Ghosts

[take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey]

Here's a cool 'ghost' story my parents would recount. For the record my late father reckoned it was a trick of the light... He thought ghosts were BS. Yet had two weird experiences. This is one of them.

My parents were returning home from day's scuba diving in the 60s on a 'dark and stormy night'.

As they were driving down a twisty a road up ahead they spotted a female figure on a bike. She was wearing a green mack and a headscarf. My father pulled out to give her room and as they started to draw level with her, she swerved across the road and under the car.

My father anchored up, nearly crashing the car (A35 Van as this is PH). Both him and my mother leapt out expecting to see a dead or injured women lying on the ground. Nothing. They spent a good 20 minutes searching for a body. Hedge row and ditches. Nothing. As there had been no impact at all they put it down to tiredness and trick of the light.

However, some 30 years later they were at a dinner party and started telling ghost stories as you do.

My mum starts telling their experience and as she is describing the women, she's interrupted by another couple who basically finish the story... They'd seen exactly the same thing... Weirdly though their experience was in the 80s. My father maintained it was a trick of the light - his words.

Mum leant more towards ghost given the changes to the environment - rural toad - over 20 years.

I just think it's a cool campfire tale.

[smn159]

Roofless Toothless said:

I’m not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Religion and atheism seem equally too ‘sure of themselves’ to me.

We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of, and only this week a new fundamental force of nature has been discovered.

I don’t know how one or two of the posters on here can be so certain about their opinions.

Ah, here we are then. The standard model does not explain gravity, therefore ghosts

[Stick Legs]

take-good-care-of-the-forest-dewey said:

Mum leant more towards ghost given the changes to the environment - rural toad - over 20 years.

As opposed to an Urban Toad...


Cool story though. I like it.

[Roofless Toothless]

smn159 said:

Roofless Toothless said:

I’m not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Religion and atheism seem equally too ‘sure of themselves’ to me.

We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of, and only this week a new fundamental force of nature has been discovered.

I don’t know how one or two of the posters on here can be so certain about their opinions.

Ah, here we are then. The standard model does not explain gravity, therefore ghosts

Well, if you think that’s what I said, then I either have a problem expressing myself or you have a problem with your comprehension.

[Plymo]

smn159 said:

Roofless Toothless said:

I’m not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Religion and atheism seem equally too ‘sure of themselves’ to me.

We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of, and only this week a new fundamental force of nature has been discovered.

I don’t know how one or two of the posters on here can be so certain about their opinions.

Ah, here we are then. The standard model does not explain gravity, therefore ghosts

That's a bit like the logic of that "Chariots of the Gods" book - we don't understand how ancient people managed to do lots of things, or why, therefore - Aliens did it!

[eharding]

Robbo 27 said:

eharding said:

BT Summers said:

catman said:

smn159 said:

The more interesting question is why so many believe in ghosts in the complete absence of evidence. Interesting piece in the New Scientist

Countless millions believe in some version of god with the same (none) level of proof. They don't suffer the same level of ridicule, though.

In both situations, people would be more willing to talk about their experiences if others were no so quick to turn to ridicule or suggest that the poster must be mistaken.

This has the effect of people walking away from what could be intersting topics.

As I said earlier, this is the worst of typical PH behaviour, deny the existance of something of which you have no personal experience.

So you'd rather pander to and apologise for this neurotic superstitious claptrap without there being scope for any criticism?

By all means, tell us your tales of the weird and wonderful oddities you've personally seen - just don't get the arse when you're assertion that it's something supernatural is dissected.

I think that the above post says it all.

A person's observations will be taken apart by others who have no knowledge or experience of that observation. The reaction from many will be - why should I add my experiences to a thread for others to dissect what I have experienced. The logical conclusion is that people will not post, why would they want to?

Edited by Robbo 27 on Saturday 10th April 04:12

Because in cases where the poster of such a tale refuses to give any further details to their account their credibility becomes increasingly fragile.

You still haven't told us in more detail where the pub with your ghostly girl was. Why is that? Surely something you'd remember.

[Roofless Toothless]

Plymo said:

smn159 said:

Roofless Toothless said:

I’m not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Religion and atheism seem equally too ‘sure of themselves’ to me.

We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of, and only this week a new fundamental force of nature has been discovered.

I don’t know how one or two of the posters on here can be so certain about their opinions.

Ah, here we are then. The standard model does not explain gravity, therefore ghosts

That's a bit like the logic of that "Chariots of the Gods" book - we don't understand how ancient people managed to do lots of things, or why, therefore - Aliens did it!

Good grief, another one!

I refer you to my previous answer.

Read my post again. In the first sentence I describe myself as agnostic. When it comes to religion, and ghosts too, as the two are getting conflated on this thread, I think it is clear where I stand.

My last remark is directed at posters who have such strongly held beliefs, and rely on the present state of science as a justification, when it is apparent that so many fundamental questions still have to answered. And if you think I am in any way anti-science, I have three degrees in science, including a Ph.D., and I know that a closed mind is not a scientific mind.

