How do we explain ghosts?

[Chanakya]

In the words of Sir David Attenborough:

"The correct scientific response to something which is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause".

True, at the macro, big-picture level. But at the individual level, and in practice, there's a small practical difficulty here.

One may, in specific instances, not be able to, nor want to, "look harder", given that one's time and money and interests aren't all-encompassing.

In such cases, and given overwhelming certitude on the part of others in one's local universe as far as that specific issue, one's "I don't know" skepticism, while perfectly correct, comes across as lame.

Of course, that's a problem only if one sees it as such. If one can live with "lame" -- that is, if one can be largely impervious to others' views, and especially to others' views on one's own views, then I guess the problem ceases to be a problem.

 

[Pixel42]

Of course, that's a problem only if one sees it as such. If one can live with "lame" -- that is, if one can be largely impervious to others' views, and especially to others' views on one's own views, then I guess the problem ceases to be a problem.

I long ago realised that the secret of human happiness is not giving a toss what other people think of you.

 

[8enotto]

So true. While we should make an effort to fit into society we also should not let society control us into the microcosm that is our individuality.

An odd belief or two, accepted ignorance in some subjects and being specialsits in other things. It makes any society more interesting.

 

[wasapi]

I long ago realised that the secret of human happiness is not giving a toss what other people think of you.

This is so important. For me, it took awhile and increased as I aged. What a relief to really not give a flying flute what anyone thinks.

 

[Chanakya]

I long ago realised that the secret of human happiness is not giving a toss what other people think of you.

Amen to that.

But of course, that's only part of it. Living with what others find "lame" in you, sure; but also, living with what, given others' certitude, might appear kind of lame even to you, and wholly irrespective of what others think of you, I'd say that takes some remarkable, and IMO deliberate, confidence in oneself and one's world-view.

For instance, when faced with what everyone around you agrees is an otherworldly manifestation, if you can go out and follow David Attenborough's exhortation of "looking harder", and debunk that view to your full satisfaction, well then that's one thing; but if as often happens in practice, given your own limited resources of time and effort and energy/interest, as well as the large number of issues that might surround you, broadly speaking, then, to be satisfied with a lame-sounding "I don't know" in the face of others' strongly held view that it's a ghost -- and of course, this is just an example, it could be anything, not just ghosts, God for instance, or UFOs, or planetary alignments -- that, even leaving aside what others might think of you, does take a very fundamental sense of self-worth as well as confidence in one's worldview.


---





Of course, such "confidence" in one's "world-view" -- others might see it as obstinacy -- might swing both ways. The same might, not unreasonably, be said of the moon landings, after all, right?

And this points at a very real practical issue when it comes to skepticism. Most people cannot, or at least, will not want to, devote all of one's life to debunking all kinds of weird ideas : so that, to stick to a sane worldview, often in the teeth of a very different view held by most others, takes not just obstinacy, but also a, I don't know, a certain discernment?

But that "discernment", isn't there necessarily something of a 'No true Scotsman' about it?

True skepticism is, ultimately, hard work. The difficulty is, this kind of hard work, beyond a point, isn't really feasible for most people at most times, and, in any case, does not really make for much of "human happiness"!

 

[Axxman300]

I am not arguing I have proof of ghosts and I accept my evidence is weak. Witness evidence is the weakest form of evidence.

What I am saying is that there is something out there, which is certainly not rattling plumbing or creaking floor boards, that causes credible people to have strange experiences where they think someone real is there, but they are not.

I suspect it may, as you say, we have to accept we might never know.

Again...you are free to believe in whatever you wish. But when you post ghost stories here you should expect them to be ripped apart. This forum has made me a better ghost hunter in many ways. I'd never post the weird, unexplained stories here due to the fact that unexplained doesn't mean paranormal even when the unexplained is pretty amazing. That's not how this board works because that's not how science works.

Credible witnesses are a good starting place but they are not where this phenomenon will/might be proven to be real.

I've done a lot of field work on this subject. I love a good ghost story. I have no proof to offer, and I have substantiated the infrasound theory (which is cool).

Unexplained doesn't equal ghost. I have learned just how amazing and incredible things can happen naturally that are 100% rooted in science. This has made my hobby just as rewarding.

 

[Puppycow]

Easy. They don't exist. Next question.

 

[Nessie]

Again...you are free to believe in whatever you wish. But when you post ghost stories here you should expect them to be ripped apart. This forum has made me a better ghost hunter in many ways. I'd never post the weird, unexplained stories here due to the fact that unexplained doesn't mean paranormal even when the unexplained is pretty amazing. That's not how this board works because that's not how science works.

