Where Do Ghosts Come From?

[Zaira]

We live in this world. But we each also live in a world of our own making. That world is created from our thoughts and beliefs. If a person believes in ghosts then there is a good chance that they will, sooner or later, see a ghost.

Not being able to see a ghost does not mean that they don’t exist in this world. It only means that they don’t exist for you in your world.

Same goes for Psychics. Within the Psychic‘s world, they are psychic. Bring two worlds together, two people with different belief systems, a Skeptic and a Psychic, they are both right from their particular point of view.

I have been over this road many times and have adopted the motto ’Live and let live’. We are all entitled to our own beliefs. Sometimes I think Skeptics make too much work for themselves. However, I do support their work in exposing the frauds who deliberately take advantage of vulnerable people. But I pull back when they seem to be painting all Psychics with the same brush.

I do not believe in ghosts, this is not to say that they don’t exist for some people. They just don’t exist for me. I feel the same regards Psychics, I’m not saying that they lie about what they do. I am saying that I have trouble accepting what they say they can do. And yet other people would swear by them. Each to their own.

I just think we are missing something here. It might seem airy-fairy, but we must acknowledge the power of the mind. And the strength of beliefs and positive thoughts.

Put logic and reason to one side occasionally and think about the power of the mind.

Many successful people write books on their success. They say that we must think positive. They tell us that to become successful we need only become aware of the power of the mind.

Don’t you think that same mind, the mind that created success, can also create ghosts?

[median]

Hello Zaira, no time for a big reply but


We live in this world. But we each also live in a world of our own making. That world is created from our thoughts and beliefs.

Our perception of the world is created, not the world


If a person believes in ghosts then there is a good chance that they will, sooner or later, see a ghost.


Possibly due to misinterpretation of poor sensory information, hallucination caused by grief etc


Not being able to see a ghost does not mean that they don’t exist in this world. It only means that they don’t exist for you in your world.


Many people undergoing drug induced hallucinations think that certain things exist independent of everyone else. Do you really think that this a viable position to hold?

[Matt]

Don’t you think that same mind, the mind that created success, can also create ghosts?


Are you therefore saying that ghosts are nothing more than the result of peoples' imaginations?

[Cuddles]

That world is created from our thoughts and beliefs.

Nope. Our thoughts and beliefs are created from the world.

[Ardbeg]

Our perception of the world is created, not the world

How can we know the world without the aid of our 'perception' / senses?

[Dr B]

There is an important difference between sensation and perception - they are not the same and another poster here did not understand this during a recent conversation on infrasound.

It is a major principle of psychology / neuroscience (and other sciences to be honest) - but the crucial thing to keep in mind is that they are not the same thing.

A good example is colour vision. Nothing 'out there' in the world has colour! :cheesy:

[Dr B]

In relation to the question in the OP (where do ghosts come from?) - you could start by looking at your hippocampus, amygdala, entorhinal cortex, cingulate cortex, temporal lobe, and the dorso-lateral pre-frontal cortex, as a starting point.8)

[Allo Allo]

In relation to the question in the OP (where do ghosts come from?) - you could start by looking at your hippocampus, amygdala, entorhinal cortex, cingulate cortex, temporal lobe, and the dorso-lateral pre-frontal cortex, as a starting point.8)

But are these simply the tools of the brain for percieving something out there like the eyes percieve colour???? :cheesy: In Light, of course, we percieve the frequency 505nm as green, 468nm as blue etc. In that case there IS something out there that our eyes translate into colour?

Just a bit of a muddled? thought......:-\ Discuss please! :smiley:

[Dr B]

But are these simply the tools of the brain for percieving something out there like the eyes percieve colour???? :cheesy:

Perceptually speaking, you have no direct access to the sensorium. Only your somewhat transformed perceptions of it.


In Light, of course, we percieve the frequency 505nm as green, 468nm as blue etc. In that case there IS something out there that our eyes translate into colour?

You misunderstand. Colour is not a property the stimulus has - it exists only in your brain. The eye / brain responds to wavelength which is transformed by the brain into colour.

It's like sound. There is no sound 'out there' in the real world. There is vibration for which we have evolved specific apparatus with which to engage with it - the result of the involvement of that apparatus is sound.

Sound is a perceptual term and vibration a physical one. There is a correspondence of course, but they are not the same thing at all. All sound is vibration - but not all vibration is sound.

[Admin]

Not being able to see a ghost does not mean that they don’t exist in this world. It only means that they don’t exist for you in your world.

Same goes for Psychics. Within the Psychic‘s world, they are psychic. Bring two worlds together, two people with different belief systems, a Skeptic and a Psychic, they are both right from their particular point of view.

We went through this "we all create our own reality" discussion beginning here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1098&p=13739

There's only one reality. Yes we may perceive things differently but if we perceive something that isn't there it doesn't 'create reality' - it means our perception is wrong.

Belief does not create reality.

[Allo Allo]

Perceptually speaking, you have no direct access to the sensorium. Only your somewhat transformed perceptions of it.

You misunderstand. Colour is not a property the stimulus has - it exists only in your brain. The eye / brain responds to wavelength which is transformed by the brain into colour. I

I don't think I misunderstand - I am talking about light - frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes transform into colour. I know colour is not a property the stumulus has. The stimulus is a frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum that is "visible" only because our brains/eyes transform it into colour.

Please explain the first sentence in this quote...I don't quite understand what you mean there.

[Dr B]

I don't think I misunderstand - I am talking about light - frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes transform into colour.

Indeed O0 - the key word here being 'transformed' - why do you think the brain needs to do that and what do you think that means?


I know colour is not a property the stumulus has. The stimulus is a frequency of the electromagnetic spectrum that is "visible" only because our brains/eyes transform it into colour.

I mentioned this above - so i think we agree on that.


Please explain the first sentence in this quote...I don't quite understand what you mean there.

You have actually answered it yourself above (well kind of). You have no direct access to the physical properties of the things that give rise to the perceptions - as a perceiver - you only have access to the resultant perception - not the mechanisms that gave rise to it.

It is related to the concept that we are not aware of the underlying processes - only the products of those processes - though here it is applied to raw physical stimulation.

Perception and sensation are not the same O0

[median]

I think, in terms of true perception it is argued that what is received by sense apparatus is never a totally veridical representation. In terms of light impinging on our sense apparatus subtle transformations occur.
What I perceive as red may be slightly different from another's due to minor defects in my retina, for example. (There is an illusion based upon over stimulation of a set of colour cones that cause such a misperception) Indeed there is an argument that even given vast the speed of light that information occuring 'now' did in fact occur in the past.

[Dr B]

Or...to put it another way, there is 'sensation' which gives rise to a particular 'perception'.

However, that resultant 'perception' is not the same as the sensation which gives rise to it.

Information is transformed and it is that process which puts physical information into a neural code - this neural code is not the same as physical sensation (even though it may be dependent on it).

[median]

I must say, for me, has always raised the philosophical implications. In what sense do we know the real world, information wise? If our ‘simple’ perceptions (such as seeing an elephant) are subject to such transformation then what of our explorations using NMR or electronmicroscopy which gives rise to the possibility of artefact


Information is transformed and it is that process which puts physical information into a neural code - this neural code is not the same as physical sensation (even though it may be dependent on it).

In term of sensation, given the transformation/transduction of information do you think or more importantly, is there evidence, at early stages to suggest that raw data gets transformed on a one to one basis ( like morse code) before higher order processes set in.

[Dr B]

Hiya Median

The truth is - in many ways contemporary neuroscience is like philosophy in terms of these deep questions it raises (like Physics also).

In relation to your latter question - it is a matter of controversy. For example - consider a scan of a brain via fMRI showing lots of brain regions 'lighting up'. What does that 'lighting up' mean? Is it the raw registering of the stimulus in the brain - or is it what the brain is doing to that information (i.e., transformation)?

Some argue the earlier in the process you go - the more towards the 'real' stimulus one gets. This has a certain degree of logic to it - but even retinal cells have preferred ways of responding to inputs and combinations of them - which can be interpreted, in and of itself, as a transformation of the information (though perhaps a lesser one than that occuring in higher areas of the brain).

Basically, neurons either fire or they dont and they can (generally speaking) only fire at different rates in order to code information - this itself is transformation. :cheesy:

[Zaira]

Dr B,

"In relation to the question in the OP (where do ghosts come from?) - you could start by looking at your hippocampus, amygdala, entorhinal cortex, cingulate cortex, temporal lobe, and the dorso-lateral pre-frontal cortex, as a starting point."

You could have a point there. For me, it feels like a part of me knows what's coming and tries to warn me or help me with some guidance. I know how strange that sounds. But this is what I was getting at......... Rather than it being or coming from something outside of us like God, ghosts, spirits or Psychics, maybe it comes from the inside of us. Maybe it is us doing it... subconsciously.

Does some part of us know the future and 'work' to get the information to our conscious mind in order to protect us? Is this what some people call the Higher-Self and others believe to be Spirit or God? I don't know the answers but I have lived with this a long time and cannot ignore the signs or what 'it' feels like to me. I have read a lot in an effort to understand more about this and have come across words like 'the inner protector, adviser and provider'. I also read that this type of extra mental activity/ability is often traced back to childhood abuse or a serious accident involving a bang to the head.

There was a time, when if you tried to talk about this stuff, it was jokingly assumed that you must have been dropped on your head when you were a baby.

But what if that is the case and the reason for this extra mental activity/ability. What if it is something in the brain that we would not normally be aware of but a bang on the head flicked a switch?


"You have no direct access to the physical properties of the things that give rise to the perceptions - as a perceiver - you only have access to the resultant perception - not the mechanisms that gave rise to it. It is related to the concept that we are not aware of the underlying processes - only the products of those processes - though here it is applied to raw physical stimulation."

"... consider a scan of a brain via fMRI showing lots of brain regions 'lighting up'. What does that 'lighting up' mean? Is it the raw registering of the stimulus in the brain - or is it what the brain is doing to that information (i.e., transformation)?"


I prefer the word 'processing'. Same thing really. And I believe it is doing both registering and processing at the same time. The brain seems to register information instantaneously, even when we are unaware of it. Then it needs time to process it, most of this we are also unaware of until answers and solutions begin to pop into our head. The more complex the information the more time needed to process it. And I can't see where it would be able to process without also registering except perhaps while we are asleep. Even then I believe it is still registering.

I liken the brain it to a computer. The quality of the information that comes out will depend on the quality of the information that was fed in. I have written before about my tough start in life and my one saving grace was that I loved to read. I used books like tools, all kinds of books, in order to improve the quality of my thinking and hopefully the quality of my life. I taught myself to be more selective, and to believe only that which rings true to the deepest part of my being. I'm no scholar or scientist, I am a simple woman who was convinced that life didn't have to be this tough.

[Julia]

I taught myself to be more selective, and to believe only that which rings true to the deepest part of my being. I'm no scholar or scientist, I am a simple woman who was convinced that life didn't have to be this tough.

Zaira, with respect - believing "only that which rings true to the deepest part of my being" is certainly being selective, but in the wrong way. A statement or theory isn't true because it feels right and you'd like to believe it. We can no more make something true by wanting it to be so than we can create our own personal reality.

The deepest part of my being tells me that the earth is stationary and the stars and planets move round it; my mind accepts the overwhelming evidence that the earth is revolving at about 1000mph and moving around the sun at 67,000mph.

You seem to be referring to gut instinct, and as somebody once said, "I don't think with my guts". The idea that "if it feels right to me it must be true" is enormously widespread, which is why people so easily fall for phoney psychics, quack doctors and lying politicians. Either there is compelling evidence for a thing or there isn't - our desire to believe is irrelevant.

[Zaira]

Julia,

Thank you for your respectful consideration, it is much appreciated. I do have some weird and wonderful ideas, and I enjoy getting other people's take on them.

Once you realise where I'm coming from, most of what I post might make more sense.

"Either there is compelling evidence for a thing or there isn't - our desire to believe is irrelevant."

I don't see Belief as Truth.

I have faith until I believe and I believe until I know.

Example: I have faith (in a book I'm reading perhaps) until I believe (decide to take onboard some aspects of what I just read) and I believe until I know (I've done some research and have discovered that I'm not the only one who thinks this way).

Did that make sense?

[brettdbass]

Not seeing belief as truth would certainly fit with a skeptics outlook.
I think most people here would take a different view on their construction of knowledge though. I'll try...

I do not know or believe everything I read, just because I am reading it. Instead, I remain open to the possibilities of it being true, partially true or false (although I may "lean" more towards one way according to a previous experience). Faith is not involved in this process.

I do not believe an ascertation until I consider it to be known and supported by a body of evidence. Therefore you could say that belief and knowledge occur simultaneously, although this is slightly misleading terminology.

I will remain open to the possibility of the "truth" of an ascertation being incorrect. Should I be presented with a new body of evidence which adjusts the interpretation of this ascertation (partly or fully) then this will be taken up as correct according to current understanding.


A body of evidence would be defined as a series of results obtained by scientifically recognised methods which all correspond with regard to the ascertation and any predictions made using this ascertation. *

Truth or Knowledge could be viewed as "that which fully explains the current understanding of [X]" but as you can see, this is permanently open to adjustment, fine tuning or complete revision.

EG:
Today I know that people cannot transmit their thoughts psychically. It has been tested hundreds of times by various scientific means and has always failed comprehensively.

Tomorrow a man proclaims himself to be a true telepath. He is subjected to a barrage of tests in labs across the world and performs with 100% success in every one. He is declared a true telepath. I now know that telepathy is possible, at least for this one man.


*of course, we are not talking the blindingly obvious here. I Know that I am listening to the radio - I don't need a team of scientists testing me to prove it.

[Zaira]

brettdbass,

"Not seeing belief as truth would certainly fit with a Skeptics outlook."

Ooooooo, that sounds promising.

"I think most people here would take a different view on their construction of knowledge though."

I wouldn't be surprised by that, I have no formal education to speak of. I read till I became overwhelmed with information and needed a break. I realised that I lacked the ability to process much of the information logically, but I did the best I could with what I had.

"I do not know or believe everything I read, just because I am reading it."

I learned the hard way not to believe everything I read. In the beginning I was in awe of the people who wrote books, I set them on a pedestal, I thought they must be geniuses.

"Faith is not involved in this process."

Faith was definitely involved in my process. I had no frame of reference. I was lost in the dark and determined to find my way out. I trusted people (authors) I had never met to help me. Oh yes, faith was a part of the equation for me.

"Should I be presented with a new body of evidence which adjusts the interpretation of this ascertation (partly or fully) then this will be taken up as correct according to current understanding."

Me too. And although I never had the words to express it like you do, I was always open to new information. It was like… "Oh so that's what it means!" And just when I was getting used to that idea some more facts would be uncovered and I would think… "Okay, back to the drawing board!"

"Truth or Knowledge could be viewed as "that which fully explains the current understanding of [X]" but as you can see, this is permanently open to adjustment, fine tuning or complete revision."

Exactly!

".. of course, we are not talking the blindingly obvious here. I Know that I am listening to the radio - I don't need a team of scientists testing me to prove it."

I'm fine with the blindingly obvious. I don't even need scientific facts, not for the stuff I'm interested in. All I really look for is other, smarter, people's take on it.

I’m interested in Metaphysics (beyond the physical). I like to discuss and get other people’s take on… The Occult, God, Religion, Angels, Guides, Psychics, Mediums etc. As well as instincts, intuition and wisdom.

You can keep your UFOs, your aliens and your conspiracy theories. I know what I have been experiencing my whole life and I seek answers. My reading covered psychology and parapsychology. And just so you know, it also covered psychiatry and psychoanalysis. Well who knows, I might just be crazy.

We are each in a box with our own beliefs and our own way of doing things and looking at things. My box is parcel post and your box is express delivery. But set us down and open the lid and we are all looking at the same sky.

I do understand what you are saying. Thank you for giving me the chance to share more of my thoughts.

[brettdbass]

It's a pleasure to share.
I have been through a similar run of experiences as yourself, judging from your last post.

Some of the books I read, some of the crap I fell for... damn embarrasing now! :-[

I think that as long as people live their lives always learning, always willing to (or actively seeking to) alter their perspective when new stuff is discovered, never closed off to possibility but never blindly accepting either, then we'll always have an exciting and fascinating world.

[Zaira]

"Some of the books I read, some of the crap I fell for... damn embarrassing now!"

I know what you mean. I have been there on and off over the years. Confusing at times but still better that hanging onto rigid beliefs and concepts.

[Jocky]

"Faith is not involved in this process."

Faith was definitely involved in my process. I had no frame of reference. I was lost in the dark and determined to find my way out. I trusted people (authors) I had never met to help me. Oh yes, faith was a part of the equation for me.

Faith (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith) is a very tricky word. Look at the differences between definitions 1 and 2!

I think that "Trust" might be a more helpful word than "Faith" to use in the context of this discussion. It is inevitable when reading books that the author's knowledge and understanding in the field is likely to be much broader that one's own. In these situations you have to trust the author's authority on the subject, at least provisionally until you can check the information presented against the evidence and other authorities.

This is clearly not the same thing as "Faith" in the religious sense of unquestioning belief in something as a matter of dogma.

I have seen confusion between these two distinct definitions of faith cause a lot of heat and flame on various forums!

[Cuddles]

I learned the hard way not to believe everything I read. In the beginning I was in awe of the people who wrote books, I set them on a pedestal, I thought they must be geniuses.

I take it you've never read any Mills and Boon then?:tongue:

[Zaira]

Jocky,

I understand what you are saying. But I chose my own words, words I was comfortable with. Love and trust meant little to me back then.

Cuddles,

"I take it you've never read any Mills and Boon then?"

lol lol No. I was waist deep in non-fiction back then. Almost gave myself a nervous breakdown struggling to understand and compartmentalise all the information. With hindsight, I think I was simply side-tracked during a tough childhood. Only came to the books later. And being so mistrustful and a bit of a loner, I went it alone and made many mistakes along the way. But like Sinatra says, "I did it my way." Right or wrong, I got here, I survived. Happy today to go with the flow and share my discoveries - fact and fiction.

[Jocky]

Jocky,

I understand what you are saying. But I chose my own words, words I was comfortable with. Love and trust meant little to me back then.

IKWYM - "love" and "trust" have been somewhat devalued for me of late in my life :'(

But "faith" did mean something to you? And if so, in what way did it differ from "trust"?

[Zaira]

Jocky,

"But "faith" did mean something to you? And if so, in what way did it differ from "trust"?"

Not sure I can explain. But even today 'faith' is a much nicer sounding word than 'trust'. Don't you think? Trust demands, have faith is more of a request. Most people probably see it as the same thing. I think I do too, but I prefer to have faith in something until I understand it better, rather than trust it till I understand it better.

Just words.

[Jocky]

Just words

Words can't half prove to be slippery little buggers if you're not careful, though. Misunderstanding them can cause an awful lot of hassle ...

[Zaira]

Then I shall try to avoid using them on here.

Wouldn’t want to be accused of confusing anyone.

Especially since I am the queen of confusion. :cheesy:

[Sianny]

I don't think ghosts exist, nor UFO's, aliens, big foot, lochness monster, spirits etc. I don't think I have a closed mind, i feel I have a practical mind. I believe in the cold hard facts, with all of the modern advances in technologies these days I fail to see how these things haven't been proven by now, especially when they have been researched for so long by SO many different people.

However, I found the following quote and thought it was very accurate,

To the believer no proof is required, to the sceptic, no proof is sufficient

[MRT]

I don't understand the question 'where do ghosts come from?' First I need someone to define the word 'ghost'.

I'm not just trying to be awkward. If you say that 'people have reported seeing figures who they believed could not physically be present for whatever reason', I would say it is obviously true. My next thought would be, 'what caused those reports', but that's another question.

If, on the other hand, you're talking about the dictionary-type definition (shared by the media and popular culture) of a ghost as a spirit of a dead person, that's another thing altogether.

So can someone please expand on this question so that I can understand it please? This problem is caused by the huge gap between popular culture and actual reports of hauntings.

[Cuddles]

However, I found the following quote and thought it was very accurate,

To the believer no proof is required, to the sceptic, no proof is sufficient

It's a nice soundbite, but not really all that accurate. There is perfectly sufficient proof that gravity works, there is perfectly sufficient proof that the Sun rises in the east, there is perfectly sufficient proof that paracetamol is an effective painkiller. When the claim is made that sceptics won't accept any proof, it is almost always in response to a claim that clearly doesn't have sufficient proof.

Incidentally, welcome, and yay for Wales!

[Tin Lizzie]

It's a nice soundbite, but not really all that accurate. There is perfectly sufficient proof that gravity works, there is perfectly sufficient proof that the Sun rises in the east, there is perfectly sufficient proof that paracetamol is an effective painkiller. When the claim is made that sceptics won't accept any proof, it is almost always in response to a claim that clearly doesn't have sufficient proof.

Incidentally, welcome, and yay for Wales!

hmm...gravity. do we really know how it works? and what the heck causes it??

[BillB]

Hi,

I found this topic very interesting! I have read the newspapers and watched the Most Haunted rubbish on TV and heard mention of Ghosts from certain family members. Well I haven’t seen one for myself and I haven’t read or seen any evidence as yet that is convincing enough for me. So I don’t know or rather I can’t say that they exist for me.

I’m not to sure about the other stuff such as flying saucers although I have dodged a few in the early days of my marriage amongst the fonder memories.

I believe that man landed on the moon after looking at the sceptical claims weighted against the actual evidence. For me it’s a question of balancing the fore and against but you still can’t really make an informative decision without having the quality of evidence to start with.

I hope I’m not rambling off topic I’m sort of new to these forums.

BillB

[Epsilon]

Howdy, I'm new to this forum and wanted to start somewhere, I hope my reply isn't offending anyone. I have gone through times in my life where I have believed in such things, i have gone through times where I come into conflict with my own thoughts:-\

Maybe the question should actually be 'How Can Ghosts Come From Anywhere'? As no one can prove or disprove, surely it all comes down to personal conjecture, it cannot come from personal experience as our memories might become tainted over time and we just cannot trust our own memories.

Right or wrong?

EO0

[Zaira]

Epsilon,

Welcome to the forum. I too have gone through times in my life where I have believed in such things, I have also gone through times where I came into conflict with my own thoughts. Personally, I don't believe in ghosts. I was just interested in what the forums take was on it since it was a category here. And I agree about memories being unreliable. I'm the oldest of five and we each remember things from our childhood differently.

[bindeweede]

hmm...gravity. do we really know how it works? and what the heck causes it??

I'm not a science teacher.......

http://www.coolsciencefacts.com/2006/gravity.html

Not totally serious, really.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I’m not to sure about the other stuff such as flying saucers although I have dodged a few in the early days of my marriage amongst the fonder memories.

Stick around. You're doing fine. :-)

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm not a science teacher.......

http://www.coolsciencefacts.com/2006/gravity.html

Not totally serious, really.

*groan* i meant at the particle level!

nice link though, might have to use that....

[Cuddles]

hmm...gravity. do we really know how it works? and what the heck causes it??

Not really, that's why people are still studying it. However, while we don't have proof of how it works, we certainly do have proof that it does work. The trouble with ghosts, UFOs and so on is not just that there is no proof of what they are, there is no proof that they exist at all.


Maybe the question should actually be 'How Can Ghosts Come From Anywhere'? As no one can prove or disprove, surely it all comes down to personal conjecture, it cannot come from personal experience as our memories might become tainted over time and we just cannot trust our own memories.

Right or wrong?

Wrong. Why do you think no-one can prove it? If ghosts exist and can be observed, they can be proven to exist. We can't prove that they don't exist, which is why the burden of proof lies with those claiming that they do.

[MRT]

Proof is not a word scientists use routinely (apart from mathematicians). In science, all theories (which are the basis of 'scientific knowledge') are provisional, awaiting new evidence to alter or replace them. Thus there is no such thing as proof in natural science as it would imply the final word on a subject which, so far as anyone can tell, is impossible.

So to say, for instance, that scientists cannot prove that ghost exist, or don't exist, is meaningless. They would never set out on such a pointless exercise. Instead, they collect evidence, produce theories and test them. So far, the evidence for ghosts is anecdotal and is not generally considered strong enough to form scientific theories.

[Tin Lizzie]

Not really, that's why people are still studying it. However, while we don't have proof of how it works, we certainly do have proof that it does work. The trouble with ghosts, UFOs and so on is not just that there is no proof of what they are, there is no proof that they exist at all.



Wrong. Why do you think no-one can prove it? If ghosts exist and can be observed, they can be proven to exist. We can't prove that they don't exist, which is why the burden of proof lies with those claiming that they do.

now, with this whole ghost thing - i've had more than a handful of experiences, which i am willing to put down to causes outside of the afterlife/spirit world. there are people on this forum far more qualified than i to talk about this e.g. MRT, so i'll leave it to them. all i'm saying is that some of the ghosts i saw did actually strike me as not being spirits, rather they appeared to be almost like an old movie replaying itself. in other words, a magnetic or emotional 'imprint' (or similar) - not a crystal clear explanation, hopefully the investigators out there can clarify.

[Zaira]

That hits a familiar key. When younger and say at some big family gathering like a wedding, with all the noise, music and conversations, I couldn't get to sleep later at home for the 'noise'. It was like an 'echo' of the social gathering was playing over again in my head.

[Cuddles]

now, with this whole ghost thing - i've had more than a handful of experiences, which i am willing to put down to causes outside of the afterlife/spirit world. there are people on this forum far more qualified than i to talk about this e.g. MRT, so i'll leave it to them. all i'm saying is that some of the ghosts i saw did actually strike me as not being spirits, rather they appeared to be almost like an old movie replaying itself. in other words, a magnetic or emotional 'imprint' (or similar) - not a crystal clear explanation, hopefully the investigators out there can clarify.

That's a popular idea, but it doesn't really make any difference. Until you can show evidence that something is actually happening, it doesn't matter whether you call it a dead spirit or a recording. Without showing that ghost exist in the first place, all speculation about what they are is simply answers looking for a question.

[MRT]

The central problem with ghosts is that the central body of evidence concerning them is terrible! It varies from (very few) well investigated cases to (lots of) really poorly researched cases (based typically on newspaper stories, accounts in popular books and ridiculous TV shows). It is therefore very difficult to come to any conclusion about ghosts. See http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Recording%20ghosts.html for my discussion of this problem and why I think there is no convincing evidence for 'recording ghosts'.

[Epsilon]

Howdy, just reading through peoples thoughts, ideas and posts.
MRT has said
[QUOTE][/The central problem with ghosts is that the central body of evidence concerning them is terrible! It varies from (very few) well investigated cases to (lots of) really poorly researched cases (based typically on newspaper stories, accounts in popular books and ridiculous TV shows). QUOTE]

I could not agree more, no matter which side of the fence one sits, the media portrail of any aspect of the paranormal (the current bed partner being ghosts) is absolutely appauling, they make a joke of the subject, investigation and skeptical view points.

What a pity for all :-\

EO0

[Epsilon]

Although I can see your point cuddles, I have to apologize for not agreeing with you, but I'm sure we can agree to disagree and have a good discussion about it,
Cuddles has said [QUOTE][If ghosts exist and can be observed, they can be proven to exist. We can't prove that they don't exist, which is why the burden of proof lies with those claiming that they do./QUOTE]

I think it is too easy to turn away and to suggest that in order for a claim to be made someone must prove it or it just doesn't exist (this bit I can understand peoples scepticism) but time and time again people still believe they encounter such things and believe them to be real (I am not claiming or agreeing that they do) but to turn and just deny in my mind is a vote of ignorance (lets say it doesn't exist and it can't!)

