Do Ghosts Exist? My Friend Says Yes!

[FlexGunship]

In the case of Kaldanis' friend, it's probably far more benign and simple: you miss a relative, and so when you hear something which is (for that person) inexplicable, you go to something comforting: "grandma is still around". To me, they are very different scenarios.

At it's heart, ghost-belief is superstition. It's the act of anthropomorphizing your environment. I understand some people disagree in premise, but if you accept the idea that "ghosts aren't real" then there isn't a significant difference between thinking a ghost is interfering with your life, and thinking that your broken mirror will haunt you for 7 years interfering with your life (I've never understood that mechanism... how is a mirror supposed to cause bad luck? And after it's broken no less).

 

[nismaratwork]

At it's heart, ghost-belief is superstition. It's the act of anthropomorphizing your environment. I understand some people disagree in premise, but if you accept the idea that "ghosts aren't real" then there isn't a significant difference between thinking a ghost is interfering with your life, and thinking that your broken mirror will haunt you for 7 years interfering with your life (I've never understood that mechanism... how is a mirror supposed to cause bad luck?).

I agree completely, but when it comes to people having "wacky beliefs" vs. an illness, we always must ask if the issue is clinically significant; is this interfering with their quality of life? Your example of the lucky charm women screams "yes" to me, the ghost tapping... eh, not so much.

As for the mirror thing, I have no idea, but if I were to float a guess without even the aid of Google.. maybe because glass mirrors were very valuable at some point? I'm going to check google now...

*real time delay*

AND wow was I wrong.

The origin of the "break a mirror, face seven years of bad luck" superstition can be traced back to the Romans, who were the first to create glass mirrors. Just because your culture invents something totally useful like a mirror doesn't mean you can't still have some irrational beliefs about its use. The Romans, along with the Greek, Chinese, African and Indian cultures, believed that a mirror had the power to confiscate part of the user's soul. If the user's reflected image became distorted in any way, this could mean a corruption of his or her soul.

To make bad matters even worse, if the user should break a mirror it would mean his or her soul would be trapped inside the Bizarro world the mirror represented. Essentially, a broken mirror created a broken soul, which in turn lead to the broken health of the unfortunate user. The Romans also believed that a person's physical body renewed itself every seven years, so under that criteria it would take seven years before the user's soul would be fully restored. Up until then, life for a mirror breaker would be one long string of unfortunate events, since he or she no longer had a healthy soul to ward off spiritual evil-doers.

I am way too practical for this superstitious ****. I checked with other sources, and this is the most common explanation. Oh well, my guesswork is pitiful.

 

[JaredJames]

I am way too practical for this superstitious ****.

There's nothing like the reactions of people as I walk under a ladder. I honestly don't know what they're expecting to happen to me. My only concern is the plonker on top of it drops a tin of paint on my head!

 

[nismaratwork]

There's nothing like the reactions of people as I walk under a ladder. I honestly don't know what they're expecting to happen to me. My only concern is the plonker on top of it drops a tin of paint on my head!

You know, even people who aren't in the least superstitious seem to flinch... I love that.

 

[JaredJames]

After watching a show such as Ghost Hunters or a ghost film, I always find myself walking around my house in the dark (usually on my way to bed) and every sound / light startles me (I don't believe in ghosts at all, just get really immersed in the film - particularly a good horror). Normally, I just walk around and not care what goes on around me, most of the times sounds and lights around me don't even register that strongly with me.

I can fully understand how a person who believes in ghosts and is totally immersed in their beliefs could be constantly seeing little 'oddities' around them as paranormal and proof that ghosts exist. I don't think this is a psychiatric issue and requires any treatment, it's no different to a religious belief. As with religion, I'd go as far to say that most people just use it so they don't have to face the fact that once you die that's it. They need an afterlife / possibility of something more to help them accept death.

Personally I don't see a problem with people believing in ghosts, I just wish they'd stop pushing clearly explainable evidence as proof of ghosts existence.

 

[nismaratwork]

After watching a show such as Ghost Hunters or a ghost film, I always find myself walking around my house in the dark (usually on my way to bed) and every sound / light startles me (I don't believe in ghosts at all, just get really immersed in the film - particularly a good horror). Normally, I just walk around and not care what goes on around me, most of the times sounds and lights around me don't even register that strongly with me.

I can fully understand how a person who believes in ghosts and is totally immersed in their beliefs could be constantly seeing little 'oddities' around them as paranormal and proof that ghosts exist. I don't think this is a psychiatric issue and requires any treatment, it's no different to a religious belief. As with religion, I'd go as far to say that most people just use it so they don't have to face the fact that once you die that's it. They need an afterlife / possibility of something more to help them accept death.

Personally I don't see a problem with people believing in ghosts, I just wish they'd stop pushing clearly explainable evidence as proof of ghosts existence.

I'd just settle for an end to these awful television "ghost hunter" programs.

 

[JaredJames]

Yep, they're all rubbish. Although I will say, I do get a good laugh out of them.

I'd like to see a good scientific investigation of a series of 'haunted' locations. Properly conducted, closed environment, covered in cameras, none of this emf rubbish. That's all it would take. Just get a few random people to walk around and 'stir things up' so to speak, if anything happens, it's there on tape. Wouldn't take much. But no, they'd rather send in a bunch of people with the shakiest, low quality cameras going and let them run around a building they haven't truly secured.

Or just cover these places sightings take place in cameras. If I was told people kept seeing some figure walking up and down my stairs every now and then, I'd have myself a full CCTV kit constantly watching the area. No one ever seems to do that. I bet the haunting claims would die out fairly quickly.

 

[FlexGunship]

I can fully understand how a person who believes in ghosts and is totally immersed in their beliefs could be constantly seeing little 'oddities' around them as paranormal and proof that ghosts exist. I don't think this is a psychiatric issue and requires any treatment, it's no different to a religious belief.

Except that in this particular instance it has led to unhealthy behavior; see below.

My friend frequently tells me his ghostly experiences and I give him other possible explanations (which he ignores), but with his dad and his dead grandfather it's a little harder to discuss it with him without him getting upset- so I just don't talk about that with him.

I will say this though, his family is very open to supernatural things. They aren't religious, but they often go to psychics and believe their horoscope. My friend is also easily spooked and very quick to think something supernatural is happening when there's any number of explanations

He ignores rational explanations, he's gets upset when discussing his passed grandfather, the family goes to psychics and make decisions based on their horoscopes. He's easily spooked and attributes things around him to intentional mechanics.

This is not a recipe for a healthy mental state.

 

[JaredJames]

What's unhealthy about what you have quoted there? Ignoring other possible explanations for the ghostly experiences is no difference to religious people ignoring science.

They go to psychics and believe their horoscope? I don't see what's wrong with that. I don't believe in any of it, but it isn't unhealthy behaviour.

Easily spooked and always goes for the supernatural explanation, I just see this as him being brought up in an environment which has told him that is the explanation and no other one will suffice. I agree, not a good way of thinking but then if that's how he wants to be it doesn't affect anyone else.

I'm just not seeing the problem here. (Except the belief in ghosts )

 

[FlexGunship]

What's unhealthy about what you have quoted there?

Except that in this particular instance it has led to unhealthy behavior; see below.

• He ignores rational explanations (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.05077.x/abstract),
• he's gets upset when discussing his passed grandfather (http://depression.about.com/),
• the family goes to psychics and make decisions based on their horoscopes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silly).
• He's easily spooked (http://www.healingwell.com/library/anxiety/info3.asp),
• and attributes things around him to intentional mechanics (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/000938.htm).

Am I reading into this too much? Maybe, but Kaldanis posted here with sincere concern for his friend. I dated a girl with schizophrenia a while ago (not for very long since her disorder severely comprised her ability to maintain interpersonal relationships) and his friend is showing a lot of the signs of a sub-type called paranoid schizophrenia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranoid_schizophrenia).

