ChatterBank29 mins ago
Question For Naomi
209 Answers
I read on another thread that you used to live in a haunted house. Can you tell us a little more about what happened there? Im genuinely interested. One of my sisters seems to constantly have unexplained things happening to her and other members of my family have had 'spookey' experiences.
Anyone else lived in a haunted house or had experiences of the 'impossible'?
Anyone else lived in a haunted house or had experiences of the 'impossible'?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Exactly, Naomi. I'm definitely not telling people what they have experienced and nor would i (it's nothing to do with intelligence, btw). I am saying it is human nature to attach your own meanings. Something we all do constantly, rightly or wrongly. We do have certain evidence for some things which appear (or have in the past) supernatural. As dt said, electricity;also, witchcraft, deja vu, demonic possessions, hallucinations...and so on. To totally ignore all scientific research to give a supernatural explanation is irrational and ignores any evidence we do have. There is still no evidence for ghosts though- not even partly.
Out of interest, my concept of a "ghost" is a spirit of a human who has passed away. We could very well be talking about different things. What is your perception of a "ghost"?
Out of interest, my concept of a "ghost" is a spirit of a human who has passed away. We could very well be talking about different things. What is your perception of a "ghost"?
// I have no doubt either, ludwig- but many here do! //
I don't think they do pixie. Most of us are agreed that when we have the explanation for 'ghosts' it will be rational.
It's only those that claim either claim to already know what they are, or that the phenomenon doesn't exist at all that I reckon are being irrational.
I don't think they do pixie. Most of us are agreed that when we have the explanation for 'ghosts' it will be rational.
It's only those that claim either claim to already know what they are, or that the phenomenon doesn't exist at all that I reckon are being irrational.
Well, this is why I'm asking about people's concept of ghosts- to see what they actually believe. It could mean different things to different people. To me- "supernatural" explanation is irrational, as i don't think anything can be outside the laws of nature. God is an irrational concept (or unreasonable, if you prefer) as are (my definition) of ghosts. As i said to Naomi, the problem is when people think ghosts are the answer, rather than the question.
Pixie,// it's nothing to do with intelligence, btw//
I beg to differ. I think there are a lot of people who don’t have the wherewithal to examine their experiences rationally – hence every creak of the floorboards, every shadow in a corner, becomes a 'supernatural' experience. Conversely, someone like me, and I’ve no doubt other posters here, will first and foremost seek a reasonable explanation - and incidentally, I don't believe that anything is 'supernatural' either.
//To totally ignore all scientific research to give a supernatural explanation is irrational and ignores any evidence we do have. //
Since scientific research has never produced any results, no one can possibly be ignoring it. I do object, though, when people treat me as though I’m stupid and start telling me that what I’ve seen and heard is all a figment of the imagination or something similar. It isn't.
//What is your perception of a "ghost"?//
I don’t really have a standard perception. “Ghosts” (for want of a better word) don’t always ‘materialise’ as people imagine. Poltergeists, for example, just create disruption. (We had a child’s glass marble go whizzing across the room once – at a height of about 6ft).
I beg to differ. I think there are a lot of people who don’t have the wherewithal to examine their experiences rationally – hence every creak of the floorboards, every shadow in a corner, becomes a 'supernatural' experience. Conversely, someone like me, and I’ve no doubt other posters here, will first and foremost seek a reasonable explanation - and incidentally, I don't believe that anything is 'supernatural' either.
//To totally ignore all scientific research to give a supernatural explanation is irrational and ignores any evidence we do have. //
Since scientific research has never produced any results, no one can possibly be ignoring it. I do object, though, when people treat me as though I’m stupid and start telling me that what I’ve seen and heard is all a figment of the imagination or something similar. It isn't.
//What is your perception of a "ghost"?//
I don’t really have a standard perception. “Ghosts” (for want of a better word) don’t always ‘materialise’ as people imagine. Poltergeists, for example, just create disruption. (We had a child’s glass marble go whizzing across the room once – at a height of about 6ft).
One of the reasons that make me doubt these happenings is where is the sense to it? Why would any spirit throw a glass marble, why would they move things and rattle doors, make the room cold, create a draught? yet they wont be seen live on camera, they wont pick up a pen and write a message or deliberately perform a task under scientific conditions to prove their existence, it appears that they are clearly trying to communicate. I want to believe but things just dont make sense to me.
"It's only those that claim either claim to already know what they are, or that the phenomenon doesn't exist at all that I reckon are being irrational."
There are two problems I have with this statement -- firstly, I don't think it's true that people necessarily claim to "know what they are". Sometimes they do, but they'd be wrong. However, this isn't because the explanation(s) is (are) wrong, but because they can't really be tested.
Take one case on here so far, grasscarp's experience. One explanation that might exist is that she saw something vague (it was at night, so maybe a tiredness-induced vision?), and then mentioned the experience to her boyfriend afterwards, and together they managed to suggest to each other that it was his grandmother. The conversation might have run "Was it a woman you saw?" "Yes" "Did she have such-and-such a set of features?" "Hmm... yes I think so." And so the conclusion was reached.
Now in the first place I am not claiming that this is actually happened at all, so please do not the explanation above shouldn't be taken all that seriously. The thing about suggestion is that it's subconscious, though, so that neither grasscarp nor her boyfriend of the time would have been aware of it,. The point is that, while it's completely impossible for me to prove that this is what happened, I would have thought it equally impossible for grasscarp or anyone else to rule it out either. And even if she managed to prove it to her satisfaction, it would be very tricky to convince anyone else of that. Personal experiences are personal, so that they can be hard to share -- and so, for anyone else, they should be wary of taking personal experiences as actual evidence of something new. Having said that, again they are thought-provoking and I'm interested to hear them, think about them, and if possible to concoct an explanation. Since I can never really test it this is futile really, but it's still nice to speculate.
Most "ghost stories", I think, fall within one of the following categories:
- A rational explanation already exists and is known (and confirmed), but often overlooked by those who tell it;
- A rational explanation already exists but cannot be confirmed, leaving room for speculation;
- A number of rational explanations that already exist may apply to this particular tale, but with not enough known about the incident it's not possible to know which of these explanations is the relevant one, if any;
- It can be shown that no already-existing rational explanation can explain the incident.
It's amazing the number of stories that are still bouncing around that fit into the first category above of being already refuted (examples include the Bermuda Triangle); but many such tales almost certainly fit into the third category, which could be summarised as "not necessarily unexplainable at the moment, but unexplained". Given the nature of personal experiences, it's difficult to see this changing. There aren't that many experiences that need a new explanation either, at least none that I'm aware of -- again, because it is as hard to prove that it was due to this rational explanation as it is to prove that it wasn't due to that.
I think this is the fairest way of putting the sceptic's position. A sceptic can't explain all or indeed most of these stories, but that is more because of the nature of personal experience than because we don't have the explanations yet. So a sceptic doesn't have to be able to "explain these incidents away". I don't see why this can be thought of as irrational. It might even be the other way round: the implication that "I'm not aware of a rational explanation for this, therefore there isn't one yet" is questionable.
* * * * *
In answer to the original question, I've had no experiences of the impossible so far. Rather like Ratter, I'd quite like to see this change.
There are two problems I have with this statement -- firstly, I don't think it's true that people necessarily claim to "know what they are". Sometimes they do, but they'd be wrong. However, this isn't because the explanation(s) is (are) wrong, but because they can't really be tested.
Take one case on here so far, grasscarp's experience. One explanation that might exist is that she saw something vague (it was at night, so maybe a tiredness-induced vision?), and then mentioned the experience to her boyfriend afterwards, and together they managed to suggest to each other that it was his grandmother. The conversation might have run "Was it a woman you saw?" "Yes" "Did she have such-and-such a set of features?" "Hmm... yes I think so." And so the conclusion was reached.
Now in the first place I am not claiming that this is actually happened at all, so please do not the explanation above shouldn't be taken all that seriously. The thing about suggestion is that it's subconscious, though, so that neither grasscarp nor her boyfriend of the time would have been aware of it,. The point is that, while it's completely impossible for me to prove that this is what happened, I would have thought it equally impossible for grasscarp or anyone else to rule it out either. And even if she managed to prove it to her satisfaction, it would be very tricky to convince anyone else of that. Personal experiences are personal, so that they can be hard to share -- and so, for anyone else, they should be wary of taking personal experiences as actual evidence of something new. Having said that, again they are thought-provoking and I'm interested to hear them, think about them, and if possible to concoct an explanation. Since I can never really test it this is futile really, but it's still nice to speculate.
Most "ghost stories", I think, fall within one of the following categories:
- A rational explanation already exists and is known (and confirmed), but often overlooked by those who tell it;
- A rational explanation already exists but cannot be confirmed, leaving room for speculation;
- A number of rational explanations that already exist may apply to this particular tale, but with not enough known about the incident it's not possible to know which of these explanations is the relevant one, if any;
- It can be shown that no already-existing rational explanation can explain the incident.
