Do we know ghosts don't exist

[British Sceptic]

Can we be emphatically sure ghosts do not exist and if so how?

Regards,

Den ::)

[SimonC]

Can we be emphatically sure ghosts do not exist and if so how?

Regards,

Den ::)

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

[darkwinter]

No, we cannot - for a given value of "emphatically sure", anyway. We can, however, make hypotheses justified on the strength of evidence already gathered. One of those hypotheses is that it is at this stage quite unlikely that ghosts - as popularly conceived - exist. This has far more probability behind it than the opposing hypothesis which would require the existence of a non-corporeal element to life which has yet to be even suggested by the evidence.

Occam's Razor don'tya know.

[darkwinter]

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

By detonating the Sun? It's my hypothesis that this would remove the possibility of there being a china teapot in orbit around it.

Next stage: testing.

[SimonC]

By detonating the Sun? It's my hypothesis that this would remove the possibility of there being a china teapot in orbit around it.

Next stage: testing.

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.

;D;D;D

[darkwinter]

I think you'll find it's more complicated than that.

;D;D;D

;D Win.

[SimonC]

;D Win.

Kudos for your t-shirt. It's very, very good. O0:smiley:

[Jack of Kent]

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

All the china teapots on Earth are orbitting the sun...

[darkwinter]

All the china teapots on Earth are orbitting the sun...

Woohoo! Semantics! O0

I still say detonating the Sun will make sure there are none there.

[Admin]

Can we be emphatically sure there isn't a china teapot orbitting the sun and if so how?

Ah! Russell's teapot.

You know, I don't really like this one as an argument. The reason being that it is actually a scientific argument because it is potentially falsifiable.

It's really an illustration of the impracticality of testing some claims rather than its intended purpose of illustrating that you can't disprove a universal negative.

If we could build a powerful 'teapot detector' we could actually prove that one isn't there.

Regarding the OP: if something doesn't exist it's impossible to prove that it doesn't as, by definition, there could never be any evidence to test.

[SimonC]

Ah! Russell's teapot.

You know, I don't really like this one as an argument. The reason being that it is actually a scientific argument because it is potentially falsifiable.

It's really an illustration of the impracticality of testing some claims rather than its intended purpose of illustrating that you can't disprove a universal negative.

If we could build a powerful 'teapot detector' we could actually prove that one isn't there.

Regarding the OP: if something doesn't exist it's impossible to prove that it doesn't as, by definition, there could never be any evidence to test.

Well yeah, fair enough, Russell's proposition is somewhat anachronisitic, and perhaps logically flawed in absolute terms. I simply take it as an illustration of the principal of proving something empirically, rather than demanding that something should be disproven.

Perhaps I should sustitute 'invisible, intangible, undetectable unicorns living on the dark side of the moon', or something similar, for 'teapot'. I do, however, think that Russell's statement illustrates the point rather more elegantly.

eta - I also thought that, in the context of the O/P, Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) was a reasonably succinct way of getting to the point.

[SimonC]

All the china teapots on Earth are orbitting the sun...

Pedant.

And so is Alister McGrath for trying to one-up Richard Dawkins with the same point!

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

What is a ghost?

[Pebble]

What is a ghost?


Precisely, having not defined the problem how can one propose a solution?

[Mulder]

If you define a 'ghost' as someone experiencing a human or animal 'presence' (whether felt, seen, heard, etc) that they cannot physically account for (ie. that person should not be present because they are physically elsewhere, dead or don't actually exist) then I think we can emphatically say that ghosts DO exist! There are many such experiences recorded with many different causes (misperception and hallucination being prominent ones).

[darkwinter]

If you define a 'ghost' as someone experiencing a human or animal 'presence' (whether felt, seen, heard, etc) that they cannot physically account for (ie. that person should not be present because they are physically elsewhere, dead or don't actually exist) then I think we can emphatically say that ghosts DO exist! There are many such experiences recorded with many different causes (misperception and hallucination being prominent ones).

It's a possibility, but I don't think that's the definition that immediately springs to mind when people hear "ghost"; normally it seems to refer to an entity of some kind, rather than an experience. The word "haunting" seems to fit the above definition more, and under that definition it would be hard to deny that there have been hauntings recorded in the past.

[Mulder]

I am drawing my definition from practical experience rather than popular mythology and fiction. :smiley:

[Mongrel]

The common definition disagrees (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ghost), haunting (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/haunting)seems to fit your explanation better. O0

[Mulder]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

[darkwinter]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

Perhaps what the semantic debate can do for us is simply motivate a reframing of the question. The original "Do we know ghosts don't exist?" is misleading in a way (as we have seen), and if we simply try instead to answer the question "How do we explain 'haunting' experiences?" we can get to the interesting part of the discussion without the detour into defining a metaphysical phenomenon.

I've not done nearly enough research on the matter to be able to weigh in on this question myself, though - and I know there are a few on this forum who have, so I think I'll just sit back and read with interest. ::)

[Mike Hall]

I see no point in getting into semantics, particularly as it seems to lead to endless arguments around here. My point is simple - the common idea of ghosts as spirits simply doesn't fit the evidence. However, people undoubtedly experience ghosts (see my definition).

Therefore, in answer to the question 'do we know ghosts don't exist' the answer is complex. That's because the common idea of ghosts as spirits, as portrayed in fiction and assumed in the TV ghost hunting shows, simply isn't supported by the evidence. However, there is undoutedly a real experience being reported that requires proper explanation. We cannot simply dismiss such experiences simply because we don't think they have anything to do with spirits.

Is that definition really practical or useful when discussing ghosts? I would have thought that the majority of people would have the understanding that by 'ghost' one means 'spirit of the dead'. To redefine 'ghost' in the way you have will only lead to equivocation problems further down the line. I could easily imagine a newspaper editor running astory - "Skeptics claim evidence shows ghosts DO exist!" - but where we would be talking about evidence for ghosts as you define them, the majority of readers would have the understanding that we were discussing "spirits of the dead".

Surely better to come up with a new term, say "ghostoid", to refer to "the experience of a human or animal presence which cannot be immediately physically accounted for". Possible causes of ghostoid experiences could include an encounter with the spirit of a dead person (for which we would require extraordinary evidence), or simply hallucination, waking dream, mistake, deliberate hoax, etc.

[darkwinter]

Surely better to come up with a new term, say "ghostoid", to refer to "the experience of a human or animal presence which cannot be immediately physically accounted for". Possible causes of ghostoid experiences could include an encounter with the spirit of a dead person (for which we would require extraordinary evidence), or simply hallucination, waking dream, mistake, deliberate hoax, etc.

Not sure we need a new word where we already have one. "Haunting". Reframe the question as per my previous post and the semantic debate dissolves.

[Mike Hall]

Not sure we need a new word where we already have one. "Haunting". Reframe the question as per my previous post and the semantic debate dissolves.

Well, the word itself is unimportant. What is important is that we have a term to refer to ghost-like experiences that won't be mistaken by other people as implying that the spirits of dead people can come back from the afterlife.

Do you not think that "haunting" suffers from the same problem as "ghost"? In that it is generally used to refer to a returned spirit which is tied to a particular location, item or person?

"Skeptics claim evidence shows house is haunted"

[Mulder]

"Skeptics claim evidence shows ghosts DO exist!"

I have no problem with that! Ghosts, as a reported experience, certainly exist. The problem of the definition of the word ghost is actually central to the whole skewed public perception of ghosts. The common definition is fine for fiction and tabloid journalists but it simply doesn't agree with reality.

