Twitching & Birdwatching8 mins ago
Ghosts
I would never normally consider posting a question about ghosts in this section but I think I'll get the best answer here.
I do not believe in any supernatural phenomena, however I was speaking to some members of a family we have known for years and was very surprised to find that 3 adult members of this family did. They claimed that each of them had independently seen the ghost of an old man in their bathroom, and various other seemingly paranormal events, objects moving, noises etc.
I didn't know what to say to them, I completely do not believe in these type of events yet I consider these people to be completely honest, sane and genine.
Noises and other minor events can generally be explained by logical means, but can anyone offer an explanation for actually seeing ghosts, particularly people seeing the same ghost?
Any suggestions would be greatly received, it's almost enough to make me question my own beliefs.
I do not believe in any supernatural phenomena, however I was speaking to some members of a family we have known for years and was very surprised to find that 3 adult members of this family did. They claimed that each of them had independently seen the ghost of an old man in their bathroom, and various other seemingly paranormal events, objects moving, noises etc.
I didn't know what to say to them, I completely do not believe in these type of events yet I consider these people to be completely honest, sane and genine.
Noises and other minor events can generally be explained by logical means, but can anyone offer an explanation for actually seeing ghosts, particularly people seeing the same ghost?
Any suggestions would be greatly received, it's almost enough to make me question my own beliefs.
Answers
People can be wrong, the eye in particular is untrustworth
22:23 Sun 18th Aug 2013
...for if the opinion can't survive such scrutiny, then I can discard it, and if it does survive then the other person can adopt it for themselves. It's a healthy sort of conflict, where the debate focuses on the opinions held and why they are held.
If I have a complaint, it's that I don't think you have focused on those views: instead of attacking them you have often attacked me. I'm not the only person to think that this is the case, and it is something you might like to think about.
If I have a complaint, it's that I don't think you have focused on those views: instead of attacking them you have often attacked me. I'm not the only person to think that this is the case, and it is something you might like to think about.
Jim, firstly, I have not hinted that you need to think about your intelligence, so yet again you are reaching conclusions that are far from the truth. I advised you to think about your apparent lack of curiosity, and the advice I offered was simply that - advice. You say you want to learn and I can think of no better way to learn than to ask questions. Christopher Hitchens(?) hit that squarely on the head with his quote. I see no disgrace in asking questions - it's something that I, personally, have no hesitation in doing - and I wouldn't dream of telling someone I was 'scrutinising' them without first determining exactly what it was I was claiming to be scrutinising - which is what you haven't done.
Secondly, I've already answered your first question in your last post. I said "If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out." I also said I don't dodge questions. However, that wasn't the 'why?' I was referring to. I've said this before, but in the absence of a response I'll say it again. Does it not occur to you that sensible people consider the explanations you give before concluding that there is no rational explanation? I don't believe that anything is supernatural, so I certainly do. You have consistently failed to ask 'why' people believe as they do. You have not asked for a single example of an experience that defies explanation.
//I think I PROBABLY know.//
I realise that.
//I never claimed 100% certainty about these explanations.//
Conversely, you haven't conceded that there might be other explanations either.
//As always, they can be overturned, and I've asked you a few times now why you think they can be.//
See my answer above where I said "If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out."
//Why do you believe that in some instances the usual explanations of unreliability of the human witness(es) do not apply? How did you rule them out? //
Same question as the previous two - and the same answer applies.
//Here are my views, challenge them -- attack them, even!//
Easier said than done when rational observation is immediately construed as 'ad hominem' attack.
//I'm not the only person to think that this is the case, and it is something you might like to think about. //
Throughout this thread you have put words into my mouth and you have consistently accused me of attacking you personally - and I have consistently explained that you are mistaken. At the beginning of your last post to me you accused me of hinting that you need to think about your intelligence when I have done nothing of the sort. A good example of a mind playing tricks on its owner perhaps? As I have clearly demonstrated, it is all about perception, and therefore I have nothing to think about in that regard. I trust that clarifies that.
If I have missed any of your questions, perhaps you would be kind enough to make them clear by listing them individually.
Secondly, I've already answered your first question in your last post. I said "If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out." I also said I don't dodge questions. However, that wasn't the 'why?' I was referring to. I've said this before, but in the absence of a response I'll say it again. Does it not occur to you that sensible people consider the explanations you give before concluding that there is no rational explanation? I don't believe that anything is supernatural, so I certainly do. You have consistently failed to ask 'why' people believe as they do. You have not asked for a single example of an experience that defies explanation.