If his daily behavior has grown to include this type of behavior then they could be precursors to serious mental health concerns. The worst part is that his parents seem to encourage it. Schizophrenia can be made better or worse depending upon environmental variables. One of the key factors in schizophrenia is "reality distortion" and this guy seems to have it in spades.

Disclaimer: I'm not a mental health specialist, so take what I say with a grain of rock salt. I'm just trying to express concern for accepting that type of lifestyle unreservedly.

 

[JaredJames]

He ignores rational explanations

So do most religions.

he's gets upset when discussing his passed grandfather

I don't know many people who wouldn't be.

the family goes to psychics and make decisions based on their horoscopes

He said "believes horoscopes", not makes decisions on them (I'll retract this if you know where he said about decisions, but I can't remember it). Belief in a horoscope can simply mean they've read it and then if something happens to coincide with what is written, however vague "you will have good luck today", they will remember it and consider it to prove the horoscope correct.

He's easily spooked.

So is my sister, don't see a problem, she's just afraid of the dark.

and attributes things around him to intentional mechanics.

This to me is covered by your first point.

This just says his friend has been brought up to believe in the paranormal and has simply grown to accept every little thing to be so.

 

[FlexGunship]

So do most [...] paranormal and has simply grown to accept every little thing to be so.

Like I said Jared and James, I'm not trying to make a diagnosis here, but the coincidence of all of these symptoms leads me to believe the person is not experiencing the same reality that we all share.

True, there are nuances of human experience and that most people fall along a wide spectrum, but it seems like this particular individual has found the extreme end in every case.

Regarding him being upset about discussing his grandfather; I didn't mean to seem callous, but the original post indicated that he believed his grandfather had survived death and was visiting him and that any effort to dissuade him from this idea caused him to become upset. Grief is normal, and I experienced it tremendously when each of my grandfathers died, but I eventually came to terms with it. I don't claim either of them to be alive and visiting me.

That's how I interpreted it, anyway. Maybe I'm wrong.

 

[JaredJames]

Jared and James

My name is Jared Nathan James.

At least that's what I'd attribute my username choice to. Otherwise it's my subconscious trying to tell me I have a closet multiple personality disorder.

 

[Evo]

As for the mirror thing, I have no idea, but if I were to float a guess without even the aid of Google.. maybe because glass mirrors were very valuable at some point? I'm going to check google now...

*real time delay*

AND wow was I wrong.



I am way too practical for this superstitious ****. I checked with other sources, and this is the most common explanation. Oh well, my guesswork is pitiful.

You weren't wrong nismar. Attributing the 7 years of bad luck to the Romans appears to be misinformation that has been spread through the internet. It never ceases to amaze me how misinformation can get repeated so quickly and widely on the internet that even otherwise reliable sources become guilty of spreading the misinformation.

I have always been a history buff, with an interest in superstitions and the occult. Prior to the internet, there was nothing ever claiming the romans as being responsible for the 7 years of bad luck. I don't know when this new myth was created but it's not the origin.

Here is what I could find quickly on the origin of the 7 years of bad luck.

The looking-glass is one of the handful of domestic items which have attracted more than their fair share of beliefs. Opie and Tatem identify fourteen different superstitions, and unlike those associated with the fire, many of them can be shown to date back a long time. One of the best-known and often-quoted superstitions of the late 20th century is that breaking a mirror brings seven years bad luck, and this was the third most often reported item in our Superstitions Survey 1998/9. The earliest known reference to this being unlucky comes from 1777, and it has been regularly reported ever since, but the ‘seven years’ is not mentioned until the mid-19th century (Sternberg, 1851: 172). Previous to that time, it was said to mean a death, or simply to be very unlucky.

http://www.answers.com/topic/mirror

Some information on Roman beliefs http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/superstitions.html

Now my interest is piqued as to who started this new mirror "myth". I may do more sniffing around.

