Ghosts - what the real deal here?

[Dr B]

These are the papers / references for the‚ sensed-presence stuff of Arzy and Blanke discussed above. Also do a search of ‘felt-presences’ as well as this will flag up the research done on patients (Parkinsonism etc) where these experiences are very common.


Arzy, S., Seeck, M., Ortigue, S., Spinelli, L., & Blanke, O. (2006). Induction of an illusory shadow person. Nature, 443, 287.

Arzy, S., Thut, G., Mohr, C., Michel, C. M., & Blanke, O. (2006). Neural basis of embodiment: Distinct contributions of temporoparietal junction and extrastriate body area. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(31), 8074-8081.


This is a classic review paper by Bentall. Its dated now – but still relevant to studies that have tried to cover hallucination-proneness as a continuum

Bentall, R. P. (1990). The illusion of reality: A review and integration of the psychological research on hallucinations. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 82-95.

This paper is good for the SDT approach of separating out perceptual sensitivity and response biases. Differences are only manifest in the response biases.

Bentall, R. P., & Slade, P. D. (1985). Reality testing and auditory hallucinations: A signal detection analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 159-169.


These studies are some of the semantic priming ones I alluded to above. They are really about semantics and not perceptual organisation per-se. Some of them spin themselves as being relevant to what they call apophetic thought processes. These effects are post-perceptual

Gianotti, L. R. R., Mohr, C., Pizzagalli, D., Lehmann, D., & Brugger, P. (2001). Associative processing and paranormal belief. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 55, 595-603.

Pizzagalli, D., Lehmann, D., & Brugger, P. (2001). Lateralized direct and indirect semantic priming effects in subjects with paranormal experiences and beliefs. Psychopathology, 34, 75-80.

Weisbrod, M., Maier, S., Harig, S., Himmelsbach, U., & Spitzer, M. (1998). Lateralised semantic and indirect semantic priming effects in people with schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 142-146.

I do also have papers for perception under conditions of noise – and there was one paper published recently in either Psychological Bulletin or Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, looking at how seeing meaning and signals in noise relates to superstitious thinking (which is perhaps more directly related to the common notion of apophenia). But that's just one paper

Hope this helps.

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

These are the papers / references for the‚ sensed-presence stuff of Arzy and Blanke discussed above. Also do a search of ‘felt-presences’ as well as this will flag up the research done on patients (Parkinsonism etc) where these experiences are very common.


Arzy, S., Seeck, M., Ortigue, S., Spinelli, L., & Blanke, O. (2006). Induction of an illusory shadow person. Nature, 443, 287.

Arzy, S., Thut, G., Mohr, C., Michel, C. M., & Blanke, O. (2006). Neural basis of embodiment: Distinct contributions of temporoparietal junction and extrastriate body area. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26(31), 8074-8081.


This is a classic review paper by Bentall. Its dated now – but still relevant to studies that have tried to cover hallucination-proneness as a continuum

Bentall, R. P. (1990). The illusion of reality: A review and integration of the psychological research on hallucinations. Psychological Bulletin, 107(1), 82-95.

This paper is good for the SDT approach of separating out perceptual sensitivity and response biases. Differences are only manifest in the response biases.

Bentall, R. P., & Slade, P. D. (1985). Reality testing and auditory hallucinations: A signal detection analysis. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 24, 159-169.


These studies are some of the semantic priming ones I alluded to above. They are really about semantics and not perceptual organisation per-se. Some of them spin themselves as being relevant to what they call apophetic thought processes. These effects are post-perceptual

Gianotti, L. R. R., Mohr, C., Pizzagalli, D., Lehmann, D., & Brugger, P. (2001). Associative processing and paranormal belief. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 55, 595-603.

Pizzagalli, D., Lehmann, D., & Brugger, P. (2001). Lateralized direct and indirect semantic priming effects in subjects with paranormal experiences and beliefs. Psychopathology, 34, 75-80.

Weisbrod, M., Maier, S., Harig, S., Himmelsbach, U., & Spitzer, M. (1998). Lateralised semantic and indirect semantic priming effects in people with schizophrenia. British Journal of Psychiatry, 172, 142-146.

