Do you beleive in ghosts?

[L2R]

For me a ghost is what the mind creates as a reaction to a stimulus which no longer has a viable "mental landscape" in which to be rooted.

I'm dancing with a story about an idea very much like this at the moment. I would not be surprised if this has something to do with it (the phenomenom).

I think that's what this is all about, religions, ghosts, whatever. People like the story with the tiger better. They like it so much that they're willing to overlook fantastical and improbable things. Most people want there to be ghosts.

Way to paint all things you disagree with with one stroke. 8)

Regarding IP's pictures, the much more likely explanation is, as Delta-9 is saying, something material or some trick of photography. But there are more seductive answers...

trick? i have nothing to gain by faking this. i repeat: it happened several years ago.

 

[Papa1]

Way to paint all things you disagree with with one stroke.

Hey, I don't believe in ghosts. I've never encountered a convincing reason to believe. When I ask friends why they believe, the spooky anecdotes are almost always better explained by something else (given I've never heard someone I know tell a story like MDAO's). Same goes for your picture. Smudges are photographed regularly, and there are much more likely explanations than 'ghost'. No offense intended.

So why do people jump at 'ghost' so often? Because it's generally a reasonable explanation? Why at all would someone think a cold draft or white apparition is supernatural? Because of all the explanations that's the most likely, the next logical step? No. It's because it's fun and meaningful and attractive (among other things).

p.s. I didn't at all mean to say you faked it. I just meant 'trick' as in 'optical quirk'.

 

[L2R]

I am sure a percentage of those who claim supernatural occurances are doing exactly what you say. quite a number i bet.

but i do not consider that it adequately covers anywhere near all situations.

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I used to look forward to seeing a ghost. 'Hit me with your best shot, world!' was my attitude toward the matter as a kid. Now that I've witnessed one, I feel rather differently about the matter. I don't know that I'd go looking for paranormal experiences -- they definitely give one more faith in layers of reality beyond the apparent. But they're rather unsettling, because you really don't know what to expect next.

I remember being left with a strong hunch that I was being fucked with, that somebody at the controls of reality was tweaking things in my environment in a way they didn't normally go, for their own amusement.

I can definitely see why nobody who's ever experienced anything that didn't lend itself to a more prosaic explanation would be inclined to think there's nothing truly weird going on in any of the cases. But trust me, for those people who seem to attract otherworldly experiences to them for whatever reason (often unbeknownst to them), the prospect of a completely predictable Newtonian world where nothing 'against the rules' ever happens, suddenly becomes the article of wishful thinking!

It's interesting to read the journalism of people on the hunt for ghosts and those who've claimed to see them. It's impossible of course not to bring your own prejudices to what you find on such a hunt, and many peoples biases definitely cause them to express skepticism to findings others might take as firsthand proof, or vice versa. But the most interesting cases are the ones where the writer goes in not expecting to find much except for some crazy people who make good snarky journalism, but then come out of the experience quite shaken, and more willing to entertain the idea of ghosts.

Papa, I usually express what you said in the contrapositive: skeptics are killjoys. But that definitely shows my own bias: I can't for the life of me see the worth in selling a disenchanted worldview to those I meet. From a purely utilitarian perspective, a reductionist explanation for something comes in handy in some situations, but I'm not sold that it's universally more applicable or useful.

 

[Papa1]

I am sure a percentage of those who claim supernatural occurances are doing exactly what you say. quite a number i bet.

but i do not consider that it adequately covers anywhere near all situations.

Paranormal activity has been shown to be the result of fakes, frauds, hucksters and self-deceivers so many times, the result of honest sane perception so rarely, and so completely irreproducible (I've never heard of genuine reproducible paranormal stuff) that I'm content to think willingness-to-believe covers all explanations.

MDAO, sometimes I like the story with the tiger. But not here. Whether this is upbringing, arrogance, or whatever, I just find belief in ghosts to be boring and depressing... It's just flatly wrong. There's no mystery. (As for selling a disenchanted worldview, maybe instead I really just like discussing my beliefs?)

 

[L2R]

Paranormal activity has been shown to be the result of fakes, frauds, hucksters and self-deceivers so many times, the result of honest sane perception so rarely, and so completely irreproducible (I've never heard of genuine reproducible paranormal stuff) that I'm content to think willingness-to-believe covers all explanations.

all explanations for "this is all about, religions, ghosts, whatever". sorry but that is "just flatly wrong".

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

MDAO, sometimes I like the story with the tiger. But not here. Whether this is upbringing, arrogance, or whatever, I just find belief in ghosts to be boring and depressing... It's just flatly wrong. There's no mystery. (As for selling a disenchanted worldview, maybe instead I really just like discussing my beliefs?)

Suit yourself, I think ghosts are pretty intriguing, no matter what they turn out to be.

 

[Octarine]

I wouldn't expect scientists to find anything about the paranormal, it wouldn't be much of a phonomena if it could be controlled in experiments. My Grandmother told me a story of when her husband died, she said 'he' would move things around the house, and turn on appliances. She told me once a rose appeared in her hand while she was thinking of him, she kept the rose and still has it to this day. I was age three at the time so I don't really remember anything but she told me I had full out conversations with 'him' for three years. I don't know what to make of this, and I don't expect this to prove anything but it's got me interested on the topic.

 

[drscience]

Goodness no.

If I were a ghost and had the ability to explore the entirety of the universe, I surely would not stick around this lame ass planet.

I also ask potential employees if they believe in ghosts.

