Discussion
Squirrelofwoe said:
I also believe that this is why alleged ghost sightings are much more likely to happen to people who already believe in the concept of ghosts (as obvious as that sounds), than to those who do not. In my opinion the brains of those who do believe in ghosts will be much more predisposed to interpret unusual or distorted sensory data as being supernatural, and therefore produce images that fit those beliefs and expectations. They will have naturally spent a lot more time thinking about ghosts and so will have a lot more stored data from which the brain can draw on- i.e. we often see what we want to see (faces in clouds / Jesus in toast phenomena).
Whilst the brains of those who do not believe in ghosts are far more likely to rationalise unusual or distorted data and therefore not produce images of ghostly apparitions.
I firmly maintain that the finer workings of the human brain represents one of the greatest deficiencies in our current scientific knowledge, and developments in this area will go a long way to explaining the vast majority of 'supernatural' occurrences. Lets not forget, it was not that long ago that many people believed drilling a hole in someone's head was a viable treatment for psychological disorders- we have come a long way in a short space of time but it's still relatively early days when it comes to fully understanding how the brain works.
All in my opinion of course. I am firmly in the Brian Cox camp when it comes to rationalising the physical manifestation of the supernatural- i.e. it's scientifically impossible. People often say that we know very little about the universe, but I would argue that we actually understand a huge amount and the fact that the same processes play out and our predictions continue to be confirmed however deep into space we look, suggests that our current understanding of matter, elements, and the boundaries of physics is very well founded.
This nails it, 100%.Whilst the brains of those who do not believe in ghosts are far more likely to rationalise unusual or distorted data and therefore not produce images of ghostly apparitions.
I firmly maintain that the finer workings of the human brain represents one of the greatest deficiencies in our current scientific knowledge, and developments in this area will go a long way to explaining the vast majority of 'supernatural' occurrences. Lets not forget, it was not that long ago that many people believed drilling a hole in someone's head was a viable treatment for psychological disorders- we have come a long way in a short space of time but it's still relatively early days when it comes to fully understanding how the brain works.
All in my opinion of course. I am firmly in the Brian Cox camp when it comes to rationalising the physical manifestation of the supernatural- i.e. it's scientifically impossible. People often say that we know very little about the universe, but I would argue that we actually understand a huge amount and the fact that the same processes play out and our predictions continue to be confirmed however deep into space we look, suggests that our current understanding of matter, elements, and the boundaries of physics is very well founded.
We all know that humans get things wrong, that we see and feel things that aren't there, that we dream when we are convinced we're awake, that we can be very unreliable witnesses. Yet this knowledge goes out the window for some, who remain absolutely convinced that what they saw was actually 100% an accurate representation of what was there. It's a kind of arrogance of infallibility, like ..yeah, I know people can see things that aren't there....but not me!
Squirrelofwoe said:
paulguitar said:
I think one can see something that doesn't make sense even with fully healthy eyes, it's down to the way the human brain works. A tremendous amount of our 'reality' is done by the brain 'filling in' missing information, which explains why we see faces in clouds, and Jesus on pieces of toast.
Completely agree with this.In my opinion the majority of 'ghostly' sightings etc can be attributed to the complex workings of the human brain, something we are still learning a lot about.
I have woken up in the night in a state of panic, absolutely convinced the bedroom is rapidly filling with water- as real to my eyes as anything I have ever seen. I stood up on the bed and began grabbing everything I could whilst trying to wake my (very bemused) wife. I have seen all sorts of things in this state; animals, people, floating / moving objects etc. It's strange because I am technically awake in this state, I can move around the room, talk, and even start to process the fact that what I am seeing is not really there (or often, what I am looking at is not what my brain is telling me is there). All the while however, another part of my brain is (I assume) still asleep, or at least in a different stage of waking up to the rest of it. I get an experience like this once every few weeks- more so if I am particularly tired, less frequently if not.
No question it is usually a deeply unpleasant experience, but at the same time I find it absolutely fascinating. I know my experiences always manifest themselves when I am in a state of sleep (sleep paralysis / lucid dreaming etc), but the fact that the brain is capable of doing this leaves me in no doubt whatsoever that the brain is also responsible for a lot of alleged ghostly sightings.
Afterall, the brain is receiving information from the various senses and putting together an image that best fits that available information. There is so much out there that is capable of playing tricks on the various senses, some of which we understand pretty well (draughts, vibrations, sound frequencies, radio waves etc) and some less so. Any distortions to this sensory information will obviously affect the way the brain interprets the raw data, occasionally giving rise to certain anomalies. We think we have seen something highly unusual when in fact the brain is trying to untangle the sensory data as best it can and present us with an image which will be based on the parameters of our existing knowledge / experience / memories etc- all the while dealing with these distortions.
The brain is incredibly complex and is in no way infallible. Our eyes / ears etc are simply receptors- it is our brain that attempts to untangle this data to 'produce' the images we see and the sounds we hear. And this is before we even begin to consider the impact of other 'stressors' - tiredness, trauma (both physical & psychological), anxiety, fear etc. These will undeniably adjust the parameters mentioned earlier, and consequently impact the way our brain interprets sensory data.
I also believe that this is why alleged ghost sightings are much more likely to happen to people who already believe in the concept of ghosts (as obvious as that sounds), than to those who do not. In my opinion the brains of those who do believe in ghosts will be much more predisposed to interpret unusual or distorted sensory data as being supernatural, and therefore produce images that fit those beliefs and expectations. They will have naturally spent a lot more time thinking about ghosts and so will have a lot more stored data from which the brain can draw on- i.e. we often see what we want to see (faces in clouds / Jesus in toast phenomena).
Whilst the brains of those who do not believe in ghosts are far more likely to rationalise unusual or distorted data and therefore not produce images of ghostly apparitions.
I firmly maintain that the finer workings of the human brain represents one of the greatest deficiencies in our current scientific knowledge, and developments in this area will go a long way to explaining the vast majority of 'supernatural' occurrences. Lets not forget, it was not that long ago that many people believed drilling a hole in someone's head was a viable treatment for psychological disorders- we have come a long way in a short space of time but it's still relatively early days when it comes to fully understanding how the brain works.
All in my opinion of course. I am firmly in the Brian Cox camp when it comes to rationalising the physical manifestation of the supernatural- i.e. it's scientifically impossible. People often say that we know very little about the universe, but I would argue that we actually understand a huge amount and the fact that the same processes play out and our predictions continue to be confirmed however deep into space we look, suggests that our current understanding of matter, elements, and the boundaries of physics is very well founded.
That said, I do still absolutely love a good ghost story! Hypocrite
I posted in another ghost thread that highlights this.
Basically, a story told on Infinite Monkeycage. Scientist appears on BBC Manchester phone in, with Woo Lady. both explain the unexplained.
A caller said she had a piano that played itself when she went to bed at night. He explained that the complex and varied materials all cooling and contracting at different rates, given she had left the room and turned the fire off, plinked accordingly.
Woo Lady said it was fairies and imps.
Caller went with the fairies and imps option.
I love discussions like this.
I enjoy the spine-tingling stories, woooo, spooky!
I also enjoy the Larry logics who come along and say science disproves ghosts.
Well we can use scientific methods to suggest very valid reasons for what some might attribute to the paranormal but we can't use science to disprove something like that. Oh the laws of physics etc etc....... We don't know everything about our own world, let alone the universe. We still use fudges in our calculations about the universe. We still have people that believe in dark matter. We have people who suggest that black holes hint at a universe before the big bang, i.e. expansion, then contraction, regeneration, 'creation', 'destruction'. We don't know. We're gradually finding out more about the universe and modifying our beliefs. Energy and matter is something that intrigues me, to understand that which we can see and detect but to explore that which we currently cannot see or don't understand.
It's perfectly fine to take a standpoint that you don't believe in ghosts but we're not in a position to suggest that science can disprove them.
Edited to add that what I'm getting at is that what some attribute to a trick of the mind, and others attribute to 'fairies' could actually be neither.
I enjoy the spine-tingling stories, woooo, spooky!
I also enjoy the Larry logics who come along and say science disproves ghosts.
Well we can use scientific methods to suggest very valid reasons for what some might attribute to the paranormal but we can't use science to disprove something like that. Oh the laws of physics etc etc....... We don't know everything about our own world, let alone the universe. We still use fudges in our calculations about the universe. We still have people that believe in dark matter. We have people who suggest that black holes hint at a universe before the big bang, i.e. expansion, then contraction, regeneration, 'creation', 'destruction'. We don't know. We're gradually finding out more about the universe and modifying our beliefs. Energy and matter is something that intrigues me, to understand that which we can see and detect but to explore that which we currently cannot see or don't understand.
It's perfectly fine to take a standpoint that you don't believe in ghosts but we're not in a position to suggest that science can disprove them.
Edited to add that what I'm getting at is that what some attribute to a trick of the mind, and others attribute to 'fairies' could actually be neither.
Edited by anonymous-user on Wednesday 14th October 11:26
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Nobody's saying that; as you say, science generally speaking doesn't disprove anything. Science allows us to explain things that we observe, nothing more or less.Where is your proof they exist? What observations are we explaining here? Because without that, we're back to Russell's teapot.
CS Garth said:
You’d think there would be some decent photos of them in this smart phone age if they actually existed though wouldn’t you?
Absolutely.And to go back to my point about believing most 'ghostly sightings' are our brain interpreting things in odd ways- how often have there been reported ghost sightings that have involved multiple people seeing the same thing at the same time?
budgie smuggler said:
Our family has a story like that. My great-nan who I'm told was very much a no-nonsense east end matriarch type apparently swore blind that plates flew off the kitchen display cabinet, then a few days later another big wooden storage unit and grandfather clock fell over of their own accord. She was tiny so would have been unable to move the unit on her own.
This East End matriarch type wouldn't have been experiencing these events in the East End between, say, September 1940 and March 1941 by any chance?Squirrelofwoe said:
Absolutely.
And to go back to my point about believing most 'ghostly sightings' are our brain interpreting things in odd ways- how often have there been reported ghost sightings that have involved multiple people seeing the same thing at the same time?
What about inanimate object which reportedly move, such as the wardrobe mentioned earlier? And to go back to my point about believing most 'ghostly sightings' are our brain interpreting things in odd ways- how often have there been reported ghost sightings that have involved multiple people seeing the same thing at the same time?
The first problem with proving or disproving is definitions. I don't think you can go further than 'a reported perception of something outside our to-date understanding of science', or something like that.
And there's the issue of the limitations of our senses.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
For ghost to exist it would require energy, and it would certainly go against what we know if they comprised matter. So, given entropy, where does that energy come from ? If we assume they take in energy form somewhere (quite where since they have no matter), they are an open system and subject to equilibrium.
I have probably worded that poorly, as a nerd rather than scientist, but I think it accords to my hobbyist understanding.
Sticks. said:
Squirrelofwoe said:
Absolutely.
And to go back to my point about believing most 'ghostly sightings' are our brain interpreting things in odd ways- how often have there been reported ghost sightings that have involved multiple people seeing the same thing at the same time?
What about inanimate object which reportedly move, such as the wardrobe mentioned earlier? And to go back to my point about believing most 'ghostly sightings' are our brain interpreting things in odd ways- how often have there been reported ghost sightings that have involved multiple people seeing the same thing at the same time?
The first problem with proving or disproving is definitions. I don't think you can go further than 'a reported perception of something outside our to-date understanding of science', or something like that.
And there's the issue of the limitations of our senses.
That would mean a ghost would have to have mass.....
Good example of why things move was a clip from a museum, somewhere a bit Catholic. A small statue was known to move, and be in a different place in the morning. It was, a work of god. Well, it was a case of the material it stood upon cooled quicker than the base, and given the high humidity, the condensate was sufficient to lubricate the base, allowing it to move since the base also contracted and thus "bent" as it cooled.
For many, it was god what did it though....
Castrol for a knave said:
It's not a case of proving they do not exist, it is a case of the basic A level physics says they could not exist, unless we have our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics wrong.
For ghost to exist it would require energy, and it would certainly go against what we know if they comprised matter. So, given entropy, where does that energy come from ? If we assume they take in energy form somewhere (quite where since they have no matter), they are an open system and subject to equilibrium.
I have probably worded that poorly, as a nerd rather than scientist, but I think it accords to my hobbyist understanding.
There is no right or wrong answer on this. The simple truth is we don't know 100% if they exist or not. For ghost to exist it would require energy, and it would certainly go against what we know if they comprised matter. So, given entropy, where does that energy come from ? If we assume they take in energy form somewhere (quite where since they have no matter), they are an open system and subject to equilibrium.
I have probably worded that poorly, as a nerd rather than scientist, but I think it accords to my hobbyist understanding.
Sticks. said:
Squirrelofwoe said:
Absolutely.
And to go back to my point about believing most 'ghostly sightings' are our brain interpreting things in odd ways- how often have there been reported ghost sightings that have involved multiple people seeing the same thing at the same time?
What about inanimate object which reportedly move, such as the wardrobe mentioned earlier? And to go back to my point about believing most 'ghostly sightings' are our brain interpreting things in odd ways- how often have there been reported ghost sightings that have involved multiple people seeing the same thing at the same time?
The first problem with proving or disproving is definitions. I don't think you can go further than 'a reported perception of something outside our to-date understanding of science', or something like that.
And there's the issue of the limitations of our senses.
That is when it will start getting more recognition. Multiple (unconnected) people, all witnessing the same phenomena at the same time. All able to offer their own accounts of it, and (in this day at least) probably at least one of them would be filming it.
Whilst these incidents continue to manifest themselves solely to single individuals, often without even being directly witnessed, with no evidence other than the word of the individual involved, it is very difficult to overlook the myriad of physically possible (however freak/unlikely) reasoning in favour of the physically impossible (subject to our own currently accepted understanding of the laws of physics). To me at least.