I do also have papers for perception under conditions of noise – and there was one paper published recently in either Psychological Bulletin or Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, looking at how seeing meaning and signals in noise relates to superstitious thinking (which is perhaps more directly related to the common notion of apophenia). But that's just one paper

Hope this helps.

Many thanks for taking the time to provide this information.

While I accept apophenia as a shorthand explanation, I am very interested as to WHY it is an explanation, as in 'how do you explain the explanation?'

The research you have listed will give me some food for though. Once again, thanks.

 

[Dr B]

You are more than welcome - and good luck with the reading

You have made me feel that my involvement in this discussion was worthwhile and I thank you for that.

I hope lots of others reading this thread will also benefit from actually engaging with the literature.

 

[Pixel42]

While I accept apophenia as a shorthand explanation, I am very interested as to WHY it is an explanation, as in 'how do you explain the explanation?'

The actual mechanics of it are of interest (though probably above my head) but it's not particularly surprising that a tendancy to see patterns even when they aren't there would be favoured by natural selection. False positives are not as potentially dangerous as false negatives - it's better to mistake a shadow for a bear than it is to mistake a bear for a shadow. The former may lead you to waste energy running away, but the latter will get you eaten (and therefore remove you from the gene pool). So we're all descended from generations of ancestors who were good at detecting signals in the noise, even if that occasionally meant thinking they'd detected a signal where there was, in fact, only noise. But there's still a significant range of this ability/tendancy within the human population, for the same reason that some people can run faster than others even though running fast is an evolutionary advantage.

 

[Dr B]

The actual mechanics of it are of interest (though probably above my head) but it's not particularly surprising that a tendancy to see patterns even when they aren't there would be favoured by natural selection. False positives are not as potentially dangerous as false negatives - it's better to mistake a shadow for a bear than it is to mistake a bear for a shadow. The former may lead you to waste energy running away, but the latter will get you eaten (and therefore remove you from the gene pool). So we're all descended from generations of ancestors who were good at detecting signals in the noise, even if that occasionally meant thinking they'd detected a signal where there was, in fact, only noise. But there's still a significant range of this ability/tendancy within the human population, for the same reason that some people can run faster than others even though running fast is an evolutionary advantage.

That is very true and it is the generic suggestion put forward by many people in the field. It is however, a general finding and as such, cannot, on its own, explain a specific effect. For that we need something else - something in addition to this shared bias.

The specific issue is "if we are all predisposed in this way, why do only some of us go on to develop delusions from this process?" So the generic does not explain the specific

Some suggestions have been made - and some of them I would agree with - but the fascinating thing is that the direct empirical evidence for these effects are actually thin on the ground and thinner than many seem to realise.

Personally, as I have hinted at above, I think the bias in deluded people (including beleivers in the paranormal) is a bias in emotional processing and the significance placed on the perceptual experience, rather than any predisposition we all have to perceptually organise the world in this way.

So its not the seeing the meaning in the noise, but the emotional response to it that is crucial. However, its just a hunch. My other tangential point is that many skeptics that are happy with the 'just apophenia' label will never generate these questions or these interesting discussions we are having here.

They won't generate solutions to problems they are ignorant of in the first place.

 

[Resume]

Personally, as I have hinted at above, I think the bias in deluded people (including beleivers in the paranormal) is a bias in emotional processing and the significance placed on the perceptual experience, rather than any predisposition we all have to perceptually organise the world in this way.

Which should also include out and out fabrication in support of that bias.

 

[Dr B]

Which should also include out and out fabrication in support of that bias.

I think i can see why we dont really see eye to eye on matters. You are not a scientist interested in how things work. You do not seem to be interested in a mechanistic understanding as 'fabrication' is just another label. Expalaining one thing you dont know about, with another thing you dont know about.

To say its 'fabrication' tells me you dont carry out research in this area. It explains nothing.

Your approach, applied to all instances of anomalous experience would mean that, Charles-bonnet syndrome, Capgras delusion, Cotard delusion, Fregoli delusion, hearing voices, Aura associted with migraine and epilepsy, OBEs, NDEs, and so on - are all just 'fabrication'.

Is a deluded person fabricating? Think about it. I know there are charlatans out there but in terms of anomalous experiences (as opposed to claims of paranormal ability) they are quite rare (and always easy to spot).

You dont need 'fabrication' within explanations of this type (i.e., motivated out and out fabrications = lying).