If I see the figure of a human standing motionless and expressionless outside my window and it suddenly vanishes, I would be entitled to call it a ghost. However, I have no right to say it is a spirit as I have no evidence that it is.

The ghost of the movies interacts freely with their environment and human observers. It behaves as if it were a spirit - something still 'alive' in some sense. Fictional ghosts exhibit character, personality and motivations. Real ghosts generally (except in a few cases which are probably entirely hallucinatory) do not exhibit any of these. They are simply there and then they are gone (not always vanishing - sometimes just walking away). They generally do not interact with observers or show any awareness of them. They recall much more a hallucination or misperception than a spirit.

[darkwinter]

Well, the word itself is unimportant. What is important is that we have a term to refer to ghost-like experiences that won't be mistaken by other people as implying that the spirits of dead people can come back from the afterlife.

Do you not think that "haunting" suffers from the same problem as "ghost"? In that it is generally used to refer to a returned spirit which is tied to a particular location, item or person?

"Skeptics claim evidence shows house is haunted"

Do you not think they might do the same with "ghostoid"? The problem is in the public perception of the phenomenon. Whatever word is used it seems likely that the media would report it in the same fashion.

[Mike Hall]

I have no problem with that! Ghosts, as a reported experience, certainly exist. The problem of the definition of the word ghost is actually central to the whole skewed public perception of ghosts. The common definition is fine for fiction and tabloid journalists but it simply doesn't agree with reality.

I won't disagree that ghosts, as a reported experience, exist. What I'm trying to say is that a "ghost" is an explanation, not a problem. Someone encounters something they can't explain and claims it was a ghost. "Ghost", surely, is their explanation for the experience, not their description of it?

[darkwinter]

So much for avoiding the semantic debate.

We can agree that these experiences, whatever name you want to attach to them, do happen. Surely the more worthwhile question is to ask what causes them, not which name should be used to refer to them.

[Mike Hall]

Do you not think they might do the same with "ghostoid"? The problem is in the public perception of the phenomenon. Whatever word is used it seems likely that the media would report it in the same fashion.

Perhaps. I think there is an understanding that the -oid postfix means something which bears a resemblance but is not actually the same as. Popularised through science fiction, of course, where humanoid doesn't mean human. Dawkins attempted for a while to popularise the term 'designoid' to refer to objects which appear to be designed but which are in fact products of nature.

Whatever -- as I say the word itself is not be important. What I think is important is that we have a term to describe the phenomena of ghost-like experiences which cannot be misunderstood as an implicit endorsement of the existence of spirits of the dead.

Actually, even "ghost-like experiences" would do! :)

[Mike Hall]

So much for avoiding the semantic debate.

We can agree that these experiences, whatever name you want to attach to them, do happen. Surely the more worthwhile question is to ask what causes them, not which name should be used to refer to them.

Yes, I think we can agree on that - but the question wasn't about the experiences, was it?

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?"

That could be answered as "do we know that spirits of the dead don't exist" (answer: there is insufficient evidence to support that) or "do we know that people do not experience ghost-like events" (answer: We agree that ghost-like events do happen).

We need to be sure we answer the right question so that a) our answer is not misconstrued and used to misrepresent our position and b) we aren't misrepresenting the person asking the question by answering something they didn't ask us. :)

[Dr B]

Is now a good time to point out that science is probabilisitc and not deterministic and that the question itself is loaded and flawed - because it begs a specific perverse answer in the first instance. :undecided:

[darkwinter]

Is now a good time to point out that science is probabilisitc and not deterministic and that the question itself is loaded and flawed - because it begs a specific perverse answer in the first instance. :undecided:

Hence my attempts to reframe the question. There must be a way of asking it that avoids this kind of problem.

[Tim the Mage]

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?"


To know ghosts exist we have to change the usual definition? If there is no 'spirit' of the living, how can there be a 'spirit' of the dead?

I find most of Mulder's arguments still make sense if I substitute the word, 'fairy', for the word 'ghost'. Does this mean that fairies exist?

[Dr B]

Hence my attempts to reframe the question.

but then....you already have your answer :cheesy:

[Mulder]

I find most of Mulder's arguments still make sense if I substitute the word, 'fairy', for the word 'ghost'. Does this mean that fairies exist?

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades. Also, many such reports are not first hand and so may fall more into the folklore category. So, I don't think you can equate fairies and ghosts. People are reporting ghosts right now whereas very few are reporting fairies. Maybe the fairies took to piloting UFOs ....

[Mike Hall]

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades. Also, many such reports are not first hand and so may fall more into the folklore category. So, I don't think you can equate fairies and ghosts.

Then substitute bigfoot, the loch ness monster or chupacabra for fairies ;)

[Tim the Mage]

Oddly, reports of fairies seem to have dropped in number a lot in recent decades.


It's not really so very odd - if I say to somebody; "I saw some fairies on the road thorugh the woods", they think I'm mad. If however I say; "I saw a ghost on the road through the woods"; their ears prick up and they get all interested.

If we thought that seeing ghosts was as daft as seeing fairies we'd have to think of another word for ghosts...

I do however take your point about UFOs - when ever a sighting of spaceships is reported to me I always suggest that it was in fact Will 'O the Wisp or Lack 'O Lantern!

[Mulder]

At one time, a century or two ago perhaps, reporting a fairy would not have seemed any stranger than reporting a ghost, especially in country areas.

[Tim the Mage]

At one time, a century or two ago perhaps, reporting a fairy would not have seemed any stranger than reporting a ghost, especially in country areas.

...as those of us who love the story of the Cottingley Fairies know well. When you look at the photos you wonder why anyone was taken in.


http://lesalon.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/fairies.jpg

[lazerustheduck]

The question is "do we know ghosts don't exist?" If you can answer the statement "do we know we exist" with a 100% certainty, then that could lead to the start of your question.

[Pebble]

If you can answer the statement "do we know we exist" with a 100% certainty, then that could lead to the start of your question.


If we knew ghosts existed the question posed would be redundant. The real question is are we 100% certain of their non existence, and if not what degree of certainty can we attribute to this proposition.

[lazerustheduck]

If we knew ghosts existed the question posed would be redundant. The real question is are we 100% certain of their non existence, and if not what degree of certainty can we attribute to this proposition.If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.

[SimonC]

If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.

If you were to doubt your own existence, lazerustheduck, then you would also have to doubt the existence of me, and anyone else you communicate with.

If you maintain that you do not exist you would, therefore, be communicating with nonexistent people. To do this could not be the action of a rational being.

So, you have to dismiss the possibility that you do not exist in order to justify the rationality of your own statements about anything. Including existence.

The subjective-idealist argument is as self-refuting as the nihilist, philosophical stance.

[Mongrel]

The subjective-idealist argument is as self-refuting as the nihilist, philosophical stance.

I always preferred the 'Teaching Stick' method.

Take one large, pointy stick, aka Teaching Stick
Prod philosopher repeatedly
Taunt prodee by mentioning that if they create or shape their own reality why does this hurt? *prod*
Conclusion: Either they really hate themselves or they're talking nonsense

[Tim the Mage]

I always preferred the 'Teaching Stick' method.

Take one large, pointy stick, aka Teaching Stick
Prod philosopher repeatedly
Taunt prodee by mentioning that if they create or shape their own reality why does this hurt? *prod*
Conclusion: Either they really hate themselves or they're talking nonsense

This is true but trite - I think that Book V of Plato's Republic does this one best ('the stone that wasn't a stone' and all that guff).

[Pebble]

If we can't be certain we exist then there is no possibility of knowing whether anything else exists so rather than redundant it is the foundation stone.


Sorry, Mis-read your question. But then as Simon C and Mongrel have pointed out the question posed is futile other than as a philosophical enquiry into the nature of knowledge. By definition once one asks for empirical evidence we have taken the existence of knowledge for granted.

[Croydon Bob]

Can we, at least, get back to arguing about the definition of "ghost" rather than "reality"?

Mulder's idea of a "ghost" seems to equate it with "UFO". Obviously UFOs exist because some people see flying objects that they can't identify.

I would have thought it was closer in comparison to "flying saucer". They don't exist except perhaps when someone paints a saucer silver, chucks it into the air, takes a photo and gets world-wide media attention for a couple of days. A mysterious noise in the dark, or optical illusion is not a "ghost".

Many years ago I appeared on a "Ghosts" episode of Kilroy. Every person that Kilroy questioned had a story that involved waking up or getting into bed. When I commented on this the next woman said "well I certainly wasn't asleep when I saw my ghost..." and then went into a long rambling story that concluded "...and I was so frightened that I jumped out of bed at 2 o'clock in the morning!"

[Mulder]

When people report ghosts they can often recall them in some detail. Some of this is confabulation but if the ghost is hallucinatory or a misperception, it is perfectly possible to see real detail. In all such cases the detail is created by the percipients mind. I would call this experience a ghost.

If you see a distant tree and misperceive it as a human figure then, yes, it is a tree. But from the percipent's point of view it is a ghost. The percipient will actively perceive a ghost and react accordingly. I've little doubt that the bits of the brain used for perception would light up in a scan just as if they were seeing a real figure (as in Schatzman's 'Story of Ruth').

A ghost may be caused by a misperceived tree or a hypnogogic episode but it is still exists as a particular experience. I see ghosts as a specific combination of an experience (as outlined above) and a belief based on popular culture. That is how they differ from other misperceptions or hallucinations. It is a common enough experience to warrant its own name and it definitely exists!

[Mulder]

In the case of casual witnesses, who tend to be more credible than active ghost hunters with strong beliefs, I find the phenomenon of ghosts fascinating. People are literally perceiving something (other what is literally present) because of a cultural belief they may not even be consciously aware of. I think the idea of dismissing the phenomenon as 'just imagination' is a grave injustive.

[brodski]

I would call this experience a ghost.
But most people wouldn't. If you wish to be clear in your communication on this issue, why use such a loaded term? Why use one which runs the risk of misrepresentation or equivocation? When speaking to almost any audience, use of the word “ghost” will imply a paranormal spiritual entity, rather than a quirk of human perception.

This line of reasoning was summed by quiet well by a poster on the JREF forum who said (I paraphrase) “I believe in god, if by “god” you mean chocolate and if by “believe” you mean “eat”.”

[Mulder]

But most people wouldn't.

But most people have never seriously studied ghosts.

I justify my use of the word ghost because it describes an experience that witnesses would use the same word to describe.

I could give it some fancy name like 'sensory cultural perception' but who is going to give a stuff about something with a name like that? If you want people to listen, you use words like ghost!

If you just go round saying things like 'ghosts don't exist', it unjustifiably devalues people's experiences and they stop listening to you. If you want people to understand their experience you must first engage with, rather than alienate, them. It is popular culture that invented ghosts so, if the public perception of them is to be changed, we need to engage popular culture.

Maybe one day someone will say: 'You're as white as a sheet!' 'Yes, I think I've just seen a sensory cultural perception!'

[brodski]

But most people have never seriously studied ghosts.

I justify my use of the word ghost because it describes an experience that witnesses would use the same word to describe.

I could give it some fancy name like 'sensory cultural perception' but who is going to give a stuff about something with a name like that? If you want people to listen, you use words like ghost!

If you just go round saying things like 'ghosts don't exist', it unjustifiably devalues people's experiences and they stop listening to you. If you want people to understand their experience you must first engage with, rather than alienate, them. It is popular culture that invented ghosts so, if the public perception of them is to be changed, we need to engage popular culture.

Maybe one day someone will say: 'You're as white as a sheet!' 'Yes, I think I've just seen a sensory cultural perception!'
You celery are not using the term “ghosts” in a manner which is meaningful to the people which you are trying to communicate with (those who have had experiences of ghosts), you are initially implying (strongly) that you are validating their notion that they have seen or been in contact with a paranormal, spiritual entity only to tell them that in fact when you used the word “ghost” you were talking about a misperception aided by cultural influences, rather than an external, “real” object with the properties which they claimed it had.

It is one thing to say that “experiences of ghosts exist” it is quite another to say that “ghosts exist”. Even if you can sufficiently twist the understanding of the langue to fit your ends it is misleading and should (I think) be avoided for much the same reason that one would normally avoid saying that “hallucinations are real”. Yes people do really hallucinate, but by definition what they hallucinate is not an accurate representation of reality.

[Mulder]

OK then: 'ghosts are spirits and there is no evidence that they exist'! The world is now so much better and I'm bored ...

[Croydon Bob]

I think that this point is quite important. It is bad enough that most people take "UFO" to mean "alien space ship", but if skeptics are going to try to use the word "ghost" to mean anything that someone might perceive to be a ghost then I think we are in another semantic mess.

I have an in-law who uses the word "ghost" to describe every light spot ("orb") on all the hundreds of photos that she has taken with a flash in dark rooms. She is specifically thinking that they are all the spirits of dead human beings. When I argue with her, I tell her that they are not ghosts, they are specks of dust. I'm not seeing the benefit of agreeing with her that they are ghosts but that they are also specks of dust and not dead people.

[Mulder]

I think that this point is quite important. It is bad enough that most people take "UFO" to mean "alien space ship", but if skeptics are going to try to use the word "ghost" to mean anything that someone might perceive to be a ghost then I think we are in another semantic mess.

D'oh! I just looked it up and you are absolutely right. A ghost is "the spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats" according to TheFreeDictionary.com. I can't imagine how I made such a silly mistake. Next time I'll just look it up.

[wrongun]

I actually think that Croydon Bob's orb-in-law story validates what Mulder is saying. That the reality of ghosts is part popular cultural expectation. To that in-law they are seeing a ghost, all be it a round dot that does not look at all like a dead human.

To explain the reason why that dot is a dot and not a ghost means knowing the workings of cameras and tackling the in laws own, already accepted, belief that it is a ghost (this seems to be the difficult bit!).

I would say that is similar to engaging with misperceived ghost experiences. This entails knowing the workings of the mind (why they are seeing a ghost) and why people have an accepted belief in ghosts

I guess most people on here do not think ghosts exist objectivly. But, like Mulder, I find why they exist subjectivly fascinating.

Perhaps ghosts only exist until they are explained away on skeptic forums and then they vanish back into the night.

[Trinoc]

Slightly off on a tangent, but I was listening to one of the SGU 5x5 podcasts (Podcast #2 at the bottom of this page (http://www.theskepticsguide.org/5x5/index.asp)) and it told about a method by which ghostly images can appear on some digital cameras, of which I wasn't aware.

Apparently some cameras have a special mode for taking night pictures. The shutter opens and the flash goes off, producing a sharp picture of the intended subject but with the background completely dark except for any bright lights. Then the shutter stays open a bit longer - in the podcast they discovered from the image metadata that this had been 2 seconds - in order to fill in some of the background. Fine if the camera is on a tripod, but if it was hand-held and they hadn't realised they were using this setting, any lights in the background would translate into streaks and swirls.

So, next time you see a "ghost" picture that has streaks of light superimposed onto an otherwise sharp flash image, this could well be the explanation.

[Mulder]

I didn't know people were using 'night mode' on purpose! I see lots of these photos where the main picture is fozen by the flash and any light sources are then streaked across by the long exposure bit. Sometimes it looks odd but it's always easy to explain.

I've always assumed people weren't aware of this problem. I suppose people discover these 'methods' by trial and error and then use them deliberately to produce their own 'not a ghost' ghostly photo. I know orb enthusiasts typically take photos outside at night with no sibject nearby. This increases the flash time to its maximum, so increasing the chances of orbs.

[Trinoc]

I've always assumed people weren't aware of this problem. I suppose people discover these 'methods' by trial and error and then use them deliberately to produce their own 'not a ghost' ghostly photo. I know orb enthusiasts typically take photos outside at night with no sibject nearby. This increases the flash time to its maximum, so increasing the chances of orbs.
I'm not sure what you mean by the "flash time". As far as I know, a flash is always the complete discharge of a capacitor through the tube which always takes the same, very short, time (a few milliseconds at most). I don't know of flash guns that can produce flashes of different intensity, but I imagine there may be professional ones that do. I'm pretty sure flash guns in ordinary cameras always put out the same amount of light over the same time scale.

[Mulder]

Though flash intensity cannot be varied in everyday cameras, flash duration can. Specifically, the flash can be quenched before full capacitor discharge, depending on how much light is required to illuminate the scene.

For a full explanation see http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/. Start at the section headed "Flash metering systems used by Canon EOS.".

[Trinoc]

Though flash intensity cannot be varied in everyday cameras, flash duration can. Specifically, the flash can be quenched before full capacitor discharge, depending on how much light is required to illuminate the scene.

For a full explanation see http://photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/. Start at the section headed "Flash metering systems used by Canon EOS.".
Thanks ... I hadn't realised that was possible now.

[Paul]

I have never seen a ghost, and I have not experienced a paranormal event. So what is a ghost, what does it look like, the process of stating a precise meaning seems to differ depending on where the information comes from.

And that is the problem, If we can't agree on what it is then how can we discuss it.

The definition of a ghost is said to be the apparition of a deceased person, frequently similar in appearance to that person, and usually encountered in places he or she frequented, or in association with the person's former belongings.

The definition is lacking an accurate description, at best it only relates to something existing in perception, a ghostly appearing figure. A definition must show and have an exclusive meaning, so there is no confusion.
Example: I lived with a bitch for eight years she was malicious, I gave her love, she neglected me, snapped at me for no reason and finally one day she ran away.

You thought I was talking about an X wife or girlfriend, I simply described a term for the female of a canine species in general. This is the Importance of knowing the correct definition.

Definitions that are too narrow will exclude some things that must not be omitted from the object of the definition you are trying to describe. To say a ghost does (or does not) exist you have to know what ghost means when writing, describing or talking about a ghost.

So any meaning of a ghost, must have a definition long before you can say if one of them ghost things exist or not This is where the belief in ghosts falls flat on its face.

Without a definition of a ghost, then there is NO WAY to discuss, or describe a ghost. How can you expect to prove something to exist if you cannot give a definition of what to look for? — To go looking for something but have NO idea what to look for is not logical , you would not know it if you found it because you have no idea what you are looking for.
Im poking fun at the definition of a ghost because their is the probability that someone has given a definition to something that does not exist.
The probability ghost's exist does not even make it to the first stage of a theory.:cheesy:

[Paul]

Ghost hunter groups claim to be scientific, and most give that appearance because they use high-tech scientific equipment. They employ equipment for a purpose for which it was not made and has not been shown to be effective.

TheEquipment used by paranormal investigators is based on theory.
These theories are called basic beliefs which draw an inference of self-justifying or self-evident. Theories provided by ghost investigators sound very scientific, but using scientific language does make it science. A theory qualifies as a good guess, a belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific, but does not adopt the scientific method. Preconceived beliefs can lead to self deception and false conclusions.

There is a big difference between good sound theories and theories that simply just sound good. Propositions accepted as true without proof or demonstration would be more reasonable interpreted as wishful thinking instead of ,IOU an explanation.

“How sure do we need to be that our beliefs correspond to the actual world?

A ghost hunter is in a haunted location experiences a change in temperature His EMF meter is spiking high readings. His theory leads him to believe this may be evidence of a spirit trying to communicate. His theory justifies his belief a spirit is in the room.

Do ghosts really emit electromagnetic fields? Are EMF meters even capable of demonstrating that ghosts emit EM fields?
To justify a belief with out evidence is no more then a theory of the belief. Our ghost hunter believes he is in the presence of a spirit, based on beliefs, of other beliefs. So the ghost hunter’s belief isn’t based on evidence.

In theory thek2 meter can communicate with spirits. The theory is ghosts emit an electromagnetic field as they move about. The meter can detect the field if the ghost is interactive, its movements can act as a response to a question being asked. The theory is based on the led lights move in response to questions and this can only be accomplished by communicating with a spirit.

So the justifying belief is the K2 can communicate with a spirit. And the justified belief is spirits are real. Because the K2 blinks in response to yes and no questions.

But what if the belief is itself unjustified. It would in no way be one’s intellectual right to suppose that only a spirit is responsible for the K2 responding to yes and no questions.

Does the K2 really provide an inference of reality based on a theory of belief to suggest a spirit can hear and understand us and manipulate an EMF meter? The theory amounts to nonsense because it is not saying the

K2 could be used to communicate with spirits; it is saying ghosts do communicate with a K2 meter. It suggests we rule out the fact it lights up for nearby electrical lines and all other possibilities.O0

[Mulder]

Are EMF meters even capable of demonstrating that ghosts emit EM fields?

Almost certainly (http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Ghosts%20EMF%20meters%20and%20baselines.html)not.

[Admin]

Modus ponens

If it is raining the ground will be wet.
It is raining,
Therefore the ground is wet.

If it is 2AM it will be dark outside.
It is 2AM,
Therefore it is dark outside.

Ghosts emit EMFs*. If a ghost is present I will get a reading on my EMF meter.
A ghost is present,
Therefore I have a reading on my EMF meter.

These are logically valid arguments. However, when you start using the logic in reverse it can lead to fallacious conclusions.

Affirming the consequent fallacy.

If it is raining the ground will be wet.
The ground is wet,
Therefore it is raining.

If it is 2AM it will be dark outside.
It is dark outside,
Therefore it is 2AM.

Ghosts emit EMFs*. If a ghost is present I will get a reading on my EMF meter.
I have a reading on my EMF meter,
Therefore a ghost is present.


The fallacy is made because alternative explanations are omitted when working the logic in reverse. Yes if it’s 2AM it will be dark outside but if it’s dark outside it’s not necessarily 2AM!

If ghosts do give out EMFs and a one is present then you will get a reading on your EMF meter; but if you have a reading on your EMF meter, it doesn’t necessarily mean a ghost is present (a fridge may have switched on, for example).

I wonder how many ghost hunters understand this error of reasoning?





* An assumption, of course!

[Mulder]

There is no problem, in theory, with using environmental monitoring (including EMF meters) to differentiate between (a) haunted and non-haunted locations and (b) the presence or absence of a ghost. However, there are many things to take into account before you do such research.

For instance, is the 'presence of a ghost' an actual apparition sighting or just a medium sensing something. How narrowly do you define a haunted location - a room, a part of a building, the entire building? And how do you choose a comparable non-haunted location? Then there are all the natural causes of 'interesting' readings to consider.

There is a particular problem with the K2 meter (http://www.p-s-i.org.uk/smallarticles/k2meter.html) that makes it especially unsuited to this sort of thing.

Unfortunately, most ghost hunters (as opposed to serious paranormal researchers) seem unaware of these matters.

[Trinoc]

For instance, is the 'presence of a ghost' an actual apparition sighting or just a medium sensing something.
It's obvious ... a ghost is present whenever whatever means you are using to detect a ghost (an EMF meter reading, a drop in temperature, a weird feeling from a medium) is giving a positive response ...

[lost thought]

I think I understand if a spirit is present then I'm in a pub and its your round.....;D
And after I have been in contact with several spirits I can see ghosts. :cheesy:
Not to mention, erm am I only one who can see the large pink eleph.....>:D

Lost Thought O0

[Dr B]

The issues as to whether or not haunt-reports should be studied scientificaly and whether or not they currently are (on the whole) being studied scientifically are not the same.

Most amatuer groups are wasting their time and money. However, some people and groups have their heads in the right place and are trying to work towards a more scientific understanding - whatever that may be.

[Edinburgh-Skeptics]

I have a query on orbs. Until last night I believed whole heartedly that they were indeed light reflecting on dust. However, I came across a site whilst stumbling which is put together by an orb enthusiast. He makes a very valid point of the fact that there is virtually an abundance of dust in the atmosphere, especially in old rickity buildings or locations. Therefore why is there not a large number of orbs in every single photo taken.

I can only assume the answer is due to a variety of external factors such as proximity to the dust, light setting, natural light, other sources of light, possibly wind as well as other subjects in the image and the chances of getting the right conditions to capture an orb are based upon these factors.

Would you say that is a reasonable explanation as to why orbs only show up in certain photographs?

As to the OP question, there has been a lot of debate surrounding the definition of the word "ghost", I think in this context it is clear what the word "ghost" refers to- the spirit of a deceased person or animal. Therefore the answer has to be ghosts probably don't exist as there is no hard evidence to support the continued existence after death of the physical body.

I do however like the fact that the issue has been brought up surrounding the definition of the word in general as I think it is very important to get this definition correct, and that there will be several types of ghosts- spirit, hallucinaiton etc- that need cataloging. It might be useful to get these defintions down in a list so they can easily be referred to when questions relating to ghosts come up. You can then ask, which type of ghost are you refering to?

[niggle]

I can only assume the answer is due to a variety of external factors such as proximity to the dust, light setting, natural light, other sources of light, possibly wind as well as other subjects in the image and the chances of getting the right conditions to capture an orb are based upon these factors.

Dust isn't made of round, uniform particles - actually they're mostly flat. Just as when you turn a flat mirror in sunlight you only see a "flash" of the reflected sun at one angle, only those dust particles which are correctly oriented to reflect the light rays from the local source to the camera show up.

This isn't a definitive answer, it's just what I suspect - simulating dust particles in the air and the effect they have on light is a real bugbear in 3D modelling and rendering for video effects so it's something I deal with a bit in my job.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

This could be worst analogy ever - but you could ask yourself, why don't we see rainbows more often than we do. Of course we know that you need a certain set of conditions to see a rainbow, I expect it is the same for orbs, except rather than moisture we are talking about bits of dust and their proximity etc to camera lens.

There are a few people hanging about here who will answer this better than I could ever.

[Mulder]

I have a query on orbs. Until last night I believed whole heartedly that they were indeed light reflecting on dust. However, I came across a site whilst stumbling which is put together by an orb enthusiast. He makes a very valid point of the fact that there is virtually an abundance of dust in the atmosphere, especially in old rickity buildings or locations. Therefore why is there not a large number of orbs in every single photo taken.

Quote:

"Q: If it's dust, why don't I get orbs in all my photos?
A: The fact that dust is omnipresent does not mean that orbs will show up all the time, however. Almost all orbs appear only when flash is used. Even in flash photos, orbs are not that common. Their appearance depends on a number of exposure variables (see next question) that are changed automatically (without user intervention) between shots. Orbs show up better against dark backgrounds. Also, certain cameras are more prone to showing orbs than others (compact models yield more orbs than DSLRs, for instance). "

From http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Paranormal%20orbs.html (http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Paranormal%20orbs.html)

[Mulder]

I do however like the fact that the issue has been brought up surrounding the definition of the word in general as I think it is very important to get this definition correct, and that there will be several types of ghosts- spirit, hallucinaiton etc- that need cataloging. It might be useful to get these defintions down in a list so they can easily be referred to when questions relating to ghosts come up. You can then ask, which type of ghost are you refering to?

If you want to define and classify ghosts then 'spirit' and 'hallucination' doesn't seem a good place to start. Those are suggested explanations for ghosts rather than types. It is probably better to start with actual ghost reports (as opposed to legends or speculation). In practice, ghosts are sightings of humans that are not physically present. There are many different reasons for such sightings. The word 'ghost' covers a whole range of phenomena, including misperception, hallucination, hypnagogia, etc.

[Edinburgh-Skeptics]

If you want to define and classify ghosts then 'spirit' and 'hallucination' doesn't seem a good place to start. Those are suggested explanations for ghosts rather than types. It is probably better to start with actual ghost reports (as opposed to legends or speculation). In practice, ghosts are sightings of humans that are not physically present. There are many different reasons for such sightings. The word 'ghost' covers a whole range of phenomena, including misperception, hallucination, hypnagogia, etc.

I think thats what I meant to imply.

[pattshau123]

Ghost do exsist I have seen a couple of things which cant be explained.

[Mulder]

Ghost do exsist I have seen a couple of things which cant be explained.

I agree - ghost definitely exist. The question is - what are they? What were your experiences and what do you think ghosts are?

[Trinoc]

Ghost do exsist I have seen a couple of things which cant be explained.
Erm ... no ... you have seen a couple of things that you were unable to explain. That is not the same as saying they can't be explained. Even if nobody was ever able to explain your particular case - lack of information, for instance - that still would not prove any paranormal explanation. Paranormal explanations do not actually explain anything at all, they just replace one unknown with another.

[skbuncks]

Ghost do exsist I have seen a couple of things which cant be explained.


Would you care to elaborate further?

Full details with any corroborating evidence would be nice O0

skb

[Trinoc]

I agree - ghost definitely exist. The question is - what are they? What were your experiences and what do you think ghosts are?
We've seen your arguments about the definition of what is a ghost, but to say they "definitely exist" in this context is misleading, as most people would assume you mean they are something paranormal.

However much you would like to broaden the definition of a word, I think it is best to stick to the meaning that most people understand, otherwise you risk confusing the issue.

When most people use the word "ghost" they mean an actual paranormal entity, not just the appearance of something unexplained, as you seem to mean.

[pattshau123]

Well I work in a nursing home so as you can imagine over the years we have had a lot of deaths. One room in particular as you walk past it you can sometimes here a womens voice but when you go in the room there is nobody there.

I have also stood at the top of the corridoor at work and I saw some lights move about and they slowly moved down the corridoor just like someone was walking down the corridoor. This happened 3 days before someone died.

[Mulder]

Well I work in a nursing home so as you can imagine over the years we have had a lot of deaths. One room in particular as you walk past it you can sometimes here a womens voice but when you go in the room there is nobody there.

I have also stood at the top of the corridoor at work and I saw some lights move about and they slowly moved down the corridoor just like someone was walking down the corridoor. This happened 3 days before someone died.

How do you link these incidents to ghosts?

[Trinoc]

Well I work in a nursing home so as you can imagine over the years we have had a lot of deaths. One room in particular as you walk past it you can sometimes here a womens voice but when you go in the room there is nobody there.

