Aeschines, you have been whooshed by a champion whoosher. It’s ok, you’re not first one. Our esteemed Doctor Cathode does not provide helpful clues or punchlines. He is as dry as a martini made of pure Bombay Sapphire. I have been whooshed by him myself.
Oh, you mean all the BS was a joke? I thought he was genuinely psychotic.
Does feigned mental illness count as a whoosh? I’ll have to think that over.
In any event, I really don’t find it funny.
Yes.
So did I the first time.
If you think it was about feigning mental illness then I think you miss the irony.
I’m missing it. I also remember another poster saying that Doc Cathode was engaging in genuine paranormal research. Was that BS too? More irony?
Sorry, Dio, the guy just seems to combine your once-in-awhile nastiness without your genuine intellect. I will say no more.
Yet again, as in most previous threads on the subject of the paranormal (be it ghosts, telepathy, auras or whatnot) the problem seems to break down into these issues:
- acceptance of poor standards of evidence
- ignorance/confusion regarding logical reasoning, critical thinking, and the scientific method
- the desire to believe
Number 3 is not necessarily bad, but combined with the execrable 1 and 2 is counter-productive and mythogenic, and inevitably result in the bread and butter of ignorance: unverifiable anecdotal evidence in support of unfalsifiable hypotheses.
For what it’s worth, I’ve had the wacky hobby of investigating the ghosts and hauntings of friends and aquaintances for over two decades, on and off. The only unsolved cases to date are anecdotal tales that involve places that are no longer accessible and that I therefore have not been able to investigate. Pretty much everything else I have observed (when there was anything to observe) has boiled down to errors in perception, suggestion/imagination, and/or perfectly ordinary phenomena such as cats in heat and many other animals, noisy water pipes, creaking floorboards, projected light, mischievous pranks, etc.
The point is that I was extremely surprised at how difficult it is for people to let go of their claims even when mundane evidence is laid out in front of them. That probably explains why these discussions keep popping up on these boards.
DocCathode’s brilliant countercraziness technique must not be spoken about it my presence except in whispers of hushed awe.
This hardly seems a satisfactory definition.
Are you proposing a subjective definition, namely that whether or not something is a ghost depends on the subjective views of the person who experiences it? Are you saying that if I hear a strange wailing and can’t figure out what it is (but assume its something ordinary) there was no ghost, but if someone else less sceptically minded takes the noise to be the action of a spirit, then there was a ghost?
If this is your suggestion then ghosts certainly exist since there are things people say they have experienced that there is not the evidence to refute, and that those people take to be the action of spirits etc. But this seems very woolly. Again, this seems to amount more or less to saying that something is a ghost if someone thinks it is.
Or are you proposing an objective definition, namely that if somebody could take an unexplained phenomenon to be the action of spirits etc then it is a ghost?
If so, then this again just begs the question as to what sorts of unexplained phenomenon could be taken to be the actions of spirits etc.
We’re not getting very far here. Can anyone from the pro-ghost side propose a good definition of what a ghost is? Aeschines, you say your friends can take “clear spirit photographs on a regular basis”. You seem to be suggesting ghosts are a type of spirit. Presumably, if you can say for certain that photographs are being taken of X, you must be able to define X (otherwise you wouldn’t know whether you’d taken a photo of X or not)?
Can you help?
Very well.
Just as we need to distiguish UFO’s from spaceships, we must distinguish what people think are ghosts from REAL supernatural entities while entertaining the possibility, however slight, that they are indeed real.
How about Allegedly Real Supernatural Entities?
:eek:
You’re right!
That’s ooky! Compared to the background that would light coming in through the trees, but dang if it doesn’t look like an impish face.
What I can’t shake about the one I circled was how there’s no detail left out of the face.
Two eyes (very shaded), little up-turned nose, almost looks to be biting its lower lip.
Here’s an outline of what I see for anyone having trouble finding what I’m talking about. For prismatic flair, it’s just awesomely detailed!
Why does it seem like always faces and bodies anyways? Why not a 57’ Caddy or a sardine? 
Just as Fish says; our eyes are trained to that first? Makes sense, as that’s the first thing we seem to learn out the womb, to recognize mommy and daddy and others by face.
Thanks, Prince, I’m having a hard time expressing myself, I think.
Let’s do this by elimination, backwards.
[definition]
If a phenomenon can be shown to be a hoax, hallucination, misreprsentation, illusion, dream or similar mental or physical phenomenon, then it is NOT a ghost.
If a phenomenon cannot be shown to be any of the above, we call it a “ghost” until we have a better definition. So “ghost,” like “UFO,” is a ‘holding term’ so to speak. Ultimately, a ghost would be something that occurs in a manner so that a given person would be likely to call it a ghost (just for the purposes of narrowing the definition), and which fails to be proven to have a physical or psychological cause.
Then, I reject those definitions of “ghost” that rely on calling ghosts spirits of the deceased, disembodied entities or conscious energies, simply because we are not able to adequately measure such things. Plus it may be caused by something we aren’t able to define yet. [/definition]
Ghosts may be spirits, or conscious energies, or other-dimensional beings, or energy echoes.
Remember, I am pro-ghost. While I was awake, I had two ‘ghosts’ talking with each other referring to me, then talking at me, apparently unconcerned with my verbal response, but only with my emotional response (they were trying to scare me). I would subclass this type of entity as a ‘haunt.’ The phenomenon was repetitive, acted logically, and responded to my attention (changing their interaction type after I noticed them - i.e., were interactive). As I stated, I was awake, there was no reason for me to be hallucinating, I was aware of the location of the other parties in the apartment, I was there spontaneously so there was no time to set up a hoax, I don’t generally ‘hear voices,’ I was fully sane, the event related to a reported event that occurred years before, and other people throughout the history of the habitation of the apartment had reported that the room was “haunted” (but I didn’t know that until after the fact, unless you want to propose I can read minds). I think I’d be a fool to NOT believe in ghosts. And I understand others cannot accept my experience without rigid objective proof.
