Can ghosts be proven to exist or not?

[zoobyshoe]

i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened

What have you seen?

 

[sepfield]

I think you should NEVER make the mistake of forgetting ALL the lessons we've learned about what is and is not physically possible, because what you THINK you see is not always what really happened...vision is largely an active hallucination in which your brain interprets often unreliable signals that you then perceive with confidence. It's much more likely that a person just interpreted evidence in the wrong way. So in summary, you should ALWAYS trust that scientifically proven things are correct, and NEVER put your full trust into hearsay, perception, or improbable things that you just want to believe because they would make life more interesting.

selective quoting - tut tut .

the incident i mentioned had "scientists" with vast experience and the back up of the forensic service baffled - ( obviously i can't go into detail as that would not respect the deceased ) - but never the less it did happen - and is a matter of court record + numerous witnesses to the outcome of the incident all of whom are level headed professionals with in many cases years of experience in a variety of scenarios and disciplines

so you tell me given the "evidence " ( vis the crash killed 4 people ) and also the FACT that scientific analysis of the scene , the vehicle , the road surface and many other factors all said " this should NOT have been the outcome " - how come it did ??

there is no black and white - sometimes even the experts go away scratching their heads !

like wise i have attended accidents where people have survived against all logic and odds ( given the scenario )

guess one just has to put it down to the possibility that we ALL have a day to die - and it was just not theirs ??

some times - ( just occasionally ) - outcomes defy ALL logic - and we may have to accept that we JUST don't have an answer as to WHY

 

[zoobyshoe]

-so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors

Is this a yes or a no? I am not asking if you can prove anything, just what you believe deep down.

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost??

What I am asking is whether you believe the apparitions people see are in any way externally stimulated by authentic non-corporeal entities of any description, as opposed to being hallucinations: erroneous triggering of sensory reactions from within the brain.

 

[sepfield]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )

 

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )

Yes, but what IS your opinion? As I said, I'm not asking for proof, just gut level belief. For example here's mine: on a gut level I believe in something you could call telepathy.

 

[DaveC426913]

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.

fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models

Sorry, you're missing my point. I'm not talking about ghosts here, I'm talking about what you are expecting from science. Science does not seek proof. What science seeks is a preponderance of evidence etc. etc.

I'm demonstrating that your premise is wrong - well, it's the OP's premise that's wrong.
I'm pretty sure we established satisfactorily in the course of this thread that proof of non-existence of something is unreasonable and faulty. You;ve come a little late to the table.

You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".

oh please - don't start insulting me

For the record, I worded it carefully to avoid saying you have never been exposed to it, I'd suspected you were aware of the scientific method. Indeed, that is what makes me wonder why you would say such ignorant things as you did. Do you wish to retract them?

- ( i am not some dewy eyed grad student you know ) i am fully AWARE of the scientific method - i am also aware of a lot of "proponents " who claim to use it and also claim they are right and i and others are wrong - frequently ,

Why would you raise an argument that you don't hold? If you don't think this way and I don't think this way, why bring it up at all? You're trolling for a reaction.

Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

oh occam's razor - the simplest solution's always the best ( and yes i do deliberately misquote ) - because something seems to fit - don't always assume that it IS the answer - assumption as it is said "is the mother of all c**k ups ! - and i know this through practical experience out in the real world - and assumptions can cost lives

Who assumed it was the correct answer? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I made no assumptions about what is correct.

...You are not discussing this with me, you are discussing it with a puppet that you've painted to look like me, and putting words in its mouth.

If you wish to refute something in a discussion, refute the things that are actually being said.

i prefer "right" answers - theories are fine - but proof positive is what stands up in a court of law . ( unless you have a good lawyer )

And bang. You've laid your hand on the table. (I should have just skipped down to here)

You're not a proponent of the scientific method, you're a faith believer.

Ohhh... That's why you're misrepresenting the scientific method and why you're hinting at examples of bad apple scientists who tarnish it's name. (It is only becoming apparent as I read your posts in reverse order.) You're against the scientific method. You seek "Right" versus "wrong".

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )

This is all smoke-screen.
No one claims to be an expert (except the experts)
All of us might be wrong. All of us might be delusional.

You are fence-sitting.



Put it this way: Which one will you put your money on?

 

[sepfield]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now - as i have stated several times - i am giving a person opinion - i do not assume the arrogant position of saying that i KNOW one way or another -( and that is an honest answer) and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

one could argue that blind faith in the tenants of science is akin to blind faith in the word of religion - ( neither of which i subscribe to BTW )

and why Dave c are you taking this so personally ?? - i have no beef with you what so ever - so why are you trying to say that i am ??

i am mearly trying to point out that neither science nor "faith" as you put it have ALL the answers to everything - and that there are some things that remain "inexplicable " at this juncture - and also in a round about way - that PROOF , absolute and irrevocable proof is a difficult one to achieve ( but i think we agree on that )

and as to fence sitting ( from another poster ) - the great virtue of sitting on fences is that when either side come up with a convincing argument which is logical and fits the known facts - or better provides proof one way or another - the sitter of fences can then jump down ,one side or another - and i think if you all have actually read my posts - then you can see which way i have my legs dangling over

no more than i expected though - so i will say no more on this - and then someone can accuse me of running away from the argument

like i said - been here before - strange sense of dejaview - creeping in

( i leave the stage open so those who wish can get the "final word in - and i guarantee there will be those who will wish to - go on for once prove me wrong )

 

[Dadface]

There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio than are etc.

 

[DaveC426913]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now

The patronizing tone you've used throughout (tut tut, etc.)
is equally as hostile, it's just passive aggressive. You're trying to convince yourself you're above being challenged.

Being able to predict your opponent's behaviour does not give you a superior edge. It's a technique that indicates you're uncomfortable argiung the issue at-hand (the utility of science in finding answers) and are more comfortable having a meta-discussion (a discussion about the discussion.) It is a form of straw man.

and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

I don't know, you're the one who believes there are "right" answers out there. The rest of us have only science and logic to guide us.

and as to fence sitting ( from another poster ) - the great virtue of sitting on fences is that when either side come up with a convincing argument which is logical and fits the known facts - or better provides proof one way or another - the sitter of fences can then jump down ,one side or another - and i think if you all have actually read my posts - then you can see which way i have my legs dangling over

This is the obvious advantage of fence-sitting. No need to restate it.

The problem is you're argung merely academically, you don't hold the power of your convictions. Everytime one of your statements is challenged, you'll merely wag you finger and point out that you haven't taken a stand on the issue. As you have been doing.


If you're bowing out, then we can get back on track as to the discussion about proof of ghosts.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's stay on topic. No more personal comments please.

 

[Count Iblis]

Proof that ghosts don't exist

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

What? Are you assuming that not only do ghosts exist, but also that we have scientific evidence of such? One assumption does not necessarily lead to the other.

Many people will tell you that they know for a fact that there are unexplained things that we call ghosts.

 

[junglebeast]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous? Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.

Edit: Ivan, that's not how I interpreted the Count's post at all...I think he was just making a point that that ghosts would lose their interest if they were real. I don't think he was proposing that they are actually real.

 

[Count Iblis]

What? Are you assuming that not only do ghosts exist, but also that we have scientific evidence of such? One assumption does not necessarily lead to the other.

Many people will tell you that they know for a fact that there are unexplained things that we call ghosts.

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

 

[junglebeast]

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

What?

 

[zoobyshoe]

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous? Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.

This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.

 

[Anticitizen]

While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge. Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy, yet somehow reflect or even emit light... sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs... able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality. If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.

 

[atyy]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

But by this definition ghosts can't exist - except in quantum field theory.

 

[junglebeast]

This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.

Unless there is an innate desire in all of us that makes us want to be somewhat unique...in which case, it can be used to explain all of the followers of those who are truly eccentric, because being a follower makes them (in their minds) one of the "few" who know...or part of the "in" group. It's also much easier to believe in something as a follower because then you're latching onto a pre-established idea and you can use the other followers to back up your own faith, allowing a completely eccentric idea to grow through a population exponentially. Sounds like a pretty typical social phenomenon...

 

[atyy]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2399?

 

[zoobyshoe]

Unless there is an innate desire in all of us that makes us want to be somewhat unique...in which case, it can be used to explain all of the followers of those who are truly eccentric, because being a follower makes them (in their minds) one of the "few" who know...or part of the "in" group. It's also much easier to believe in something as a follower because then you're latching onto a pre-established idea and you can use the other followers to back up your own faith, allowing a completely eccentric idea to grow through a population exponentially. Sounds like a pretty typical social phenomenon...

Off the top of my head I'd say there are two kinds of "followers" 1.) the kind you describe, who follow because it makes them feel special, which would apply to, say, Charles Manson's "family", and 2.) people who are just plain suggestible and don't seem able to resist anyone with a strong personality. The "Moonies" were mostly like this: very, very passive people who had a difficult time figuring out what life was about and what they should be doing. The followers of David Koresch and Jim Jones were probably also mostly the second kind and their near total dependence on being told what was right by others was evidenced by their ultimate agreement to kill themselves when told to do so. In the latter case compliance is secured by squelching any notions of individual "specialness"; they should obey because they can't see the big picture and wouldn't understand it if they did, sort of argument.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

How precisely do you define "ghost"? Your entire argument assumes that we have a precise definition, when in fact what we find is a wide variety of reported phenomena that people lump together as if one. So, for starters, there is no reason to assume that one phenomenon has anything to do with the next except that they are declared to be "ghosts" based on popular notions of what that means.

Next, if you want to object on a physical basis, then you have to take one case at a time. To lump them all together as if one because it suits your objection is false logic.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge.

Who says it is a creature? You?

Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy,

On what do you base this statement?

yet somehow reflect or even emit light...

Show me one example of someone claiming that a "ghost" reflects light. Next, if you can find one, show me the evidence that this is somehow related to other claims of light-emitting phenomena - that they are the same claim.

sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs...

Please show me some examples.

able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality.

Speakers make sounds and magnets can move objects. Which of these is a biological entity?

If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.

So a new discovery means that all that came before is false? That is not a scientific attitude. That is a faith-based belief.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous?

You may be one of the only people who has ever visited this forum who correctly [with one exception] makes this point. In fact, what I think is operating here [the denial process] is human frailty and ego - the need to believe that we understand everything.

The exception: Not all phenomenon become mundain. Rogue waves are still not entirely understood; ball lightning and Earth lights are a mystery. From what I can see, ball lightning is a complete mystery.

As soon as we saw Jules Verne's "milky sea" on satellite, like magic, we could suddenly imagine an explanation for it. But we don't really know the cause. We are just guessing.

Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.

While I agree that this does happen, I completely disagree that it is true in all or even most cases. And beyond that, no one claiming to see ghosts or aliens or would be unique. At least millions of people have claimed to observe ghostly apparitions. As for aliens, while the claim is not as common, plenty of people have claimed to see them as well.

Edit: Ivan, that's not how I interpreted the Count's post at all...I think he was just making a point that that ghosts would lose their interest if they were real. I don't think he was proposing that they are actually real.

We were making assumptions. I was just trying to understand the nature and logical consistency of the assumptions made.

 

[junglebeast]

The exception: Not all phenomenon become mundain. Rogue waves are still not entirely understood; ball lightning and Earth lights are a mystery. From what I can see, ball lightning is a complete mystery.

Well I wasn't saying that we have complete explanations for all phenomena, but pointing out that the only phenomena that capture our imaginations are those which he haven't been able to explain yet. After explaining the phenomena, it's like trying to rip a toy out of the hands of a child. People don't want to lose those things that capture their imagination, so they find ways to argue that the legends are still true, even after the original evidence for the legend has been explained.

 

[zoobyshoe]

While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge. Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy, yet somehow reflect or even emit light... sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs... able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality. If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.

All good points.

If it can be seen walking through walls, suggesting it is not composed of matter, why would it also reflect, or otherwise emit, visible light? What do we know of which can simultaneously be seen with the naked eye and also have no interaction with matter?

