Why i don't believe in ghosts as potrayed in popular culture?

[statdad]

"I was taught that the living individual exists in three interdependent formats - physical, mental and spiritual."

Take away the spiritual part and death results? Might you be referring to "soul" rather than spirituality? There is no evidence at all that a soul exists - that is one of the items outside the realm of science, something that depends on blind faith. You could say that spirituality relates to a system of belief, or a way of living, but one does not need to be spiritual to be alive.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I wasn't directing my post at you. It's just these types of stories are always brimming out of people's mouths on a daily basis, and all we have are stories. No thorough investigations (but then again some people say investigations scare off these experiences from happening which is a major cop out IMO), nothing that's substantial. So all I can go on in your case is your word that all of these things really did happen.

I know a lot of people who said they saw some weird things in the dark. Well so do I. If I stare at a darkened room long enough I'll see some weird ****, but it doesn't mean I go jumping up and down saying it was something that's out of this realm.

Again, the problem is this: What evidence could serve as more than anecdotal evidence? The Ghost Hunters claim all sorts of evidence - video, audio, temperature changes, EM effects, tactile experiences - but it proves nothing.

Also, while it true that we can often mistake mundain experiences for phenomemal ones, that does not preclude that phenomenonal experience might occur. It is fallacious to assume that your personal experiences are indicative of all experiences.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It always comes back to the same problem: Specifically, what evidence would you accept?

 

[Bored Wombat]

Agreed. There again, I cannot recall reading of any credible account where a 'ghost' uses 'brain power', such as conversation, memory or logical expression. They seem to just have a presence, perhaps accompanied with a sundry of miscellaneous sound effects.

Have you read a credible account of a ghost? Eyewitness testimony is not a very robust scientific measuring device.

Sound effects are an easy target. Buildings make a lot of noises when they change temperature, and audial delusions are the most common kind.

And what is "a presence" that is external to the human mind? Does it reflect light, or have mass, or make breakfast? These things can be photographed, measured, or checked by health inspectors for dangerous levels of E. coli ... and no one has ever done any of those.

If not, then all you have a person thinking there's a presence ... and that's worse testimony that an eyewitness.

I was taught that the living individual exists in three interdependent formats - physical, mental and spiritual. Take anyone of them away and the other two perish. People do die by what we refer to as 'broken hearted' or 'losing the will to live'. They are then said to have 'given up the ghost'. Physiologically and psychologically, they may well be complete.

You can certainly get sick or even deadly sick due to psychological reasons. Loneliness, too much stress, probably boredom, probably no longer feeling part of society, are very bad for the health, and the immune system suffers - or the individual might even jump off a building, much more directly affecting the physical health from the psychological one.

And positive thinking has measurably good effects, and placebos are very effective, and praying for oneself (but not others) improves the chance of recovery.

(And we are wired to think positively. The people who can most accurately predict how their life will be in 5 years time, and who most accurately ascertain that they have no control over whether a light goes on or off are the clinically depressed.)

But the mental/spiritual existence resides in the brain, so they are physical too in the final analysis. ... Unless you want to propose an explanation that is abhorrent to Occam's Razor.

 

[DaveC426913]

It always comes back to the same problem: Specifically, what evidence would you accept?

Repeatable and independently-verifiable evidence would be a good start.

 

[statdad]

"and praying for oneself (but not others) improves the chance of recovery "

(emphasis in the above is mine)
Not in your wildest dreams (actually, maybe only then).

 

[DaveC426913]

"and praying for oneself (but not others) improves the chance of recovery "

(emphasis in the above is mine)
Not in your wildest dreams (actually, maybe only then).

Oh I don't know...

While the praying in-and-of-itself accomplishes nothing, you shouldn't rule out the possibility that we can influence our own healing through psychosomatic techniques ('positive thinking' for lack of a better phrase).

As soon as one acknowledges that mental depression can have real physiological effects on the body, one must grant that the corollary is as likely to be true.

The way an individual happens to think positively is their own business. If that's praying, then so be it.

 

[statdad]

"you shouldn't rule out the possibility that we can influence our own healing through psychosomatic techniques ('power of positive thinking' for lack of a better phrase)"

you can, because, again, there is no evidence that 'positive thinking' does squat for the health of a person. the 'studies' that some people (I am not indicting anyone here) reference are dreadful things - examples of how not to do statistics is how we use them - and typically find no real relationship at all (because the researchers had bad vibes or some twaddle) or make the freshman level mistake of equating correlation with causation.

when it comes to the influence of prayer, positive attitudes, etc., on health, scientifically, there is no there there.

 

[quantumfireball]

Plz don't get me wrong.
i never said that i don't believe in the existence of the soul or disembodied conciousness.
Yes its a matter of faith albeit not a blind one.
What I am trying to say that conciousness cannot be visible to the eye,or be heard,move objects or increase E.M.F activity or for that matter be responsible for drop in temperature since its non material in nature.
Its that simple. I don't know where the topic of blind faith,cats going through walls and all your silly stuff debate the question that i posed.

 

[statdad]

I haven't commented on cats, moving through walls, or anything else either. But, since there is no scientific, even empirical, evidence, of souls, any belief in the existence of a soul must be "blind faith".
I'm not big on it, but others (some of my in-laws, for example) take such faith as a sign of inner strength.

regarding this comment: "What I am trying to say that conciousness cannot be visible to the eye,or be heard,move objects or increase E.M.F activity or for that matter be responsible for drop in temperature since its non material in nature."

I can only assume the reference is to some of the other posts. I'll revert to the science point:
"supernatural" events are only supernatural when they are "investigated" by non-scientists. haunted houses, visits by the departed, ghosts, etc., are the results of over-active imaginations (or fraud, as in the case of seances), not some visit from the other side or poor soul doomed to forever wander the earth.

 

[pftest]

If people really believe positive thinking, prayer, etc. can improve their health, then the placebo effect can take place. Whats the difference in believing in a fake pill and (fake) prayer?

 

[LightbulbSun]

Again, the problem is this: What evidence could serve as more than anecdotal evidence? The Ghost Hunters claim all sorts of evidence - video, audio, temperature changes, EM effects, tactile experiences - but it proves nothing.

Also, while it true that we can often mistake mundain experiences for phenomemal ones, that does not preclude that phenomenonal experience might occur. It is fallacious to assume that your personal experiences are indicative of all experiences.

You're right, one person doesn't equate to the entire human population, and you're right that the stuff Ghost Hunters claims is evidence for the existence of ghosts really doesn't prove anything. Honestly, for me to be more certain about the existence of ghosts, it would have to be direct evidence. Some weird physical anomaly isn't direct evidence.

 

[Bored Wombat]

"and praying for oneself (but not others) improves the chance of recovery "

(emphasis in the above is mine)
Not in your wildest dreams (actually, maybe only then).

I'm certainly not saying that it's significant above the placebo effect, the Subject-expectancy effect, and the http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7327/1446" .

And it's not even clear how you'd control for that. What is a placebo prayer?

 

[statdad]

I'm certainly not saying that it's significant above the placebo effect, the Subject-expectancy effect, and the http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/323/7327/1446" .

And it's not even clear how you'd control for that. What is a placebo prayer?

You don't seriously think this study has any merit at all? Sorry, but the woo (==crap) is strong with this one. Leave alone the worthless number of participants (23), the "serendipitous" findings, and the couched conclusions "could have some benefit" - this is no better than the other fake studies on prayer, homeopathy, chilation, chiropractic etc., churned out by the dozen.

 

[Bored Wombat]

You don't seriously think this study has any merit at all? Sorry, but the woo (==crap) is strong with this one. Leave alone the worthless number of participants (23), the "serendipitous" findings, and the couched conclusions "could have some benefit" - this is no better than the other fake studies on prayer, homeopathy, chilation, chiropractic etc., churned out by the dozen.

The BMJ is no Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

It's not quite the Lancet, but it is a prestigious medical Journal, with an impact factor of over 9.

If that is a guide, then BMJ is the world's 7th most prestigious medical journal after NEJM, Nature medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, and PLOS medicine.

Which is reasonably kick-arse, and they certainly haven't published any of these "other fake studies on prayer, homeopathy, chilation, chiropractic etc., churned out by the dozen", to which you refer.

So read the article with the knowledge that the peer review process that it went through was fairly respectable.

 

[statdad]

"he BMJ is no Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine."

I did read the article - I stand by my analysis. This is no better than the prayer studies, some of which were published in good journals and were latter retracted.

The results here are best summarized as garbage.

 

[gareth]

No, there was not a cat in the house. All doors and windows closed. Also, no emotional attachment to the dead cat. I lived in a rural area, it was a stray that I had been feeding only a couple of weeks, along with dozens of others that came and went, which is why I had completely forgotten about it.

And the cat would have been in a small bedroom with me, it wasn't a cat I just thought I saw slinking around in a big house.

Nice try, but no cigar.

I'm not making any claims as to what caused it, just that it happened. I ruled out everything logical, believe me, I went through everything many times. If it hadn't run directly in front of me and under the bed against the wall directly ahead of me, wth the only door behind me that I shut as it went under the bed, it would have left that option for it to have run off and hidden, and I would have to say I couldn't be certain. In this case, I am certain, which is what causes me to question what the heck I had been hitting with my foot. Like Ivan said, I don't expect anyone to understand or believe, I wouldn't believe someone else if they told me this. I'm just relating what happened and now understand that when someone says they've experienced something they can't explain, I know how odd it feels. (I don't believe in an afterlife, btw) I can't swear it was a kitten either, I just assumed it was, since I had a white kitten at the time.

Sorry to bring this back o cats, but I ound this article recently and I had to post it on this thread. Cats do seem mysterious, I wonder is that why they used to burn them in medieval times.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20081023/tuk-charity-concerned-over-mystery-of-va-a7ad41d.html

 

[quantumfireball]

The cats were probably eaten by foxes or wolves,
or may have been swallowed by a python.(if there are pythons in england)
As i said earlier 5-6 of my cats have disappeared without any trace.
I hope Gareth is not trying to imply that they were abducted by aliens or metamorphed into a witch :-))

 

[quantumfireball]

Cats are very cute and smart hence people do get attached to them.
My full sympathies are with the families which have lost their cats.
I know how it feels to loose one.

 

[michinobu]

If ghosts could be seen then its obvious that they are emitting visible light,and light is

nothing both electromagnetic fields.
which would imply that they are made of physical matter,as everbody knows that electromagnetic

fields couple to accelerating charges.
What is even more ridiculous is that ghost in popular culture are potrayed in clothes as if

clothes have the same kind of after life as the person.
If ghosts exist then they are disembodied conscious enities.
And conciousness is not physical which means it cannot interact with physical matter,unless you

take the materialist point of view.
I am neither a materialist nor a cartesian dualist but i find both point of views equally

compelling.
But one thing I am convinced about is that ghosts if they exist are not visble to the human eye as

they are disembodied conciousness.(assuming that you take the dualist point of view).

Are you talking about like souls or spirits or ghosts in general? Just wondering, don't know enough about the philosophies you mentioned to comment on. In any case, there's no science to prove that a consciousness could be disembodied. This reminds me of cyberpunk fictions such as "Ghost in the Shell" and "Johnny Mnemonic" which were inspired by a philosopher's book, "Ghost in the Machine".

However, in regards to ghosts as portrayed in Western Society, much of it has to do with Old European religions stemming from paganism and animism. Like the idea that EVERYTHING has a spirit comes from animism and would thus explain why your clothes have an afterlife too!

Yet, many people in Western society are ignorant of how much Europe's pre-Christian beliefs influence them today and are thus influenced by the concept of ghosts to the point of hallucination. Similarly, people who don't believe in ghosts and come from like a Roman-Catholic background (where exorcisms are still widely practiced) are also more likely to witness demon-possessions and whatnot.

 

[DaveC426913]

...a Roman-Catholic background (where exorcisms are still widely practiced)...

Really? This is news to me.

 

[michinobu]

^ sorry if I offended you. I really went with what I've seen on movies and TV with that one.

 

[WiFO215]

yeahhhh...

: backs away slowly, avoiding any sudden moves :

Actually, don't worry about a thing. Chicken farmers usually come prepared with a full suit to bust paranormal activity in the spirit spectrum.

Haven't you seen this sign outside chicken farms before??

http://ngnews.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ghostbusters1.jpg

Observe carefully next time. You might even see Egon Spengler.

WHO YOU GONNA CALL??

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Repeatable and independently-verifiable evidence would be a good start.

How many scientists run out to verify the evidence alleged by the Ghost Hunters? As soon as someone does something like this, they are relegated to the fringe. I would imagine that there are thousands of these ghost hunting groups claiming evidence, all over the world.

If you mean that we are supposed to capture Casper in a jar and take him back to the lab, tell me how.

If this was something like ball lighting, or earthquake lights, where the scientific community was willing to accept evidence in the form of videos and photos, we would be done. But unlike those phenomena, any real "ghost" phenomenon carries the implication of an extraordinary claim; requiring extraordinary evidence. I have yet to think of any evidence that could suffice, no matter what the explanation is for these claims and experiences. The best that we can do is to rule out the claims that can be explained.

 

[DaveC426913]

How many scientists run out to verify the evidence alleged by the Ghost Hunters? As soon as someone does something like this, they are relegated to the fringe. I would imagine that there are thousands of these ghost hunting groups claiming evidence, all over the world.

I think you missed the gist of my post. I didn't merely say "evidence", I said "repeatable and independently verifiable evidence".

