Extraordinary Evidence for Ghosts?

[SirPhilip]

Psychological explanations have been found. Believers tend not to find those explanations adequate.Conclusion - it is one of those things that is unlikely to ever go away.

Other than neurchemical abnormality or objective hallucinations, I don't see how it could be anything of lesser impact. But it really is like that in cases like mine - reasoning devices don't work, you have to defer to neurochemical explanations, or examining it in the context as a real event. People, despite being easily fooled and willing to take things at face value, have subconcious mechanisms that determine what is ordinary or out of the ordinary. Even under the influence of acetycholine inhibitors, which results in a total divorce between subjective and objective events in front of you somebody still is able to discern it as such. It would be great if I knew it was just a temporary, freak neurochemical imbalance, and could put the matter to rest, but it is impossible, in all honesty, for me to take a position that It was a non-event. I remember clearly that I was in a normal to high state of situational awareness.

 

[SirPhilip]

Have to disagree here. I got clipped by a car at a pedestrian crossing when I was 11, all I could remember was *PAIN - OW!!* *tumbling* *there's a lot of pigeons up there...* and *Dull ache - What happened?*. No clarity, just vague sensations and emotions.

My bad, I over generalized there. Physical trauma is indeed often the exact opposite. You often hear of vets who are 90 years old remembering combat events in the first world war "like it was yesterday..", then as soon as they undergo physical trauma, it all deteroriates.

 

[Ed]

If we are to suppose a miracle to be something so entirely out of the course of what is called nature, that she must go out of that course to accomplish it, and we see an account given of such miracle by the person who said he saw it, it raises a question in the mind very easily decided, which is, is it more probable that nature should go out of her course, or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course; but we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time; it is therefore, at least millions to one, that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie.

Tom Paine, patron saint of sceptics.

 

[Beth]

Tom Paine, patron saint of sceptics.

That's fine to dismiss other people's accounts of unlikely event. It doesn't work so well for folks like Sir Phillip and me. One cannot dismiss one's own experiences so easily.

 

[Z]

That's fine to dismiss other people's accounts of unlikely event. It doesn't work so well for folks like Sir Phillip and me. One cannot dismiss one's own experiences so easily.

Especially when one is stubborn, ignorant of basic facts, and unwilling to consider the possibility their experiences were wrong.

Or when one has a fixed and firm belief in the supernatural to begin with.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

That's fine to dismiss other people's accounts of unlikely event. It doesn't work so well for folks like Sir Phillip and me. One cannot dismiss one's own experiences so easily.

You should try getting really really drunk, eat some cheese, somehow end up in bed and then have a load of dreams. Try remembering which experiences were real, and which were dreams. It's harder than you think sometimes.

 

[Ed]

That's fine to dismiss other people's accounts of unlikely event. It doesn't work so well for folks like Sir Phillip and me. One cannot dismiss one's own experiences so easily.

On a level playing field if I have to choose whether physical laws have been abrogated or that you are lieing, I will choose lieing. That is harsh and there are other possibilites.

Drawing to an inside straight is unlikely, the paranormal is beyond that.

 

[SirPhilip]

Especially when one is stubborn, ignorant of basic facts, and unwilling to consider the possibility their experiences were wrong. Or when one has a fixed and firm belief in the supernatural to begin with.

And the point I wanted to make: or none whatsoever.

In overt cases, you are asking somebody to deny what they saw, and the person doesn't feel they are being honest or reasonable. The problem is what someone obviously sees conflicts with what obviously is not considered possible. It's easy to determine falsehood, but it is also easy to know when you see something. Seeing a glaring, big, glowing ball of blue gas, and stared at it for ten seconds, you would be saying the exact same things I would be, and going against your better judgement considering things not even related to the situation. Even if you invent a well-winded reason how it could happen that fits into mainstream ideas about biology, a conflict will still exist. It has nothing to do with wanting to believe one thing or the other, and this is often not kept in mind when dealing with people claiming to have seen "something".

 

[Beth]

On a level playing field if I have to choose whether physical laws have been abrogated or that you are lieing, I will choose lieing. That is harsh and there are other possibilites.

That's understandable. You can never be certain about what someone else says they experienced. But experiencing something for yourself is a different matter. You cannot dismiss your own experiences as lies.

With my own experience (and note that I am making no claims as to what it might have been), I see no reason to presume that I experienced an hallucination on the way to class one morning and I know I'm not lying about what I saw. Given that I know of no rational explanation for a mysterious cloud to appear and then disappear on my path and given that what I saw fits the general description of 'ghost' coupled with the fact that I heard the next day about the recent death of a dear friend, I end up considering that as a possibility (not a certainty) despite it contradicting current scientific theory. Now, I don't 'believe' I saw a ghost because belief is too strong a word. I only know that I saw something and that I have no rational explanation for what it was or how it came to be there.

 

[Garrette]

In overt cases, you are asking somebody to deny what they saw, and the person doesn't feel they are being honest or reasonable. The problem is what someone obviously sees conflicts with what obviously is not considered possible. It's easy to determine falsehood, but it is also easy to know when you see something.

As Ed said, there are other possibilities besides falsehood or intentional deception. They include (but are not limited to) misremembering, pareidolia (sp?), and actual but mundane phenomena about which the viewer has no prior knowledge.

Your own experience could be any of the three I mentioned, though I suspect the first two. Memory of traumatic events (as you used the phrase) is not nearly so reliable as you think. Eyewitness testimony is particularly unreliable.

The OP photo is almost certainly a manipulated photo. Have we proven it so? Of course not, but posters here have laid out numerous mundane explanations based on the photo itself. None of these require reaching for the supernatural or for invoking an esoteric science about which you and I know little.


Actually, I think your statement gets to what is at the heart of much of people’s beliefs: Order of Exposure.

I claim no scientific support for this claim of mine, but it appears that those who acquire a belief in the supernatural prior to learning alternative, mundane, explanations for the phenomena they use as evidence, are unlikely to drop their beliefs when later exposed to the alternate explanations. Indeed, it is my experience, that they intentionally limit their exposure and refuse to dig in to the proffered alternatives. I won’t hypothesize why.

It’s not true of all people, of course. I am an example. But my road was long and hard, though mainly self-taught. If I were smarter, I’d have dropped my beliefs a lot sooner.

Seeing a glaring, big, glowing ball of blue gas, and stared at it for ten seconds, you would be saying the exact same things I would be, and going against your better judgement considering things not even related to the situation. Even if you invent a well-winded reason how it could happen that fits into mainstream ideas about biology, a conflict will still exist. It has nothing to do with wanting to believe one thing or the other, and this is often not kept in mind when dealing with people claiming to have seen "something".

This is a variation of a rather insulting believer argument.

Newflash: I was a very strong believer in such things for a very long time. I have seen glowing gases (blue and white some but mostly green). I “communed” with them on a small mountain in Arizona as they danced around the saguaro on a nearby peak. This was after a rather heady and terrifying journey (both physical and spiritual) up the mountain, alone, in the dark during which I encountered obstacles and phenomena that proved beyond doubt that I was in the middle of the supernatural. I battled it, and I won. I was not on drugs, I had had nothing to drink, I was not ill, I was in good shape, and I believed.

Later I found more mundane explanations for everything I saw and did. By that time, though, I had undergone some mental journeys regarding other aspects of belief and I was able to pierce my own veil and stop deluding myself.

The experience was not a sad one, but surprisingly liberating.

I will match my paranormal experiences with any believer, and I will not accept someone telling me ”If you had just seen what I did, you would believe like I do.”

It’s a crap statement I used to use, and it’s used as crap defensive when legitimate argument fails.

The counter phrase goes like this: ”If you learn what I have learned, you will stop believing as I did.”

I have seen. Will you learn?

 

[Garrette]

That's understandable. You can never be certain about what someone else says they experienced. But experiencing something for yourself is a different matter. You cannot dismiss your own experiences as lies.

Partly true. Personal experiences can be classified as several things which would belie a paranormal explanation. They may be the intentional deception of you by another. You may have “mis” seen what was there (akin to seeing a person standing in the shadows only to have the various parts dissolve into a broken lamppost, fluttering rag, and garbage can lid as you approach; imagine not having approached and leaving with the certainty that you had seen a person). You may be misremembering what you saw to fit into your later knowledge of a friend’s recent death and your preconceptions of what ghosts should look like.

With my own experience (and note that I am making no claims as to what it might have been), I see no reason to presume that I experienced an hallucination on the way to class one morning and I know I'm not lying about what I saw.

I would not ascribe either of these to your experience, either, but they are not the only plausible alternatives.

Given that I know of no rational explanation for a mysterious cloud to appear and then disappear on my path and given that what I saw fits the general description of 'ghost' coupled with the fact that I heard the next day about the recent death of a dear friend, I end up considering that as a possibility (not a certainty) despite it contradicting current scientific theory.

