On ghosts and spirits
There is a topic which I find to be quite interesting but difficult to talk about sensibly.
To start off, I do not believe that such things as ghosts and spirits and other like phenomenon exist, nor have I spent much time doing much research on such topics, as what I have read strongly indicate that such things are not supported by evidence.
My interest here is in something slightly adjacent which is, whereas I, and I presume many other here, do not believe in ghosts and spirits, what happens when we consider those people who do believe in such things?
Are we to say that ghosts are not real for us, but real for them? Are we then saying that people speak of fake ghosts? That sounds strange, but it may be true.
Much more interesting still, is the phenomenon of being in a "frame of mind", by which one could be induced to see such things like ghosts and spirits.
I strongly suspect that I am not the only one who, when being a child at night, would encounter such strange phenomenon that led me to think such things occurred, that ghosts and spirits did things in the dark, so to speak.
But it occurs to me that, we, being "rational" and scientific, could, by dint of circumstance or accident, be so induced to be in such a state as to experience these things again.
I can easily image that, if I am constantly surrounded by scary things, including movies, books, but most of all, a group of people who believe in these things, I could conceivably fall back into such a "childlike state" (for lack of a better term) by which we lower our critical faculties and enter this domain again.
The last part is specifically of interest. It seems as if our ancestors were innately evolved to believe in such things, in order to make some sense of a folk-scientific picture of the world.
I could go on much longer, but I will stop here. How do you think about spirits and ghosts? And, more importantly, what do you think about falling into such a state as to be suggestible into believing such things to be existing phenomena?
It looks to me as if it's one aspect, out of so many aspects of the world, which we could enter, which has little benefit.
Any thoughts on this topic?
To start off, I do not believe that such things as ghosts and spirits and other like phenomenon exist, nor have I spent much time doing much research on such topics, as what I have read strongly indicate that such things are not supported by evidence.
My interest here is in something slightly adjacent which is, whereas I, and I presume many other here, do not believe in ghosts and spirits, what happens when we consider those people who do believe in such things?
Are we to say that ghosts are not real for us, but real for them? Are we then saying that people speak of fake ghosts? That sounds strange, but it may be true.
Much more interesting still, is the phenomenon of being in a "frame of mind", by which one could be induced to see such things like ghosts and spirits.
I strongly suspect that I am not the only one who, when being a child at night, would encounter such strange phenomenon that led me to think such things occurred, that ghosts and spirits did things in the dark, so to speak.
But it occurs to me that, we, being "rational" and scientific, could, by dint of circumstance or accident, be so induced to be in such a state as to experience these things again.
I can easily image that, if I am constantly surrounded by scary things, including movies, books, but most of all, a group of people who believe in these things, I could conceivably fall back into such a "childlike state" (for lack of a better term) by which we lower our critical faculties and enter this domain again.
The last part is specifically of interest. It seems as if our ancestors were innately evolved to believe in such things, in order to make some sense of a folk-scientific picture of the world.
I could go on much longer, but I will stop here. How do you think about spirits and ghosts? And, more importantly, what do you think about falling into such a state as to be suggestible into believing such things to be existing phenomena?
It looks to me as if it's one aspect, out of so many aspects of the world, which we could enter, which has little benefit.
Any thoughts on this topic?
Comments (119)
I think of them as personal (or ancestral) memories and traumatic (or social) histories, respectively.
IMO, such beliefs (i.e. literal projections) are delusional. :sparkle:
When I was in my early teens we lived for half a year in Aberdeen Scotland which has been continuously inhabited since pre-historic times. We lived slightly outside the city in a 17th c home which was originally the gamekeeper's cottage of a minor estate. In that part of the world, in winter, the sun goes down at three in the afternoon, and often there's a thick sea fog - the house was only about a km from the North Sea - you literally couldn't see your hand in front of your face.
Just up the laneway was another very old house, which was reputedly the site of some public hangings in times past, and had been constructed on the ruins of an ancient monastery which had been sacked by an invading force (possibly Vikings.) The current owners, who we came to know, said that they had unearthed the odd dubloon and other ancient remnants while digging in the grounds, that there were frequently sounds of movement and chains clanking in the night.
Me, I don't know if there were ghosts there, but it really wasn't hard to believe it in that environment. Partially because of the sense of the past and of premature and violent deaths. It was much easier to believe it there than in the brash newness of Australia where I come from. We're not old enough to be haunted.
On a more scholarly level, there is a lot of literature on the British Parapsychological Society. Someone recommended me a book, The Ghost Hunters (review here) which I haven't got around to, but it looks a great read - they were very interesting characters, and many of the anecdotes are at least suggestive if you can put it like that. Again, I'm not persuaded by such accounts, and I think definite evidence is always going to remain elusive, but part of me would like to think that it's true.
That's right, the Aboriginal people had only been here for something like sixty thousand years. Your eurocentrism is showing.
On that topic, ever read about bone-pointing deaths?
Believing in ghosts allows us to keep in touch and remember our loved ones. I don't want to think about them as a spooky thing. I usually feel their vibration when I walk in the graveyard in Toledo, where most of the members of my family are buried.
I think you explained, pretty well, Manuel. It is obvious that the ghosts of my family don't exist to you, but they do to me...
I now wonder if the ghosts of your family exist in your beliefs or reality.
I have heard of bone-pointing deaths, not sure if they are well-documented.
A debunker of psychic and 'supernatural' phenomena I knew in the 1980's once told me that he believed in haunted minds, not haunted houses. I am inclined to accept this explanation. We sometimes see and hear things as a consequence of our sense making gone wrong - we are stimulated, prompted and primed by so many things. Heightened emotion often provides the catalyst. The people I have known who have seen ghosts on a regular basis, all tended to have anxiety related issues, often well hidden.
In the 1980's, when I was interested in the superphysical, I attended many seances, slept in cemeteries and in houses said to be haunted and, sadly, never experienced anything.
I think many of us are attracted to stories of ghosts and other occult phenomena because they are exciting, they lift us out of the mundane and promise us that in our increasingly technocratic world, a form of romanticism and mystery can still be found.
Quite well, I seem to recall from my studies in Anthropology, although I wont go digging for them.
Did you ever see Oscar Wildes The Canterville Ghost? i found it tremendously poignant.
