Which of these 2 accounts relating encounters with ghosts is the most implausible?

[Interesting Ian]

Okay, I know that most of you guys don't believe in ghosts, and no doubt think both of these encounters with alleged ghosts are almost equally absurd. But if you had to choose one that was the more implausible, which one would it be?

From the book "Afterlife" by Colin Wilson.

Account A

The main person concerned goes underneath the pseudonym Graham.

Graham says that he has only had one single psychic experience in his whole life. He was being driven along a country road by his chauffeur when he thought he heard the wail of a child. He asked the chauffeur to stop. The man said he could hear nothing. But Graham followed the sound behind some trees, and down a slope to a riverbank. There he found a pretty child of three or four, crying and sobbing. She was soaking wet, and had obviously fallen into the water. He carried her back to the car, but was unable to make her stop crying long enough to tell him what had happened. He asked her where she lived, and pointed ahead; the girl nodded, so the chauffeur drove on. Not far away they came to a gate, and the girl signalled towards it. They drove along a drive to the front door of a " largish house". As the car pulled up a man and a woman rushed out to meet Graham. "Have you any news of the child?" "She's in the car", said Graham, and went back to it. But the car was empty. "Where's the little girl?" he asked the chauffeur, but the man looked blank. "The child I brought to the car." "You didn't bring any child into the car."

The drove back to the riverbank; the body of the child was lying in a few feet of water...




Account B

A lady was sitting reading when a tall, thin old man entered the room; when she looked more closely she recognised him as her great uncle. He looked agitated, and was carrying a roll of paper. He made no reply when she spoke to him, but walked out of a half-open door. She was not the least alarmed because she made the natural assumption that her great uncle had come to see her. By the next post she received a letter from her father asking her to go and see the great uncle, who was seriously ill. She went, but found that he had died the previous afternoon, at exactly the time she had seen him. A roll of paper was found under the dead man's pillow, and his niece concluded that he had wanted to change his will in her father’s favour, but had been overtaken by death.

[MRC_Hans]

You lack the option "Equally absurd" (and the planet X option, of course ;)).

The first one appears entirly fictional, with serious misses:

Did the driver not react when his passenger brought a crying, soaking wet child back to the car? Did he not suggest a blanket or something (if only to save his upholstry)? If not, wouldn't "Graham" have noticed that as VERY VERY odd??

If he went down to the river bank the first time, why didn't he notice the drowned child? Even if were were to accept that her ghost was there, her body must have been there, too.

The second story is your typical run of the mill "message from a dying man", with all its possibilities for post hoc rationalizations, previous knowledge (of the paper roll), plus quite unfounded assumptions about what the uncle wanted. I vote that as least unplausible as that lady might exist and actually believe her story, while the "Graham" one appears pure fiction.

Hans

[jmercer]

I couldn't vote. They're equally absurd, and completely self-inconsistent. (Hans did a nice job of pointing out the inconsistencies in A. I won't bother with B, it's just not worth it.)

[Ashles]

I voted both occurred as there is no reason that both could not have occurred in some form.

Whilst I strongly doubt that ghosts exist I am sure that variants of these stories are entirely possible.
In A the man might have heard the girl's dying screams (or screams as she fell in the river or was perhaps attacked) then have got to her body and found her dead. This could have traumatised him greatly and made him think he had returned with her to the car.
The chances are that the next gate would have been her house (we don't really know enough of the details of this story such as the layout).
The chauffeur does seem to be oddly uninvolved in the story though.

In B (as Hans says) this is a very familiar story and could well be her having fallen asleep and dreaming (was she reading something that might have reminded her of her uncle?). People are always extremely sure later on that "this happened at the same time" but people's memories of these things are notoriously bad.
If he had come to see her why did she not follow him out the door or get his attention? (Sounds like a dream doesn't it)
And the part about changing the will is entirely irrelevant - merely her opinion. And even provides an incentive for the dream - maybe the will had been playing on her mind.

Overall I would rate A as less likely than B but in some form they both coud have happened.

Nice stories though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


The second story is your typical run of the mill "message from a dying man", with all its possibilities for post hoc rationalizations, previous knowledge (of the paper roll), plus quite unfounded assumptions about what the uncle wanted. I vote that as least unplausible as that lady might exist and actually believe her story, while the "Graham" one appears pure fiction.

Hans [/B]

She alleges she saw his ghost at about the time he died. Are you saying she is convincing herself of this rather than simply lying? And what previous knowledge of the paper roll did she have before she saw the ghost with it? Are you saying she only thought she remembered seeing the ghost with a paper roll, but didn't really? Did she in fact see a ghost at all?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jmercer
I couldn't vote. They're equally absurd, and completely self-inconsistent. (Hans did a nice job of pointing out the inconsistencies in A. I won't bother with B, it's just not worth it.)

I don't agree, I think it would be well worth it. I do not see any inconsistencies in "B" myself. You might of course argue that it didn't really happen as told, but that's a differing thing from inconsistency.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't agree, I think it would be well worth it. I do not see any inconsistencies in "B" myself. You might of course argue that it didn't really happen as told, but that's a differing thing from inconsistency.

Regardless of whether the story is consistent or not, it's a story; it's inadmissible as evidence as you have been told hundreds of times.

[Azrael 5]

A sounds very much like your typical campfire ghost story,and B a load of tosh,hope that puts your mind at rest Ian.;)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't agree, I think it would be well worth it. I do not see any inconsistencies in "B" myself. You might of course argue that it didn't really happen as told, but that's a differing thing from inconsistency.

She made the "natural assumption" that someone had come to see her (how did he get in to wherever she was?) but wasn't the least alarmed when he left without speaking?

[jmercer]

Ah, well. I suppose I shouldn't have tried to take the lazy way out.

Inconsistencies in B:


A lady was sitting reading when a tall, thin old man entered the room; when she looked more closely she recognised him as her great uncle. He looked agitated, and was carrying a roll of paper. He made no reply when she spoke to him, but walked out of a half-open door. She was not the least alarmed because she made the natural assumption that her great uncle had come to see her.

The lady is reading when a tall, thin old man enters the room. She obviously doesn't recognize him at first.

However, she doesn't appear alarmed by this at all, according to the story - even though she doesn't know who it is at first.

Everyone I know would be somewhat alarmed at the sudden entrance of someone in their home that they don't recognize. I know that I'd certainly be alarmed to see a stranger in my home! Most people I know would either jump, or scream, or at least look up in shock. Heck, my wife jumps and screams if I enter a room and she doesn't realize I'm there until she looks up. :D

This is one calm lady. :)

But - instead of being startled - she simply looks more closely at the person until she recognizes him as her great-uncle, and also notices that he's carrying a roll of paper. He apparently looks upset. She says something to him, but he ignores her and walks out through a half-open door.

Let's recap - a distant relative (originally not recognized, therefore not a frequent visitor) suddenly enters her room, looks upset, totally ignores her greeting, and simply exits the room immediately without saying a word.

Well, gee - if one of my distant relatives suddenly showed up in my home with no warning, walked through my room, ignored me, and looked upset... I'd jump up, follow them, and demand some kind of explanation... or, since they seem upset, I'd at least try to find out what was going on.

Apparently not this lady, however. She's content to assume he's just here to visit her (but he ignores her??), and she never even tries to find him even though he appears upset - because the story continues:


By the next post she received a letter from her father asking her to go and see the great uncle, who was seriously ill. She went, but found that he had died the previous afternoon, at exactly the time she had seen him. A roll of paper was found under the dead man's pillow, and his niece concluded that he had wanted to change his will in her father’s favour, but had been overtaken by death.


So, the very next post (the next morning - mid to late morning, in most places) brings a letter from her father asking her to check on this great uncle. Apparently, she's pretty mobile - so she immediately goes and checks on this guy, only to find out that he died the exact same time she had seen him the previous afternoon.

This guy shows up in her home, walks through her room, looks upset, ignores her greeting, and disappears... yet she waits until she gets a letter from her father the next day to even try and contact him?

This lady's not calm - she's comatose! No curiosity, no concern for a relative's apparent distress and unusual behavior, etc?

She finds out he died the previous afternoon at the time she "saw" him. (Dunno how they established that - no times were mentioned.) They (whoever "they" are) found a roll of paper under the dead mans pillow. Now, why would a blank roll of paper be hidden under a pillow? That's an odd place to put a valueless item - not to mention uncomfortable for sleeping on.

And why would they even mention that rather irrelevant detail to her? They just got done informing her that her great-uncle was dead. I can hear it now:

"I've come to enquire about my great-uncle's health. My father wrote and said he was seriously ill. How is he?"

"Madam, I regret to inform you that your great-uncle passed away yesterday afternoon. My condolences to you and your family."

"Oh, dear, that's terrible! What time did he die?"

"It was at 2 PM."

"That's impossible - I saw him walk through my home at exactly that moment with a roll of paper in his hand!"

"I assure you, madam, that a doctor was in attendance, and the time was duly noted. Your great-uncle died at exactly 2 PM. You must be mistaken. However, it's odd that you should mention a roll of paper. When they removed his body, there was a roll of paper under his pillow!"

And when faced with a relative that was in obvious denial about her great-uncles death, why would anyone bother to present something as trivial as information about finding a roll of paper? I would suspect that the response to someone insisting that they'd seen their relative at the time of death in their home would be more along the lines of "Uh... sure, lady, whatever you say... please, sit down, this must be a shock for you... (psst... someone call the doc - she's hysterical!)"

So, at what point, Ian, does this story follow any kind of normal human behavior pattern and reaction?

[Ashles]

You know jmercer, when you put it like that...:)

Also, if I had a sudden urge to change my will I don't think I'd just grab a roll of paper then put it under my pillow.

I might, oh I don't know, write something on it? Or ask somebody to be a witness so it would be legal. Or contact a solicitor...

In fact it's hard to conceive of a series of events that starts with someone thinkng "I wish to change my will" and ends with a blank roll of paper under your pillow.