 

[nismaratwork]

You weren't wrong nismar. Attributing the 7 years of bad luck to the Romans appears to be misinformation that has been spread through the internet. It never ceases to amaze me how misinformation can get repeated so quickly and widely on the internet that even otherwise reliable sources become guilty of spreading the misinformation.

I have always been a history buff, with an interest in superstitions and the occult. Prior to the internet, there was nothing ever claiming the romans as being responsible for the 7 years of bad luck. I don't know when this new myth was created but it's not the origin.

Here is what I could find quickly on the origin of the 7 years of bad luck.



http://www.answers.com/topic/mirror

Some information on Roman beliefs http://www.roman-empire.net/religion/superstitions.html

Now my interest is piqued as to who started this new mirror "myth". I may do more sniffing around.

Wow... I think I'll do some of that sniffing myself. Truly the internet is a double-edged sword. Thanks for checking on this... I admit I was surprised at first by what I found, but I won't lie, if you hadn't posted I might have been another agent spreading this little bit of misinformation.

:!) @ Evo :!)

Thank you!

 

[Evo]

Wow... I think I'll do some of that sniffing myself. Truly the internet is a double-edged sword. Thanks for checking on this... I admit I was surprised at first by what I found, but I won't lie, if you hadn't posted I might have been another agent spreading this little bit of misinformation.

:!) @ Evo :!)

Thank you!

The book on superstitions that is referenced in my post is "A dictionary of Superstitions" from Oxford University Press, first publised in 1989, so it's internet misinformation free!

I also found another great resource, Encyclopedia of Superstitions by Edwin & Mona Radford. Both are available at Amazon, I think I'm going to buy both. I eat up this kind of thing.

 

[FlexGunship]

My name is Jared Nathan James.

At least that's what I'd attribute my username choice to. Otherwise it's my subconscious trying to tell me I have a closet multiple personality disorder.

Sorry, bad attempt at humor. Like that time Chris Hitchens called MosDef "Mr. Definitely."

 

[nismaratwork]

The book on superstitions that is referenced in my post is "A dictionary of Superstitions" from Oxford University Press, first publised in 1989, so it's internet misinformation free!

I also found another great resource, Encyclopedia of Superstitions by Edwin & Mona Radford. Both are available at Amazon, I think I'm going to buy both. I eat up this kind of thing.

Mmmmm, I think I'll see if the library has these... if not I may have to snag them as well. I pretty much like to read anything and everything except autobiographies. Superstition naturally appeals to my desperate attempt to understand just what the hell other people are thinking, and why. If you find any other gems, please let me know, I'm always running out of reading material.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yep, they're all rubbish. Although I will say, I do get a good laugh out of them.

I'd like to see a good scientific investigation of a series of 'haunted' locations. Properly conducted, closed environment, covered in cameras, none of this emf rubbish. That's all it would take. Just get a few random people to walk around and 'stir things up' so to speak, if anything happens, it's there on tape. Wouldn't take much. But no, they'd rather send in a bunch of people with the shakiest, low quality cameras going and let them run around a building they haven't truly secured.

Or just cover these places sightings take place in cameras. If I was told people kept seeing some figure walking up and down my stairs every now and then, I'd have myself a full CCTV kit constantly watching the area. No one ever seems to do that. I bet the haunting claims would die out fairly quickly.

People do allegedly catch seemingly inexplicable images on digital cameras. The problem is that videos can be faked. Even if ghosts in the classical sense were real, unless the phenomenon can be repeated on demand, it would be very difficult to prove. At this point, with all of the cgi software available, any evidence dependent on digitial technology is all but useless.

Very little short of Casper in a jar, or a ghost that makes appearances on demand, would suffice as far as science is concerned.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I would add that it is not a scientific statement to say that ghosts don't exist. That is an opinion, not science speaking. What we can say is that there is no scientific evidence for the claim that dead people can somehow assume a noncorporeal form, and interact with us.

My personal opinion is that the word "ghost" is way too vague to be of use in any credible discussion. What this is really about is claimed phenomena.

