Do you believe in Ghosts?

[ki4jgt]

Not necisarilly one you can see, but one's you can feel?

http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/real-ghost.jpg

[idi0tf0wl]

I can only bring myself to believe in ghosts when I can be sure their word is worth my trust. ;)

[amauk]

You can do some really cool "ghost" tricks with old-fashioned film cameras

Take an ordinary everyday photo
then rewind the film and take another photo
This double exposes the frame, and the second photo is overlaid in a ghostly fashion over the original

My parents have an old photo album from my Grandma, where a good proportion of photos are double exposed. Apparently my Grandma never remembered to wind the film on...

[ki4jgt]

The photo has nothing to do with the question LOL :-) I was just curious who here believed in ghosts

[davec64]

I live in a house that was built about 1501.
And you've guessed it, I've seen and heard a lot of strange things! :)

[amauk]

Then, no
I've seen too many "ghostly" pictures of my uncle as a teenager & the family-dog-at-the-time playing with a tennis ball

[ki4jgt]

We had someone commit suicide right by our house (Way before I was born or my parents) Everyone thinks ours is haunted. Every time we have company over they always complain about being creeped out or something by the floor creaking while they were sleeping, or doors making noises. I know to some people it's probably mice or something else, but I still think it's nice to scare people with :-) Especially when they get up from a long night of wondering if the place is haunted and then you fill their heads with the stories for the next one.

EDIT: By the way, I don't think we do have mice. We get the house sprayed every year and I personally haven't seen any mice. Although one year a snake did get into the basement when it got flooded.

[asifnaz]

Ya sure . I am a ghost myself

[forrestcupp]

Well, we could turn this into a religious discussion pretty easily. ;)


You can do some really cool "ghost" tricks with old-fashioned film cameras

Take an ordinary everyday photo
then rewind the film and take another photo
This double exposes the frame, and the second photo is overlaid in a ghostly fashion over the original
When my wife was young, her dad died. They took a picture of him in the casket, and this happened. When the picture was developed, there was someone standing in the casket in a ghostly fashion. Very weird.

[ki4jgt]

Spooky. Personally I don't see how this has to do with religion. I personally know atheists who believe in ghosts. I know religions do and some dont, but I think it's more of a matter of preference to the person.

[madjr]

i believe.

also in aliens (not kidding)

[juancarlospaco]

Yes, i got an Old Norton Ghost, and i use Alien to convert some RPMs, so yes, i believe on those apps.

[Gremlinzzz]

Yep what's so hard to believe? do you believe your on a ball of rock and dirt hurling thought some thing called space?reality is stranger than fiction.I have seen Ghost.s but not all the time.lol

[WinterMadness]

nope

[ctrlmd]

the only ghosts i know are the demons and those doesn't show them selfs to humans

[forrestcupp]

Personally I don't see how this has to do with religion. I personally know atheists who believe in ghosts. I know religions do and some dont, but I think it's more of a matter of preference to the person.The definition of what a ghost actually is could lead to a religious discussion. The following is an example of what I'm talking about: ;)


the only ghosts i know are the demons and those doesn't show them selfs to humans

[WinterMadness]

ghosts, like gods need faith. religion requires faith, thus this basically is a religious discussion.

[HermanAB]

Well, if you are a member of any of the Mediteranean religions, then you believe in ghosts. However, if you are a UNIX/Linux geek, then you believe in daemons...

Thank you, thank you... I'll be here all week...

[CommuneOfLoon]

Spooky. Personally I don't see how this has to do with religion. I personally know atheists who believe in ghosts. I know religions do and some dont, but I think it's more of a matter of preference to the person.

The basis of a ghost is that there is some spirit that can part from the corporeal body once the body dies. This is most definitely couched in religion and spirituality.

Technically speaking, atheism is strictly the disbelief in gods or deities; but it's not that far a leap from gods to ethereal spirits roaming the Earth (in that neither have any empirical or scientific backing, just anecdotal evidence). Since atheist agenda usually promotes skepticism of supernatural phenomenon not empirically based, an atheist that believes in ghosts is an atheist in name only.

[Gremlinzzz]

Energy is in everything! Einstein said energy never dies just transforms. so what's so hard to believe.When one mind shuts it stays shut.

[andymorton]

No, I don't believe in anything supernatural/paranormal. I'm a science geek. :D

[odiseo77]

I don't believe in ghosts, but I enjoy ghosts stories a lot (and not only in fiction, but stories people tell about ghosts) :)

[Spice Weasel]

I believe that I don't have to believe in ghosts until it's proven that they exist.

[RiceMonster]

No.

[Random_Dude]

No, I don't believe in anything supernatural/paranormal. I'm a science geek. :D

^This.



I believe that I don't have to believe in ghosts until it's proven that they exist.

And especially this.

Cheers :cool:

[ki4jgt]

Energy is in everything! Einstein said energy never dies just transforms. so what's so hard to believe.When one mind shuts it stays shut.

I'm going with this guy on this one. All that energy has to go somewhere. Who's to say it doesn't influence the world after the person dies. I mean the person's influence in life is still remaining in you and the ones they left behind. I don't know if I'm a full fledged ghost hunter, but I think it must go somewhere.

[Bölvaður]

This thread scares me more than ghosts! :|
But still it is to be expected... I just expected more of you.

The answer to the question : No, I have studied too much psychology to misunderstand what I know and thing there is something. But it still can be easy to fear the dark when I dont feel too upbeat.

[ki4jgt]

More of who LOL

[Hyporeal]

I'm going with this guy on this one. All that energy has to go somewhere. Who's to say it doesn't influence the world after the person dies. I mean the person's influence in life is still remaining in you and the ones they left behind. I don't know if I'm a full fledged ghost hunter, but I think it must go somewhere.

There's a shade of truth in what you say, but don't raise the specter of Einstein. There's not a ghost of a chance that energy conservation extends your agency. (Quite the opposite, given how thermodynamics haunt us.) However, I sympathize with the spirit of your comment that your personality survives in those who knew you.

[ctrlmd]

The definition of what a ghost actually is could lead to a religious discussion. The following is an example of what I'm talking about: ;)
your Comment is exactly what i thought going to happen when i post mine but i had to say what i had to say

[gnomeuser]

None of the evidence when critically examined supports the hypothesis.

I see no reason to grant it credibility.

[wilee-nilee]

I believe some believe, personally no.

[Gremlinzzz]

i believe.

also in aliens (not kidding)

Ghost I have seen! Aliens I would be arrogant to say they don't exist.Science cannot exist with a closed mind.

[Gremlinzzz]

Double Quasar does not exist because no one has seen one?
Wait breaking news they do exist!
'Superscope' yields first glimpse of Double Quasar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11952890

[oldos2er]

The basis of a ghost is that there is some spirit that can part from the corporeal body once the body dies.

Not exclusively; there's the stone tape theory to explain some "hauntings," if you will.

[ki4jgt]

The basis of a ghost is that there is some spirit that can part from the corporeal body once the body dies. This is most definitely couched in religion and spirituality.

Technically speaking, atheism is strictly the disbelief in gods or deities; but it's not that far a leap from gods to ethereal spirits roaming the Earth (in that neither have any empirical or scientific backing, just anecdotal evidence). Since atheist agenda usually promotes skepticism of supernatural phenomenon not empirically based, an atheist that believes in ghosts is an atheist in name only.

A person's reality is based upon their perception of reality. It doesn't change reality of situations (Real life) but If a person perceives that the science behind why they believe in ghosts is true, I see no reason why they can't meet that definition. As long as they're following method and not just saying something is there to be saying it or because they feel it. However, this is boarder line religious discussions so I'm not going any further into that topic on this forum.

[Austin25]

A person's reality is based upon their perception of reality. It doesn't change reality of situations (Real life) but If a person perceives that the science behind why they believe in ghosts is true, I see no reason why they can't meet that definition. As long as they're following method and not just saying something is there to be saying it or because they feel it. However, this is boarder line religious discussions so I'm not going any further into that topic on this forum.

However, someone can say or think they perceived something when they didn't.

[Random_Dude]

Double Quasar does not exist because no one has seen one?
Wait breaking news they do exist!
'Superscope' yields first glimpse of Double Quasar
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11952890

I'm not sure if you wanted to make a point with this...

There are a lot of things that nobody saw, but there are strong evidence supporting their existence (like individual atoms and subatomic particles).
I don't think that the same can be applied for ghosts (at least not yet). ;)

Cheers :cool:

[Gremlinzzz]

If you saw a ghost and I was there and said there was nothing there. who would you believe me or yourself?If your answer is you would believe me! then believe me I saw a Ghost.:D

[rigao]

No, I do not believe in ghosts.

About aliens, it all depends. Are we speaking about just life outside earth which is far far away? In this case, I do not know, I do not have any evidence for or against it, but I kind of like the idea of life out there.

BUT, if we assume that people who says 'I believe in aliens' is speaking about UFO, abductions, etc, then no, I do not believe in aliens either.

In general, I do not believe in anything which cannot be scientifically tested. This is the ONLY reason I kind of believe in quantum mechanics, it works, sadly :-( but I'll retain my right to be skeptical :-P

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

Oh look, it's a rationality/mysticism debate. Doesn't this fall under the "no religion" clause of the forums here? It's pretty much the same situation as attempting scientific argument with religious people - most are just unwilling to concede that they're the ones who should be proving anything, not the sceptics.

[ki4jgt]

I don't believe in aliens in outerspace either. The statistics are too messed up. Does that mean there arent' aliens? No. . . That's my perception. Now if I deny the possibility that life could exist on other planets that's a little far fetched. I kind of do, (My science teacher used to say I was selfish <Even made a point of letting the class know that anyone who believed that was selfish>) but I haven't had any reason to support it. Every planet we've checked has been empty or has went against our current set of standards for life support on planets. Who set those standards any way???

Could there be life as tiny microrganisms?? Yes, but I just don't believe it.

[NCLI]

I do not believe in any events that have not been verified, or at least deemed possible or likely using the scientific method.

In short: No. I do believe in aliens though, but I don't think they've been here, at least not recently.


I don't believe in aliens in outerspace either. The statistics are too messed up.
Yes, they are incredibly in favor of alien life.


Does that mean there arent' aliens? No. . . That's my perception.
That's a horrible argument. Peoples personal perception and opinion are worthless in scientific arguments.


Now if I deny the possibility that life could exist on other planets that's a little far fetched. I kind of do, (My science teacher used to say I was selfish <Even made a point of letting the class know that anyone who believed that was selfish>)
So you believe in Aliens, ok. What the hell were you ranting about then?


but I haven't had any reason to support it. Every planet we've checked has been empty or has went against our current set of standards for life support on planets.
Wait, what? Dude, we've checked an incredibly tiny fraction of the planets in the universe, and we are in no way qualified to say that there are no aliens. Besides, we've found plenty of habitable planets, they're just too far away to know whether there is life there.

Who set those standards any way???
The scientific community in general. It's pretty much just a requirement for liquid water, a temperate climate, and an atmosphere similar to Earth's.


Could there be life as tiny microrganisms?? Yes, but I just don't believe it.
"Could there be Africans in Africa? Yes, but I've never seen them, so I just don't believe it."

[Random_Dude]

Every planet we've checked has been empty or has went against our current set of standards for life support on planets. Who set those standards any way???

Could there be life as tiny microrganisms?? Yes, but I just don't believe it.

The standards are set by what we observe on earth, and they just changed a little recently with the NASA discovery. We're assuming that since the elements in the universe are the same as the ones on earth (not in the same proportions though), life may have evolved in a similar way, by unicellular lifeforms using the same basic atoms.
We've checked some planets and found nothing, but that doesn't mean that there is no life anywhere else on the universe. There are a lot of planets outside the solar system to explore, a lot more than the ones we've explored so far.

Do I believe in aliens? Yes.
Do I believe that they go around crashing 99.9% of the times on American soil? No.

Cheers :cool:

[NCLI]

I'm going with this guy on this one. All that energy has to go somewhere. Who's to say it doesn't influence the world after the person dies. I mean the person's influence in life is still remaining in you and the ones they left behind. I don't know if I'm a full fledged ghost hunter, but I think it must go somewhere.
What energy? The soul? There is no evidence for the existence of a soul, it's all chemical and electrical reactions in our brains.

Your "influence on others" is just the effect your actions have had on the chemical and electrical patterns in their brain. Influencing others doesn't add energy to them.

[ki4jgt]

I don't know. I've got all these coinkidinks which are better solved by spirits and things than science. Science has no explaination for them and no one in the scientific community believes them. Several involve paranormal activity which I have seen or a family member has seen. Not ghosts but psychics. It's not the kind of give me your money you're gonna meet the love of your life psychic. It's the kind of, I don't want your money, your son's going to die just warning you thing which incidentally did happen later (To a family member we have several witnesses) This isn't the only encounter like this with our family.

[NCLI]

I don't know. I've got all these coinkidinks which are better solved by spirits and things than science. Science has no explaination for them and no one in the scientific community believes them. Several involve paranormal activity which I have seen or a family member has seen. Not ghosts but psychics. It's not the kind of give me your money you're gonna meet the love of your life psychic. It's the kind of, I don't want your money, your son's going to die just warning you thing which incidentally did happen later (To a family member we have several witnesses) This isn't the only encounter like this with our family.
The human brain is extremely good at seeing patterns in randomness.

Please consider that no self-proclaimed psychic who has been subjected to scientific and organised testing has been any more adept at foreseeing the future than non-psychics.

I appreciate that a personal experience can be powerful, but it is completely worthless.

[amauk]

I predict this thread will be locked very soon...

[NCLI]

I predict this thread will be locked very soon...
For what? No politics or religion here... yet.

[ki4jgt]

@amauk LOL

and yes, I believe we are good at seeing patterns in randomness. I also believe some people have a gift to do it. But the child (My uncle - never knew him) was shot by a weapon which was not supposed to be loaded but was, in a game of cowboys and indians :-) The psychic had never been to our house, so I just can't see a pattern in that. I think there must be some kind of energy transferred between people somewhere. I mean there's just too much energy not to be.

And I don't think a true psychic would take all the money in the world to do one of those tests. From what I've seen personally they don't like to draw attention to themselves.

[amauk]

From what I've seen personally they don't like to draw attention to themselves.I should think not, else they'll be exposed for what they are, and have to get a real job

[NCLI]

@amauk LOL

and yes, I believe we are good at seeing patterns in randomness. I also believe some people have a gift to do it. But the child (My uncle - never knew him) was shot by a weapon which was not supposed to be loaded but was, in a game of cowboys and indians :-) The psychic had never been to our house, so I just can't see a pattern in that. I think there must be some kind of energy transferred between people somewhere. I mean there's just too much energy not to be.

And I don't think a true psychic would take all the money in the world to do one of those tests. From what I've seen personally they don't like to draw attention to themselves.

You don't think a single psychic would be willing to use his or her powers to earn money, if they were real? Lol.

About our uncle, this is a typical story. It's a story which has been passed on by mouth for two generations, and probably a lot of people. At this point, the story isn't even interesting as a curiosity. That seems to be the case with all those stories, no one has any evidence or first-hand accounts, or a name for the psychic.

Also, what is this energy you keep talking about?

[3Miro]

What is a ghost? "Ghost in the shell" or "Ghostbusters", those are real.

People every day see things or have experience that they cannot explain. Every opportunity that we get to properly investigate the so called "paranormal" (whatever that means), we find nothing there. There are things that we don't know, but that is exactly the point, we don't know! Taking something that we don't know and then making up ghosts, spirits, alien or whatever else, is a very backward way to investigate the world. One should start with what we know and slowly progress into the unknown based upon what we can properly investigate and verify. Only then, can we even give a proper definitions and labels to what we "observe" (in a scientific way), right now everyone has their own definition of "ghost" and we are just talking pass each other.

In short:

Ghosts don't exists until proven otherwise. Before then, the word doesn't have a meaning (other than cases like "Ghostbusters").

[sisco311]

However, if you are a UNIX/Linux geek, then you believe in daemons...

Nope, we know that daemons exist... daemons and zombies...

[ki4jgt]

I do have a name and where the person worked (They had a real job) I'm not going into detail here. This person has already made it clear she didn't want any public exposure and personally I don't blame her. She has a public job to this day.
What the scientific community doesn't realize is, these people are weird to the general population, and they know they're weird. If you think one of them is just gonna waltz into a government lab and say hey doc attach tubes and wires to me and run all the tests you can think of just be sure to pay me afterwards, you got another thing coming. I've seen several of these little events and the psychics involved all had lives besides being psychic and none of them wanted any money. All of them, I've verified and know the people involved either personally or through other people.
If they are simply seeing patterns or if they are somehow connected to other people, I can't say, but I can say it creeps me out, which is a feeling I don't think very many people would enjoy, being able to creep other people out is something you tend to avoid, so you don't become excommunicated :-)

[NCLI]

I do have a name and where the person worked (They had a real job) I'm not going into detail here. This person has already made it clear she didn't want any public exposure and personally I don't blame her. She has a public job to this day.
There's actually a very simple way for a psychic to prove psychics exists. If you just ask her to predict the exact date of the death of the current pope, along with the name and death date of the next pope, and she does it, I will believe you.
She doesn't need to attach tubes or anything.

What the scientific community doesn't realize is, these people are weird to the general population, and they know they're weird. If you think one of them is just gonna waltz into a government lab and say hey doc attach tubes and wires to me and run all the tests you can think of just be sure to pay me afterwards, you got another thing coming.
You're talking about these psychics like they're a hivemind. "Psychics" are human too, and someone among them will certainly be greedy enough to use his/her "abilities" to gain money and power.

I've seen several of these little events and the psychics involved all had lives besides being psychic and none of them wanted any money. All of them, I've verified and know the people involved either personally or through other people.
Personal experience again. You sound like a very gullible person.


If they are simply seeing patterns or if they are somehow connected to other people, I can't say, but I can say it creeps me out, which is a feeling I don't think very many people would enjoy, being able to creep other people out is something you tend to avoid, so you don't become excommunicated :-)
By "the brain is good at seeing patterns," I meant that our brain often connects coincidences to other coincidences, making them seem like more than coincidences. This is one of the many reasons why personal experience is useless.

Also, the psychic could be anonymous.

You still haven't answered what this energy you keep talking about is.

Lastly, if this psychic who warned about the death of your uncle truly did see the future, why wasn't she more specific? She could have saved his life.

[handy]

Believing in something is one thing, which can very often be false, no matter how strongly you believe in it.

Actually seeing & experiencing something is another matter altogether.

From multiple experiences I know that ghosts exist.

[NCLI]

Believing in something is one thing, which can very often be false, no matter how strongly you believe in it.

Actually seeing & experiencing something is another matter altogether.

From multiple experiences I know that ghosts exist.

From multiple personal, undocumented, unrepeatable, untestable experiences, correct? If so, they're worthless. Our brain is highly manipulable, and susceptible to failure.

[aG93IGRvIGkgdWJ1bnR1Pw==]

I don't believe in aliens in outerspace either. The statistics are too messed up. Does that mean there arent' aliens? No. . . That's my perception. Now if I deny the possibility that life could exist on other planets that's a little far fetched. I kind of do, (My science teacher used to say I was selfish <Even made a point of letting the class know that anyone who believed that was selfish>) but I haven't had any reason to support it. Every planet we've checked has been empty or has went against our current set of standards for life support on planets. Who set those standards any way???

That's not how science works. Again, you're using the "prove a negative" fallacy. We've "checked" (kind of) seven planets, and two of those only glancing through a camera that flew by them at thousands of metres per second. There are hundreds of billions of stars in every one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies. It's a statistical improbability that there isn't extraterrestrial life.


Could there be life as tiny microrganisms?? Yes, but I just don't believe it.

It's probable. You don't have to believe anything until it's proven, that's how rational scepticism functions. Science isn't about promoting groundless beliefs, it's about determining the objective truth through a verifiable and repeatable rational process.

[sisco311]

Believing in something is one thing, which can very often be false, no matter how strongly you believe in it.

Actually seeing & experiencing something is another matter altogether.


Could you please elaborate this? Why do you think that one's personal experience has nothing to do with his belief?

[3Miro]

Personal experience is the least reliable source of information (especially third hand such experiences). Unless things are independently verifiable, they are not worth much. Our brains play many tricks on us, I have experienced hallucinations and they looked 100% real, I still have vivid memory of events that never took place. Even if the case is not that severe, people's memories do strange things, I will have to do some Googling, but there was a College professor that asked every student in his class to write down where he was and what he felt when he heard about the Discovery disaster. A few years later, many people had completely different memories from what they wrote up. Personal experiences are not reliable evidence, vague feelings are not reliable either.

[handy]

From multiple personal, undocumented, unrepeatable, untestable experiences, correct? If so, they're worthless. Our brain is highly manipulable, and susceptible to failure.

You can believe & value whatever you want, it is our one true freedom. :p Though as previously touched on, just because the entire population of the planet believes in something, that doesn't mean that the content of that belief is anything more than a belief.

Go read up on the Taboo of Subjectivity in scientism.

Scientism is the other side of the coin though interestingly it shares many qualities very similar to religious dogma. Most notably, if it can't somehow count & measure something then that something doesn't exist.

Another most remarkable foundation of scientism is the mentality that thinks that consciousness does not exist! Which I find to be a ludicrous situation.

[forrestcupp]

your Comment is exactly what i thought going to happen when i post mine but i had to say what i had to sayI wasn't disagreeing with you. I was just pointing out that you made a good example of how this discussion could be religious.


For what? No politics or religion here... yet.
Then you've only chosen to read posts that were relevant to your train of thought.

[handy]

Could you please elaborate this? Why do you think that one's personal experience has nothing to do with his belief?

That's not what I said.

They are two very different qualities.

My statement was shaped that way due to the title of this thread.

As you may have noted in my previous post that from my experience the fundamental element of ALL, is consciousness.

