument against ghosts and paranormal activity. If it's all just made up in your head from sleep paralysis and hallucinations and schizophrenia, then it is nothing more than that -- made up shit in your head.

I am not arguing for nor am I arguing against the physical existence of ghosts. I am giving my thoughts--not even opinions really; just thoughts--on one way in which ghosts can be explained. I know you weren't really addressing me directly with your statement but I wanted to clarify my opinion again.

I also want to reiterate that believing in ghosts and the paranormal doesn't necessarily mean that a person is schizophrenic or has any other form of mental illness.

I do have first-hand (second-hand?) experience with schizophrenia ... my grandmother was diagnosed paranoid-schizophrenic when I was a kid. She heard the voice of god and saw the devil and angels and spoke very matter-of-factly about it. When I was older and not totally scared of asking questions about it we had some conversations. I wish I'd talked to her more. This is part of what my thoughts on the subject are based on. That and the book I mentioned in an earlier post.

Also, just because I don't believe in ghosts doesn't mean that another person has to believe the same thing. It's quite possible that I am wrong. Maybe, it's that part of the brain that actually picks up on ghosts that is being stimulated during these paranormal experiences and it's not a hallucination at all.

Anyone here ever read "the Dragon in my Garage" by Carl Sagan? Seems to be relevant here.
Carl Sagan: The Dragon In My Garage

I believe that there was an invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's hair.

500 years ago, "The Dragon in My Garage" would have applied to any number of assertions that we presently accept as scientific fact, probably including nearly all of the assertions Sagan explained in his Cosmos series.

It is a parable about believing in things without "evidence." But everybody believes in things without "evidence". Even scientists. Anyone who currently believes in a unified field theory, or string theory, or any particular school of economic thought believes in things without "evidence".

folk used to think that worms generated spontaneously from cheese and other food.
it was an observable connection so a reasonable inference.

I would go even further and say that the need for ghosts to not exist is just as irrational as the need for ghosts to exist. This, however, has no relevance to the question of whether ghosts exist or not. They don't. I have as much confidence in this as I do that dinosaurs no longer exist. This has nothing to do with my needs but, rather, a lack of any credible evidence.

---------- Post added at 11:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:39 PM ----------

Is this a compelling argument to you?

First of all, ghosts are typically depicted as physical entities whenever stories of their appearance are told to us. You can see them and hear them. They sometimes move things. These are all physical actions and thus they are, by definition, physical. I find it hilarious that people have tried the "you observe them with your mind" approach to ghosts. Without specific knowledge, this reduces ghosts to personal hallucinations or delusions...

I think you have a very narrow view on what other people consider evidence. No one can take a picture of an atom but there's plenty of evidence that they're there! The same thing can't be honestly said of ghosts...

What you feel in your heart is not compelling evidence...

Things either exist or they do not and either way they do so with complete disregard for the existence of credible evidence.

I choose to have confidence when that confidence is justified. The lack of credible evidence supporting the existence of ghosts says nothing about whether they exist. Now, if someone were to demonstrate credible evidence that ghosts don't exist, well, that would be a different story.

I don't know whether Carl Sagan was a logical positivist or not.

But this parable can just as easily be read as a pragmatic text (and I mean pragmatic not in the every day sense of the word, but in the sense of Peirce-Latour-Habermas).

As such, no assumption about the progress of science is necessary, and no assumption about the existence of an objective truth. And so the point is not that one shouldnt believe that there is a dragon in the garage or not, but that such discussion is useless as it doesn't help understand or explain any relevant phenomena.

---------- Post added at 08:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:33 PM ----------

Isn't that precisely what Sagan used to say?

This is rather disingenuous in so many ways...

None of the "assertions that we presently accept as scientific fact" can be compared to "The Dragon in My Garage." The dragon in Carl Sagan's garage had no evidence to support it. Scientific theories, almost by definition, have evidence to support them. Certainly the ones we earnestly believe in have strong evidence to support them...

None of what we presently accept as scientific fact was even thought of 500 years ago. It's difficult to think of anything people of 500 years ago got right. The parable of Carl Sagan's dragon would have helped them a great deal!

If you're suggesting that if the people of 500 years ago adopted "The Dragon in My Garage" and we had a time machine and went back and told them of all the scientific things we believe that they would disbelieve us, that's only somewhat true. It's definitely false if we could tell them the whole story and use our current technology to demonstrate the principles to them. It's only arguably true if we were restricted to using their technology to demonstrate what we currently believe. Either way, it's irrelevant to the parable of Carl Sagan's dragon.