 

[Resume]

I think i can see why we dont really see eye to eye on matters. You are not a scientist interested in how things work. You do not seem to be interested in a mechanistic understanding as 'fabrication' is just another label. Expalaining one thing you dont know about, with another thing you dont know about.

To say its 'fabrication' tells me you dont carry out research in this area. It explains nothing.

Your approach, applied to all instances of anomalous experience would mean that, Charles-bonnet syndrome, Capgras delusion, Cotard delusion, Fregoli delusion, hearing voices, Aura associted with migraine and epilepsy, OBEs, NDEs, and so on - are all just 'fabrication'.

Is a deluded person fabricating? Think about it. I know there are charlatans out there but in terms of anomalous experiences (as opposed to claims of paranormal ability) they are quite rare (and always easy to spot).

You dont need 'fabrication' within explanations of this type (i.e., motivated out and out fabrications = lying).

Who says (besides you) that I apply one approach to all anomalous experiences? And yes, a deluded person can fabricate a situation to confirm his/her illusion. I don't know how rare that is, but to claim it's always easy to spot seems a bit vain; ask Randi how easy it is to fool "experts."

 

[Dr B]

Who says (besides you) that I apply one approach to all anomalous experiences? And yes, a deluded person can fabricate a situation to confirm his/her illusion. I don't know how rare that is, but to claim it's always easy to spot seems a bit vain; ask Randi how easy it is to fool "experts."

I wont be asking Randi about matters of neuroscience and cognitive psychology of delusion formation. Indeed, I know he is clear not to comment on these issues (more to do with fradualent claims fo the paranormal - which can come from delusion - but more often comes from charlatans).

I never said you applied one approach just that the one you have applied is not a scientific one and is insufficient (in terms of being capable of generating a functional understanding with the power to generate clear testable predictions, that can be falsified and illuminate theory). You're a "random label generator" - which I assume reduces your anxiety so gives you comfort when faced with alternative views or having to go outside of your comfort zone.

You don't fool me - I can see you do not really understand what you are talking about, at least on this issue.

Explain to me the subtlties of fabrication and delusion in the context of current theorising on the issue - empiical evidence please not your innane rantings which just reveal how ill informed you are on these issues. I know you don't see this..... so tell me how you know clear fabrication (over and above delusion) is present outside of the charlatans......again, empirical evidence please.

Please note - all of the above debate is about understanding how people can hold to these experiences and / or beliefs - for real!!!! This has nothing to do with frauds and liars - you would know that, if read a bit more of the above posts.

 

[Resume]

I wont be asking Randi about matters of neuroscience and cognitive psychology of delusion formation. Indeed, I know he is clear not to comment on these issues (more to do with fradualent claims fo the paranormal - which can come from delusion - but more often comes from charlatans).

I never said you applied one approach just that the one you have applied is not a scientific one and is insufficient (in terms of being capable of generating a functional understanding with the power to generate clear testable predictions, that can be falsified and illuminate theory). You're a "random label generator" - which I assume reduces your anxiety so gives you comfort when faced with alternative views or having to go outside of your comfort zone.

You don't fool me - I can see you do not really understand what you are talking about, at least on this issue.

Explain to me the subtlties of fabrication and delusion in the context of current theorising on the issue - empiical evidence please not your innane rantings which just reveal how ill informed you are on these issues. I know you don't see this..... so tell me how you know clear fabrication (over and above delusion) is present outside of the charlatans......again, empirical evidence please.

Please note - all of the above debate is about understanding how people can hold to these experiences and / or beliefs - for real!!!! This has nothing to do with frauds and liars - you would know that, if read a bit more of the above posts.

Condescend much?

 

[Akhenaten]

To say its 'fabrication' tells me you dont carry out research in this area.

Neither do the vast majority of us, which is why it's a good idea to pitch whatever it is that you think you're explaining at a level which will be more generally understood.

That's if there's a genuine desire here to actually explain things rather than simply to impress the plebs with one's awesome knowledge.

It explains nothing.

Bets?

 

[Dr B]

Condescend much?

Never. Its true. Go back and check your facts. Randi is no neuroscientist and does not stray heavily into the cognitive neuroscience of anomalous experience. Nothing to do with your ill founded notion of condescending.