(Although all the will stuff comes entirely from the woman's mind anyway - quite the fantasist isn't she?)

I still stand by - she was dreaming and by coincidence her great uncle died around that time. And she has misremembered or outright made other things up. It just sounds more implausible the more I think about it.

[TheBoyPaj]

Didn't vote. No option for "both the dribblings of an irrational mind".

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by jmercer
Ah, well. I suppose I shouldn't have tried to take the lazy way out.

Inconsistencies in B:

The lady is reading when a tall, thin old man enters the room. She obviously doesn't recognize him at first.

However, she doesn't appear alarmed by this at all, according to the story - even though she doesn't know who it is at first.

Everyone I know would be somewhat alarmed at the sudden entrance of someone in their home that they don't recognize. I know that I'd certainly be alarmed to see a stranger in my home! Most people I know would either jump, or scream, or at least look up in shock. Heck, my wife jumps and screams if I enter a room and she doesn't realize I'm there until she looks up. :D



Nothing unusual in this at all. We often take a moment or 2 before recognising someone if we have not seen them for some time. You're not likely to become alarmed until it actually registers that this person is a stranger. And of course her eyesight may not have been up to scratch.

It's happened to me a couple of times as a kid when someone that I did not know was in the house suddenly enters the room I was in. For literally about one second I struggled to recognise them, then I realise who they are. Same for when I bump into someone I haven't seen for a few years. They might address me, and for a second I don't recognise them. But in that second that doesn't mean to say I think it is a stranger. Rather they are familiar, but it takes a second to actually place them.



This is one calm lady. :)

But - instead of being startled - she simply looks more closely at the person until she recognizes him as her great-uncle,



Yup, very common. No reason whatsoever to be alarmed as I have explained.


and also notices that he's carrying a roll of paper. He apparently looks upset. She says something to him, but he ignores her and walks out through a half-open door.

Let's recap - a distant relative (originally not recognized, therefore not a frequent visitor) suddenly enters her room, looks upset, totally ignores her greeting, and simply exits the room immediately without saying a word.

Well, gee - if one of my distant relatives suddenly showed up in my home with no warning, walked through my room, ignored me, and looked upset... I'd jump up, follow them, and demand some kind of explanation... or, since they seem upset, I'd at least try to find out what was going on.


Well, you might be quite unusual. I wouldn't. Someone's preoccupied. People have quite often seemed not to have heard me when they seem to be pre-occupied or agitated. He might well have lost something and was really worried about it, and went of searching elsewhere. No need to run after him.



So, the very next post (the next morning - mid to late morning, in most places)



What do you mean? The letter will have been posted before she saw the apparition. This anecdote is from the late 19th century btw.



brings a letter from her father asking her to check on this great uncle. Apparently, she's pretty mobile - so she immediately goes and checks on this guy, only to find out that he died the exact same time she had seen him the previous afternoon.

This guy shows up in her home, walks through her room, looks upset, ignores her greeting, and disappears... yet she waits until she gets a letter from her father the next day to even try and contact him?



Why should she visit him?? Obviously she wished to visit him on finding out he was ill. No need to visit him otherwise.



This lady's not calm - she's comatose! No curiosity, no concern for a relative's apparent distress and unusual behavior, etc?



Agitated, not distressed. People are often agitated - maybe they've mislaid something or other. Not everyone pokes their nose in and demands every small detail about what's wrong with someone. I certainly don't.



She finds out he died the previous afternoon at the time she "saw" him. (Dunno how they established that - no times were mentioned.) They (whoever "they" are) found a roll of paper under the dead mans pillow. Now, why would a blank roll of paper be hidden under a pillow? That's an odd place to put a valueless item - not to mention uncomfortable for sleeping on.



I've placed toilet paper under my pillow before (when I've had a cold). Nothing unusual in that. Maybe he didn't want to put it at the side of his bed in case someone picked it up. He wanted to keep it safe.



And why would they even mention that rather irrelevant detail to her? They just got done informing her that her great-uncle was dead. I can hear it now:

"I've come to enquire about my great-uncle's health. My father wrote and said he was seriously ill. How is he?"

"Madam, I regret to inform you that your great-uncle passed away yesterday afternoon. My condolences to you and your family."

"Oh, dear, that's terrible! What time did he die?"

"It was at 2 PM."

"That's impossible - I saw him walk through my home at exactly that moment with a roll of paper in his hand!"

"I assure you, madam, that a doctor was in attendance, and the time was duly noted. Your great-uncle died at exactly 2 PM. You must be mistaken. However, it's odd that you should mention a roll of paper. When they removed his body, there was a roll of paper under his pillow!"

And when faced with a relative that was in obvious denial about her great-uncles death, why would anyone bother to present something as trivial as information about finding a roll of paper? I would suspect that the response to someone insisting that they'd seen their relative at the time of death in their home would be more along the lines of "Uh... sure, lady, whatever you say... please, sit down, this must be a shock for you... (psst... someone call the doc - she's hysterical!)"




She saw him at the time he died. She says, "but it *was* him. He was carrying a roll of paper" etc etc. It's not particularly surprising that on hearing that, she might be informed that there was a roll of paper under his pillow. You know, obviously they would consider she had an hallucination, but if they were aware about the roll of paper under the pillow, why keep that information from her? In case she was tempted to suppose it wasn't a hallucination afterall?? :eek: We're not all Skeptics.


So, at what point, Ian, does this story follow any kind of normal human behavior pattern and reaction?

I see nothing whatsoever unusual about the pattern of human behaviour here.

[Ashles]

Well, you might be quite unusual. I wouldn't. Someone's preoccupied. People have quite often seemed not to have heard me when they seem to be pre-occupied or agitated. He might well have lost something and was really worried about it, and went of searching elsewhere. No need to run after him.
Are you serious Ian? If a relative who you didn't know was in the house suddenly walked in the room you wouldn't be surprised? Then when they walked out of the room again you wouldn't follow them or ask how they were or anything? You would just think "Oh great Uncle Bob's wandering randomly around my house unexpectedly - but I won't check on him or give it another thought if he doesn't come back in"?

This is what you are seriously saying? Because I'm afraid I don't believe you.
Nobody would behave like this woman in real life.

Your rationalisation of this story just does not hold water. Can you not just accept that some stories just don't make sense? Is that impossible for you?

[Winterfrost]

Nothing unusual in this at all. We often take a moment or 2 before recognising someone if we have not seen them for some time.

You even said this yourself.

If this was a relative who I hadn't seen "for some time" -- so long that I couldn't immediately recognize his/her face -- that suddenly showed up in my house (without calling, knocking, ringing), did not reply to anything I said, then slinked out of the room... you can be darn sure I'd be following that person to find out what the blue blazes was going on.

I think that your interpretation of human nature is wrong on this one, Ian.

[Nyarlathotep]

I find them both absurd but I voted that I find 'A' slightly more absurd. The reason is very simple, 'A' is almost exactly a retelling of the 'vanishing hitchiker' urban legend that seems to crop up all over the US. It only has a few changed details but it is essentially the same. In none of the cases where this is supposed to have happened int he US can you ever find a person it actually happened to, it was always a 'friend of a friend'.

'B' at least, sounds like the kind of thing I have actually heard people directly claim happened to them, even if the details can be rather conveniently explained by non-supernatural means.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Winterfrost
You even said this yourself.

If this was a relative who I hadn't seen "for some time" -- so long that I couldn't immediately recognize his/her face -- that suddenly showed up in my house (without calling, knocking, ringing), did not reply to anything I said, then slinked out of the room... you can be darn sure I'd be following that person to find out what the blue blazes was going on.

I think that your interpretation of human nature is wrong on this one, Ian.

And yet, at the end of the day, this is like debating which is more plausible: Middle-earth or Hogwarts.

They're stories folks. Nothing to see here. Move along...

[Open Mind]

Since none of us experienced it, none of us can know for sure. I would certainly consider the account of a witness to be of greater value than the opinion of sketpic not actually present guess on what occured :)

I will vote for the last option, as I think such experiences have been claimed by countless sincere people in the 100 years of psychical research ... so it merits at least an open mind, even if the examples given here are not particularly evidential examples.

Originally posted by TLN
Regardless of whether the story is consistent or not, it's a story; it's inadmissible as evidence as you have been told hundreds of times.

Maybe some accepted theories in astromony, quantum mechanics, medicine, etc. will turn out to be stories. :) There are areas of science too expensive or too inaccessible to most scientists that they must consider the witnesses who made such claims. If PSI researcher can be accused of misinterepting the data to suit their theory, the same basic human flaw must occur in other areas of science

[TLN]

Originally posted by Open Mind
There are areas of science too expensive or too inaccessible to most scientists that they must trust the witnesses who made such claims.

Eye-witness testimony does not enter into science. Ever. Can you give me an example of when it did or does?

Anecdotes are not evidence.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by TLN
And yet, at the end of the day, this is like debating which is more plausible: Middle-earth or Hogwarts.



Middle-Earth, definately:p

[jmercer]

Originally posted by TLN
And yet, at the end of the day, this is like debating which is more plausible: Middle-earth or Hogwarts.

They're stories folks. Nothing to see here. Move along...

Well, yeah. :)

That's why I made my original, very short response. But II challenged me on the inconsistencies within story B, so I cited 'em. <shrug>

[TLN]

Originally posted by jmercer
Well, yeah. :)

That's why I made my original, very short response. But II challenged me on the inconsistencies within story B, so I cited 'em. <shrug>

Granted, it's a neat thought experiment, but that's about it. As usual, Ian gets us no closer to any new facts about the universe.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Are you serious Ian? If a relative who you didn't know was in the house suddenly walked in the room you wouldn't be surprised? Then when they walked out of the room again you wouldn't follow them or ask how they were or anything? You would just think "Oh great Uncle Bob's wandering randomly around my house unexpectedly - but I won't check on him or give it another thought if he doesn't come back in"?

