Do you believe in Ghosts?

[Ghosts group]

Hello every one,

Do you believe in Ghosts?
2010 statics show that most Americans believe that ghosts exist. Well, what you think !!

Please welcome us the ghosts group, we are a group studying literature and we need your help to come up with an interesting topic for our project. At the moment we are thinking to write about ghosts in literature like Shakespeare's hamlet and the ghost stories of the master Edgar Allan Poe; that's why are called Ghosts group, genus I know ;) we even have nightmares since then LOL. Anyway, if you have a better idea or a good thesis for our topic please help us.

we will appriciate any response from you guys. Thanks in advance.

[Calidore]

Did Poe do any ghost stories? I don't remember any, though it's been a while since I've read him.

[YesNo]

My aunt died many years ago when I was studying at a university. I was not close to her and I remember seeing her only as a child before she moved to a warmer climate. I remember her appearing out of nowhere from about the waist up and we had a brief voiceless thought conversation. Only later did I receive a phone call from my parents saying that she died.

Since then I've had no problem believing in ghosts and more recently understood that such events as I had might have happened to 5% of the population. So they are not common events, but not rare either. Raymond Moody calls them "shared-death experiences". Two members of my extended family, a niece and a partner of another niece, had similar experiences with people who died.

I have also heard of mediums who return messages from people who have died to their living relatives. This is different from the shared-death experience, but I have no reason not to accept it as well as valid.

[PSRemeshChandra]

As a start it would be good to read one of Arthur Conan Doyle's lesser known novels, I think its name is The World Of Mist, in which Professor Challenger explores this question of life after death. The success or failure of past beings speaking through mediums is critical, in understanding as well as in predicting the fate and the future of the world. In fact, the creator of Sherlock Holmes, in his later years spent a great deal of his time on seriously following this subject. We all know that the most mysterious phenomenon which we call life is not purely or entirely organic. Cavendish, Einstein, Tagore and Doyle have discussed and debated this unknown property of life much with their friends. Every sensible man in this world thinks about the mystery behind the sudden vanishing of life from the corpuscular body. Philosophers of the East, in all ages, strongly believed that the soul is deathless and so, immortal. Many even thought that human souls are bits and parcels of some greater universal soul, which at times MAN-ifests itself as life, to fulfil some purpose. Anyway, conception of the idea of a ghost is beautiful. They should be there, peopling the unobservable realms of time, beyond and around, solacing man in his cosmic loneliness.

[MarkBastable]

2010 statics show that most Americans believe that ghosts exist..

What's more, most Americans believe in angels. And I'm not talking metaphor here - they believe in blonde androgynes with big feathery wings, swooping over Idaho and taking care of ordinary folk so that, when lightning strikes or a truck careers off the road, the ordinary folk in question are literally only eight or nine miles away, thus narrowly escaping death, thanks to the airborne crossdressers apparently playing favourites.

I know this is true, and that angels exist, because most of the population of the US - or at least the bits of it more than two hundred yards from the coastline - spam me on a regular basis to tell me all about it.

[YesNo]

Regarding angels, I am not sure what they are, but I take the advice of Gary Quinn in his book, May the Angels Be with You, where he lists seven groups of angels representing vision, wisdom, purity, strength, love, peace and victory to be invoked in that order.

I don't actually believe in them which I consider a neutral opinion such as whether they are airborne cross-dressers or not. I prefer to pretend that they are present which I think involves a different kind of commitment.

I've never received spam about angels.

[Mutie]

Never seen one myself, but I believe. Ive heard too many stories from credible, sensible non-wacky friends not to. I like the theory that they are kind of like recordings with no actual consioussness.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Hello every one,

Do you believe in Ghosts?
2010 statics show that most Americans believe that ghosts exist. Well, what you think !!

Please welcome us the ghosts group, we are a group studying literature and we need your help to come up with an interesting topic for our project. At the moment we are thinking to write about ghosts in literature like Shakespeare's hamlet and the ghost stories of the master Edgar Allan Poe; that's why are called Ghosts group, genus I know ;) we even have nightmares since then LOL. Anyway, if you have a better idea or a good thesis for our topic please help us.

we will appriciate any response from you guys. Thanks in advance.

No. Now go away.

[KCurtis]

What's more, most Americans believe in angels. And I'm not talking metaphor here - they believe in blonde androgynes with big feathery wings, swooping over Idaho and taking care of ordinary folk so that, when lightning strikes or a truck careers off the road, the ordinary folk in question are literally only eight or nine miles away, thus narrowly escaping death, thanks to the airborne crossdressers apparently playing favourites.

I know this is true, and that angels exist, because most of the population of the US - or at least the bits of it more than two hundred yards from the coastline - spam me on a regular basis to tell me all about it.

:lol: This is true, unfortunately. Also, more Americans than ever before believe in creationism over evolution. What happened????? :banghead:

[KCurtis]

Hello every one,

Do you believe in Ghosts?
2010 statics show that most Americans believe that ghosts exist. Well, what you think !!



No, I don't.

[Darcy88]

Nope.

[cafolini]

What else can be done with Ghosts but believe or disbelieve in them? They are not the materials of knowledge.

[Myshkin.]

A yes/no poll would be interesting to see to what extent literature is a remedy against superstition.

[Charles Darnay]

My view about ghosts in literature (particularly Shakespeare) is that they are less based on superstition and more the premise of "ghosts are awesome!" I mean - who doesn't love that scene in Macbeth where he goes to sit down only to find a ghost on his chair?

And do I have to mention that without ghosts we would not have Ghostbusters?

So, to this group who probably aren't the Ghostbusters - if you are working on a project about ghosts in literature, whether people believe in them or not has little relevance.

[Paulclem]

I think the question is the wrong one. Belief is the state of being convinced by something, or that something exists, without the need for any experience of such a phenomenon. I find such an expectation to be unrealistic - particularly in this scientifically minded era. So no I don't believe in ghosts.

Have I seen one? Not in the usual way of seeing ghosts - recogniseable people who have a discarnate quality, and which are related or linked to some place, and who may or may not communicate. I have a problem with this idea anyway. Given all the tragic deaths, young people's deaths, murders, traumatic deaths, etc then you would reasonably expect to see more as time goes on. Where are all these ghosts? I don't think the popular conception of the word has anything in it.

I think that the word ghost conjures up this literary idea of a ghost - a figure that appears or communicates and betokens certain events or tragedies. I think this idea of a ghost is a myth - though in saying this i'm not commenting on Yesno's experience of a relative. I think that kind of experience is different from the idea of a ghost haunting a place.

Have I seen something - perhaps a spirit or prescence? Yes
Do I know others who have had this experience? Yes
Has the experience been explained or explained away? No, though I have ideas that may or may not be wrong.

I also think that it is very easy to jump into a statement of yes there is, or no there isn't based upon a particular view, attitude or mindset. If your attitude is accomodating of all things psychic, then it may be very easy to say yes I believe, just as it is very easy for a scientifically minded person to say no.

I think both positions say more about the person themselves than whether or not there is something in it. In my view, it's best to have a discerning scepticism. Unless something happens to you, it remains only a possibility.

[Buh4Bee]

It's one of those topics that most people think you are crazy if you admit an affirmative answer. So think me crazy, but I have had experiences at a relative's house on several occasions. They had to call someone in to clean out the house and they still have stuff going on in even after the fact. It's bizarre and I don't think most people are sensitive to it, but if you are it can be a real pain.

[YesNo]

:lol: This is true, unfortunately. Also, more Americans than ever before believe in creationism over evolution. What happened????? :banghead:
I think you are making an implied, but incorrect, association between people who hold creationist views and those accepting accounts of ghosts as real.

In my case, I will not outright dismiss anyone's vision of a ghost without getting further evidence. However, I also accept evolution, specifically that presented by paleontologists such as Niels Eldridge and Stephen J. Gould which includes the idea of "punctuated equilibria".

I don't really know what someone who accepts the account of Genesis as literal fact would think of the idea of a ghost. Does the Christian Bible even talk about them? They talk about angels, but I think that comes from Israel's repatriation by the Persians, who were Zoroastrians, at the end of their exile in Babylon. Also, based on a quick search, some Christians may consider ghosts a more satanic phenomenon than communications from deceased people: http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/hauntings.htm

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

What's more, most Americans believe in angels. And I'm not talking metaphor here - they believe in blonde androgynes with big feathery wings, swooping over Idaho and taking care of ordinary folk so that, when lightning strikes or a truck careers off the road, the ordinary folk in question are literally only eight or nine miles away, thus narrowly escaping death, thanks to the airborne crossdressers apparently playing favourites.

I know this is true, and that angels exist, because most of the population of the US - or at least the bits of it more than two hundred yards from the coastline - spam me on a regular basis to tell me all about it.

Hmmmmm. I've never gotten a spam email about angels. I guess I can conclude that absolutely no Americans beieve in angels then. What a relief!

[MarkBastable]

Hmmmmm. I've never gotten a spam email about angels.

Obviously they feel I need it more than you do.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Obviously they feel I need it more than you do.

Well, what the ****? Who are they to decide whether or not I need angels. Maybe I do want angels, did they ever think of that? *******s.

[Cunninglinguist]

Bear with me here.*

Entanglement. If two electrons which were created together are sent to the opposite edges of the universe, and one is somehow affected, then we can observe that the other is also affected identically and simultaneously. The corollary is that information is either traveling infinitely fast or that, in actuality, the two are still somehow connected via subspace. In other words, the effect is somehow nonlocal, which means that entanglement crushes our idea of space (and possibly time); and since everything was created together at the moment of the big bang, everything must still be touching in this way. Perhaps then, across spacetime, interactions in the unmeasurable realm of entanglement account for possibly all the apparent randomness of quantum particles; what seems to be randomness is simply effect of some spatially and temporally non-local, agentive collection of information existing in this same entangled, subdimensional world. Let us talk about ghosts respecting this possibility.

Granted humans are complex systems of physical and quantum information, maybe ghosts exist as a product of our minds/brains--highly inter-connected systems of entangled quantum information--nonlocally interacting, creating, destroying, or otherwise affecting across time and space other, different systems of entangled quantum wave-particles which, when observed, collapse into systems of particles that follow our neat and familiar classical logic. Maybe the capabilities of these quantum interactions extend beyond information as particles, but into the production of noises, movements, and feelings. If two systems (for instance, two brains) in the same spacetime exhibit similar behaviors, what's to keep them from being quantumly detached? What's to keep them from establishing between themselves a special, more obvious category of entanglement, as opposed to that generic entanglement caused by the big bang? There is a reasonable argument to be made that particles only become observably entangled and gain the ability to "affect" each other "outside" of our spacetime when they behave similarly or in some way identically within it. Furthermore, as we are simply aggregates composed of and governed by the same information and interactions, the consciousness and sentience of ghosts, however they might manifest, can be asked. But, I think, the question of which kinds of systems--which kinds of brain states and mind sets--might lead the the production of these other systems, ghosts, is one more easily approached. Maybe the very (collective) belief in ghosts, spirits, what have you, is the cause of them. Or maybe I don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

Do I personally believe in the existence of ghosts? I don't really have any reason not to believe. While I've never really had a personal encounter, I don't go to cocktail parties (that's where they talk about this kind of stuff, right?), which I guess means that I can remain something of an academic skeptic on the topic.

*edit

[YesNo]

Interesting ideas about entanglement, Cunninglinguist.