It's amazing the number of stories that are still bouncing around that fit into the first category above of being already refuted (examples include the Bermuda Triangle); but many such tales almost certainly fit into the third category, which could be summarised as "not necessarily unexplainable at the moment, but unexplained". Given the nature of personal experiences, it's difficult to see this changing. There aren't that many experiences that need a new explanation either, at least none that I'm aware of -- again, because it is as hard to prove that it was due to this rational explanation as it is to prove that it wasn't due to that.
I think this is the fairest way of putting the sceptic's position. A sceptic can't explain all or indeed most of these stories, but that is more because of the nature of personal experience than because we don't have the explanations yet. So a sceptic doesn't have to be able to "explain these incidents away". I don't see why this can be thought of as irrational. It might even be the other way round: the implication that "I'm not aware of a rational explanation for this, therefore there isn't one yet" is questionable.
* * * * *
In answer to the original question, I've had no experiences of the impossible so far. Rather like Ratter, I'd quite like to see this change.
Update to my New Inn thread. Saw the Paranormal Soc report yesterday...not that well put together as there wasn't any conclusions section , not because there weren't any.
In short, two possibly three picked up on, one male and little info on him other than clay pipe smoking, smells of a rich tobacco having been picked up and in the past, and then a strong presence of a woman in one of the bedrooms. They used hypnosis on one woman, establishing that she was middle aged, lost a child (a girl and possibly the third presence), three other children, lived and worked in the pub.....They hadn't been briefed on the characters and didn't want to know before all of this by the way but the info rendered tallied with what the manager and some of the locals know. Voices also heard at 3am and recorded..........
I am not sure about the hypnosis but the way they checked and independently double-checked presence and 'vortexes' (passage to the 'other side') was sound reasoning, folk not allowed to make contact with each other before or after running a test, report out to a third person etc.
In short, two possibly three picked up on, one male and little info on him other than clay pipe smoking, smells of a rich tobacco having been picked up and in the past, and then a strong presence of a woman in one of the bedrooms. They used hypnosis on one woman, establishing that she was middle aged, lost a child (a girl and possibly the third presence), three other children, lived and worked in the pub.....They hadn't been briefed on the characters and didn't want to know before all of this by the way but the info rendered tallied with what the manager and some of the locals know. Voices also heard at 3am and recorded..........
I am not sure about the hypnosis but the way they checked and independently double-checked presence and 'vortexes' (passage to the 'other side') was sound reasoning, folk not allowed to make contact with each other before or after running a test, report out to a third person etc.
jim, // firstly, I don't think it's true that people necessarily claim to "know what they are".
Not so. Most people seem convinced that they’re the souls of the departed. Whether they’re right or not is another matter.
//Sometimes they do, but they'd be wrong. However, this isn't because the explanation(s) is (are) wrong, but because they can't really be tested. ………//
Irrational. The absence of a test doesn’t make the answer wrong - it makes it unproven.
Not so. Most people seem convinced that they’re the souls of the departed. Whether they’re right or not is another matter.
//Sometimes they do, but they'd be wrong. However, this isn't because the explanation(s) is (are) wrong, but because they can't really be tested. ………//
Irrational. The absence of a test doesn’t make the answer wrong - it makes it unproven.
//. I do object, though, when people treat me as though I’m stupid and start telling me that what I’ve seen and heard is all a figment of the imagination or something similar. //
this is exactly what i mean, Naomi. You seem to be looking at "figment of imagination" as stupidity. It isn't. It's human and certainly no insult.
this is exactly what i mean, Naomi. You seem to be looking at "figment of imagination" as stupidity. It isn't. It's human and certainly no insult.
To support pixie, figment of the imagination - it's why barristers will try and shed sound, credible witness reports in a trial - whatever we see/hear/sense, we automatically put a spin on it, that's the way our brains work. We're not lying but its that imagination and the conclusions therein that can help fuel uncertainty in the jury's mind. Not much difference here and really nowt to do with intelligence.
Pixie & DT, your posts explaining that illusions are commonplace are patronising in the extreme and in assuming I don’t consider that possibility you discredit me. However, if it helps I’ll rephrase my original statement and say that events that have a tangible effect upon the real world are not figments of the imagination.
Latest Posts
Crosswords98 mins ago
Body & Soul109 mins ago
Connections #324 Tuesday 30 April
Quizzes & Puzzles123 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles131 mins ago