I would absolutely love some irrefutable evidence to come along that proves the existence of the supernatural, as this would necessitate a complete overhaul of the established scientific understanding of the world, with huge potential for new technologies and possibilities. I genuinely want it to happen! And in this day and age of smart phones and everything being on film, it should be easier than ever to obtain that proof- if indeed it is actually out there.
Anecdotes and personal experiences make great reading and television, but will unfortunately never get us any closer to achieving the above.
deckster said:
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Nobody's saying that; as you say, science generally speaking doesn't disprove anything. Science allows us to explain things that we observe, nothing more or less.Where is your proof they exist? What observations are we explaining here? Because without that, we're back to Russell's teapot.
I am not offering proof and I'm not saying there is proof. I enjoy reading about the observations of others through reading their spooky stories.
I'd like to know the truth but I'm willing to accept that some things may remain, for the time being or maybe forever, unknown.
I won't quote all 3 answers to save space, but yes, pretty well agree.
I don't think you can even use the terms ghosts, rather a reported phenomenom, but I know what you mean. Interesting about the statue, I'm sure there are lots of easily explained incidents like that.
As for a single person recounting something with no other 'evidence' the flip side is many unconnected people reporting the same thing.
Probably phenomena, or just stuff which doesn't follow the current rules but yes, it'l be interesting. Whether sensory perception has changed/evolved over time and how ours compares to other species' would be an interesting tangent.
I don't think you can even use the terms ghosts, rather a reported phenomenom, but I know what you mean. Interesting about the statue, I'm sure there are lots of easily explained incidents like that.
As for a single person recounting something with no other 'evidence' the flip side is many unconnected people reporting the same thing.
Probably phenomena, or just stuff which doesn't follow the current rules but yes, it'l be interesting. Whether sensory perception has changed/evolved over time and how ours compares to other species' would be an interesting tangent.
The nutters just move onto the next phenomenon once things start being proven highly unlikely to exist.
Given planet earth is now plastered with cctv and camera phones you’d think if ghosts exists we would have a lot of imagery. Which we don’t.
I think people really do think they saw them but as has been stated at length, it is simply a perceptory sighting within the brain or a trick of light.
It’s the same with aliens - or at least the little green men ones people used to believe in. Alien abductions just don’t seem to happen anymore - or rather they obviously never did.
The gullible and easy to fool simply harp on about other things now like 5G phonemasts and flat earth...
Given planet earth is now plastered with cctv and camera phones you’d think if ghosts exists we would have a lot of imagery. Which we don’t.
I think people really do think they saw them but as has been stated at length, it is simply a perceptory sighting within the brain or a trick of light.
It’s the same with aliens - or at least the little green men ones people used to believe in. Alien abductions just don’t seem to happen anymore - or rather they obviously never did.
The gullible and easy to fool simply harp on about other things now like 5G phonemasts and flat earth...
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
There is no right or wrong answer on this. The simple truth is we don't know 100% if they exist or not.
We do not know 100% that the Earth isn't only 6000 years old, and many young Earth creationists claim. It could be that God has planted a whole load of false clues to make it appear older, as a test of faith. However, I'm not sure saying "we do not know 100%" advances any argument very far.
Some things are so vanishingly unlikely that they can be dismissed, and categorised as the wrong answer, in the complete lack of any evidence for their veracity. Ghosts fall into this category. There is a right answer, they don't exist, because they can't exist. Because...laws of physics.
ruprechtmonkeyboy said:
There is no right or wrong answer on this. The simple truth is we don't know 100% if they exist or not.
The non-existence of anything cannot be proved. You might as well say that we don't know 100% whether fairies / unicorns / orbiting teapots, or the giant lizard in your garage which only becomes visible when no-one is looking exist.What we do know is that there is no evidence at all for ghosts, despite the best efforts of those who'd like them to be true to find something - anything to prove their existence. Ghosts are cultural superstitions - the product of wishful thinking from those who want them to be true.
Statements along the lines of 'we don't fully understand 'x', therefore ghosts' just betray lazy and confused minds
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Some things are so vanishingly unlikely that they can be dismissed, and categorised as the wrong answer, in the complete lack of any evidence for their veracity. Ghosts fall into this category. There is a right answer, they don't exist, because they can't exist. Because...laws of physics.
In other words, everyone who reports an experience which doesn't fit in with this is lying or bonkers?Sticks. said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Some things are so vanishingly unlikely that they can be dismissed, and categorised as the wrong answer, in the complete lack of any evidence for their veracity. Ghosts fall into this category. There is a right answer, they don't exist, because they can't exist. Because...laws of physics.
In other words, everyone who reports an experience which doesn't fit in with this is lying or bonkers?Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff