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.

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. — Manuel

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. ;)

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? — Tom Storm

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.)

Aren't they presumed to be ethereal? — Wayfarer

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. — 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.

Beats me!

Are we to say that ghosts are not real for us, but real for them? — Manuel

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...

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. — Manuel

This would be true for any belief, it seems to me, regardless of ontology. But yes, in a philosophy context, generally, people are expected to back up assertions with some justification, and then they should expect that if their justification doesn't seem strong enough, others will be critical of that justification and perhaps the belief.

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.

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.

For if they are taken literally, I think they are making a mistake. — 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.

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. — Manuel

Right, 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.

Why would clothes also survive death? — Tom Storm

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.

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? — Tom Storm

Isn't our very concept of a person made entirely out of the clothes of contextual accident?

:up: I guess it all depends upon whether we think a ghost is a person's soul trapped between worlds, or some other (incoherent?) idea like an energy or spirit or ectoplasm.

Isn't our very concept of a person made entirely out of the clothes of contextual accident? — sime

I'm not sure I follow. Can you reword this?

I'm not sure I follow. Can you reword this? — Tom Storm

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.

I'm basically pointing to the ancient debates regarding the question as to what grounds personal identity. — sime

Ok.

Does the ground consist of essential criteria, or not? — 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?

And is the ground context-independent or not? — sime

As per previous answer. I'm not sure anything is context independent.

The ghosts of folklore suggest to me, that humans ordinarily do not appeal to essential criteria when identifying a person. — 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 -

Isn't our very concept of a person made entirely out of the clothes of contextual accident? — 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?

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. — 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?

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. — 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.

I mean I see the intuitive appeal but, are we then going to say: ghosts are real and so are trees and rocks? — Manuel

I'm still responding to your saying they shouldn't bring it up in philosophical contexts. I haven't said that you, for example, should say they are real.

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. — Manuel

Which has been true for things that turned out to be real and then also for things that so far have not been confirmed by science.

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? — Manuel

Again. I am responding to you saying that in philosophical contexts believers shouldn't bring it up. You seem to be taking this as me telling you what you should believe and do.

I don't intend to sound righteous or dismissive, but how do we differentiate between ghosts and Santa Claus? — Manuel

Well, this is moving away from the points we were discussing, but, ok: how many adults believe in Santa Claus and believe they have see him?

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.

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. — Manuel

Not 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?

I'm still responding to your saying they shouldn't bring it up in philosophical contexts. I haven't said that you, for example, should say they are real. — Bylaw

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.

Again. I am responding to you saying that in philosophical contexts believers shouldn't bring it up. You seem to be taking this as me telling you what you should believe and do. — 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.

Well, this is moving away from the points we were discussing, but, ok: how many adults believe in Santa Claus and believe they have see him?

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. — 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.

Not 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? — 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.

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. — Manuel

OK, I was just going by your earlier wording. Sure, for people who do not have the belief they would likely need strong support for the assertion. And this applies in situations where someone who believes in ghosts makes the assertion and perhaps includes an argument, and expects that others should agree, now, that ghosts real.

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.

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. — Manuel

Sure, and they aren't going to assert that Santa Claus is real - in the sense relevant here.

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. — Manuel

It'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.

To reiterate all beliefs should be looked at in philosophy and evaluated. — Manuel

OK, now we're on the same page.

we cannot prove the exact instance happened. — 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?

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. — 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... — Kizzy

I don't understand what that means.

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? — 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.

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? — Kizzy

I'm not sure what you mean here either.

how certain are you here?
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. — Kizzy

Extremely certain. I'm even very confident I can demonstrate it to most people.

" 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.
-- 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:

Extremely certain. I'm even very confident I can demonstrate it to most people — 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:

-- 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? — Kizzy

It's no one's fault.

i will not question your faith — Kizzy

What faith is that?

Carry on, sounds like you are really getting somewhere with your demonstrations to THOSE other people...fun its fun right? — Kizzy

Oh, I think I can demonstrate it to you not just those people. I suppose it might be fun, but generally pretty neutral. I'm sure you believe some things have happened to you and you are correct and yet you can't demonstrate this to others. Or can you demonstrate everything that has happened to you, has happened to you? Can you demonstrate all your beliefs are correct?

Do you think that if you can't prove something to others, then you shouldn't believe it?

Is that the rule?

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. — Bylaw

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.

It'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. — 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.

I mean I see the intuitive appeal but, are we then going to say: ghosts are real and so are trees and rocks? — Manuel

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.

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

Find less trodden paths; stay in forgotten places. Travel alone and watch balconies like cats do.

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.

Agrred, though I would word it as: ghosts exist inter-subjectively whereas tress and rocks exist objectively.

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. — Manuel

Well, it may help to begin by not categorizing everything as belief.

I'm not clear on how belief in trees and rivers change the world for anybody, especially when compared to ghosts and fairies. — Manuel

Belief determines/underlies actions.