 

[alt]

I would add that it is not a scientific statement to say that ghosts don't exist. That is an opinion, not science speaking. What we can say is that there is no scientific evidence for the claim that dead people can somehow assume a noncorporeal form, and interact with us.

My personal opinion is that the word "ghost" is way too vague to be of use in any credible discussion. What this is really about is claimed phenomena.

I agree. The word ''ghost' is about as vague and fluid as 'God'. Credible discussions rarely if ever follow these topics.

 

[FlexGunship]

I agree. The word ''ghost' is about as vague and fluid as 'God'. Credible discussions rarely if ever follow these topics.

ghost: the visible disembodied soul of a dead person
poltergeist: the invisible disembodied soul of a dead person
god: the person-creator of the universe (may or may not intercede with its events after the initial act of creation)

True, many would argue about the definitions, but couldn't we agree on these for the purposes of discussion? It seems to embody the most prolific concepts of the three ideas.

 

[alt]

ghost: the visible disembodied soul of a dead person
poltergeist: the invisible disembodied soul of a dead person
god: the person-creator of the universe (may or may not intercede with its events after the initial act of creation)

True, many would argue about the definitions, but couldn't we agree on these for the purposes of discussion? It seems to embody the most prolific concepts of the three ideas.

couldn't we agree ..

Many have tried and failed (scientifically AND philosophically). These forums contain large numbers of closed / expired threads in this regard. But don't let me get in the way ..

 

[FlexGunship]

couldn't we agree ..

Many have tried and failed (scientifically AND philosophically). These forums contain large numbers of closed / expired threads in this regard. But don't let me get in the way ..

Surely, however, those who are interested in having the discussion must be willing to settle on a definition. The one's who quarrel over the definition are the one's least inclined to partake in the discussion.

Perhaps I'm giving the "other side" too much credit?

 

[nismaratwork]

Surely, however, those who are interested in having the discussion must be willing to settle on a definition. The one's who quarrel over the definition are the one's least inclined to partake in the discussion.

Perhaps I'm giving the "other side" too much credit?

You're being reasonable, but on this one alt is right... it ends up as a semantic debate to avoid talk of substance. It's maddening, but that's what happens when relatively bright people substitute the sound of their own voice for reason.

 

[FlexGunship]

You're being reasonable, but on this one alt is right... it ends up as a semantic debate to avoid talk of substance. It's maddening, but that's what happens when relatively bright people substitute the sound of their own voice for reason.

I'm know he's right, I guess I was trying to suggest a manner in which we could proceed anyway. Perhaps we could make a gentleman's agreement that individuals who ceaselessly argue semantics could be excluded from the discussion?

Arguing the nuance of a point is one thing, but repeatedly saying things like: "ghosts are just made of energy," and "you can't explain a god" don't contribute to the end product.

I've recently "finished" Karen Armstrong's book The Case for God. I put "finished" in quotes because after the third chapter of definition by negation, I gave up. There's no informational content: "God is not bound by our rules," "God is unable to be conceived of," "God cannot be thought of as a <____>." Every time an objection is raised, she simply says: "God cannot be..." or "God isn't..."

That type of discussion can be disregarded and in that manner can advance the conversation about ghosts?

Or do you still think it will turn into a battle of semantics?

 

[JaredJames]

I completely agree flex. This is a nightmare to debate for exactly the reasons you list above.

Eventually it would come down to semantics.

I've been reading through some of the Randi prize entrants and for the majority, as soon as they impose strict scientific definitions, clauses and rules on the test to be conducted they just disappear or drop out of the challenge. It is because of the blurry definitions that people can keep perpetuating the existence of such claims / beliefs. The moment you say this is X, this is Y, the claims don't stand up. Especially to the testing such as that Randi conducts.

 

[FlexGunship]

I completely agree flex. This is a nightmare to debate for exactly the reasons you list above.

Eventually it would come down to semantics.

I've been reading through some of the Randi prize entrants and for the majority, as soon as they impose strict scientific definitions, clauses and rules on the test to be conducted they just disappear or drop out of the challenge. It is because of the blurry definitions that people can keep perpetuating the existence of such claims / beliefs. The moment you say this is X, this is Y, the claims don't stand up. Especially to the testing such as that Randi conducts.

+1 for Randi. You would think that he would be the proverbial final nail in the coffin of pseudo-scientific claims, but everyone thinks they are an exception to the rule. Just another sign that we're bad at figuring stuff out until we bring the light of science to bear.

 

[JaredJames]

+1 for Randi. You would think that he would be the proverbial final nail in the coffin of pseudo-scientific claims, but everyone thinks they are an exception to the rule. Just another sign that we're bad at figuring stuff out until we bring the light of science to bear.

The simple answer is, if the claims were true someone would be $1,000,000 better off. Seeing as no one is thanks to Mr. Randi and his incredible generosity tells you all you need to know.

 

[FlexGunship]

The simple answer is, if the claims were true someone would be $1,000,000 better off. Seeing as no one is thanks to Mr. Randi and his incredible generosity tells you all you need to know.

Jared, haven't you heard? James Randi doesn't have the money, and psychics don't need it anyway. Telepaths don't believe in charity. Dowsers are all financially secure.

 

[JaredJames]

Humour again flex? Or is the Randi comment serious?

 

[FlexGunship]

Humour again flex? Or is the Randi comment serious?

Sigh... sorry. Rule number one of the interwebs is that you can't be sarcastic. James Randi and Carl Sagan are my two favorite people. Of course he has the money... he posted the account statements from Goldman Sachs.

 

[nismaratwork]

Sigh... sorry. Rule number one of the interwebs is that you can't be sarcastic. James Randi and Carl Sagan are my two favorite people. Of course he has the money... he posted the account statements from Goldman Sachs.

Randi is one of the few people I look to as a genuine hero.

 

[JaredJames]

Sigh... sorry. Rule number one of the interwebs is that you can't be sarcastic. James Randi and Carl Sagan are my two favorite people. Of course he has the money... he posted the account statements from Goldman Sachs.

I'm getting there slowly. The whole sarcasm thing is one reason I hate 'text' speak. Things said as a light hearted comment can seem so much worse than they are meant to be taken. (I try to imagine how the person I'm speaking to would say it, downside is I don't know anyone here).

Randi is one of the few people I look to as a genuine hero.

I think his whole concept is brilliant. People keep attacking him for being so strict with the rules he applies to the challenges, but the fact is if you are, for example, a dowser, you should be able to conform to any rules and still show your 'talent'. The rules may seem strict, but they're in place to ensure complete accuracy and not for them to be conned.

As for the argument "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that may well be true, but neither is it proof of existence. Which is something all these ghost / religious folks keep forgetting as they role that one out during each debate.

At this point in time, I have seen no credible evidence for ghosts. Although this may not mean they don't exist, it does mean that until something better arrives to prove it I will remain rational and not believe in ghosts.

 

[nismaratwork]

I'm getting there slowly. The whole sarcasm thing is one reason I hate 'text' speak. Things said as a light hearted comment can seem so much worse than they are meant to be taken. (I try to imagine how the person I'm speaking to would say it, downside is I don't know anyone here).



I think his whole concept is brilliant. People keep attacking him for being so strict with the rules he applies to the challenges, but the fact is if you are, for example, a dowser, you should be able to conform to any rules and still show your 'talent'. The rules may seem strict, but they're in place to ensure complete accuracy and not for them to be conned.

As for the argument "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", that may well be true, but neither is it proof of existence. Which is something all these ghost / religious folks keep forgetting as they role that one out during each debate.

At this point in time, I have seen no credible evidence for ghosts. Although this may not mean they don't exist, it does mean that until something better arrives to prove it I will remain rational and not believe in ghosts.

Indeed, and when you make an extraordinary claim Randi's standard isn't really that strict. A physicist goes through more to prove a concept!