ghosts

[lumination]

anyone had an encounter at all? or even believe in ghosts?

[naomi24]

Birdie, whether people 'believe' or not, there is a pre-conceived notion that what is commonly called the 'supernatural' is rooted in the hocus pocus that is religious superstition, and therefore it's difficult to draw minds (sadly even atheistic ones) away from that concept and encourage people to examine the subject objectively. You see, religion influences us all, whether we think it does or not. ;o)

I am in no doubt whatsoever that 'ghosts' (for want of a better term) exist. I don't for one moment believe that anything is 'supernatural' and I don't claim to know what they are, but my theory is that since energy cannot be destroyed, they are possibly a manifestation of the energy that has been utilised by the body during life, and which must necessarily remain after death. As yet, that's the closest I can come to a possible explanation.

Having said all that, I do think that because of the commonly held belief that 'ghosts' are somehow connected to religion and the non-existent (in my opinion) 'supernatural', then rather than initially seeking a rational explanation for their experiences, people are often far too eager to look first to the weird and wonderful and hence the creaking floorboards etc very frequently go undetected.

[chakka35]

naomi and I have disagreed about this before, so I'll just give a brief summary:

Something is supernatural if it is not explained by present natural laws. If ghosts are eventually proved to exist then they may well be explained, at which point they will cease to be supernatural. At the moment they are.

How the energy that the human body uses during life is dispersed upon death is easily explained. There is none left over for ghosts, whatever form that 'energy' is supposed to take. It has not been identified.

The whole problem with ghosts is that the evidence is anecdotal, usually totally convincing to those who experienced whatever it was. But since the occasion has passed there is no way in which an objective outsider can analyse it. There may be perfectly rational explanations for incidents A,B and C, but without knowing every single detail of exactly what happened under what circumstances and what was observed by exactly whom, it is, alas, just a story which may be evidence of ghosts or not.

Please bear in mind the story of Borley Rectory, allegedly the most haunted house in England for decades with numerous anecdotes of astonishing supernatural incidents - every one of which has now been explained.

[birdie1971]

Naomi – Thanks for taking the time to explain. I find the idea of an 'energy' that lives on after the physical body has died to be one of the problems I have with the theory of ghosts. It seems to be at odds with the laws of the conservation of energy (first law of thermodynamics). However unsatisfactory as I may find them, your beliefs are benign like mine, so hopefully neither one of us will be blowing ourselves up in order to prove a point ;-)

[Answerprancer]

Yes, so many that I started my own collection of ghost pictures that I've caught on camera (I call it 'Ghost-Cam').
Here's one I recorded in Chislehurst caves once:
http://i1028.photobuc...tator/Chislehurst.jpg
(Let me know if you want to see any more)

[naomi24]

Birdie, I am a realist, and in this instance I have no alternative but to conclude that something is happening in this world that we simply don't understand.

Chakka, you're treading in very thin ice when you say that something that can't be explained by natural laws is supernatural. You can't explain what happened before the Big Bang, so I'll say no more about that. Yes we have discussed this before. I know what I experienced, and I am not going to defend myself against unqualified judgments or blind accusations of delusions, dishonesty, stupidity, overactive imagination, religious fervour, fantasy, wishful thinking, mistakes, or anything else. I don't know how these things happen and neither do you. You just think you do.

[tigerlelly]

For what it is worth I am in complete agreement with Naomi as I have been on the other posts with very similar subject matter.

[mibn2cweus]

I rarely find myself in disagreement with Naomi on most issues we’ve discussed but in this case I’ll make an exception at the risk of being accused (with any luck) of having developed a fondness for the taste of her pies . . .

Many people, including many who have never personally experienced one, believe that ghosts exist as actual entities. I’m using the term ‘ghosts’ here broadly to include a wide and varied range of anomalous observations and experiences that require the introduction of extraordinary, uncharacteristic, phenomena that are exclusive to or defy current scientifically observed and defined properties of matter, energy and the known physical laws governing their potential actions.

When I first heard of ‘ghostly’ accounts I initially suspected that they were stories or games intended to test the objectivity of their audience. I have since come to the conclusion that some of these accounts are genuine to the extent that some have had first-hand experiences leading them to believe they had witnessed something of an extraordinary nature requiring extraordinary explanation. While many of such accounts can be attributed to or easily explained as coincidence, not so uncommon occurrence or simple flights of fancy, (who hasn’t heard at some time or another the proverbial thump in the night?), some are not as easily dismissed.

[mibn2cweus]

Of course the simplest ‘explanation’ of all is that ghosts do exist. But given my knowledge and understanding of the way things work, that explanation is not only eminently dissatisfying but outright impossible. All purposeful action emanates from an extremely complex, exceptionally organized, highly evolved, physical entity capable of conscious thought, cognitive function and self-guided motion. Energy has no means to organise itself in such a fashion outside of a healthy living physical structure to support it. If it did I doubt that nature would have gone to all this much trouble to make redundant beings.

Before ghosts can be rationally asserted as an explanation for what they appear to do, an explanation for what ghosts are and how they can possibly exist, given their unlikelihood, should be in the offing. Perhaps a better understanding of how the process of human consciousness arises and how truth is ascertained and determined would cast more light on why its easier to invent ghosts in the mind and imagine they exist then for nature to manifest them in reality.

When it comes to understanding how things work and how and when we can control and choose what happens. believing in ghosts is tantamount to throwing out the baby in favour of the bath water. We owe it to the wonder that is ourselves to understand ourselves better before we go creating beings of our own that can by their very nature only exist in our wildest imagination. Perhaps then we’ll have a ghost of a chance for finding a rational explanation for what’s really going on.

[naomi24]

//Of course the simplest ‘explanation’ of all is that ghosts do exist.//

Careful!! With that innocent statement, the discomforting spectre of Mr Occam rears its ugly head - and you know how I mistrust that old fraud! Baking as we speak. ;o)

[grasscarp]

I saw a ghost 40 years ago. So yes, I do believe in ghosts.

[mibn2cweus]

//Baking as we speak. ;o)//
The spectre of becoming the next new keyplus is haunting me as I type this. As delightful as that prospect might seem at first, I find myself stopping to ponder just how many pounds he's put on thanks to you . . . oh be still my growling tummy. :o)