What would constitute proof of a ghost?

Nursedan

Critical Thinker
Nursedan
Joined
Mar 16, 2010
Messages
490
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.
 
Nursedan said:
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.
Click to expand...

Elaborate please.
 
What would you like me to elaborate? I was hoping people would have a relevant response to which I could expound on my premise.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Nursedan said:
What would you like me to elaborate? I was hoping people would have a relevant response to which I could expound on my premise.
Click to expand...

You first have to define the term. Conventionally, the word ghost is used for something that is logically impossible (something that has no material existence, but can interact with matter).

Without any more narrow definition, the question is not different from, "What would constitute proof of a 4 sided triangle?" When someone responds that such a thing is impossible, they are accused by bleevers of being close-minded.
 
Last edited:
Nursedan said:
What would you like me to elaborate? I was hoping people would have a relevant response to which I could expound on my premise.
Click to expand...

Advance a coherent thesis statement as to what constitutes a "ghost." What are its properties and mechanics? How are these observed? Can they be replicated in a controlled environment using proper controls and protocol?

Stuff like that.
 
Nursedan said:
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.
Click to expand...
Giant Doughboys nothing else
 
Resume said:
Advance a coherent thesis statement as to what constitutes a "ghost." What are its properties and mechanics? How are these observed? Can they be replicated in a controlled environment using proper controls and protocol?

Stuff like that.
Click to expand...

Nah, you're reading too far into this. Thanks for the response.
 
What do you mean, he's "reading too far into this"? You started the bloody thread, you must have some idea what you're talking about.
 
Sledge said:
What do you mean, he's "reading too far into this"? You started the bloody thread, you must have some idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Yeah mighta been too harsh. It sounded like he was asking me to answer my own question. I don't know what a ghost is, do you? Does anyone? How would I know the properties and mechanics of a ghost?
 
Ok, so you'd like us to tell you what proof we would accept for something, but you can't tell us what the something is. Do you see the problem with your request?
 
Resume said:
Advance a coherent thesis statement as to what constitutes a "ghost." What are its properties and mechanics? How are these observed? Can they be replicated in a controlled environment using proper controls and protocol?

Stuff like that.
Click to expand...

It seems to me this is the kind of thing Nursedan is asking for from us. If we knew or could even guess the answers to these (probably unanswerable) questions, then there would be no need to ask how to quantify it in the first place.
 
Vortigern99 said:
It seems to me this is the kind of thing Nursedan is asking for from us. If we knew or could even guess the answers to these (probably unanswerable) questions, then there would be no need to ask how to quantify it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Plus we'd be rich and doing something more interesting than . . . what we're doing.
 
Sledge said:
Ok, so you'd like us to tell you what proof we would accept for something, but you can't tell us what the something is. Do you see the problem with your request?
Click to expand...

Sheesh. :rolleyes: Methinks you're being intentionally difficult.

For those who have never heard of a ghost before: Here's the dictionary entry... I'd imagine that definitions 1 or 2 would probably be okay for the sake of this conversation. ;)

...in response to the OP, it would depend on who you were as far as what evidence is considered "proof." Many people point to pictures as proof, some have audio recordings, some claim evidence of electric or electromagnetic anomolies, and some claim anecdotal evidence as proof. Obviously, they have all been crap so far.

I would imagine that if ghosts really did exist, they'd be pretty easy to prove. All the people who claim to talk to the dead would actually be getting solid, accurate information. If I heard that John Edwards guy tell me my grandmother's full name and Social Security Number, it'd be pretty convincing... but since ghosts don't exist, he's limited to saying, "I'm getting a 'nuh' or a 'nor' sound. And the number 2. Does that make sense to you? Think about it..."
 
MikeSun5 said:
Sheesh. :rolleyes: Methinks you're being intentionally difficult.

For those who have never heard of a ghost before: Here's the dictionary entry... I'd imagine that definitions 1 or 2 would probably be okay for the sake of this conversation. ;)

...in response to the OP, it would depend on who you were as far as what evidence is considered "proof." Many people point to pictures as proof, some have audio recordings, some claim evidence of electric or electromagnetic anomolies, and some claim anecdotal evidence as proof. Obviously, they have all been crap so far.

I would imagine that if ghosts really did exist, they'd be pretty easy to prove. All the people who claim to talk to the dead would actually be getting solid, accurate information. If I heard that John Edwards guy tell me my grandmother's full name and Social Security Number, it'd be pretty convincing... but since ghosts don't exist, he's limited to saying, "I'm getting a 'nuh' or a 'nor' sound. And the number 2. Does that make sense to you? Think about it..."
Click to expand...

Proofs are math and perhaps law; evidence is science. Is that intentionally difficult?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom