What would constitute proof of a ghost?

[Jeff C]

seems that those that doubt just havent had a real good personal experience.. ..

 

[Resume]

seems that those that doubt just havent had a real good personal experience.. ..

Don't be so hasty; many have experiences that seem "paranormal" at first blush, but after critical examination, other explanations emerge.

Hypnopompic or hypnagogic hallucinations are quite common, as is a simple misinterpretation of one's senses. These should be considered before jumping to any conclusions.

 

[Crossbow]

I agree. And it would doubtless win the MDC!

The only practical problem I see is how could you verify something that only a dead person could know? If no one living knows, then how can we determine whether it's correct? If someone living does know, then there's the problem of information leakage (by normal means).

Good call!

Indeed, it could be difficult to work out a test that is cheat-proof.

However, I will give it some thought.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

What would constitute proof of a ghost?

A blurry picture from someone we don't know and from whom we have nothing else but their testimony should do fine.

 

[GrandMasterFox]

Good call!

Indeed, it could be difficult to work out a test that is cheat-proof.

However, I will give it some thought.

Well, that depends as usual on the exact claim in question.

For example, if you can summon the spirit of any deceased individual and you have no problem with quantity, we could randomly select any number of individuals who have passed away and you would ask them for their social security numbers or something.

The odds of a person memorizing the entire public record database of every individual who passed away in the past 100 years is rather slim I'd say.

Assuming we make sure to search him before hand to make sure he is not using a computer of any sort.

But then again that may not be how contacting ghosts work.
We need a claim before devising a test.

 

[Jeff C]

true. true.. i have laughed to myself a few times when i realized how misled i was.. but. not everything is a trick.. .sometimes its real...

 

[Cainkane1]

This is a spinoff of another thread concerning a picture of a "ghost". I realized that while no one responding in that thread really believed that a ghost had been seen, the responses centered around how the picture was probably faked. It got me thinking, what is proof of a ghost? What do people who believe in ghosts point to as proof? Pictures? Is that really enough? It's either a picture of "something" they saw or anecdotal evidence.

If ghosts exist, how would one prove it? Since we know pictures and fables aren't cutting it.

If my premise isn't clear enough, I can elaborate.

I'd say several people seeing, videoing reliably and interacting with a so called ghost. The ghost would have to make repeat appearances and communicate.

 

[Nursedan]

I'd say several people seeing, videoing reliably and interacting with a so called ghost. The ghost would have to make repeat appearances and communicate.

See, this, like some other responses to my OP seems reasonable, even though you didn't go out of your way to define what a ghost is.

 

[Nursedan]

Just a quick post to put me at 100. Yay

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

well.. also.. joe.. just cause some are ignorant does not make everyone ignorant... HAH

Actually in this context it does.

Your own personal belief--no matter how strong-- is not the same as knowledge. It's basic epistemology.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

true. true.. i have laughed to myself a few times when i realized how misled i was.. but. not everything is a trick.. .sometimes its real...

When and where? Just asserting something doesn't make it real, and certainly doesn't constitute proof.

ETA: This is called begging the question. Also, you present a false dichotomy: just because something isn't a trick doesn't mean the only other explanation is that it must be a real ghost.


-------------

I'd say several people seeing, videoing reliably and interacting with a so called ghost. The ghost would have to make repeat appearances and communicate.

See, this, like some other responses to my OP seems reasonable, even though you didn't go out of your way to define what a ghost is.

And that's the problem with it. As long as you don't define ghost, even this would not constitute proof of the existence of a ghost.

If this occurred, how would you know it's not something other than a ghost?

What would make it a ghost and not a demon or a saint? What would make it a ghost and not an alien with advanced teleportation technology? What would make it a ghost and not a time traveler? These aren't questions about the evidence itself; these are questions about the definition. Unless you can give a formal logical or operational definition of the term, you cannot say what would constitute proof.

This isn't such a difficult concept to understand, so I'm beginning to suspect that you are being less than sincere.

 

[Nursedan]

When and where? Just asserting something doesn't make it real, and certainly doesn't constitute proof.


--------

What would make it a ghost and not a demon or a saint? What would make it a ghost and not an alien with advanced teleportation technology? What would make it a ghost and not a time traveler? These aren't questions about the evidence itself; these are questions about the definition. Unless you can give a formal logical or operational definition of the term, you cannot say what would constitute proof.

This isn't such a difficult concept to understand, so I'm beginning to suspect that you are being less than sincere.

Me? I'm sincere in my inquiry, but this notion that the undefinable must be defined is getting a bit tired. I thought this had been handled in previous posts.

I guess you're frustrated for some reason, (as if you must contribute here), so think of what most people consider to be a ghost - maybe this idea came from a book, maybe a movie or a tv show, whatever. Thought of one yet? Good - that's my definition of a ghost.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Me? I'm sincere in my inquiry, but this notion that the undefinable must be defined is getting a bit tired. I thought this had been handled in previous posts.

No. All I've seen is you avoiding the issue. It has not been handled.

You just are resistant to the idea that it's pointless to talk of proof of "the undefinable". As I've pointed out, it's not a difficult thing to understand.

Here are some of the problems with conventional notions of a ghost:

If it's defined as discorporate consciousness, then it can't possibly have any sensory input. (We know for certain that all sensory inputs require receptor cells which are part of a body.) For that matter, without a brain, it can have no memory, language, level of arousal, proprioception, etc.--the things that are collectively referred to as "consciousness".

If it's defined as being immaterial, then it can't also have location, so it's pointless to talk about something that is immaterial appearing in a certain place.

If it's defined as being a material thing, then it would be quite easy to say what would constitute proof. (Trouble is, few people will say that a ghost is a material thing.) Also, if it is, the complete dearth of physical evidence means it would be rather silly to continue believing in its existence.

If is has the properties of being invisible, massless, odorless, etc. then there is no difference at all between this thing and nothing. (Ever heard of the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage?) This is, I think, what you mean by something "undefinable". You want to play a game where any time someone suggests a test for the existence of the thing, you say it lacks that property or characteristic.

That's why it's absurd to ask what would constitute proof for the existence of something that is undefined.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I guess you're frustrated for some reason, (as if you must contribute here), so think of what most people consider to be a ghost - maybe this idea came from a book, maybe a movie or a tv show, whatever. Thought of one yet? Good - that's my definition of a ghost.

I have addressed that conventional definition early on--probably in my first post on this thread. And you have failed to respond.

That definition contains a contradiction. I'll tell you what would constitute proof of a ghost (with this contradictory definition) if you can tell me what would constitute proof of a 4 sided triangle.

 

[Resume]

Me? I'm sincere in my inquiry, but this notion that the undefinable must be defined is getting a bit tired. I thought this had been handled in previous posts.

I guess you're frustrated for some reason, (as if you must contribute here), so think of what most people consider to be a ghost - maybe this idea came from a book, maybe a movie or a tv show, whatever. Thought of one yet? Good - that's my definition of a ghost.

If you can't define your own terms, put them into words, how can you expect to be understood? There are quite a few different interpretations of "ghosts" in movies, TV, books-- which one?

You're the one making the claim.

 

[Resume]

No. All I've seen is you avoiding the issue. It has not been handled.

You just are resistant to the idea that it's pointless to talk of proof of "the undefinable". As I've pointed out, it's not a difficult thing to understand.

Here are some of the problems with conventional notions of a ghost:

If it's defined as discorporate consciousness, then it can't possibly have any sensory input. (We know for certain that all sensory inputs require receptor cells which are part of a body.) For that matter, without a brain, it can have no memory, language, level of arousal, proprioception, etc.--the things that are collectively referred to as "consciousness".

If it's defined as being immaterial, then it can't also have location, so it's pointless to talk about something that is immaterial appearing in a certain place.

If it's defined as being a material thing, then it would be quite easy to say what would constitute proof. (Trouble is, few people will say that a ghost is a material thing.) Also, if it is, the complete dearth of physical evidence means it would be rather silly to continue believing in its existence.

If is has the properties of being invisible, massless, odorless, etc. then there is no difference at all between this thing and nothing. (Ever heard of the invisible dragon in Carl Sagan's garage?) This is, I think, what you mean by something "undefinable". You want to play a game where any time someone suggests a test for the existence of the thing, you say it lacks that property or characteristic. That's why it's absurd to ask what would constitute proof for the existence of something that is undefined.

A common paranormal dodge is that one of the properties of said phenomenon is that it lacks properties one can consistently test. The paranormal is "shy" in other words.

Contradictory and special pleading at least.

 

[staunch]

JoeTheJuggler Is spot on.
Definitions that are too narrow will exclude some things that must not be omitted from the object of the definition you are trying to describe. To say a ghost does (or does not) exist you have to know what ghost means when writing describing or talking about a ghost.
So any meaning of a ghost, must have a definition long before you can say if one of them ghost things exist or not. This is where the belief in ghosts falls flat on its face.

Without a definition of a ghost, there is NO WAY to discuss, or describe a ghost. How can you expect to prove something to exist if you cannot give a definition of what to look for? — To go looking for something but have NO idea what to look for is not logical , you would not know it if you found it because you have no idea what you are looking for.

The definition of a ghost seems to be an oxymoron, their is the probability that someone has given a definition to something that does not exist by definition

 

[Nursedan]

This answered my question well enough. But of course I already said so. I'm not going to read through every response you've posted, Joe, but have you offerred a definition of a ghost? That would be helpful.

This is an interesting question, since the big issue with "ghosts" is that they defy known physical laws. The central premise of a ghost is that it is a disembodied spirit/mental essence of someone who has died--that is, something that is conscious but exists with only an intermittant, or no, physical form. This implies that there is consciousness without a brain to contain the mechanisms of thought; and that somehow dying permits this essence to acquire abilities--like creating a vaporous presence, moving through walls, telekinetically moving things (necessary if you have no physicality but slam doors, move things, etc.)--that the entity did not have in life.

I would think that a sufficient examination of apparitional appearances by several teams that have the means, ability, and willingness to consider all non-supernatural explanations for what are deemed ghostly phenomena by the credulous, coupled with some kind of reproducible, non-subjective, measurable effects, would be a good start. But because the very concept of a spirit is so extraordinarily outside Reality as we know it to exist, extraordinary proof is needed.

If pictures are to be of any value, they would have to be taken from multiple angles by automated cameras, with some kind of mechanism of demonstrating synchronisation of the camera shots and continuity against editting. Think about the kind of multi-camera, marked-for-measurement background, voiced indication of which run it is, and such the Mythbusters crew do when they are testing something. That's a very minimum requirement to be able to assess the phenomenon that is being described.


A couple of credulous e-meter wielding camera-hams saying "Did you see that?" to each other in a dark room isn't cutting it. If a ghost were real, it would not be dependent upon darkness or credulity to do its thing.

Just my thoughts, MK

 

[MikeSun5]

seems that those that doubt just havent had a real good personal experience.. ..

Au contraire... I've seen what people would describe as a "ghost," and what people would describe as a "UFO."

Both of which had boring, mundane explanations that I discovered later.

Same with your bump-in-the-night experience, and that thing with the bird: Ghosts or spirits are an exciting and really easy answer. They're mysterious, spooky, and explain everything that was heard or seen! Unfortunately, what really occured takes more thought and logic to figure out, but yields a way less interesting answer.

That's why belief in stuff like ghosts is popular. It's more fun than reality.

I'm not going to read through every response you've posted, Joe, but have you offerred a definition of a ghost?

Don't hold your breath. He has way more fun poo-pooing everyone else.

If it's defined as discorporate consciousness, then it can't possibly have any sensory input.

Conventional definitions suggest they exist on different planes/dimensions and some can "cross over" into ours. Of course, to communicate, you have to be "tuned in" to them.

If it's defined as being immaterial, then it can't also have location, so it's pointless to talk about something that is immaterial appearing in a certain place.

Here's what some loony thinks ghosts are made of.

If is has the properties of being invisible, massless, odorless, etc. then there is no difference at all between this thing and nothing.

By that logic, there's no difference between nothing and a hologram. A holgoram can be defined as "immaterial," yet I'm sure you could have a discussion about holograms.

That's why it's absurd to ask what would constitute proof for the existence of something that is undefined.

There it is! This thread is "absurd." Thanks, Joe!

...anyway, since believers in ghosts rely on convoluted information and measuring devices that are easily fooled and manipulated, they have no problem providing "proof" of ghosts, spirits, etc. The problem with the "proof" is that it hardly ever stands up to scientific scrutiny. Since the evidence supporting the existence of ghosts usually hinges on weird "energy" fields and usually requires psychics to discover, ghost believers feel their proof is strong. I mean, there's no shortage of mysterious energy and psychics.

It's like an easy out. If a test fails, it can be blamed on the conditions not being appropriate for the test to work. If a ghost doesn't show up or make some racket when it's supposed to, you can just say, "Hey... it's like the 4th dimension, man. Nobody knows how or when it works." Or blame it on God. It's easy.

So to answer the OP: It depends on who's giving and taking the test. If it was the JREF giving it, I don't think there is any way to prove ghosts. If it's any of the ghost websites I've linked to giving it, I'm sure they would find ample "proof," be it pictures, sound bites, or electromagnetic and temperature readings.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Joe, but have you offerred a definition of a ghost?

It's not my question. My opinion of your question is that it's no more meaningful than asking what would constitute proof of a 4 sided triangle.

_________

Conventional definitions suggest they exist on different planes/dimensions and some can "cross over" into ours.

In this mumbo-jumbo you forgot to say the word "quantum".

The words "plane" and "dimension" have real meanings, but not when they're used this way.

By that logic, there's no difference between nothing and a hologram. A holgoram can be defined as "immaterial," yet I'm sure you could have a discussion about holograms.

You're wrong. Holograms are material. I've seen them and held them in my hands.

You do realize that a hologram is a recorded image, don't you? I've yet to see any recorded image that is immaterial.

So to answer the OP: It depends on who's giving and taking the test.

So you think what constitutes proof is purely subjective? I couldn't disagree more. There is one objective reality.