You would have also noted that though I enjoy many of the multi-faceted benefits originating in scientific thought. I also consider that scientific thought is still flawed at a fundamental level.

I expect that it will take quite a long time time for science to evolve beyond the flaw of denying the existence of consciousness & moving into a truly scientific investigation of same.

[ki4jgt]

*** this post has been removed by the author due to many reasons, mainly due to the fact that it is an invasion of the author's personal life and the author would like not to mention it any more ***

[wilee-nilee]

Just for fun here since we now have a broad stroke generalization with a ism at the end here are a few more.
http://phrontistery.info/isms.html

No concrete-ism though a shame really.

[handy]

Personal experience is the least reliable source of information (especially third hand such experiences). Unless things are independently verifiable, they are not worth much. Our brains play many tricks on us, I have experienced hallucinations and they looked 100% real, I still have vivid memory of events that never took place. Even if the case is not that severe, people's memories do strange things, I will have to do some Googling, but there was a College professor that asked every student in his class to write down where he was and what he felt when he heard about the Discovery disaster. A few years later, many people had completely different memories from what they wrote up. Personal experiences are not reliable evidence, vague feelings are not reliable either.

This is a forum. There is no true investigative journalism going on here. We aren't writing thesis. We don't define our terms & delineate the dimensions of the questions & answers we are going to deal with.

This is just plain off the top of the head stuff. Conversations & debate, around the water cooler as they like to put it here.

So your definitions of what I say & your replies to those statements are understandably inaccurate.

We are mostly talking about different things.

& by the way, I don't give two hoots if you or anyone believes in ghosts, or most anything else for that matter. What I don't tolerate is others trying to enforce their particular view on me though. Which is something that can't happen in this forum (beyond the truly inconsequential choices of the mods) anyway.

[3Miro]

Scientism is the other side of the coin though interestingly it shares many qualities very similar to religious dogma. Most notably, if it can't somehow count & measure something then that something doesn't exist.


If you cannot count or measure it, then how does it manifest. If something manifests in reality, then it can be counted, measured or observed in a broader definition. For example: We are constantly surrounded by invisible pink unicorns vs we are constantly surrounded by neutrino. In the case of neutrino it took a gigantic sphere deep in a mine with some chemicals and after a period of time some of the atoms of the chemicals had changed. This is a manifestation. Until the unicorns have an identifiable manifestation, they are indistinguishable from something that I just made up.

Until there is an identifiable and verifiable manifestation, there is no way to distinguish between something that exists and something that doesn't exist.


Another most remarkable foundation of scientism is the mentality that thinks that consciousness does not exist! Which I find to be a ludicrous situation.

Can you define consciousness? This is one of those words that everyone seems to expect to know what you mean, but then everyone ultimately seems to mean something else.

[3Miro]

This is a forum. There is no true investigative journalism going on here. We aren't writing thesis. We don't define our terms & delineate the dimensions of the questions & answers we are going to deal with.

This is just plain off the top of the head stuff. Conversations & debate, around the water cooler as they like to put it here.

So your definitions of what I say & your replies to those statements are understandably inaccurate.

We are mostly talking about different things.

& by the way, I don't give two hoots if you or anyone believes in ghosts, or most anything else for that matter. What I don't tolerate is others trying to enforce their particular view on me though. Which is something that can't happen in this forum (beyond the truly inconsequential choices of the mods) anyway.

And I thought we were about to make a scientific breakthrough here ;)

By the water cooler or not, I am always surprised how someone can sit in a worm house, working on a computer and dismissing the effectiveness of the Scientific Method.

[handy]

And I thought we were about to make a scientific breakthrough here ;)

By the water cooler or not, I am always surprised how someone can sit in a worm house, working on a computer and dismissing the effectiveness of the Scientific Method.

Just like I have no idea who you are, the same goes both ways old mate. :P

Please reread what I said, as you misinterpreted it again?

[edit:] Re. the questions that you posit in the post before your last, all I can say is that you will start to find the answers if you truly go looking for them. They are not just handed to you on a platter, you have to work for them, as you may or may not find out in the future.

[wilee-nilee]

A core value to any one person is a immovable object at the least, except by the owner, but it rarely happens I suspect.

[handy]

Paradigm shifts are rarely painless.

[73ckn797]

Yes I believe in ghosts. When this thread is closed it will exist in the minds of all who read it and will be something that they see in their minds eye later. Let's see how the scientific method figures this one out.

[ki4jgt]

Yes I believe in ghosts. When this thread is closed it will exist in the minds of all who read it and will be something that they see in their minds eye later. Let's see how the scientific method figures this one out.

It seems, that has been stated before! However every time someone mentions religion. I feel a little cringe in my spine. I've already mentioned it like twice with no other way to weave my conversations. I may set the thread as closed myself. This is getting a little close sorry guys :-)

[3Miro]

Just like I have no idea who you are, the same goes both ways old mate. :P

Please reread what I said, as you misinterpreted it again?

[edit:] Re. the questions that you posit in the post before your last, all I can say is that you will start to find the answers if you truly go looking for them. They are not just handed to you on a platter, you have to work for them, as you may or may not find out in the future.

Were were posting over each other, I had two posts because you posted while I was writing the post, so we had some confusion due to the asynchronous form of communication that we are using.

I am still curious to find out three things, if you care to answer:

1. What do you mean when you say consciousness?
2. Where do you think I should look for answers?
3. What do you think is the fundamental flaw in the Scientific Method that you were talking about earlier?

[dondiego2]

As far as I know no one has scientifically proven ghosts exist with a repeatable scientific experiment. Old houses creak because they are old. If we believe something enough our minds will trick us into seeing and hearing things and rationalize it to fit out beliefs.

So no, I don't believe in ghosts.

[handy]

Were were posting over each other, I had two posts because you posted while I was writing the post, so we had some confusion due to the asynchronous form of communication that we are using.

I am still curious to find out three things, if you care to answer:

1. What do you mean when you say consciousness?
2. Where do you think I should look for answers?
3. What do you think is the fundamental flaw in the Scientific Method that you were talking about earlier?

I've said enough to you on those topics, you look further yourself.




As far as I know no one has scientifically proven ghosts exist with a repeatable scientific experiment.

Science has discovered the mechanics of a lot of things, that's for sure. Even so there still exist a squillion unanswered questions; including dimensions that science has barely touched on the existence of, or have not touched on at all.

There is more to life than what science or most religions for that matter carry the answers to.



Old houses creak because they are old. If we believe something enough our minds will trick us into seeing and hearing things and rationalize it to fit out beliefs.

That's kids stuff.

People can, (I know I have) have experiences that are totally unexpected. With minds that are not primed for ghosts (not interested & don't even think about that stuff). Mature, somewhat intelligent people who aren't full of fear of noises & things that go bump in the night have & do have experiences with ghosts.

You don't have to believe it, & you can put whatever kind of filters on it that you choose to look through. It makes NO difference to the validity of what someone else has experienced. Such an attitude is probably the most common reaction from people who have had no such experience.

I don't wish ghost experiences on anyone, though I'm quite happy that I've had mine, there was no harm in it; I was educated if nothing else.



So no, I don't believe in ghosts.

Good for you, I didn't either. :)

[KL_72_TR]

That ghost looks like is starving to = DEATH. Can somebody help

[3Miro]

There is more to life than what science or most religions for that matter carry the answers to.


True. I am dissatisfied with how slow science progresses, but is the only thing that provides verifiable and testable answers. I can never verify someone else's experience and thus I can never verify their interpretation of it. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, I have had experiences that were misaligned with what actually happened, so I don't wouldn't even trust my own experiences (or my ability to interpret them correctly). You say I should look for answers, when it comes to ghosts, all I have ever found were personal experiences. Do you have any place I can look for answers that are not based upon personal experience?

[I_can_see_the_light]

True. I am dissatisfied with how slow science progresses, but is the only thing that provides verifiable and testable answers. I can never verify someone else's experience and thus I can never verify their interpretation of it. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, I have had experiences that were misaligned with what actually happened, so I don't wouldn't even trust my own experiences (or my ability to interpret them correctly). You say I should look for answers, when it comes to ghosts, all I have ever found were personal experiences. Do you have any place I can look for answers that are not based upon personal experience?

The strength with science is also it's flaw (as proven with the NASA discovery), it can only tell us things that we can measure/calculate and/or touch and see, all based on what we know today.

There is never any possibility for a scientist to calculate things based on circumstances that hasn't been proven, it's either impossible (because they just didn't know things could work that way) or they will be laughed at (somewhat radical ideas).

If you asked me ten years ago I would definitely have told you that ghost only existed in people's imagination and that you only see what you want to see, but I've learned as I got older that life and the universe is too much for the human mind to fathom and we only know a tiny, tiny part of it. What we know today might well be obsolete tomorrow and a hundred years on people will laugh at the people of today. There will be breakthroughs in science and many things will be discovered, but I seriously doubt that science will ever be able to "prove" that ghosts exist. Therefore we can only lean on personal experiences, some of it will be less believable and perhaps even proved wrong later but simply dismissing anything that science haven't yet proved would be dismissing the people around you. I'm always critical of what I hear and always take things "with a pinch of salt" but sometimes there won't be any reasonable explanations (like love for instance). What we then choose to believe is entirely up to ourselves.

I still have not seen or felt the presence of a ghost and only one or two of my family and friends claim to have, nor do I think of myself as being religious, but even so, the thought of ghosts and life in outer space just seems plausible.

**Apologies if this comes out wrong or just doesn't make any sense, English isn't my native language**

[3Miro]

The strength with science is also it's flaw (as proven with the NASA discovery), it can only tell us things that we can measure/calculate and/or touch and see, all based on what we know today.


NASA's discovery was just a bunch of media hype over nothing really significant. Things that cannot be measured/calculated or "observed" are indistinguishable from noting.



There is never any possibility for a scientist to calculate things based on circumstances that hasn't been proven, it's either impossible (because they just didn't know things could work that way) or they will be laughed at (somewhat radical ideas).


That is right, however, without knowing that things can work that way there is no way for us to tell if an idea is worth something or if it actually deserves to be laughed at.



... we only know a tiny, tiny part of it.


Absolutely true.



What we know today might well be obsolete tomorrow and a hundred years on people will laugh at the people of today. There will be breakthroughs in science and many things will be discovered, but I seriously doubt that science will ever be able to "prove" that ghosts exist. Therefore we can only lean on personal experiences, some of it will be less believable and perhaps even proved wrong later but simply dismissing anything that science haven't yet proved would be dismissing the people around you.


We laugh at people who though that the Earth was flat even though it was within their power to verify the contrary, but we admire people like Isac Newton who did the best that he could with the knowledge that they had. I don't think anyone (especially scientist) would ever look at Newton and laugh at how he got the kinetic energy equation wrong or how he dabbled in alchemy. He made enormous advances in science and he did the best that he could with what he had.

I don't doubt that people have experiences, I doubt people's ability to correctly interpret those experiences. What is putting further doubt on the subject is how contradictory some of the ghost stories are. This is to the point where we cannot even agree on a definition of what a "ghost" is.



I'm always critical of what I hear and always take things "with a pinch of salt" but sometimes there won't be any reasonable explanations (like love for instance). What we then choose to believe is entirely up to ourselves.


"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." (Carl Sagan) Everyone should be critical of what they hear, but there is a big difference between "I saw a bird today", "I saw a meteorite" and "I saw a ghost".

In a semi-related topic, "love" is observable and verifiable. We can do than by both observing changes in someone's brain chemistry or behavior. Most people have experienced love at some point of their lives and those experiences are very similar across cultures. Look at the success of love poetry and music, those wouldn't be able to appeal to so many people, if people did not share something in common in their experience.



**Apologies if this comes out wrong or just doesn't make any sense, English isn't my native language**

It is not my native language either, but I wouldn't have guessed that for you. Your English is great.

[jshepherd]

Do I believe in ghosts? Well a couple of years ago I had to do some training for work which was held in what is supposed to be one of the most haunted buildings in Britain. We were there for 8 days (not nights though thankfully). I and a colleague had a good look around the rooms in break times even when everyone else was having a smoking break outside. And do you know what I saw? .... Nothing! Nada, zip!! I even took some pics of what were supposed to be the places with sightings on my mobile phone and guess what? Nothing, not an orb or a bit of light, nothing. However, some other colleagues claimed to have felt strange presences. On another session which I wasn't present at, everyone was told to switch off mobile phones which they duly did. then whilst in another room this guys phone started ringing! Naturally the trainer went mad at this act of defiance but on inspection the phone WAS off!!

Strangely, that phone stopped working shortly after that. I still have it in my office as it was replaced.
Wierd!

[Richard_T]

If there we're ghosts, which I don't believe there is. Wouldn't the world be crowded.

[The Cog]

If there we're ghosts, which I don't believe there is. Wouldn't the world be crowded.

Actually, I was told once that the human population is expanding so fast that there are more people alive now than have ever died. Thus, the possible ghost population is smaller than the actual live population. It sounds plausible though I have never checked up on its correctness.

[handy]

True. I am dissatisfied with how slow science progresses, but is the only thing that provides verifiable and testable answers. I can never verify someone else's experience and thus I can never verify their interpretation of it. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, I have had experiences that were misaligned with what actually happened, so I don't wouldn't even trust my own experiences (or my ability to interpret them correctly). You say I should look for answers, when it comes to ghosts, all I have ever found were personal experiences. Do you have any place I can look for answers that are not based upon personal experience?

If you read the late great Carl Jung's psychological commentary on the W.Y. Evans-Wentz, 3rd edition (& later editions) of the Tibetan Book of the Dead, you will learn a lot about so called ghosts as well, Jung states something along the lines of the similarity of the references to ghostly phenomena that have been recorded through the ages leaving it beyond doubt that human experiences of ghostly phenomena are valid.

You have to put my broad brush & loosely reinterpreted memory of what he said into the context of the various paradigms that people have lived under over the last 6,000 years or so. People relating the same & similar accounts of something over such a time span means something. Especially to a master of psychology such as Jung.

As far as recommended reading is concerned, The Tibetan Book of the Dead, by W.Y. Evans-Wentz, Oxford Press is an amazing book. You need to get the 3rd edition or later, as that is when they started including the 30 or so page psychological commentary by Carl Jung, which in itself is worth getting the book for. You can get it at Amazon, quite cheaply at the moment, I have re-bought the soft cover (I gave away my original in the early 90's) & I picked up an excellent hard cover recently for a good price. My soft cover cost me $13.60 including air freight to Oz!