//I think I PROBABLY know.//
I realise that.
//I never claimed 100% certainty about these explanations.//
Conversely, you haven't conceded that there might be other explanations either.
//As always, they can be overturned, and I've asked you a few times now why you think they can be.//
See my answer above where I said "If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out."
//Why do you believe that in some instances the usual explanations of unreliability of the human witness(es) do not apply? How did you rule them out? //
Same question as the previous two - and the same answer applies.
//Here are my views, challenge them -- attack them, even!//
Easier said than done when rational observation is immediately construed as 'ad hominem' attack.
//I'm not the only person to think that this is the case, and it is something you might like to think about. //
Throughout this thread you have put words into my mouth and you have consistently accused me of attacking you personally - and I have consistently explained that you are mistaken. At the beginning of your last post to me you accused me of hinting that you need to think about your intelligence when I have done nothing of the sort. A good example of a mind playing tricks on its owner perhaps? As I have clearly demonstrated, it is all about perception, and therefore I have nothing to think about in that regard. I trust that clarifies that.
If I have missed any of your questions, perhaps you would be kind enough to make them clear by listing them individually.
Your post went:
"... intelligence is not best judged by the knowledge that one has acquired, but by the questions one asks. Something else you might like to think about."
If that is not meant as a dig at my intelligence, it can clearly be read as such, and not only by me. That's what Ab Editor was referring to.
As to this point:
"You have consistently failed to ask 'why' people believe as they do."
Since my entire point is that people believe as they do because e.g. their brain plays tricks on them but they don't recognise this, it's not clear that I need to ask the question. I already have a possible answer. It's this answer that needs to be demonstrated as false in particular cases. So, again, why do you think this isn't always true?
I have plenty of examples I am aware of, of stories that apparently "defy explanation". Usually, they do not defy explanation at all, but rather they defy some people's attempts to explain it. And then rest of those stories have too little data.
"Does it not occur to you that sensible people consider the explanations you give before concluding that there is no rational explanation?"
Well, yes, it does occur to me. But then it comes back to the same point, that people aren't always able to interpret their own experiences correctly. It doesn't matter how sensible you are, this is always going to be true. And in particular if people reach a conclusion that contradicts a large body of experimental evidence, that conclusion ought to be more suspect than the evidence is.
Meanwhile, this: "If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out," is a non-answer. You've already established that for some experiences you have "ruled delusion out", and so effectively this is just repeating yourself. But how and why do you feel you can do this, for such an experience?
"... intelligence is not best judged by the knowledge that one has acquired, but by the questions one asks. Something else you might like to think about."
If that is not meant as a dig at my intelligence, it can clearly be read as such, and not only by me. That's what Ab Editor was referring to.
As to this point:
"You have consistently failed to ask 'why' people believe as they do."
Since my entire point is that people believe as they do because e.g. their brain plays tricks on them but they don't recognise this, it's not clear that I need to ask the question. I already have a possible answer. It's this answer that needs to be demonstrated as false in particular cases. So, again, why do you think this isn't always true?
I have plenty of examples I am aware of, of stories that apparently "defy explanation". Usually, they do not defy explanation at all, but rather they defy some people's attempts to explain it. And then rest of those stories have too little data.
"Does it not occur to you that sensible people consider the explanations you give before concluding that there is no rational explanation?"
Well, yes, it does occur to me. But then it comes back to the same point, that people aren't always able to interpret their own experiences correctly. It doesn't matter how sensible you are, this is always going to be true. And in particular if people reach a conclusion that contradicts a large body of experimental evidence, that conclusion ought to be more suspect than the evidence is.
Meanwhile, this: "If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out," is a non-answer. You've already established that for some experiences you have "ruled delusion out", and so effectively this is just repeating yourself. But how and why do you feel you can do this, for such an experience?
@naomi
jim said
//how have you accounted for or ruled out those same explanations in the cases when you think they do not apply? Or, at least, why do you believe they do not apply in other cases?//
you replied:
``I don't dodge questions and I didn't realise I'd missed that one. If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out. ``
Is this a solipsism, or teliology?
I'll try Plain English. A self-fullfilling argument. It's a very wriggly answer - the frustrating kind I was referring to.
How - or under what circumstances - can delusion not be a consideration?
Could you go into details about an experience which illustrates what you're getting at?
jim said
//how have you accounted for or ruled out those same explanations in the cases when you think they do not apply? Or, at least, why do you believe they do not apply in other cases?//
you replied:
``I don't dodge questions and I didn't realise I'd missed that one. If the experience is such that delusion cannot be a consideration, I rule delusion out. ``
Is this a solipsism, or teliology?
I'll try Plain English. A self-fullfilling argument. It's a very wriggly answer - the frustrating kind I was referring to.
How - or under what circumstances - can delusion not be a consideration?
Could you go into details about an experience which illustrates what you're getting at?
Viv, I'm listening to you - and I have no reason to doubt you.
Jim, I really can't be bothered with this constant dissection of what you erroneously think I meant. If you read that quote again in its proper context you might come to actually understand that it doesn't cast aspersions on intelligence - it merely indicates that asking questions is not a sign of stupidity, but of intelligence. Now can we move on - please?
//Since my entire point is that people believe as they do because e.g. their brain plays tricks on them but they don't recognise this, it's not clear that I need to ask the question. I already have a possible answer.//
Why continue then?
//It's this answer that needs to be demonstrated as false in particular cases. So, again, why do you think this isn't always true?//
I've answered that but since you required hard evidence, which I can't provide, further explanation, for you, would be futile.
Hypognosis, thank you. Plain Engish is good. The problem here is that anecdotal evidence is inadmissible so whatever anyone says will be dismissed and they will, in one way or another, be deemed to be mistaken. However, at the risk of 'dismissal' I'll answer your question. Among other things, the only three people in a house, in broad daylight, witnessing a child's glass marble whizzing through the air across a room at high speed and at a height of about 6ft, cannot be considered a trick of the mind. Likewise, neither can a call, strangely pertinent to an event that was happily occurring at that time, recorded on an answerphone that came from a switched off and rarely used mobile phone lying abandoned in its case in the bottom of someone's handbag, and neither can a household waking up in the morning to find every single clock and watch in the house, whether electric, clockwork, or battery operated, including the cooker, the video recorder, and watches lying in drawers, had gone back exactly an hour - and that happened not once, but several times. These things were not tricks of the mind, they were not shadows in the night, they were not creaking floorboards or wonky plumbing - and no one was playing tricks. I have no explanation for any of them - but if anyone else has, I'm listening.
Jim, I really can't be bothered with this constant dissection of what you erroneously think I meant. If you read that quote again in its proper context you might come to actually understand that it doesn't cast aspersions on intelligence - it merely indicates that asking questions is not a sign of stupidity, but of intelligence. Now can we move on - please?
//Since my entire point is that people believe as they do because e.g. their brain plays tricks on them but they don't recognise this, it's not clear that I need to ask the question. I already have a possible answer.//
Why continue then?
//It's this answer that needs to be demonstrated as false in particular cases. So, again, why do you think this isn't always true?//
I've answered that but since you required hard evidence, which I can't provide, further explanation, for you, would be futile.
Hypognosis, thank you. Plain Engish is good. The problem here is that anecdotal evidence is inadmissible so whatever anyone says will be dismissed and they will, in one way or another, be deemed to be mistaken. However, at the risk of 'dismissal' I'll answer your question. Among other things, the only three people in a house, in broad daylight, witnessing a child's glass marble whizzing through the air across a room at high speed and at a height of about 6ft, cannot be considered a trick of the mind. Likewise, neither can a call, strangely pertinent to an event that was happily occurring at that time, recorded on an answerphone that came from a switched off and rarely used mobile phone lying abandoned in its case in the bottom of someone's handbag, and neither can a household waking up in the morning to find every single clock and watch in the house, whether electric, clockwork, or battery operated, including the cooker, the video recorder, and watches lying in drawers, had gone back exactly an hour - and that happened not once, but several times. These things were not tricks of the mind, they were not shadows in the night, they were not creaking floorboards or wonky plumbing - and no one was playing tricks. I have no explanation for any of them - but if anyone else has, I'm listening.
Ostracising your ghost?
Well, I would have extended my questions to you as well, except you said //but the effort of investigating seemed too much at the time....//
so I didn't think you'd be able to provide the level of detail I am looking for or have any desire to be quizzed on it.
//well, I was nicely preoccupied.//
Also, reading further meaning into this brief phrase, I think I'd be intruding into your privacy if I was to enquire about effects on the brain. (Yours or hers) Ahem!
Well, I would have extended my questions to you as well, except you said //but the effort of investigating seemed too much at the time....//
so I didn't think you'd be able to provide the level of detail I am looking for or have any desire to be quizzed on it.
//well, I was nicely preoccupied.//
Also, reading further meaning into this brief phrase, I think I'd be intruding into your privacy if I was to enquire about effects on the brain. (Yours or hers) Ahem!