Quite often, absolutely.
That's interesting, yes, there is a strong connection between an old historical event, often a murder or some other horrible situation and a belief in such things.
For instance, last I heard the house in which JonBenet Ramsey was killed has not be sold in a very long time. I don't think anyone has seen anything, but it makes sense why people have not bought such property.
It's a kind of superstition, but it makes some sense in such cases.
I don't disagree.
What I do want to explore is the belief in such a state of mind and how it is that otherwise rational people could fall into believing this, as has happened to most people, at least when they were children.
And as stated, I don't see much hard in believing what you do. Of course, one thing is a belief another thing is reality. This does not mean I am dismissing what you belief in, but it is curious to see how our beliefs entangle with our perception of reality.
Quoting Tom Storm
I like that phrase of "haunted minds", there is something to that. It makes sense that part of the issue is when we misinterpret sense data into seeing something that is not literally there. But given that such things were universal, say, in the Middle Ages, then it seems to me as if we are inclined to interpret such data consistently in a specific way, such as seeing ghosts or spirits as opposed to unicorns, in terms if repeated experiences.
As for anxiety, that's probably a part of it, but there has to be another element to this.
Quoting Tom Storm
They can be exciting. Though one should point out that there's plenty of excitement to be found in the natural world. Alas, this latter point does not apply to everybody.
If you can say more about this, it would be interesting to hear about this.
Interesting.
The existence or not of ghosts is subjective then. I wonder to what extent reality can be objective, but I am not very familiar with this field, so I don't have enough confidence to say what this happens.
What I can conclude is the following: (sorry, if this sounds stupid, or it doesn't follow).
(A). Ghosts exist because I believe in them.
(B) My reality is entangled with my beliefs.
(C) Ghosts exist in what I consider reality.
This is why I guess the existence of a ghost depends on the observer. We don't discover a way to prove their existence in a pure objective way. Don't we?
We still talk about the psyche, which is another word for ghost or geist:
"Geist (German pronunciation: [??a?st] ?) is a German noun with a significant degree of importance in German philosophy. Geist can be roughly translated into three English meanings: ghost (as in the spooky creature), spirit (as in the Holy Spirit), and mind or intellect. Some English translators resort to using "spirit/mind" or "spirit (mind)" to help convey the meaning of the term." -- here
I'm guessing it starts with the idea of an abiding persona that dwells in an ever-changing body. In the Epic of Gilgamesh (around 5000 years old), Gilgamesh learns about the disembodied psyche of his friend through a dream. Back then, they thought dreams were messages. Anyway, even if you don't believe in ghosts, you probably think in terms of continuity of the self over time. That means you're just one step away from believing in ghosts.
If you want to create a pragamatic epistimology, where you have no scientific proof that they don't exist, but you find your life has increased meaning or wonder with the existence of ghosts, I can understand your acceptance of that existence.
That is, I'm not committed to the idea that belief must be premised upon scientific proof, but we shouldn't equivocate with the terms "know" or "exist" if we're buying into pragmatism and not a rigid scientific epistimology but we should use those terms to mean different things in different contexts.
Antigonish.
[quote=Hughes Mearns]Yesterday, upon the stair,
I met a man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
I wish, I wish he'd go away...
When I came home last night at three
The man was waiting there for me
But when I looked around the hall
I couldn't see him there at all!
Go away, go away, don't you come back any more!
Go away, go away, and please don't slam the door... (slam!)
Last night I saw upon the stair
A little man who wasn't there
He wasn't there again today
Oh, how I wish he'd go away...
[/quote]
Imagine someone who has been trained to be rational, and has no superstitious bias whatsoever - they've not been taught explicitly to believe any religion, nor explicitly taught *not to*, they've just been trained on the tools of rationality, to be aware of human bias, and so forth.
Situation A: This deeply rational, non-superstitious person experiences something that, on the surface, seems very ghost-like to them - maybe they're walking in a grave and see, 20 meters away, a ghostly figure that looks just like a shrouded human walking. Should they then believe in ghosts? Should they place more credence on other alternatives, like that they hallucinated, or are misremembering what they experienced (because an experience becomes a memory all too fast, and memories are malleable), or any other skeptical explanations?
Situation B: This deeply rational person never has such an experience, but about 1% of the people they speak with *have* had such experiences, and believe in ghosts, and perhaps even some significant fration of those people are also trained to be deeply rational, and our deeply rational person knows they are. Should our deeply rational person believe them? What types of things can these people express to the deeply rational person that should convince the deeply rational person that they are telling the truth, and are not misremembering or hallucinating or in some other way incorrect about their ghostly experiences?
What experience could you have that would convince you? How could you know it's not a hallucination?
Is there anything another person could tell you about their own experiences that would convince you, even if you didn't experience it yourself?
Those who legitimately claim to have experienced something likely have experienced something.
Just what that may be, I don't know. I think we still have much to learn about the universe, so I don't assume everything reported is necessarily a hallucination.
Quoting Ciceronianus
This is one of the key points of the topic. At least, the people who claim ghosts are hallucinations, they confirm that they saw or experienced something, but they think it is not real.
Otherwise, there are people who never experience ghostly vibes because they take their non-existence for granted.
They never experience them BECAUSE they take their non existence for granted?
That's... I mean, that's honestly pretty crazy. You think ghosts somehow know if people believe in ghosts, and choose not to appear in front of people who don't believe in ghosts? That's what it sounds like you're saying.
If it's true that only people that believe in ghosts are capable of seeing ghosts, I would take that as evidence of the non existence of ghosts. Apples don't disappear if someone doesn't believe in apples.
Apples can't be an example here, because these are already existing and living beings. I see an apple on the table and my mind just says, it is an apple. Thus, we have here an example of objective reality.
But it is different when we talk about ghosts, because they are dependent upon our perspective. Let's say we saw a ghost in the corridor. I believe in them, so it will not be a surprise to me. I guess you will consider the ghost a hallucination. OK. Then, we can both confirm that at least we saw something.
What about the ones who are not welcome to accept their existence? Would their senses allow them to see a ghost at all?
