Why can't ghosts exist?

[Ophiolite]

So did you see a ghost or didn't you? You claimed you did and then said you didn't believe it. Why should YOUR eyewitness testimony, or lack thereof?, count when others should be dismissed out of hand?

I have recounted these incidents at least twice on this forum. (Time and inclination permitting I shall try to track down the posts.) Associated evidence demonstrate that in these two incidents I was hallucinating. If I were a less skeptical person I would believe that I had seen a 'real' ghost, a departed spirit, or non-corporeal entity. So, while I am sure I have seen ghosts, whose appearance matches that of many other (but certainly not all) ghost sightings, I equally have no reason to believe in ghosts as spirits, or other 'entities'.

I assessed my detailed eye witness testimony objectively and arrived at a plausible and probable conclusion of my experience based upon that objective analysis. Note that that analysis did not start from the premise that I had seen what I had seen. As noted earlier, that would have just been dumb.

 

[phlogistician]

actually you have a backward understanding of the mind/feeling dynamic. the brain is the processor but most of our experiences is felt in the heart region as well as our sense of self.

(twoddle deleted for brevity)

What a load of arse. Being vague doesn't get us anywhere, does it? Most people agree that the soul is some kind of separate entity to the living body, as it goes onto heaven or hell after the body dies. Except you, who has failed to actually say what it is, but pointlessly tell us what it is not.

 

[Rhaedas]

It's due to pareidolia, especially when you've been told that there's something there to see, your mind tried to make sense of what's there.

 

[Rhaedas]

Most people agree that the soul is some kind of separate entity to the living body, as it goes onto heaven or hell after the body dies.

Can't agree on the most part, but I'll agree that some people do believe it.

There's no hard evidence for it though.

 

[Stoniphi]

don't pass off your limited take on reality as if it is all reality.

you don't know this for sure, you just think you do. it's true that anecdotes and testimonials and some case histories are not enough to prove especially something of this nature but neither do you have a RIGHT to emphatically say that it doesn't exist. you are not seeing the forest for the trees but you think you have. it doesn't take just one exception to destroy a hypothesis when there is no understanding of what it is in the first place. understand now? if you are so intellectually honest and logical, then you'd understand that.

some things are indeed hallucinations and other things are a lot more complicated than that.

I urge you to take your own advice and not pass off your very limited take on reality as factual. It is not. My statement was standard science, thus the quotes.

Yours is/are not, thus the rampant religious silliness. Believe what you want, but be clear that it is your belief, not objective facts. Those are not interchangeable.

 

[phlogistician]

Can't agree on the most part, but I'll agree that some people do believe it.

There's no hard evidence for it though.

I mean that most people who believe in the soul have that opinion, not the majority of the population. I myself do not believe in souls.

 

[birch]

my, my, look at who is being ridiculous. the only ones being unrealistic are the ones who can't handle the idea that a soul actually exists. i explained that it may and that even though it may be temporal doesn't mean it can't exist.

prove to me that a soul doesn't exist or the sense of self doesn't exist. oh, that's right, you can't!

thanks for playing. anything else?

 

[birch]

I urge you to take your own advice and not pass off your very limited take on reality as factual. It is not. My statement was standard science, thus the quotes.

Yours is/are not, thus the rampant religious silliness. Believe what you want, but be clear that it is your belief, not objective facts. Those are not interchangeable.

and you people call yourself scientists? your statement is totally off. this is because i made no claims for you to make such a statement. therefore, it's you who is amounting to rampant religious silliness.

if you can recall, i pointed out that there is no way to currently understand all the phenomena that is reported because we don't understand the nature of them. they do not all have to do with ghosts either.

you just discount it all because it's convenient. that's just as erroneous and arrogant to assume you understand it all.

What a load of arse. Being vague doesn't get us anywhere, does it? Most people agree that the soul is some kind of separate entity to the living body, as it goes onto heaven or hell after the body dies. Except you, who has failed to actually say what it is, but pointlessly tell us what it is not.

how did i fail, numbnuts? because it's not in plain sight to see like your feet?

 

[Magical Realist]

Magical Realist:



The photo you've linked is poorly digitised. Zooming in even a little shows a heap of jpeg artifacts - so many in fact that I can't tell where this "figure" is that you're telling me I should look at. I can't see anything particularly unusual in the inset photo either. Could you please tell me what this figure you see looks like, where it is in the photo and so on?



According to wikipedia, that plantation is supposed to be one of the "most haunted sites in America" or something. Apparently there have been claims of 10 murders there, but only one is historically documented (not the slave girl you mention, either).

Is this photo really your best evidence for ghosts?

The site has been investigated at least twice, as far as I can tell from a minute or two searching the web.

One of your ghost TV shows - a thing called "Ghost Hunters" (ever seen that one?) - apparently spent a night there. Their infrared cameras saw shapes or images of some kind, although none of the people could see them with their own eyes. The most spooky event reported was when two of the investigators were sitting near a table with a lamp on it, discussing their "research". The lamp slowly was seen in the TV footage to move across the table! Oooh, ghosts ghosts!

The only problem was that the show's own viewers quickly wrote in to express their outrage, because they had noticed that the lamp was being pulled by its own power cord - presumably by one of the makers of the show, off-camera. So much for Ghost Hunters.

The plantation was also investigated by professional paranormal investigator and skeptic Joe Nickell in 2003. A lot of the wikipedia article on the plantation is actually based on his research and the story he wrote back then. He found no evidence at all of any ghosts or paranormal activity there.

The place uses its "ghost house" reputation as a lure for tourists. They even have a web site. They don't want to scare off the tourists, of course, so they make sure to tell you that the ghosts there are harmless to tourists.

There's plenty more information on the place on the web. A lot of it is mindless repeating of information from elsewhere, including all the incorrect stories about the supposed history of the place. But there's some stuff that seems a bit more careful and thoughtful.

Once again, I have to ask you: is this really the most convincing evidence you have for the existence of ghosts? Do you really believe the Myrtle plantation is haunted? By whom? How many ghosts? Why?

Oh, and I should also add that I've found plenty of other "ghost" photos from the plantation house on the web. There is apparently quite a famous mirror that shows ghostly images in some photos. I read that it is cracked and doesn't show the expected reflections from all angles. Looking at some of the photos that purport to show ghosts in a mirror, I notice that some of them merely show direct sunlight shining across one part of the mirror, which looks a bit like a hazy glowing shape if you hold your head the right way and have a good imagination.

Yeah..that's what I thought. Like a skeet shoot I'm supposed to set em up while you shoot em down by either dismissing them as fake or camera glitches. Really now, I've got better things to do with my time. And no that's not the best photo, but it's certainly unexplained and one of hundreds of depicted unfaked transparent human figures. The really good evidence comes from video footage where actual objects are seen to move, figures dart around corners, as well as from the audio recordings of EVPS. Also, I have seen just about every episode of Ghost Hunters and don't recall any scene of a lamp being pulled by a producer. You're saying that was caught on camera? When?

 

[Magical Realist]

I have recounted these incidents at least twice on this forum. (Time and inclination permitting I shall try to track down the posts.) Associated evidence demonstrate that in these two incidents I was hallucinating. If I were a less skeptical person I would believe that I had seen a 'real' ghost, a departed spirit, or non-corporeal entity. So, while I am sure I have seen ghosts, whose appearance matches that of many other (but certainly not all) ghost sightings, I equally have no reason to believe in ghosts as spirits, or other 'entities'.

I assessed my detailed eye witness testimony objectively and arrived at a plausible and probable conclusion of my experience based upon that objective analysis. Note that that analysis did not start from the premise that I had seen what I had seen. As noted earlier, that would have just been dumb.

Well..if I was a periodic hallucinator such as yourself I wouldn't trust what I see either. Ever spot any snakes coming out of the carpet? I hear they'll come out if you stay up really late.

 

[Magical Realist]

and you people call yourself scientists? your statement is totally off. this is because i made no claims for you to make such a statement. therefore, it's you who is amounting to rampant religious silliness.

if you can recall, i pointed out that there is no way to currently understand all the phenomena that is reported because we don't understand the nature of them. they do not all have to do with ghosts either.

you just discount it all because it's convenient. that's just as erroneous and arrogant to assume you understand it all.




how did i fail, numbnuts? because it's not in plain sight to see like your feet?

One of my favorite quotes: People who have not arrived at their conclusion by evidence and reason will never be convinced they are wrong by evidence and reason. Under the banner of science they preen and pose, believing precisely what they want to just like every other fundamentalist. Hell, if we even trotted a ghost out right in front of them they'd probably just shrug it off as a product their own demented minds. There's just no convincing an ideological skeptic. A methodological skeptic yes..but not an ideological one.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And you believe that you don't fit into this category because...?
What "evidence" or "reason" have you displayed so far?

 

[birch]

Yeah..that's what I thought. Like a skeet shoot I'm supposed to set em up while you shoot em down by either dismissing them as fake or camera glitches. Really now, I've got better things to do with my time. And no that's not the best photo, but it's certainly unexplained and one of hundreds of depicted unfaked transparent human figures. The really good evidence comes from video footage where actual objects are seen to move, figures dart around corners, as well as from the audio recordings of EVPS. Also, I have seen just about every episode of Ghost Hunters and don't recall any scene of a lamp being pulled by a producer. You're saying that was caught on camera? When?

but you do know that you have to be skeptical of these things, right? this is because we don't know what they are or if they are faked or misinterpreted etc.

evp's are not reliable either. they can record lots of background noise which can end up sounding like anything. it's similar to making out objects in cloud formations.

that said, it's not right to discount them all because there are some that are not faked and experiences people cannot currently explain.

this doesn't mean it's magical or supernatural. it's just unexplainable.

One of my favorite quotes: People who have not arrived at their conclusion by evidence and reason will never be convinced they are wrong by evidence and reason. Under the banner of science they preen and pose, believing precisely what they want to just like every other fundamentalist. Hell, if we even trotted a ghost out right in front of them they'd probably just shrug it off as a product their own demented minds. There's just no convincing an ideological skeptic. A methodological skeptic yes..but not an ideological one.

you have a point here and i agree with you on this.