I look forward to your thoughts on this.

EO0

[BillB]

Hi,

Thank you Lord Muck oGentry for your friendly comment.:smiley:

In my opinion the seemingly unexplainable explanation is often the cause chosen by the individual, who lacks a general understanding and knowledge. So considering the nature of people I believe it is possible to invent Ghost’s etc type causes to explain away the seemingly unexplainable? I would be very interested in the spirit of debate to read what others have to say regarding my opinion in explanation?

What is a Ghost?
In definition: The supposed spirit of somebody who has died, believed to appear as a shadowy form or to cause sounds, the movement of objects, or a frightening atmosphere in a place.

It is a supposition and to date I see no physical evidence of any worth to justify such sweeping claims. I might add it doesn’t take much to suppose anything even perhaps to imagine a flat earth or a moon made out of cheese, in the absence of knowledge derived from good quantifiable evidence. So to suppose is synonymous to not knowing and it is easy to do without any rational after thoughts or study etc, but am I alone in my reasoning?

Ghost’s and God (same thing) etc are just beliefs to ease the worries of death being a final end to our finite existence. The only life after death possibility is through our offspring, just the same as with animals and plants. These facts are quantifiable, but Ghost’s and God etc have no real weight at all in evidence to suggest anything different.:sad:

I apologise to any who might share a strong opposing difference in opinion to my own. I’m often referred to by my family (affectionately) as that grumpy old man, but despite my age I still remain rational and level headed as always. If things were to change I have left specific instructions with the family to turn off the life support? Hopefully they will be caring enough to set aside any greed to obtain early funding from my will, if such a decision became an unclear option?? :smiley:

I have a Jehovah person who visits me on occasion he is really quite a pleasant chap and I have actually found a good use for him. This might help similar minded individuals, because I allow this person to talk his nonsense to me, providing he helps me in my garden. :) So my lack of belief is providing me on occasion, with some reasonably cheap labour. :smiley:

Finally I’m not blind to alleged oddities, but suspect that the majority of such claims could be explained, within reason in a rational level headed fashion. Our world is still a big place for us; no doubt it holds hidden knowledge and secrets that are yet to be discovered. I therefore remain sceptically open minded and within reason. ;)


BillB

[Cuddles]

I think it is too easy to turn away and to suggest that in order for a claim to be made someone must prove it or it just doesn't exist (this bit I can understand peoples scepticism) but time and time again people still believe they encounter such things and believe them to be real (I am not claiming or agreeing that they do) but to turn and just deny in my mind is a vote of ignorance (lets say it doesn't exist and it can't!)

I look forward to your thoughts on this.

EO0

You appear to have missed the point. There is no evidence these things exist. People believing in someting does not make it real. There is absolutely no point in trying to make up explanations about what ghosts are until you show that ghosts actually are anything. I could come up with all kinds of explanations for how the teapot got into orbit around Pluto, but until I can prove that there actually is a teapot in orbit around Pluto, all my explanations are worthless becauase there is nothing to explain.

[Tin Lizzie]

Hi,

Ghost’s and God (same thing) etc are just beliefs to ease the worries of death being a final end to our finite existence.




Beg to differ, if i may. God is, in essence, the creative force (love) behind life, not some bloke sitting on a cloud behind the pearly gates, stroking a huge white beard.

Having been to enough funerals in my time, i found that believing in God raised more questions than answers. I personally did not need this belief to sustain an enjoyable existence on this earth. Experiences since then have introduced me to the spirit world, and i now believe in the big fella once again.

Cheers.

[Dr B]

Beg to differ, if i may. God is, in essence, the creative force (love) behind life, not some bloke sitting on a cloud behind the pearly gates, stroking a huge white beard.

Prove it.....



Having been to enough funerals in my time, i found that believing in God raised more questions than answers. I personally did not need this belief to sustain an enjoyable existence on this earth. Experiences since then have introduced me to the spirit world, and i now believe in the big fella once again.

so you were deluded once, and now you are deluded again.....is this progress?

[Tin Lizzie]

Prove it.....

so you were deluded once, and now you are deluded again.....is this progress?

Nope, i've just learned the meaning of forgiveness.

Bearing in mind i obviously can't prove the existence of our creator (which would no doubt bring some great perks) what i'm saying is that i have knowledge...call it 'awareness' if you like... of the spirit world. Some of this has been so profound as to indicate the presence of God. Hard to describe without an EMF meter, test tubes, bar charts and witnesses but hey, that's the spirit world for you :smiley:

[Epsilon]

There are ideas thoughts and conjectures surrounding 'ghosts' from all sides, most seem to be interesting points of view whether skeptic or not.
Cuddles said

You appear to have missed the point. There is no evidence these things exist. People believing in someting does not make it real. There is absolutely no point in trying to make up explanations about what ghosts are until you show that ghosts actually are anything.

I think I have only missed the point from your point of view (which I totally understand), as I have said I am sort of on the fence regarding my thoughts as to whether such things exist in a 'real' sense or exist within our minds or happen because of certain brain (mis)functions. Your post is just not adequate for me to be fully skeptical, no skeptical point of view so far has given me any inclination to disbelieve that such phenomenon is unreal, I think therefore you missed my point entirely!

How do you know there isn't a teacup orbiting pluto?

EO0

[Cuddles]

How do you know there isn't a teacup orbiting pluto?

Exactly. Once again you have completely missed the point. It is impossible to prove that there isn't a teacop orbiting Pluto. Why don't you believe there is? Why doesn't anyone believe there is? Because there is no evidence. Believing something to be the case when there is no evidence to suggest that there is is, quite frankly, stupid. The default position should always be the null hypothesis, and the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. This means that if someone claims ghosts are real, it is up to them to provide evidence that this is the case. If they don't no sensible person should believe that they are.

So far, there is not a single piece of evidence that suggests ghosts exist anywhere other than inside people's minds. This means that there is no sensible reason to assume ghosts exist. It is therefore completely pointless to make up explanations for what ghosts are because that would be explaining something that doesn't happen. Discussing what ghosts are is like discussing what kind of cheese the Moon is made out of. Until you prove that it actually is made out of cheese, any speculation about the type is just silly.

[Tin Lizzie]

Exactly. Once again you have completely missed the point. It is impossible to prove that there isn't a teacop orbiting Pluto. Why don't you believe there is? Why doesn't anyone believe there is? Because there is no evidence. Believing something to be the case when there is no evidence to suggest that there is is, quite frankly, stupid. The default position should always be the null hypothesis, and the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim. This means that if someone claims ghosts are real, it is up to them to provide evidence that this is the case. If they don't no sensible person should believe that they are.

So far, there is not a single piece of evidence that suggests ghosts exist anywhere other than inside people's minds. This means that there is no sensible reason to assume ghosts exist. It is therefore completely pointless to make up explanations for what ghosts are because that would be explaining something that doesn't happen. Discussing what ghosts are is like discussing what kind of cheese the Moon is made out of. Until you prove that it actually is made out of cheese, any speculation about the type is just silly.

There is actually quite a lot of evidence out there, in the form of all those 'ghost stories' you hear. Obviously some are utter tripe, but particularly in instances where more than one person is sharing the ghostly experience, you are merely burning bridges before you've even crossed them.
as for teacups orbiting pluto, the fact that no-one has ever claimed to see this does indeed make it fair to assume that teacups do not orbit pluto. the fact that people do claim to see ghosts should at least make you ackowledge the possibility that they exist.

[Melanie]

"there is not a single piece of evidence that suggests ghosts exist anywhere other than inside people's minds."

TL please read this bit again.

[Tin Lizzie]

"there is not a single piece of evidence that suggests ghosts exist anywhere other than inside people's minds."

TL please read this bit again.

Okayyyy i've read it again. Comprende, but in the instance, for example, where my friend and i witnessed an incidence of an object being slid off a perfectly horizontal table, in an indoor environment with now prevailing wind and in a building with several reports of ghosts and similar activity, and then dropped onto the floor...does this mean for certain that we were both somehow sharing the same hallucination?

[Tin Lizzie]

wooops should say 'no' prevailing wind :smiley:

[Epsilon]

Cuddles said

So far, there is not a single piece of evidence that suggests ghosts exist anywhere other than inside people's minds.

This is your thought, arrived at by your logic, built up over your experiences and education. Other people would disagree with you about 'evidence' and then some will agree with you, but still you have missed the point by about 1 million miles,(you must be in that teacup):cheesy:

You have chose to post on a forum about 'where do ghosts come from' but you don't seem to be able to justify your skeptical stance, could you please tell me why ghosts don't exist? or is it just your opinion?

EO0

[Tin Lizzie]

Cuddles said


This is your thought, arrived at by your logic, built up over your experiences and education. Other people would disagree with you about 'evidence' and then some will agree with you, but still you have missed the point by about 1 million miles,(you must be in that teacup):cheesy:

You have chose to post on a forum about 'where do ghosts come from' but you don't seem to be able to justify your skeptical stance, could you please tell me why ghosts don't exist? or is it just your opinion?

EO0

I agree with him ('E') O0

[bruno.j]

um how could there be a teacup orbiting Pluto ?? - unless of course it is the mother ship for a flying saucer ;D

sorry - could not resist O0

bruno.j

[Araneus]

you don't seem to be able to justify your skeptical stance

A skeptical stance does not require justification; it is illogical to believe in everything until it is proven not to exist because it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore, you must believe in everything, which is ridiculous.


could you please tell me why ghosts don't exist?You need to work on your comprehension skills. He said "there is no evidence to suggest that ghosts exist" which is NOT the same as saying "ghosts do not exist".

[Admin]

um how could there be a teacup orbiting Pluto ?? - unless of course it is the mother ship for a flying saucer ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D :cheesy:

Good one.

[BillB]

Hi Epsilon,

If Ghost’s are real how come I have never seen one, in all my 58 years? Are Ghost’s just being picky, preferring to reveal themselves only to believers? If the later is the case, then isn’t it more likely that Ghost’s are imaginary, a mere product of the mind?

Believing in Ghost’s is like believing in God and fairies at the bottom of my garden. I was conditioned as a child to believe in God (decided not too, hated Sunday school) and my mother told me stories about Goblins, Elves and Evil Monsters. I read comics like Marvel and all about Superheroes, but all these are just make believe. :cheesy:

Why do people have a need to believe in the existence of Ghost’s? My reasoning is that they never truly set aside childhood make believe, because it serves as a comfort blanket in later life, supportive of an afterlife, in preference to just becoming plant food etc.

What difference does it make in not knowing whether Ghost’s exist? If I’m wrong, then when I die I will surely find out! :smiley:

BillB

[Tin Lizzie]

Hi Epsilon,

If Ghost’s are real how come I have never seen one, in all my 58 years?
BillB

Well it took me 24 years...maybe try living in old buildings with a bit of history to them??

[Melanie]

I do not say 'ghosts do not exist' - what I say, as do others, is that there is no evidence that the ghost is objectively there in the room. All the evidence points to ghosts being some kind of hallucination. Careful! I am not saying people make these things up, or that people are mad if they say they see a ghost. Just that environmental conditions and/or emotional states cause the brain to think it has perceived a disembodied entity - which is not there.

My reason for saying this is that as a dedicated ghost-hunter of 15 years, I have never seen a ghost. I have had many strange experiences, but have had the good luck to be amongst scientists who have found possible explanations for all these experiences, through research and experimentation. Faced with a sound, physical, alternative 'normal' explanation, I would be foolish to claim that I had been in the presence of a ghost.

I have no problem with the idea that people often have very strange experiences, just that they are not ghostly.

[Melanie]

um how could there be a teacup orbiting Pluto ?? - unless of course it is the mother ship for a flying saucer ;D

sorry - could not resist O0

bruno.j


;D;D;D

[Tin Lizzie]

All the evidence points to ghosts being some kind of hallucination.


:smiley: Keeping it relevant here, would it be possible for two people to share a hallucination?

My other experiences, including a very bizarre occurence of negative colouring of the whole outdoor environment combined with people in period costume, have all been visual and sadly without other witnesses.

Thanks.

[Melanie]

:smiley: Keeping it relevant here, would it be possible for two people to share a hallucination?

My other experiences, including a very bizarre occurence of negative colouring of the whole outdoor environment combined with people in period costume, have all been visual and sadly without other witnesses.

Thanks.

In principle, I think so, but you'd have to ask Dr B who's the expert on perception for a definitive answer.

In plain terms, research has shown that under lab conditions EMFs (electro magnetic frequencies) can affect the brain and cause hallucinations very similar to the full range of experiences reported in haunted places. This is perhaps not the place to go into a detailed discussion, but Dr B can point you to papers about this area of research.

In my experience, spending time in alleged haunted places always in pairs, our shared experiences have never coincided exactly. It could be said that my colleague was seeing things and I was feeling things because those were our particular sensitivities. In the face of scientific research, I must accept that environmental conditions were causing our experiences.

[Admin]

:smiley: Keeping it relevant here, would it be possible for two people to share a hallucination?

Yes!

I'll post more when I have time - Dr. B., as pointed out, is the relevant expert in this area however.

[BillB]

Hi,

Tin Lizzie
Well it took me 24 years...maybe try living in old buildings with a bit of history to them??

Do buildings matter, because people die just about anyway and therefore location shouldn’t be an important factor? Old building fuelled by rumours, of Ghost’s based on misidentified explainable phenomen, is bound to influence those who scare easily.

Anyway I’ve worked in many an old building, often late at night and alone, but alas no Ghost’s for me!

Tin Lizzie
Keeping it relevant here, would it be possible for two people to share a hallucination?

