Ghosts: The Definition Problem.

[mike3]

Hi.

I saw this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176126

where it was being discussed that a big problem with regards to any questions about "ghosts" is the lack of a good definition as to what that even means.

So this is where I'm having a little trouble. It seems that to get a definition of the caliber mentioned in these posts, one would need actual, solid evidence by which to answer the questions (e.g. "by what mechanism does it interact/is detectable..." and so forth). Yet if one had enough evidence to nail that down, then one would already have a strong case for the existence of ghosts, no? Yet to get the evidence, you need to have the definition so as to know what to look for!

This seems circular. What am I missing?

Also, one definition was floated and called a logical contradiction:

"something disembodied that has physical manifestations"

Because if it interacts with the physical world, then it is physical, with all the properties of physical matter and energy (someone (the same person?) mentioned there about having weight and so forth). So this makes me wonder: what is the real and precise definition of "physical"? Because what I usually think of when I hear the "definitions" of "ghost" and "non-physical" is mentioned, what they mean is something like "is not made out of protons, neutrons, electrons, photons and other physical particles and is not based within the space-time continuum". Yet if "made of protons, ..." is what "physical" means, then how is it that something interacting with those things must necessarily be made from them? I suppose that if additional things existed, then you could add them by causal closure, which may be what is meant by "physical" by the posters in that thread (and "ghosts" MUST interact however you define them -- if it is something that can produce an experience for someone, that is an interaction, since that means at the very least brain activity results from them, an actual process in the universe of protons, neutrons, ... and therefore the "ghosts" must be included in the causal closure), in which case you would have a contradiction as said ("an entity outside the causal closure which is causally connected to it and so part of that closure" -> "both is and is not a part" -> contradiction). However that may not be what "ghost proponents" mean by "physical". Wouldn't that be a problem though in discussions, if there is a mismatch of definitions of even seemingly-definable terms such as "physical" itself?

 

[Aepervius]

This seems circular. What am I missing?

You are missing nothing. The problem with definition is because ghost do not exists, and other normal phenomenon are mistaken for being ghost. thus the inability to properly define ghost : they are a mishmash of misrepresentation.

The same problem happen with a lot of other woo, which misrepresent or mistake normal phenomenon and thus are difficult to "nail down" as definition.

 

[John Nowak]

I saw a ghost once.

I was unpacking after a move, and I was using a folding Gerber knife to cut boxes open. I put the knife down, moved a box, went to grab the knife and out of the corner of my eye I saw my hand moving towards an blade, ready and willing to slash my fingers open.

I jerked my hand back, blinked, and looked directly at the knife. The blade was safely folded away.

Obviously, what happened here is that Part 1 of my brain was telling me "Grabbing a knife without looking at it is a really stupid thing to do," and doing so by making me "see" the open blade. Since then I've tried to be more careful.

I'll bet everyone who has seen a ghost has looked at a garden hose, jumped, yelled "AAA SNAKE!" Why they think there needs to be more of an explanation is beyond me.

 

[Cainkane1]

Hi.

I saw this thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=176126

where it was being discussed that a big problem with regards to any questions about "ghosts" is the lack of a good definition as to what that even means.

So this is where I'm having a little trouble. It seems that to get a definition of the caliber mentioned in these posts, one would need actual, solid evidence by which to answer the questions (e.g. "by what mechanism does it interact/is detectable..." and so forth). Yet if one had enough evidence to nail that down, then one would already have a strong case for the existence of ghosts, no? Yet to get the evidence, you need to have the definition so as to know what to look for!

This seems circular. What am I missing?

Also, one definition was floated and called a logical contradiction:

"something disembodied that has physical manifestations"

Because if it interacts with the physical world, then it is physical, with all the properties of physical matter and energy (someone (the same person?) mentioned there about having weight and so forth). So this makes me wonder: what is the real and precise definition of "physical"? Because what I usually think of when I hear the "definitions" of "ghost" and "non-physical" is mentioned, what they mean is something like "is not made out of protons, neutrons, electrons, photons and other physical particles and is not based within the space-time continuum". Yet if "made of protons, ..." is what "physical" means, then how is it that something interacting with those things must necessarily be made from them? I suppose that if additional things existed, then you could add them by causal closure, which may be what is meant by "physical" by the posters in that thread (and "ghosts" MUST interact however you define them -- if it is something that can produce an experience for someone, that is an interaction, since that means at the very least brain activity results from them, an actual process in the universe of protons, neutrons, ... and therefore the "ghosts" must be included in the causal closure), in which case you would have a contradiction as said ("an entity outside the causal closure which is causally connected to it and so part of that closure" -> "both is and is not a part" -> contradiction). However that may not be what "ghost proponents" mean by "physical". Wouldn't that be a problem though in discussions, if there is a mismatch of definitions of even seemingly-definable terms such as "physical" itself?