The idea of "non-local" behavior does keep coming up in my reading, but I don't understand it.

Since some may not be familiar with "entanglement", here is a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement I had to look it up myself to make sure I followed your argument.

[PoeticPassions]

Ghosts, spirits, or whatever you want to call them may or may not exist. it depends on whether one believes in any kind of after life (which may be tied to one's religious beliefs but does not have to be... one can be quite nonreligious, scientific, against the traditional ideas of heaven and Hell and still believe that there is more to a body than its physical self).

Personally, I have generally been skeptical, and up until about a few years ago, I was almost certain of the nothingness following death (my favorite phrase in Latin when I was 11 was 'post mortem nihil est'). Now, after a series of interesting and strange experiences, and perhaps more receptiveness and a journey into my own intuitive powers, I have come to the conclusion that I do not know what happens after death, and that I am not sure whether 'ghosts' exist. Still, even in the face of having experiences with 'ghosts,' and bizarre occurrences, feelings, and dreams I remain skeptical... But part of me would like to believe that they do exist.

As for where they would all be--well, the universe is infinite... and I do think that if they do exist, not everyone would be able to perceive them, just not like everyone can write poetry, understand quantum mechanics, have precognitive dreams or really strong intuitive (possibly psychic) experiences, or paint works such as the 'Mona Lisa.'

[Paulclem]

Having done a quick count, there are more affirmatives than negatives which is interesting today. It is also interesting that the posters who have said they have had experiences are the more thoughtful posts like Poetic and Buh4b above whereas the no group have been no without any real explanation which I feel is a response in a kind of expectation that this will be the obvious conclusion. Cunning's is an interesting response too from a scientific perspective, though it remains speculation.

We have unexplained opinion, justified opinion, speculation, and a parallel implying a negative from Mark. I would have expected a resounding and fervent no. It's a much more mixed response. I wonder if the thread would have gone differently if those with a soid science opinion had waded in first.

[MarkBastable]

Having done a quick count, there are more affirmatives than negatives which is interesting today. It is also interesting that the posters who have said they have had experiences are the more thoughtful posts like Poetic and Buh4b above whereas the no group have been no without any real explanation which I feel is a response in a kind of expectation that this will be the obvious conclusion. Cunning's is an interesting response too from a scientific perspective, though it remains speculation.

We have unexplained opinion, justified opinion, speculation, and a parallel implying a negative from Mark. I would have expected a resounding and fervent no. It's a much more mixed response. I wonder if the thread would have gone differently if those with a soid science opinion had waded in first.


Hang on a minute - a bit of scientific method here.

Given that ghosts are not an established part of scientific thinking, it's up to those who do wish us to consider the possibility of the existence of ghosts to present an evidential case to be tested. Then the proposition becomes a matter for debate.

If I were to suggest that the energy in the universe is generated by tiny yellow pixies, as a by-product of their unceasing efforts to extract precious subatomic candy-floss from the space between photons, it would not be up to everyone else to come up with a counter to that argument. It would be up to me to provide a model by which that's a realistic explanation of the perceived phenomenon of there being a lot of energy about the place.

Science - which is a mechanism to explain the way in which things work - is about objective explanation of perceived reality. Opinion - justified or otherwise - doesn't enter into it.

If, on the other hand, we are talking about belief, then anecdotal experience as a support of that belief is no more or less compelling than the lack of anecdotal experience as a support of the lack of such a belief.

[Paulclem]

:lol:

I was wondering who would come in first.

I agree, and I think that a sceptical attitude is the healthiest attitude to take because there is quite obviously so much tosh out there that guillable people will drink in such as those ridiculous ghost hunting programmes on TV. (I can't bring myself to watch them because if there was ever going to be a serious consideration of such phenomena, then they have surely destroyed that).

If anyone has had a ghost experience though, what can you do but express an anecdotal account. There's no evidence that science could accept so far as we know.

I did expect more of a rebuttal from the sci community though.

[KCurtis]

:lol: This is true, unfortunately. Also, more Americans than ever before believe in creationism over evolution. What happened????? :banghead:


I think you are making an implied, but incorrect, association between people who hold creationist views and those accepting accounts of ghosts as real.


No, I was just making a statement on what I think people believe without any proof of it, that's all. AND, I was wrong. I think the statistics show that about 40% of Americans believe in creationism over evolution. Back to the topic of ghosts! My sister believes in them.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I think the statistics show that about 40% of Americans believe in creationism over evolution.

You made a mistake there, ha, ha, surely you meant 0.4% instead of 40%? We all do typos, no big deal...

I've never remotely seen anything 'spooky' so I don't believe. Mrs Neely has a 'funny turn' once in a stately home, when pregnant, but that could have been anything really.

Ghosts in literature are interesting though and probably serve lots of different functions depending upon the context.

[cafolini]

Bear with me here.*

Entanglement. If two electrons which were created together are sent to the opposite edges of the universe, and one is somehow affected, then we can observe that the other is also affected identically and simultaneously. The corollary is that information is either traveling infinitely fast or that, in actuality, the two are still somehow connected via subspace. In other words, the effect is somehow nonlocal, which means that entanglement crushes our idea of space (and possibly time); and since everything was created together at the moment of the big bang, everything must still be touching in this way. Perhaps then, across spacetime, interactions in the unmeasurable realm of entanglement account for possibly all the apparent randomness of quantum particles; what seems to be randomness is simply effect of some spatially and temporally non-local, agentive collection of information existing in this same entangled, subdimensional world. Let us talk about ghosts respecting this possibility.

Granted humans are complex systems of physical and quantum information, maybe ghosts exist as a product of our minds/brains--highly inter-connected systems of entangled quantum information--nonlocally interacting, creating, destroying, or otherwise affecting across time and space other, different systems of entangled quantum wave-particles which, when observed, collapse into systems of particles that follow our neat and familiar classical logic. Maybe the capabilities of these quantum interactions extend beyond information as particles, but into the production of noises, movements, and feelings. If two systems (for instance, two brains) in the same spacetime exhibit similar behaviors, what's to keep them from being quantumly detached? What's to keep them from establishing between themselves a special, more obvious category of entanglement, as opposed to that generic entanglement caused by the big bang? There is a reasonable argument to be made that particles only become observably entangled and gain the ability to "affect" each other "outside" of our spacetime when they behave similarly or in some way identically within it. Furthermore, as we are simply aggregates composed of and governed by the same information and interactions, the consciousness and sentience of ghosts, however they might manifest, can be asked. But, I think, the question of which kinds of systems--which kinds of brain states and mind sets--might lead the the production of these other systems, ghosts, is one more easily approached. Maybe the very (collective) belief in ghosts, spirits, what have you, is the cause of them. Or maybe I don't have any idea what I'm talking about.

Do I personally believe in the existence of ghosts? I don't really have any reason not to believe. While I've never really had a personal encounter, I don't go to cocktail parties (that's where they talk about this kind of stuff, right?), which I guess means that I can remain something of an academic skeptic on the topic.

*edit

Symetrical split does no apply to electrons. Even where it was decided that it applied at the subatomic, Fermi clearly said that it was a highly theoretical possibility and not a given, recorded fact.

[hawthorns]

I was hoping for at least a walk-by haunting during my stay in New Orleans but none materialized. Sheesh...that wasn't very hospitable of them, was it!
Drunkest city also the most haunted. Hmmmmm.

Personally, I think ghosts/angels/God have better things to do with time than rattle chains, peep in showers, and suserrate by our bedposts. That's just me though--never had an experience like others here.

Anyone get 'visited' in NOLA? I'm a skeptic, but I'd be a bareface liar if I didn't admit that staying in the Lalaurie House would scare the ***t out of me :D

[YesNo]

If I were to suggest that the energy in the universe is generated by tiny yellow pixies, as a by-product of their unceasing efforts to extract precious subatomic candy-floss from the space between photons, it would not be up to everyone else to come up with a counter to that argument. It would be up to me to provide a model by which that's a realistic explanation of the perceived phenomenon of there being a lot of energy about the place.

The problem with yellow pixie theory is that there is no evidence for it, anecdotal or otherwise. That's why no one spends any time on it.

[/dev/null]

The problem with yellow pixie theory is that there is no evidence for it, anecdotal or otherwise. That's why no one spends any time on it.

The problem with ghosts theories is that there is no non-anecdotal evidence for it whatsoever. That's suspicious enough so that no one serious spends any time on it.

[Pensive]

I think it's all a matter of faith/belief.
You can't exactly prove the existence of these things but then again absence of proof is not the proof of absence.
And in order to not stray from the original topic, yes I do believe in ghosts. I believe in faeries, ghosts, and all the paranormal.

Speaking of ghosts, I have recently been wondering about the ending of the Turn of the Screw. I wonder if anybody has any good explanations to it. I believe it was rather too vague. Was the boy really possessed or was it all the imagination of the woman?

[TheFifthElement]

It is also interesting that the posters who have said they have had experiences are the more thoughtful posts like Poetic and Buh4b above whereas the no group have been no without any real explanation which I feel is a response in a kind of expectation that this will be the obvious conclusion. Cunning's is an interesting response too from a scientific perspective, though it remains speculation.

When I first moved in with my husband I went through a spate of waking in the middle of the night and seeing 'things', mainly implausible insects (often spiders). Then one night I woke up and saw a green, glowing ball of light which came out of the wall and moved across the room at a slow, steady pace in a straight line about halfway between the ceiling and the floor and then disappeared out of the window. I dismissed this as 'another' hallucination (I quite often have between sleeping/waking hallucinations).

The next day my husband bumped into the lady who lived directly opposite us and the first thing she said was 'you'll never guess what my daughter saw last night...' and proceeded to tell him exactly what I'd told him about the green ball of light. So I guess it wasn't an hallucination after all.

But still, I don't believe in ghosts.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Speaking of ghosts, I have recently been wondering about the ending of the Turn of the Screw. I wonder if anybody has any good explanations to it. I believe it was rather too vague. Was the boy really possessed or was it all the imagination of the woman?

Ha, there's a can of worms. That's a question asked since it was first written. There is a lengthy thread somewhere on the issue from a year or so ago. I think it was in the book club section. Have a look if your interested. Me and Virgil ranted on and on about it.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I did expect more of a rebuttal from the sci community though.

I don't think they feel the need to rebut something that needs no rebuttal.

[YesNo]

No, I was just making a statement on what I think people believe without any proof of it, that's all. AND, I was wrong. I think the statistics show that about 40% of Americans believe in creationism over evolution. Back to the topic of ghosts! My sister believes in them.
Based on this wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism, it looks like the 40% number has some validity, but I wonder what questions were asked to reach that number. I agree with Neely that I think it is more like 0.4% who accept a literal account of Genesis, but it depends on the questions asked. What I think the 40% number might represent is a general belief in some designer mechanism.

Since I've actually experienced a ghost in the form of a shared-death experience, what is anecdotal evidence for others is quite adequate proof for me. What I don't see from those rejecting this evidence is any falsifiable theoretical explanation grounded in repeatable, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that would prove that I should not accept my own experience.

[MarkBastable]

Since I've actually experienced a ghost in the form of a shared-death experience, what is anecdotal evidence for others is quite adequate proof for me. What I don't see from those rejecting this evidence is any falsifiable theoretical explanation grounded in repeatable, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that would prove that I should not accept my own experience.

I don't think anyone' s rejecting it. We're just saying that it's not proof for us. It's not transferrable evidence.

Also, no one's suggesting you shouldn't believe on the basis of your own experience, so no one has any reason to come up with an alternative explanation of it.

I think the upshot is, if the existence of ghosts isn't subject to scientific method, then belief in ghosts is always going to come down to personal experience. In which case, if the ghosts give a flying one about being believed in, they're going to have to get out the road and play to bigger audiences.

[Calidore]

Ha, there's a can of worms. That's a question asked since it was first written. There is a lengthy thread somewhere on the issue from a year or so ago. I think it was in the book club section. Have a look if your interested. Me and Virgil ranted on and on about it.

Robert Wise wondered the same when he was filming The Haunting--i.e. whether the "haunting" was in fact all in Eleanor's head. He asked Shirley Jackson herself, and she said that she liked that idea, but no, it's a haunted house. So did Henry James ever say one way or the other?

[Paulclem]

I don't think they feel the need to rebut something that needs no rebuttal.

Perhaps there's nothing to rebut in the sense that there's no evidence, and so nothing with which to disagree.

On the other hand, a number of people have had experiences of something. It comes down to the question of whether they are believable. This is not, after all, a thread dominated by rabid posters. The posts seem pretty balanced and sensible considering the subject matter.

[Paulclem]

But still, I don't believe in ghosts.

Neither do I in the cassic conception of them. Some speculation as to what they/ it is might be interesting.

[LitNetIsGreat]

Robert Wise wondered the same when he was filming The Haunting--i.e. whether the "haunting" was in fact all in Eleanor's head. He asked Shirley Jackson herself, and she said that she liked that idea, but no, it's a haunted house. So did Henry James ever say one way or the other?

No I don't think he ever did say one way or the other, or maybe he hinted at a straight forward ghost story. Regardless, it is used quite frequently as a set text for psychoanalytical reading. I don't think either reading sits quite right though, strangely.

[/dev/null]

Since I've actually experienced a ghost in the form of a shared-death experience, what is anecdotal evidence for others is quite adequate proof for me. What I don't see from those rejecting this evidence is any falsifiable theoretical explanation grounded in repeatable, scientific, peer-reviewed evidence that would prove that I should not accept my own experience.

Our point is that it shouldn't. Hallucinations in healthy people happen, sometimes but not always triggered by stress, fatigue, etc...

[YesNo]

Our point is that it shouldn't. Hallucinations in healthy people happen, sometimes but not always triggered by stress, fatigue, etc...
Welcome to the forum, /dev/null.

Actually, it was not an hallucination, but don't let that comment convince you. I enjoy the interaction when one person's experience crashes into another person's metaphysics.

[mortalterror]

Ghosts tend to be seen by unbalanced people and luckily we now have medication to make them go away. If you aren't crazy and seeing ghosts, then it's probably some sort of altered state thing. Either you are just coming out of sleep, or are very tired, or you are frightened, stressed, or taking certain substances. Then there are always going to be those who are susceptible to the power of suggestion, or who don't understand an optical illusion or natural phenomenon.

People who believe in an afterlife such as the Christian faith with it's God, Devil, demons and angels are pre-wired to explain things they don't understand in terms of their familiar philosophy. So if they hallucinate or feel stressed, the form their delusion is likely to take is prefabricated. That's why UFO and alien sightings all sound the same these days. Everyone is going to see the same movies and reading the same books.

Now, I've thought about this somewhat, though perhaps not as much as some, and it seems to me that ghosts aren't necessarily an indication of an afterlife. One likes to think that if they could somehow prove the existence of ghosts or demons, sprites, or what have you then de facto by logical inference you could imply the existence of Heaven and life after death. However, from a strictly logical point of view, each of these states of being or types of life should be mutually exclusive. Just because you prove the existence of Dracula doesn't mean you've proven the existence of the wolf-man. Therefore, even should some other being such as a ghost be real, there is no reason it must prove the existence of the soul, and a life for humans after death. If they do exist, and I admit that I do not know everything, then perhaps they are not the continuation of life but rather some alien unexplained form for which we do not have a category. However, this is all very sci-fi and relies on a long chain of speculation and what ifs.