My opinion is that each person, could have individual hallucinations, but not shared as in the same hallucination. If these hallucinations were to happen (whilst together) at the same time, then it could be of a psychosomatic cause. Imagine just like sitting around a campfire, telling Ghost stories and all those present suddenly getting scared.

I sincerely hope this helps in understanding, the other more likely explanations. :smiley:

BillB

[BillB]

Hi,

Old buildings, for example Public houses, often gain added custom if alleged to be haunted. Then you have the problem of credible witness claims, due to the consumption of alcohol? Ghost’s claims can provide monetary gain, to businesses just about anywhere, by drawing in hordes of Ghost Buster wannabees!

BillB

[Tin Lizzie]

Hi,

Old buildings, for example Public houses, often gain added custom if alleged to be haunted. Then you have the problem of credible witness claims, due to the consumption of alcohol? Ghost’s claims can provide momentary gain, to businesses just about anywhere, by drawing in hordes of Ghost Buster wannabees!

BillB

I assure you that is not the intention here, and that none of us were intoxicated in these instances. I don't need to prove it, it's just a shame that people jump to such illogical conclusions.

[Tin Lizzie]

'illogical conclusions' meaning 'if you can't prove it exists then there is absolutely no chance it exists'

[Tin Lizzie]

In principle, I think so, but you'd have to ask Dr B who's the expert on perception for a definitive answer.

In plain terms, research has shown that under lab conditions EMFs (electro magnetic frequencies) can affect the brain and cause hallucinations very similar to the full range of experiences reported in haunted places. This is perhaps not the place to go into a detailed discussion, but Dr B can point you to papers about this area of research.

In my experience, spending time in alleged haunted places always in pairs, our shared experiences have never coincided exactly. It could be said that my colleague was seeing things and I was feeling things because those were our particular sensitivities. In the face of scientific research, I must accept that environmental conditions were causing our experiences.

I would gladly accept this. One thing though, if it was a hallucination then why did i have to pick the ashtray up from the floor?

[Melanie]

'illogical conclusions' meaning 'if you can't prove it exists then there is absolutely no chance it exists'

That's too strong an interpretation of the skeptical viewpoint, to be honest.

[Melanie]

I would gladly accept this. One thing though, if it was a hallucination then why did i have to pick the ashtray up from the floor?

You are making a claim that an invisible ghost which has no substance was able to influence a physical object.

What mechanism do you propose that might explain this?

[BillB]

Hi Melanie,


In plain terms, research has shown that under lab conditions EMFs (electro magnetic frequencies) can affect the brain and cause hallucinations very similar to the full range of experiences reported in haunted places. This is perhaps not the place to go into a detailed discussion, but Dr B can point you to papers about this area of research.

This sounds interesting some real research and I would love to read more about Dr B and these studies?

BillB

[Tin Lizzie]

That's too strong an interpretation of the skeptical viewpoint, to be honest.

My apologies, i'm still learning.

[Tin Lizzie]

You are making a claim that an invisible ghost which has no substance was able to influence a physical object.

What mechanism do you propose that might explain this?

I have absolutely no idea.

The fact is, the object was moved and this was not the only occurence although it was the only one i witnessed.

I have heard of the term 'telekinetic disturbance'.

All i am saying is that i've heard of it, don't know if it couold have anything to do with this.

[Melanie]

Hi Melanie,



This sounds interesting some real research and I would love to read more about Dr B and these studies?

BillB

Try this for a start.

http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Magnetic%20ghosts.html

If you want the scientific papers I'll find them, or someone else will post links.

[Melanie]

I have absolutely no idea.

I have heard of the term 'telekinetic disturbance'.

All i am saying is that i've heard of it, don't know if it couold have anything to do with this.

:smiley: Yes I know.

However, telekinesis is a term coined to describe the ability to move a physical object with one's mind. Several psychics who claimed this ability have undergone lab testing, the most notable being good old Uri. Others in the USSR in the 70's. None of them was able to produce effects so large as to move an ashtray, by any means, and unfortunately it's been shown that all their effects can be replicated by stage magic techniques.

3 years on, today's vastly improved lab contol conditions would doubtless remove all possible means of psychics being able to produce such effects by trickery and so the effects would disappear.

It's not a theory that holds water, for me.

[Tin Lizzie]

:smiley: Yes I know.

However, telekinesis is a term coined to describe the ability to move a physical object with one's mind. Several psychics who claimed this ability have undergone lab testing, the most notable being good old Uri. Others in the USSR in the 70's. None of them was able to produce effects so large as to move an ashtray, by any means, and unfortunately it's been shown that all their effects can be replicated by stage magic techniques.

3 years on, today's vastly improved lab contol conditions would doubtless remove all possible means of psychics being able to produce such effects by trickery and so the effects would disappear.

It's not a theory that holds water, for me.

Fair dinkum!
Believe me my friend and i could not believe our own eyes. Surely there must be other instances of this?
I guess the term 'the unexplained' was made for things like this..I am utterly clueless and because i can understand the difference between ghosts and spirits, i don't want to make any guesses here.

[Epsilon]

Mr Bill B has posted this

If Ghost’s are real how come I have never seen one, in all my 58 years?
Can I ask you why haven't you seen one? is it because you think you haven't, can I explain to you that thought is a process of the mind, and therefore to not see something maybe an illusion of the mind, for example:- we all love illusions, but we tell ourselves that the illusion is just 'not real', but the job of the conjuruer is to make us believe the treick is real, (with me so far?) a microwave can cook foood, lets sday a sausage, but it will still look uncooked, pink and not very appatising and yet, it is cooked. So do our own brains sell us a 'bricks and mortar image' when there is something deeper in what we see? or maybe not? who really knows? are all points and beliefs just mere conjecture, do some of us follow a belief structure because our friends do and because we can't adequately formulate our own opinion?

EO0

[median]

Epsilon, welcome.


a microwave can cook foood, lets sday a sausage, but it will still look uncooked, pink and not very appatising and yet, it is cooked.

We can skip the microwave analogy for a moment..it doesn't work O0

As for the social component of the belief structure, perhaps but can I ask you which specific group you are directing this to?

Regards

Median

[BillB]

Hi



Epsilon: you don't seem to be able to justify your skeptical stance

Araneus: A skeptical stance does not require justification; it is illogical to believe in everything until it is proven not to exist because it is impossible to prove that something does not exist. Therefore, you must believe in everything, which is ridiculous.

Epsilon: could you please tell me why ghosts don't exist?

Araneus quote: You need to work on your comprehension skills. He said "there is no evidence to suggest that ghosts exist" which is NOT the same as saying "ghosts do not exist".


I’m 100% in agreement with Areneus. O0

Epsilon, you don’t seem to be able to justify your stance. Note I haven’t labelled you as a Skeptic or a Believer. :smiley:

Epsilon if I take your question literally “could you please tell me why ghosts don't exist?”

I could answer: Perhaps they choose not too? Who knows? What if? Blah blah blah etc. There is no evidence as yet to suggest that ghosts exist, but there is an abundance of more rational explanations as to the likely cause and effect. ;)

Tin Lizzie
I assure you that is not the intention here, and that none of us were intoxicated in these instances. I don't need to prove it, it's just a shame that people jump to such illogical conclusions.

I never suggested that you were intoxicated and alcohol was certainly not an illogical conclusion on my part in the broader sense. For example if customers and staff of a Pub reported seeing Ghost’s I would have to consider, the likelihood of alcohol consumption impairing judgement. I know people that would swear blind whilst drunk, that they hadn’t touched a drop. I wouldn’t expect researchers, to indulge in alcohol prior to an investigation, but no doubt some do. :smiley:

Regarding EMFs that can effect the brain and cause hallucinations.

Melanie
Try this for a start.


http://www.assap.org/newsite/article...%20ghosts.html (http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Magnetic%20ghosts.html)

If you want the scientific papers I'll find them, or someone else will post links.

Thank you Melanie most kindly for your help. :smiley::smiley:8)

Epsilon
Can I ask you why haven't you seen one?

You may well ask? Perhaps better still! I’m willing to make an appearance, do you know of any Ghost’s that might be willing to do likewise? :cheesy:

Epsilon
Can I ask you why haven't you seen one? is it because you think you haven't, can I explain to you that thought is a process of the mind, and therefore to not see something maybe an illusion of the mind, for example:- we all love illusions, but we tell ourselves that the illusion is just 'not real', but the job of the conjuruer is to make us believe the treick is real, (with me so far?) a microwave can cook foood, lets sday a sausage, but it will still look uncooked, pink and not very appatising and yet, it is cooked.

Sadly this is a weak argument in my opinion, because it serves to reinforce, how easily the mind can be tricked. Therefore the mind is perceptually an unreliable witness, in the absence of any tenable evidence. :cheesy:

Epsilon
So do our own brains sell us a 'bricks and mortar image' when there is something deeper in what we see? or maybe not? who really knows? are all points and beliefs just mere conjecture,

Interesting: The mind just processes information, derived from the five senses as best it can. :smiley:

Epsilon
do some of us follow a belief structure because our friends do and because we can't adequately formulate our own opinion?

No doubt some will follow a personal belief structure and even those of their friends, but not necessarily because they share the same belief. Friends can have many different things in common and a non-paranormal example might be that they just love one another? :smiley:

BillB

[bruno.j]

Hi,

Old buildings, for example Public houses, often gain added custom if alleged to be haunted. Then you have the problem of credible witness claims, due to the consumption of alcohol? Ghost’s claims can provide monetary gain, to businesses just about anywhere, by drawing in hordes of Ghost Buster wannabees!

BillB

that's why they have a sign over the door "licenced for the consumption of SPIRITS " - ;D -and a lot of weird things happen in pubs after the consumption of a few pints - plus looking trough the bottom of a beer glass gives you a whole new perspective on life ( or death - or even the after life ) - so who can blame the wannabe ghost hunters - i mean it is better to hunt ghosts in a nice warm pub than some drafty and wet ruin eh - may be some ghost hunters are not soooo daft after all ???? ;)

cheers - mines a pint

bruno.j

[Cuddles]

There is actually quite a lot of evidence out there, in the form of all those 'ghost stories' you hear.

As the saying goes: the plural of anecdote is not data. Ghost stories are not evidence.


This is your thought, arrived at by your logic, built up over your experiences and education. Other people would disagree with you about 'evidence' and then some will agree with you, but still you have missed the point by about 1 million miles,(you must be in that teacup)

No, this is the skeptical and scientific viewpoint, arrived at by logic (note: not my logic, just logic) and nothing to do with experiences, although quite a lot to do with education. The fact is, there is no evidence other than anecdote. To assume that something exists when there is no evidence to support it is, as I said, silly.


You have chose to post on a forum about 'where do ghosts come from' but you don't seem to be able to justify your skeptical stance, could you please tell me why ghosts don't exist? or is it just your opinion?

More to the point, you have chosen to post on a forum called "UK Skeptics" and you haven't even tried to justify your stance. I've already told you why the default stance is that, in the absence of evidence, there is no reason to presume ghosts exist. Please try actually reading my posts rather than just saying the same nonsense over and over again.

[Tin Lizzie]

As the saying goes: the plural of anecdote is not data. Ghost stories are not evidence.

More to the point, you have chosen to post on a forum called "UK Skeptics" and you haven't even tried to justify your stance. I've already told you why the default stance is that, in the absence of evidence, there is no reason to presume ghosts exist. Please try actually reading my posts rather than just saying the same nonsense over and over again.

Not saying they're evidence, just that it would be strange to dismiss them completely based on 'logic'.

Please read, as an example, my account of 'displaced objects' as witnessed by my friend and I.

[BillB]

Bruno J,

I dig your humour, you dig my garden, mines a large whisky by the way and if we both consume enough we might even get possessed, or at least at tad merry. You never know, we might even become believer woo woo’s after a few? The latter I think not!!

Did you know it’s possible to record the sounds of spirits evaporating?
And apparently it’s silent!!

;D;D;D;DO0

BillB

[BillB]

Hi Bruno J,

I have some other thoughts on recording the sounds of evaporating spirits. I need not send any original evidence, just a blank tape labelled the “sound of silence” by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, Ghost Busters anonymous. I could even sell some copies, just more blanks actually on Ebay. Paul and Art have got a few catchy numbers, so how about this one as a signature song for believers? :cheesy:

Hello Darkness my old friend I’ve come to talk to you again? Etc ;D

Even “Bridge over troubled water” holds some water potential!! ;)

BillB

[Tin Lizzie]

Hi Bruno J,

I have some other thoughts on recording the sounds of evaporating spirits. I need not send any original evidence, just a blank tape labelled the “sound of silence” by Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, Ghost Busters anonymous. I could even sell some copies, just more blanks actually on Ebay. Paul and Art have got a few catchy numbers, so how about this one as a signature song for believers? :cheesy:

Hello Darkness my old friend I’ve come to talk to you again? Etc ;D

Even “Bridge over troubled water” holds some potential!! ;)

BillB

Hi guys, maybe we could use 'You ain't seen nothin' yet' as the background tune to your witty exchanges? O0

[BillB]

Yes indeed Tin Lizzie, why not! 8) O0 8)

BillB :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

8)

[Cuddles]

Not saying they're evidence, just that it would be strange to dismiss them completely based on 'logic'.

Please read, as an example, my account of 'displaced objects' as witnessed by my friend and I.

If you're not saying they're evidence, why did you say they're evidence?


There is actually quite a lot of evidence out there, in the form of all those 'ghost stories' you hear.
No-one is dismissing them based on logic, with or without pointless scare quotes, we are dismissing them because they are not evidence. An anecdote can suggest that there might be something worth investigating, but it is not the investigation itself. Since many anecdotes have been investigated and not a single piece of actual evidence for ghosts has turned up, the only sensible conclusion is that ghost don't exist. If some evidence turns up in the future, a different conclusion may be reached. Until then, ghost stories will remain nothing more than ghost stories.