In other reports, as with apparently human shapes appearing in photographs, if it can't be seen with the naked eye, by what "light" does it affect photographic processes? What do we know of that can't be seen with the naked eye, but which can be photographed? Here we have high voltage electric fields, and X-rays, but then you have to propose a speculative mechanism for how these sources of energy might arise and then contain themselves to project a humanoid form that mysteriously appears when the film is developed or the image later viewed.

In yet other circumstances, as with "poltergeists", if it can interact with air to produce sound, or interact with matter to move objects, why is it not then also visible to the naked eye? Gasses escaping from a pressurized situation, or released in explosions, are not visible to the naked eye, and can produce sound and could move objects, but you'd have to account for random pressurization in the absence of a container, or random, well-adjusted explosions that stack furniture, turn light switches on and off, and perform other apparently deliberate, controlled movements of objects.

I'd say the proposition of an entity that fits any of these scenarios is inconsistent with established physics, yes.

 

[junglebeast]

In other reports, as with apparently human shapes appearing in photographs, if it can't be seen with the naked eye, by what "light" does it affect photographic processes? What do we know of that can't be seen with the naked eye, but which can be photographed? Here we have high voltage electric fields, and X-rays, but then you have to propose a speculative mechanism for how these sources of energy might arise and then contain themselves to project a humanoid form that mysteriously appears when the film is developed or the image later viewed.

Indeed, it's pretty much a waste of time to seriously entertain the concept of a ghost for any believer in the scientific method, so it's not surprising this thread has been so off-topic -- it's pretty much a "sausage fest" of non-believers. But then again, didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy? And if you can debunk ghosts on the grounds of the scientific method, then why not telepathy?

 

[DaveC426913]

...didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy?

Why do you assume that telepathy requires some "magical spiritual force"? You should probably withhold judgement on this until you know more about what he is claiming.

As a whimsical example: Perhaps he has access to some obscure studies that show how alpha brain waves can affect other people at very short distances. That requires no magical spiritual or mysterious forces.

I'm not saying he's right, or that he even has a leg to stand on, just that your judgment seems premature.

 

[Anticitizen]

Who says it is a creature? You?

I'm going by the definition of the word 'ghost'. As in, spirit, spectre, whatever.

On what do you base this statement?

The fact that ghosts are, by definition, noncorporeal.

Show me one example of someone claiming that a "ghost" reflects light.

Anything visible is either reflecting or emitting light.

Next, if you can find one, show me the evidence that this is somehow related to other claims of light-emitting phenomena - that they are the same claim.

Don't really know what you're asking, here. 'Claims of light-emitting phenomena'?

Please show me some examples.

It's one of the most common 'ghost sighting' claims. 'When I took this photograph of the graveyard, there was nobody here, but when I developed the film, you can see the shadow of a person floating above a grave', etc.

Speakers make sounds and magnets can move objects. Which of these is a biological entity?

Ah, I see... you seem to think that I'm discounting all claims of unexplained phenomena. I'm not. I'm arguing that the idea of a 'ghost', as per definition, would be incompatible with what we know about science.

So a new discovery means that all that came before is false? That is not a scientific attitude. That is a faith-based belief.

Not just a new discovery; a new discovery that specifically invalidates a prior belief.

By the way, breaking up the post like this is maddening, as context is quickly lost.

 

[zoobyshoe]

But then again, didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy? And if you can debunk ghosts on the grounds of the scientific method, then why not telepathy?

You can certainly debunk any report of telepathy I make. There are probably a dozen rational alternate causes that could be suggested to explain any instance of it I have experienced. When I say I "believe" in it, I am more or less merely reporting a gut level, knee-jerk reaction I have whenever one of these incidents occurs. I think that, if I said I did not believe in it during a lie detector test that answer would register as a lie: it's a deep level automatic reaction, not the end product of informed analysis. That says something about me and nothing at all about telepathy.

To the extent I feel there is anything authentically unexplained about the incidents I am reacting to, I am more apt to suspect it is because there are neurological and psychological dynamics at work which haven't been completely defined and isolated as subjects of study. These are spin-offs of the matter of "rapport" which comes up so often in material about NLP and hypnotism.

In this youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwvA0rJ6rC0&feature=related

Derren Brown causes these strippers to feel that he has touched them when we can clearly see he hasn't.

