On ghosts and spirits

Manuel

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?

180 Proof

How do you think about spirits and ghosts? — Manuel

I think of them as personal (or ancestral) memories and traumatic (or social) histories, respectively.

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?

IMO, such beliefs (i.e. literal projections) are delusional. :sparkle:

Wayfarer

Any thoughts on this topic? — Manuel

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.

Janus

We're not old enough to be haunted. — Wayfarer

That's right, the Aboriginal people had only been here for something like sixty thousand years. Your eurocentrism is showing.

Wayfarer

↪Janus

Yeah but I don’t know if their ghosts would bother haunting white fellas, or whether I’d be able to see it if they did.

On that topic, ever read about bone-pointing deaths?

kindred

Ghosts were probably popularised by popular culture and become easier to be accepted through various passed down fictive accounts of what happens after you die. As the evidence for it is scarce or unreliable then such claims can and should be dismissed.

javi2541997

↪Manuel

I believe in ghosts and spirits, even though I don't have evidence to prove their existence. It is just a belief, my belief. I think this is due to being raised by a Castilian family who are very superstitious. They are influenced by Catholic vibes and doctrines, so they fully believe that, apart from the body, there is a soul. Otherwise, they would feel devastated if they discovered there is no soul afterwards.

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.

Janus

↪Wayfarer

You'd think, given the atrocities committed against the aborigines by the white settlers, that their ghosts, if there were such actual entities, would haunt us plenty.

I have heard of bone-pointing deaths, not sure if they are well-documented.

Tom Storm

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? — Manuel

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.

Wayfarer

I have heard of bone-pointing deaths, not sure if they are well-documented. — Janus

Quite well, I seem to recall from my studies in Anthropology, although I won’t go digging for them.

↪Tom Storm

Did you ever see Oscar Wilde’s The Canterville Ghost? i found it tremendously poignant.

Changeling

I saw a spirit in the Philippines in broad daylight

Manuel

IMO, such beliefs (i.e. literal projections) are delusional. :sparkle: — 180 Proof

Quite often, absolutely.

↪Wayfarer

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.

Manuel

↪kindred

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.

↪javi2541997

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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

↪Changeling

If you can say more about this, it would be interesting to hear about this.

javi2541997

but it is curious to see how our beliefs entangle with our perception of reality. — Manuel

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?

frank

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. — Manuel

We still talk about the psyche, which is another word for ghost or geist:

"Geist (German pronunciation: [ˈɡaɪst] ⓘ) 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.

Hanover

From a scientific epistimology, ghosts surely don't exist. I have little respect for those who try to suggest they exist in that way. Those people tend to be charlatans or they are just poorly educated.

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.

unenlightened

It's their non-existence and unreality that makes them troubling. If they actually existed one could deal with them, or call the police.

Antigonish.

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...
— Hughes Mearns

flannel jesus

I think there's an interesting question about epistemology here.

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?

flannel jesus

Now, if you're a person who hasn't had ghostly experiences, and don't consider yourself a believer in ghosts, then ask yourself this:

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?

Ciceronianus

Any thoughts on this topic? — Manuel

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.

javi2541997

How could you know it's not a hallucination? — flannel jesus

so I don't assume everything reported is necessarily a hallucination. — 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.

flannel jesus

Otherwise, there are people who never experience ghostly vibes because they take their non-existence for granted. — javi2541997

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.

javi2541997

↪flannel jesus

Yes, that's what I, more or less, I mean.

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?

flannel jesus

What about the ones who are not welcome to accept their existence? Would their senses allow them to see a ghost at all? — javi2541997

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.

unenlightened

Apples don't disappear if someone doesn't believe in apples. — flannel jesus

But they only appear to people who have eyes. Perhaps we sceptics lack some sense?

flannel jesus

↪unenlightened

Wonderful hypothesis, sounds like it's available for evidence-gathering and scientific analysis.

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.

javi2541997

↪flannel jesus

I understand your argument now.

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?

flannel jesus

↪javi2541997

I really have no idea what you're arguing for or against at this point. I'm just saying, if ghosts are visible, they ought to be visible to everyone regardless of belief.

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*.

flannel jesus

The only times I've heard of things being visible depending on belief are

fairies
santa clause
unicorns

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.

unenlightened

it should be capable of sussing this one too — flannel jesus

Science would have to entertain the hypothesis.

if ghosts are visible, they ought to be visible to everyone regardless of belief. — 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.

flannel jesus

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. — unenlightened

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

On ghosts and spirits

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions