Collective apparitions: evidence life after death?

[Andyman409]

One area of paranormal investigation that seems fairly persuasive is the phenomenon of apparitions of the dead. Researchers attept to use polling data to figure out what kinds of experiences people report, and what signs of authenticity they have. Signs of authenticity include the apparition providing data previously unknown to the recepient, the apparition manipulating the external world, and appearing to different people within the same location.

All these signs seem fairly easy to explain. For one thing, memory is a very fallible thing. Perception is, too, and we have reason to believe the rate at which hallucinations occur is far higher than reported. Lastly, expectation plays a large role in our experience. If we are told a "white lady" haunts a house, well, guess what we'll be thinking of...

The one sign of authenticity that surprises me is that sometimes, these apparitions are seen by multiple people. According to an SPR survey, this occurs in 10% of these experiences. If this could be substantiated, this would be very strong evidence for an afterlife.

For anyone who isn't aware of this stuff, this is a cogent description of the field

www .jerome23.wordpress .com why-everything-we-think-we-know-about-ghosts-is-probably-wrong

(sorry, I cant post a proper link until I have 15 posts. Just google it)

I am unsure what to make of these experiences. I haven't really found much on the topic, pro or con. It seems much more interesting than psi research which is, well, boring. Why haven't skeptics looked into this more? Or have they? Anyone here know about this topic?

 

[Sledge]

One area of paranormal investigation that seems fairly persuasive is the phenomenon of apparitions of the dead.

Let me stop you there. No it isn't.

 

[Resume]

One area of paranormal investigation that seems fairly persuasive is the phenomenon of apparitions of the dead. Researchers attept to use polling data to figure out what kinds of experiences people report, and what signs of authenticity they have. Signs of authenticity include the apparition providing data previously unknown to the recepient, the apparition manipulating the external world, and appearing to different people within the same location.

All these signs seem fairly easy to explain. For one thing, memory is a very fallible thing. Perception is, too, and we have reason to believe the rate at which hallucinations occur is far higher than reported. Lastly, expectation plays a large role in our experience. If we are told a "white lady" haunts a house, well, guess what we'll be thinking of...

The one sign of authenticity that surprises me is that sometimes, these apparitions are seen by multiple people. According to an SPR survey, this occurs in 10% of these experiences. If this could be substantiated, this would be very strong evidence for an afterlife.For anyone who isn't aware of this stuff, this is a cogent description of the field

www .jerome23.wordpress .com why-everything-we-think-we-know-about-ghosts-is-probably-wrong

(sorry, I cant post a proper link until I have 15 posts. Just google it)

I am unsure what to make of these experiences. I haven't really found much on the topic, pro or con. It seems much more interesting than psi research which is, well, boring. Why haven't skeptics looked into this more? Or have they? Anyone here know about this topic?

Note the sentence I highlighted. None of this stuff has been credibly, objectively substantiated.

As to the SPR survey of multiple sightings, well, anyone can tell a story, can't they?

 

[Robrob]

I haven't really found much on the topic, pro or con.

If you search the JREF site you will find multiple threads addressing this topic.

It seems much more interesting than psi research which is, well, boring.

Possibly, however it is easier to create falsifiable tests for PSI claims than for life after death/apparitions.

Why haven't skeptics looked into this more? Or have they?

Yes, quite thoroughly. Without discovering any evidence to support the theory.

 

[carlitos]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/tags.php?tag=ghosts

 

[MrBooglemaumau]

You're born , you live a life [hopefully to a ripe age if you are careful ] and you eventually die.....it happens !There is no scientific proof of life after death,Ghosts , Goblins, Specters , Bigfoot , Nessie , etc . People see , and believe what they want , but that doesn't mean it's REAL ..Live a good life !!!!

 

[aggle-rithm]

Live a good life !!!!

Nah...I'm gonna try that ghost thing. Looks promising.

 

[Andyman409]

If you search the JREF site you will find multiple threads addressing this topic.


Possibly, however it is easier to create falsifiable tests for PSI claims than for life after death/apparitions.


Yes, quite thoroughly. Without discovering any evidence to support the theory.

Sorry if I sounded like a believer. I throught my hesitance would signal that I'm not.

