Ghosts: The Definition Problem.

[Slowvehicle]

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.

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.

I disagree with your claim that imagining things is the same as seeing them; OTH, I am perfectly willing to accept that ghosts are, in fact, imaginary.

I disagree with your claim that "everyone agrees" about ghosts"appearing"--once again, you are claiming that an imaginary experience is "real".

Imaginary thing is imaginary.

 

[Slowvehicle]

But...but... you are all ignoring the spiritual!

...and I will happily continue to do so, right up to the point that the "spiritual" can be demonstrated with practical, empirical, objective evidence.

Imaginary thing is imaginary.

 

[Slowvehicle]

And to top it all off, you can speak words or write postings about it. Physically-transmitted information. So there is no way to get around the idea that if these ghosts exist, they have a causal connection to physical events.

You may be overlooking the highlighted bit.

Not to mention, I can "speak words or write postings about" the Teapot, and the Unicorn. Does that indicate that they have a "causal connection to physical events"?

 

[Slowvehicle]

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all. When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

"Glory!"

 

[Slowvehicle]

Descriptivist swine!

Proscriptivist pig!

 

[Axxman300]

This is the Skeptic's definition:

http://www.skepdic.com/ghosts.html

It is based on the believer's definitions of what ghosts are. The problem is that ghosts (the real thing) are not disembodied spirits of the dead who linger in this world to ...blah, blah, blah.

Ghosts fall into a gray area of psychosomatic responses resulting to exposure to unknown external forces. Ghosts are very real to the person who sees or experiences one in that they can feel them, hear them, and interact with them. At the moment they have the experience there is no distinction between reality, and perceived reality.

The chief culprit is Infrasound: http://www.skepdic.com/infrasound.html

If you are looking for repeatable evidence then Infrasound is the 500-pound gorilla behind most ghost sightings. The best evidence for this was the rise of reported hauntings in the 1990s was directly related to the change in basic home construction from modest-sized homes to the McMansions with greater floor space, and higher ceilings. Picture a building being like a trombone, the more room air has to circulate the lower the pitch, and in the case of a larger home the greater chance of Infrasound causing people to believe their NEW house had a ghost. But since Infrasound is not well known, people don't even think about it. Many of these hauntings could be eliminated just by deadening the walls with a tapestry or decorative curtain to eliminate the frequency.

Infrasound bears out well because if you look at the types of spirits that are seen by people in different geological locations (forests, flat-deserts, mountainous deserts, coastal regions, areas covered by snow or ice, and cities with tall buildings) you see the same types of phantoms, or paranormal activity being experienced by people with no proclivity to believe in such things. The question is why? The answer is that different types of Infrasound causes specific types of psychosomatic responses. One only has to look at the types of gods worshiped by primitive peoples living in forests, and compare them to those of desert dwellers. Forest people have multiple gods, and desert people tend to have fewer god, or even one god.

Infrasound is caused by shifting seismic plates, air moving through trees, the sound of sand grains being blown around, and air circulating in a large confined space.

The other main culprit behind ghosts is bad electrical wiring. Your body has an electrical field, and sometimes there is a conflict with a competing field generated from a device, or internal wiring. Think about all those old homes rumored to be haunted, and in most cases the wiring was done over 50 years ago, and then improved ad hoc as demands for power changed over time.

If any of you guys have ever worked on the old cathode-ray tube (CRT) you know there is a danger from being around it when the housing is removed, and the charge improperly bled out. Guys have blacked out, lost memory, and even heard voices as a result.

So when I say ghosts are real I mean the experience is 100% real to the person who has the encounter. They will give you detailed descriptions, that are consistent, and vivid. While the encounter takes place almost exclusively inside the head, there is no way for the person to know.

In this case skeptics are both right and wrong.

For instance, the most common ghost is of a living person. That undermines the Victorian-era definition of a troubled spirit all by itself. My guess is that many of you have had the experience of hearing a family member in the other part of the house, but later discovered they were somewhere else. There is a good chance you DID hear them, but you rationalized it away as a mental mistake. Yet at the time you were certain they were present.

The other big cause of paranormal activity comes from CO2 from bad furnaces or heaters. When someone tells me they think their house is haunted the first thing I ask is if they've had their heating checked. (In California, home owners are required to install Smoke and CO2 detectors due to the rise of this problem).

Finally, in 2001 builders began to import dry wall from China for use in the South, and South Western U.S. Again, suddenly people who never believed in ghosts began to have experiences.