A “possibility?” Of course. A likely possibility? No.

Now, I don't 'believe' I saw a ghost because belief is too strong a word.

Is it fair to say that you lean in that direction? Or that you think the ghost explanation is as likely as any other?

I only know that I saw something and that I have no rational explanation for what it was or how it came to be there.

This is a perfectly reasonable position. If you want to carry it further, you can choose two courses:

1) Seek an explanation through researching the literature and visiting forums such as this one. Then weighing the evidence to determine the most likely explanation. An honest attempt at this course could result in you still saying “I don’t know what it was,” but for it to result in you legitimately saying “Ghost is as likely an explanation as any” requires you to make unreasonable jumps.

2) Seek an explanation using only your own knowledge. This is what it appears you are doing. This leads to the old argument from ignorance thing and the Ghost of the Gaps explanation.

 

[Beth]

A “possibility?” Of course. A likely possibility? No.

Well, disagreements over what that probability might be is essentially the heart of discussions such as these. I would say I assign it a higher probability than you do, but I wouldn't go so far as to say it is a likely possibility. Only that I give the probability of ghosts existing a considerably higher value since that experience than I did before that experience.

Is it fair to say that you lean in that direction? Or that you think the ghost explanation is as likely as any other?

Hmmm. I don't lean in any particular direction as much as I am puzzled by the experience, it fits that general description and I have no other explanation (rational or not) that fits.

This is a perfectly reasonable position. If you want to carry it further, you can choose two courses:

1) Seek an explanation through researching the literature and visiting forums such as this one.

Unfortunately, the general level of discourse in this forum when people attempt to discuss such experiences is so acrimonious, that I prefer not to. I haven't wanted to discuss the experience in detail here because many posters grow irate when someone refuses to accept explanations such as pareidolia or misremembering as sufficient. Accusations of lying are not uncommon either. I mentioned it in this thread only because had some similarities to experience Sir Phillip described and thus lends some credence to such experiences as being legitimate real occurrences, not just misrememberings, hallucinations or pareidolia.

Those people I have discussed it with (not here) fall into one of two camps -

1. It's definitely the spirit of your dear departed friend, why do you doubt it?
2. It's definitely not a ghost because ghosts don't exist. I have faith there is some rational explation for what you saw even if I don't know what it is.

There is a third camp, but I avoid discussing it with people who fall into this camp.

3. I'm a liar or experiencing pareidolia, misremembering, or hallucination. I know I'm not lying. I see no reason to think that I have misremembering the experience as I journaled the experience soon afterwards. Pareidolia seems unlikely since I saw no form or pattern, just a white cloud. There is no reason to presume I had a hallucination. I wasn't on drugs or dreaming.

2) Seek an explanation using only your own knowledge. This is what it appears you are doing. This leads to the old argument from ignorance thing and the Ghost of the Gaps explanation.

I never heard the ghost of the gaps explanation before. Cute. I have, in fact, discussed it with others (not here) and tried to find other rational explanations. There are none that I am aware of.

 

[sat556]

Beth. It seems that you have decided the 'probability' of it being a ghost is higher due to your friend passing away. If this event hadn't happened the next day, would you still be thinking that it was a ghost? If this isn't the reason, I can't fathom the transition form 'blob' to ghost. Even if it is the reason, applying it to myself, I think I'd still consider it a blob.

 

[Beth]

Beth. It seems that you have decided the 'probability' of it being a ghost is higher due to your friend passing away. If this event hadn't happened the next day, would you still be thinking that it was a ghost? If this isn't the reason, I can't fathom the transition form 'blob' to ghost. Even if it is the reason, applying it to myself, I think I'd still consider it a blob.

The idea of 'ghost' did not occur to me until I heard the news about my friend soon afterwards. And I do still think of it as a blob. But I can't deny that 'ghost' is an explanation that fits with the experience and I have no other explanation that does fit, rational or otherwise.

 

[SirPhilip]

Newflash: I was a very strong believer in such things for a very long time. I have seen glowing gases (blue and white some but mostly green). I “communed” with them on a small mountain in Arizona as they danced around the saguaro on a nearby peak. This was after a rather heady and terrifying journey (both physical and spiritual) up the mountain, alone, in the dark during which I encountered obstacles and phenomena that proved beyond doubt that I was in the middle of the supernatural. I battled it, and I won. I was not on drugs, I had had nothing to drink, I was not ill, I was in good shape, and I believed. Later I found more mundane explanations for everything I saw and did. By that time, though, I had undergone some mental journeys regarding other aspects of belief and I was able to pierce my own veil and stop deluding myself. The experience was not a sad one, but surprisingly liberating. I will match my paranormal experiences with any believer, and I will not accept someone telling me ”If you had just seen what I did, you would believe like I do.”