This is what you are seriously saying? Because I'm afraid I don't believe you.
Nobody would behave like this woman in real life.

Your rationalisation of this story just does not hold water. Can you not just accept that some stories just don't make sense? Is that impossible for you?

I'm being perfectly serious. I definitely would not. Maybe not even for my mother, never mind a distant relative!

I repeat, when I used to live with my parents, there were often people in the house who I recognised, but didn't realise were in the house. I wasn't going to run after them just because they were looking for something! :eek:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Winterfrost
You even said this yourself.

If this was a relative who I hadn't seen "for some time" -- so long that I couldn't immediately recognize his/her face -- that suddenly showed up in my house (without calling, knocking, ringing), did not reply to anything I said, then slinked out of the room... you can be darn sure I'd be following that person to find out what the blue blazes was going on.

I think that your interpretation of human nature is wrong on this one, Ian.

Not at all, it's happened often with me. They may not have been looking agitated, but a person might enter a room that I was in to look for something, who I didn't know was in the house, and then leave. I may not immediately recognise someone. But you're only talking about a second. Indeed, it's even happened with people I don't recognise, as in the case with my brother's friends. I just don't think this is unusual at all. Especially with large families in the 19th century with people continually in and out of the house, and leaving the front door unlocked. We live in a completely different world now and maybe that's why you find it a bit odd. I assure you it is not. I find it perfectly plausible.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Open Mind
I will vote for the last option, as I think such experiences have been claimed by countless sincere people in the 100 years of psychical research ... so it merits at least an open mind, even if the examples given here are not particularly evidential examples.
"Although I have been given no evidence that these events took place, they are similar to a lot of other stories I've heard, so they probably did."

Now, quantify "open mind". The phrase is meaningless. Anything's possible, sure. What probability do you put on both stories' being true?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
And yet, at the end of the day, this is like debating which is more plausible: Middle-earth or Hogwarts.

They're stories folks. Nothing to see here. Move along...

Yes, all stop contributing to this thread and making II feel important! :mad:

It'll have made it to page 10 at this rate before you know it! :mad:

All ignore II! Stop boosting his ego! :mad:

[Beleth]

I voted "both but A moreso" because I don't see any reason why Graham would know to stop at that particular house on the country road.

Then again, there's no mention in the story that that house had any special significance for the little girl; maybe the girl had been missing for a long enough time for her parents to alert everyone on the road. The story doesn't say that the house Graham stopped at was the girls' home.

Ehh, I still say A is more implausible. B just takes one person making up a story and embellishing it with the roll-of-paper part after the fact.

[Tricky]

This one (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1248877.html?menu=news.quirkies) is the most plausible of all. Where is Scoobie Doo when you need him?
A woman has been jailed in Italy for wandering around an old castle at night making ghost noises.

The owners said squeaking floor boards, slammed doors and footsteps had been scaring off guests for weeks.

High-tech video equipment captured the woman walking up and down the corridors.

[Yaotl]

Originally posted by Open Mind
Since none of us experienced it, none of us can know for sure. I would certainly consider the account of a witness to be of greater value than the opinion of sketpic not actually present guess on what occured :)

I don't think Colin was present at the events either. So you can either believe he didn't make these up to sell books or follow the logic.

[voidx]

A lady was sitting reading when a tall, thin old man entered the room; when she looked more closely she recognised him as her great uncle. He looked agitated, and was carrying a roll of paper. He made no reply when she spoke to him, but walked out of a half-open door. She was not the least alarmed because she made the natural assumption that her great uncle had come to see her.

The natural assumption her great uncle had come to see her". How is this in any form the natural assumption. Old man walks in, does not respond to spoken question, walks out of door. How from that sequence of events does anyone conclude the great uncle came to see her? It is only the natural assumption because it gives her an excuse not to be alarmed, which most here rightly question that she should have been. Despite Ians overly broad brush stroke generalization of his own home experiences with those of 18/19th century living. We don't know any details about the home environment, of the frequency of the Uncles visits, whether or not it was known he was sick, in which case she should have been concerned that her sick uncle was wandering about. So we can make no assumptions, especially not to assume this incident was by default normal and not at all suspicious.

As for B. What was the chaffuer's opinion of what went on? To him it would have appeared that his employer first heard a child crying that he did not hear, then came back to the car, without a child, then proceeded to talk to a child that was supposdely crying that he did not hear, and then was asked to pull into a driveway by the signal of a girl he had no clue was there. His employer must have seemed more than a touch insane. Also, wouldn't police or someone else been suspicious that this man was down by the exact spot where the girl was found dead and yet so far as anyone else can tell did not return with a child, nor see a dead child, only to lead others back there later. It would seem a little fishy to me, and one would imagine to the chauffuer as well. But of course we cannot clarify any of these things because their stories, uncited for us here, and so no checking could be done on the back drop of what happened and so its rather pointless to hypothesize away. Entertaining though to see Ian assuming all families have an open door policy as his did though.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes, all stop contributing to this thread and making II feel important! :mad:

It'll have made it to page 10 at this rate before you know it! :mad:

All ignore II! Stop boosting his ego! :mad:

Err, sorry. As usual, your ego is not at issue. Your insistence on wasting our time with anecdotes is.

Ian, for the thousandth time: Anecdotes are not evidence regardless of what you think. You may feel free to continue to disagree, but you will not sway a single skeptic with nonsense such as this.

Please explain to me where I'm losing you.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We live in a completely different world now

Speak for yourself, I'm still on planet Earth, where are you living now?

[Interesting Ian]

Let's get this clear. People are saying B didn't occur because they think the female concerned is lying?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's get this clear. People are saying B didn't occur because they think the female concerned is lying?

No. People are saying these are unverifiable anecdotes which are worthless.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's get this clear. People are saying B didn't occur because they think the female concerned is lying?

Not lying, though that is a possibility as well. Mistaken is more like it. Memory is a funny thing and one's memory of an event after the fact are rarely 100% accurate. Details get added or lost, seperate events get shmushed together, timelines get changed.

Have you ever talked to a relative or friend about an event and their memory of it is totally differnet thatn yours? The other person isn't lying, and neither are you but you can't both be right? That is the sort of thing I am talking about.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Not lying, though that is a possibility as well. Mistaken is more like it. Memory is a funny thing and one's memory of an event after the fact are rarely 100% accurate. Details get added or lost, seperate events get shmushed together, timelines get changed.

Have you ever talked to a relative or friend about an event and their memory of it is totally differnet thatn yours? The other person isn't lying, and neither are you but you can't both be right? That is the sort of thing I am talking about. [/B]
Very plausible for a single isolated case. Unfortunately, for the Skeptics, the type of experience outlined in "B" is frequently reported. Crisis apparitions (as they're called) is a relatively common phenomenon. Too common to lay it at the door of psychologically skewing the facts, or false memories, in order to favour the paranormal explanation

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Unfortunately, for the Skeptics, the type of experience outlined in "B" is frequently reported.

It's not at all unfortunate. People report strange things all the time and many of the claims sound the same. This doesn't make any of them the least bit true. Why?

Because anecdotes are not evidence.

I don't know why I bother. You're incapable of seeing the above sentence. Does it simply appear blank to you?

[SezMe]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Didn't vote. No option for "both the dribblings of an irrational mind".

Ditto.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Very plausible for a single isolated case. Unfortunately, for the Skeptics, the type of experience outlined in "B" is frequently reported. Crisis apparitions (as they're called) is a relatively common phenomenon. Too common to lay it at the door of psychologically skewing the facts, or false memories, in order to favour the paranormal explanation

Are you sure? Because I have no idea how often the mind plays tricks on people and my guess is neither do you. I know, however, that it is pretty common in my own experience for my memories of an event to differ from other people who were also there, so I don't think it's all that rare of a thing.

ANd besides, I thought we were talking about these two instances anyway. And I gave you the reason why I thought 'B' to be implausible (though less so than 'A') I have no idea how common 'Crisis Apparitions' are or are not.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Because I have no idea how often the mind plays tricks on people and my guess is neither do you.

As I recorded in the Hall of Fame (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171) for easy reference, Ian is inerrant. If he says he knows how often people's minds play tricks on them, regardless of whether he actually has any data to support this assertion, then he knows.

It's like the famous Ian quote "...then you don't understand probability" used often when discussing coincidences. He provides no data, no research, and no statistics. As usual, he just asserts.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...Too common to lay it at the door of psychologically skewing the facts, or false memories, in order to favour the paranormal explanation
What? This sounds contradictory. Do you possibly mean, "in order to disparage the the paranormal explanation"?
If so, yes.
Occam again.
"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate."

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Very plausible for a single isolated case. Unfortunately, for the Skeptics, the type of experience outlined in "B" is frequently reported. Crisis apparitions (as they're called) is a relatively common phenomenon. Too common to lay it at the door of psychologically skewing the facts, or false memories, in order to favour the paranormal explanation


Nyarlathotep
Are you sure?



I cannot absolutely rule out conventional explanations. I merely suggest that the frequency of crisis apparitions very strongly suggests something more interesting is going on.

We can always pull out the explanation of false memory or psychologically moulding the facts to favour a desirable hypothesis, but at some stage this explanation, in face of all the accounts, simply gets ridiculous.



Because I have no idea how often the mind plays tricks on people and my guess is neither do you.



Well, it can't happen too often, otherwise we would more frequently find that our memories do not match what we subsequently experience! If many many people report people they know suddenly appearing to them out of the blue, without communicating, then they subsequently discover they died around that time, then what exactly is in error here? Presumably the error is the same in most reports. Is it that the alleged apparition seen is a false memory, and they never experienced anything at all? That they saw someone whom they mistook as the relevant person concerned? In isolated instances, then these explanations are fine. But not with the frequency of crisis apparitions. So what else?


I know, however, that it is pretty common in my own experience for my memories of an event to differ from other people who were also there, so I don't think it's all that rare of a thing.


But all these people have similar memories; namely a person they know appearing to them at the time of their death.