[eharding]

Roofless Toothless said:

Plymo said:

smn159 said:

Roofless Toothless said:

I’m not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Religion and atheism seem equally too ‘sure of themselves’ to me.

We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of, and only this week a new fundamental force of nature has been discovered.

I don’t know how one or two of the posters on here can be so certain about their opinions.

Ah, here we are then. The standard model does not explain gravity, therefore ghosts

That's a bit like the logic of that "Chariots of the Gods" book - we don't understand how ancient people managed to do lots of things, or why, therefore - Aliens did it!

Good grief, another one!

I refer you to my previous answer.

Read my post again. In the first sentence I describe myself as agnostic. When it comes to religion, and ghosts too, as the two are getting conflated on this thread, I think it is clear where I stand.

My last remark is directed at posters who have such strongly held beliefs, and rely on the present state of science as a justification, when it is apparent that so many fundamental questions still have to answered. And if you think I am in any way anti-science, I have three degrees in science, including a Ph.D., and I know that a closed mind is not a scientific mind.

Describing the current contradictions in cosmology as "We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of" isn't something you'd expect of someone claiming to hold a doctorate. Yes, there are conflicting models, some of which require the existence of hitherto unobserved classes of matter, but they are all models fundamentally founded on mathematics and observation. It may well be that if the Chandrasekhar limit relating to standard candle supernovae is revised in the light of further observation then the requirement for some of these fudge factors will go away. What you don't see is the fatuous "you weren't there so you can't comment" bilge from the scientific community - every observation and theory is open to examination and criticism.

There is however an established and well respected branch of science which relates to spiritualism and the supernatural - namely psychology. Whether it be understanding why some people genuinely have the need believe in such things, or why they feel compelled to lie about having experienced ghostly phenomena, there is an existing framework for study.

Remember the bloke in NP&E who claimed to have put his life savings on Trump to win the election, refused to provide any proof thereof, and finally disappeared without trace? Textbook lying fantasist. Had he on the other hand claimed to have seen the ghost of Elvis down at the bookies, you'd have folk coming out of the woodwork defending his crap, because calling it out somehow indicates a closed mind.

Edited by eharding on Saturday 10th April 11:16

[Sticks.]

eharding said:

There is however an established and well respected branch of science which relates to spiritualism and the supernatural - namely psychology. Whether it be understanding why some people genuinely have the need believe in such things, or why they feel compelled to lie about having experienced ghostly phenomena, there is an existing framework for study.

Edited by eharding on Saturday 10th April 11:16

So is what you're saying, and I did ask this before, that every instance of the 'paranormal' a case of the person being deluded or lying?

[conkerman]

Roofless Toothless said:

Read my post again. In the first sentence I describe myself as agnostic.

Bit of a cop out there.

You can either believe the claim is true or untrue, and rationally, you would reject the claim until there is sufficient evidence. Thats really for another thread though.

Why not start a 'Ghost Stories' thread? I like a ghost story as much as anyone. What irks many is the instant attribution of unknown things to Ghosts/Alions/etc. My take is that the universe we live in is bloody awesome and mysterious enough without needing to make more stuff up.

This is the one shot we get at life, make the best of it.

As I stated in a previous post, I'd welcome actual evidence of the supernatural.

[Sheets Tabuer]

Yes, absolutely. They are just not possible. In every case there is a psychological explanation.

[Roofless Toothless]

eharding said:

Describing the current contradictions in cosmology as "We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of" isn't something you'd expect of someone claiming to hold a doctorate. Yes, there are conflicting models, some of which require the existence of hitherto unobserved classes of matter, but they are all models fundamentally founded on mathematics and observation. It may well be that if the Chandrasekhar limit relating to standard candle supernovae is revised in the light of further observation then the requirement for some of these fudge factors will go away. What you don't see is the fatuous "you weren't there so you can't comment" bilge from the scientific community - every observation and theory is open to examination and criticism.

There is however an established and well respected branch of science which relates to spiritualism and the supernatural - namely psychology. Whether it be understanding why some people genuinely have the need believe in such things, or why they feel compelled to lie about having experienced ghostly phenomena, there is an existing framework for study.

Remember the bloke in NP&E who claimed to have put his life savings on Trump to win the election, refused to provide any proof thereof, and finally disappeared without trace? Textbook lying fantasist. Had he on the other hand claimed to have seen the ghost of Elvis down at the bookies, you'd have folk coming out of the woodwork defending his crap, because calling it out somehow indicates a closed mind.

Edited by eharding on Saturday 10th April 11:16

"... Chandrasekhar limit relating to standard candle supernovae ... "

You can't fool me with big words!

As I understand it, there is no guarantee that mathematics works the same in other universes, or parts of this universe, and has even changed in our human understanding of it over the last 200 years. We're getting on to the anthropic cosmological principle here, I think.

By the way, I don't 'claim' to have a Ph.D. - I actually do have one, albeit in geology, where perhaps understanding of maths and physics is not so profound.

[smn159]

Sticks. said:

So is what you're saying, and I did ask this before, that every instance of the 'paranormal' a case of the person being deluded or lying?