But I wasn't the only one who thought you meant that -- so you are calling more than just one person erroneous. The entire tone of your posts is filled with anger and aggression, or at least a blunt directness that can easily be mistaken for aggression. So you shouldn't be surprised when people read that into your posts, and you might want to acknowledge that it's a reasonable interpretation, rather than regarding everyone who reads it into them as wrong/ erroneous/ tiresome/ bothersome/ insert whatever else it is. After all, why would sensible people believe that you are being so personal and aggressive...?
Intriguingly, you finally managed to answer my question by proxy, since your answer to hypognosis is precisely the one I was looking for.
Intriguingly, you finally managed to answer my question by proxy, since your answer to hypognosis is precisely the one I was looking for.
@naomi,
well, the flying marble is a tad theatrical but I'll take it as read that you immediately searched for booby-trap contraptions, a la Indiana Jones.
The telephone thing I'll have to think about. All I can think to ask at the moment is how do you determine the phone number of the caller from an ansafone recording?
The missing time thing, I suspect human intervention - because it was precisely one hour. A time unit which only has meaning to us.
I'm familiar with the association between 'missing time' and ETs but you'd expect the quantity of lost time to be in units the ETs could relate to, not whole hours.
So, I think you need to dismiss the possibility that you had a HUGE and proficient practical joker in your midst at the time. Light sleeper, able to move about at night in complete silence (NOTE: probably thunders around the house like an elephant when you are awake).
Can you dismiss sleepwalking? People have been filmed pulling things out of a fridge and even cooking whilst not fully conscious; what's so different about tampering with timepieces.
Actually, the watches burind in drawers could all be tampered with before anyone had gone to bed. You only found them and looked at them after you'd found the more obvious clocks to be wrong.
well, the flying marble is a tad theatrical but I'll take it as read that you immediately searched for booby-trap contraptions, a la Indiana Jones.
The telephone thing I'll have to think about. All I can think to ask at the moment is how do you determine the phone number of the caller from an ansafone recording?
The missing time thing, I suspect human intervention - because it was precisely one hour. A time unit which only has meaning to us.
I'm familiar with the association between 'missing time' and ETs but you'd expect the quantity of lost time to be in units the ETs could relate to, not whole hours.
So, I think you need to dismiss the possibility that you had a HUGE and proficient practical joker in your midst at the time. Light sleeper, able to move about at night in complete silence (NOTE: probably thunders around the house like an elephant when you are awake).
Can you dismiss sleepwalking? People have been filmed pulling things out of a fridge and even cooking whilst not fully conscious; what's so different about tampering with timepieces.
Actually, the watches burind in drawers could all be tampered with before anyone had gone to bed. You only found them and looked at them after you'd found the more obvious clocks to be wrong.
Jim, you didn't ask me the question Hypognosis asked - but since you don't appear to want to move on, for the sake of harmony here, I won't respond to your posts again. At least that way I won't be inadvertently upsetting you.
Hypognosis, the marble thing wasn't theatrical - alarming, but not theatrical.
The telephone thing. I dialled 1471 to get the number of the last call. Incidentally, I didn't recognise the number but dialled it back immediately. The phone was switched off. Later on I was telling someone about it - and it turned out to be her phone. She went to fetch it, switched it on, and there on the log was a call to me and a missed call from me.
The clocks thing - ETs never occurred to me - and still don't. There are no practical jokers, no sleep walkers - nothing that could explain it rationally. I would say that at that time I lived in what I can only describe as a seriously 'haunted' house where things went rather more than 'bump' day and night. Quite horrible actually - and that is one reason I never dismiss other people's claims out of hand. I can't.
Hypognosis, the marble thing wasn't theatrical - alarming, but not theatrical.
The telephone thing. I dialled 1471 to get the number of the last call. Incidentally, I didn't recognise the number but dialled it back immediately. The phone was switched off. Later on I was telling someone about it - and it turned out to be her phone. She went to fetch it, switched it on, and there on the log was a call to me and a missed call from me.
The clocks thing - ETs never occurred to me - and still don't. There are no practical jokers, no sleep walkers - nothing that could explain it rationally. I would say that at that time I lived in what I can only describe as a seriously 'haunted' house where things went rather more than 'bump' day and night. Quite horrible actually - and that is one reason I never dismiss other people's claims out of hand. I can't.
Latest Posts
News17 mins ago
Home & Garden20 mins ago
Will Blasphemy Laws Be Reintroduced?
News20 mins ago
News25 mins ago