[Tin Lizzie]

Since many anecdotes have been investigated

How? under what conditions? Does this mean that what my friend and i witnessed was a physical and optical illusion, that i imagined having to pick the ashtray back up off the floor?

[bruno.j]

cuddles : may i ask you - and in fact any one WHAT you would regard as "evidence " of a ghost ?? - as individual sightings are dismissed as "anecdotal " - sightings by one or more persons are dismissed as "group hallucination " - photographs are dismissed as "fakes or camera faults " evp is nothing more than "radio breakthrough " - so what WILL it take to "prove " there may be such things ??

after all dismissing things is easy - i for instance could dismiss quantum physics as nothing more than a lot of old gobbledy gook and theories cobbled together by scientists to keep them in a job - on the basis that it is hard for the average person to understand who does not have scientific training and the math to decipher all the equations used in works on the subject - but i don't because i am not able to refute their work

like wise i COULD dismiss the existence of say Australia - because all i have ever seen of it is pictures on the telly ( never been there ) - and by using the same logic as those dismissing the moon landings as fake - i could say that film /TV footage could be faked and that the place does not exist ;D

so the question remains - WHAT constitutes "absolute proof " and even if someone provided it - there are some who will still not believe it - heck there are those who still believe that politicians are basally honest people working for the good of the people ( yea right ::) )

and i do accept the premise of "balance of probability " - but as it says that is ONLY the balance of probability - not proof

sometimes the only person that knows the truth of a matter is the person that experienced it happening - and can any of us dismiss this as a fabrication /hallucination /lie - just because WE did not witness it ?? - i think that is a bold step to take

bruno.j

[bruno.j]

billB - thanks mate - i will see you at the local "haunted " tavern tonight - (we will let a few "spirits" evaporate ) proceeded by a few "ghost chasers ;D" and then if we see any anomalous phenomena - such as the bar maid ( sorry female bar person - must be PC ;) ) in a lather because a beer glass slipped off the bar - we can claim it is paranormal and become woo woo's for the evening

sounds like a good night out - doing research O0 - your round mind as i got the last one in

ps: leave the trouble and strife at home - as we know she disapproves of "spirit chasing " or even chasing the female bar person O0 - um if we come back rat a***d - will this prove the existence of spirits ??

later mate

bruno.j

[Tin Lizzie]

billB - thanks mate - i will see you at the local "haunted " tavern tonight - (we will let a few "spirits" evaporate ) proceeded by a few "ghost chasers ;D" and then if we see any anomalous phenomena - such as the bar maid ( sorry female bar person - must be PC ;) ) in a lather because a beer glass slipped off the bar - we can claim it is paranormal and become woo woo's for the evening

sounds like a good night out - doing research O0 - your round mind as i got the last one in

ps: leave the trouble and strife at home - as we know she disapproves of "spirit chasing " or even chasing the female bar person O0 - um if we come back rat a***d - will this prove the existence of spirits ??

later mate

bruno.j

Can't believe you still need 'proof'. They've got a shelf-full of 'em down at sainsburys. 8)

[Matt]

Okayyyy i've read it again. Comprende, but in the instance, for example, where my friend and i witnessed an incidence of an object being slid off a perfectly horizontal table, in an indoor environment with now prevailing wind and in a building with several reports of ghosts and similar activity, and then dropped onto the floor...does this mean for certain that we were both somehow sharing the same hallucination?

No, - the many reports of ghostly activity suggest the possibility of a prankster at work. Alternatively natural effects may have been at work. The table may have been perfectly level to your eyes but that doesn't make it so. There may have been no draught where you were standing but that doesn't mean the ashtry didn't experience one. A flat bottomed ashtray may aquaplane and move freely on a barely detectable film of water or any design may be shaken by imperceptabe vibrations.

It's certainly an extraordinary observation but is "ghosts did it" the only explanation you can come up with? If the mechanical explanations I've suggested don't cut any mustard with you how can you be sure it wasn't fairies, deamons, angels, god or the flying spaghetti monster? Could it have been an invisble pink unicorn, quantum crystal interations with the organic energy field or Kevin Bacon from the Hollow Man?

[bruno.j]

hi just did a quick test of the "aquaplaning ashtray " theory - flat bottomed ashtray on a polished table moistened with a damp cloth - the ashtray is of the design - eg heavy glass commonly formerly used in pubs .in fact it is an ex-pub ashtray - they where giving them away when the smoking ban started ( however one of those "tin " types did move - but with a leaf blower behind it and no weight in it this was expected )

hairdryer - glass ashtray - no movement

leaf blower glass ashtray - still no movement

myth "busted " methinks O0 - a few practical tests can often disprove a theory ;)

any way elementary now as we are no longer allowed to smoke in pubs - guess the "prankster " will have to stick to beer glasses

bruno.j

[Tin Lizzie]

No, - the many reports of ghostly activity suggest the possibility of a prankster at work.

Are we all guilty until proved innocent?

Alternatively natural effects may have been at work. The table may have been perfectly level to your eyes but that doesn't make it so. There may have been no draught where you were standing but that doesn't mean the ashtry didn't experience one. A flat bottomed ashtray may aquaplane and move freely on a barely detectable film of water or any design may be shaken by imperceptabe vibrations.

This had never happened before in this room. The table was circular, perhaps a little more than one metre in diameter. I am speculating as to paranormal involvement because this happened suddenly, after the ashtray had been in place for quite some time, and it has not happened since. Even from a purely objective view, and bearing in mind I did see the conditions at the time, there are rather a lot of coincidences.

It's certainly an extraordinary observation but is "ghosts did it" the only explanation you can come up with? If the mechanical explanations I've suggested don't cut any mustard with you how can you be sure it wasn't fairies, deamons, angels, god or the flying spaghetti monster? Could it have been an invisble pink unicorn, quantum crystal interations with the organic energy field or Kevin Bacon from the Hollow Man?

If the unicorn is invisible, how can it be pink?

[Matt]

hi just did a quick test of the "aquaplaning ashtray " theory - flat bottomed ashtray on a polished table moistened with a damp cloth - the ashtray is of the design - eg heavy glass commonly formerly used in pubs .in fact it is an ex-pub ashtray - they where giving them away when the smoking ban started ( however one of those "tin " types did move - but with a leaf blower behind it and no weight in it this was expected )

hairdryer - glass ashtray - no movement

leaf blower glass ashtray - still no movement

myth "busted " methinks O0 - a few practical tests can often disprove a theory ;)

any way elementary now as we are no longer allowed to smoke in pubs - guess the "prankster " will have to stick to beer glasses

bruno.j

Kudos for the empirical mythbusters approach.

Aquaplaning does happen. When I'm doing the washing up and fill the draining board I sometimes place glasses and ashtray on the kitchen surface. Sometimes they stay put as expected but occasionally slide like billy-o even without hair driers.

Try a kitchen surface, more water on both the surface and the ashtray. A bit of detergent might help too.

Once you've sucessfully reproduced aquaplaning it might be worth seeing how much off level and how much blow is required to initiate movement.

I've seen this happen with medium sized glass ashtrays (of the sort commonly used in pubs) and upturned glasses (of the sort commonly used in pubs) but can't speak directly of the larger sized pub ashtrays (of the sort commonly used in pubs). of course for all I know the ashtray in question was a light disposable foil ashtray (of the sort commonly used in pubs)

[Tin Lizzie]

The table wasn't exactly polished.

Even if it was, surely aquaplaning would have occured more often?

Even so, I would not compare the force of a hair dryer to the potential force of a peed off spirit, assuming that a spirit is the only possible 'paranormal' explanation.

[Matt]

No, - the many reports of ghostly activity suggest the possibility of a prankster at work.

Are we all guilty until proved innocent?

Potentially, I only suggested the possibility


Alternatively natural effects may have been at work. The table may have been perfectly level to your eyes but that doesn't make it so. There may have been no draught where you were standing but that doesn't mean the ashtry didn't experience one. A flat bottomed ashtray may aquaplane and move freely on a barely detectable film of water or any design may be shaken by imperceptabe vibrations.

This had never happened before in this room. The table was circular, perhaps a little more than one metre in diameter. I am speculating as to paranormal involvement because this happened suddenly, after the ashtray had been in place for quite some time, and it has not happened since. Even from a purely objective view, and bearing in mind I did see the conditions at the time, there are rather a lot of coincidences.

Coincidence? If by coincidence you mean a rare occurence in an environment where ghostly goings on have been reported is attributed to further ghostly goings on then that's a not coincidence.


It's certainly an extraordinary observation but is "ghosts did it" the only explanation you can come up with? If the mechanical explanations I've suggested don't cut any mustard with you how can you be sure it wasn't fairies, deamons, angels, god or the flying spaghetti monster? Could it have been an invisble pink unicorn, quantum crystal interations with the organic energy field or Kevin Bacon from the Hollow Man?

If the unicorn is invisible, how can it be pink?

That's the spirit...

[Matt]

The table wasn't exactly polished.
It wouldn't need to be


Even if it was, surely aquaplaning would have occured more often?

Why would you think that? Possible is not equivalent to frequent.


Even so, I would not compare the force of a hair dryer to the potential force of a peed off spirit, assuming that a spirit is the only possible 'paranormal' explanation.

Ah but what about the "potential" force of a hair dryer. :cheesy:

C'mon now what do we really know about the forces that spirits can apply. We know they're not reproducable.

[Tin Lizzie]

It wouldn't need to be



Why would you think that? Possible is not equivalent to frequent.



Ah but what about the "potential" force of a hair dryer. :cheesy:

C'mon now what do we really know about the forces that spirits can apply. We know they're not reproducable.

I wonder what the thing is going to start flinging around now that aashtrays are gone....convenient how he/she/it avoided the rows of pint glasses! :cheesy:

[bruno.j]

hi again - just a couple of observations - whilst i can agree that with enough lubrication - even the most reticent ash tray will slide about - from my experience of pub tables they are frequently "sticky" from beer slops - and the staff usually use the same old cloth to give them a quick wipe over - i have never seen them wipe the underside of an ashtray though ( not to say it does not happen ) - so this should be factored in as the "stickiness" of beer slops is quite pronounced -and must increase the drag coefficient somewhere ;)

would tend to agree that the "power" of a supposed spirit could theoretically be in excess of a leaf blower held at 3 feet and level with the ashtray - presumably a "pissed off "spirit could muster more force - it is of course well documented that humans can preform feats of strength during "exceptional; emotional " circumstances

of course we also must take in to account the aerodynamic factors connected to the ashtray - the one i tested on had the properties of a house brick - how ever i suppose a more aerodynamic one could slide better :-\

any way i am sure that a team of crack scientists will be clamoring for a research grant to investigate this phenomena :ponder:

if not - we will just have to accept that any thing is possible O0

bruno.j

[Tin Lizzie]

hi again - just a couple of observations - whilst i can agree that with enough lubrication - even the most reticent ash tray will slide about - from my experience of pub tables they are frequently "sticky" from beer slops - and the staff usually use the same old cloth to give them a quick wipe over - i have never seen them wipe the underside of an ashtray though ( not to say it does not happen ) - so this should be factored in as the "stickiness" of beer slops is quite pronounced -and must increase the drag coefficient somewhere ;)

would tend to agree that the "power" of a supposed spirit could theoretically be in excess of a leaf blower held at 3 feet and level with the ashtray - presumably a "pissed off "spirit could muster more force - it is of course well documented that humans can preform feats of strength during "exceptional; emotional " circumstances

of course we also must take in to account the aerodynamic factors connected to the ashtray - the one i tested on had the properties of a house brick - how ever i suppose a more aerodynamic one could slide better :-\

any way i am sure that a team of crack scientists will be clamoring for a research grant to investigate this phenomena :ponder:

if not - we will just have to accept that any thing is possible O0

bruno.j

'Nothing is too wonderful to be true, if it be consistent with the laws of nature'

-A bloke, once.

[Tin Lizzie]

Brian P

New 'bullshit' has come to light.....

get yourself over to Charmaine Wilson's site and put up a new thread along the lines of:

'Have any two people (or more) connected to the same spirit? If so, how?'

I guarantee you the responses will stuff your repulsive mockery down your throat (so long, of course, that you are willing to accept multiple witness testimony as evidence and so long as you disguise your contempt for these good people and ask nicely).

I doubt very much you will do this. Begs the question, are you really a 'skeptic' or are you just a scientist who is afraid of something, such as the likelihood of your opinions being shown to be wrong?'

Go on, try it...in the name of objective research O0

[BillB]

Hi everyone,

Setting aside the aquaplaning of an object (ashtray) across a smooth surface has anyone considered vibrations? If vibration were to occur then air would be trapped and expelled during vibration lifts. This would cause a cushion of air for the ashtray to ride upon, sort of hovercraft style without the skirt?

I never heard a vibration might be the reply, but so what hearing is relative to the individual and can be selective, so those believers might filter out in favour of their preferred paranormal explanation.

I didn’t feel any vibration, why should you can you feel the vibration of a stylus on a vinyl record, with the speakers unplugged?

Water taps have been known to turn on and off poltergeist style. However the actual cause was simply down to bad plumbing and natural vibrations travelling along the pipes.

Skeptics are realists and wouldn’t be so easily confused! :)

BillB

[Matt]

Hi everyone,

Setting aside the aquaplaning of an object (ashtray) across a smooth surface has anyone considered vibrations? If vibration were to occur then air would be trapped and expelled during vibration lifts. This would cause a cushion of air for the ashtray to ride upon, sort of hovercraft style without the skirt?


Yes I did mention that possibility.


No, - the many reports of ghostly activity suggest the possibility of a prankster at work. Alternatively natural effects may have been at work. The table may have been perfectly level to your eyes but that doesn't make it so. There may have been no draught where you were standing but that doesn't mean the ashtry didn't experience one. A flat bottomed ashtray may aquaplane and move freely on a barely detectable film of water or any design may be shaken by imperceptabe vibrations.

