What would constitute proof of a ghost?

MikeSun5 said:
Don't hold your breath. He has way more fun poo-pooing everyone else. :D
Click to expand...

You're striking out all over the place.

I have mentioned and considered several purported definitions of the term. Nursedan has not. The best he could do is say basically that everyone knows what it means, and then that he is using the conventional definition (even though several of us have noted that there are several very incompatible conventional definitions).
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. You really REALLY want me to be on their side, huh? It's cool, Joe. There are plenty of more deserving people to jump on. Down, boy. :D

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.
Click to expand...

Fine. My bad. :rolleyes: I meant a holographic projection, not a hologram. Sheesh. You really are a stickler.

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

I think you're misunderstanding me on purpose so you have someone to argue with. I put "proof" in quotes because I don't consider the ghost hunter's stuff as evidence. They do.
There is only one objective reality. True. Of course if you google "evidence of ghosts" you will find plenty. I was trying to answer the OP. Scientific study will yield no proof of ghosts, but pseudoscientific study yields tons of (what believers call) proof.
 
Resume said:
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.
Click to expand...

What claim? I've asked a question - others have answered as best they can and I've learned from them. You and a few others have offered nothing to the dialogue other than your desire to argue in general.

What claim?
 
Nursedan said:
What claim? I've asked a question - others have answered as best they can and I've learned from them. You and a few others have offered nothing to the dialogue other than your desire to argue in general.

What claim?
Click to expand...

You made a statement to Juggler that to you a ghost is what most people think is a ghost. This is a claim about the material world. So what is it you think that most people think a ghost is?

For example: "I think a ghost is the remnant energy left behind when a human being passes on."
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
I understand this approach, but strictly speaking it doesn't answer the OP's question. You could establish that there is something unexplained going on, but without defining the term ghost, you wouldn't have evidence that there is a ghost.

I remember reading in some of these bleever books something like getting coherent answers via a Ouija board, for example, could be the result of telekinesis or other PSI powers and not the presence of a ghost or spirit.* Similarly, with what you describe we'd only have evidence of something we can't explain, but not necessarily evidence of a ghost.

Before we can answer the OP's question, they'd have to define the term.

The question the OP asks is different from asking what it would take to win the MDC with a ghost apparition under controlled circumstances. What you describe would certainly be sufficient for the MDC, which is not concerned about the theory behind any paranormal thing. The question in the OP is about the theory--it just fails to define the term.

*ETA: In the real world, you're absolutely right. They'd have to have evidence that there is something in need of explanation before worrying about an explanation. The question is hypothetical--"What would constitute proof of a ghost?" It's a contrary to fact subjunctive. You could easily add on "if ghosts existed" without changing the meaning of the question.
Click to expand...

All that is really necessary to fix this is to add the provision: "ghost or the effects, sights, operations that iare commonly believed to indicate the presence of what is commonly called a ghost".
 
I read through some previous posts and have to fess up, I made the same assumption in a past thread, that terms didn't need to be necessarily defined in order to argue a certain point. In that thread I was referring to calories, in this thread I'm reffering to ghosts. I am beginning to understand that I need to define my terms; that there are some who do not make generalizations for the sake of a cogent argument. However, there are some in this thread who seem to have understood what I meant and responded accordingly, and from them I have gained knowledge. :dig:
 
In "Hamlet," Hamlet sees a mysterious apparition that appears to be his father (although he can't be sure). This ghost tells Hamlet details of how Hamlet's uncle murdered Hamlet's father. Hamlet thereafter prompts some actors to put on a play for the new king (Hamlet's uncle) in which this exact mode of murder is played out, and the king's emotional reaction shows that the ghost's information was indeed correct.
Click to expand...

Is that Hamlet? I've never read Hamlet and that was a excellent summary.
 
Muse



Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 852


"If they _exist_" is the key point. If ghosts existed, they'd have some effect/impact on their surroundings that would be detectable, observable and measurable. They'd take up space, leave traces, have measurable effects on their environments ... unless their environment/existence is completely in the mind (which is more the case).

They'd weigh something, set off motion detectors, have a measurable presence, smell like something (leaving, thus, some sort of organic or chemical trace that could be detected, measured and analyzed) ...

