:ok:

Interesting to see this taken up, without ridicule here. Particularly by yourself. Nice

In all such discussions, I think it is important to consider that it can be rational to believe in things that cannot be demonstrated to be true to others. I think you are touching on this area. We all believe we have experienced certain things that we cannot demonstrate happened to others. For those without beliefs in ghosts and the like, these experiences may have components and only components that are generally accepted to be real. So, the particular event cannot be demonstrated, but at the same time the various components themselves are consider real. There is a potential for many to believe what you experienced is possible. Though if you got kissed, supposedly by Scarlett Johansen, we are starting to move into gray areas.

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:

From a scientific epistimology, ghosts surely don't exist.

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.

I'm thinking there are perhaps situations where you can rationally believe something based on your personal experience, and also accept that you can't convincingly communicate that experience to someone else so you should allow them to rationally reject the thing you rationally believe.

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.

I'm thinking there are perhaps situations where you can rationally believe something based on your personal experience, and also accept that you can't convincingly communicate that experience to someone else so you should allow them to rationally reject the thing you rationally believe. — flannel jesus

I'd say I'd certainly understand their not just accepting my belief. It depends a bit what one means by 'reject'. If this means, they don't accept that it's true, fine. If they want to tell me the belief is false, period. Well, I wouldn't accept that - unless of course, their explanation for this convinced me.

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. — flannel jesus

Sure. I think that's healthy in general. Up to a point. I think skepticism can reach toxic levels. But if this kind of reflection never happens, where you question your memories, or for me more often my interpretations, then that's also likely to be toxic.

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.

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? — Manuel

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?

speculative branch of sociology... — Manuel

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.

One aspect of the idea of ghosts and spirits would be the idea of disembodied 'minds'. — Jack Cummins

Yes, and that's nonsense which is why "ghosts and spirts" are merely (affective) ideas but not (non-mental) entities.

Yes, and that's nonsense — 180 Proof

To a physicalist ;)

To a physicalist — AmadeusD

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.

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's 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. — 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.

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 hundreds of folk worldwide who are convinced they were abducted and probed 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? — 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.

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. — 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.

Morphic fields, and morphic resonance, even though generally (and angrily) rejected by mainstream science... — Wayfarer

You are projecting again. Scientists are pretty used to many people preferring woo.

:smirk: :up:

Morphic fields, and morphic resonance, even though generally (and angrily) rejected by mainstream science...
— Wayfarer

You are projecting again. Scientists are pretty used to many people preferring woo. — wonderer1

The irony physically hurts.

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. — Manuel

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.

perhaps the mind they have is not readily or easily put in such a receptive state. — 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.

You would both immensely enjoy Supernatural by Graham Hancock.

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.

My brother and I were raised in the same observant Catholic family and educated for a dozen years in the same Catholic schools but he remains a life-long, devout supernaturalist and, openly since 15, I've been a freethinking naturalist (the family's "village atheist"). Mostly my brother is a brilliant man and so I'm convinced his religiosity is rooted in some deep emotional need, as it is for many other people, which I (like you, Tom) apparently lack.

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. — Tom Storm

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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

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. — Manuel

: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.

t's not a choice, it's a preference. It's very intricate though. — 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.

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. — 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?

:up: Thanks - will check this out.

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.

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? — 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.

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. — Manuel

:up:

Any thoughts on this topic? — Manuel

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.

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. — Bylaw

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.

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."? — Manuel

One can certainly decide it was a hallucination. Or a less charged way to think of it would be that one mistook a shadow, plus a sound, and formed a pattern in the mind, perhaps given one was afraid at night and it seemed for a second like the shape of a transparent person. IOW hallucination is a pretty strong word. It implies that there was no visual trigger at all. I think we have all had experiences when our brains form patterns that aren't there, but they aren't hallucinations. Oh, that's Dave, but actually it was a woman, who walks a bit like Dave and has the same color hair. That's not a hallucination. Where the exact boundary is between mistaken pattern recognition and hallucination is unclear I think, but generally I'd go for the softer judgment, unless someone is in psychosis or seeing things regularly that are not there.

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. — Manuel

Yes, they say that. But we have instances in the past where people were told, even by experts that they did not experience X (and they were being irrational, or delusional, or hallucinating), when it turned out later they were actually not only experiencing what they said but correctly experiencing it.
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.

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. — 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.

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. — Manuel

It depends on the context, but people assert things all the time based on faulty epistemology/self-knowledge/rushes to judgment and so on. This includes assertions about people, politics, reality, morality. I'm not saying we need to accept their account or we shouldn't question or challenge. I'm questioning the idea that they shouldn't say it. Say it to whom? To their friends? Tell strangers the truth that they believe in ghosts?

What's the rule about when people should say what they believe?

Thanks, some interesting information that raises salient questions. In the standard ghost stories I have been most familiar with the ghost haunts the place they were murdered, and doesn't follow the murderer around so locality seems to be the central aspect of haunting, at least according to that particular line.

The logic of hauntings is interesting. Mostly it seems variations of the restless sprit inhabiting a space with unresolved issues - grief/anger. Which fits with many first nations ideas of spirits as I understand it.

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?