I don't have any reason to suppose that, if ghosts are real, and actually send visible photons to human eyes, that some humans eyes would be immune to those photons. It's either visible or it's not, what someone believes doesn't matter much. They may rationalise their experience differently afte rthe fact - like your example, they may chalk it up to hallucination - but I have no good reason to think their eyes aren't capable of taking those photons in, and sending that information to the visual cortex, and that results in a visual experience, and so on. I don't have any reason to think that whole process would change for someone just because of what they believe.
But they only appear to people who have eyes. Perhaps we sceptics lack some sense?
I'm pretty sure some people are sensitive to magnetic fields, and science was capable of sussing that out, so it should be capable of sussing this one too.
You basically claim that if ghosts were real, they had to be visible or perceptible by human senses.
You are right, but you miss that humans can talk, dream, believe and hypothesise in matters non-perceptible by our senses.
For example, we usually have dreamlike experiences. Why would you debunk this just because they are not perceptible to our cortex? And for this reason, we sadly claim they are not real, they are just hallucinatory.
Are you sure that everything which our cortex perceives is 100 % real?
Some people are color blind, so they might have trouble making certain shapes out in some contexts, some people are blind entirely and can't see anything, but I don't know of anything that is visible *depending on what you believe*.
The thing that unites those things is, most rational people reject their existence from a lack of evidence. This is the first time anybody has suggested I add Ghosts to that list too - I've never heard 'ghosts are only visible to believers' until now.
Science would have to entertain the hypothesis.
Quoting flannel jesus
Well that does not compute. For example, science used to declare that there were only 4 tongue tastes: sweet, sour, salt, and bitter: turns out there are five, the other being known to the orientals, and hence called 'umami'. What one does not believe exists, one can find another explanation for. and it happens in science frequently - the aether, dark matter, dark energy etc.
If you have to find an explanation for a ghost you saw, that's fine, you still saw it. He's suggesting people who don't believe in ghosts can't see them, not that they can see them but think there's an alternate explanation.
I reject the hypothesis that you can only see x if you believe in x. I don't necessarily reject the hypothesis that people who don't believe in x might try to find alternate explanations - that's fine
Contrary to popular opinion, I think science is very liberal with which hypotheses it entertains. What better example is there than quantum mechanics? Quantum mechanics is arguably weirder than ghosts and astrology - yet it's accepted by the scientific establishment because, unlike ghosts and astrology, it made predictions and those predictions were verified. So however weird quantum mechanics is, it earned its place at the table.
Ghosts or astrology aren't too weird for scientists to take them seriously.
Yes, this is basically my point.
Quoting flannel jesus
But we are not debating about x or a random subject... We are debating about ghosts, and I previously said that these entities are dependent upon us. That's why I claim that, whereas I can see a ghost because I believe in it, I doubt a non-believer will make the effort to believe that there can actually be a ghost in the corridor.
That's pretty much the issue, one can't say that what a person experiences is false, for they experienced it. Of course the ontology of such a situation is not going to be settled by a personal experience.
Then you fall under the category of people who believe in ghosts. They would be real to you, but this would not serve to establish them as existing in the world, right.
Now you have to establish, if your belief in ghosts is naturalistic, that is caused by something in nature. Or is it supernatural, which complicates the picture considerably.
I did not know that. Huh. It's an interesting fact.
I was merely propelled to start a topic about this because I was reading a novel about 17th century England, in which people had to wrestle with the new science, and old superstitions.
But as a child, I do remember having slight "ghostly" experiences, which just completely disappeared once I learned more about how the world works.
Similar stuff going on when I visited the East Coast of the USA.
A friend of mine, also from there but hasn't been in a long time said the same as I - we are sceptics and understand the basic 'facts' that pit against the possibility of these kind of phenomena.
But we both, and his father (who finds this type of thing fully risible, and not worth being polite about) were harshly emotionally stuck by something within the grounds of Plantations around Georgia/St Simons/Jekyll and then at Gettysburg. Something hangs in the air. And whether we bring it with us, it is shared, and explains a lot about hte conviction people walk away from those experiences with - particularly as they tend to group up (flat-earthers, is a great example).
I make no comment on what that something actually is. I just find this a very interesting phenomena that doesn't seem tied to one's pre-existing state of mind.
That follows in as much as in a culture where the idea of ghosts and spirts are accepted as real and are culturally important, you're going to see way more of them.
Reminds me of people who have religious visions of saints or of gods. People generally have visions of the saints and gods that are part of their own culture. I'd be more convinced if Mary appeared to people in Punjab. Or if a Hindu deity appeared to a Southern Baptist in Georgia.
Quoting flannel jesus
That was a standard claim I used to hear amongst New Age types. You don't see them because 'you're a crass materialist who lacks sensitivity' or 'you are a skeptic and so are nto receptive'. I think this romantic approach to occult matters is still popular.
Which science?
A lot of narrative sciences are completely incapable (probably, funding reasons) to entertain hypotheses not prima facie overwhelmingly likely to be true, in my experience.
Hard sciences, though, can at the very least in discussion be more liberal. Then again, Avi Loeb hasn't exactly been treated 'well'.
Quoting Tom Storm
Very much is. The idea that you have to develop a 'sense' for extra-sensory phenomena is both preposterous, and the most common defense to being proven wrong when you claim special identity.
That's true and it would be pretty strong evidence if we saw Jesus figures consistently appear in Buddhists temples, or the other way around.
These tend to be kind of, without meaning to demean the term, more primitive experiences quite literally. People tend to experience the kind of stuff they are inundated with while growing up.
What's curios to me is that many people, not all, could be put in such a state of mind given specific circumstances, say, being in a cult or being constantly barraged with people saying and believing in these things. But what accounts for this?
Is it just that we experience things to some extent due to cultural circumstances?
One would have to see if such claims would happen to most scientists. Probably not. It's a puzzling topic...
Sunk-cost fallacy.
Coming to terms with your entire milieu being wrong is painful, and avoiding it seems standard. This applies equally to thinking Horoscopes represent something not derived from your own mind, and being an asshole.
:up:
Well my example was from physics
How does pepper know your taste? How does light know your vision? Etc.
Again, I think you are not trying to understand my argument because you focus on a pure scientific approach. As I already discussed with Manuel, it is not hard to believe in ghosts. They can exist in whatever we consider reality. Here is where the problem goes to. The concept of reality is different. You reject their possible existence because they do not have photons which are perceptible to our senses.