[IXP]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Very plausible for a single isolated case. Unfortunately, for the Skeptics, the type of experience outlined in "B" is frequently reported. Crisis apparitions (as they're called) is a relatively common phenomenon. Too common to lay it at the door of psychologically skewing the facts, or false memories, in order to favour the paranormal explanation

And it doesn't occur to you that the death of a loved one might just have an effect on one's memory? I suspect we see this type of occurrence often because this type of stressful event leads to mental editing of events that happened before. How often do we see such occurrences when the person wrote down the unusual experience or told someone else about it BEFORE finding out that the person in question had died?

In the same light, I "predicted" the Challenger disaster. I distinctly remember thinking this is the first flight to carry a civilian, what if it blows up? And it did. I am sure there are millions of others who had the same thought, and a small fraction of them were convinced they were psychic. I simply thought that people go over many possibilities in their minds and sometimes the horrible ones actually happen. Most often they do not and we do not remember that we thought about them.

I have also seen a ghost. After my father died, I distinctly saw him standing at the foot of my bed. Rather disturbing unless you realize that this is an extremely common occurence. You would have been convinced you had seen a ghost. I am quite certain that I was dreaming, even though I thought I was awake at the time.

If I didn't realize what a complex device the mind is and how little of what it does is conscious, and how inaccurate it is, I would probably be a woo like you.

The difference between me and psychics? Psychics record their predictions and are not swayed by the fact that most of them turn out to be false. I do not record my predictions and I am not swayed by the fact that some of them turn out to be true.

IXP

[Ashles]

Not at all, it's happened often with me. They may not have been looking agitated, but a person might enter a room that I was in to look for something, who I didn't know was in the house, and then leave. I may not immediately recognise someone. But you're only talking about a second. Indeed, it's even happened with people I don't recognise, as in the case with my brother's friends. I just don't think this is unusual at all. Especially with large families in the 19th century with people continually in and out of the house, and leaving the front door unlocked. We live in a completely different world now and maybe that's why you find it a bit odd. I assure you it is not. I find it perfectly plausible.
So either the house is empty with just the woman there or there are other family members in the house.

If the house is empty it is very weird and the woman would have certainly followed to talk to him.

If the house had other people present the woman would have mentioned the great uncle's presence to other people (as he was not a common visitor).

Or do you disagree with these statements?

We can always pull out the explanation of false memory or psychologically moulding the facts to favour a desirable hypothesis, but at some stage this explanation, in face of all the accounts, simply gets ridiculous.
It's entirely the opposite.
We know that people confuse dreams with reality, remember things incorrectly, exaggerate and outright lie.

These things are commonplace and not disputed.

Yet by your 'logic' these events can't have commonplace explanations because they happen so frequently?

Erm, how does that work?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by IXP
And it doesn't occur to you that the death of a loved one might just have an effect on one's memory?



Loved one? I don't know if it necessarily has to be a loved one. Do you have data to back this up?


I suspect we see this type of occurrence often because this type of stressful event leads to mental editing of events that happened before. How often do we see such occurrences when the person wrote down the unusual experience or told someone else about it BEFORE finding out that the person in question had died?


Since the apparition looks just like a normal person, they would have no reason to write it down.



In the same light, I "predicted" the Challenger disaster. I distinctly remember thinking this is the first flight to carry a civilian, what if it blows up? And it did. I am sure there are millions of others who had the same thought, and a small fraction of them were convinced they were psychic. I simply thought that people go over many possibilities in their minds and sometimes the horrible ones actually happen. Most often they do not and we do not remember that we thought about them.



I've read that selective memory is woefully inadequate to explain such incidences. I think all the details are in phantasms of the living by Gurney, Myers and Podmore from which account "B" was taken.


I have also seen a ghost. After my father died, I distinctly saw him standing at the foot of my bed. Rather disturbing unless you realize that this is an extremely common occurence. You would have been convinced you had seen a ghost. I am quite certain that I was dreaming, even though I thought I was awake at the time.

If I didn't realize what a complex device the mind is and how little of what it does is conscious, and how inaccurate it is, I would probably be a woo like you.


I am not a "woo". I am an impartial seeker of the truth. I try to be completely impartial and let my beliefs be dictated by reason and evidence.

[The Mighty Thor]

The "phantom passenger" is an urban legend with age-old antecedents. In another modern version, a car stops to aid a motorcyclist who has had an accident. He notices very distinctive markings on the bike. The injured biker is put in the back of the car. He suddenly disappears. Driver shortly after notices very distinctive bike outside house. Mother answers door : "Oh. That was my son, Charlie. We keep his bike as a memento. He died three years ago at the spot you describe."

These are typical "round the campfire" tales. Only some children and very childish adults would believe this stuff was true.

A dozen miles outside of Baltimore, the main road from New York (Route Number One) is crossed by another important highway. It is a dangerous intersection, and there is talk of building and underpass for the east-west road. To date, however, the plans exist only on paper.

Dr. Eckersall was driving home from a country-club dance late one Saturday night. He slowed up for the intersection, and was surprised to see a lovely young girl, dressed in the sheerest of evening gowns, beckoning him for a lift. He jammed on his brakes, and motioned her to climb into the back seat of his roadster. "All cluttered up with golf clubs and bags up here in front," he explained. "But what on earth is a youngster like you doing out here all alone at this time of night?"

"It's too long a story to tell you now," said the girl. Her voice was sweet and somewhat shrill -- like the tinkling of sleigh bells. "Please, please take me home. I'll explain everything there. The address is ___ North Charles Street. I do hope it's not too far out of your way."

The doctor grunted, and set the car in motion. He drove rapidly to the address she had given him, and as he pulled up before the shuttered house, he said, "Here we are." Then he turned around. The back seat was empty!

"What the devil?" the doctor muttered to himself. The girl couldn't possibly have fallen from the car. Nor could she simply have vanished. He rang insistently on the house bell, confused as he had never been in his life before. At long last the door opened. A gray-haired, very tired-looking man peered out at him.

"I can't tell you what an amazing thing has happened," began the doctor. "A young girl gave me this address a while back. I drove her here and . . ."

"Yes, yes, I know," said the man wearily. "This has happened several other Saturday evenings in the past month. That young girl, sir, was my daughter. She was killed in an automobile accident at that intersection where you saw her almost two years ago . . ."

http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/vanish.asp

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I am not a "woo". I am an impartial seeker of the truth. I try to be completely impartial and let my beliefs be dictated by reason and evidence.

Archived for posterity. This is the single greatest Ian quote ever.

Ian, you a blueprint believer in every sense. The fact that you can delude yourself so thoroughly as to consider the above statement even partially accurate is testimony to that fact.

Just to make it absolutely clear: You are a believer. You have no evidence. None.

[Ratman_tf]

A did sound like the phantom hitchhiker story.

B sounds like someone who may be halucinating or lying. (the will business really trips a flag for me here)

Hard to call... too bad we're forced to take (or leave) their words for it.

[Humphreys]

Originally posted by IXP
If I didn't realize what a complex device the mind is and how little of what it does is conscious, and how inaccurate it is, I would probably be a woo like you.

It's incredibly inaccurate, yet you seem to place a lot of confidence in it when it comes to reasoning. You put so much confidence in your mind's beliefs that ghosts don't exist, that you call people who believe differently derogatory names, like 'woo'.

[UrsulaV]

The first one is a classic urban legend, as has already been discussed--if you'll believe that it happens all the time, you'll believe that there are escaped mental patients with hooks for hands roaming every deserted stretch of road, vets are constantly informing vacationers that their new Chihuahua is a giant Mexican rat, and that at any given time, dozens of men in Vegas are waking up with no kidneys.* The story persists, not because it keeps happening but because the story itself has a life of its own. I tell the joke about the three-legged pig fairly regularly, but that doesn't mean that for every retelling, another three legged pig limps out of the sty.

The second one sounds like about half of an urban legend, too--something you'd get in a "Five Hundred Five Minute Ghost Stories" collection with a title like "The Un-updated Will." No names, no locations, no dates--it's a Friend Of A Friend story at best.

The stories are too cohesive, and too neat. They have a punchline. They read like stories, not anecdotes. What happens is significant and you find out immediately why. Every fact is important and ties neatly into the whole What in real life happens like that? I'm skeptical of the existence of ghosts, but I suspect a ghost encounter that I'd find plausible, even as an anecdote, would read a lot more like slice of life than like a Reader's Digest filler. You know--"It was December. No, November. No, wait, it was--Bob? When was that? November? Okay.--Heard something weird upstairs, got the gun (two minute detour on right to bear arms) went up with the dog, (ten minute detour about dog) nearly killed myself on the stupid banisters (five minute detour on house design flaws) stepped in cat puke (endless detour about cat digestion) heard a door slam, thought it was a burglar, flung the door open, thought I saw something--looked almost like my mother, but I mean, what the hell would Mom be doing wandering around my house at midnight, particularly given that she's, y'know, dead (thirty second detour into Mom's death, accompanied by fifteen minute detour about how Shirley got the good china, even though Mom PROMISED...) and then it was gone and the door slammed again and the dog freaked out so I opened the door and whatever the hell it was was in the hall, so I put three rounds into it, and then it vanished, and I had to get the plasterers in the next day to fix the gunshot wound in the drywall. And I nearly capped the dog."

See, I'd accept that was a real anecdote, because that squares with what I know about how people tell anecdotes--it's rambling, there's no explanation, there are lots of unneccessary facts that nobody could possibly care about. But these stories are much too clean and neat and they read like writing, not like eyewitness accounts.

Even if they WERE eyewitness accounts, there'd be problems, but that's another post...

*Now, Tijuana, I'll grant you...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
The first one is a classic urban legend, as has already been discussed--if you'll believe that it happens all the time, you'll believe that there are escaped mental patients with hooks for hands roaming every deserted stretch of road, vets are constantly informing vacationers that their new Chihuahua is a giant Mexican rat, and that at any given time, dozens of men in Vegas are waking up with no kidneys.*


This clearly does not follow. If these type of ghosts do not exist, then that is simply a fact about reality. We cannot a priori conclude that these types of ghosts do not exist. It's something we discover about reality like anything else. Why are poltergeists, crisis apparitions, ghosts that appear to be kinda like a recording of some past event etc prima facie more plausible?



The second one sounds like about half of an urban legend, too--something you'd get in a "Five Hundred Five Minute Ghost Stories" collection with a title like "The Un-updated Will." No names, no locations, no dates--it's a Friend Of A Friend story at best.



I got it from Afterlife by Colin Wilson. He got if from "phantasms of the living" by Gurney, Myers and Podmore (Volume 1, p. 559). It's just one of hundreds of cases in that book (although it is not clear to me that these are all crisis apparitions. I haven't read the book although I'd like to get hold of it)



The stories are too cohesive, and too neat. They have a punchline. They read like stories, not anecdotes. What happens is significant and you find out immediately why. Every fact is important and ties neatly into the whole What in real life happens like that?



"B" will have been especially picked by the original authors precisely because of its suggestive nature.



I'm skeptical of the existence of ghosts, but I suspect a ghost encounter that I'd find plausible, even as an anecdote, would read a lot more like slice of life than like a Reader's Digest filler. You know--"It was December. No, November. No, wait, it was--Bob? When was that? November? Okay.--Heard something weird upstairs, got the gun (two minute detour on right to bear arms) went up with the dog, (ten minute detour about dog) nearly killed myself on the stupid banisters (five minute detour on house design flaws) stepped in cat puke (endless detour about cat digestion) heard a door slam, thought it was a burglar, flung the door open, thought I saw something--looked almost like my mother, but I mean, what the hell would Mom be doing wandering around my house at midnight, particularly given that she's, y'know, dead (thirty second detour into Mom's death, accompanied by fifteen minute detour about how Shirley got the good china, even though Mom PROMISED...) and then it was gone and the door slammed again and the dog freaked out so I opened the door and whatever the hell it was was in the hall, so I put three rounds into it, and then it vanished, and I had to get the plasterers in the next day to fix the gunshot wound in the drywall. And I nearly capped the dog."


They wouldn't have published something like that. I can't imagine them wishing to dwell on irrelevant detail for a kick off. I assume they would wish to concentrate on the cases where it seems clear that a genuine apparition is involved.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[
I got it from Afterlife by Colin Wilson. He got if from "phantasms of the living" by Gurney, Myers and Podmore (Volume 1, p. 559). It's just one of hundreds of cases in that book (although it is not clear to me that these are all crisis apparitions. I haven't read the book although I'd like to get hold of it)



BTW, just in case it's not obvious, the quote is not from the original book, but Colin Wilson's paraphrasing of the case. No doubt there is much more detail in the original book.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW, just in case it's not obvious, the quote is not from the original book, but Colin Wilson's paraphrasing of the case. No doubt there is much more detail in the original book.
No doubt its more anecdotal evidence,hearsay,chinese whispers etc.;) How many books are written about ghosts,supernatural murders(I have this one)every year-its tall tales Ian,nothing more.A video diary or such like of the event would be more interesting(no pun intended)and at least we'd be have something to analyze.Some people will make stories up if they think theyll make money from it-and have it written in a book.Like people who confess to crimes they havent comitted-just for the attention and fame.The world is full of people with a tall story tell.
Some people believed in The Blair Witch for long enough.
Tell us the one about the Monkeys Paw..thats a beauty!:p

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW, just in case it's not obvious, the quote is not from the original book, but Colin Wilson's paraphrasing of the case. No doubt there is much more detail in the original book.

There's a lot of detail in The Lord Of The Rings too. It's still a story.

[UrsulaV]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This clearly does not follow. If these type of ghosts do not exist, then that is simply a fact about reality. We cannot a priori conclude that these types of ghosts do not exist. It's something we discover about reality like anything else. Why are poltergeists, crisis apparitions, ghosts that appear to be kinda like a recording of some past event etc prima facie more plausible?


Call me dense, but I'm having a hard time getting from my quote about "this is a famous urban legend" to your statement up above that followed it. Can you restate your point on this one? (Or is "this clearly does not follow' meant to indicate that your statement doesn't follow? If that's the case, ignore my request.) I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, I'm just saying I don't understand what you're trying to say. Clear, lucid prose is all I ask. We started at urban legends, and then you went off to crisis apparitions being more plausible than...err...something else. I'm all confused.

[Dr Adequate]

So, what we have here is in fact two paraphrases of anyonymous anecdotes, which sound suspiciously like urban myths, in a collection of ghost stories Interesting Ian hasn't seen, compiled using... what standards of research? We don't know.

Well, that's hard evidence that's well worth spending a lot of time discussing. However, I have an even more convincing proof of ghosts. Some fat bloke in a pub told me they exist. So there.

[TLN]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
Call me dense, but I'm having a hard time getting from my quote about "this is a famous urban legend" to your statement up above that followed it. Can you restate your point on this one? (Or is "this clearly does not follow' meant to indicate that your statement doesn't follow? If that's the case, ignore my request.) I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, I'm just saying I don't understand what you're trying to say. Clear, lucid prose is all I ask. We started at urban legends, and then you went off to crisis apparitions being more plausible than...err...something else. I'm all confused.

UrsulaV, as a new poster you might want to check out the following thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171) In it is cataloged Ian's continual logical fallacies.

We can't win here. Ian is just too far removed from reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian
BTW, just in case it's not obvious, the quote is not from the original book, but Colin Wilson's paraphrasing of the case. No doubt there is much more detail in the original book.



Azrael 5
No doubt its more anecdotal evidence,hearsay,chinese whispers etc.;)

You and others seem to be under the delusion that I quoted this account in order to persaude people of the reality of ghosts. I did not. At the very minimum I would have only have pasted in a direct quote from the original book (phantasms of the living) itself, without anything being omitted, if I were trying to do that. No, I had other motives for starting this thread which I will reveal in due course.

[Dr Adequate]

Ooh, another Interesting Ian Thread Of Mystery.

Last time he did one of these, the big revelation turned out to be a claim to have invented pomposity. I'm not kidding. I wonder what aspect of himself he wants to draw attention to this time.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This clearly does not follow. If these type of ghosts do not exist, then that is simply a fact about reality. We cannot a priori conclude that these types of ghosts do not exist. It's something we discover about reality like anything else. Why are poltergeists, crisis apparitions, ghosts that appear to be kinda like a recording of some past event etc prima facie more plausible?


UrsulaV
Call me dense, but I'm having a hard time getting from my quote about "this is a famous urban legend" to your statement up above that followed it. Can you restate your point on this one? (Or is "this clearly does not follow' meant to indicate that your statement doesn't follow? If that's the case, ignore my request.) I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you, I'm just saying I don't understand what you're trying to say. Clear, lucid prose is all I ask. We started at urban legends, and then you went off to crisis apparitions being more plausible than...err...something else. I'm all confused.

What don't you understand about my response? You implied that to believe in account "A" is stupid. What justification is there for this position? I may or may not agree with a sensible response from you on this question; but simply hypothesising it's an "urban legend" just doesn't cut it.

[Ashles]

No, I had other motives for starting this thread which I will reveal in due course.
How interesting Mr Goldfinger.

[UrsulaV]

Originally posted by TLN
UrsulaV, as a new poster you might want to check out the following thread. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171) In it is cataloged Ian's continual logical fallacies.

We can't win here. Ian is just too far removed from reality.

Oh, thank you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You and others seem to be under the delusion that I quoted this account in order to persaude people of the reality of ghosts. I did not. At the very minimum I would have only have pasted in a direct quote from the original book (phantasms of the living) itself, without anything being omitted, if I were trying to do that. No, I had other motives for starting this thread which I will reveal in due course.

Just to be clear, account A does not come from the book phantasms of the living. Only account B does.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
How interesting Mr Goldfinger.

You thought you would get the better of me Mr Bond? Allow me to assure you, you are very mistaken.

[Ashles]

(Sound of Ian's laser being fired up)

Bond: Do you expect me to talk?

Ian: No Mr Bond I expect you to die, be reincarnated and accept that materialism is refuted.

[bluess]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
The stories are too cohesive, and too neat. They have a punchline. They read like stories, not anecdotes. What happens is significant and you find out immediately why. Every fact is important and ties neatly into the whole What in real life happens like that? I'm skeptical of the existence of ghosts, but I suspect a ghost encounter that I'd find plausible, even as an anecdote, would read a lot more like slice of life than like a Reader's Digest filler. You know--"It was December. No, November. No, wait, it was--Bob? When was that? November? Okay.--Heard something weird upstairs, got the gun (two minute detour on right to bear arms) went up with the dog, (ten minute detour about dog) nearly killed myself on the stupid banisters (five minute detour on house design flaws) stepped in cat puke (endless detour about cat digestion) heard a door slam, thought it was a burglar, flung the door open, thought I saw something--looked almost like my mother, but I mean, what the hell would Mom be doing wandering around my house at midnight, particularly given that she's, y'know, dead (thirty second detour into Mom's death, accompanied by fifteen minute detour about how Shirley got the good china, even though Mom PROMISED...) and then it was gone and the door slammed again and the dog freaked out so I opened the door and whatever the hell it was was in the hall, so I put three rounds into it, and then it vanished, and I had to get the plasterers in the next day to fix the gunshot wound in the drywall. And I nearly capped the dog."

Thank you for a much needed smile in the afternoon.

I can assure you that if an unknown human suddenly appeared in my house, it would be scream and belt first, ask later.

[TheBoyPaj]

Save us. Ian thinks he's beng provocative.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Just to be clear, account A does not come from the book phantasms of the living. Only account B does.

So what?

