To people who believe in ghosts..

[AnxiousAnniee]

I used to believe in ghosts when I was a child but as an adult I don’t. I find that there’s too many things that don’t make sense to me and just aren’t logical. When you actually start thinking about it and what it means to be a ghost, I think it just seems silly. I get that everyone has a different opinion though so I’m really genuinely interested to hear what people believe about the following questions…

• if ghosts exist and look like the person who has died, how do they walk around and move things without muscles or a brain? How do people hear ghosts giggle and speak if they Dont have a brain or a voice box? If they are just a see through sprit how can they really do this? You can’t move, think, or talk without a brain. And they don’t have a brain or muscles because they are spirits.
• similarly with moving things around or opening cupboards. First of all why would they do this? Why would a ghost turn a tap on??? For what reason? Secondly if they are so light and see through and can walk through things, how can they pick things up instead of just moving through them?
• if a ghost is a spirit and someone’s soul, then how come they are always wearing clothes when people claim to have seen them? Clothes don’t die and clothes don’t have souls, so clothes don’t have an afterlife and shouldn’t come back as clothes ghosts. They should all be naked.
• how come people only ever see ghosts of loved ones and scary Victorian children or soldiers and things? How come no one ever sees a caveman ghost or a chav ghost in trackies? (Again, they shouldn’t really be wearing anything anyway)
• if ghosts are souls then that means everyone will turn into a ghost when they die. Which means we are currently SWAMPED with ghosts. They’re everywhere. We’re constantly walking through them everywhere we go because that many people have died in the world, we are bombarded with them
• what about baby ghosts? Babies can’t walk so does that mean that there’s loads of ghost babies just lay on the floor all around us?

I’m not taking the piss here, these are genuine questions that I have asked myself when I believed. And the more I think about it the more I just don’t believe it. However, I’m aware that people still do, so I’d love to hear what you think the answers are to these questions and what you think ghosts actually are, and their purpose?

Investigating is looking into things though? He asks questions and follows lines of enquiry - he isn’t just taking dictation 🤷‍♀️

I get that he’s not adhering to any rigid rules of either scientific or police investigation though!

I remain intrigued.

@Watchkeys "But what makes you the authority? People equally think that you are mistaken. How are you so sure that you are right?"
Nobody. It's obvious that other opinions are available.. And as I have said so often that my typing fingers hurt, I think that my view fits the available evidence but evidence might emerge tomorrow and I'll have to completely reconsider my world view. I don't think, despite many attempts to tell me that I do, that we know everything. We do, however, know quite a lot of things.

Happy New Year believers and sceptics alike! We’ve been having quite the discussion this end and it’s a fairly sceptical family gathering I have to say 😂

I tend to think that a phenomenon that keeps being reported through millennia has some basis to it, whatever that basis may be. Platos view on ghosts:

What about the soul of the person who did not work in life to “detach” himself from the physical world? “But I think that if the soul is polluted and impure when it leaves the body, having always been associated with it and served it, bewitched by physical desires and pleasures to the point at which nothing seems to exist for it but the physical, which one can touch and see or eat and drink or make use of for sexual enjoyment…We must believe, my friend, that this bodily element is heavy, ponderous, earthly, and visible. Through it, such a soul has become heavy and is dragged back to the visible region in fear of the unseen and of Hades. It wanders, we are told, around graves and monuments, where shadowy phantoms, images that such souls produce, have been seen, souls that have not been freed and purified but share in the visible, and are therefore seen.”[2]

I can answer none of those questions and was a total cynic who 100% never believed. However on holiday on 2020 I was physically touched by something. I felt it cup the back of my head, and my other half saw it ... was an arm and hand in a brown sleeve.

Also saw an actual ghost in my porch last year. It was a young man. He wasn't victorian looking 😂 He was young, sort of handsome, dark haired and no joke, leaning casually against a wall. I literally just glanced to my right and then he was gone. I was scared but didn't say anything to anyone as convinced myself I couldn't have seen it.

The next day was watching TV with my other half and he literally ran into our back porch with his fists clenched, as he'd seen a man and thought someone had broken in. There was no-one and he described what he'd seen to me, it was exactly what I saw.

I cannot explain either of these two events and before they happened if anyone had told me, I'd have rolled my eyes internally and not believed them! But I can assure you, both things happened and I have zero explanation for either of them. And also I still want to not believe ghosts as they make zero sense.

So, you think that because of current scientific likelihood, people who have seen things with their own eyes are currently wrong, but, given evidence that comes in the future, they may become right.

You must be able to see the holes in your methods here?

@Watchkeys "So, you think that because of current scientific likelihood, people who have seen things with their own eyes are currently wrong, but, given evidence that comes in the future, they may become right.
You must be able to see the holes in your methods here?"

I am baffled by my inability to express myself clearly- but I will try one last time.There are two sorts of paranormal events. There are those that have obviously rational explanations- sometimes the person who experienced it accept the explanation, sometimes they don't-the fact remains that the explanation is there. For example, when I was a child I was utterly terrified of a green man in our pantry-I can still remember the fear-my family was spooked too. Until my mother got down to my level and saw the splash of green paint on the wall under a shelf. If she hadn't done that it would have remained a haunting and I am pretty sure would have grown over the years. This covers the vast majority of events. Proper investigation leads to rational explanations. Then there are some events that do not appear to have obvious rational explanations. For me, there is a "yet" there. But there has to be a possibility that something paranormal actually is happening. I don't think there is, but new evidence might emerge to prove me wrong.

So yes, there is a remote possibility that people who are currently though of as "wrong" by rational people might turn out to be "right".

CurlewKate’s mind is - laudably - determinedly open to possibilities not yet identified, even if they are highly unlikely. I take a slightly more pragmatic view.

If there is no good evidence of improbable things (people’s subjective experiences are not good evidence) then I think they should be considered bogus until firmly proven. The reason for that is that belief in the paranormal has a sort of critical numbing effect: ghost believers begin to swallow other equally unlikely but more objectionable stuff - telepathy, psychic gifts, ouija and the like.

And this all perpetuates and encourages scammery and manipulation. In other words I think there’s a social damage side to the paranormal that we should not overlook.

As to self-delusion, it’s well documented even among highly trained scientists. Look up N-rays. That’s why corroboration in the hands of independent corroborators is essential to acceptance of a claim or maintenance of a theory.

@CurlewKate

This covers the vast majority of events. Proper investigation leads to rational explanations.

I’ll have to pick you up on this bit… You objected to my use of the word ‘investigate’ when referring to Danny Robins- but you’ve applied it here to the act of your mother taking a quick look at a wall! By contrast, Robins flew to Rome, made repeated applications to access the apartment belonging to the Catholic Church etc.

I think it’s a bit unfair to suggest that people don’t properly investigate their experiences. Obviously some won’t. But those people who are deeply troubled and baffled really, really do. I know you don’t mean it to sound smug and condescending- but it does come across like that when you suggest that a cursory look around would clear up most of these standout, life-changing experiences!

If there is no good evidence of improbable things (people’s subjective experiences are not good evidence) then I think they should be considered bogus until firmly proven.

I can see what you mean here. But subjective experience is our only experience. Ever. No one experiences the world in any other way. At some point we have to trust our own senses.

There we differ.

If I want to know how fast I’m driving I look at the speedometer. If I’m doing 35 in a 30 zone I can’t defend a fine on the basis that I felt I was doing 30 if the camera or radar gun says otherwise.

If I want to know my temperature I use a thermometer. I may be a little hot or alarmingly hot.

If I want to know how good my vision is, my optician can run tests.

If I have pain and a doctor wants to see my innards they take an X-ray (and use other technology). It might be bad, it might be benign, whatever I’ve convinced myself.

If I think a room has gone suddenly cold, a figure has walked though a wall, voices are being heard or objects are moving of their own accord, etc, there are a range of instruments independent of our senses that could record these effects, the environment they’re happening in, speed of effect, duration, and so on. And we can analyse these recordings and compare them.

Plus we need explanations of mechanism, i.e. satisfactory, coherent theory.

The fact that someone - better, a number of different people - needs to see or hear the results or has to do the reading and thinking has got nothing to do with the techniques of investigation and explanation.

@WhatsTheUseOfWorrying

But every one of your examples involves the human senses. You look at the speedometer- it says 30 mph. You take that as fact. Someone else looks at her porch at sees a man standing there. She believes her eyes too, just like you did.

I think I’ve asked before - where do you draw the line? How many people have to verify what it says in your speedometer? How many people have to look at the thermometer? In reality, probably only one. More complex medical cases will require more investigation, more data. I get that all that. You can have your charts and test results etc etc.

But a fleeting experience can’t be subject to these tests - it just can’t! But it’s not wildly unreasonable to trust the same senses that allowed you to read the thermometer when they tell you something you weren’t expecting.

@GreenAppleCrumble "I know you don’t mean it to sound smug and condescending- but it does come across like that when you suggest that a cursory look around would clear up most of these standout, life-changing experiences!"

I wasn't suggesting that. I only mentioned my Green Man because it was a real experience I had. Sometimes the explanation is obvious-sometimes it isn't and needs deeper investigation. I my case a cursory look round solved it-but it was a long time-a least a year before anyone thought to do it. And, actually, it was a pretty stand out, life changing experience for 4 year old me-it made me the sceptic I am today!

Incidentally-I have worked really hard at being polite and respectful on here. I think calling me smug and condescending is incredibly, outrageously unfair.

But you’re not trusting your senses. You’re trusting the thermometer. If the result is unexpected, repeat it. Use a different thermometer. Ask someone else to read the thermometer(s). If the result is still unexpected, and all other variables are excludable, that’s the result.

The cause of fleeting experiences would these days likely be on camera. Someone upthread said that hospitals have lots of ghosts. But not one caught on a video or phone camera? Really?

No recording of a ‘real’ poltergeist’s activity?

It’s quite difficult for something in public not to be recorded these days, and often enough in private places. I never saw a ghost on You’ve Been Framed.

I apologise if I’ve offended you. In my defence, I wasn’t calling you smug and condescending- but I was pointing out that that position (i.e. Now, look, if you’ll just try I’m sure there’s an obvious enough explanation) is by its very nature rather condescending; it’s suggesting to the person who’s tearing their hair out over something really troubling that they’re just the equivalent of a small child with a vivid imagination…

Again, not wanting to offend you, but the truth is that the very stance of the ardent disbeliever can be quite offensive in itself to the person seeking to be believed (not talking about me here).

The cause of fleeting experiences would these days likely be on camera. Someone upthread said that hospitals have lots of ghosts. But not one caught on a video or phone camera? Really?

There are thousands of ‘ghosts’ caught on camera! Have a Google! I think we’ve already been here upthread - video evidence means nothing at all to anyone these days.

As far as your thermometer analogy goes - yes, you are relying on the thermometer first and foremost. But a fallible human reads it. Using their eyes. The same eyes you won’t believe in other scenarios! Yes, of course - you’re right that you can double, triple check, so your eyes are not the only eyes being believed. But you can’t do that with a fleeting experience, can you? It’s just not comparable! You can’t say ‘OMG I just saw a figure, clear as day, standing by the door but now it’s gone - can you check for me?’

I think the scientific method actually hampers some people in this way; not everything can be measured under lab conditions.

Why don't you both beg to differ and go on your merry new year ways and let others take up the discussion?

OK, at the risk of repetition there really aren’t any ghosts caught on camera, if by ‘ghosts’ you mean something not phoney or unconvincing.

You might as well say there are lots of photos of fairies or the Loch Ness Monster.

That’s why I put ‘ghosts’ in inverted commas 😐

The point is, anything can be made to look like a ghost on camera. How would you tell?

@GreenAppleCrumble "I apologise if I offended you." You didn't "offend" me. You were just surprisingly rude for what I thought was an interesting discussion. But if, as you say "the truth is that the very stance of the ardent disbeliever can be quite offensive in itself to the person seeking to be believed"
then the sort of discussion I would choose to have is completely impossible. Particularly as believers seem to have no compunction at all about being rude to non believers.

Jeez! I literally said at the time ‘I know you don’t mean it like this but…’ What’s with the over-sensitivity? Not being believed is a very upsetting thing; can you not see how adopting a blanket ‘I know better than you’ is potentially (at best) condescending or (at worst) an offensive stance to take when engaging with people who’ve been shaken by an experience? You don’t always know best. I think you have massively over-reacted, especially since I immediately apologised. It was churlish of you to fling that back. Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree then.

If a person is shaken by an experience (I assume you mean a strange one, not a car accident, burglary etc) why would it be a problem to tell them that the experience wasn’t paranormal? Seems to me it would be cruel and frightening to tell someone they’d seen a dead person rather than to tell them (the truth) that it was a natural and harmless experience wrongly understood.

There’s nothing compassionate about a belief in ghosts and the rest of the ‘paranormal’, still less about arguing for that belief.

I’ve noticed this a number of times on here. A poster comes on and describes an experience that they say was terrifying — a heavy weight pinning them to the bed, a hideous creature in their room, a sense of malevolence emanating from it. Someone says, perfectly civilly, ‘Those are classic sleep paralysis symptoms’. There’s almost always, not necessarily from the OP, a resistance from some people, to having a non-supernatural solution offered. Sometimes from the OP, despite claiming to have been terrified by their inexplicable experience.

And I don’t just mean on ‘woo’ threads where the point of the thread is sharing stories.

why would it be a problem to tell them that the experience wasn’t paranormal

Because 'telling the facts as you believe them to be' isn't reassuring. Basic understanding of what they feel is empathic, so if they feel it was paranormal, 'No, it wasn't' is just a bit shitty.

Why have you selectively quoted from my post? You’ve misrepresented what I said and the point at issue.