On the subject of rapport Brown says:

"I develop that rapport by learning to see the situation from the perspective of the other person, not my own. Consider what happens in a normal conversation. Someone sits and talks about themselves, while you pick up on a few things that relate to you. You wait for then to finish so that you can say, 'Yes, I ...' and then start talking about yourself. They then respond by returning to their own stories and opinions, and so the dialogue continues. In other words, you are listening to someone to see how the conversation relates to you.
Now consider the alternative: you listen to whatever they have to say to learn how the content of their conversation relates to them. You build in your mind a representation of their way of seeing the world, and you piece together their patterns. People love talking about themselves, so you can happily ask any questions to complete those patterns and gain more information about their world. After a while, this will become almost second nature to you, and you will be able simply to look at someone and tell almost immediately what their reactions to various stimuli might be.

Mind control?
Once you understand someone else's perception of a situation, you can mentally exist inside their heads. If they want you to sort out a problem for them, you can do so more effectively, for you are not letting your own prejudices and ideas get in the way.
It is from this starting point that I can begin to play with the mind control for which I am known. It's not that I am really controlling other people. Rather, I am seeing events through their eyes and second-guessing their responses and thoughts. It's great fun"

Given that, you can see why he chose strippers for this demonstration. It's clear from the get-go that strippers are hyper-sensitive to being touched, and their hypervigilance against it has lead them all to become sensitive to the mere intention of touch inherent in a client's movement. I don't think he'd be able to demonstrate this eyes-closed ability on anyone who wasn't trained to be hypervigilant about being touched, and I don't think it would work without him working himself into the authentic intention to touch. At any rate, with strippers he is sure to have hypervigilance to work with.

He might have presented this somewhat differently as a demonstration of telepathy, of the girls' ability to read his mind, but he actually ends up demonstrating that they are perhaps not actually being touched all the times they accuse their clients of it.

This is all pertinent because it directly bears on some of the "telepathic" experiences I have had. Here's one:

I was in a store and there was a customer ahead of me who was taking a long time to wait on. Bored, I started examining the face of the cashier, (which is normal for me since I like to draw portraits). I'd seen her there before but never taken a good look. As I stared at her I began to realize that she was a lot more attractive than I'd ever noticed. The more I observed her, the more attractive her face looked. At some point this perception rose to become formulated as a sentence in my mind. I thought to myself: "My God! What a sweet face!"

She turned to me then, and mouthed the words "Thank you!" Then went back to helping the guy in front of me.

Needless to say, I was startled and felt my face turned red.

It seems at times to me that the intention to do or say something is mysteriously perceived by the other person as actually having been done or said. Not quite telepathy, but something that can convincingly present as telepathy. It doesn't require that we be linked by some "magical, spiritual force," just that the ability to read body language, facial expressions, the meaning of movements, is a great deal more precise and subtle than we might suppose, and also that, some people are prone to taking the information they pick up this way and developing it, synesthesia-like, into the actual experience of it: strippers feeling touched when they actually weren't, a woman hearing an enthusiastic compliment when none was actually uttered.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Why do you assume that telepathy requires some "magical spiritual force"? You should probably withhold judgement on this until you know more about what he is claiming.

As a whimsical example: Perhaps he has access to some obscure studies that show how alpha brain waves can affect other people at very short distances. That requires no magical spiritual or mysterious forces.

I'm not saying he's right, or that he even has a leg to stand on, just that your judgment seems premature.

I haven't read any studies like that, but I often wonder to what extent we can be directly physiologically affected by another's presence. When we talk about the "vibes" that people give off we mean their body language, facial expressions, the quality of their movements, the tone of their voice. If A sits next to B can A entrain B into his brain wave pattern by force of the above mentioned "vibes"? I can't help but think it often happens. It's clear that certain people elicit certain moods from us and that we prefer some people to others citing the effect they have on us.

edit: I do have A Leg To Stand On, by the way, and it's funny you mention it because I was just re-reading it last night:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0684853957/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[junglebeast]

She turned to me then, and mouthed the words "Thank you!" Then went back to helping the guy in front of me.