Another book which is held in very high regard by people in the upper levels of educational systems in the States & beyond, is called The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness, by B. Alan Wallace, Oxford press. I picked up a 2nd hand hard cover at Amazon quite cheaply.

I think that those two books would give you a great deal to go on, & will be extremely more comprehensive & articulate than I will ever be. Apart from the fact that there are quite strong limitations on what can be spoken about in this forum these days.

There is personal experience involved in these books. As the Tibetan book of the dead is reliant on the experiences of 100's of years of meticulous scientific study of consciousness by the Tibetan Buddhist monks. Who document & analyse subjective experience to gain understanding which is then used to probe the subconscious further, & on it goes.

When such a study has been carried out for such an extended period, there perhaps comes a time when the breadths & depths have been plumbed.

[handy]

Actually, I was told once that the human population is expanding so fast that there are more people alive now than have ever died. Thus, the possible ghost population is smaller than the actual live population. It sounds plausible though I have never checked up on its correctness.

Allowing for the possibility of reincarnation & life in other places beyond Earth, is not common to the "Western" way of thinking. The paradigms that all but a few Westerners are born into make that jump extremely difficult.

[handy]

If there we're ghosts, which I don't believe there is. Wouldn't the world be crowded.

Being a ghost is a malfunction, bought about by an extremely strong attachment to the lost life, for whatever reason.

Meaning that everyone who dies does not become a ghost on Earth.

[Gremlinzzz]

A relative of mine bought a antique dresser with mirror.put it in there bed room, that same night the were awaken by pound en and dragging noise.they called me up to check the attic cause it sounded like it was from the ceiling.since it just started to happen when the got the dresser.they wanted the dresser out of the bed room. so I moved it to the garage.sure enough the sounds were now coming from the garage.next day took it to antique shop and sold it.The person who sold it to my relative said after that a young girl was combing her hair and looking in the mirror when she was killed by lighting.there was a burn mark on the back of the mirror.true story.

[3Miro]

Jung states something along the lines of the similarity of the references to ghostly phenomena that have been recorded through the ages leaving it beyond doubt that human experiences of ghostly phenomena are valid.

Is this published in any journal, it would be easy for me to get it from the library or on-line.

[handy]

Is this published in any journal, it would be easy for me to get it from the library or on-line.

Not that I'm aware of.

As I said the book of the dead cost me less than $3-, at Amazon, & it happened to have been brand new old stock (1965).

Other explorations in the book apart from the Evans-Wentz translation are also extremely insightful. All of which is very much associated with ghosts, deities, archetypes, psychology & of course anthropology. It is a most remarkable & unfortunately very much neglected book in our current times.

There are a couple of people that I have heard of who are currently doing research work in areas that have been very much inspired by The Tibetan Book of the Dead & also Kundalini.

One is Rick Strassman (http://www.rickstrassman.com/site/) MD., who has been doing work with DMT, having been given U.S. government permission to do research with volunteers who take DMT, which is the first time in decades since the LSD days.

His research very interestingly points to the pituitary gland manufacturing DMT when we are under extreme stress (like dyeing). DMT is a powerful psychotropic compound that is also available in a variety of plants & very likely produced by all animals.

It is actually the drug that Terrence McKenna, used in South America, with the natives. It is has been used by many Shamans in many places throughout our past, as it opens the doors into other dimensions that are for the vast majority of people closed for their entire lives.

There is lots of interesting stuff out their to look at once you start investigating this stuff - consciousness. :)

[3Miro]

One is Rick Strassman (http://www.rickstrassman.com/site/) MD., who has been doing work with DMT, having been given U.S. government permission to do research with volunteers who take DMT, which is the first time in decades since the LSD days.


So this is scientific research right on the subject. Perhaps not as much as you would like to see, but it is research. Why were you saying earlier that science is not willing/interested to work on this. When the research produces results, then we will have something to work with.

[DZ*]

So this is scientific research right on the subject. Perhaps not as much as you would like to see, but it is research. Why were you saying earlier that science is not willing/interested to work on this. When the research produces results, then we will have something to work with.

But that is not research of ghosts. Some of it is research of how a drug changes perception, and some of it not research at all but the kind of stuff that makes threads closed, for example

"pineal DMT release at 49 days after conception marks the entrance of the spirit into the fetus"

(http://www.rickstrassman.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=54)

[handy]

So this is scientific research right on the subject. Perhaps not as much as you would like to see, but it is research.

You keep drawing more out of me... :)

What he is doing is basically one tiny speck of research in the vast plethora of scientific research, that is actually looking at a biochemical interface with the consciousness of life & death.

I was generalising, as most of us tend to do in the Cafe, as writing a thesis is basically not worth the trouble for the audience involved here, something to which I'm sure you would agree.



Why were you saying earlier that science is not willing/interested to work on this.

Due to one or two people doing dedicated research in a certain area, I don't think we can say that science in general has all of a sudden opened itself up to creating a scientific method for working with the consciousness, that it has heretofore denied the very existence of.



When the research produces results, then we will have something to work with.

That is taking the easy way out. Do yourself a favour & buy three books, they will expand the world that you live in no matter what your beliefs are, you will think differently after reading these books, which is certainly worth the likely $30- it will cost you for the three of them 2nd hand:

The Tibetan Book of the Dead, Evans-Wentz, 3rd edition (Or later, before the 3rd edition you miss out on Jung's brilliant psychological commentary. No other books on the subject demand you to think as this one demands), Oxford Press.

The Taboo of Subjectivity: Toward a New Science of Consciousness, by B. Alan Wallace, Oxford press.

DMT: The Spirit Molecule, by Rick Strassman, MD.

http://www.rickstrassman.com/site/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54&Itemid=62

[DZ*]

Being a ghost is a malfunction, bought about by an extremely strong attachment to the lost life, for whatever reason.

Meaning that everyone who dies does not become a ghost on Earth.

How do you know this and how do I verify that being a ghost is a malfunction?

[handy]

How do you know this and how do I verify that being a ghost is a malfunction?

Some things we have to discover for ourselves.

The method is not one that fits inside of that which is the generally accepted scientific method.

For the scientists, I'm talking bullshiezer, for those with more open minds, they either know, or are prepared if so motivated to pursue this & associated topics themselves.

Anyone who is so motivated will as time goes by learn a great many things that both science & religion obfuscate one way or another.

So, prove it or disprove it for yourself, & don't think it will be an easy or quick job to do, if you are serious about it that is.

Most people would say to the above statement, I can't do that. He's talking shiet; that's that, done finished, a throw away.

[Khakilang]

I haven't seen one but on few occasion I can felt their presence. At one time I was spending a night in a cheap hotel build in the 50s. While feeling sleepy I could feel that someone is behind me breathing and when I turn around no one was there. It had me turning and twisting the whole night and I had goosebump. I don't know what it was but after consulting a few fortune teller they confirm to me that it was a ghost. I really felt a chill down my spine after hearing this.

[wilee-nilee]

This is the edition.
178314

[handy]

This is the edition.
178314

Hmm, that looks familiar... :)

[wilee-nilee]

Hmm, that looks familiar... :)

I got it in the middle of November and had forgotten and was sidetracked with school you reminded of the Jung comments, thanks.;)

[handy]

I got it in the middle of November and had forgotten and was sidetracked with school you reminded of the Jung comments, thanks.;)

Its only 30 pages or so, I know you in particular will love it.