[MRT]

Hovercraft ashtray? Trapped air is not needed at all - simple vertical vibration is enough to cause horizontal movement over a flat surface. Try putting an object on a washing machine during its spin cycle and marvel. Essentially, you are putting excess energy into an otherwise stable physical system (the object held stationary by friction). This allows the system to reach a higher energy state where the friction is exceeded and the object is free to move. It can then move according to any slight slope in the horizontal surface. Alternatively, slight irregularities in the surface can direct it in a particular direction.

A more important question is - what exactly does a moving object have to do with ghosts anyway?

[Tin Lizzie]

Well seeing as I was one of the witnesses to the incident in question, I have to say that it occurred quite suddenly whilst my friend and I were talking and at the opposite end of the room. this was in a building where similar things had happened before, where ghosts had been seen and where 'sensitive' friends had stated the presence of at least two separate spirits. Because of these 'coincidences' I am suggesting the possibility that paranormal activity was involved.

[MRT]

Similar things happening before suggests there could be a common cause - maybe there is a lot of physical vibration in the building. I'm afraid 'sensitive' people saying they can 'feel things' is not something I consider relevant to saying somewhere is haunted. Often such 'feelings' come after odd incidents are probably prompted by them.

[BillB]

Hi,

MRT
Hovercraft ashtray? Trapped air is not needed at all - simple vertical vibration is enough to cause horizontal movement over a flat surface.

If the surface is flat then the object (with a simple balanced vertical vibration applied) might be considered as hovering in the absence of a vertical force acting upon the same object at the same time.

MRT
Try putting an object on a washing machine during its spin cycle and marvel. Essentially, you are putting excess energy into an otherwise stable physical system (the object held stationary by friction). This allows the system to reach a higher energy state where the friction is exceeded and the object is free to move. It can then move according to any slight slope in the horizontal surface. Alternatively, slight irregularities in the surface can direct it in a particular direction.

Yes the object would take the path of less resistance. Objects in motion tend to stay in motion in the absence of friction.

MRT
A more important question is - what exactly does a moving object have to do with ghosts anyway?

Ghost’s apparently move about (they have motion like a moving object?) they sneak up behind people in the dark and go woo woo etc. ;D

Ghost is an explanation attributed to many types of alleged paranormal activity a childish excuse i.e. “the Ghost did it” from people that are often wanting or lacking in the knowledge of more likely explanations.

Indeed without the friction of science grounding, we would still be prone to the worship of false gods and other such mystical beliefs.

BillB

[Tin Lizzie]

Hi,



If the surface is flat then the object (with a simple balanced vertical vibration applied) might be considered as hovering in the absence of a vertical force acting upon the same object at the same time.



er..do you mean in the absence of a horizontal force?




Ghost is an explanation attributed to many types of alleged paranormal activity a childish excuse i.e. “the Ghost did it” from people that are often wanting or lacking in the knowledge of more likely explanations.


Until people such as yourself provide alternative expanations that are actually likely, this is a bit of a hypocrisy.



Indeed without the friction of science grounding, we would still be prone to the worship of false gods and other such mystical beliefs.

BillB

Which god do you worship? Could you provide proof that mystical beliefs are misplaced?

[bruno.j]

billB - OF COURSE GHOSTS MOVE ABOUT - if there is an afterlife - i don't want to be stuck in one place :sad: - i wanna go haunt all the people who have hacked me off in life , you will know me if you see me - i will be waring a t-shirt with the logo :

"everyday i am forced to add more names to the list of people who have hacked me off - whats yours ?? "

or may be i could have one saying :

" the WOO'S where RIGHT !!! :tongue:

or even -

WOO'S 1 - SCEPTICS - NIL :shocked:

OR

WATCH OUT - WATCH OUT - THERES A WOO ABOUT :eek3:

O0 - BRUNO.J

[BillB]

Originally Posted by BillB
Hi,



If the surface is flat then the object (with a simple balanced vertical vibration applied) might be considered as hovering in the absence of a vertical force acting upon the same object at the same time.

Yes vertical was a typo and should be read as horizontal in the above reference.

Tin Lizzie
Until people such as yourself provide alternative expanations that are actually likely, this is a bit of a hypocrisy.

Not hypocrisy just rational and logical thinking! :cheesy:

BillB

[BillB]

Hi,

Tin Lizzie
Which god do you worship? Could you provide proof that mystical beliefs are misplaced?

I’m an atheist, so what you choose to believe is your own problem or saviour! Why would I want to (waste breath) provide proof that mystical beliefs are misplaced, when you and many others have failed to provide proof that it isn’t misplaced?

BillB

[BillB]

Hi Tin Lizzie,

I do worship one god (actually a goddess) my wife the mother to our four children. Maybe with my guidance my children might become as skeptical as I and I certainly hope that they do!

I do actually enjoy your posting attempts, to sway others in your favour. :cheesy:

BillB

[Tin Lizzie]

I don't really do 'worship' to be honest.

As for that old argument 'you haven't proved it' well all I can say there is that luckily science and the world in general isn't run by skeptics, otherwise we would never make progress.

[Tin Lizzie]

Not trying to change 'beliefs', I am not a missionary. I just want people to realise that there are people out there that can talk to the dead - they're not all self-publicising charlatans.

[MRT]

Sorry to go back to the ash tray but my point is that air cushion is not required (hence it is not like a hovercraft). The ash tray would move horizontally due to vertical vibration even in a vacuum. It has excess energy but not enough to move in a vertical plane (ie overcoming gravity) so obviously it will move horizontally, the only direction left. And before anyone asks, no I'm not going to demonstrate it!

The basic principle here is that every physical system has a 'most stable' (or lowest energy) state which depends on the amount of energy in the system. When there is enough energy to overcome friction, the ashtray will move horizontally to disperse energy and find its lowest energy state.

[Matt]

I don't really do 'worship' to be honest.

As for that old argument 'you haven't proved it' well all I can say there is that luckily science and the world in general isn't run by skeptics, otherwise we would never make progress.

???

Compare "progress" before and after the enlightenment.

[Admin]

All it would take is for an ashtray to be on a table that is not quite horizontal or has a slight bevel on its top. Then if vibration is introduced: train, steamroller outside, jet going overhead... the ashtray would look like it was moving horizontally but it would also be moving slightly downhill too.

The washing machine analogy is a good one. It's just an exaggeration of the same effect.

[chillzero]

Not trying to change 'beliefs', I am not a missionary. I just want people to realise that there are people out there that can talk to the dead - they're not all self-publicising charlatans.

Where?

[Tin Lizzie]

Come over to 'spiritwhispers.org' or 'thepsychic barber' and I shall introduce you to a few.

[Tin Lizzie]

???

Compare "progress" before and after the enlightenment.

Who was it who first purported the world to be round?

[Admin]

Come over to 'spiritwhispers.org' or 'thepsychic barber' and I shall introduce you to a few.

Remember, they are 'believers' forums and they probably wouldn't be able to tolerate any view different to their own like we can on here.

If we went there it could cause a lot of upset!

[brianp]

Who was it who first purported the world to be round?

I'm not sure of the relevance of your question, but I believe that the first person we know of by name who believed the earth was spherical was was Pythagoras (6th century BC), but the first to offer proof was Aristotle (~330 BC). And in 240 BC the earth's circumference was calculated by Eratosthenes.

[Admin]

The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere - they knew their ships' sails appeared on the horizon before the body as they were sailing home - they could see that the earth's shadow on the moon was a crescent (consistent with Earth being a sphere) - and that shadows were longer on the same day the further north the latitude.

[BillB]

Hi,

MRT

Sorry to go back to the ash tray but my point is that air cushion is not required (hence it is not like a hovercraft). The ash tray would move horizontally due to vertical vibration even in a vacuum. It has excess energy but not enough to move in a vertical plane (ie overcoming gravity) so obviously it will move horizontally, the only direction left. And before anyone asks, no I'm not going to demonstrate it!

The basic principle here is that every physical system has a 'most stable' (or lowest energy) state which depends on the amount of energy in the system. When there is enough energy to overcome friction, the ashtray will move horizontally to disperse energy and find its lowest energy state.


If vertical lift of the ashtray occurs, air will fill the gaps underneath the ashtray and this air will be displaced when the ashtray settles again on the surface. So it is interesting that we can factor in objects possibly aquaplaning on a wet surface, whilst you rule out the object riding on a cushion of air as a possibility.

Maybe the air is important on those rare occasions, when objects allegedly move by themselves. For example air can carry charge under low humidity conditions and such charges can accumulate. Then we have the potential for more charge if the ashtray is vibrated, because there is contact rubbing between (two dissimilar objects) the object ashtray and the table surface.

I am aware of physics in what you are saying, but to say “trapped air is not needed at all” as you did in you earlier reply doesn’t mean it wasn’t necessary, for these rare alleged anomalous movements of objects to occur. Think about it!! ;)

BillB

[Tin Lizzie]

Remember, they are 'believers' forums and they probably wouldn't be able to tolerate any view different to their own like we can on here.

If we went there it could cause a lot of upset!

True, but like here, you will find people willing to discuss things and agree to disagree if it comes to it

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm not sure of the relevance of your question, but I believe that the first person we know of by name who believed the earth was spherical was was Pythagoras (6th century BC), but the first to offer proof was Aristotle (~330 BC). And in 240 BC the earth's circumference was calculated by Eratosthenes.



The ancient Greeks knew the earth was a sphere - they knew their ships' sails appeared on the horizon before the body as they were sailing home - they could see that the earth's shadow on the moon was a crescent (consistent with Earth being a sphere) - and that shadows were longer on the same day the further north the latitude.


And then there was that 'dark period' when people (over here, at least) believed that the world was actually flat.
Would you agree that Columbus proved that the seas did not suddenly fall off the earth (1492) and that Magellan proved the spherical nature of the earth by his voyage from 1519-1522?

The relevance of my question, BrianP - well it is kind of analogical/metaphorical or whatever but my point is that even thought people had hit on the right ideas nearly 2000 years before, the technology to prove these things didn't become available until all those years after. Even then, I imagine the skeptics of that age would still be clamouring for more than mere anecdotes and individual experiences.

[Admin]

Even then, I imagine the skeptics of that age would still be clamouring for more than mere anecdotes and individual experiences.

You're making the mistake of equating skeptics with disbelievers (!)

If there was evidence that the earth was a sphere (and there was) then the skeptics would have followed the evidence.

The world was not found to be a sphere through personal insight!!

[Admin]

True, but like here, you will find people willing to discuss things and agree to disagree if it comes to it

Well I won't be joining but if you invite skeptics onto a believers' forum then on your own head be it!

They can't tolerate their beliefs being challenged.

[chillzero]

Come over to 'spiritwhispers.org' or 'thepsychic barber' and I shall introduce you to a few.

Maybe I shall. How will any of them prove they can talk to the dead? Assuming of course, that 'talk to the dead' means more than just that. I can talk to the dead too - I just don't expect a response.

[MRT]

Hi,

MRT

If vertical lift of the ashtray occurs, air will fill the gaps underneath the ashtray and this air will be displaced when the ashtray settles again on the surface. So it is interesting that we can factor in objects possibly aquaplaning on a wet surface, whilst you rule out the object riding on a cushion of air as a possibility.

In order to aquaplane, trapped water forms a thin film which acts as a lubricant. Thin films have different properties to bulk material due to having their two surfaces in close proximity. Air is much less dense than water and cannot form a thin film under a heavy object. Instead, it is simply displaced when the object falls. The hovercraft works on a similar principle to aquaplaning but the air has to be kept in place by skirts and needs to be constantly replenished from above by powerful motors. Only then can it support a large weight.



Maybe the air is important on those rare occasions, when objects allegedly move by themselves. For example air can carry charge under low humidity conditions and such charges can accumulate. Then we have the potential for more charge if the ashtray is vibrated, because there is contact rubbing between (two dissimilar objects) the object ashtray and the table surface.

Static electricity cannot be used to move any object heavier than a small piece of tissue paper. The reason is that there is a limit to the electric charge which can accumulate in air before there is an electric discharge (a spark) when the air briefly becomes a conductor. The kind of charge big enough to lift an ashtray would be far larger than that which would cause a discharge.

[MRT]

Re talking to the dead: an interesting exercise is to compare what 'the dead' have to say from medium to medium, sitting to sitting and over time. I think you'll be surprised by the results.

[Matt]

And then there was that 'dark period' when people (over here, at least) believed that the world was actually flat.

Would you agree that Columbus proved that the seas did not suddenly fall off the earth (1492) and that Magellan proved the spherical nature of the earth by his voyage from 1519-1522?


Actually it turns out that this is a bit of a myth. Whilst there has allways been the odd eccentric who believes in a flat earth, and there still are (http://www.flat-earth.org/), it is simply not the case that Columbus's sailors believed that they would fall off the edge of the earth. Amongst common folk sailors in particular were familiar with the curvature of the earth - it being the means by which they determined latitude. The argument Columbus has with the heterodoxy is that he believed that the earth was far smaller than was commonly thought and that he could more easliy reach the east (india) by sailing west. As it happens Columbus was wrong and the lands that he discovered were not in fact the the west of india even though they are now known as the "west indies" Were it not for the fortunate existence of the american continent his sailor sfears of starving before landfall may well ahve been realized


The relevance of my question, BrianP - well it is kind of analogical/metaphorical or whatever but my point is that even thought people had hit on the right ideas nearly 2000 years before, the technology to prove these things didn't become available until all those years after. Even then, I imagine the skeptics of that age would still be clamouring for more than mere anecdotes and individual experiences.

No the technology to prove not only the curvature of the earth but it's size was in place in 240 BC when the earth's circumference was calculated by Eratosthenes. Records of knowledge of the circumference of the earth abound during the european middle ages.

The source of the myth that people in the middle ages believed the Earth was flat is often attributed to Washington Irving's "History of the Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus"

Anyway thought that might be an interesting diversion. Carry on

[MRT]

Do I detect the implication here that we don't yet have the technology with which to prove or disprove the existence of spirits?:smiley:

[Melanie]

Do I detect the implication here that we don't yet have the technology with which to prove or disprove the existence of spirits?:smiley:

I think so. And it's oft-quoted - e.g. we only 'see' and 'hear' within certain wavelengths. Spirit is operating on wavelengths we physically can't perceive (unless we work at it). One day though the machine will be invented...

Look at X-rays. No-one believed they existed until the machine was invented that could record them. (That's the one that was often bandied about in the days of my youth.)

[BillB]

Hi

MRT
In order to aquaplane, trapped water forms a thin film which acts as a lubricant. Thin films have different properties to bulk material due to having their two surfaces in close proximity. Air is much less dense than water and cannot form a thin film under a heavy object. Instead, it is simply displaced when the object falls. The hovercraft works on a similar principle to aquaplaning but the air has to be kept in place by skirts and needs to be constantly replenished from above by powerful motors. Only then can it support a large weight.

Some plates and ashtrays have a raised ridge outer circle, which reduces the contact area, but can also hold (trap) air beneath these objects. Perhaps such ridges might act just like the skirt of a hovercraft?

MRT
Static electricity cannot be used to move any object heavier than a small piece of tissue paper. The reason is that there is a limit to the electric charge which can accumulate in air before there is an electric discharge (a spark) when the air briefly becomes a conductor. The kind of charge big enough to lift an ashtray would be far larger than that which would cause a discharge.

In the Hutchinson effect heavy objects where shown to levitate presumably by energising (bombarding) the objects, with energy of varying vibration transmitted through the air.

This is a YouTube video that some might find extremely interesting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeUgDJc6AWE

Did I ever state the charge alone as being a possible explanation for the lift of an object (ashtray)?

No I did not!! However such charges might be a contributory factor none the less. In addition to vibration the surface area of the charge might be much greater. So perhaps on rare occasions such combinations of energies, might just tip the scales of an otherwise stable system.


BillB

[MRT]

I'm not sure why you are so insistent on involving air when it is not necessary? We are talking about a theory here. Why complicate it with additional factors unless there is good reason to do so? Is there some special reason for thinking air was involved?

I've seen the Hutchinson Effect before. As far as I'm aware no scientific papers have ever resulted from this work and there has been no replication. Until these things happen it will remain a curiosity with no more validity than other anomalous phenomena, as far as I'm concerned.

Quote: "However such charges might be a contributory factor none the less. In addition to vibration the surface area of the charge might be much greater. So perhaps on rare occasions such combinations of energies, might just tip the scales of an otherwise stable system."

Again, I don't see why you want to add static electricity into the mix when it is both pathetically weak (as explained) and not required. Is there some special reason to think it might have been involved? Was there sparking or the smell of ozone?

I don't understand the bit about 'surface area of the charge might be much greater' at all. Could you expand this a bit, please, as I'm not sure what you're saying?

[bruno.j]

a couple of observations if i may :

MRT asked why involve air ?- simple - unless the ashtray was in a vacuum - then air would have been present - it is if you like a constant factor and thus must be taken into account by its mere presence

as to static charges - they are not a point source phenomia - a static charge can spread and be maintained over a large surface area - never got a belt off a car door handle ?? - a cars bodywork is a large area - ( enough to produce a sizable ( and painful ) spark in some cases ) aircraft particularly helicopters are another example of large areas that can hold a static charge - that's why they are routinely grounded on landing ( as a precaution against exploding fuel vapors etc )

and if we go back to basic school physics - a balloon has a fairly large surface area when inflated and can hold a static charge - even supermarket trolleys can hold painful static charges - the ones at my local are always giving me "belts " - mind you i may be sensitive to such things ??

agreed i am talking mainly metal here - but plastics and even polished wood can and do hold static charges quite well - and can do so over large areas

TIN LIZZIE : I am with you on the ability of some people to communicate with spirits ;)O0

i always think it is better to talk to the dead - than try and talk to the brain dead ;D;D - who can be found in many retail outlets these days - so i would seem ( its OK folks - been having a "bad retail therapy" day today ) >:-)


bruno.j

[MRT]

The point about air is that it is much less dense than water and would not normally play any part in this scenario as outlined. It would simply be pushed out of the way by the ash tray.

The point about static electricity is the same as before. It doesn't matter what physical configuration you choose, there is a strict limit to the electric field strength before there is discharge. If you can lift anything heavier than a balloon or tissue paper, I'd be fascinated to see the video. :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

TIN LIZZIE : I am with you on the ability of some people to communicate with spirits ;)O0

i always think it is better to talk to the dead - than try and talk to the brain dead ;D;D - who can be found in many retail outlets these days - so i would seem ( its OK folks - been having a "bad retail therapy" day today ) >:-)



Well thanks for your humorous acknowledgement.
I found it dead funny.

[Tin Lizzie]

Maybe I shall. How will any of them prove they can talk to the dead? Assuming of course, that 'talk to the dead' means more than just that. I can talk to the dead too - I just don't expect a response.

Like it.

Of course, nobody is guaranteed a response. It is possible that they won't want to talk to you either.

[Tin Lizzie]

Well I won't be joining but if you invite skeptics onto a believers' forum then on your own head be it!

They can't tolerate their beliefs being challenged.

Of course, because they don't actually believe in anything.

[brianp]

And then there was that 'dark period' when people (over here, at least) believed that the world was actually flat.
Would you agree that Columbus proved that the seas did not suddenly fall off the earth (1492) and that Magellan proved the spherical nature of the earth by his voyage from 1519-1522?

Don't be silly, in Columbus' time nobody thought the earth was flat. The disagreement between Columbus and his critics was over the circumference. Columbus thought that the circumference was much smaller than it actually is and that he could readily sale west to Asia - his opponents thought, correctly, that it was so big that the journey west would be intolerably long. Columbus was wrong and his critics were right, but, of course, nobody anticipated the Americas being where they are.

Edit: sorry I see that John has already provided essentially the same info.

[BillB]

Hi

MRT
I'm not sure why you are so insistent on involving air when it is not necessary? We are talking about a theory here. Why complicate it with additional factors unless there is good reason to do so? Is there some special reason for thinking air was involved?

I’m just factoring in some of the obvious variables and air is present amongst these other variables. The mention in debate of such variables in the context of my post aids in reasoning, from which I and others might all learn.

MRT
I've seen the Hutchinson Effect before. As far as I'm aware no scientific papers have ever resulted from this work and there has been no replication. Until these things happen it will remain a curiosity with no more validity than other anomalous phenomena, as far as I'm concerned.

This is your opinion of course.

MRT
Again, I don't see why you want to add static electricity into the mix when it is both pathetically weak (as explained) and not required. Is there some special reason to think it might have been involved? Was there sparking or the smell of ozone?

It is interesting what people can and can’t see?

MRT
I don't understand the bit about 'surface area of the charge might be much greater' at all. Could you expand this a bit, please, as I'm not sure what you're saying?

Most people have had the experience of a static shock and it can hurt when you happen to ground a sheet of it. However they rarely understand it, in its raw ungrounded state as a charge.

The charge can build up over a large area, which follows the contours of the surface. So although weak, it might still be the deciding factor, in a system that is already in unstable and therefore sufficient to tip the balance in favour of motion.

This is an interesting debate and I hope others have learnt something from such reasoning.

Now just for the fun of it how about a combustion effect on the ashtray?

For this we must now enter the twiglet zone of our local pub and down some serious spirits!!

There is spirit spillage on the bar table and a simple weak static charge tired and weary (after a hard days work belting people in peculiar parts of the anatomy) contemplates his final spark before bedtime.

There’s bound to be woo woo’s about and the odd minority skeptic thinks the Charge, as he lay down on the table quite motionless as static does.

Charge is now experiencing a vigorous and invigorating rub down by a busty barmaid, with her trusty wipe and marigold gloves.

Then suddenly a heavy weight is placed upon Charge and it’s an ashtray. The Charge breaths the fumes of alcohol spirit, trapped beneath the hefty ashtray, he smiles briefly and then sparks.

Ashtray rises explosively and glides along the table aquaplaning along the way (due to some damp patches) and briefly hovers for a moment (as life flashes, with past hovercraft dreams) as the table disappears from underneath poor old ashtray.

The inevitable Crash and shatter of glass is heard, followed by the equally inevitable sound of Woo’s, accompanied only by the singular grunt of a somewhat pompous and tipsy skeptic, wearing a woolley polo neck jumper.

The END

BillB

[chillzero]

Of course, because they don't actually believe in anything.

That's untrue.

Anyway, you didn't ask my question about how any of these people could prove to me that they speak with the dead. What can I achieve by joining one of these forums?

[MRT]

Hi

I’m just factoring in some of the obvious variables and air is present amongst these other variables. The mention in debate of such variables in the context of my post aids in reasoning, from which I and others might all learn.

Are you familiar with Occam's Razor? If not, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor. It is, as I expect you are aware, a general principle used in scientific theory. It says, to quote Wikipedia (which I can't improve on in this definition): "the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory". This puts perfectly the point I am trying to make. There is no need to invoke air or static electricity in this case because vibration can do the job unaided - they make no difference to the predictions of the theory.


Most people have had the experience of a static shock and it can hurt when you happen to ground a sheet of it. However they rarely understand it, in its raw ungrounded state as a charge.

The charge can build up over a large area, which follows the contours of the surface. So although weak, it might still be the deciding factor, in a system that is already in unstable and therefore sufficient to tip the balance in favour of motion.

This is an interesting debate and I hope others have learnt something from such reasoning.

Yes, charge builds up over a surface. In this case, as we are dealing with non-conductors (electrical), the charge distribution will be uneven and difficult to predict. However, such surface charges give rise to an electric field in the surrounding area and it is this field which can, potentially, move other objects nearby provided they are statically charged as well. There is no other mechanism by which static electricity can move objects. It is the electric field which is limited in strength, by discharge through the air, so that it cannot move anything heavier than tissue paper. The shape and surface area of the charged objects involved are irrelevant to this limiting factor. The effects of vibration, by contrast, are not limited. Which brings me back to Occam's Razor. Yes, static electricity COULD be present but it is a very limited factor and there is no reason to invoke it UNLESS there is good reason to think that it could be involved.

Another point about static electricity is that the ashtray and the surface it starts up on are in physical contact with each other. As such, they will exchange charge freely and no field will build up between them. A field only builds up in such circumstances when two surfaces are separated (usually following friction) in triboelectrification. Therefore, any movement must come BEFORE any static field can be produced between the objects. Thus, we're back to vibration.

[Dr B]

as a side issue - I am writing a paper for students at the moment on Occam's razor.

The crucial bit about the razor is necessity not simplicity per-se. If an assumption is not necessary for a conclusion - then don't make it....which I think is what Maurice is saying...O0

[Tin Lizzie]

That's untrue.

Anyway, you didn't ask my question about how any of these people could prove to me that they speak with the dead. What can I achieve by joining one of these forums?

A difficult one. Firstly you need to have someone on the other side. Secondly they must also be inclined to communicate with you. A message is not guaranteed of course. The only way at present such proof could be provided is when the message comes through - there are certain things which I cannot accept as being due to cold reading, but your opinion on this may differ.

As for anything else to gain, it depends what you are looking for.

[Zaira]

chillzero,

"What can I achieve by joining one of these forums."

You? Nothing. We are all seekers, even the Skeptics are seeking something - proof. We seek and we find. But we must know what it is we are seeking before we can find it. So if you go to one of those forums in your present mind-set, you will get nothing out of it because there is nothing there you want. If you thought there was anything for you over there, you wouldn't have asked the question - you would have just gone.

Go anyway. Go check it out and come back and tell me what you think. I’m curious. ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

I'm curious too-woo.

[chillzero]

chillzero,



"What can I achieve by joining one of these forums."



You? Nothing. We are all seekers, even the Skeptics are seeking something - proof. We seek and we find. But we must know what it is we are seeking before we can find it. So if you go to one of those forums in your present mind-set, you will get nothing out of it because there is nothing there you want. If you thought there was anything for you over there, you wouldn't have asked the question - you would have just gone.



Go anyway. Go check it out and come back and tell me what you think. I’m curious. ;)

I know what I am seeking, and I think you misunderstand my 'mindset'.

I do agree with your assessment that I will acheive nothing, however.

I spent some time yesterday reading through various threads on both forums, and I don't think this will be a constructive excercise. How can I rationally discuss anything with people who point blank refuse to examine their own experiences. I couldn't understand it when I was a 'psychic', and I can't understand it now. I am reluctant to post on a forum where people are so lose to grief, and who will not want to give thought to the possibility that when they were in bed and thought they were hugged by a dead husband, that they may actually have been dreaming, or having a vivid memory.

I didn't see anyone there open to the possibility of non-paranormal possibilities, even for something as simple as dust motes in the eyes, even when it had been clearly explained by doctors and optometrists. No - it had to be orbs.

My original question was where 'out there' are these people who can successfully communicate with the dead. None of these forum members had examined, let alone tested, this paranormal ability. Where are these people who can do so, and how do they prove it? It has been said in this thread that it is impossible to prove. Then how do they discount any alternative explanations? What serious examination of their abilities have they undertaken? I don't want to go to a forum of people patting each other on the back over unconvincing stories, while simpering over auras and orbs as if they are proven paranormal phenomena.

[Zaira]

chillzero,

"How can I rationally discuss anything with people who point blank refuse to examine their own experiences."

I'd like to share mine. Still don't know what mine would come under but I know I'm not psychic. I sensed things like spirit in my twenties but it was a very difficult time for me back then my father had just committed suicide.

That is only one tiny little forum. I have been on many, some much more informed than that one. If you ask me this thing with the forums is a lot of fuss about nothing. :smiley:

[Tin Lizzie]

That is only one tiny little forum. I have been on many, some much more informed than that one. If you ask me this thing with the forums is a lot of fuss about nothing. :smiley:

Hi Zaira

any nice little links for the more informed sites, pweeeease?

[Zaira]

Yes. I'll sort out one or two and post them soon. But keep in mind these are more spiritual than psychic, more about taking care of oneself rather than telling fortunes. Still interested?

[Tin Lizzie]

yep...everything on this planet comes under the same woof...sorry, roof

[chillzero]

chillzero,



"How can I rationally discuss anything with people who point blank refuse to examine their own experiences."



I'd like to share mine. Still don't know what mine would come under but I know I'm not psychic. I sensed things like spirit in my twenties but it was a very difficult time for me back then my father had just committed suicide.



That is only one tiny little forum. I have been on many, some much more informed than that one. If you ask me this thing with the forums is a lot of fuss about nothing. :smiley:

I am always interested in discussing these things - that's why I started the thread about the psychic mindset. Maybe we can start a new thread rather than derail this one further - I'll leave that up to you, if you wish to open a discussion.

As for the forum - I visited both recommended by Tin Lizzie, and was not impressed with either. I also know of plenty of others, having frequented several of them myself years ago. The main one I used was the Living TV forum, and it is a shockingly bad forum for censorship. I am happiest here and at JREF these days.

When I asked my question I wasn't looking for forum banter anyway - I was hoping someone could provide information about the 'genuine' mediums, so we could examine them. To claim that people 'out there' can really speak to the dead is a claim I would like to see backed up - just once.

[Zaira]

chillzero,

I'll think about opening a new thread. I'll let you know if you like when I have come up with a title for it. No, I wasn't very impressed with that one either. Finding a good one seems to be an on going process of elimination. If you have no objections, I might check out the Living TV forum. Sorry but I'm not familiar with JREF. Enlighten me?

"To claim that people 'out there' can really speak to the dead is a claim I would like to see backed up - just once."

Me too. Then we could all move on to some more interesting topics. ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

When I asked my question I wasn't looking for forum banter anyway - I was hoping someone could provide information about the 'genuine' mediums, so we could examine them. To claim that people 'out there' can really speak to the dead is a claim I would like to see backed up - just once.

That is of course a fair request. Obviusly all evidence is anecdotal, whether it is based around individual or group sittings, where multiple mediums have all connected to the same spirit and where in some cases one of the mediums has drawn pictures of the same spirit.

There are a few people on GS forum who do see and work with spirit almost every day. Maybe they are more qualified to answer your request, but they certainly won't be venturing here.

[chillzero]

That is of course a fair request. Obviusly all evidence is anecdotal, whether it is based around individual or group sittings, where multiple mediums have all connected to the same spirit and where in some cases one of the mediums has drawn pictures of the same spirit.

There are a few people on GS forum who do see and work with spirit almost every day. Maybe they are more qualified to answer your request, but they certainly won't be venturing here.

It doesn't need to be just anecdotal - particularly if more than one medium claims to contact the same spirit.

My question was directed at you, because you made the claim.

[Tin Lizzie]

It doesn't need to be just anecdotal - particularly if more than one medium claims to contact the same spirit.

My question was directed at you, because you made the claim.

Well for starters all I can do here is point you to an exchange of posts on the thread 'Woo from Woo-Woo-land'. Yes this was a bit of fun but we also hoped to put across some of the reality of living with spirit. Read the first few threads by Lara - how her friend's dad came to contact her. This really is the very tip of the iceberg and if you would like to talk with her you might want to PM her or I could chat with her and get her to answer your questions here. She's a busy lady at the moment with a lot of personal issues on her hands; the last thing she needs is more criticism or sniping, she's had enough of that on here. If you can chat with her I'm sure she can answer any of your questions.

[SimonC]

Sorry but I'm not familiar with JREF. Enlighten me?



JREF is the James Randi Educational Foundation -

http://www.randi.org/
http://forums.randi.org/

In a spirit of 'fair warning' though, if you think we're a skeptical lot, you should probably brace yourself before venturing into their forum. ;D

Cheers,

S

[chillzero]

Well for starters all I can do here is point you to an exchange of posts on the thread 'Woo from Woo-Woo-land'. Yes this was a bit of fun but we also hoped to put across some of the reality of living with spirit. Read the first few threads by Lara - how her friend's dad came to contact her. This really is the very tip of the iceberg and if you would like to talk with her you might want to PM her or I could chat with her and get her to answer your questions here. She's a busy lady at the moment with a lot of personal issues on her hands; the last thing she needs is more criticism or sniping, she's had enough of that on here. If you can chat with her I'm sure she can answer any of your questions.

The only evidence you have for people talking to the dead is their own testimony on a forum?

I hate that woo thread, by the way, and won't be participating. I don't see the point in it. In case you haven't read my other threads, I do know what it is like to "live with spirit", having been heavily involved in the new age community myself a while back. I helped run a shop that sold crystals, sagebrush, tarot cards, etc, and I myself did tarot readings, massage, reflexology, etc. I believed I was a psychic healer, and was massively keen on 'spreading the word'.

[Zaira]

SimonC,

Thank you. And thank you for the warning. ;)

[Tin Lizzie]

The only evidence you have for people talking to the dead is their own testimony on a forum?

I hate that woo thread, by the way, and won't be participating. I don't see the point in it. In case you haven't read my other threads, I do know what it is like to "live with spirit", having been heavily involved in the new age community myself a while back. I helped run a shop that sold crystals, sagebrush, tarot cards, etc, and I myself did tarot readings, massage, reflexology, etc. I believed I was a psychic healer, and was massively keen on 'spreading the word'.

All these things are different to being a medium for the deceased. Read my last response again; you do not have to go on the forum which you so hate, and my evidence is not confined to that 'hateful' place.

[Zaira]

chillzero,

"I believed I was a psychic healer, and was massively keen on 'spreading the word'."

Mind if I ask what happened to change your mind about all that stuff? I admit to having something going on in my life, and I remember a time when I thought I might be psychic because of it. But I never went down that road - don't know why. Just know that I'm glad I didn't. I truly believe that something happens that seems to be out of the ordinary and if it happens a few more times people can come to believe they are psychic.

I came here originally with lots of questions, even questions about stuff I had let go of years ago. It seemed like a good opportunity to try to find some answers to what I had experienced on and off through out my life. I have gathered a lot of information from here. Information that provided alternative explanations for some of what I was experiencing. I really feel that I am in the process of sorting it all out. But with everything I'm taking on board and thinking about, I'm remembering other stuff and continue to ask questions.

I have seriously struggled lately to let go of some stuff and deal with a different understanding of other aspects of it. I find most people on here to be very helpful and patient, yourself included. Thank you.

[chillzero]

All these things are different to being a medium for the deceased. Read my last response again; you do not have to go on the forum which you so hate, and my evidence is not confined to that 'hateful' place.

But your thread is about 'living in woo world'.

Interested in any other evidence you might put forward.



chillzero,

"I believed I was a psychic healer, and was massively keen on 'spreading the word'."

Mind if I ask what happened to change your mind about all that stuff? I admit to having something going on in my life, and I remember a time when I thought I might be psychic because of it. But I never went down that road - don't know why. Just know that I'm glad I didn't. I truly believe that something happens that seems to be out of the ordinary and if it happens a few more times people can come to believe they are psychic.

I came here originally with lots of questions, even questions about stuff I had let go of years ago. It seemed like a good opportunity to try to find some answers to what I had experienced on and off through out my life. I have gathered a lot of information from here. Information that provided alternative explanations for some of what I was experiencing. I really feel that I am in the process of sorting it all out. But with everything I'm taking on board and thinking about, I'm remembering other stuff and continue to ask questions.

I have seriously struggled lately to let go of some stuff and deal with a different understanding of other aspects of it. I find most people on here to be very helpful and patient, yourself included. Thank you.

I started this thread for that purpose - feel free to ask anything:

http://www.skeptics.org.uk/forum/showthread.php?t=1213

[Tin Lizzie]

I have friends who have lived for several years in these 'communes', and what they do has nothing to do with mediumship, from what I have been told.

So, as I mentioned, if you find lara's description of her first experience interesting, there are obvious ways of contacting her besides joining the woo forum. If you are not interested....how can I help you?

[chillzero]

I have friends who have lived for several years in these 'communes', and what they do has nothing to do with mediumship, from what I have been told.

So, as I mentioned, if you find lara's description of her first experience interesting, there are obvious ways of contacting her besides joining the woo forum. If you are not interested....how can I help you?

I was never in a 'commune'!
Since I also believed I had experienced hearing the ghosts of my grandparents, and part of the new age community will always incorporate mediums, I don't understand why you are making such a difference about this.

As I have said a few times, you claimed that people exist who communicate with the dead. I am asking you to back up that claim with some information about who these people are. Reading someone's story on a forum is not evidence that anyone ever spoke to the dead.

[Tin Lizzie]

[quote=chillzero;19477

As I have said a few times, you claimed that people exist who communicate with the dead. I am asking you to back up that claim with some information about who these people are. Reading someone's story on a forum is not evidence that anyone ever spoke to the dead.[/quote]

Which is why I have provided you with a means to make further enquiries. Mediums are human, and they can - believe it or not - be wonderfully funny, compassionate and caring too.

[chillzero]

Which is why I have provided you with a means to make further enquiries. Mediums are human, and they can - believe it or not - be wonderfully funny, compassionate and caring too.

Fair enough - if you weren't going to provide any evidence, you could have said earlier.

I am a writer and an ex-psychic - I do know how to research these things, and I do know that mediums are human. ::)

I was engaged with a discussion with you, however, following up on a claim you made. I'll stop asking now.

[Tin Lizzie]

Fair enough - if you weren't going to provide any evidence, you could have said earlier.

I am a writer and an ex-psychic - I do know how to research these things, and I do know that mediums are human. ::)

I was engaged with a discussion with you, however, following up on a claim you made. I'll stop asking now.

If I had 'acceptable' evidence that spirits exist I would have a nobel peace prize or something.

Like I say, I have provided you with a link to people who work with spirit every day. I find it odd that you choose not to pursue this link - assuming you are genuinely interested of course.

[chillzero]

If I had 'acceptable' evidence that spirits exist I would have a nobel peace prize or something.

I also believe there is no evidence that mediums are genuine. That's why I asked when you said they are.


Like I say, I have provided you with a link to people who work with spirit every day. I find it odd that you choose not to pursue this link - assuming you are genuinely interested of course.

I said - I know how to find this stuff, and may do so in future for an article. I was interested in your experiences regarding evidence of the genuine-ness of mediums.

Look, we should probably drop this now, because I think it is coming across as more confrontational than it is intended.

[Tin Lizzie]

No worries.

My own experience - I have not seen a medium because I have no need to and I am beginning the long journey of training in that field -
is limited to several audiable contacts which I have tried time and again to explain but cannot, plus more recent experience since working with my guides. Only once have I contacted a deceased person - my aunt, and in this case I still have the written message in my possession. Obviously I cannot prove that I didn't write it myself, but hey.

Good luck with whatever it is you are finding out about here. I don't mean to be confrontational, so if I do ask you any questions on your thread please don't think I am being critical.

[wooo_oops]

No worries. My own experience - I have not seen a medium because I have no need to and I am beginning the long journey of training in that field -
is limited to several audiable contacts which I have tried time and again to explain but cannot,

surely, we've given you enough to at least start to research this phenomenon?


plus more recent experience since working with my guides. Only once have I contacted a deceased person - my aunt, and in this case I still have the written message in my possession. Obviously I cannot prove that I didn't write it myself, but hey.

You wrote it yourself. No?

I don't mean to come across all confrontational either - but I can't help it if it does.

There's stuff you should know about before deciding what you do decide, and that can't be an easy thing to take from a random person. But you gotta keep asking the questions.

[Tin Lizzie]

surely, we've given you enough to at least start to research this phenomenon?



You wrote it yourself. No?

I don't mean to come across all confrontational either - but I can't help it if it does.

There's stuff you should know about before deciding what you do decide, and that can't be an easy thing to take from a random person. But you gotta keep asking the questions.

I've lost your point here...if I did want to research this 'phenomenon' what business is it of yours?

[wooo_oops]

I've lost your point here...if I did want to research this 'phenomenon' what business is it of yours?

Well, y'know, it means something to have asked questions, as opposed to just taking it as read from someone you don't know.

If you want to research it, it's no business of mine of course, but in the 'spirit' of learning...it would be good to share your findings.

[Tin Lizzie]

Well, y'know, it means something to have asked questions, as opposed to just taking it as read from someone you don't know.

If you want to research it, it's no business of mine of course, but in the 'spirit' of learning...it would be good to share your findings.

Wowweee, do you mean you are prepared to accept anecdotal evidence? I'm excited....go on, questions pleeeeease.....

[wooo_oops]

But how much have you researched it? How can anecdotes be research material? I need good stuff here -not what 'somebody else' said.

*insert exasperation smiley*

Do. I. Have. To. Spell. It. Out?

Supply us with some stuff to get our teeth into. Because so far, all you've proposed is stuff we've been able to explain how possible it is to achieve without the 'use' of a disembodied spirit.

[Tin Lizzie]

But how much have you researched it? How can anecdotes be research material? I need good stuff here -not what 'somebody else' said.

*insert exasperation smiley*

Do. I. Have. To. Spell. It. Out?

Supply us with some stuff to get our teeth into. Because so far, all you've proposed is stuff we've been able to explain how possible it is to achieve without the 'use' of a disembodied spirit.

G. O. R. D. O. N. B. E. N. N. E. T.

have a look at my other posts and on other threads 'n' stuff....if the answer to your question isn't there then come back and ask your question again and i will answer it as best as i can. 'prende?

Cheers.

[Tin Lizzie]

Oh as an AT check out the SPR.

Cheers