But, what if I say that I actually saw a ghost once. You will claim that I am a liar or a stupid head, but the ghost still exists in my world and reality. Why do I have to take into account the photons at all? Why does the ghost need to exist in your world to be proven? What if I can see ghosts, but you don't? Etc.
Nonsense. You saw something, but not a ghost. "It's a ghost." is the explanation, to which one finds an alternative - just a hologram, trick of the light, too much mushroom tea.
What, sunk cost fallacy for people who have become accustomed to believe in such things and now see evidence showing them they are wrong? In that case, I agree with you.
What about cases in which you don't have a person who believes strongly either for or against ghosts or spirits, but has a strong experience of them, would that be sunk cost too?
I know empirical evidence would be helpful here, I'm just thinking out loud
No, it doesn't. The experience exists, of a non-existent ghost. That is, if you accept that abstract objects don't obtain.
If you do, sure, I'll take it. But that's, imo, a very much massaged use of the word.
You say it's not perceptible to our senses,
And then say you saw it.
I can't make heads or tails of these claims. They're all over the place
From experience: Moments where I have, apparently, seen or experienced something extravagant, anti-physics, telepathic etc.. it is very hard to drop the moment of intense speciality of being "the one" who experienced something extra-sensory, or special, or beyond normal experience. EVeryone wants to be special. Once your inner person has latched on to the experience, I think it's very hard to let go of it.
Francis Collins would be an example there. His experience was powerful, and I imagine, he has since been trying to support the initial emotional response with theology, rather than the opposite. It was 'spontaneous'.
True, there is that tendency among people who wish to maintain that they are uniquely unique, in this experiential respect.
I'd only quibble that I think all of us have had at one time or another a "special experience", which is beyond normal experience. But that doesn't make one gifted or transcendent. I suppose what would be strange is to live an entire life and to have never had a particularly strange or powerful experience.
It doesn't serve to prove anything.
Interesting. You can't experience death consciously. Does death exist?
But you cropped it in the middle with the aim of showing that I was contradictory or nonsense. Our discussion is over. You are not honest.
Quoting Tom Storm
:up:
Re: "spirit" (that which breathes, or breaths / voices / winds) & "ghost" (i.e. traum or geist ... dream or in/of the mind ... daimon, etc); also: from acculturation, "believing is seeing" :eyes: :pray:
Quoting Janus
:up: :up:
That's not a bad way to put it actually.
It does sound strange though to say, "I thought I saw a ghost, but I actually saw some strange lights in human form."
But still, good way to frame it.
You might say though that you are influenced by the ghosts of your ancestors. Those are the ghosts I believe in.
Consider this essay. Morphic fields, and morphic resonance, even though generally (and angrily) rejected by mainstream science, at least provide a potential medium for the transmission of what is perceived as ghosts.
Well, if that's what ghosts do--haunt, that is, because of the wrongs done to them. Many of the "ghost stories" we find in the writings of ancient Greeks and Romans involve the ghosts of those who didn't receive the appropriate burial rituals, for one reason or other. They'd haunt until their bodies were found and given their burial rights, at which time the hauntings would stop. Hauntings for the purpose of torturing those who did the ghost wrong while alive are fairly rare, and then it's often the Furies who torment the wrongdoer at the behest of the dead or just because what was done annoyed them. Ghosts also were encountered when the living went to the Underworld for one reason or another, like Ulysses, or in dreams. There are a few revenge hauntings I can think of orchestrated by a ghost, but surprisingly few, relatively speaking.
No doubt there's been a study of some kind devoted to what ghosts were thought to do by different cultures throughout history.
Interesting to see this taken up, without ridicule here. Particularly by yourself. Nice
I think there is an assumption that many people have that they would not believe in something that cannot be demonstrated to others. But there's an element of speculation in this. It is as if the problem of other minds is, well, not a problem. I know that whatever you experienced wouldn't convince me, and it's irrational for you to believe in X (and you are mistaken). I think there are a lot of assumptions in that.
I think you are touching on areas like this in your posts.
There are always three options at least.
Only beliefs that can be demonstrated are true.
Some things that cannot (now) be demonstrated to be true may later be demonstated to be true - for example, when technology changes - and/or are true but will never be able to be demonstrated as true to non-experiencers.
A kind of cautious agnosticism: I don't know if what that person believes is true or not, but I don't see any good reason for me, to believe it.
Often we get statements like this from an earlier post:
Well, no. We just lack in science, right now, enough evidence and/or the kinds of evidence necessary. Parapsychologists might consider this assessment incorrect and would argue that paradigmatic biases are leading to poor evaluations of what they consider sufficient evidence, those parapsychologists who think the evidence is sufficient. But my saying Well, no is not based on their position but rather that scientific epistemology doesn't weigh in like that. It can weigh in on the current evidence and saying it is lacking.
But it seems like there is this assumption that if something cannot be demonstrated to others it is per se irrational to believe it. I don't think that's a good position. And there are historical examples, within science also, where this doesn't work.
And then of course there's always room to question your own memories. Did I really experience that the way I remember? Memories are very malleable things, I find that quite interesting.
That type of approach can be seen as a particularly speculative branch of sociology, but I don't think that as stated in that essay, is specifically problematic.
My own feeling is that some parts of these topics, especially when considering society as a whole, it's just a lot of it we do not know and some of this may be at the very edge of our understanding capacities, in which we can proceed no further.
Still, it's worth experimenting and keeping an open mind. We may differ in emphasis and articulation, but "hardnosed materialism", is something we both disdain. :)
One aspect of the idea of ghosts and spirits would be the idea of disembodied 'minds'. My initial understanding and reading of philosophy incorporated this, especially in the idea of life after death. However, on a gradual progression of thinking, I have come to see this as problematic, especially in relation to ideas of consciousness, including life after death. It would seem to suggest a form of dualism, with some kind of entity of 'self' or 'mind', as an 'immortal' being, which is so questionable.
Of course, the matter is far from simple, as the 'spark of consciousness' cannot be reduced to matter alone and the question of the primacy of matter or spirit remains at the core of philosophical debate. Consciousness itself may make the issue far more complicated than many thinkers, especially determinists, may acknowledge.