If someone, somewhere found a phenom that stuck around long enough for other investigators to test and get the same results - if news reporters could go into the house and film chairs flying around, I am confident the buzz would rapidly snowball to world news.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think you missed the gist of my post. I didn't merely say "evidence", I said "repeatable and independently verifiable evidence".

I understood what you meant.

If someone, somewhere found a phenom that stuck around long enough for other investigators to test and get the same results - if news reporters could go into the house and film chairs flying around, I am confident the buzz would rapidly snowball to world news.

That is an assumption that I don't think is supported by the facts. The ghost hunter groups go out to investigate allegedly repeatable phenomenon, and allegedly they get evidence. Scientists sometimes go out and allegedly get evidence based on the claims made. And there it ends. It is all still considered fringe.

I see no way to obtain evidence that the scientific community would accept, even if the most striking claims are completely genuine .

There is a big difference between "repeatable", and "repeatable on demand".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Consider the Ghost Hunter's investigation of a lighthouse. The reason that they investigated is because they were asked to by the Coast Guard due to the frequency of the claims of ghostly encounters, by CG personnel. The GHs obtained video of a chair that allegedly moved on its own.

How many scientists have investigated to verify the claims made by the US Coast Guard? Zero. How many would even consider such a venture? If they obtained evidence that seemed to confirm the claims made, it would still appear only on the GH show. No one would publish it.

 

[DaveC426913]

There is a big difference between "repeatable", and "repeatable on demand".

Actually, I was not making a distinction.

Point being that, like the discovery of Coelacanth or gamma ray bursts, if paranormal events were to be repeatable and independently verifiable (because they persisted), then they would become accepted.

 

[LightbulbSun]

We have to define what we mean by "paranormal."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Actually, I was not making a distinction.

I know. I was.

Point being that, like the discovery of Coelacanth or gamma ray bursts, if paranormal events were to be repeatable and independently verifiable (because they persisted), then they would become accepted.

They are accepted by a majority of the population. If true, I still see no evidence that science will accept.

You tell me precisely what can be offered. In spite of probably thousands of groups claiming evidence, hundreds for sure, I don't see Nature rushing to publish any of it. Why? Because none of it qualifies as extraordinary evidence. Videos and sounds can be faked or staged. Tactile experiences can't be documented. Anecdotal accounts are not acceptable.

If what you say is true, then why don't we find a line of scientists following the Ghost Hunters? They broadcast their alleged evidence every week on TV. And there it ends.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We have to define what we mean by "paranormal."

I think it is important to avoid words like paranormal, and supernatural. Those words imply an explanation that can't be supported. At most we can say that someone had a seemingly inexplicable experience. There is no reason to assume the explanation for it. It may be that some "ghosts" are simply strange or unrecognized "normal" phenomena.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I think it is important to avoid words like paranormal, and supernatural. Those words imply an explanation that can't be supported. At most we can say that someone had a seemingly inexplicable experience. There is no reason to assume the explanation for it. It may be that some "ghosts" are simply strange or unrecognized "normal" phenomena.

Or it could be a mere illusion.

 

[DaveC426913]

If what you say is true, then why don't we find a line of scientists following the Ghost Hunters? They broadcast their alleged evidence every week on TV. And there it ends.

Well, the answer may be simpler than you think. If there really aren't ghosts, and all this evidence really is just human error and human ignorance combined with a human propensity for drama, then the scientists have got it correct.

It's really just a question of: have the scientists given it enough attention to dismiss it? It may not require a lot of attention to be dismissable. And I think that's where this argument totters on a seesaw. I don't think it takes a lot; you think it requires more.

 

[arildno]

Of course, there would be a great evolutionary advantage for ghosts to develop:
Think of the great potential for great-great...grandads to give their offspring a head start relative to the other youngsters by communicating to them their own experiences. And how they also could scare those juvenile non-descendants off a cliff by a well-timed "Mu-ha-ha..!"

Thus, we may conclude that ghosts exist. Or possibly not.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, the answer may be simpler than you think. If there really aren't ghosts, and all this evidence really is just human error and human ignorance combined with a human propensity for drama, then the scientists have got it correct.

It's really just a question of: have the scientists given it enough attention to dismiss it? It may not require a lot of attention to be dismissable. And I think that's where this argument totters on a seesaw. I don't think it takes a lot; you think it requires more.

Of course I am rather biased on this one. Since my wife and I had our own experience, I am personally 100% sure [without invoking philosophical limitations] that there is a mystery wrt to some claims, but that proves nothing to anyone else.