 

[John99]

The title is "Why can't ghosts exist". So far i am not seeing any proof that they cant.

 

[Dywyddyr]

That would be because A) they haven't been defined and B) you haven't read the thread properly.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well..if I was a periodic hallucinator such as yourself I wouldn't trust what I see either. Ever spot any snakes coming out of the carpet? I hear they'll come out if you stay up really late.

Hallucinations are commonplace and those who do not experience at least a handful during their lifetime would make excellent subjects for a study of bizarre psychologies. You clearly have zero education in any apsect of human cognition: this accounts for your persistent misplaced confidence in eye witness testimony. I urge to correct this deficiency. Othewrwise debating these points with you will be as edifying as arguing with a stone.

 

[Magical Realist]

Hallucinations are commonplace and those who do not experience at least a handful during their lifetime would make excellent subjects for a study of bizarre psychologies. You clearly have zero education in any apsect of human cognition: this accounts for your persistent misplaced confidence in eye witness testimony. I urge to correct this deficiency. Othewrwise debating these points with you will be as edifying as arguing with a stone.

Uhhh...okaaaay...so hallucinating probably occurs more often than we think..(!!!?) But probably the worst kind of hallucination there is is when something is sitting right before your eyes and you can't even see it. In this case not eye-witnessing something might be even MORE unreliable as eye-witnessing it.

 

[Magical Realist]

but you do know that you have to be skeptical of these things, right? this is because we don't know what they are or if they are faked or misinterpreted etc.

evp's are not reliable either. they can record lots of background noise which can end up sounding like anything. it's similar to making out objects in cloud formations.

that said, it's not right to discount them all because there are some that are not faked and experiences people cannot currently explain.

this doesn't mean it's magical or supernatural. it's just unexplainable.



you have a point here and i agree with you on this.

Oh I'm all FOR skepticism when it is used as tool for uncovering the truth. But not when it is used as a substitute for the truth or for even having to look for it. I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer magazine and eventually was amazed at how anyone could always with complete honesty take the position that some phenomena isn't real or that it is always hoaxed. I never got how the magazine writers just knew that. Testing the phenomena and ruling out fakery and error are certainly PART of understanding it. But nobody can just axiomatically rule out a phenomenon as ever happening at all. That would require a level of ESP in skeptics that even I am not willing to admit exists..at least not yet..

 

[John99]

Now i'm not so sure if they exist or not. I was sure they didnt but now i'm not so sure.

 

[James R]

Magical Realist:

Yeah..that's what I thought. Like a skeet shoot I'm supposed to set em up while you shoot em down by either dismissing them as fake or camera glitches.

My idea was that we'd examine the evidence together. I tell you what my doubts are about it; you tell me why you find it convincing. I've completed my half of the bargain. You apparently can't even point out the ghostly figure in the photo you linked.

Really now, I've got better things to do with my time. And no that's not the best photo, but it's certainly unexplained and one of hundreds of depicted unfaked transparent human figures. The really good evidence comes from video footage where actual objects are seen to move, figures dart around corners, as well as from the audio recordings of EVPS. Also, I have seen just about every episode of Ghost Hunters and don't recall any scene of a lamp being pulled by a producer. You're saying that was caught on camera? When?

In the episode they did on the Myrtle Plantation ghost(s), obviously. Didn't you see that one?

Oh I'm all FOR skepticism when it is used as tool for uncovering the truth. But not when it is used as a substitute for the truth or for even having to look for it.

Well let's see. I presented you with some evidence that Ghost Hunters was faked. You ignored that and insisted that the incident with the lamp never happened. I presented you with information showing that at least some of the stories about Myrtle Plantation are false, such as the one about the ten murders and your slave girl. You ignored that information too.

As far as I can tell, you've closed your mind to anything that might question your pre-existing belief in ghosts. You're not interested in proper investigation. All you're interested in is stuff that supports your preconceptions. Anything else you just dismiss out of hand and refuse to discuss.

Remind me who is being unscientific again...

I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer magazine and eventually was amazed at how anyone could always with complete honesty take the position that some phenomena isn't real or that it is always hoaxed.

You obviously didn't read any of the investigative articles. Joe Nickel, who investigated the Myrtle Plantation, always goes into his ghost investigations with an open mind. He carefully documents all the available evidence and comes to a scientific conclusion.

But nobody can just axiomatically rule out a phenomenon as ever happening at all. That would require a level of ESP in skeptics that even I am not willing to admit exists..at least not yet..

You're right, of course. But if somebody like Joe Nickell axiomatically ruled out the possibility of ghosts from the start, then he would never need to investigate anything. He could just sit back in his armchair at home and say "Ghosts don't exist. It's axiomatic." He doesn't do that. What he does it that he goes to places and sees for himself. He investigates.

Now compare yourself. You axiomatically say "ghosts exist". You sit there in your chair and suck up everything Ghost Hunters tell you as gospel truth. You rely on second-hand accounts to bolster your beliefs. You're not willing to consider contrary evidence.

Remind me again who is being scientific here.