As for the pictures referred to by Aeschines, and others, I have to withhold judgement until the proper research has been done. I’m not a ghost enthusiast, and I’m not up with all of the current research, but the one EVP site I have seen seems quite objective, both debunking that which it can and questioning the source (and doing some pretty rigid research) of the rest.
I know that something exists which goes beyond that which has been defined by our science. When those things act in a way common to what we have defined over the years as ‘ghosts,’ I propose we call them just that until proven otherwise. And there are plenty of people researching the phenomenon (more than I imagined), so this is not a call for dopers to launch into research.
I’m sure some of you will find some frivilous objections, or counter that “if we haven’t measured it, it doesn’t exist,” but in the spirit (no pun intended) of Great Debates: any serious comments?
OK, that’s a good start.
I have a problem with “supernatural.” We don’t know they are supernatural, and indeed if they exist they must be natural, by definition. But I understand the way supernatural is used, and this is shorter than my long-drawn-out-definition. Soooo…
How about Ghosts = alledged supernatural entities?
(why would ‘real’ matter?)
Some of you may know that I work in a radiology clinic. Although I’m not a doctor myself I read their dictated radiology reports and their weasely evasive commit-to-nothing lingo just slays me.
For instance, upon an examination of a lung field view (standard cardio-respiratory evaluation) X-ray, there are a dozen things which might, under some circumstances, look the same: primary lung cancer, secondary lung cancer, metastatic lung disease, pneumonia, pleural effusions, atelectasis, abscess, viral infection, lung nodules, a fold in the overlying sheets, a sponge left in the patient post-operatively, the patient’s own nipple… sheesh, you name it.
Sometimes it is clear which of these diagnoses is correct. Sometimes it is not. Very often the radiologist will list several possibilities that are in the differential and suggest specific clinical follow-up to rule out (or demonstrate) certain diagnoses.
My point is that the doctors are invariably very clear about what they can and cannot prove from the films, and what they recommend be done to ascertain what is wrong with the patient. This kind of weasely flavorless language is exactly what is called for in this debate, because the doctory word for something suspicious in the lung field is mass.
A mass could be anything. The doctor usually indicates what his suspicions are, and often an extreme range of possibilities.
I vote that when we are talking about a putative astral sighting we call it an appearance.
The word commits to nothing: it neither assumes the existence of ghosts nor denies the possibility. The word itself is descriptive of the phenomenon because we are discussing something that bears the subjective appearance of a ghost but is not necessarily so. Just like a lung mass may turn out to be either a malignant neoplasm or an anomalous image shadow, an appearance may be a ghost or a reflection from a crystal chandelier.
Good idea. But how are we to distinguish from hallucinations or dreams, or only-in-the-mind phenomena, and other, more visible data, like photos? Or should we lump them all together?
Musciat The term is not meant to distinguish between such things. Just as UFO covers planes, helicopters, hoaxes, hallucinations, etc we’re looking for a term which covers all ghosts and related phenomena which have not yet been explained.
Fish My problem with the term is that some ghostly phenomena are not visual. The classic poltergeist makes noise and moves objects, but is never seen.
I’m no psychologist, and my stint in Psych 101 lasted, oh, 3 weeks, but I seem to recall that babies had an affinity toward face-looking things.
Terrible English, I know, but I can’t remember what the evidence and assertion was. I think they might’ve done an EEG on the baby and saw its brain lighting up when seeing shapes looking like a face - like a common grounded US electrical socket (the ones that look like :eek: ).
I think this is pretty relevant to the discussion; this idea would explain a lot of false positives in terms of sightings. Assuming it’s true, of course, and that it applies.
Musicat, I don’t think it matters which phenomena you call by the name appearance so long as it is clear that the term is a Schrödingral by-definition-unspecified classification for that which may or may not be explained by the presence of a spirit/ghost/consciously directed energy.
As I mentioned before in the thread, some ghost proponents have in the past used non-visual phenomena (such as the near-death experience) as factual support for their interpretation of visual appearance phenomena; I recommend we use appearance to encompass any and all ghost or ghost-like experiences, visual or auditory or otherwise, to cast them all in a not-yet-proven state before we begin. This is not to suggest that ghosts are impossible, only clinically undemonstrated. Appearance is the I-see-something-but-I-don’t-know-what-it-is fallback position. Make sense?
If any particular apperance is ever adequately explained (one way or the other) then we’ll call that instance what it is.
How we define “ghost” is, of course, not my problem. 
DocCathode, you might also call it an “experience” instead of an “appearance.” My reading of radiology reports biases me toward a bland word for something visual, but I don’t suppose it matters what word you use as long as you agree to use it consistently to apply to whatever phenomena you’re disputing.
You’ve given us some good input, Fish, but it is “ghost” we are trying to define. I relate to your logic and the non-commital framework, and it’s true that ‘ghost’ has taken on an assumed “spiritual entity” assumption over the years. Your input is appreciated.
Appearance, manifestation… helP! I think we’re getting closer…
“Event?”
So we agree that an ARSE is not necessarily a ghost, but ghosts are definitely all ARSE?
Just to distinguish these entities from purely conceptual ones like Santa Claus or faeries. We are not asking about hallucinatory, misremembered or otherwise psychological entities but real ones causing actual physical phenomena.