It is not a question of IF people have experiences with ghosts, but WHY. If it was only an internal psychosomatic event then why do different people see the same thing, or have similar encounters? I always ask: If it's in my head, then why don't I see Playboy playmates in my room at night? To be honest, that's pretty much what occupies my subconsciousness, yet this has never happened to me or anyone one else. The fact that people is people rarely see what they want to see, so why do they see the things that they do? The answer is Infrasound, or other rare phenomenon.

And no, not everyone is affected. Just like not everyone can sing, or understand color well enough not to dress like an idiot.

Just my .02.

 

[mike3]

You may be overlooking the highlighted bit.

Not to mention, I can "speak words or write postings about" the Teapot, and the Unicorn. Does that indicate that they have a "causal connection to physical events"?

??? I don't get the point.

I'm essentially just expanding upon xtifr's point -- beefing it up a little:

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.

So if one posits actual "ghosts" as an explanation for supposed sightings, then one is forced to admit these would have interaction with the physical world. I was just expanding upon that point with more examples of physical results. Not sure if the following is exactly what xtifr was referring to, but his argument and my expansion on it just show that all three of the following statements cannot be true at the same time:

1. Ghosts exist

2. Ghosts are seen

3. Ghosts are "scientifically undetectable" ~or~ ghosts "do not interact with the physical world"

Says nothing about whether or not they really exist. Indeed, if 1) is false, then 2) and 3) can be assigned any truth values we want, since they are asserting things about an empty set: {}.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

I disagree with your claim that imagining things is the same as seeing them; OTH, I am perfectly willing to accept that ghosts are, in fact, imaginary.

The only thing we physically see is photons of light. Everything else we 'see' is 'imaginary' - an image created in the mind. Those mental images usually relate to physical objects that we view, but the correspondence is not precise. Every 'object' that we 'see' is actually a construct in our mind, having attributes which are assumed from prior experience.

Our minds are tuned to detect the presence of other humans. If you see a pattern of light that looks a bit like your grandfather, you may 'see' him even though he died 2 years ago. That's not imagination, it's interpretation of a physical stimulus.

I disagree with your claim that "everyone agrees" about ghosts"appearing"--once again, you are claiming that an imaginary experience is "real".

Yes, the experience is usually real. Most of the time when people 'see' a ghost, they really are experiencing something. The question is what are they experiencing?

Imaginary thing is imaginary.

Ghost sightings may be caused by dreams, tiredness, drugs or psychosis. These can be dismissed as 'imaginary'. But more often they are seen by people who are awake, alert, clear-headed and sane. What is the explanation? You can't just say 'they imagined it'.

 

[xtifr]

Ghost sightings may be caused by dreams, tiredness, drugs or psychosis. These can be dismissed as 'imaginary'. But more often they are seen by people who are awake, alert, clear-headed and sane. What is the explanation? You can't just say 'they imagined it'.

Evidence to support the highlighted bit?

In the extremely rare cases where ghosts are seen by awake, alert, clear-headed, and sane people, I think pareidolia is probably a satisfactory explanation.

 

[mike3]

The only thing we physically see is photons of light. Everything else we 'see' is 'imaginary' - an image created in the mind. Those mental images usually relate to physical objects that we view, but the correspondence is not precise. Every 'object' that we 'see' is actually a construct in our mind, having attributes which are assumed from prior experience.

Our minds are tuned to detect the presence of other humans. If you see a pattern of light that looks a bit like your grandfather, you may 'see' him even though he died 2 years ago. That's not imagination, it's interpretation of a physical stimulus.

Yes, the experience is usually real. Most of the time when people 'see' a ghost, they really are experiencing something. The question is what are they experiencing?

Ghost sightings may be caused by dreams, tiredness, drugs or psychosis. These can be dismissed as 'imaginary'. But more often they are seen by people who are awake, alert, clear-headed and sane. What is the explanation? You can't just say 'they imagined it'.

Which makes me wonder: has there ever been a camera present at the same time a ghost was being seen, pointed at where the ghost was being seen, and we can be assured of the footage's authenticity?

If so, what did it show? Or not show? Did it show a "pattern of light" that "could be interpreted" as a ghost? Or did it show nothing (consistent with the "imagined" idea)? Or something else? Or what?

There's like zillions of surveillance cameras out there. Surely one must've been running at the same time someone was "seeing a ghost", no?

Given that, the fact that no such credible piece of footage has turned up, of course, as far as I know, seems to weigh toward the "in the head" kind of ideas (and for non-credible footage, hoaxes of course). Though the "pattern of light" idea might also not trigger any remarkable footage, either -- such things might lose their "ghostly" form when viewed from a different angle, and so would also be unremarkable on a surveillance tape.

If such a piece of footage can be found, I suspect that nothing will appear on the camera, taking into account what xtifr has said.

 

[mike3]

(rm)

 

[TjW]

Ghost sightings may be caused by dreams, tiredness, drugs or psychosis. These can be dismissed as 'imaginary'. But more often they are seen by people who are awake, alert, clear-headed and sane. What is the explanation? You can't just say 'they imagined it'.

Why not? Do you imagine your imagination only works when you're not awake, alert, clear-headed and sane?

 

[dlorde]

...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.

Assuming your single-quoted 'see' means something akin to 'perceive', scientists don't tell us that, except in the strict sense that to to be visually aware of an external object via the eyes, photons must reach the eyes from it (although there is evidence that other senses, e.g. hearing (sonolocation), can be translated to a visual form of perception). Visual perception is normally based around input from the eyes, but there are efferent signals from higher, more abstracted levels of processing that can influence earlier visual processing and change what we visually perceive, as many visual illusions illustrate. At higher levels of visual processing, input from the eyes isn't necessary for visualisation, as memory and imagination can stimulate the construction of images in the higher visual cortex, the 'minds eye'.

 

[Slowvehicle]

The only thing we physically see is photons of light. Everything else we 'see' is 'imaginary' - an image created in the mind. Those mental images usually relate to physical objects that we view, but the correspondence is not precise. Every 'object' that we 'see' is actually a construct in our mind, having attributes which are assumed from prior experience.

Well, no. We do not "physically see" photons. We "see" the effect of photons on the retina, as interpreted by the visual cortex. Those photons are, in fact, emitted by, or reflected (or refracted) from, objects or phenomena.

If a "ghost" could be "seen", it would eother have to be emitting or relflecting (or refracting) photons, or interacting with the visual cortex in a way for which evidence has yet to be offered, a way that would have to be consonant with what we know about how hte brain processes vision.

Not to mention, even if the object or phenomenon is, in fact, a real object, or a real phenomenon, that does not in any way support the claim that what is seen is not imaginary.

The Fata Morgana is an real effect (explainable by what we know about the reflection and refraction of light); the fairy castles seen in the Fata are entirely imaginary.

Fatigue hallucination, distracted sub-liminal images, mistaken identification of semi-familiar objects, or familiar objects in unexpected places and contexts; there are real objects and real effects. The "ghosts" manifested in such experience are entirely imaginary.

When it is demonstrated that the "soul" or "spirit" does, in fact exist; when the mechanism by which the "soul" or "spirit" interacts with (for instance) the visual cortex; then and only then can the idea that "ghosts" are actual things, not just misinterpreted effects, be supported.

Our minds are tuned to detect the presence of other humans. If you see a pattern of light that looks a bit like your grandfather, you may 'see' him even though he died 2 years ago. That's not imagination, it's interpretation of a physical stimulus.

Actually, we are "tuned" to assume the presence of other humans. Like the HAAD, as useful as it sometimes is, it leads us to "see" people where there are none--pareidolia is inescapable.

If you are "seeing" a dead person, your experience of "seeing" is real, but, as with the Fata, what you are "seeing" in entirely imaginary.

Yes, the experience is usually real. Most of the time when people 'see' a ghost, they really are experiencing something. The question is what are they experiencing?

Any one of a number of mirage-effects, pareidolias, wishful thinking, careless observation, fatigue, surprise, and anomalous context illusions, among other similar possibilities.

It is as yet unsupported (and, given what we know of physics, and anatomy, seemingly unsupportable) to assert that what is being "seen" is,in fact, a "ghost" (if by "ghost" you mean a "spirit" or a "soul". OTH, if by 'ghost" you mean the effect of one or more of the aforementioned illusions, well, welcome to the land of tautology). What is lacking is evidence.

Ghost sightings may be caused by dreams, tiredness, drugs or psychosis. These can be dismissed as 'imaginary'. But more often they are seen by people who are awake, alert, clear-headed and sane. What is the explanation? You can't just say 'they imagined it'.

I can,as I said above, "just say" that they had the actual experience of being convinced they were "seeing" something entirely imaginary, if what they claim they were"seeing" was a "ghost" (unless, see tautology, above). Before it can be claimed that they are "really seeing" "ghosts",the existence of "ghosts" must be demonstrated.

 

[Snorkio]

Does the definition of "ghosts" include the phenomena associated with haunting such as audible sounds and movement of physical objects, which allegedly could be observed outside of the mind.