It's pointless to believe things without evidence even if they happen to be true. There are many different approaches to see why this is the case. Most pragmatically, most of the ideas people will concoct will be false and it's worth throwing out all the stupid ideas even if a couple gems get thrown out. You'll surely pick them up again with evidential reasoning. More philosophically, if there's no evidence for something, how can its truth affect you? Once its truth can affect you, that effect will be evidence and you're right back to evidential discovery...

Can you expand on this? What do you mean?

At the very least, no one "believes" in, say, string theory the same way that, say, Christians believe in Christianity. Proponents of string theory don't think that it has got to be true and there's just no way in can be false no matter what anyone says. The same thing can't generally be said for Christianity nor many other beliefs...

---------- Post added at 01:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 AM ----------

It may surprise you to hear that I don't actually agree with this statement although I do agree with the sentiment of the latter part of your statement; that there is a shared reality that's external to ourselves...

I too choose to have confidence (although I do wonder if it is a choice) when that confidence is justified.

The lack of credible evidence does say something about whether ghosts exist. They may exist despite the lack of evidence but I don't find it likely.

Again, do you find it likely that there are still living dinosaurs on Earth? Are you still holding out for perpetual motion machines 'cause no one has proven that they don't exist?

It would be disingenuous if I didn't mean it.

Speaking of irrelevance, what you wrote is irrelevant to what I wrote. I was just pointing out that sometimes "dragons" exist, even though there isn't evidence of their existence. Speaking of believing things without evidence, how about you presupposing the results of time travel?

Clearly it isn't. You just invented, without any evidence at all, an explanation for how people from the past would respond to our efforts to travel back in time and explain our current scientific theories. You seem to have found use for believing in something without evidence.

But this is assuming that people who "believe things without evidence" just pull things out of thin air. I would imagine that if a person believes in ghosts, they've probably based that belief on whatever evidence they have at hand.


Do you think physicists would spend time attempting to find that one theory to explain them all if they didn't think one existed? But why should it exist? There is no evidence that it exists (unless you count the wishy washy philosophical kind of evidence, in which case, there must be a god because Descartes said so).

Do you think that the large hadron collider will yield any sort of useful data? I know a lot of physicists do. I mean, I would hope that somebody thinks it won't be a dead end. Because that's an awful lot of money to spend.

Really, though. Why would anyone expect the LHC to not be a dead end? Dead ends happen all of the time.

The world is a very unscientific place. It has to be. Do you know how complicated it is to show scientifically, as in, here is some peer reviewable scientific evidence, that indoor smoking bans result in an increase in indoor air quality? You can't just be like "Well, it was all smokey in here before the ban, and now it isn't." I mean, you could, but it wouldn't mean anything.

I don't think that you're in a position to speak on behalf of all string theorists or all Christians. Do you have any evidence to support these claims?

The "unlikeliness" that you refer to here is more philosophy than anything else. It certainly has nothing to do with probability. Probability is irrelevant here. What's your population? The set of all universes? What is the probability that we find ourselves in one where ghosts exist?

You don't need to like to wikipedia like I'm some sort of twat. There is very little evidence correlating the ability to be condescending with the ability to properly form a coherent thought.

In any case, if you think that these are important and illustrative questions then you need to redirect your focus.

I don't care if dinosaurs are still living on earth. Dinosaur is an arbitrary term-- is Pluto a planet? If someone discovered a dinosaur would we call them dinosaurs? You need to be more precise than a wikipedia article. Is there even consensus among the relevant experts as to the precise definition of the term dinosaur?

Do you think that the laws of thermodynamics are absolute? Seems like they probably are, but, you know, there isn't any actual evidence that they are. I know it's pretty easy to trick yourself into thinking that the fact that you've never known something to be false is evidence that it is always true.

What I was pointing out is that "dragons" didn't exist. While it's certainly possible to postulate something that is true but have no evidence for at the time, your example of 500 years ago doesn't appear to be a good one. It's hard to think of something that was theorized 500 years ago that ended up being correct by our understanding. This is the disingenuous part of your post.

A better example might be plate techtonics, which was ridiculed at the time for lack of evidence only to later be confirmed correct. Even then, I would contend that non-acceptance of the theory was the right thing to do at the time, minus the ridicule...

My presuppositions on time travel weren't stated without evidence. It's my theory based on what I know of the history of the time and what I know of people. I certainly could have qualified it more and I don't think I'm absolutely right, despite what my confidence might suggest to you...

It depends on what you mean by "use." In retrospect, you can always find a "use" for baseless assertions in a broad sense, such as entertainment. What I mean is a more narrow and utilitarian "use," such as making testable predictions...

Well, some of them do pull things out of "thin air" but I will grant that there are people who feel compelled to believe through personal experience so I should probably qualify what I'm saying here.

People's reasons for believing in ghosts aren't as conclusive as their belief in them. There's never any trace of them, there's no known mechanism for them and the experience can never be shared. The idea is absurd on the surface and there's nothing substantiating it underneath...

I don't doubt that the world is an unscientific place. I certainly don't use science to determine every facet of my life. However, there are some claims that are scientific including the existence of certain things. Some of them are debatable while other don't appear to be so. I don't think it's unreasonable to demand scientific evidence for ghosts and dismiss the idea if there isn't any.

Things can and are pursued by hope. Two of the four forces of nature have been unified and it would be nice if the others were too so why not try? One can believe that it's possible and try to do so without believing that it has got to be so. The Hadron collider could very well be a dead end and I think people recognize that, although it can be argued that no new discoveries by the LHC will be, itself, revealing...

I can't speak for all individuals but I can speak about their shared doctrines. There are official tenets that we may speak about for both disciplines...

It's certainly not about probability in the strictest sense of the term but we may estimate likelihoods in realms that are not innumerable. If my three year old tells me that she didn't mark up the wall with the crayon in her hand, I find that unlikely...

Do you honestly think that my linking wikipedia is condescending? Why? I always thought it was useful. Do a post search on me to see how far this practice goes. Are you looking to be insulted?

Dinosaur is not that arbitrary a term. There are traits that would unambiguously categorize something as being a dinosaur and it would be an understatement to say that finding a living specimen would be a big deal...

There is strong evidence that the laws of thermodynamics are absolutely true. Of course, this doesn't mean that they are absolutely true but, as you say, it really seems that way!

By now, it seems difficult to see exactly where we disagree. I'm starting to think it may be the semantic issue of what constitutes "evidence" or what makes for good reasons for the confidence of assertions...

There is a hell of a lot of sidestepping of this question in this thread. Fuck what the semantics of the words "evidence, proof, exist," etc. mean. Give me a break. Everybody in this thread knows what I mean when I say evidence, proof, and existence. Either ghosts exist or they don't, and I find it extremely interesting that most people believe they do. That's what this thread is about.

I think this is relevant an entertaining...

A most excellent video.

I thought this thread was built around the question: "Why can't anyone prove ghosts?"

There's really no need to discuss the point that some people believe and others don't; it's been done to death.

Why can't anyone prove ghosts? is a far more interesting question (although it's been asked before, too). I've given my thoughts on the subject and as Lasereth pointed out it only "proved" that ghosts don't exist; I say it doesn't prove anything, it's just a thought.

I've also given my opinion about ghosts; but again it proves nothing.

It does speak volumes about the probability of them existing though....

It only speaks volumes about the probability that there exists credible evidence of the existence of ghosts.

I don't believe in ghosts. And I say this, having myself had several personal experiences that would support a belief in ghosts. That is, I've seen on several occasions what appeared to be a ghost. One time, it appeared as a human-sized wavering in the air. Another time, it appeared as a human-shaped form of utter blackness. Yet another time, it was a hovering ball of phosphorescent energy, about the size of a softball.

There were audible signs, too. Mostly, it was a young woman's voice, sweet yet mischievous. Sometimes, it was a man's voice, gentle yet somehow seductive. Once, it was a child's voice, seemingly innocent. Mostly what they said to me was "Hello" or "Hi" or "Hey, there". One time, as I lay half-sleeping, I felt someone approach and hover over me, and it was the woman's voice that said, "Boo!", then giggled. (By this time I was getting annoyed with all this, so I lifted my head from the pillow and said aloud, "Ha-ha. Very funny.")

Yes, what all of my experiences had in common was, they occurred as I was waking up (mostly in the darkness of night, but sometimes in the light of early morning). According to my research, these were probably "sleep paralysis" dreams that I was experiencing. However, I wasn't paralyzed during my experiences. Like, the time I saw a human-shaped wavering in the air, four to six feet from the foot of my bed, I sat up and thought, "Is this real? Am I awake?" And then I realized that, yes, I was awake! So I threw my pillow at the apparition to see if it was real. (All this did was cause it to dissipate. So much for my scientific approach! LoL.)

These experiences began for me shortly after one night, when my wife and I were sitting in the living room, watching TV and chatting with each other. In the middle of our light conversation, my wife got quiet. I glanced at her and saw a weird look in her eyes. Then she sat up and said, "I just saw a spirit, walking down the stairway and into the living room." Feeling a chill, I looked to the stairway, but I saw nothing. "No," she said, "it's already gone." I thoroughly questioned my wife and analyzed what she saw (or what she thought she saw), but I couldn't make heads or tails out of it.

Days if not weeks before this, we were experiencing numerous instances of weird dimming and brightening of the lights in our house. (We haven't experienced that in the years since all this stuff happened, even though we did nothing to fix the wiring in our house, nor have we had any significant changes in our electricity usage.) It was kind of eerie, when the thing with the lights was happening, but I figured there was a simple, scientific explanation for it. But then the other stuff started happening.

Well, a few days after that, my wife awoke in the night to hear a woman's voice talking in a hushed voice to our daughter, who was 6-years-old at the time. Our daughter was asleep, at the time, but she was mumbling in reply to the ghostly woman's voice.

Me, I continued to be skeptical of all this, even though I believe in God and the afterlife. And then I started having my own experiences, as I've already described.

There's a lot more details about our experiences (mine, in particular) that I haven't gotten into, here, including some stuff that was weirdly sexual in nature... but I digress for now. The bottom line is, I still don't believe in ghosts, per se, and I still question our experiences with the seeming supernatural.

...which, in turns, speaks about the likelihood that it exists at all. That you would try to isolate phenomena from their evidence as if there were no relationship is rather... dare I say disingenuous? I'm beginning to wonder what it is with you and people who try to understand the world in which we live. It's almost as if you're offended at the notion that the Universe can be understood. This is just a guess and you're free to clarify...

It's perfectly reasonable to discard theories for which there can be no evidence. In other words, untestable theories are worthless. If there can be no evidence for ghosts then how do their existence affect us at all? ...and if they can never affect us then how is it useful to think they exist in the first place? It's about as useful as holding on to the luminiferous ether. Are you going to get angry at this link too?

---------- Post added at 02:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:32 AM ----------

Actually, I've thought about my last response a little bit and I think I can better articulate what's bothering me about filtherton's last post.

It seems to me that he's not even trying to argue the points reasonably anymore. He's just trying to say anything that sounds convincing in the hopes that no one will be able to pinpoint exactly how he's not making any sense in order to create the appearance of winning a debate. This is what I pin with the label of "disingenuous;" a word I've been using far too much in this thread but I'm failing to find a suitable synonym...

This angers me because I'm here to discuss issues honestly in an attempt to reach a mutual understanding and I see this as an attempt to subvert that...

Like I said before, it would be disingenuous if I didn't believe what I was saying.

I would be happy to guess, provided you go back and clarify this last paragraph. Right now it seems like you're trying to discount everyone who tries to understand the world in which we live.

Here's where you get caught up in silliness. Has anyone here offered up any sort of "theory of ghosts"? No. Did you know that a theory about the existence of ghosts isn't the same thing as believing in ghosts? Unless you mean "theory" in some sort of general sense, in which case, you're even wronger.

No, they actually aren't. The world would cease to function if people only relied on testable "theories" in during their day to day activities.

You're confused about what constitutes evidence, both scientific and nonscientific. This is evident in your seeming overreliance on wikipedia.

I don't care if I win anything. What would I win?

That's why I didn't respond to your last post. I don't care if you think I'm wrong. We've had this discussion an unbearable number of time and you've never demonstrated the ability to understand what I'm saying. Normally, this would probably mean that what I'm saying doesn't make any sense, but the fact that other people understand what I'm saying, and that some of them even agree with me seems to suggest something different.

The only reason I'm responding to this post is that you pretty much called me a liar, and I wanted to point out that the implication that your inability to grok my perspective make me a liar is silly. It's unbecoming of someone who seems to be so in love with evidence-based belief.

Right. Speaking of disingenuous...

I don't think you believe what you were saying in the sense that there wasn't really anything to believe in. I'll expand on this later...

My reaction at that time was that you seem offended at attempts to understand the world and would rather have people settle for an "anything can be true so lets just believe anything" sort of attitude. This is such a fantastic position that I don't actually believe that you hold it so I was hoping you'd clarify what your position really is...

I don't know what you mean by "theory of ghosts." People here have theorized that ghosts do, in fact, exist. While people may present theories that they don't personally believe in, the theories themselves assert claims and I may disagree with these. This has been the case in this thread...

I otherwise have no idea what you're talking about in this paragraph...

This is untrue in several ways.

While it's true that people couldn't live their everyday lives testing every hypothesis that comes their way, they do run their lives almost entirely on theories that are testable. They don't bother to test them 'cause not only do they not have the time but, as it so happens, the vast majority of what we tell each other just happens to be true so things run as smoothly as they do.

Furthermore, while we can spend a great deal of time and energy discussing and even doing things motivated by untestable theories, the theories themselves don't describe anything that has anything to do with reality and, in that sense, are worthless. In other words, untestable theories may motivate us to do things and, in that sense, are worth something but the actual details of the theories don't convey any information that relates to the world we live in, in effect saying nothing at all.

Please detail this. What does my use of wikipedia links say about my opinions on evidence? How does my use of links to it even constitute any sort of "reliance?"

Only in the most narrow sense can my comments be construed as an accusation of lying. My last post to you isn't even a result of my inability to understand you. In fact, it's quite the opposite of that. It's important to note that all I can understand about you is what you write. What you wrote was:
If evidence of ghosts or lack thereof only speaks about the evidence of ghosts and not of ghosts themselves then what does say anything about ghosts? To say that the evidence for ghosts only speaks about the evidence of ghosts is a tautology. What do you think this link indicates now?! You didn't actually convey any meaning in this post but you posted it anyway, as if it did. What's up with that? My response was an expression of how I feel about this and my attempts to understand how this happens. You were free to clarify and I had hoped you would. All you did was frantically defend some vague accusation of lying and call me unreasonable. Well, I've been using nothing but reasoning. Come join me!

Explain the disingenuity. I welcome opportunities to see people's opinion of me...

I wasn't saying that there "wasn't really anything to believe in." I'm not sure where you've gotten this idea. Perhaps if you go and reread the things I've wrote without this little nugget of misinformation clouding your thoughts you might get a better grasp of what I've been talking about.

To be more clear about myself-- I'm a math guy who went engineering, but probably should have stayed math. I unconsciously attempt to fit the ideas I come across into the framework of mathematical proofs. I very loosely believe in everything, but I only act on beliefs when I think the evidence is sufficient to support those beliefs.

See above, you've misread me. It's not something that really offends me anymore-- Jesus pushers used to offend me too-- I've gotten a thicker skin about things.

I do think that it's silly when folks confuse the inability to prove something for evidence that that something doesn't exist. I think that it is even sillier that many of these same people, people who seem to think that they are the sole arbiters of what constitutes "sufficient evidence," would frequently be so inept at using evidence to support their positions.

No. No one has theorized in a scientific sense. That's what we're talking about, right? Science? For someone who presents himself as such a student of the scientific method, you could stand to nail the terminology a bit better. Perhaps folks have assumed ghosts as a possible explanation, but even then, they haven't hypothesized in a scientific sense. With respect to science, a hypothesis is testable-- has anyone in here proposed a testing scheme for paranormal activity? My apologies if someone has.

The fact that a particular presumption appears testable means that it's okay to just assume that it's true? Well shit. That makes everything so much simpler. How about this: I believe that ghosts exist, and that if they do exists, that their existence will manifest itself clearly to all of humanity within the next ten years. Boom. That "hypothesis" is testable-- we'll just wait ten years.

What you seem to be saying is something along the lines of "Unverifiable statements aren't useful to someone who is primarily concerned with verifiable statements." This is a tautology. Thanks for the wikipedia link.

I'm just saying, you wouldn't want to do that in your peer reviewed paper on the species of dinosaur you just discovered. See below for and examples of the possible pitfalls of wikipedia use.

I'm not going to link to the definition of "disingenuous," since I know you know how to use the internet. Don't worry, you haven't hurt my feelings.

I know it was a tautology. That was the point: that sometimes there is no deeper meaning; it is important to not draw false conclusions.