@3Miro: You might like to read the content of this link, it is Q&A, with Fred Wolf, a quantum physicist on the topic of consciousness:

http://www.intuition.org/txt/wolf.htm

[Rodney9]

My dad died 3 months ago, I heard him walking upstairs for 2 months.
I know every little sound in this house, I am now the only person living here.

[I_can_see_the_light]

NASA's discovery was just a bunch of media hype over nothing really significant. Things that cannot be measured/calculated or "observed" are indistinguishable from noting.
What I meant was that science can only tell us things based on prior knowledge, that sometimes "life as we know it" isn't necessarily a universal truth.


That is right, however, without knowing that things can work that way there is no way for us to tell if an idea is worth something or if it actually deserves to be laughed at.
That is true, but in my opinion scientists can be to quick to dismiss ideas that doesn't conform to general consensus. There probably have been an enormous amount of crazy ideas so in a way that is understandable.


I don't doubt that people have experiences, I doubt people's ability to correctly interpret those experiences.
That is most definitely true in some cases, the human brain is excellent at "helping" us see clearer.


What is putting further doubt on the subject is how contradictory some of the ghost stories are. This is to the point where we cannot even agree on a definition of what a "ghost" is.
Does it have to be only one thing though? What people call a ghost might very well be different things altogether. There could also be a rational way to explain all stories, just that we haven't found a way to do so yet. However, like I said in a previous post, I just find it plausible that ghosts exist. This is based on the fact that we know and understand so little.


In a semi-related topic, "love" is observable and verifiable. We can do than by both observing changes in someone's brain chemistry or behavior. Most people have experienced love at some point of their lives and those experiences are very similar across cultures. Look at the success of love poetry and music, those wouldn't be able to appeal to so many people, if people did not share something in common in their experience.
A Swedish psychic was able to help the Japanese police find a missing girl, she was of course already dead when they found her but this psychic had never been to the place before and didn't know anything about the girl previously, he was able to find her rather quickly. Luck? I don't think so. But even though this isn't something that can be observed in the same fashion as love, the result is astounding and should be taken note of.


It is not my native language either, but I wouldn't have guessed that for you. Your English is great.
Thanks, I wouldn't have guessed that for you either.

[3Miro]

You keep drawing more out of me... :)


I will get the books and read them. I am just making the point that while science may not have the answers that you want today, the study of "consciousness" is not beyond its reach. Fred Wolf is not the only one looking at this from a quantum mechanics point of view, I have seen others, they just have not yet produced testable results (emphasis on yet, hopefully they soon will). Furthermore, they do have at least a working definition of consciousness.

Neuroscience is an entire field working on understanding the brain and how it works (not just one guy doing experiments), wherever consciousness is, it is connected to the brain (since brain chemicals do have an impact on perception and thinking), so that is exactly where we should start, with what we know and can verify, then push forth from there.

On a third front, there are the Artificial Intelligence people that (if successful) may change the way we look at ourselves. A computer program that mimics the entire function of the brain will shed a lot of light on what we are actually made of.

Science is in no way "closed minded", it is simply rigorous in filtering out garbage, and there sure is plenty of garbage out there.

I don't mean to "drag" you into this anymore.

[3Miro]

A Swedish psychic was able to help the Japanese police find a missing girl, she was of course already dead when they found her but this psychic had never been to the place before and didn't know anything about the girl previously, he was able to find her rather quickly. Luck? I don't think so. But even though this isn't something that can be observed in the same fashion as love, the result is astounding and should be taken note of.


People are very bad at statistics. From just one experiment, it is impossible to discern blind luck vs something else. Lets do a double blind study, we would pair police officers/detectives with psychic/psychics and check to see if this really helps. I don't want 100% success, things don't work that way, I want to see a rigorous study that shows that officer + psychic is more likely to succeed than an officer alone. This is something observable and measurable (it can also give us a way to filter out fake psychics, you have to admit there are plenty of those). If successful, this will be a reason to hire psychics on regular payroll to aid the police. Furthermore, there are actually organizations that will pay money to the psychic should he/she be successful.

[samalex]

Simple answer for me is Yes... I won't go into too much detail, but when I was a kid we lived in a turn of the century house where an old couple lived most of their lives and died in the house. Whether you call it memory imprints or ghosts we experienced all sorts of things the 5 or so years we lived there.

Then after high school some friends and I setup a serious ghost hunting group in our area, this being around 1995 so a decade before GhostHunters on SciFi. We had some awesome equipment for the time and caught lots of stuff on tape and video. But as all things we graduated college, went our separate ways, and I haven't really messed with it since.

So from personal experience yes I not only believe but KNOW ghosts exist... or at least paranormal energy of some sort.

[Bölvaður]

I have seen a ghost when I was little but I do not belief in them because I know how to make children have these same experiences as when I was little by the same mindtricks that they got in their every day life.. just more tactical. And I can make adults experience ghosts and it's all in their mind.

People that use glasses report more often they see ghosts than that have perfect sight.
People more often see ghosts at night and in dark places.
After public got electric lighting a substantial reduction of ghosts sightings were reported.

Are ghosts just where it is hard to see them?
Or are ghosts just the construction of our minds where our mind struggles to cope with the fussy and noise like input?


I see that many ppl in this thread do not have a belief in ghosts and that the ones that do do it because of experience. I am willing to let all the people that do not have this belief to come to my house next summer and I'll make you have this experience.

You will see ghosts in my house if I want you to.

The only thing I would need to do is prime you to seeing or feeling ghosts. Then I'll have to put you into situation where your brain struggles, I'd break your glasses and put you in the dark in middle of the night where there are no loud clear sounds but only "quiet noises" you wouldnt notice during the day when there is much more noise. I'll tell you to guard my house and give you a knife to protect you from burglars... and I'll tell you I live close to a very bad neighbourhood which often gets attacks like Alex from Clockwork Orange did.
Every time you'll hear some sound or think you'll hear some sound you'll think it might be something! is it alex or is it a ghost?
You'll start imagining you seeing people with the corner of your eye but it turns out to change into normal objects when you look closer in the dark.

In research it has been shown you are quicker to recognise things that you have been primed to. It doesnt mean you are expecting it, just that it is in back of your mind so to speak. You dont have to believe in ghost to see them.. you just need to be from a culture that some people think there are ghosts.


Just watch these videos that are about seeking certain type of patterns. If you understand what is said here you'll realise ghosts are in your mind because of how faulty the human mind is. If you do not understand what is going on in the video then you'll probably just keep on believing in what ever you did before and I dont care.

Michael Shermer: Why people believe strange things (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8T_jwq9ph8k#t=384)

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o#t=135)

[I_can_see_the_light]

People are very bad at statistics. From just one experiment, it is impossible to discern blind luck vs something else.
Indeed, but in this particular case I would say luck is almost unlikely. Either the TV show was fake (which I really don't think) or he is one hell of a lucky guy ;)


Lets do a double blind study, we would pair police officers/detectives with psychic/psychics and check to see if this really helps. I don't want 100% success, things don't work that way, I want to see a rigorous study that shows that officer + psychic is more likely to succeed than an officer alone. This is something observable and measurable (it can also give us a way to filter out fake psychics, you have to admit there are plenty of those). If successful, this will be a reason to hire psychics on regular payroll to aid the police. Furthermore, there are actually organizations that will pay money to the psychic should he/she be successful.
I agree, it would be an interesting study.

[DZ*]

People are very bad at statistics. From just one experiment, it is impossible to discern blind luck vs something else. Lets do a double blind study, we would pair police officers/detectives with psychic/psychics and check to see if this really helps.

I knew someone who started his scientific career by doing research with individuals who claimed to have paranormal abilities. The government of the country he lived in was probably interested in these kinds of applications. He told me that no one who claimed to have such abilities was able to demonstrate anything in a controlled environment. They were all fakes or crazies. He abandoned that path and went into basic research in statistics.

[DZ*]

Indeed, but in this particular case I would say luck is almost unlikely. Either the TV show was fake (which I really don't think) or he is one hell of a lucky guy ;)

Only lucky ones make the news. We have to account for the total number of guesses made by all who ever tried to locate various people gone missing. It's the same issue as with Paul the Psychic Octopus. Thousands of pet animals around the globe have been in the game of guessing soccer results.

This problem is also rampant in scientific publications due to "publication bias". Researchers try gazilion things but journals will accept only "significant" results". Then the truth wears out (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer). Drugs no longer work. Coffee doesn't cause pancreatic cancer. Antioxidants do not improve health, etc etc.

[I_can_see_the_light]

Only lucky ones make the news. We have to account for the total number of guesses made by all who ever tried to locate various people gone missing.
Yes, it wouldn't be newsworthy to report failures, if that was the case they might as well hire me - I wouldn't find anything!!

However, I don't think it would be fair to compare the results between different psychics/mediums, some are frauds and some would be more likely to get you a result, so the best way would be to focus on only one medium and then move on to the next when you get a result (positive or negative)


It's the same issue as with Paul the Psychic Octopus. Thousands of pet animals around the globe have been in the game of guessing soccer results.
In Paul's case it was a game of 50/50, not really comparable to finding a missing person or solving a crime.


This problem is also rampant in scientific publications due to "publication bias". Researchers try gazilion things but journals will accept only "significant" results". Then the truth wears out (http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer). Drugs no longer work. Coffee doesn't cause pancreatic cancer. Antioxidants do not improve health, etc etc.
Yes, the media is always looking for stuff that will make them a nice profit and when the novelty wears off they move on to the next.

[Gremlinzzz]

Brother in-law working at a closed factory Remington arms Bridgeport c.t. he,s a floor installer by trade.so working alone and installing tile he hears mumbling and sounds of a crowd.Looks at frosted windows and sees shadows.opens door nobody's there.then continues to work reaches for his utility knife and it slides to the other side of the room.he said it flew. he packed his tools left and refused to finish the job. true story told to me by him.

[I_can_see_the_light]

People that use glasses report more often they see ghosts than that have perfect sight.
Is this something you've read about?


People more often see ghosts at night and in dark places.
After public got electric lighting a substantial reduction of ghosts sightings were reported.
Although that could also easily coincide with the society becoming more secular, the church definitely instilled fear into the people, almost primed them.


Or are ghosts just the construction of our minds where our mind struggles to cope with the fussy and noise like input?
Sometimes yes, however I don't believe it to be applicable in all cases. Note that I have never seen or felt the presence of a ghost.


I see that many ppl in this thread do not have a belief in ghosts and that the ones that do do it because of experience. I am willing to let all the people that do not have this belief to come to my house next summer and I'll make you have this experience.

You will see ghosts in my house if I want you to.

The only thing I would need to do is prime you to seeing or feeling ghosts.
But it wouldn't really be ghosts then, would it? ;)


Just watch these videos that are about seeking certain type of patterns. If you understand what is said here you'll realise ghosts are in your mind because of how faulty the human mind is. If you do not understand what is going on in the video then you'll probably just keep on believing in what ever you did before and I dont care.
But ghosts is about more than seeing a shadow in the dark though. Sure, the human mind is excellent at "connecting the dots" but sometimes when luck/chance doesn't seem likely and things just cannot be explained, then what?

[Bölvaður]

But it wouldn't really be ghosts then, would it? ;)

You can see stuff that isn't there.
As long as you think you are seeing something real, you are seeing it as far as you know.




But ghosts is about more than seeing a shadow in the dark though. Sure, the human mind is excellent at "connecting the dots" but sometimes when luck/chance doesn't seem likely and things just cannot be explained, then what?
You just said it. When something that doesnt seem likely we think something is up.
Do you know how weird our world would be where nothing that is unlikely wouldn't happen? no one would win the lottery!
When you add up all the unlikely things that could happen and then apply it to a large population you'll see it happens every day.

It's not really a problem that people don't understand it is very likely they'll have unlikely things happening to them often over their lifetime. The problem is that they'll start giving those things more meanings than they deserve, give it a purpose or attribute it to some mind, like was said in one of the videos...

You can alter people's memory, specially if they are expecting to remember something. An experiment with children where they where approached and asked if they are still hurt in their arm (none of the children had been hurt) and if they remember going to the hospital yesterday.
Then they'd be asked again later if their hand is alright and they'd answer that they feel better now and that they remember going to the hospital.
Then 20 years later they have this as a memory that they can vividly recall... memory forgery.

My friend studying linguistics learned a method to remember stories better verbally without distorting the memory of the story... each time they say a story they are changing the memory of the story so they need to do tricks to remember it correctly.... normal people mess their memories up without knowing they are doing it. Just notice how wrong your mother is always about some events.. specially the more often she talks about that memory it gets further and further from the actual event.



What people in this thread are not understanding is the criteria of what things exists or not.
Things that exists affect other things.. if they don't we wouldn't know about them and should rightfully ignore them. If ghosts exists then we would know about them because they somehow are making them being seen and interact with objects... but still... it has never been recorded on camera.
There are millions of cameras recording right now all around the world and we have been using videotapes for many many years... not a single tape has been demonstrated to be not a hoax, not a single video of a ghost.

[I_can_see_the_light]

You just said it. When something that doesnt seem likely we think something is up.
Do you know how weird our world would be where nothing that is unlikely wouldn't happen? no one would win the lottery!
When you add up all the unlikely things that could happen and then apply it to a large population you'll see it happens every day.
Yes it's all about chance, or is it? Like the story about the medium I told earlier, there is of course always a possibility of striking lucky but I don't think it was in that case.


You can alter people's memory, specially if they are expecting to remember something. An experiment with children where they where approached and asked if they are still hurt in their arm (none of the children had been hurt) and if they remember going to the hospital yesterday.
Then they'd be asked again later if their hand is alright and they'd answer that they feel better now and that they remember going to the hospital.
Then 20 years later they have this as a memory that they can vividly recall... memory forgery.
I have read a book by a swedish "mind reader" so I know of priming and creating false memories. I assume it could be applicable in many cases where people claim to have seen a ghost or something paranormal.


What people in this thread are not understanding is the criteria of what things exists or not.
Things that exists affect other things.. if they don't we wouldn't know about them and should rightfully ignore them. If ghosts exists then we would know about them because they somehow are making them being seen and interact with objects... but still... it has never been recorded on camera.
There are millions of cameras recording right now all around the world and we have been using videotapes for many many years... not a single tape has been demonstrated to be not a hoax, not a single video of a ghost.
But many people don't rush to the press when they experienced something, to them ghosts exist just like your criteria. Also, just because there are cameras recording doesn't necessarily mean that something will be caught, we are talking about "the unknown". Life as we know it isn't necessarily a universal thing and because of that I find it likely that ghosts (or whatever we should call it) exist.

[Gremlinzzz]

Bottom line yes I do.
There,s ghost where ever you go.
Cause there,s a Ghost in you!