I don't think it is a 'state of mind' as such that we're looking for. Just a worldview that includes, perhaps even embraces, ghosts and spirits and is therefore receptive to them. Which tends to result in an experience of them readily in ordinary events. A flash of light, a sudden breeze, a movement, a noise and, 'bang' it may a ghost or spirit. I have met many people who default to such interpretations regularly.
For those more elaborate (and much rarer) accounts were an entity appears and talks to the person - we can perhaps include lucid dreaming, wishful thinking, and other brain states.
And yes, I do think that we experince things based on the culturally informed sense making tools and narratives we are immersed in. A person whose culture recognizes demons will see demons. A person whose culture recognizes djinns will see djinns.
I wonder if there is some similarity between some 'ghost stories' and UFO abduction stories. We can find thousands of folk worldwide who are convinced they were abducted by aliens. Is this, as Jung suggested, an expression of our psychological state, our anxieties and fears and, perhaps, an emerging spirituality/religion for this era of technology and science?
It's more a speculative biological theory applied here to sociology in this particular case. The point being that morphic fields, and morphic resonance, provide a medium for what is perceived by us as ghosts. I will add that the existence of morphic resonance is on the whole rejected by most scientists, despite Sheldrake's claims to have found evidence for it, so I'm not saying you should believe it. Only that they at least provide a paradigm.
Yes, and that's nonsense which is why "ghosts and spirts" are merely (affective) ideas but not (non-mental) entities.
To a physicalist ;)
And to a Spinozist ...
Yes, I think so too. It appears to be the case that there is something about the mind which we intuitively feel is qualitatively different from matter, because we also intuit matter to be "dead and stupid", but this latter belief is no longer supported by our best physics. To be clear, not that matter as such, is "smart", but to call it "dead and stupid" is to not appreciate how hard the topic is.
And thus we project images to external stimulations which we may experience as ghosts or spirits or monsters, and these can be very powerful.
Quoting Tom Storm
Sure there are such people who do interpret a flash of light or sudden movement as having some spiritual dimensions. But if they did not have a state of mind by which such experiences would be interpreted as ghosts or monsters, then they would merely say they saw something strange.
It's not too unusual to find people who may, as you say, have a worldview in which ghosts form a part, but whom they admit they do not frequently experience, because perhaps the mind they have is not readily or easily put in such a receptive state.
Quoting Tom Storm
Yes, this is accurate as I see it too. The UFO thing is in some respects even more bizarre, at least "supernatural" stuff like spirits or ghosts (of whatever specific variety) have some foundation in a human beings folk understanding of the world.
The UFO people tend to almost always describe the actual UFO like the ones we see on 50's movie billboards on the topic. And the aliens have the huge black eyes and are green. That's a very strong connection between culture and experience.
But I don't even find a supernaturalist "folk-account" that could explain this belief.
Quoting Wayfarer
It is a way to think about the topic and I think we even have quite direct evidence that we experience things similarly, we assume that if one brain is damaged say, in Broca's area, then that person will not be able to use speech well, if at all, but this applies to all people.
In a similar vein, we understand when somebody says that they saw a ghost or maybe even a fairy, though we may personally not believe these things to be existing phenomena.
As for Sheldrake, yeah, he's been criticized for not being scientific. Ok, well that's up to each person to evaluate. He doesn't bother me like Chopra does, for instance. It's worth being open here.
You are projecting again. Scientists are pretty used to many people preferring woo.
The irony physically hurts.
I think by now aliens are folk accounts. All such traditions start somewhere. Perhaps aliens are just a technologically updated form of supernaturalism, located in the era's zeitgeist; science rather than magic.
I wonder if functionally there is much desirable psychological difference between aliens and spirits? They are probably founded on similar principles and psychological factors. Note, I am not considering in this account the more reasonable speculative notion that aliens may exist somewhere in reality.
Quoting Manuel
I wonder what counts as a receptive state? What are you thinking? A psychological state? My candidate explanations for this are personality, psychological health, and individual sense making shaped by culture. Same things that inform most of our choices.
My father's family were fundamentalists. But my father and his siblings were divided into those who 'chose' atheism and those who 'chose' Christianity. Same upbringing but they chose one of the two dominant belief systems in ther culture - Christianity and materialism. Why do people make such choices - why are some 'receptive' to religion and others to materialism/physicalism? I've often likened this to a sexual preference. We can't help what we are attracted to. The justifications and arguments are post hoc.
Ignore his conclusions - his work is astoundingly good in terms of synthesising the histories of the exact ideas you're putting forth.
A nice, short overview is the Youtube video here
Again, if you ignore his conclusions, which are decidedly getting into truly super-natural territory, the connections he's drawing are compelling, as a theory as to why these things continue to crop up, time and time again.
I suppose one can see it as a kind of technological God substitute, maybe something less powerful but mysterious and elusive, having powers that we cannot comprehend. I mean, this is complete guessing, but if we want to say that it's part of some people's folk account, then we should find a candidate substitute for traditional notions (god, spirit, demon, etc.)
So, you are probably correct here.
Quoting Tom Storm
Nothing more than being that type of person who, for instance, feels that they are actually communicating with a higher power, as opposed to talking to oneself. As in cases in which people are in a church, and some people once they leave the religion say, they never felt such a force or power in the first place.
Or being the type of person who tend to believe that virtually every coincidence is very meaningful in some transcendent sense.
It's a capacity for being easily being influenced by external forces that other people lack or have less of.
Quoting Tom Storm
Well, I used to be religious as a kid, up until I was probably 16 or so, I really felt that I was speaking to God. Something in me kept surfacing that the dots weren't connecting and then I read some books and talked to other people and saw that my beliefs had no justification.
The comparison to sexual preference is interesting, but very complex. For instance, the issue of finding belief to be comforting is alluring, or that there may be a life after this one is an option which is available for the believer. But the difference from sexuality is that, on some occasions, arguments can persuade some people the religious belief is not based on a rational foundation.
I don't think you can use arguments to make a gay person not gay, or the other way around.
But I get what you are coming from, quite often, it's not a choice, it's a preference. It's very intricate though.