Here's the problem with linking to wikipedia: You read what I wrote, thought to yourself "A-hah!! He used a tautology!! I'm going to look that up on wikipedia and see what sort of ammo I can find." Then you went to wikipedia and saw that it said that tautologies add no meaning and thought "A-ha!! I'll show that filtherton. His tautology clearly added no meaning." But you were wrong.

That tautology doesn't exist in a vacuum. It was brought into existence as a response to a fallacious implication made by someone else. This gives the tautology meaning. See this example:

Person A: "The average daily temperature last winter was below historical average daily temperatures. This means that global climate change is not occuring."
Person B: "Actually, it isn't necessarily that simple. The best that we can say is that the fact that the average daily temperature last winter was below historical average daily temperatures just means that the fact that the average daily temperature last winter was below historical average daily temperatures."
Person A: "Oh, you're right. Sometimes I allow my personal beliefs to get in the way of my ability to infer proper conclusions from data."

Short version: if you're going to use wikipedia, don't just do the mental equivalent of ye olde cut and paste.


I disagree with all of your characterizations here.

I just have a hard time believing that you're here "to discuss issues honestly in an attempt to reach a mutual understanding."

This is a big thread and I wish Id noticed it before as its a subject Im very interested in.

All I will say for now is to question - what do we call proof?

Millions of people have reported and honestly believed that they have experienced what we call "ghosts"

I would guess - without looking it up - that less than 100 people have reported that they have walked on the moon.

And yet the moon landing are scientific fact, and ghosts are superstition - or at least so says "science"

"science" fires lasers at mirrors delicately set up by "astronauts" who "landed on the moon" and measure the rate at which the moon is moving away from the earth, etc.

People who see "ghosts" are deluded.

Our brains are hard-wired to see human-like features (pareidolia and the like) in allsorts of phenomena...

As an aside, don't you find it funny that people all around the world have 'spiritual experiences' that are very broadly in-keeping with the culturel they experience?

West: Christian iconography, idols, spirits, etc... UFO's (post popular sci-fi)
East: Hindu manifestations, etc, etc

Proving the non-physical is an exercise in futility.

We cannot prove the existence of numbers, but we use them in mathematics.

We cannot prove the existence of space, but we measure it.

We cannot prove the existence of time, but we keep track of it.

We cannot prove the existence of ghosts, but perhaps some of us make that bridge between non-physical entities and sensory perception.

There are countless connections between the physical and non-physical. It is all around us. We all experience it every day.

Perfection does not exist; it is a concept, but that doesn't stop some of us from perceiving it.

This might be the wrong thread but could you please explain a bit more on what you mean by this? I'm baffled.

I mean, numbers are not nouns but verbs. I use a number to describe you. Like you are a person. I am a person. You and I make two people.

I just read this, I am a dimwit ...

Numbers, space and time are all concepts. Specifically, they are units of measure. They don't "exist" in the physical world in the same way that a desk or a chair exist in the physical world.

You probably explained it best, vanblah but forget I asked ... I won't understand and a breakdown will make it worse.....

I wasn't saying that you were saying that there "wasn't really anything to believe in." I was saying that you couldn't have believed in your own post because there wasn't anything in your post to believe in. The reason I thought that is because your post is a tautology and thus had no meaning for you to believe. That accusation of disingenuity was regarding that one particular post...

I'm very similar to you. I studied math and then went into computer programming. I've had to learn to be more colloquial with my terms and my framework in order to effectively speak to people on web forums...

Even my approach to belief is similar to yours except that I disbelieve everything and only act on belief when I think the evidence supports the action. My notion of support depends on many things and isn't all that strict. For instance, I'm willing to believe you had cereal for breakfast 'cause there's no consequence to believing that. However, I'm not going to hate an entire category of people because some church tells me I should until they can give me some seriously compelling reason...

I think you're unfairly harsh on people you think "are sole arbiters of what constitutes 'sufficient evidence.'" I don't think having a strong opinion and wanting to convince other people of your point of view is well characterized as being a sole arbiter of evidence. If you have a position and you think you can support it then do so! That's why we're on web forums and on this forum in particular...

I think I understand your sentiment about proof. Is the idea analogous to not believing in black holes because we can't prove they exist?

I think it's silly when people think that a lack of evidence for something doesn't say anything that it's lack of existence. It clearly does and we rely on this all the time. It's a harder argument to make than existence but it can and has been made and to good effect!

Actually, I was using "theory" in the colloquial sense, hence the use of the verb form "theorize," since I'm pretty sure this has no specific scientific meaning (although, frankly, the scientific meaning of "theory" isn't all that different from the colloquial one).

Also, when I spoke about "people here," I meant the people here in this thread. I wasn't speaking about people in general...

I was merely describing what it is that people do. I made no judgment as to whether it was "okay" or not, whatever that means in this context...

You may believe anything you like but there's no fun in stating your belief on a web forum (particularly this one!) without a good argument to back it up!

While your brief summary is a tautology, my post said a great deal more than that which made it not tautological. I was clarifying my use of the term "useful" and "worthy."

Again, this summary is disingenuous and is what causes me to guess at ulterior motives for you. Why do you keep doing this? What's so hard about being honest in your arguments?

Good thing I'm not writing a "peer reviewed paper," in the manner that you meant it...

It was a metaphor for the statement you were trying to make?

You could have just said that but you didn't. It looked like you were saying that evidence of things don't relate to things. In relation to your interpretation above, it looked like you were saying there can be no deeper meaning...

You deeply mischaracterize my use of wikipedia (which is really my use of links, it just so happens that wikipedia is often the most useful thing to link to).

You know that I can't possibly be using wikipedia as a source of argument or "ammo" as you've described it. What ammo did I use from the page on luminiferous ether? That's clearly not what I'm doing with these links.

Do you care to tell me what actually offends you about my use of links?

Also, setting aside that person B in your example didn't say anything grammatically coherent, he didn't really say anything. I mean, person A was pretty easily won over. Person B might as well have said "Actually, it isn't necessarily that simple." and person A could've have responded the same way. The tautology didn't help beyond filling empty space with noise...

I agree that sentences don't exist in a vacuum but that's a poor example...

C'mon, you can do better than that. All you did was say "just" and then repeated your assertion...

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:00 PM ----------

No, actually, it's an exercise in semantics.

For example, numbers used to be an adjective, in that you can have two horses or three cows. Amazingly enough, we actually found patterns in these descriptions. In certain ways, having three cows was similar to having three pigs. We also found relationships between variations of these descriptions, like being able to break five cows into two groups of five or five groups of two. Eventually, we abstracted out the notion of having a number of objects into simply having numbers; turning these adjectives into nouns. My example may have been a bit overkill but I thought it was really interesting and wanted to share it.

My actual point is that numbers are definitional. They're an idea and ideas exist despite not being physical. Really, physicality as a requirement for existence is stupid. We might as well be debating whether energy exists or not...

The idea of ghosts exist. Phenomena that people call ghosts surely exist in that I'm not willing to believe that all these people are lying. Do ghosts, themselves, as we conceptualize them exist? I don't think so...

---------- Post added at 05:41 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:18 PM ----------

Are you sure? Aren't you the guy who thought fiction is real?

Ah, this is actually a good question. Of course the notion of proof is subjective. What's enough to convince one person isn't necessarily enough to convince another. However, you wanted to know what makes one scientific and another superstition...

I'm not sure where to start so I guess I'll start with the moon landings. Now, the moon landings are historical events so I wouldn't call them scientific claims anymore than I would describe the shooting of JFK as scientific but I think I know what you mean so I'll run with it...

Barring the idea that the moon landings have been faked (which is obviously possible but I find highly unlikely), it's a shared experience witnessed by many people. There is lingering physical and detailed evidence that it happened. Finally, there's nothing impossible about it. It conforms with everything else we know.

Ghosts, on the other hand, are not shared experiences. They're very personal and subjective. They're ambiguous and vary greatly; so much so that you can't even say that people are experiencing the same thing, never mind whether they're seeing ghosts. There's never any lingering evidence. Finally, the idea doesn't even make any sense. As far as we know, such things can't exist. They don't conform to what we know about reality and I don't even think (someone who knows more may correct me) they conform to any orthodox theology...

There's a stark difference between the two!

I think my definition of proof and proving something does not exist is best: Proof = belief, Prove it to me = Convince me.
Since the OP has confirmation bias, this is impossible. That is why you cannot prove to him that ghosts exist.

There is evidence of the moon landings; they left reflectors that we bounce lasers off of. There was a rival superpower who would have gained immensely by proving it a fake. There are photos from the lunar surface and videos of landing and subsequent takeoff. It should satisfy all but the most skeptical verificationist.