 

[vegan]

no reasons to believe

several reasons not to believe the common representations/interpretations of ghosts
(i've heard ridiculously laughable stories here [ghost-believing country])

open to other concepts of ghosts, which would preferably supress the idea of individuality in ghosts

Google 'sleep paralysis'. It's what used to be called an Incubus (or a Succulus for girls

actually, more than about sleep paralysis, it was used as an explanation to excuse monks' wet dreams

 

[ThizzMon$teR]

Honestly I believe in ghost. You don't have to have scientific evidence to prove everything. It would help but sometimes its not everything. Plus I know many people who have some pretty cool ghost stories and if they weren't true then I would be sad.

 

[Enlitx]

I look at it this way. The brain is capable of creating visuals and experiences that aren't an actual representation of reality, but rather a malfunctioning of sorts during the process of representation. It can create it's own reality that exists no where beyond the brain itself.

Independent scientific tests such as thermal detectors and photon detection systems cannot misrepresent reality in such a complex fashion as to suggest ghosts.

Throughout history, the large majority of "ghost" sighting have been attributed to outright fraud or the aformentioned functioning of the brain. None of the "ghost" sightings have been confirmed by the latter tests that represent an objective view. Quite literally, it is all in your head. Thus, when a story of a "ghost" is mentioned, I will leave you to decide which explanation is probably in play.

 

[the_dude]

No, not the traditional kind of ghost

 

[captainbackfire]

unfortunately, yes...i'm like a 7 year old when it comes to that kind of stuff..scares me shitless.

the reason i do is my mom and 2 uncles swear on their lives that after their 9 year old cousin died they saw her sitting on the dresser...they came to find out that several other people had the same experience... and they're all very "gruff" and wouldnt make it up, so.

 

[ikkyu]

I don't believe in 'ghosts' (or UFOs, or Big Foot, etc.) per se, but I also don't deny that people experience unexplainable things, which they variously interpret as ghosts, aliens, sasquatch etc. On more than one occasion crowds of people have hallucinated the appearance of a virgin mother-goddess. These things happen.

 

[Vader]

@MDAO:

Dude, I know what I saw. I didn't hallucinate it

Those who've seen behind the curtain of surface reality in some way, even for just an fleeting moment, have no need for validation from academic scientists anyway.

sublimestateofmind, that's actually a diagnosable medical condition you have. Google 'sleep paralysis'. It's what used to be called an Incubus (or a Succulus for girls. I THINK I have that right.), and categorized as an evil spirit that had sex with your soul while you slept.

Why should ssom listen to your rationalisations? He knows what he saw, and it doesn't matter if you think you can explain it away with your science and your reason.
I saw a magic show the other day. Can I now claim to know that a woman can be levitated, or that a man can hold his breath for 12 minutes, or is my intuition that what I saw was an illusion correct?

@Xorkoth:

What is absurd is telling someone their belief is absurd when you do not have evidence to the contrary

I believe that there is an attractive delftware teapot orbiting our planet. However, it is hidden behind the moon, and is thus never observable in any way. I believe that I am constantly being followed by a team of invisible ninjas. I believe that every day at noon, everything becomes frozen in time for a thousand years, and then resumes its normal activity, resulting in a seamless subjective experience for all sentient beings. These are, according to your principle, beliefs that are beyond reproach, given that no-one could disprove them.

 

[L2R]

.
I saw a magic show the other day. Can I now claim to know that a woman can be levitated, or that a man can hold his breath for 12 minutes, or is my intuition that what I saw was an illusion correct?

....

I believe that there is an attractive delftware teapot orbiting our planet. However, it is hidden behind the moon, and is thus never observable in any way. I believe that I am constantly being followed by a team of invisible ninjas. I believe that every day at noon, everything becomes frozen in time for a thousand years, and then resumes its normal activity, resulting in a seamless subjective experience for all sentient beings. These are, according to your principle, beliefs that are beyond reproach, given that no-one could disprove them.

both are false analogies.

the magician has a vested interest in fooling your senses, they get paid to do it. whereas apparitions are not known to be set up by anyone to fool others, since there is no profit or reason for it. if someone has set up a "haunted house" that charged entry, clearly it would arouse great suspicion, but generally this is hardly the case with these "sightings"... to be fair has that ever happened and been taken seriously?

on all the silliness in the second part, you have absolutely no reason to believe these things. for experiences of ghosts and such it isn't just a matter of making it up and exclaiming a random belief, these people actually believe they saw these things.

 

[Vader]

They weren't meant to be complete analogies, just to be similar in the relevant respect. The magician example was merely meant to challenge MDAO's assertion that people are justified in believing what they think they have seen even if it seems highly unlikely. It doesn't matter whether or not the illusion is a product of deliberate deception, the important thing is that things are not always as they appear to be.

As for "all the silliness", they were counterexamples specifically to Xorkoth's claim that:

What is absurd is telling someone their belief is absurd when you do not have evidence to the contrary

They are apt for this purpose.

 

[malakaix]

I believe that there is an attractive delftware teapot orbiting our planet. However, it is hidden behind the moon, and is thus never observable in any way. I believe that I am constantly being followed by a team of invisible ninjas. I believe that every day at noon, everything becomes frozen in time for a thousand years, and then resumes its normal activity, resulting in a seamless subjective experience for all sentient beings. These are, according to your principle, beliefs that are beyond reproach, given that no-one could disprove them.

No one's stopping you from believing that, be my guest man.

The problem arises when people need validation from others for these beliefs, people form beliefs based on there own experiences, if a person cannot relate to another person's experience on any level.. they usually have to take there word for it, or call them 'absurd'.

Now in your case, if you told me all of the above.. i'd believe that 'you' believe it, but i wouldn't be-able to accept that 'i' do, as i cannot relate to any of it in any way, i'm not calling you absurd or full-o-shit, im simply accepting that you believe in it..

 

[Vader]

I think that you should call me absurd and full-of-shit; those are crazy things to believe.