[Tricky]

Ian's next poll:

"What is more effective at repelling vampires?"
A)Garlic
B)Crucifixes

[TLN]

Originally posted by Tricky
Ian's next poll:

"What is more effective at repelling vampires?"
A)Garlic
B)Crucifixes

Sorry, but I already made this joke on page one. :)

And Hogwarts is far more believable. :D

[Ashles]

Obviously Hogwarts is more believable.

Trains are known to exist and trains go to Hogwarts thus ipso facto a priori ad nauseam materialism is refuted.

Only a Skeptic would try to deny my logic.

[UrsulaV]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What don't you understand about my response? You implied that to believe in account "A" is stupid. What justification is there for this position? I may or may not agree with a sensible response from you on this question; but simply hypothesising it's an "urban legend" just doesn't cut it.

I didn't understand how it followed. (I still don't.) I said "It's an urban legend, and if you believe that, you'll believe the one about the hook handed guy," and then you started talking about crisis apparitions and a priori knowledge of the nonexistence of ghosts.

I don't see how you get there from here. It's not that I'm saying you're wrong, it's that I'm saying I'm not following whatever steps got you from my urban legends to your crisis apparitions. I haven't even touched on the rest of your response, I'm still talking about the first paragraph here, because I don't understand what you're trying to say, and I want to give you a chance to explain it clearly rather than make assumptions about whatever it is you may be stating. You may be at point C, and there may well be a logical progression, but I'm still at Point A and I need a roadmap to at least point B before we continue.

So. Once again. WHAT, exactly, are you saying? In small words. In clear, lucid prose. With no Latin. I have said that Story A is an urban legend, and believing in it is like believing in all the other urban legends. What, exactly, are you saying in response? Step by step, here. Don't assume I'm following your thought processes, or have any idea what a crisis apparition is, because I don't. Explain as you would to an elderly and slightly befuddled maiden aunt who is not up on all the lingo and had to walk uphill both ways to philosophy class, and the only philosophy we had back then was Dirt, and we were grateful. And the snow was six feet deep. And we had to fend off hungry wolves with our philosophy books...

(I suspect, granted the noises of horror and amusement from the crowd, that I am engaged in Futility Quest here. But hey, what the hell, I haven't tilted my obligatory windmill yet today...)

[TLN]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
(I suspect, granted the noises of horror and amusement from the crowd, that I am engaged in Futility Quest here. But hey, what the hell, I haven't tilted my obligatory windmill yet today...)

Yup, I warned you. Now I'm just making popcoprn. :D

[Temp3st]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]Loved one? I don't know if it necessarily has to be a loved one. Do you have data to back this up?


You are asking for data?

How ironic.

[TLN]

While we're wasting time here, Gandalf vs. Dumbledore.

Go...

[UrsulaV]

Dude, Gandalf. I mean, Dumbledore can be immobilized by angry letters from parents. Gandalf takes a Balrog and keeps on tickin'...

It worries me how quickly my brain offered that up. I think it's been secretly contemplating such grudge matches when I'm asleep.

[bluess]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
Dude, Gandalf. I mean, Dumbledore can be immobilized by angry letters from parents. Gandalf takes a Balrog and keeps on tickin'...

It worries me how quickly my brain offered that up. I think it's been secretly contemplating such grudge matches when I'm asleep.

Let me know if you start doing anime. I'm sure I could find a market.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by TLN
While we're wasting time here, Gandalf vs. Dumbledore.

Go...

Gandalf hands down. For one thing, he is an Istari, which means he is something like a demi-god. He's not just some human wizard like Dumbledore. He took on the Balrog, fer cryin' out loud, and won. Dumbledore couldn't even take on Voldemort.

Now if you had picked Frodo vs. Harry Potter as the matchup, it might have been a different story.....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
I didn't understand how it followed. (I still don't.) I said "It's an urban legend, and if you believe that, you'll believe the one about the hook handed guy," and then you started talking about crisis apparitions and a priori knowledge of the nonexistence of ghosts.



You claim it is stupid to believe in X, the reason being that X is an "urban legend", not because, for example, any apparent incompatibility of X with the rest of our knowledge, or any perceived inconsistency in X, or because there is insufficient testimony or evidence to suggest X etc?

Right, that's fine! :con2:

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You claim it is stupid to believe in X, the reason being that X is an "urban legend", not because, for example, any apparent incompatibility of X with the rest of our knowledge, or any perceived inconsistency in X, or because there is insufficient testimony or evidence to suggest X etc?

Right, that's fine! :con2:

Ah, but that isn't what is being claimed, not as I read it, anyway.

You set up a situation where you have to scenarios X & Y, and ask which is more unlikely. X is a common urban legend and Y is not, so X was picked as the less likely and the resemblance to an urban legend is given as the reason.

You asked a question, she answered. The question is all subjective opinion anyway, so I don't see why youa re getting defensive about her (or anyone elses) reasons for giving their answer. IF you don't like answers, don't ask questions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Ah, but that isn't what is being claimed, not as I read it, anyway.

You set up a situation where you have to scenarios X & Y, and ask which is more unlikely. X is a common urban legend and Y is not, so X was picked as the less likely and the resemblance to an urban legend is given as the reason.

You asked a question, she answered. The question is all subjective opinion anyway, so I don't see why youa re getting defensive about her (or anyone elses) reasons for giving their answer. IF you don't like answers, don't ask questions.

You can't just say it's an "urban legend", and imagine that you've refuted it. Imagine someone refuting psi or "life after death" by simply stating it is an urban legend! :eek: No, you need to expand. You did so yourself!

On page 1 you said:


Nyarlathotep
I find them both absurd but I voted that I find 'A' slightly more absurd. The reason is very simple, 'A' is almost exactly a retelling of the 'vanishing hitchiker' urban legend that seems to crop up all over the US. It only has a few changed details but it is essentially the same. In none of the cases where this is supposed to have happened int he US can you ever find a person it actually happened to, it was always a 'friend of a friend'.


Now this is much much better. If we cannot actually find anyone who has experienced this type of ghost, then this strongly suggests that this particular type of ghost does not exist. Even if we are able to find a few people who claim to have experienced such a ghost, and these cases are all from modern times, or in western cultures, then it is likely that this type of ghost does not exist. I think to provisionally conclude this is absolutely fine and your argument is fine. Note that you gave a reason to suppose their non-existence (we cannot find anyone who has experienced them), but UrsulaV didn't?

[UrsulaV]

Okay! Great! I can work with that, thank you!

Err, however I suggest you re-read my posts, because you've gone from saying I implied something was stupid to saying that I claimed something was stupid, and in fact I don't think I've even used the word 'stupid' until this post, where I'm admittedly flinging it madly in all directions. However, we'll assume that was an accidental overstatement of the case, and caught early, so no harm done.

As for the quite valid point that that was my sole objection, my apologies. If you'd actually like me to explain all* the other reasons that I think the story is unlikely, I'd be happy to--my inital post was hardly an exhaustive catalog of all of my objections, since many of them were handled eloquently already by others, and I figured people'd get bored with my ramblings! I didn't think anybody would want to sit through every agonizing detail of why I found it unlikely, so I was just pointing out the most obvious one--namely that , hell, we used to tell variations on THAT one around the fire at Girl Scout camp twenty years ago. It's a well known urban legend, as I said. There's no more reason to believe it than the one about the giant Mexican rat, and actually rather less, since we have no proof that ghosts exist, and we can all be pretty clear on the existence of gullible tourists, small dogs, and big rats.

Whether or not believing urban legends makes somebody stupid is a value judgement that I'm definitely not making. At least, not in public where someone might see me.


*or as many as I have time to go through...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
There's no more reason to believe it than the one about the giant Mexican rat, and actually rather less, since we have no proof that ghosts exist, and we can all be pretty clear on the existence of gullible tourists, small dogs, and big rats.
[/B]

There is no proof of anything apart from in formal logic and maths. The point is that there is a colossal amount of evidence that ghosts exist. Of course it varies depending on the type of ghost you have in mind.

How big precisely is this giant Mexican rat?

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You can't just say it's an "urban legend", and imagine that you've refuted it. Imagine someone refuting psi or "life after death" by simply stating it is an urban legend! :eek: No, you need to expand. You did so yourself!


Okay, fair enough, but I don't think anyone has claimed that the first story being an urban legend refutes psi, merely that it makes 'A' a less likely story than 'B'. I think Ursula meant the same thing I did, her only error was not in expanding more. But in her defense, a true 'urban legend' is pretty much unverifiable by definition, meaning among other things that you can't find anyone it really happened to. So, in essesnce, we are arguing over semantics here.

[UrsulaV]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There is no proof of anything apart from in formal logic and maths.

Oh, no--I can smell a trap when it's dangling an inch from my nose, thank you, no. Ain't goin' there.

Nyarlathotep explained me better than I did, so I'll just thank him and call it good.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The point is that there is a colossal amount of evidence that ghosts exist.

No, only the anecdotes of flawed human minds.

Anecdotes are not evidence.

There is no evidence that ghosts exist.

I'm not sure where I’m losing you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
Oh, no--I can smell a trap when it's dangling an inch from my nose, thank you, no. Ain't goin' there.

Nyarlathotep explained me better than I did, so I'll just thank him and call it good.

How big is this non-existent Mexican giant rat supposed to be?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How big is this non-existent Mexican giant rat supposed to be?

Ian, are you following the posts in this thread? What does this have to do with anything?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
Okay, fair enough, but I don't think anyone has claimed that the first story being an urban legend refutes psi, merely that it makes 'A' a less likely story than 'B'. I think Ursula meant the same thing I did, her only error was not in expanding more. But in her defense, a true 'urban legend' is pretty much unverifiable by definition, meaning among other things that you can't find anyone it really happened to. So, in essesnce, we are arguing over semantics here.

You can't find anyone who has actually experienced this type of ghost . . . hmmmm, now that is most interesting. After all, you would expect some people to lie about it and maintain they have experienced such a ghost, even if only for the attention. And what about false memories, or misinterpretation of some events? But no such suitable psychological aberrations have ever taken place which would have lead some people to think they have experienced this type of ghost! :eek:

And yet, and yet, with other types of ghosts eg apparitions of loved ones, who have appeared throughout human history, across all cultures, and which regularly get reported; these are all supposed to be explained by people lying, or people having false memories or misinterpretion of some sensory experience. Now I suggest something here is not quite adding up!

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And yet, and yet, with other types of ghosts eg apparitions of loved ones, who have appeared throughout human history, across all cultures, and which regularly get reported; these are all supposed to be explained by people lying, or people having false memories or misinterpretion of some sensory experience. Now I suggest something here is not quite adding up!

Why?

[Ashles]

And yet, and yet, with other types of ghosts eg apparitions of loved ones, who have appeared throughout human history, across all cultures, and which regularly get reported; these are all supposed to be explained by people lying, or people having false memories or misinterpretion of some sensory experience. Now I suggest something here is not quite adding up!
That doesn't follow at all.

Logic (which you pretend to follow) would dictate that if there are two explantions for something - one of which is pefectly plausible has been repeatedly observed and is known to have happened in many cases (lying, poor memory etc.) and the other explantion has no evidence that it is any way possible, then we should assume the former.

Just because they are less exciting is no reason to reject mundane explanations. The number of reported stories is absolutely irrelevant to whether a thing exists or not.

I remember telling ghost stories that had happened to me when I was younger. Footsteps round my bed, that kind of thing.
In reality it was actually my own heartbeat on the very threshold of hearing which I knew full well at the time. I just liked freaking myself out a bit.

But when I told people I had heard ghostly footsteps round my bed I really genuinely did not feel I was lying. Why is that?

The "They can't all be mistaken" argument just isn't logical and caries no weight whatsoever.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by UrsulaV
Oh, no--I can smell a trap when it's dangling an inch from my nose, thank you, no. Ain't goin' there.

Nyarlathotep explained me better than I did, so I'll just thank him and call it good.

I've read the thread started by jj, and apparently a lot of newcomers are apprehensive about posting on here. In light of that fact I think I should have been a bit easier on you. I was going to start arguing about this giant rat and whether its existence is greater/lesser than ghosts . .but forget it. I don't want to put off newcomer Skeptics from posting here :)

Must say I can't understand newcomers being apprehensive though. When I first came on almost 3 years I started calling everyone stupid, or words to that effect. Oh well.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
When I first came on almost 3 years I started calling everyone stupid, or words to that effect. Oh well.

And your arguments have become no more persuasive or convincing.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Must say I can't understand newcomers being apprehensive though. When I first came on almost 3 years I started calling everyone stupid, or words to that effect. Oh well.

Newcomers shouldn't be apprehensive because you might insult them. After all, that pretty much comes with being on the internet. No, people should be apprehensive because you're completely impenetrable by logic and reason, you don't read posts you can't address, address only small sections of the posts you do respond to, and are generally a complete waste of skeptical time and energy.

But don't worry about the newcomers, Ian, I'm documenting all of this for them in the Hall of Fame.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles

II
And yet, and yet, with other types of ghosts eg apparitions of loved ones, who have appeared throughout human history, across all cultures, and which regularly get reported; these are all supposed to be explained by people lying, or people having false memories or misinterpretion of some sensory experience. Now I suggest something here is not quite adding up!

Ashles
That doesn't follow at all.

Logic (which you pretend to follow) would dictate that if there are two explantions for something - one of which is pefectly plausible has been repeatedly observed and is known to have happened in many cases (lying, poor memory etc.) and the other explantion has no evidence that it is any way possible, then we should assume the former.



Absolutely. It doesn't apply in this case though.



Just because they are less exciting is no reason to reject mundane explanations. The number of reported stories is absolutely irrelevant to whether a thing exists or not.



You disagree with one or two skeptics on this thread then. If nobody has ever reported phantom hitchhikers or more generally the ghost type as outlined in "A", then it is of breathtaking absurdity to suppose that this type of ghost is just as likely as ghost type "B" which has been reported throughout history, across all cultures, and which is extremely common. Get real!

The ghost account "A" was just made up BTW. It was told by the playwright Alfred Sutro, in his reminiscences Celebrities and Simple Souls (1933) As Colin Wilson states in his book Afterlife:

Sutra stated that he has told the story to various people who dabble in a psychic and occult, and has been offered varies explanations. But he has never been offered the true one, which is that he has made it up. It was evidently intended to demonstrate the gullibility of people who believe in life after death...

It seems to me that those who did not offer an explanation might well have had reservations about the truth of the story but felt reluctant to say so; especially if Sutra related the alleged encounter with apparent sincerity. This is not to deny however that a lot of believers are very gullible. Likewise skeptics are also close minded to alternative explanations. I guess it's just human nature. I'm just thankful that a few of us are able to give a more objective assessment.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
And your arguments have become no more persuasive or convincing.

They wouldn't do to the type of person that one finds on this board. Skeptics (but not of course sceptics) apparently already know the truth about the world. Nothing I can say will alter that; I accept that.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

The ghost account "A" was just made up BTW. It was told by the playwright Alfred Sutro, in his reminiscences Celebrities and Simple Souls (1933) As Colin Wilson states in his book Afterlife:


Actually, now you have me wondering whether the play, and Sutro's relating it as a true story might be the origin of the 'Phantom Hithchiker' myth, or whether the myth is older and he used it as the basis of the play. The stories are so similar that the betting man in me would wager that one those two things is the case.

[Ashles]

If nobody has ever reported phantom hitchhikers or more generally the ghost type as outlined in "A", then it is of breathtaking absurdity to suppose that this type of ghost is just as likely as ghost type "B" which has been reported throughout history, across all cultures, and which is extremely common. Get real!
Ian, you have totally lost the plot now.

Firstly the phantom hitchiker is a commonly told story (I have heard a variant myself before, and heard it ascribed to a celebrity once), so just because you haven't heard it before Ian doesn't mean no-one has.

Secondly how on earth do you work out the relative likelihood of two made up stories?

This is exactly why anecdotal evidence has NO SCIENTIFIC WEIGHT.
Repetition of a story does not increase its validity.

Which of these two stories is more likely to be true Ian?

There is a ghost in the film 3 Men and a Lady.
Giant walking mushrooms live in Ohio.

By Ian's theory there must be a ghost in 3 men and a Little Lady. I've heard that story loads of times.

Claiming otherwise would surely invite a sugestion to 'Get real'!


By the way Ian, since the ghostly hitchhiker story is not a common tale it is rather strange that it even has a page on Snopes devoted to it.
Ghost Hitchhiker (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/vanish.asp)


I think the point you were trying to make has rather backfired.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Ashles
Secondly how on earth do you work out the relative likelihood of two made up stories?

This is exactly why anecdotal evidence has NO SCIENTIFIC WEIGHT.
Repetition of a story does not increase its validity.

*cough* (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870754973#post1870754973)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles

II
If nobody has ever reported phantom hitchhikers or more generally the ghost type as outlined in "A", then it is of breathtaking absurdity to suppose that this type of ghost is just as likely as ghost type "B" which has been reported throughout history, across all cultures, and which is extremely common. Get real!

Ashles
Ian, you have totally lost the plot now.



{sighs} ok what are you unable to understand??



Firstly the phantom hitchiker is a commonly told story (I have heard a variant myself before, and heard it ascribed to a celebrity once), so just because you haven't heard it before Ian doesn't mean no-one has.


Of course I've heard of it! No-one is denying that it is a commonly told story. We have, however, yet to hear from anyone which it actually happened to. Again, I repeat, if no-one has ever experienced such a ghost, then why suppose this type of ghost exists?? You cannot compare this type of non-experienced ghost to experienced ghosts! At least not if you have the remotest sense.



Secondly how on earth do you work out the relative likelihood of two made up stories?



Type B ghosts are not made up! They have have occurred throughout human history, across all cultures, and are extremely common. About 50% of all widows/widowers experience an apparition of their dead spouse!



This is exactly why anecdotal evidence has NO SCIENTIFIC WEIGHT.


I have no interest in this. I'm addressing what a rational person ought to believe, and it ain't your interpretation! :eek:



Repetition of a story does not increase its validity.



Perhaps not, but reports of some universal phenomenon reported by people who have not heard of the phenomenon before, and these reports exhibiting strong similarities, at least forces us to the conclusion that they have experienced something very similar, no matter what the ultimate explanation.


Which of these two stories is more likely to be true Ian?


B. And even if that particular account is doubted, never fear, there are countless millions more of a similar nature. Compare and contrast to your phantom hitch hiker.


I think the point you were trying to make has rather backfired.



No, you understand nothing Mr Bond.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
And your arguments have become no more persuasive or convincing. Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They wouldn't do to the type of person that one finds on this board. Skeptics (but not of course sceptics) apparently already know the truth about the world. Nothing I can say will alter that; I accept that. :dl:
Do you see, children? The reason Interesting Ian doesn't have to make any sense is that in his nutty fantasy world everyone who asks him for persuasive convincing arguments believes the BS doctrine of Skepticism which he's invented (though is understandably reluctant to define; lies on this subject necessarily have to be kept as vague as possible). Of course, we old-timers absolutely accept this certain proof of Interesting Ian's genius --- after all, he's called us "stupid" often enough to convince us of that.

But Ian, one thing concerns me. People will come here --- lurkers, newbies --- whom you have never called "stupid titheads". They won't know how extraordinarily superior you aare to the rest of the human race. And when they see you implying that you could post something "persuasive or convincing" but do not, ever, under any circumstances, do so, and appear to be a born fool into the bargain, they will really wonder if you really could ever post anything persuasive and convincing about your opinions, or whether this windy boast is merely the deluded self-aggrandisement of a liar, fantasist and poseur (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171)

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
[B]
Type B ghosts are not made up! They have have occurred throughout human history, across all cultures, and are extremely common. About 50% of all widows/widowers experience an apparition of their dead spouse!