Needless to say, I was startled and felt my face turned red.

Well, you're right I do have a rational explanation for that: girls are so hyper sensitive to being gawked at that they almost have a sixth sense for noticing when it happens. She was probably just glad that you preferred staring at her face than her boobs!

From the sounds of it, you might have been pretty obvious about it, and even if she wasn't looking directly at you, it's not hard to notice being stared at out of your peripheral vision.

It seems at times to me that the intention to do or say something is mysteriously perceived by the other person as actually having been done or said. Not quite telepathy, but something that can convincingly present as telepathy. It doesn't require that we be linked by some "magical, spiritual force," just that the ability to read body language, facial expressions, the meaning of movements, is a great deal more precise and subtle than we might suppose,

Well, I certainly can't argue with that...but I think it's a bit misleading to refer to it as telepathy.-- on telepathy --
I don't think it would be impossible to build a biological sensor for detecting and interpreting brain waves, I just don't see any evidence that humans have such a sense...and if they did, it would surely be limited to extremely short ranges due to wave interference and signal decay, which would make it either impractical or redundant in comparison to vocalization.

--cool idea--

I do think it would be possible to create telepathy artificially. From what we know the brain is quite plastic and capable of interpreting signals. For example, people have learned to see through interpreting the electrical signals from digital sensors that have been fused into their visual cortex, or even from muscle patterns felt on their chest. Therefore, I suspect that it would also be possible to build a radio that was fused into the brain with a receiver and transmitter that the brain could then learn how to interpret and send messages with, provided there was feedback.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, you're right I do have a rational explanation for that: girls are so hyper sensitive to being gawked at that they almost have a sixth sense for noticing when it happens. She was probably just glad that you preferred staring at her face than her boobs!

From the sounds of it, you might have been pretty obvious about it, and even if she wasn't looking directly at you, it's not hard to notice being stared at out of your peripheral vision.

Even if she was well aware of me staring with a look of approbation for her appearance on my face, which I don't doubt, it would still be highly peculiar for her to stop what she was doing and mouth the words "Thank you!" It's way too specific to what I was thinking: "My God! What a sweet face!" and the timing of that thought.

Well, I certainly can't argue with that...but I think it's a bit misleading to refer to it as telepathy.

I usually qualify "telepathy" with "or something that convincingly presents as telepathy". The point is, it always seems more uncanny than mere body language reading, while being less impressive than long distance telegraphy of distress signals, as you often hear about in stories: "I had a weird feeling he was in pain. I don't know why. Then the phone rang, and it was the police saying he'd been in a car crash!"

I don't think it would be impossible to build a biological sensor for detecting and interpreting brain waves, I just don't see any evidence that humans have such a sense...and if they did, it would surely be limited to extremely short ranges due to wave interference and signal decay, which would make it either impractical or redundant in comparison to vocalization.

What is your explanation for the strippers thinking they'd been touched, and knowing the number of times he almost touched them? Suppose they heard his jacket rustling. Why did they then feel a physical touch?

 

[junglebeast]

What is your explanation for the strippers thinking they'd been touched, and knowing the number of times he almost touched them? Suppose they heard his jacket rustling. Why did they then feel a physical touch?

Notice that he made 3 quick touching gestures over the first girl's hand, and she specifically reported feeling 3 touches. That's probably not a coincidence. By the nature of the experiment, she was expecting to be touched lightly at least once, so it is conceivable that she felt the air currents from those three gestures and interpreted them as light touches given her hyper-sensitive state of awareness. However, the second girl, having just witnessed what he did to the first girl, would be prepared to be touched zero times, and would therefore not fall for a subtle suggestion of touch that wasn't real. The fact that she was very confident in being touched tells me that she was touched, most likely by some sleight of hand trick where he dropped a grain of sand onto her hand or something.

If she was not actually being touched, then why would Derren make touching gestures? It would certainly be more convincing to have someone perceive being touched if your hand wasn't poking around in the air right next to it. A trickster wants his tricks to look as good as possible, so if it wasn't necessary to poke around like that as part of the trick, he would have not done that. This is another strong argument for sleight of hand.