Everything that exists ... well ... exists. Something that doesn't have an impact on its surroundings in tangible, measurable, repeatable, observable ways doesn't _exist_ and therefore is very likey only a figment of the imagination.
Click to expand...

Just reading through this thread (on page 2) and this seems to be the best so far.

I've been in this "skeptic" movement since 2000 and have not really thought about this topic. Eye opening, yet simple. What would it take to prove a ghost? First you must define what is a ghost.

Yet people really believe in this...crazy.
 
Nursedan said:
Well these responses have been very eye opening. I can conclude that there is no such thing as a ghost.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with you, but I think even for a thing that doesn't exist, we could answer the question as to what would constitute proof of its existence. The Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist, but we can define it, and the definition would point us to what would constitute proof of its existence.

Ditto telepathy, remote viewing, the effectiveness of homeopathic remedies, etc. If you can define it (without internal contradictions--see below), you can say what it would take to conclude it exists.

I have been asked to define my terms, but darnit, I just don't know how, but I'll try; a ghost is an entity that has an effect on sentient beings but.....

Oh heck I don't know.
Click to expand...

And that's the problem. If you can't define it, no one can answer the question as to what would constitute proof of its existence.

I'm sure you realize that "an entity that has an effect on sentient beings" fails as a formal definition. (I have an effect on sentient beings, yet I am not a ghost. The sunlight has an effect on sentient beings, yet it is not a ghost.)

Rather than trying to give a synonym, try instead to list all the properties or characteristics such that the entire set of properties and characteristics fits what you mean by ghost and excludes what you don't mean.

If you can do this, you'll either have an abundantly obvious answer to your question, or you'll recognize that in order to do this, you've got contradictory properties (material and immaterial, for example), and the thing can't exist by definition same as a 4 sided triangle or an invisible pink unicorn (can't be invisible and pink at the same time).
 
the universe plays games.. what may be a real ghost... in one moment.. becomes a trick later....they dont want you to be afraid... so. they rearrange reality to more comfortable to your beginner brain.....

I can do this all day...
 
We can argue all day long about these things.. I have years of experiences that are too personal to share.... but the big issue is. that..
ITS important to be aware and open.... It is this very unspiritual attidute what destroying the earth.... the oceans are dying.. ... instead of putting people first and saying we need to save the gulf so fisherman can have jobs.. we should be saying.. we should be saving the gulf because.. the gulf is connected to everything.. the earth is alive..
 
Shall we try to define "ghost", then, so that we can move forward with discussing the thread question?

For the purposes of this debate, a ghost may be defined as a human-like being, or the visible energetic projection of such a being, which does not appear to have a solid material existence, and yet which can be recorded by electromagnetic, light-sensitive and digital technologies, and which can be seen, heard and even felt by human sensory apparati.

How's that?
 
Vortigern99 said:
Shall we try to define "ghost", then, so that we can move forward with discussing the thread question?

For the purposes of this debate, a ghost may be defined as a human-like being, or the visible energetic projection of such a being, which does not appear to have a solid material existence, and yet which can be recorded by electromagnetic, light-sensitive and digital technologies, and which can be seen, heard and even felt by human sensory apparati.

How's that?
Click to expand...

If I accept this definition, I would first like to ask by what mechanics a non-physical entity manifests physical effects?
 
Resume said:
If I accept this definition, I would first like to ask by what mechanics a non-physical entity manifests physical effects?
Click to expand...

Well, for the purposes of composing a definition of observed characteristics, we don't have to understand how an event occurs in order to state that it occurs (or in this case, reportedly occurs).

Determining the exact processes involved is a later step; right now we're just defining our terms.
 
Jeff C said:
serious waste of time.. defining a ghost... its the SOUL... geez
next
Click to expand...

How about defining soul, for starters? And if you can't give proof, just give us some logical reason to consider such a thing might exist?

Resume said:
If I accept this definition, I would first like to ask by what mechanics a non-physical entity manifests physical effects?
Click to expand...

Is that necessary? It's possible to verify the existence of a phenomenon without knowing it's exact nature. And the definition didn't even claim a ghost was a 'non-physical entity'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom