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!

[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???? 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!

[Dr B]

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

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/show...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 - 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

[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.