I have also stood at the top of the corridoor at work and I saw some lights move about and they slowly moved down the corridoor just like someone was walking down the corridoor. This happened 3 days before someone died.
If I see or hear things like that I normally assume I'm over-tired. When I'm reading a book in bed and imagine I remember reading or experiencing something that makes absolutely no sense, I know it's time to put down the book and sleep. Of course, if I was at work at the time I would not have that option.

[pattshau123]

I link these to ghosts because I cant explain them in any way.

[Mulder]

If I see or hear things like that I normally assume I'm over-tired. When I'm reading a book in bed and imagine I remember reading or experiencing something that makes absolutely no sense, I know it's time to put down the book and sleep. Of course, if I was at work at the time I would not have that option.

That is an assumption, just as much as 'ghosts'.

[Mulder]

I link these to ghosts because I cant explain them in any way.

The thing to do is to investigate the incidents at the time. Think of possible natural causes and see if they produce the same effect.

Is the voice you hear always the same one? Does it say anything comprehensible?

[Trinoc]

That is an assumption, just as much as 'ghosts'.
I'm half asleep and I start experiencing dream-like thoughts. In what sense is my decision that it is time to lie down "just an assumption"? Do you have any other plausible possibilities I ought to consider?

[Trinoc]

I link these to ghosts because I cant explain them in any way.
There is the faulty logic. The fact that you can't explain something means just that ... you can't explain it. There is nothing wrong with having a gap in your knowledge ... lots of things are unexplained due to lack of information. To assume a ghost just because you don't have a non-ghost explanation actually explains nothing.

[Mulder]

I'm half asleep and I start experiencing dream-like thoughts. In what sense is my decision that it is time to lie down "just an assumption"? Do you have any other plausible possibilities I ought to consider?

Misperception. You don't need to be tired or in any particular state to misperceive.

[Trinoc]

Misperception. You don't need to be tired or in any particular state to misperceive.
This is more than misperception, it is falling asleep. I've fallen asleep thousands of times - I know what it feels like!

[pattshau123]

There will never be 100% evidence of a ghost because no matter if they stand in front of you.

you will always try and find another explanation for it.

I see a ghost as something that cant be explained naturally,

[Mulder]

If I see or hear things like that I normally assume I'm over-tired.

This is the assumption I'm talking about. If I see something strange I don't assume anything.

[Mulder]

There will never be 100% evidence of a ghost because no matter if they stand in front of you. You will always try and find another explanation for it. I see a ghost as something that cant be explained naturally,

Your definition of ghost seems very wide. Are you saying anything that can't be explained is a ghost?

[pattshau123]

have you seen any ghosts then mulder

[Trinoc]

This is the assumption I'm talking about. If I see something strange I don't assume anything.
In that case, the clue is in the fact that I used the word "assume". You are correct in deducing from this that I was making an assumption. :smiley:

[Croydon Bob]

have you seen any ghosts then mulder Why answer a simple question with another question? You've made some big statements but fail to back them up with detail or evidence.

[Admin]

I link these to ghosts because I cant explain them in any way.


I see a ghost as something that cant be explained naturally,

Why is your default explanation for things you can't explain ghosts?

Why not aliens, shape-shifting lizard people, or something else?

Why do you assume ghosts?

[Mulder]

have you seen any ghosts then mulder

I see ghosts regularly but I know they are caused by misperception. I have seen 'human figures' that, on closer examination, were poorly seen potted plants! They looked like perfectly realistic figures, for a while. Your brain will continue to see a 'human figure', until it gets more information that proves it wrong. I think most ghost sightings are misperceptions.

The important thing when you see something weird is always to it investigate at the time, if at all possible. In the case of misperceptions, they usually vanish when you get a better look.

[pattshau123]

That does all make sense,

[seren]

Pattshau, I have a few questions if you don't mind. you mention seeing lights "3 days before someone died".

Why is that significant?
What if it had been 4 days before, or 6? What if it had been 2 days before, or 2 minutes before? At what point do the person dying and the lights have a connection to each other?

And if you saw them BEFORE the person died, why would you think they were ghosts?

Sorry, I feel like I'm interrogating you, I hope you don't mind.

[seren]

Oops, I think I killed it.

Thread's dead, baby, thread's dead. :'(

[SorryImPsychic]

I see ghosts regularly but I know they are caused by misperception....In the case of misperceptions, they usually vanish when you get a better look.

Mulder you have not seen ghosts regularly - you just regularly have mis-perceptions.

[Mulder]

Mulder you have not seen ghosts regularly - you just regularly have mis-perceptions.

I have investigated many ghost sightings and most are caused by misperception. What is the difference between a ghost and a misperceived human figure?

[Trinoc]

What is the difference between a ghost and a misperceived human figure?
The first of these is a fallacy, the second is a common psychological phenomenon.

[SorryImPsychic]

. What is the difference between a ghost and a misperceived human figure?

One is a misperceived human figure and the other is a ghost. You assume 'ghosts' and 'misperceived human figures' are one and the same thing.

[Mulder]

People see human figures that are not physically present. They say they are ghosts and who am I to argue. If most turn out to be misperceptions, I conclude most ghosts are misperceptions. I see no fallacy.

The problem is that most people talk about ghosts as a theoretical entity, with lots of different definitions floating around (based on little or no real evidence from what I can see). I talk about real ghosts that I've actually investigated, using real evidence, and they're simply not the same thing.

[Trinoc]

People see human figures that are not physically present. They say they are ghosts and who am I to argue. If most turn out to be misperceptions, I conclude most ghosts are misperceptions. I see no fallacy.

The problem is that most people talk about ghosts as a theoretical entity, with lots of different definitions floating around (based on little or no real evidence from what I can see). I talk about real ghosts that I've actually investigated, using real evidence, and they're simply not the same thing.
I find your use of the word "ghost" confusing. You appear happy to use it to describe any perception that appears to be unexplainable in natural terms, however much it might actually be explainable given enough information.

I suppose you could invoke Humpty Dumpty's Law and say that the word means exactly what you intended it to mean, but that's not very helpful when trying to convey an idea.

When most people say "ghost" they mean a paranormal spirit of some entity or other (whether or not they believe these things actually exist). To use the word to apply to any misperception that appears like a ghost is, in my view, misleading.

[Mulder]

When most people say "ghost" they mean a paranormal spirit of some entity or other (whether or not they believe these things actually exist). To use the word to apply to any misperception that appears like a ghost is, in my view, misleading.

As I said, I take the word from practical experience, not theory. If you examine many ghost reports, the only thing they really have in common is someone seeing a person who was not physically present. As soon as you add anything to that definition you start to move into theories which are simply not supported by the evidence.

Most ghosts prove to be misperceptions on investigation, some are hallucinations and others are unexplained (mostly because there is insufficient evidence to say what they are).

Do you think I should use a different definition of ghost, then, to do ghost investigations? If so, what and why?

[ZERO]

Sounds like the difference between UFO's and alien space ships, people really do see UFO's.

Perhaps the term UHF (Unidentified Human Figure) would be better for ghost sightings?
People really do see UHF's.

That's how I read Mulder's view anyway.

[Trinoc]

Sounds like the difference between UFO's and alien space ships, people really do see UFO's.

Perhaps the term UHF (Unidentified Human Figure) would be better for ghost sightings?
People really do see UHF's.

That's how I read Mulder's view anyway.
That's OK - except of course that UHF is already taken, and that "ghosts" are not always human - until the acronym becomes synonymous with the original misconception. If I say I've seen a UFO, 90% of people will assume I mean I (think I) have seen an alien space ship, not that I have simply seen something in the sky which I was unable to identify.