My definition of a ghost is this. A person and their spirit comes back to haunt the living. Ghosts are the result of hallucination and in my case boredom. I once saw a ghost and my psychiatrist told me that when a brain lacks stimulation a suggestable person often sees things that aren't there to provide stimuli and entertainment.

Ghosts don't exist but that doesn't keep us from seeing them.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Practically all Woo plays a version of this "Argument through vague definition" game, intentionally refusing to clearly defining exactly what it is there are arguing for.

 

[HighRiser]

The problem is assuming that there are ghosts because ghost stories; without any physical evidence of ghosts.

Some folks think ghost stories are evidence of ghosts. This is, by definition, irrational. Calling it irrational is not pejorative.

Some folks think ghost stories are evidence of the fallability of our perception and thought- process. This is, by definition, rational. Calling it rational is not vanity.

 

[xtifr]

So this is where I'm having a little trouble. It seems that to get a definition of the caliber mentioned in these posts, one would need actual, solid evidence by which to answer the questions (e.g. "by what mechanism does it interact/is detectable..." and so forth). Yet if one had enough evidence to nail that down, then one would already have a strong case for the existence of ghosts, no? Yet to get the evidence, you need to have the definition so as to know what to look for!

This seems circular. What am I missing?

You don't need it to be a ghost to win the million dollar challenge. Any paranormal phenomenon will do. If your apparent poltergeist turns out to really just be someone with telekinesis, that still wins the prize.

Yes, you can't prove you have a ghost until you find something with properties that are demonstrably, um, ghosty. Find that, and then we can start the process of determining whether it really is or isn't a ghost.

Without something measurable to study, there's little point in speculation. Stories and fabulations don't further the debate. Find us evidence of something! Then we can talk.

Think of it this way. If we decide to say that ghosts have properties X and Y, and then someone actually finds a real ghost, and it turns out to have property Z, rather than X and Y, what good did it do to come up with those properties X and Y in the first place? Aside from confusing matters, and possibly making people waste time looking for evidence of properties X and Y?

Find your ghost-candidate first, determine what properties it actually has, and we can go on from there.

 

[ehcks]

Ah, a thread discussing the ghost version of ignosticism.

I like it. Where's my popcorn?

 

[IXP]

I can't define a ghost, but I know one when I see it!

IXP

 

[Cuddles]

You are missing nothing. The problem with definition is because ghost do not exists, and other normal phenomenon are mistaken for being ghost. thus the inability to properly define ghost : they are a mishmash of misrepresentation.

The same problem happen with a lot of other woo, which misrepresent or mistake normal phenomenon and thus are difficult to "nail down" as definition.

Exactly.

Wouldn't that be a problem though in discussions, if there is a mismatch of definitions of even seemingly-definable terms such as "physical" itself?

Yes, it would. And is. This is one of the main reasons there are rarely any sensible discussions between believers and skeptics on such matters. In order to have a discussion, you must always define your terms first, or at the very least do so when any disagreement on definitions becomes apparent. Have you not noticed how much believers love to throw around words like "energy", "frequencies", "non-physical", and so on, and how the discussion almost always stalls at the point where they're asked what they actually mean by that?

This is exactly why real scientific discussions are absolutely full of definitions, even for things which would appear trivial. For example, here is a paper I happen to have to hand. Notice how almost all the equations are followed by a paragraph explaining what all the symbols actually mean. It may not be obvious to the layperson, but many of these are absolutely standard and trivial. c for the speed of light, m₀ for rest mass, I for current, E for energy. These are not terms that any physicist should fail to understand, yet in a paper less than three pages long, at least half a page is dedicated to defining exactly what is being talked about at every point, because it really is that important to make sure that everyone involved is on the same page.

Of course, internet forums are generally not quite as formal and it's a lot easier to ask questions, so I obviously don't expect quite the same dedication to defining every little thing. But making sure everyone involved in a discussion is on the same page is still just as important. Importantly, this sort of thing is covered by the same basic rules as burden of proof - if someone wants to claim that ghosts are non-physical energy, or whatever, it's up to them define what they actually mean by that. Yes, it's a problem when there's a mismatch of definitions, and that problem is entirely the fault of those who use non-standard definitions but refuse to actually tell us what definition they are using. Or more frequently, those who use non-standard definitions but can't tell us what definition they are using because they're simply repeating sciency-sounding buzzwords without any clear idea of what they might mean in any context.

 

[sphenisc]

If I want to know the definition of a word I use a dictionary.

 

[mike3]

Exactly.



Yes, it would. And is. This is one of the main reasons there are rarely any sensible discussions between believers and skeptics on such matters. In order to have a discussion, you must always define your terms first, or at the very least do so when any disagreement on definitions becomes apparent. Have you not noticed how much believers love to throw around words like "energy", "frequencies", "non-physical", and so on, and how the discussion almost always stalls at the point where they're asked what they actually mean by that?

This is exactly why real scientific discussions are absolutely full of definitions, even for things which would appear trivial. For example, here is a paper I happen to have to hand. Notice how almost all the equations are followed by a paragraph explaining what all the symbols actually mean. It may not be obvious to the layperson, but many of these are absolutely standard and trivial. c for the speed of light, m₀ for rest mass, I for current, E for energy. These are not terms that any physicist should fail to understand, yet in a paper less than three pages long, at least half a page is dedicated to defining exactly what is being talked about at every point, because it really is that important to make sure that everyone involved is on the same page.

Of course, internet forums are generally not quite as formal and it's a lot easier to ask questions, so I obviously don't expect quite the same dedication to defining every little thing. But making sure everyone involved in a discussion is on the same page is still just as important. Importantly, this sort of thing is covered by the same basic rules as burden of proof - if someone wants to claim that ghosts are non-physical energy, or whatever, it's up to them define what they actually mean by that. Yes, it's a problem when there's a mismatch of definitions, and that problem is entirely the fault of those who use non-standard definitions but refuse to actually tell us what definition they are using. Or more frequently, those who use non-standard definitions but can't tell us what definition they are using because they're simply repeating sciency-sounding buzzwords without any clear idea of what they might mean in any context.

So what, then, is the standard definition of "physical" as would be used here, and thus what would its negation "non-physical" be? What definition is being used by people here when they encounter a ghost claimant talking about "physical" and "non-physical" stuff, or make claims like the "logical contradiction" one I mentioned in my opening post (which requires a definition of "physical")?

 

[mike3]

Practically all Woo plays a version of this "Argument through vague definition" game, intentionally refusing to clearly defining exactly what it is there are arguing for.

Is that because on some level the "woo promoter" knows it's false and that providing a crisp definition would make its falsity obvious?

 

[xtifr]

So what, then, is the standard definition of "physical" as would be used here, and thus what would its negation "non-physical" be? What definition is being used by people here when they encounter a ghost claimant talking about "physical" and "non-physical" stuff, or make claims like the "logical contradiction" one I mentioned in my opening post (which requires a definition of "physical")?

Physical. Subject to the rules of physics. Baryons and leptons and the like. Electromagnetism and gravity. If we can see it, it must either reflect or emit photons somehow. If it makes noises, it must interact with baryonic matter in a way that ultimately results in vibrations of the air. And so on.

I have no idea about the claims of non-physical stuff. Show me some, and we'll see. For the moment, I consider it a meaningless noise (unless you're using it as a synonym for "imaginary"). Just because you can arrange words in a particular order doesn't mean those words make sense.

Basically, the burden of proof of all of this sort of nonsense falls on the claimant. We'll judge evidence, but until we have some evidence, rather than speculation (often ill-informed and downright ridiculous speculation), there's little to go on.

 

[Quinn]

If we can see it, it must either reflect or emit photons somehow. If it makes noises, it must interact with baryonic matter in a way that ultimately results in vibrations of the air. And so on.

One attempt at a work-around that I've heard from believers is that rather than interacting with the physical world, ghosts interact with our minds. So when we "see" a ghost, it's because the ghost is interacting with our brain the same way physical light does, via its undefinable ghostly energy or whatever, but without actually emitting or reflecting photons. Ditto with when we "hear" ghostly noises. Of course this completely contradicts the apparent ability of ghosts to be recorded on video and audio, not to mention the various EMF detectors and other "ghost hunting" gear, but I'm sure there's an equally plausible explanation for that too.