Not very many posts are given the tag "collective apparition". I checked the search bar for them, but found only a few threads, many being unrelated (ex: "are paranormal believers dense?". I'll have to check again.

I think its important to note that I'm only interested in collective cases. I'm more than aware of works such as Elizebeth Loftus' on memory, so I seriously doubt we could know, for example, whether an apparition had information previously unknown to the recepient. Collective apparitions, however, seem harder to refute. We'd need to know the circumstances to the experiences, what each participant thought they saw, etc. Maybe they are all instances of illusions? I cant really judge the explaination "they were lies" unless I actually look at the data.

A google search gave me a few parapsychological papers, but none described what the critereon for a collective apparition exactly was, so I learned nothing from it. There are books on the topic, but many are, well, popular writings. McGreerys "apparitions" is the only one I have heard of that seems, well, kinda scientific- but alas, I have had great difficulty finding it.

 

[dlorde]

The one sign of authenticity that surprises me is that sometimes, these apparitions are seen by multiple people. According to an SPR survey, this occurs in 10% of these experiences. If this could be substantiated, this would be very strong evidence for an afterlife.

Why? should we also consider multiple people seeing UFOs very strong evidence of aliens or paranormal aerial phenomena?

 

[Andyman409]

Why? should we also consider multiple people seeing UFOs very strong evidence of aliens or paranormal aerial phenomena?

When multiple people see the same UFO, we usually assume its a case of a real object being mispercieved, like a plane. Are collective apparitions the same? Do the witnesses see something that exists in the external world, like a reflection or shadow, and assume its a ghost?

More importantly, what about the survey the society of psychical research did to come up with the "10% of apparitions are collective" statistic. Were there any flaws in it? What did it accept as a "Collective apparition"? Were there flaws? I have been looking for it, but cant find it.

 

[vmf214]

I'm sorry, but ghosts are creations of those unable to cope with what is basic and inevitable. Paranormal fiction is fun, but it is fiction. People make things up for a lot of reasons - but they make them up. Many of them are called Republicans. (grin)

 

[Andyman409]

I'm sorry, but ghosts are creations of those unable to cope with what is basic and inevitable. Paranormal fiction is fun, but it is fiction. People make things up for a lot of reasons - but they make them up. Many of them are called Republicans. (grin)

Can someone point me to a critical analysis or debunking then? I am really and sincerely interested in what a skeptic would make of these collective apparitions. Not individual experiences, but ones where the group claims to see the exact same "ghost".

Anyone here read McCreery's book "apparitions"? What about G.N.M Tyrell's book, also called "apparitions"? Tyrell mentions them on page 76-80, but says little on them. This article sums up a lot of those books nicely:

www .jerome23.wordpress .com why-everything-we-think-we-know-about-ghosts-is-probably-wrong

it was written by CJ. 23; from what I understand he is one of the few believers to post here regularly.

 

[Pup]

www .jerome23.wordpress .com why-everything-we-think-we-know-about-ghosts-is-probably-wrong

I skimmed the article, but it seems to cover the obvious explanations fairly well:

a mis-perception... could theoretically be shared by many. If a stick in the water looks like the Loch Ness Monster, it is possible that hundreds of observers could simultaneously see it and reach the erroneous conclusion it is a lake monster.

and the point that witnesses can coach each other even during the event ("Do you see the man there?"), so it's hard to find independent witness that one can be 100% certain haven't either coached each other or been aware of what they're supposed to see by hearing about what haunts an area beforehand.

 

[Andyman409]

Note the sentence I highlighted. None of this stuff has been credibly, objectively substantiated.

As to the SPR survey of multiple sightings, well, anyone can tell a story, can't they?

I'd like to know what you mean by unsubstantiated? The information we have is poor and/or inconclusive? I agree that, when it comes to individual apparitions, I think there are many competing alternatives.

heres what I said:

All these signs (of authenticity, as I mentioned above~andyman) seem fairly easy to explain. For one thing, memory is a very fallible thing. Perception is, too, and we have reason to believe the rate at which hallucinations occur is far higher than reported. Lastly, expectation plays a large role in our experience. If we are told a "white lady" haunts a house, well, guess what we'll be thinking of...

I am familiar with the usual critiques. I dont think they work as well with collective apparitions, being that two people claim they saw the exact same thing. Lying is a possibility, but I dont know how probable it is, given what we know (or dont know) about these events. That's what I'm trying to ask you guys.

 

[Andyman409]

I skimmed the article, but it seems to cover the obvious explanations fairly well:



and the point that witnesses can coach each other even during the event ("Do you see the man there?"), so it's hard to find independent witness that one can be 100% certain haven't either coached each other or been aware of what they're supposed to see by hearing about what haunts an area beforehand.

Does the parallel hold with collective apparitions? Part of the problam, I think, is that no narrative is being given to explain. If a group claimed to have seen the virgin mary a yard away during a storm, it woud be much less impressive than if they claimed to have saw her right in front of them. A stick in the water can only be mispercieved as the loch ness monster if the stick is far away enough.

 

[Aepervius]

People see something they don't recognize, then somebody offer s an explanation, that what they did not recognize will now be associated with the explanation the persons offered, be it correct or wrong. I see that all the time, with some paradeiloia of bigfoot in a tree, I don't see it imemdiately, have to be pointed out where the BF is in the picture, but afterward imemdiately can find it immediately. Parsimony principle IMHO. It is more probable that people conferred between themselves and influenced into recognition of "something not being ghost but paradolia-ed into ghost" rather than a group seeing ghost.

That's why you don't trust people(s) for witnessing extraordinary stuff, if you want to trust something then trust camera and other detectors and preferably more than 1. But even camera can lies (hoax/cheating/etc...).

ETA: for extra ordinary claim such nature a collection or group of witness is worthless, only a collection of personal experience. Multiplying them is like multiplying by zero: You can do it once or one million time the end results is the same.

 

[pakeha]

Why? should we also consider multiple people seeing UFOs very strong evidence of aliens or paranormal aerial phenomena?

When multiple people see the same UFO, we usually assume its a case of a real object being mispercieved, like a plane. Are collective apparitions the same? Do the witnesses see something that exists in the external world, like a reflection or shadow, and assume its a ghost?

I wonder if collective apparitions would be closer in nature to the collective apparitions of the BVM rather than UFOs?

Here's some general links on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marian_apparition
http://www.myetherworld.com/False_Apparitions.html


And here, some links to specific cases:
http://www.pradonuevo.es/en/pradonuevo.htm
http://www.zeitun-eg.org/stmaridx.htm
http://www.medjugorje.org/

 

[Andyman409]

I wonder if collective apparitions would be closer in nature to the collective apparitions of the BVM rather than UFOs?

One would think they'd be related. However, the vast majority of these apparitions do not involve anyone seeing the supposed apparition, except some sort of visionary. Needless to say, they appear to be frauds. zeitoun is the only apparition ive read in which people supposedly say it. The problem, however, is that not everyone agrees on what they saw. Some believe it was a figure in white, whilst other believe they were just flickering lights

 

[pakeha]

A good point, though I find 'some sort of visionary' could sum up a lot people don't you think.

The 'dancing sun' miracle has been claimed to have been seen by many people every month, especially in the El Escorial example.

My point, probably very ill-expressed, is that the 'psychology' of the two types of apparitions is strikingly similar.

But mass apparitions aren't limited to Mariology.
Why do you think ghost apparitions should be considered differently than, for example, this one?
http://www.mainlesson.com/display.php?author=lovell&book=stone&story=castor

 

[Pixel42]

I am familiar with the usual critiques. I dont think they work as well with collective apparitions

Why not? Everybody who sees something unusual has the same type of brain/cognitive biases/fallible senses and most will have the same cultural background.

Someone on this board tells a great ghost story: he was attending a funeral and saw (along with all the other mourners) a white ghostly figure walking towards him at the edge of the cemetary, vanishing, then reappearing where it had originally appeared and walking towards them again. When he and another guy plucked up the courage to investigate they discovered it was a black-and-white cow that happened to be white down its front and black everywhere else. What everybody saw was a cow; what everybody thought they saw was a white ghostly figure, and if no-one had investigated all of them would still be telling the same story about their collective apparition, and laughing in the face of anyone who suggested that the actual explanation might be a cow.