Yes. None of the stories stands up to any sort of scrutiny at all - not one. Plenty of people have sought evidence of the paranormal, sometimes with large resources and over many years of study, but there is not a single scrap of objective evidence that stands up to scrutiny. With the amount of haunted castles / pubs / kitchens / spare rooms described on this thread, don't you think that's a bit odd?

Believe in fairy stories / ghost stories / Father Christmas / whatever if you like, but they are not true.

The real area of interest is the psychology of why large swathes of the population believe them

[eharding]

Sticks. said:

eharding said:

There is however an established and well respected branch of science which relates to spiritualism and the supernatural - namely psychology. Whether it be understanding why some people genuinely have the need believe in such things, or why they feel compelled to lie about having experienced ghostly phenomena, there is an existing framework for study.

Edited by eharding on Saturday 10th April 11:16

So is what you're saying, and I did ask this before, that every instance of the 'paranormal' a case of the person being deluded or lying?

Put bluntly, yes - with the caveat that the actual delusion is related to the assertion that whatever an individual experienced - or thinks they experienced - must be the result of some supernatural phenomenon. I've seen weird visual effects when flying that I'd simply never experienced before, but they were just a rare combination of weather conditions, the aircraft attitude. I didn't feel the need to attribute them to aliens, angels following me across the sky or some other cobblers. The psychology of why you *would* be pre-disposed to instinctively tend towards a supernatural cause of unexplained events is fascinating, however.

[Sticks.]

smn159 said:

Sticks. said:

So is what you're saying, and I did ask this before, that every instance of the 'paranormal' a case of the person being deluded or lying?

Yes. None of the stories stands up to any sort of scrutiny at all - not one. Plenty of people have sought evidence of the paranormal, sometimes with large resources and over many years of study, but there is not a single scrap of objective evidence that stands up to scrutiny. With the amount of haunted castles / pubs / kitchens / spare rooms described on this thread, don't you think that's a bit odd?

Believe in fairy stories / ghost stories / Father Christmas / whatever if you like, but they are not true.

The real area of interest is the psychology of why large swathes of the population believe them

For 'evidence' you first have to make the assumption that it is existential. But as you say, it might be psychological.

The real area of interest as I see it, is what prompts people with no connection or prior knowledge and sometimes years apart to report the same 'experience' if it's in their mind? I suspect there will be a scientific answer at some point, but why do you think that happens?

[paulguitar]

Sticks. said:

every instance of the 'paranormal' a case of the person being deluded or lying?

Nailed it quite succinctly there. I think it is important to note that it's possible for honest people to sincerely believe that they have experienced something inexplicable. The part where it's then attributed to the 'supernatural' is where the psychology gets relevant and interesting.

[conkerman]

Maybe because from an evolutionary biology perspective are brains are pretty similar.

I'm not a biologist so who knows?

[eharding]

Roofless Toothless said:

As I understand it, there is no guarantee that mathematics works the same in other universes, or parts of this universe, and has even changed in our human understanding of it over the last 200 years.

You don't think that a purely mathematical theory, later validated by physical observation, has fundamentally changed our understanding of the Universe in the past 200 years?

Really?

Talk about a closed mind

[smn159]

Sticks. said:

smn159 said:

Sticks. said:

So is what you're saying, and I did ask this before, that every instance of the 'paranormal' a case of the person being deluded or lying?

Yes. None of the stories stands up to any sort of scrutiny at all - not one. Plenty of people have sought evidence of the paranormal, sometimes with large resources and over many years of study, but there is not a single scrap of objective evidence that stands up to scrutiny. With the amount of haunted castles / pubs / kitchens / spare rooms described on this thread, don't you think that's a bit odd?

Believe in fairy stories / ghost stories / Father Christmas / whatever if you like, but they are not true.

The real area of interest is the psychology of why large swathes of the population believe them

For 'evidence' you first have to make the assumption that it is existential. But as you say, it might be psychological.

The real area of interest as I see it, is what prompts people with no connection or prior knowledge and sometimes years apart to report the same 'experience' if it's in their mind? I suspect there will be a scientific answer at some point, but why do you think that happens?

Surely anything interacting with the physical world - being observed walking through walls / making rooms cold etc - is by definition existential.

For your second point, I have no idea - although studies show that people tend to believe that they see / experience what they expect. So ghosts appear to people who 'believe' in them and expect to see them.

Worth remembering too that the brain provides you with a version of reality which appears very real and continuous, but is largely created internally with very limited sensory input. It's easy to see how it can be fooled.

[SCEtoAUX]

smn159 said:

Roofless Toothless said:

I’m not an atheist, rather an agnostic. Religion and atheism seem equally too ‘sure of themselves’ to me.

We live in a world where the cleverest of scientists haven’t got a clue what the majority of the universe is made of, and only this week a new fundamental force of nature has been discovered.

I don’t know how one or two of the posters on here can be so certain about their opinions.

Ah, here we are then. The standard model does not explain gravity, therefore ghosts

Quite. They just don't get it and they never will.

There are no Gods, there are no ghosts, there is what we observe and it is the task of science to explain it.