[Mulder]

The problem is created because our culture gives us a definition of ghosts, UFOs etc based on fiction, legend and tradition. Reality is completely different but hardly ever reported in the media (which prefers to pander to consumers' stereotypes). It's down to people like me to reconcile the difference.

[ZERO]

That's OK - except of course that UHF is already taken, and that "ghosts" are not always human -
Fair enough. It was just a quick thought.



until the acronym becomes synonymous with the original misconception. If I say I've seen a UFO, 90% of people will assume I mean I (think I) have seen an alien space ship, not that I have simply seen something in the sky which I was unable to identify.I think this is true enough. Just two points:
A new, better defined term may get people to actually think about the difference between a spirit and a misinterpretation.
Second, people not using a word correctly is no reason to stop using it, look at "quantum". However, I understand there is little point in using a word if the majority don't understand what it means.

[Mulder]

I don't see any need for a new term. My definition covers both the 'traditional' idea of a ghost and real life experiences. It's just that the old fashioned definition includes an 'explanation' which is not supported by evidence. I think if my definition replaced the old one it shouldn't really cause anyone a problem. People who think ghosts are spirits could carry right on doing that if they wanted to.

[chaggle]

I wondered what Mulder's definition of a ghost was as it was being mentioned so often here.


If you define a 'ghost' as someone experiencing a human or animal 'presence' (whether felt, seen, heard, etc) that they cannot physically account for (ie. that person should not be present because they are physically elsewhere, dead or don't actually exist) then I think we can emphatically say that ghosts DO exist! There are many such experiences recorded with many different causes (misperception and hallucination being prominent ones).

Hope you don't mind me repeating it here but I had to go back a hell of a long way to find it.

So Mulder's definition of a ghost is



"someone experiencing a human or animal 'presence' (whether felt, seen, heard, etc) that they cannot physically account for."

Is that correct? If so, we need a forum standard definition because that's not what most people think and it's fundamental to any ghost discussion.


When most people say "ghost" they mean a paranormal spirit of some entity or other (whether or not they believe these things actually exist)

That's what most people think. I'm not saying which is right, just that we need to be clear about what we're discussing.

[Mulder]

Is that correct?

Yes, indeed.

[chaggle]

Yes, indeed.

Well in that case there is going to be a lot of continuing confusion between you and just about everybody else who have a different understanding. This point will always have to be sorted out first before the proper discussion can begin. Do you have a solution to this?

Incidentally in the first online dictionary I came to.....

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ghost



1.the soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons.2.a mere shadow or semblance; a trace: He's a ghost of his former self. 3.a remote possibility: He hasn't a ghost of a chance. 4.(sometimes initial capital letterhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.png) a spiritual being.5.the principle of life; soul; spirit.6.Informal. ghost writer. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ghost%20writer&db=luna) 7.a secondary image, esp. one appearing on a television screen as a white shadow, caused by poor or double reception or by a defect in the receiver.8.Also called ghost image. (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=ghost%20image&db=luna) Photography. a faint secondary or out-of-focus image in a photographic print or negative resulting from reflections within the camera lens.9.an oral word game in which each player in rotation adds a letter to those supplied by preceding players, the object being to avoid ending a word.10.Optics. a series of false spectral lines produced by a diffraction grating with unevenly spaced lines.11.Metalworking. a streak appearing on a freshly machined piece of steel containing impurities.12.a red blood cell having no hemoglobin.13.a fictitious employee, business, etc., fabricated esp. for the purpose of manipulating funds or avoiding taxes: Investigation showed a payroll full of ghosts.


.....there is no definition similar to yours.

[Mulder]

Funny thing - believers I talk to on other forums don't have a problem with my definition! Most of them are ghost researchers/hunters so they see the sense in it. Just because someone sees a person who 'shouldn't be there', it doesn't follow that it is a spirit.

My definition also means we can get away from the whole pointless 'do ghosts exist?' question. As I see it, yes they obviously exist - people see them all the time. The real question should be 'what do you think ghosts are?'.

This would be my suggestion - if anyone wants to discuss ghosts here, just briefly and politely ask them what they think ghosts are. The thing is, irrespective of dictionaries, many believers have different understandings of what ghosts are. Some say they are spirits, others that they recordings or ectoplasm or whatever. I'm not the only one with an esoteric definition!

Regarding language - it can influence the way people think (eg. the word 'gay'). If my definition was widespread, people might not automatically assume that any weird figure they'd seen was a spirit, or even paranormal!

[Nic]

Ahh, come on!

All the reasoning is taking the fun out of the concept 'ghosts'. Let's lighten up, it's fun to believe (and be scared of ghosts) so let's just stop reasoning and start chewing popcorn curled up in front of our favourite horror movie!O0O0O0

[Matt]

Ahh, come on!

All the reasoning is taking the fun out of the concept 'ghosts'. Let's lighten up, it's fun to believe (and be scared of ghosts) so let's just stop reasoning and start chewing popcorn curled up in front of our favourite horror movie!O0O0O0

I'm perfectly happy to suspend disbelief to watch ghosts, time lords, dragons or underdogs triumphing through sheer self belief and team sprit -however that doesn't mean it's useful to believe that such nonsense happens in the real world.

[Admin]

It's down to people like me to reconcile the difference.

We should have a competition!

Let's see whether you can get a correct understanding of ghosts accepted before I get the correct understanding of skepticism accepted.

I see Richard Wiseman was described as a "ghost skeptic" in the tabloids today.

You go first....... ;D

[Nic]

I'm perfectly happy to suspend disbelief to watch ghosts, time lords, dragons or underdogs triumphing through sheer self belief and team sprit -however that doesn't mean it's useful to believe that such nonsense happens in the real world.

Yeah, probably not useful, but what's the harm? Life is quite mundane as it is and reality a LOT more scary than the idea of ghosts, restless spirits, poltergeists etc.

I for one am perfectly happy to switch my anxiety about my country's upcoming general elections, the current world economic crisis and the fact that my husband has just been layed off from work following said economic crisis to turn my attention to petty worries of 'things going bump in the night'.

Delusional? Probably. But hell, what ever gets you through the day.

In the end, each person's perceptions becomes his/her reality and let's face it, the 'what if's' of the world is much more exciting than the dismissal of things that might be out there. Even if it does turn out to be bollocks in the end. At least we had a bit of a diversion for a while.

[Matt]

Yeah, probably not useful, but what's the harm? Life is quite mundane as it is and reality a LOT more scary than the idea of ghosts, restless spirits, poltergeists etc.

I for one am perfectly happy to switch my anxiety about my country's upcoming general elections, the current world economic crisis and the fact that my husband has just been layed off from work following said economic crisis to turn my attention to petty worries of 'things going bump in the night'.

Delusional? Probably. But hell, what ever gets you through the day.

In the end, each person's perceptions becomes his/her reality and let's face it, the 'what if's' of the world is much more exciting than the dismissal of things that might be out there. Even if it does turn out to be bollocks in the end. At least we had a bit of a diversion for a while.

I don't think I find reality quite as mundane as you seem to.

http://cectic.com/comics/036.png

[Nic]

I don't think I find reality quite as mundane as you seem to.

http://cectic.com/comics/036.png

Well, to each his own, I suppose.O0

[Dubious Dick]

Anyone seen or already meantioned the Wiseman Ghost site/experiment. He an O'keefe were on the Today prog yest morning. O'Keefe is surely seriously tainted by his involvement with MH, but think Wisemans pointing out that 99.99% or thereabouts of all ghost photos/orbs have simple explanations was good. Anyone taken a look a the one no one has apparently explained well yet? Any ideas?

[Dubious Dick]

I have just taken a look a the Tantallon Castle picture which does look interesting. One anomaly I can see is that the bars inf ront of tha face seem to be missing, whereas the rest of the image of the apparent ghost is behind bars.

Wiseman says that three experts have said this is not photoshopped, but this bar issue makes me suspicious.

Sorry if I am late with this!

[Matt]

O'Keefe is surely seriously tainted by his involvement with MH
You've got to give him credit for exposing Deggsy with the Kreed Kafer and Rik Eedles plants.

[bobdezon]

I have just taken a look a the Tantallon Castle picture which does look interesting. One anomaly I can see is that the bars inf ront of tha face seem to be missing, whereas the rest of the image of the apparent ghost is behind bars.

Wiseman says that three experts have said this is not photoshopped, but this bar issue makes me suspicious.

Sorry if I am late with this!

Yep, I have an article about this coming soon on BadGhosts. O0

[Mulder]

It looks as though there is a 'figure' there, as is easily possible given that the area is open to the public. Some have suggested it looks flat and could be a cardboard cutout!

The real question is - why does anyone think it's a ghost? The only reason is that it appears to be dressed starngely and generally looks odd. Some of this 'oddness' could be lighting. As to being dressed strangely - some people do!

[chaggle]

As to being dressed strangely - some people do!

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/27/street_view_ghost/

Here's one

[bobdezon]

I've covered that crap over on BadGhosts ???

[Dr B]

You've got to give him credit for exposing Deggsy with the Kreed Kafer and Rik Eedles plants.

I am not so sure you do :undecided:. I mean when someone is so obviously devoid of psychic ability - it does not take a genius to point that out. It was just what everyone knew and anyone could show given the chance. All you needed to do was tape a show and analyse it.

An on balance view might be that a downside is that he once gave the MH nonsense credibility and this has clearly offset any benefit for exposing DA as a fraud

If you were to say to me i could choose between having the DA fraud exposed or apparently a reputable 'scientist' not appearing on entertainment shows (and not passing them off as science - otherwise - why be there?????) - I would pick the latter every time.

I speak from experience. I turned down the show in series 1 and 2 (as the expert) and ever since then in terms of covering one of my cases. Integrity won't get me a fan base - but then - i like a quiet Christmas anyway ;D;D;D;D

PS - my only claim to fame is that i was involved in getting that first so-called 'expert' removed from MH - as at the time the producers thought he had a science qualifications - because, apparently, that's what was claimed.....The shock from Ms Fielding still puts a smile on my face.....

[mattdleo]

Question here rather than an opinion and playing devils advocate more than anything; If ghosts dont exist why the huge amount reports and sightings? Some of the most ancient records have reports of ghosts and stuff. Another explanation rather than spiritual existence? What about this theory of magnetism recording and playing back an event? More science explanations available than ghostly apparitions?

[DrS]

Some of the most ancient records have reports of ghosts and stuff.
Just answering the bit I know about ...

Ancient records don't contain ghosts. Ancient literature does. People were assumed to go in spirit form to Hades where they were shadows of their former selves. They were little more than wispy and insubstantial bodily-exact copies which had no real capacity for thought or reason, but who could remember their past life and somehow, foretell the future.

It's not surprising that this cultural idea became a literary motif in epic poetry and tragedy. :smiley:

[mattdleo]

Point taken about literature. But ghost sightings have been recorded in some format for centuries havent they? Even the bible (dont worry not going down the religious route) has the mention of them with of course the most famous being Jesus himself being seen after he died. Even today it seems that there are several hourly or daily reports. Purely offering the debate. Ive never seen one for myself, but wondered how those with more knowledge than myself in this area feel. Scientific explanation for a ghost (similar to the one I suggested about the theory of magnetic recordings) or actual conscious beings rising from the grave?

[Trinoc]

The human mind has evolved to recognise patterns which might be other humans or animals. For most of our history, it was best to get out of the way the moment you thought you spotted something ... better to have 99 false alarms in order to avoid becoming lunch the 100th time. Add to this the religious/superstitious idea that there are spirits everywhere which can't normally be seen, and it makes sense to interpret a vaguely human-shaped illusion in the dark (or any unfamiliar context) as the spirit of an actual human. Add to this the fact that it has always been in the interests of those in power to encourage people to believe they are in danger from something external, and it is not at all surprising that there have been reports of ghosts as far back as there have been reports about anything. This doesn't provide any real evidence that ghosts actually exist*, though.

[* By this I mean "ghosts as supernatural spirits", not Mulder's broader definition including all illusions with a vaguely ghostly appearance.]

[Matt]

Of course Jesus's re-appearance is sepcifically stated as not being in ghost/spirit form.

Luke 24:36-39 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024:36-39;&version=31;)



36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."



You can see from this that he's not a ghost, he's a zombie and a flesh eating one at that... O0



40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

[Trinoc]

Yeah ... since when did ghosts need to eat lunch?

Assuming this guy actually existed (not a safe assumption by any means), then he clearly survived crucifixion - presumably by being taken down before the start of the Sabbath - and somehow managed to avoid dying (immediately at least) from septicaemia or from his various other injuries.

[Mulder]

Many ghost sightings appear, on investigation, to be misperception (http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Misperception.html), probably informed by long-lived cultural (http://www.assap.org/newsite/articles/Culture.html)stereotypes.

[Croydon Bob]

You can see from this that he's not a ghost, he's a zombie and a flesh eating one at that...

Ridiculous! Blasphemous! Totally wrong.

He was a vampire not a zombie. Risen after three days, aversion to crosses, it all adds up. I don't know where all this zombie nonsense comes from, it simply doesn't fit the evidence. Neither a 'voodoo zombie' or a 'plague zombie' would have behaved as Jesus was said to have done.

Obviously Judas was the hero of the story, trying to get some silver to kill the vampire with…

[Matt]

Ridiculous! Blasphemous! Totally wrong.

He was a vampire not a zombie. Risen after three days, aversion to crosses, it all adds up. I don't know where all this zombie nonsense comes from, it simply doesn't fit the evidence. Neither a 'voodoo zombie' or a 'plague zombie' would have behaved as Jesus was said to have done.

Obviously Judas was the hero of the story, trying to get some silver to kill the vampire with…

I think you might be right what with his disciples drinking his blood and acsribing magical powers to it.

[blackjack]

I've read through this thread with great interest, and hope that someone here can offer an explanation of why I saw what (I think) I saw.

I had a horse, a big ginger horse, who died. Over a year later I was halfway up the field shovelling manure into a wheelbarrow when I caught sight of the big ginger horse...who was dead and gone. It was broad daylight and I definitely wasn't asleep. So why did I see this horse? Was it memory playing tricks on me do you think? Or perhaps wish-fulfilment?

It's bothering me as I have always been a very practical person with no time for the fanciful, yet I can't explain this.

[Croydon Bob]

I've read through this thread with great interest, and hope that someone here can offer an explanation of why I saw what (I think) I saw.

Obviously nobody else can give you a definitive answer. Memory tricks and/or wish fulfilment seems likely to me. Our minds are complex and our imagination can be strong.

I've owned many cats over the years and often see them out of the corner of my eye, or briefly as I walk into a room, soon after they have died. Being a skeptic I assume that this is my mind playing tricks on me. If I believed in an afterlife, spirits, etc, then I would probably just assume they were ghosts.