His contribution is primarily in claims of the paranormal and its a huge contribution as well, that most of us here acknowledge and respect. I have little experience of that area - and so - do not stray much into that angle. Conversly, he has little to do with the discussion here.

Please extend to me the common decency of actually reading what was written and try to keep things in context.

I also note you did not take me up on the questions I asked of you - which is just more evidence of what i have suspected all along...

 

[Dr B]

Neither do the vast majority of us,

Then they should not vomit about things as if they are fact when they are not. The correct pitch needs to come from all - and nothing above in my posts is above the head of anyone here - its easy to grasp.

That's if there's a genuine desire here to actually explain things rather than simply to impress the plebs with one's awesome knowledge.

I think there is desire here, and I agree there are many, many plebs. You can decide for yourself as to which faction has been represented above. My posts above, actually reveal that with some exceptions, one or two people here are not interested in explanations at all (that's kind of the point). They like labels, which give them the illusion of being clever and being skeptical, a bit like the comfort believers get from delusions.

Carl Sagan would turn in his grave and what some people around here think counts as skepticism.

 

[Resume]

I also note you did not take me up on the questions I asked of you - which is just more evidence of what i have suspected all along...

What good would my answers do? You've clearly come to your own conclusions in much the way you accuse others.

And your assertion that "true believers" don't fabricate displays an incredible naivete. I'd offer a few anecdotes but you'd dismiss them, wouldn't you?

 

[SatansMaleVoiceChoir]

<snip>You're a "random label generator" - which I assume reduces your anxiety so gives you comfort when faced with alternative views or having to go outside of your comfort zone.<snip>

I think the issue is that people tend to use what you call 'labels' as a form of shorthand. Using the car analogy again, I am broadly correct if I answer "Engine" to the question "How does my car work?"; I cannot explain the intricacies of internal combustion, and all the associated mechanics involved, but I don't necessarily HAVE to in that instance - for the sake of that question, it is enough to know that the engine is what makes the car work, and be aware that there is more to it.

Not being able to explain how an engine works in intricate detail, doesn't change the fact that the engine is still 'working' the car.

 

[Akhenaten]

Neither do the vast majority of us, which is why it's a good idea to pitch whatever it is that you think you're explaining at a level which will be more generally understood.

I've re-inserted that part of my post which you seem to have inadvertently redacted without having indicated that you'd done so.

Then they should not vomit about things as if they are fact when they are not. The correct pitch needs to come from all - and nothing above in my posts is above the head of anyone here - its easy to grasp.

Ease of graspiness has little to do with the abilities of your readership, Dr B, which are unknown to you.

It's all about the manner of your presentation which, not to put too fine a point on it, sucks hugely.

That's if there's a genuine desire here to actually explain things rather than simply to impress the plebs with one's awesome knowledge.

I think there is desire here, and I agree there are many, many plebs. You can decide for yourself as to which faction has been represented above. My posts above, actually reveal that with some exceptions, one or two people here are not interested in explanations at all (that's kind of the point). They like labels, which give them the illusion of being clever and being skeptical, a bit like the comfort believers get from delusions.

Thank the Aten that you've arrived to save us. I just hope it's not too late.

Carl Sagan would turn in his grave and what some people around here think counts as skepticism.

Well, his ghost would, at any rate.

 

[Frying Dutchmen]

Then they should not vomit about things as if they are fact when they are not. The correct pitch needs to come from all - and nothing above in my posts is above the head of anyone here - its easy to grasp.

Ghosts aren't real I'm not vomiting, I'm stating a fact that you can't seem wrap your head around. Looking and I will try to read the papers you posted yet didn't link any available pages about. It looks like you are lumping all ghost accounts into one big grab bag of evidence for ghosts.

I think there is desire here, and I agree there are many, many plebs. You can decide for yourself as to which faction has been represented above. My posts above, actually reveal that with some exceptions, one or two people here are not interested in explanations at all (that's kind of the point). They like labels, which give them the illusion of being clever and being skeptical, a bit like the comfort believers get from delusions.

Carl Sagan would turn in his grave and what some people around here think counts as skepticism.

I think Carl Sagan would be happy that the skeptical movement has grown so much and happy that people are questioning so called experts in the paranormal.