What would constitute proof of a ghost?

[Resume]

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?



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'.

A clause in the definition declared "does not appear to have a solid material existence" so I think my question is valid, though perhaps not necessary.

 

[Mirrorglass]

A clause in the definition declared "does not appear to have a solid material existence" so I think my question is valid, though perhaps not necessary.

I suppose you're right. I took it to mean it doesn't have a solid form, as in it isn't a solid, but now I'm not quite sure which the intended meaning was.

 

[Resume]

I suppose you're right. I took it to mean it doesn't have a solid form, as in it isn't a solid, but now I'm not quite sure which the intended meaning was.

So you see how difficult such a thing is to qualify, much less quantify?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

I see logical contradictions in this definition. You say it's a "visible energetic" thing but also not material. It's not material, yet it can be recorded by electromagnetic, light-sensitive and digital technology. So does that mean light can sometimes bounce off of nothingness? You say it can be heard, but we know that sound is tiny changes in air pressure. Something immaterial cannot produce sound waves.

So if this is the definition, the question is the same as asking what would constitute proof of a 4 sided triangle. My answer would be that since this thing can't exist by definition, there is no way to prove its existence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

serious waste of time.. defining a ghost... its the SOUL... geez
next

I've mentioned several times that offering a synonym is not the same as a formal logical or operational definition. As others have pointed out, all that does is change the question to the definition of soul.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I suppose you're right. I took it to mean it doesn't have a solid form, as in it isn't a solid, but now I'm not quite sure which the intended meaning was.

Yep--and if it doesn't have any solid form (or is immaterial--and we all know that energy and matter are both material, so there's no weaseling by saying it's a form of energy but immaterial), it can't have the other characteristics listed (ability to have a location in space, to produce sound, to reflect light, etc).

The movie Ghost played with the same contradictions. He couldn't be seen or heard (except by a psychic), he could walk through walls as if he weren't material at all, but he could walk on floors and he seemed to have mass in that he behaved as if his mass were interacting with the Earth's mass (gravity). He could talk, but had no material brain (including none of the structures we know for certain are essential for language). Ditto with his ability to see, hear and so on.

 

[Mirrorglass]

So you see how difficult such a thing is to qualify, much less quantify?

Yep--and if it doesn't have any solid form (or is immaterial--and we all know that energy and matter are both material, so there's no weaseling by saying it's a form of energy but immaterial), it can't have the other characteristics listed (ability to have a location in space, to produce sound, to reflect light, etc).

The movie Ghost played with the same contradictions. He couldn't be seen or heard (except by a psychic), he could walk through walls as if he weren't material at all, but he could walk on floors and he seemed to have mass in that he behaved as if his mass were interacting with the Earth's mass (gravity). He could talk, but had no material brain (including none of the structures we know for certain are essential for language). Ditto with his ability to see, hear and so on.

Difficult, indeed. But then, the definition suggested stated a ghost does not appear to have a solid material form, not that it is not a material phenomenon. I don't see a problem with using this definition to try and answer the question of whether or not a ghost exists, as long as we agree that any entity that satisfies the conditions is a 'ghost'.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Difficult, indeed. But then, the definition suggested stated a ghost does not appear to have a solid material form, not that it is not a material phenomenon. I don't see a problem with using this definition to try and answer the question of whether or not a ghost exists, as long as we agree that any entity that satisfies the conditions is a 'ghost'.

The only way for it to be legit is for the definition not to be self-contradictory is to say that it does have material form. Then of course to distinguish a ghost from a human, we'd need some other characteristics--like the ability to walk through walls and so on, which again present logical contradictions.

I'm afraid the concept is like a 4 sided triangle or an invisible pink unicorn or a rational believer.

 

[Resume]

Difficult, indeed. But then, the definition suggested stated a ghost does not appear to have a solid material form, not that it is not a material phenomenon. I don't see a problem with using this definition to try and answer the question of whether or not a ghost exists, as long as we agree that any entity that satisfies the conditions is a 'ghost'.[/QUOTE]

But then we're not offering a concrete hypothesis are we?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't see a problem with using this definition to try and answer the question of whether or not a ghost exists, as long as we agree that any entity that satisfies the conditions is a 'ghost'.

But then we're not offering a concrete hypothesis are we?

We do, but not the one most people intend when they use the word ghost.

If we take "seems to be material" as not meaning "immaterial", then the definition offered is grossly incomplete since it fails to exclude humans, or dogs, or rocks, or books. . . . . all of which seem to be material, can make sound, can be recorded on various imaging media, etc.

 

[Mirrorglass]

The only way for it to be legit is for the definition not to be self-contradictory is to say that it does have material form. Then of course to distinguish a ghost from a human, we'd need some other characteristics--like the ability to walk through walls and so on, which again present logical contradictions.

I'm afraid the concept is like a 4 sided triangle or an invisible pink unicorn or a rational believer.

Well, once again, to appear immaterial is not the same as to be immaterial. It's a somewhat misleading wording, here, but I don't think there's an actual contradiction.

But then we're not offering a concrete hypothesis are we?

No, but that's not really important. If ghost existed, it would be possible to prove that by using this definition. There's no need to narrow the definition until we've proven anything fits the looser one.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, once again, to appear immaterial is not the same as to be immaterial. It's a somewhat misleading wording, here, but I don't think there's an actual contradiction.

It's either an incomplete definition or there is an internal contradiction.


If its only seems to be immaterial but isn't, then it's material. If it's material, then the definition is grossly incomplete because it fails to exclude lots of non-ghost things (see my previous post).

If you add in other ghostly characteristics (like the ability to be invisible sometimes, the ability to walk through walls, etc.), then you have contradictions with it being material.

No, but that's not really important. If ghost existed, it would be possible to prove that by using this definition. There's no need to narrow the definition until we've proven anything fits the looser one.

No it wouldn't be possible.

If you make a definition that has no internal contradictions (leave off all the walking-through walls stuff and so on), then you haven't pointed to anything that would constitute proof of a ghost. I mentioned this earlier. If the term ghost is undefined, and you get a verifiable manifestation you might have proof of something paranormal, but how do you know it's a ghost and not something else?

To know what would constitute proof of a ghost, you must define the term--either with a formal logical definition (to do a deductive proof) or with an operational definition (to tell you what measurements to take in an inductive proof, or a scientific experiment).

 

[Mirrorglass]

It's either an incomplete definition or there is an internal contradiction.


If its only seems to be immaterial but isn't, then it's material. If it's material, then the definition is grossly incomplete because it fails to exclude lots of non-ghost things (see my previous post).

If you add in other ghostly characteristics (like the ability to be invisible sometimes, the ability to walk through walls, etc.), then you have contradictions with it being material.

We've established that all energy is material, right? If so, there's no contradiction between being material and being invisible, or passing through walls. Lots of real, existing things are invisible at times and/or can pass through walls.

No it wouldn't be possible.

If you make a definition that has no internal contradictions (leave off all the walking-through walls stuff and so on), then you haven't pointed to anything that would constitute proof of a ghost. I mentioned this earlier. If the term ghost is undefined, and you get a verifiable manifestation you might have proof of something paranormal, but how do you know it's a ghost and not something else?

To know what would constitute proof of a ghost, you must define the term--either with a formal logical definition (to do a deductive proof) or with an operational definition (to tell you what measurements to take in an inductive proof, or a scientific experiment).

I suppose we do need to add in some traits that separate a 'ghost' from a hoax. That shouldn't be too difficult, how about a 'ghost' must also "verifiably display accurate knowledge that no human agent that might be faking the phenomenon has access to or verifiably present itself in an environment where a similar effect could not be created by a human agent". Or something like that. That should narrow it down enough to deductively prove it's existence.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

We've established that all energy is material, right? If so, there's no contradiction between being material and being invisible, or passing through walls. Lots of real, existing things are invisible at times and/or can pass through walls.

Not really. Other than subatomic particles, I know of no such things. Are you making part of the definition of ghost that they are subatomic? (I did say earlier that someone misusing words like "plane" and "dimensions" left out the word "quantum".)

ETA: Also remember a formal definition has to exclude what you don't mean by the term. Do you consider a tachyon (or whatever these things are that can sometimes be invisible sometimes visible and pass through walls) to be a ghost? If not, part of the definition has to be something like "with the shape of a human".

Also, there's a bigger logical problem with walking through walls. It means they can walk (the floor is opaque to them, and they interact with masses but not the wall) and pass through solid objects. There are no things like that.

That shouldn't be too difficult, how about a 'ghost' must also "verifiably display accurate knowledge that no human agent that might be faking the phenomenon has access to or verifiably present itself in an environment where a similar effect could not be created by a human agent".

That's more like an operational definition, and the problem I see with that is purely practical (and already addressed on this thread): if no human agent has this knowledge, how is it verifiable? And, as the story of the Houdini code (with medium Arthur Ford) shows, if anyone knows it, then there is potential for information leakage. Occam's Razor suggests that if you were to provide a demonstration like this, it would be wiser to suppose there was information leakage through ordinary means rather than creating unnecessary entities.

Also, even if you can eliminate fakery, that is not proof of a ghost (or anything other than the absence of fakery).

 

[Mirrorglass]

Not really. Other than subatomic particles, I know of no such things. Are you making part of the definition of ghost that they are subatomic? (I did say earlier that someone misusing words like "plane" and "dimensions" left out the word "quantum".)

It really doesn't matter whether we know of such things existing or not. A material thing that can pass through a wall is not self-contradictory, and that was the point. Remember that we're talking about a paranormal claim here. Strictly, we know it doesn't exist anyway, but it isn't intellectually honest to just define it away. If someone can show us a human-like being that is material yet passes through walls, then it's existence is proven, whether it makes sense or not. It's unfair and unnecessary to look for a definition that completely explains the phenomenon. All that matters is whether or not the phenomenon exists.

Also, there's a bigger logical problem with walking through walls. It means they can walk (the floor is opaque to them, and they interact with masses but not the wall) and pass through solid objects. There are no things like that.

Which is why I avoided using the word 'walk' in my post. At no point was it stated that ghosts interact with floors any more than they do with walls. That's just the movie "Ghost". And of course, you can't just say there aren't any things like that. That's not how science works.

That's more like an operational definition, and the problem I see with that is purely practical (and already addressed on this thread): if no human agent has this knowledge, how is it verifiable? And, as the story of the Houdini code (with medium Arthur Ford) shows, if anyone knows it, then there is potential for information leakage. Occam's Razor suggests that if you were to provide a demonstration like this, it would be wiser to suppose there was information leakage through ordinary means rather than creating unnecessary entities.

Yes, information from a passed on person wouldn't really work. But we could have the person conducting the test write a number on a piece of paper, placing it in a place where no other human could read it. If the apparition then gave the correct number, that would be pretty strong evidence that it indeed is a 'ghost'.

Also, even if you can eliminate fakery, that is not proof of a ghost (or anything other than the absence of fakery).

Well, if a phenomenon is observed, and the possibility of fakery is eliminated, then the phenomenon is proven. And the definition we were using here is "a human-like being, or the visible energetic projection of such a being, which does not appear to have a solid material existence which can be detected" (snipped a bit of unnecessary detail; also, "does not appear to have a solid material existence" should probably just be taken to mean "floats around, occasionally becomes invisible and/or passes through walls"). Basically, seeing a ghostly apparition and ruling out fakery satisfies the conditions.

And yes, I realize that isn't what is commonly referred to as a ghost, at least in myths. But that doesn't matter; satisfying the above-mentioned conditions would suffice to prove there truly exists entities that are called 'ghosts'. Their exact nature could be studied afterward.

 

[Nanael]

I agree with mirrorglass, the definition of a ghost should come after proof of existence of a ghost, once every other non ghost cause has been ruled out.

ie if it is not of human origin then it is paranormal (call it a ghost or whatever).

I always chuckle at threads that get stalled on definitions. It's let's argue the words and not the statement/question.

And am very surprised this has not already been decided (definition of ghost) on a thread for sceptics. How can you say those with 'ghost evidence' are wrong if you have not decided what they are wrong about.

But I do also realise the fact sceptics do not believe in the possibility of ghosts means defining what one is (when it does not exist) is confusing, and possibly unanswerable....because to answer it is to admit it exists.

I am actually reminded of the discovery of TB http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/tuberculosis/readmore.html

It was suspected a bacterium may be responsible for the disease, but the bacteria could never be seen in standard microbiology practices. Once a method of viewing it was found the bacterium was named and defined. And regarded as a great discovery.

 

[Resume]

I agree with mirrorglass, the definition of a ghost should come after proof of existence of a ghost, once every other non ghost cause has been ruled out.

ie if it is not of human origin then it is paranormal (call it a ghost or whatever).

I always chuckle at threads that get stalled on definitions. It's let's argue the words and not the statement/question.

And am very surprised this has not already been decided (definition of ghost) on a thread for sceptics. How can you say those with 'ghost evidence' are wrong if you have not decided what they are wrong about.

But I do also realise the fact sceptics do not believe in the possibility of ghosts means defining what one is (when it does not exist) is confusing, and possibly unanswerable....because to answer it is to admit it exists.

I am actually reminded of the discovery of TB http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/tuberculosis/readmore.html

It was suspected a bacterium may be responsible for the disease, but the bacteria could never be seen in standard microbiology practices. Once a method of viewing it was found the bacterium was named and defined. And regarded as a great discovery.

Are you trying to equate microbiology with the "paranormal?"

 

[Nanael]

Nope, Resume, just the 'discovery' of the formerly undiscovered of something that may have been suspected. It does happen. And just reading the NDE thread maybe we are now heading into the 'last frontier' ? (not space )

To me regardless of a definition , it seems pretty obvious what a 'ghost' is or includes!

 

[Resume]

Nope, Resume, just the 'discovery' of the formerly undiscovered of something that may have been suspected. It does happen. And just reading the NDE thread maybe we are now heading into the 'last frontier' ? (not space )

To me regardless of a definition , it seems pretty obvious what a 'ghost' is or includes!

Actually, scientific discoveries are made all the time. Through dogged inquiry and experimentation. Discoveries regarding the "paranormal" always seem thisfar out of reach.

 

[Nanael]

I was watching a doco about the discovery of liquid water on Saturn's moon the other day, and therefore the likelihood of early life forms also. And how this should challenge the whole concept of life in the Universe. (based presumably on Religious teachings of creation.)

I was wondering if we will consider them (lifeforms) to be present based on likelihood, or actual hard proof in the form of samples from this moon.

I know this is science based. But not long ago UFO believers were considered idiots and woo's. I just feel the study of paranormal existance is a field apart, maybe in it's infant stages.

And before you leap on me with rational beliefs/known scientific studies in the paranormal etc, I have chosen to counterclaim with this site to how I feel (right or wrong ?...just different, and maybe leading to dogged determination in these fields also.)
http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/winston.html

(I just googled WW to see if he has been debunked, and found he had been banned from here, how interesting.)