Credible witnesses are a good starting place but they are not where this phenomenon will/might be proven to be real.

I've done a lot of field work on this subject. I love a good ghost story. I have no proof to offer, and I have substantiated the infrasound theory (which is cool).

Unexplained doesn't equal ghost. I have learned just how amazing and incredible things can happen naturally that are 100% rooted in science. This has made my hobby just as rewarding.

First, define ghost.

All I am saying is that there is something out there, which cannot be a projection from within the person who sees or hears it.

I just call it a ghost, but it may be something that needs a new term to describe it.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Isn't it more parsimonious to say we have an inherent tendency to see patterns and assign agency even when neither are present which leads us which can lead us to misinterpret incomplete and/or misremembered information?

 

[Nessie]

Isn't it more parsimonious to say we have an inherent tendency to see patterns and assign agency even when neither are present which leads us which can lead us to misinterpret incomplete and/or misremembered information?

At the time of the sighting or hearing, ghost was not even thought of. All thought they were seeing/hearing an actual person. It was only after that the question arose, who the heck was that?

 

[Chanakya]

At the time of the sighting or hearing, ghost was not even thought of. ...

Your POV appears valid to me. You don't dismiss what you cannot explain in deference to the clamor here, just as you do not accept a paranormal explanation in deference to the clamor from the woo-woo crowd. What you don't know, you say don't know. That's fair.

But the question would still remain, those what-it-was-you-don't-know footsteps, why bring the ghost narrative, or the ghost word, into it all? Why not ninja assasins? Why not aliens? Why not an ape that's somehow found its way in there, and can leap away from some window or large vent back outdoors, somehow keeping its presence hidden? Even if only afterwards, why "ghosts", particularly, no matter how you define that term?

 

[Steve001]

What do you think could cause a clomping sound, that sounds just like you are walking through your house, but it is not you and no one else is there?

There's the evident chink in your thought process. Because the sound resembled footsteps you assume they were footsteps, when in fact the cause of the sound is unknown. Don't misunderstand, for all anyone knows you may have heard ghostly footsteps, but you have no hard evidence.

 

[theprestige]

First, define ghost.

All I am saying is that there is something out there, which cannot be a projection from within the person who sees or hears it.

Except you haven't ruled out projection.

Nor have you ruled in ghosts, except as a possible explanation for this particular anecdote.

Most things that exist independently of our projections - trees, airplanes, the sun, etc. - can be shown to exist independently of anecdotal perception of them. You can predict and observe and test airplanes. You can show that they exist (to within the limits of philosophical metaphysics, anyway) by any number of means that don't depend on someone telling unverifiable ghost stories years after the fact.

But "ghosts" fall squarely into the category of things that supposedly exist independent of human perception, but only ever manifest as anecdotes about human perception. That's not a property of any real thing other than the limits of human perception and memory.

I just call it a ghost, but it may be something that needs a new term to describe it.

We already have an old term to describe it. We won't need a new term until you actually come up with something new.

 

[rockysmith76]

We are skeptics. We require more than just personal experience and credible witnesses. We require verifiable data that is consistent with reality as is currently understood. And when that data isn't available, we say that we don't know, and we accept that in some cases we might never know. A lack of verifiable data is absolutely not evidence of ghosts.

y'all dont bleeve in nuthin

 

[Axxman300]

First, define ghost.

All I am saying is that there is something out there, which cannot be a projection from within the person who sees or hears it.

I just call it a ghost, but it may be something that needs a new term to describe it.

A Ghost is a noun covering a range of encounters with things that are not there: apparitions, poltergeists, disembodied voices, feelings of being watched.

Before anybody can ACCURATELY define what a ghost is they need to confirm they exist.

Plus your assertion that they cannot be a projection from within a person is not consistent with the facts, even ghost hunter facts.

 

[Nessie]

Your POV appears valid to me. You don't dismiss what you cannot explain in deference to the clamor here, just as you do not accept a paranormal explanation in deference to the clamor from the woo-woo crowd. What you don't know, you say don't know. That's fair.

But the question would still remain, those what-it-was-you-don't-know footsteps, why bring the ghost narrative, or the ghost word, into it all? Why not ninja assasins? Why not aliens? Why not an ape that's somehow found its way in there, and can leap away from some window or large vent back outdoors, somehow keeping its presence hidden? Even if only afterwards, why "ghosts", particularly, no matter how you define that term?

I call them ghosts because that is the word closest in definition to what was experienced.

I think within all the sightings and hearings of ghosts, there is a lot of explainable events and then there is a subset which suggests that there is something, ghost like, that very occasionally makes an appearance.

The best example is the story of the people being asked to move out of the room they were sleeping in. When it was the kid who said a lady had asked him to move, clearly that was put down to him being a kid. But when it happened to the adult and he said that at the time, he thought he was with someone else who was staying in the house who he did not know, that was freaky.

The minister and the lady with the book and the police officers, they also thought they were seeing someone alive, who then disappeared.

 

[Nessie]

There's the evident chink in your thought process. Because the sound resembled footsteps you assume they were footsteps, when in fact the cause of the sound is unknown. Don't misunderstand, for all anyone knows you may have heard ghostly footsteps, but you have no hard evidence.

I fear that is the nature of ghosts, they don't leave hard evidence.

 

[theprestige]

I fear that is the nature of ghosts, they don't leave hard evidence.

That's the nature of things that don't exist.

You're reduced to inventing ad hoc properties for something that isn't predictable, isn't detectable, isn't measurable, in order to keep up the excuse that it somehow exists anyway. That's pure woo.

 

[xjx388]

The most used and accepted definition of a ghost is the disembodied spirit of a dead person. I’ve also heard it used, less often, in the sense of any kind of incorporeal entity, be it a dead person, a demon or some other entity.

So going with that definition, when one says, “It’s a ghost!” they very specifically mean incorporeal entity of some kind, usually a dead person.

Those footsteps you heard but can’t explain? When you say “ghost,” you are specifically saying it’s an incorporeal entity. I don’t understand how you get to that from such a mundane sound. There are literally thousands of things it could be and Abaddon gave an account of something you would probably never think of -a mouse running across hangers?! When I was a kid, I woke up and thought there was a ghost walking in my room but it was just the ceiling fan that started making a rhythmic sound like footsteps.

Yet for some people, an unexplained sound has to be a ghost. Why?

And then there are the instances where multiple people hear/see something, conclude it’s a ghost and then seemingly brush it off. Say a bunch of people hear footsteps or see a person that isn’t supposed to be there. In those cases, why wouldn’t a thorough investigation be made right then and there? Why would you blow off something like that? I would instantly want to know if someone was there and if not, what the hell it was I just saw/heard. It stretches credulity to believe there was no curiosity about something that could have been an intruder or a danger. Like that story about the police and “what girl?” It’s just so unbelievable that people would act like that. If I were the cops, I’d immediately be questioning the person’s sanity while chasing down the person I saw. I certainly wouldn’t stand there dumbstruck. Which leads me to believe that the event didn’t happen that way at all.

Finally, if you want to go the ghost route...it’s a bit ridiculous to attribute unexplained sounds/visions/movements to something completely unproven. All you are really doing is opening up more questions, not answering anything at all.

 

[Chanakya]

I call them ghosts because that is the word closest in definition to what was experienced.

Doesn't that kind of go against your position that ghosts are ill defined or that all of this might need some other word or phrase to designate?

It's okay, by all means believe, or, as in your case, speculate about, the ghost-ly explanation if you wish. I personally believe it's obnoxious to attack others' beliefs as long as they don't try to somehow stick it, directly or indirectly, down others' throats, which you aren't doing. It's, just, far as I can see, your position on this is a wee bit inconsistent.

I think within all the sightings and hearings of ghosts, there is a lot of explainable events and then there is a subset which suggests that there is something, ghost like, that very occasionally makes an appearance.

The best example is the story of the people being asked to move out of the room they were sleeping in. When it was the kid who said a lady had asked him to move, clearly that was put down to him being a kid. But when it happened to the adult and he said that at the time, he thought he was with someone else who was staying in the house who he did not know, that was freaky.

Unusual sure, perhaps as you say freaky. But why ghost-ly, why that?

For instance, you mentioned time travelers. That seems as likely, and as unlikely, as ghosts, or aliens, or telepathic hive minds of local bacteria, or anything else. What about ghosts do you find more compelling than other similar outlandish hypotheses?

(Or were you channeling Whatsisname from that movie, Interstellar, the time-and-space-traveling ghost I mean? )

The minister and the lady with the book and the police officers, they also thought they were seeing someone alive, who then disappeared.

And they probably believe, or half-believe, or quarter-believe, in ghosts, so they may have thought of ghosts as explanation. But do you, if only a quarter, if only a teeny fraction, more than telepathic dolphins entertaining themselves by messing around with us humans' minds? (It's cool if you do, btw, far as I am concerned. I don't find ghosts more likely than telepathic bacterial hive minds, but I think that's purely subjective, and your subjective take is equally as valid, for you, as mine is for me -- as far as speculation, that is.)