:up: I hear you, but there is this. I have gay friends who were convinced by argument that being gay was irrational and unnatural and in some cases, against god's natural order. So they had girlfriends, wives and worked at being heterosexual. I think there are many fairly common arguments put forwards even in these progressive times. And that's just in the West. In many other countries gay people are still killed or jailed.
Conversely I have known many gay people who were able to come out precisely because they were exposed to arguments that allowed them to see same sex attraction as natural and harmless. They had been shut off from this by the moral conventions of their sub-culture. I have personally provided suicide intervention several times for people who were same sex attracted and thought they were evil. One such person was in his 60's and had never accepted the idea that being gay might be ok.
Quoting Manuel
It is intricate and I need to do more thinking about this. I don't want to simplify too much. My point is it is similar, not identical.
Quoting Manuel
That makes sense. And my intuition here is that some people's experiences serve to establish their habitual sense making in this domain or mode. For some reason, they have found that life makes mores sense to them this way. A world imbued with magic is more interesting and probably offers more alternatives than one without magic.
As most of us know, according to Max Weber, as societies progress and become more rationalized, they tend to lose their mystical and enchanting qualities. This process is characterized by the replacement of traditional religious beliefs, magical thinking, and mystical worldviews with rational, bureaucratic, and scientific approaches to understanding the world.
Might it not be the case that many people bemoan this disenchanted world and flee to romanticisms and superstations for some relief?
That's a good point. I did not consider that arguments alone could cause people to anguish over sexual preference to the point of harm, so sure, there are similarities between sexual preference and religious belief.
Quoting Tom Storm
That's extremely hard to say either way. Sure, some people may find comfort in supernatural belief, but conversely others are terrified of potential negative consequences for such beliefs.
There is something to say about the issue of "something more", that there is more to this world than what we see with our senses. It may feel too poor or unjust, so in that case it could be a factor.
It's hard to completely get away from the fact that we just very recently left hunter gatherer tribes and got into modern society, so to speak. So some of these supernatural beliefs should be considered part of human nature.
:up:
We could call this a proposal.
Those people who have not experienced ghosts, or something that for a moment or for a time, they thought either 'that was a ghost´ or 'perhaps that was a ghost', but later decided such things do not exist, remain at least technically agnostic about the existence of ghosts. The doubt they exist, in the extreme or not. But they don't rule it out, given that phenomena out there may not fit current paradigms that they use as models for reality.
Those who have experienced phenomena that they consider to be ghosts accept their current belief. They (should) understand that for non-experiencers the belief may seem to likely (perhaps extremely likely) unfounded.
Either side can speculate (in ad hommy and psychoanalyzing ways the reason the other has the belief or lack they have) but avoid it.
Those non-believers who have experienced something that they think matches the experiences of believers can instead be cautious about assuming they know, in fact, what the others have experienced. Perhaps they are correct, perhaps not.
That's a very good way to frame it, I think.
You do have people who outright think such claims are completely silly and meaningless. And while one can understand this attitude to an extent, it does miss out on analyzing the richness of said experiences.
But then there's also the issue raised here by others, suppose we don't believe such things exist, such is my case. Do I say, "I thought I saw a ghost, but instead saw a hallucination."?
Or the topic of, ghosts aren't real, ok. But then people who do see them (or any other related phenomenon) see fake ghosts? Some have suggested that they shouldn't claim they've seen a ghost or spirit, only that they have misinterpreted what they've seen.
So, to me unless your grandma is spending her entire savings on exorcists or hasn't slept for weeks, but is simply someone you disagree with, I don't see why they should state their beliefs. We can be technically agnostic, or say we doubt that, but I see no reason to tell them they are doing something wrong when they assert their beliefs.
Really? I think there are triggers for hallucinations, sometimes these triggers can be external, sometimes internal, but I agree that the word can be quite loaded. One can also say one has a misrepresentation of ghost, or saw something like a ghost would be less likely to cause problems.
Quoting Bylaw
I don't doubt the veracity of the perception they had, nor even the epistemology in some cases. The issue become problematic when we make metaphysical claims from perceptual judgements, such that if one says one sees a ghost, then it follows, that there are such things as ghosts in the world.
It's in this part that it becomes difficult.
What's the rule about when people should say what they believe?
In interviewing people who have experienced ghosts, what I find interesting is how often hauntings come with sound effects and beings present as fully dressed, often in period clothing. I get the theory behind a spirit appearing in some form, as an entity, but in clothing seems a stretch to me. Why would clothes also survive death? And sometimes there are ghost trains, cars and horses and dogs with their drivers or masters. What makes animals or machines come along for the undead journey?
Let me rephrase, for someone interested in philosophy, I think it would be a mistake to postulate things such as ghosts, unless that person accepts supernaturalism. If they do accept this, then there is no reason to tell them not to believe in anything.
But if they would like to have a more securely anchored system of belief, then the reasons for believing in literal ghosts and spirits should be extremely strong, otherwise I think we are not being critical enough of what our perceptions are informing us.
In general, that is, in the real world I do agree that is very much context dependent. I think that if say, someone latches on to religion because it gives them comfort about seeing loved ones in some other life, or it gets them through some really hard times, it would be very cruel to attempt to show them wrong.
Notwithstanding such exceptions, I do think we would like people to be better informed about the world than misinformed about it. I think we can explore ghosts and fairies and much else as experiences, which says a lot about us and the ways we interact with the world, thus treating it seriously, but not literally. For if they are taken literally, I think they are making a mistake.
It's somewhat analogous to telling a person living with schizophrenia that they should be extremely scared about this monster that are currently seeing. I think we should aim to the opposite, as it could help such people. But, again, there's a lot to tease out.
I think this is an interesting frame. Take it seriously, but not literally. In other words, don't be dismissive, but seek to understand and expand our insight.
I stole it from Donald Hoffman. ;)
Aren't they presumed to be ethereal? As distinct from corporeal, to use another archaic term. They're denizens of another plane of existence, the ethereal realms that are normally only accessible to mediums or shamans or others of that ilk. I suppose Swedenborg was an example from relatively recent history (although I've never studied his writings). So they're not ever going to leave remnants, they're nearer in nature to rainbows than to materially-existent things.
I recall the main characters in H P Lovecrafts' novels entering into spirit worlds through dreams. It's not too distant from that Christopher Nolan film, Inception. These kinds of stories highlight the idea of parallel realms of existence, which we mortals aren't aware of. It's curious now that with the idea of the multiverse which originated with quantum physics, many (like David Deutsch) are willing to contemplate the possibility of other worlds in that physical sense. But the so-called ethereal realms, akashic records, and the like, are of a different order of being, not detectable to scientific instruments which are ultimately just extended versions of our natural senses.
(Many years ago I read an interesting media studies review of the attraction of films like Matrix, Inception, etc, being so attractive to audiences because of their suggestion of parallel realities. Wasn't ever able to find it again, but it made a compelling case.)
Quoting Wayfarer
Got ya.
But would clothing and machines also have ethereal versions? I am assuming that this other plane where ghosts 'dwell' the might simply be a parallel world where the reality looks something like our own. That could be a rich source of speculative pondering.
Ghosts are real in the sense that when they/we think about ghosts, they're/we're affected/effected by those thoughts. Seems to me anyway...
Well, they could accept naturalism, but think that ghosts are a natural phenomenon. Something not yet confirmed via science, or perhaps they think there is enough evidence in parapsychology to take the possibility seriously and this fits with their experiences. IOW the discussion could be framed as, hey let's not close the door on this. Or one could be arguing against specific reasons people assert one can rule them out.
There are always going to be experiences, correctly interpreted, which we cannot demonstrate to others happened and we correctly interpreted them. Here we have a phenomenon that some subcultures in the West accept as real, so in a philosophical conversation in those subcultures there wouldn't be a problem asserting the belief. Then we have subcultures where it is not accepted as real, sometimes even not accepted as possible, period. There the believer will meet more resistance, even when claiming, for example, that dismissing the idea of ghosts in a specific way is not a sound dismissal. Let alone trying to convince people that they exist. But again, it seems to me it's an odd idea to say they should make their assertions.
Quoting Manuel
Sure, and this is fodder for nearly all philosophical discussion. If one looks at most threads here you'll find people thinking other people are making mistakes in their beliefs. It would be wonderful if there was more collaborative, exploratory philosophical discussion and of course the two are not mutually exclusive, but it's a common phenomenon. In other words it seems like you are considered your ontology as the base. From that base, you think that people shouldn't assert the existence of ghosts or their belief in them, because they are mistaken. And then someone else thinks that free will is mistaken, and perhaps also ruled out by naturalism or scientific ontology. And a liberal thinks that a conservative idea is mistaken....and so on.Quoting ManuelRight, but I'm not suggesting that one support the claim, unless you believe in the claim, or want to explore the possiblity. Also the schizophrenic hallucinating something terrifying is in quite a different situation from someone coming to a philosophy forum and making their case for the existence of ghosts or in a thread about ghosts saying, hey your psychoanalysis of believers isn't justified or doesn't fit me. Or such a person might criticize a dismissal. And so on. If they seem to be suffering immensely and their belief in ghosts - or free will, or determinism, or Hell, or no afterlife, or The Ship of Thebes argument against the persistent self or whatever, iow regardless of the content of the belief, then we might tread lightly. But otherwise why not simply engage in the discussion like one might any discussion focused on a belief one disagrees with? Or is curious about, etc.
Im not quite sure this is apt to deal with the claim people are making about ghosts (well, those who have thought about it and theorize, rather than just emotionally reacting to any old thing as if it were a ghost - to put it black-and-whitely).
My understanding of those 'thought through' claims are something like:
When a person dies, they leave an after image. The after image is.. what... ectoplasm? Whatever, the point is that its entirely informed by the physical state of the person before they died. Their body, clothes etc.. Are part of hte after-image. If, for some reason, the after image cannot fade (think squinting after seeing a bright screen spontaneously) that after image becomes just an image. It is what the person, here, consists in, because their 'non physical' aspect is trapped in teh spatio-temporal world, within the after-image.
I also think that's absurd - but i guess its strictly possible where physical clothing surviving physical death of an unrelated being (i.e a shirt is not part of your being) isnt.
Isn't our very concept of a person made entirely out of the clothes of contextual accident?
I'm not sure I follow. Can you reword this?
I'm basically pointing to the ancient debates regarding the question as to what grounds personal identity. Does the ground consist of essential criteria, or not? And is the ground context-independent or not? The ghosts of folklore suggest to me, that humans ordinarily do not appeal to essential criteria when identifying a person.
Ok.
Quoting sime
I'm not an essentialist. I'm not sure what ground you are referring to. Are you asking what is the foundation of personal identity grounded in?
Quoting sime
As per previous answer. I'm not sure anything is context independent.
Quoting sime
This sentence isn't clear to me. What are the ghosts of folklore? Do you mean traditional accounts of ghosts?
When you say 'humans ordinarily do nto appeal to essential criteria when identifying a person' This isn't clear.
I also don't understand what this has to do with the next bit -
Quoting sime
I am not aware of anyone made entirely out of clothes. Do you mean people wearing clothes? And what is a contextual accident?
I mean I see the intuitive appeal but, are we then going to say: ghosts are real and so are trees and rocks?
Quoting Bylaw
You can take that stance. The issue here is that, despite the numerous reports on such things, when they are investigated seriously, the evidence in favor of these accounts tend to be very thin or non-existent.
We should keep doors open, but it's tricky to do so, given what investigation into these things tend to show. Also, if we do this with ghosts, should we also keep the door open to fairies and gnomes? What about Santa Claus?
I don't intend to sound righteous or dismissive, but how do we differentiate between ghosts and Santa Claus?
Quoting Bylaw
Sure, the point is to attempt to explore these topics, but irl situations are legitimate issues to bring up here, I think. In the case of schizophrenia, we do acknowledge the reality of the perception, as we must. But to assert the existence of what is experienced, the way we assert the existence of a tree we can all see and touch, is quite problematic.
And note: you don't need to tell me I haven't demonstrated that ghosts exist.
But I don't think those two things are the same.
Quoting ManuelNot all phenomena have been as fixed and solid as trees. But again. I don't see why this shouldn't be brought up in a philosophical context.
Many people think the way you do about ghosts about free will. Would it make sense for them to say that free will shouldn't be brought up in philosophical contexts? There have been phenomena that were dismissed as the conclusions of people being irrational that later turned out to be true. On what grounds do we decide what should be talked about or not in a philosophical context?