It's not unlike the explanation I've heard for Derren Brown's Ouija board expose, which clearly demonstrates that the participant's hands are pushing the planchette rather than being pulled along by it. The explanation? "So how can you prove that it's not the spirits pushing on people's hands and/or influencing their subconscious minds, huh Mr. Smartypants Skeptic?" Really once you open the door to undetectable non-physical magic, a little creativity can get you out of just about any logical bind.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Ghost

"In traditional belief and fiction, a ghost (sometimes known as a spectre (British English) or specter (American English), phantom, apparition or spook) is the soul or spirit of a dead person or animal that can appear, in visible form or other manifestation, to the living. Descriptions of the apparition of ghosts vary widely from an invisible presence to translucent or barely visible wispy shapes, to realistic, lifelike visions."

Since we know that people and animals don't have a soul or spirit, we also know that ghosts cannot exist.

So why do people see ghosts? Same reason they see Elvis, or UFO's, or succubi, or have out of body experiences or don't see the gorilla in the room - tricks of the mind. That is why ghosts are so 'ethereal' and shy of cameras etc. they only 'exist' in the mind!

Physical. Subject to the rules of physics. Baryons and leptons and the like. Electromagnetism and gravity. If we can see it, it must either reflect or emit photons somehow. If it makes noises, it must interact with baryonic matter in a way that ultimately results in vibrations of the air. And so on.

By definition, something is only 'physical' if it can be incorporated into our knowledge of physics. However some people believe that there is another layer or dimension to the universe - a 'spirit world' - that only interacts with our minds. They are wrong of course, but it's not theoretically impossible for something to exist without any noticeable interaction with normal matter.

Of course this completely contradicts the apparent ability of ghosts to be recorded on video and audio, not to mention the various EMF detectors and other "ghost hunting" gear, but I'm sure there's an equally plausible explanation for that too.

Yeah, they're frauds! Real ghosts cannot be captured on film, and they certainly don't emanate radio waves!

 

[xtifr]

One attempt at a work-around that I've heard from believers is that rather than interacting with the physical world, ghosts interact with our minds.

I almost mentioned that, but it doesn't help support the meaningless notion of "non-physical effects". The brain is a physical thing, so the ghost would have to cause electrons (physical particles) to fire in neurons (very much physical things), in very precise, and not-at-all understood ways. Frankly, I suspect just emitting or reflecting some photons would be a lot less work!

In any case, now we're talking about psychic powers, which also haven't been demonstrated to exist, and have no clear mechanism, and are poorly defined. And if you can demonstrate psychic powers (which you would need to do to prove that ghosts have psychic powers), you already win the million dollars, and don't need to go on and demonstrate ghosts.

Bottom line, until psychic powers are shown to exist, there's no reason to believe that ghosts have psychic powers, even if you were to assume that ghosts exist.

Otherwise, you might as well just say "ghosts are magic and work by magic", and leave it at that. It's going to convey just as much useful information.

 

[Cuddles]

So what, then, is the standard definition of "physical" as would be used here, and thus what would its negation "non-physical" be? What definition is being used by people here when they encounter a ghost claimant talking about "physical" and "non-physical" stuff, or make claims like the "logical contradiction" one I mentioned in my opening post (which requires a definition of "physical")?

Doesn't matter. See my previous post - it's up to the person making the claim to tell us what definition they are using. What other people might incorrectly assume they mean is irrelevant, especially since it's unlikely everyone will assume exactly the same thing.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I almost mentioned that, but it doesn't help support the meaningless notion of "non-physical effects". The brain is a physical thing, so the ghost would have to cause electrons (physical particles) to fire in neurons (very much physical things), in very precise, and not-at-all understood ways.

And yet, despite your assertion that 'non-physical' effects are impossible, people still see ghosts.

Scientists tell us that the universe and everything in it follows certain strict physical laws, and therefore we only see things because they emit or reflect photons. But we know that this is not true, because we can 'see' things simply by thinking about them! Until we both know and understand the strictly physical nature of how the human mind works, people will always feel that if they see something that looks real then it is real - despite scientists telling them otherwise.

until psychic powers are shown to exist, there's no reason to believe that ghosts have psychic powers, even if you were to assume that ghosts exist.

The only essential feature of ghosts that everybody agrees on is that they 'appear' to us. It is a fact that people see ghosts, no psychic powers required or implied. The only question is:- what are they? The way to answer that question is to show us how we 'see' things that don't actually exist. Just blindly asserting that they can't exist because SCIENCE! does not help those have seen them.

 

[xtifr]

And yet, despite your assertion that 'non-physical' effects are impossible, people still see ghosts.

My point is that seeing a ghost is a physical effect whether it happens because photons strike your eyes or because something causes neurons in your brain to fire.

And I didn't say non-physical effects are impossible; I said it appears to be a meaningless phrase. Handwaving baffleglab.