I don't have an interest in 'spiritual' phenomena or associated practices (except as art and fiction), so I can't really relate. This is not directly observing something that leaves no doubt about what it is either. Creaking wood, cold chills, thinking someone or something is there, pretending heavenly forces are managing your life, or everything else associated with softcore nonsense is a different subject. People who consider these things real without justification are not being honest with themselves first and foremost. People know, deep down, what is true and what isn't and I rarely consider it having anything to do with reasoning ability. I'll admit myself feeling the urge jump to the conclusion it was some kind of natural event, simply because it's a comforting idea instead of the jarring alternative to rationalizing an irrational event.

As Ed said, there are other possibilities besides falsehood or intentional deception. They include (but are not limited to) misremembering, pareidolia (sp?), and actual but mundane phenomena about which the viewer has no prior knowledge.

Then the only explanation would have been a single, freak occurance of pareidolia.

I have seen. Will you learn?

Sure. But the saying "Keep an open mind, but don't let your brain fall out.." is a double-edged sword when your brain reinforces something irrational. Perhaps I'm greatly underestimating pareidolia. Instead of commenting further, I'll research more about it; having never heard the term until you mentioned it. It would be nice to arrive at some kind of answer, in any case. As for the centuries' old ghost phenomena eventually falling under a natural phenomena, I don't assign a paranormal or spiritual connotation to it. Whatever it was, it did not appear to be self-aware at all or react by my pulling hanging clothes away from it, so don't think I was implying it was alive.

 

[sat556]

The idea of 'ghost' did not occur to me until I heard the news about my friend soon afterwards. And I do still think of it as a blob. But I can't deny that 'ghost' is an explanation that fits with the experience and I have no other explanation that does fit, rational or otherwise.

So if your friend was still alive, you wouldn't think it was a ghost, even now?

 

[Beth]

So if your friend was still alive, you wouldn't think it was a ghost, even now?

I don't think it was a ghost even now. I simply do not know what it was and consider that a possibility because I have no other explanation for it. I do think that without the loss of my friend the fit of the ghost hypothesis would be considerably less.

 

[Kopji]

It looks like its peeing by the window, facing away from the photographer. Note the ghost shirt sleeves and arms reaching around...

 

[Garrette]

I simply do not know what it was and consider that a possibility because I have no other explanation for it

I don't buy this. I suspect you have no explanation you like as much.

 

[Garrette]

I don't have an interest in 'spiritual' phenomena or associated practices (except as art and fiction), so I can't really relate.

Whether it was spiritual or not is not the issue. How it compares to your experience is.

This is not directly observing something that leaves no doubt about what it is either.

Besides being the No True Scotsman fallacy this is simply adding insult and compounding the arrogance of your position. There was positively no doubt. What I saw was clearer than the clarity you have communicated regarding what you saw. And I was considerably older.

Creaking wood, cold chills, thinking someone or something is there, pretending heavenly forces are managing your life, or everything else associated with softcore nonsense is a different subject.

Exactly how do you equate my experience to this?

If you do not equate it, then why do you bring it up except in an attempt to denigrate my experience.

It is this type of response that leads me to question your sincerity again.

That's not completely true. It makes me think you are another example of what I was and another example of what so many believers are like. Sincere, but bound to their beliefs without recognizing the degree.

Someone presents a similar experience with mundane explanations and you resort to to rationalization and claims that my experience couldn't be like yours, else I would also believe.

If you could step outside this discussion for a moment you would see not only the rationalization but the arrogance that accompanies it and the fear that losing your belief will mean the loss of special status. And you don't recognize it.

People who consider these things real without justification are not being honest with themselves first and foremost.

So you recognize that this condition is possible?

People know, deep down, what is true and what isn't and I rarely consider it having anything to do with reasoning ability.

No. People think they know, deep down, what is true and what isn't, and it most certainly has nothing to do with reasoning ability.

I'll admit myself feeling the urge jump to the conclusion it was some kind of natural event, simply because it's a comforting idea instead of the jarring alternative to rationalizing an irrational event.

An event is neither rational nor irrational. It may be explained or unexplained, but that is all. And your rationalization is not in the direction of a natural event, even if you really think so. You are rationalizing (which is different from reasoning) in support of the supernatural.