[Calidore]

No I don't think he ever did say one way or the other, or maybe he hinted at a straight forward ghost story. Regardless, it is used quite frequently as a set text for psychoanalytical reading. I don't think either reading sits quite right though, strangely.

A classic case of trying to cover all bases and ending up covering none?

[LitNetIsGreat]

A classic case of trying to cover all bases and ending up covering none?

Possibly yes, though I don't think that was James' intention.

Here is the thread in question and by George it was three years ago!
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=49425

[YesNo]

Now, I've thought about this somewhat, though perhaps not as much as some, and it seems to me that ghosts aren't necessarily an indication of an afterlife. One likes to think that if they could somehow prove the existence of ghosts or demons, sprites, or what have you then de facto by logical inference you could imply the existence of Heaven and life after death. However, from a strictly logical point of view, each of these states of being or types of life should be mutually exclusive. Just because you prove the existence of Dracula doesn't mean you've proven the existence of the wolf-man. Therefore, even should some other being such as a ghost be real, there is no reason it must prove the existence of the soul, and a life for humans after death. If they do exist, and I admit that I do not know everything, then perhaps they are not the continuation of life but rather some alien unexplained form for which we do not have a category. However, this is all very sci-fi and relies on a long chain of speculation and what ifs.
Logically all one has to do to maintain whatever metaphysics one wants, good or bad, is to modify the assumptions one is willing to live with or select the evidence that fits a desired end result. It is most easy to see this done in the people we disagree with rather than in ourselves, since most of us think we are very logical, but I believe the behavior is common to all of us in various degrees. So I don't think that the existence of ghosts would logically force someone to accept or reject anything one way or the other. Nor does the non-existence of ghosts, for that matter.

That being said, if one accepted ghosts it could mess up one's current metaphysics depending on what that is and how open one is to change.

[Pensive]

Ha, there's a can of worms. That's a question asked since it was first written. There is a lengthy thread somewhere on the issue from a year or so ago. I think it was in the book club section. Have a look if your interested. Me and Virgil ranted on and on about it.

but I am not being able to find it! :rolleyes: :(

[LitNetIsGreat]

but I am not being able to find it! :rolleyes: :(

I gave a link a couple of posts above. :smile5:

[Pensive]

I gave a link a couple of posts above. :smile5:

Thank you Neely!
It looks like quite a discussion.

[shangib74]

I definitly believe in ghosts because of having several experiences personally. Although some people may think I am crazy (some do including my husband) I believe I have one that follows me around and I think I know who it is. I know he is not here to harm me just to kind of hang out with me. One of the incidents I have had happened while I was telling a friend about an incident and her car lights flashed when I said his name. Any way thought I would chime in while I tried to think of books that would help. I do think Hamlet is a good story for you though.

[Lifeless]

Yes I do! I heard lots of stories and saw things that emphasizes their existence!!

[OPTiiMUM]

People forget the nature of the human brain when contemplating the 'existence' of these apparitions. It is essentially a matter of definition. There is no evidence to support the existence of ghosts in the material, external world, but hallucinations are well documented, and can be said to 'exist' relative to the observer, based on the specific amalgation of neurochemical processes that lead to what we call the mind, or self. Abnormalities in these processes due to genetic or environmental factors can lead to unexpected phenomena in our senses, inhibiting or, in the case of ghosts, enhancing them. People do experience and see ghosts; there is too much evidence to dispute that. But attributing this to something divine or spiritual, rather than a (heavily documented) case of hallucinations is a mistake. Even know this is a literature forum, I did not expect basic scientific principles to be so readily forgotton. It is all too easy to shun the logical explanation in favour of a more 'beautiful', 'personal' or even desirable one.