Not so much that it shouldn't be brought up, after all I am bringing it up here. What I want to convey is that if one believes in such things literally, then I think the arguments given for such views should be quite strong, considerably beyond say, demonstrating the existence of a tree or a river.
Quoting Bylaw
It's the same sentiment as above. By all means, anyone wanting to defend or articulate such views is welcome, but what I would want to see is what do they make about such experiences, so far as ontology is concerned.
Quoting Bylaw
Yeah, it's already complex. In one crucial respect, the vast majority of adults do not literally believe in Santa Claus.
In another respect, they do (or pretend to) and they have seen him numerous times, at malls or shopping centers of Christmas festivals and whatnot.
We can then clarify, they have not actually seen him, but they have seen people dress up to imitate how he looks like in our common mythology.
Quoting Bylaw
With free will, we do have a very long and distinguished tradition going back to Classical Greece and even before that time. And it's very much pertinent today.
With ghosts or spirits, it's a bit more complex. I don't know how the Ancients thought about the gods, if they had a literal belief or a flexible belief system. As far as I know, I think the belief in literal ghosts started rapidly declining with the rise of modern science and modern philosophy.
To reiterate all beliefs should be looked at in philosophy and evaluated. The issue is the literalness of the belief and what this entails.
I'd like mention a related though perhaps side issue. Often, I think, it is assumed that if a belief is rational, then one can present enough evidence to convince people in general. I don't think that holds. We all have rational beliefs in things that we cannot demonstrate are correct to others. Of course, for many people these are things that others might consider possible, but we cannot prove the exact instance happened. But given that beliefs can form rationally from individual experiences, not all rational beliefs are going to be demonstrable to others.
Obviously this doesn't mean that now we must accept any assertion, just that we can have more than two reactions to someone who believes something.Quoting ManuelSure, and they aren't going to assert that Santa Claus is real - in the sense relevant here.
Quoting ManuelIt's a popular issue, yes. But the attitude many determinists have in relation to free will matches the attitude of those who disbelieve in ghosts. They dynamic is the same. And, again, this was in relation to the idea that we shouldn't discuss this issue. You've now clarified that you don't believe that.Quoting ManuelOK, now we're on the same page.
Quoting Bylaw
Yeahhh that may be correct right now but TIME and position and grounds and forces may have tolerances of worthy strength to consider further...
I guess thats right and fine with me but thats if you are choosing to only look backwards...you said "happened" meaning you think it has? How sure are you here?
if you can only do that for this better look backwards closer and forwards wider and inwards...wiser. Its limiting this view or take you share that still seems to me right now to be short of something. We have a bit more room, space is available still. Go on! Take up the space. No rush. No harm, just a thought i had and felt moved enough to share. Thanks to you! I am with you though, no problems here. The direction is good and set in stone. Paint, clay, ink its dries quick...Cant we burn the evidence? Cant we hide things?
So what of it, no cost exists good enough to me to do that though...Why?!?! I ask then, is all i can do...
how certain are you here?
Quoting Bylaw
I don't understand what that means.
Quoting Kizzy
I am talking about situations where something happens to us or we experience something or do something, and it is rational for us to believe we did it, but we can't prove it happened. So, yes, I am presuming in that scenario, which I think is common, that something happens to us and yet we can't prove to others it did. I am very sure. As sure as I get. That happens. And if you live alone, it happens every day many times a day.Quoting KizzyI'm not sure what you mean here either.Quoting KizzyExtremely certain. I'm even very confident I can demonstrate it to most people.
-- Whos fault is that? I cant ask the people in that scenario can I? Get the prove then...how about find a scene where they do have the proof, who could be bothered to care?
"Look at all this proof!!!!"
"No"
WHY?
[insert your reason, who cares? not me after this]
My questions and answers are answered [thank you, appreciate your time and respectfully and commenting to just make sure... i will not question your faith much further until i do but its not the faith I question just you....and if I do (highly unlikely almost positive) it will be you only to blame by then. It all boils down, only if it all could...maybe boiling isnt the only option here. One outcome still can exist.
Anyways, I am leaning towards a certain surety in what I said above, "i will not question you" and I trust that feeling for many reasons. Thats all from lil ole me, carry on then... :zip:
Quoting Bylaw Ah,well then that is good news! some people DO STILL exist... with senses that are keen to them, specifically within, embedded and tended to and released when surety is sure enough to continue on...unbothered without getting to see that demonstration. Carry on, sounds like you are really getting somewhere with your demonstrations to THOSE other people...fun its fun right?
please, carry on :cheer:
Do you think that if you can't prove something to others, then you shouldn't believe it?
Is that the rule?
Sure, and I think this applies quite widely. Part of the issue, which is far from trivial, is that we can't exactly say what "rational" is. We all assume and frequently act in a rational manner, but if one asks what is it that is "rational", people often given examples of what rational behavior is: If you see a man with a gun, stay away from him, or make yourself not noticeable or minimally so, etc.
Now, when it comes to having particular perceptions, it could be something like ghosts or a visual hallucination, such as seeing an oasis, the perception itself is neither rational nor irrational. It just is.
Quoting Bylaw
It is. It's a kind of stubborn attitude. And this connects to the previous issue of rationality, we will eventually find ourselves having specific philosophical positions for which we can give no further arguments for our belief in it, this is very noticeable in the case of free will.
Sure. Ghosts are characters in fairy tales/explanations. Fairy tales/explanations persist via linguistic tradition. Some people believe in fairy tales, and act in their namesake. The world changes as a result.
They do, many beliefs (not all of them, I don't think) will change the world to some degree, some more than others. The issue is, how can we accommodate beliefs which are specific to some individuals (ghosts and fairies), versus other beliefs which are agreed by everybody: rocks, rivers, grass, people, etc.
I'm not clear on how belief in trees and rivers change the world for anybody, especially when compared to ghosts and fairies.
Find less trodden paths; stay in forgotten places. Travel alone and watch balconies like cats do.
Agrred, though I would word it as: ghosts exist inter-subjectively whereas tress and rocks exist objectively.
Well, it may help to begin by not categorizing everything as belief.
Belief determines/underlies actions.