I am very interested in where you get this number from. The number seems more than a tad high, in my experience.

[Ashles]

Please tell me you're joking.
No-one is denying that it is a commonly told story. We have, however, yet to hear from anyone which it actually happened to. Again, I repeat, if no-one has ever experienced such a ghost, then why suppose this type of ghost exists?? You cannot compare this type of non-experienced ghost to experienced ghosts!
So 2 types of ghost stories then.
Ghost stories which someone has told you directly have happened to them. And ghosts stories which you have read have happened to others.
So the only ghost stories that exist are the ones that have been told to you Ian?
And reports of ghost stories aren't evidence?

How on earth can you draw this distinction between anecdotal evidence? You can amazingly tell the difference between anecdotal anecdotal evidence and plain old anecdotal evidence?
Type B ghosts are not made up! They have have occurred throughout human history, across all cultures, and are extremely common.
How do you work this out? You have rejected the type A based on, what exactly? That you haven't been told a version of that stroy directly?
It's an urban legend for goodness sakes! It's been told repeatedly! By people who claimed it happened to them!


Ian you've gone mad.
I have no interest in this. I'm addressing what a rational person ought to believe, and it ain't your interpretation!
It's not my interpretation, it's how we get to know things about our world and don't just believe everything we are told.
It's called critical thinking - you may have heard of it. Maybe.
but reports of some universal phenomenon reported by people who have not heard of the phenomenon before, and these reports exhibiting strong similarities, at least forces us to the conclusion that they have experienced something very similar, no matter what the ultimate explanation.
Exactly as I said earlier. Similar stories, almost certainly similar reasons. I.e. the sensible ones I suggested.
And even if that particular account is doubted, never fear, there are countless millions more of a similar nature. Compare and contrast to your phantom hitch hiker.
Please, please, please show me some kind of statistical comparison. Some way you can show me that one story is far more common than the other.

Then show me why the frequency of the story would in any way relate to veracity.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I am very interested in where you get this number from. The number seems more than a tad high, in my experience.

I too am surprised it's so high. Raymond Moody found it to be this high. Or it might have been about 66% - can't remember. And there are others. This (http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/omega.pdf) paper will be of some interest. (you need acrobat reader)


Rees, of the University of London, interviewed 293 widows and widowers in Wales [4]. Fifty percent of the widowers and 46 percent of the widows reported hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly waking state. The experiences seemed independent of sex and age. but relatively more professionals and managers and their widows reported them than members of other classes. Social isolation had no effect on the occurrence of the phenomenon, nor was it more common among those who had, according to their medical reports, sought help for depression after losing their spouse. None of these persons had told their physician or clergyman about their experience, many of them citing fear of ridicule. Rees concluded that hallucinations of this kind by widows and widowers should be considered a normal phenomenon. Greeley [lo] and Haraldsson [l l] have since verified in large national samples that about half of all widows and widowers report hallucinatory experiences of their deceased spouses.


So pretty conclusive.

[Ashles]

Just for fun:
Links to 3 hitchhiker ghost stories in Australia (http://www.paranormalaustralia.com/experiences/)
Hitchhiker in North Carolina (http://www.prairieghosts.com/greensboro.html)
Hitchhiker - Kentucky (http://members.tripod.com/~lindaluelinn/index-14.html)
'Parapsychologists' even study them (http://www.parascience.org.uk/misc/ghost/road.htm)
The place - the A38 in Somerset - The story - another hitchhiker (http://beehive.thisisbristol.com/default.asp?WCI=SiteHome&ID=7542&PageID=40464)
Another place, another story (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art17503.asp)
Interstate 71 (http://www.shadowseekers.org/hitchhikerof71.html)

And so on, and so on.

It appears that Ian has chosen, as his example of a made up ghost story, one of the most commonly told and repeated ghost stories in history.

Great example.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So pretty conclusive.

Ian, you understand that no one here is claiming that people don't see what they perceive to be ghosts. I'm sure they do. We're questioning what these visions might be, genuine ghosts or the hallucinations of humans with common physiology and needs.

Because people see ghosts does not mean ghosts exist. Clear?

No, of course not. I wonder if the above post just looks blank to your eyes.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I too am surprised it's so high. Raymond Moody found it to be this high. Or it might have been about 66% - can't remember. And there are others. This (http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/omega.pdf) paper will be of some interest. (you need acrobat reader)



So pretty conclusive.

Hmmm. I am at work so I only skimmed it, I'll read it in depth later. But even if one takes those numbers at face value, to me it could just mean there is some sort of interesting psychological thing going on in a lot of people. A way of coping with loss. I think that would have to be ruled out before the idea of ghosts could enter the picture

[Ashles]

Originally posted by TLN
Because people see ghosts does not mean ghosts exist. Clear?

No, of course not. I wonder if the above post just looks blank to your eyes.
Don't forget TLN, you're "on Ian's ignore list".

He must keep replying to you through some form of telepathic means.

[Ashles]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I too am surprised it's so high. Raymond Moody found it to be this high. Or it might have been about 66% - can't remember. And there are others. This (http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/omega.pdf) paper will be of some interest. (you need acrobat reader)



So pretty conclusive.
It's a bit hard to see where you're going with your argument now.

You are agreeing that people can hallucinate, misperceive etc?
And in fact this is extremely common?
And is the explanation for ghost story type B?

Er, well we agree with you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Originally posted by TLN
Because people see ghosts does not mean ghosts exist. Clear?

No, of course not. I wonder if the above post just looks blank to your eyes.

Does that apply to anything? Just because I see a table doesn't mean a table exists?

Basically it depends on whether it is an illusion or a hallucination. Or does it have to be of external origin? None of this is important or relevant.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Does that apply to anything? Just because I see a table doesn't mean a table exists?

Basically it depends on whether it is an illusion or a hallucination. Or does it have to be of external origin? None of this is important or relevant.

Thus ends this conversation folks.

It's not important if people hallucinate. Ian's still right.

Stupidity on this level should be illegal.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Just for fun:
Links to 3 hitchhiker ghost stories in Australia (http://www.paranormalaustralia.com/experiences/)
Hitchhiker in North Carolina (http://www.prairieghosts.com/greensboro.html)
Hitchhiker - Kentucky (http://members.tripod.com/~lindaluelinn/index-14.html)
'Parapsychologists' even study them (http://www.parascience.org.uk/misc/ghost/road.htm)
The place - the A38 in Somerset - The story - another hitchhiker (http://beehive.thisisbristol.com/default.asp?WCI=SiteHome&ID=7542&PageID=40464)
Another place, another story (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art17503.asp)
Interstate 71 (http://www.shadowseekers.org/hitchhikerof71.html)

And so on, and so on.

It appears that Ian has chosen, as his example of a made up ghost story, one of the most commonly told and repeated ghost stories in history.

Great example.

I was assuming that the Skeptics on here were telling the truth when they said no-one has ever experienced any such apparent ghost (How silly of me! :eek: ). Of course if people have, then it is slightly more interesting, and their non-existence is not so certain. However, unless some alleged phenomenon is universal, I personally would have severe reservations as to whether people genuinely do have this experience.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
It's a bit hard to see where you're going with your argument now.

You are agreeing that people can hallucinate, misperceive etc?
And in fact this is extremely common?
And is the explanation for ghost story type B?

Er, well we agree with you.

Ashles, will you please read my posts and try to take them in. Unless you do I will not be responding to anymore of your inane posts. You're not remotely addressing anything I have said, and I really would prefer not to waste my time.

[Ashles]

I was assuming that the Skeptics on here were telling the truth when they said no-one has ever experienced any such apparent ghost (How silly of me! ).
In that case maybe you've learnt an important lesson about not trusting anecdotal evidence then.
Of course if people have, then it is slightly more interesting, and their non-existence is not so certain.
Mo the 'certainty' has not changed at all. Has the likelihood of their existing somehow changed just because I have priovided you with those links? Maybe in your opinion, but not in reality.
The stories are irrelevant. They may be real they may not be. We don't know, thus they are useless as evidence.
However, unless some alleged phenomenon is universal, I personally would have severe reservations as to whether people genuinely do have this experience.
Story B is not 'universal' by any definition.
It hasn't happened to me or anyone I know.
And for those who think it has hapened to them there are perfectly mundane explanations.
You're not remotely addressing anything I have said, and I really would prefer not to waste my time.
I am directly adressing your points. I can't help it if you don't like, agree with, or understand what I'm saying.
Unless you do I will not be responding to anymore of your inane posts.
That will hardly ruin my day.
And if you think "I'm not talking to you any more" is a mature or convincing way to debate then you are even sillier than I previously thought.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I find them both absurd but I voted that I find 'A' slightly more absurd. The reason is very simple, 'A' is almost exactly a retelling of the 'vanishing hitchiker' urban legend that seems to crop up all over the US. Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
The "phantom passenger" is an urban legend with age-old antecedents. In another modern version, a car stops to aid a motorcyclist who has had an accident. He notices very distinctive markings on the bike. The injured biker is put in the back of the car. He suddenly disappears. Driver shortly after notices very distinctive bike outside house. Mother answers door : "Oh. That was my son, Charlie. We keep his bike as a memento. He died three years ago at the spot you describe."

These are typical "round the campfire" tales. Only some children and very childish adults would believe this stuff was true. Originally posted by Ratman_tf
A did sound like the phantom hitchhiker story. Originally posted by UrsulaV
The first one is a classic urban legend Originally posted by Dr Adequate
So, what we have here is in fact two paraphrases of anyonymous anecdotes, which sound suspiciously like urban myths Originally posted by Ashles
Firstly the phantom hitchiker is a commonly told story (I have heard a variant myself before, and heard it ascribed to a celebrity once), so just because you haven't heard it before Ian doesn't mean no-one has.

By the way Ian, since the ghostly hitchhiker story is not a common tale it is rather strange that it even has a page on Snopes devoted to it.
Ghost Hitchhiker (http://www.snopes.com/horrors/ghosts/vanish.asp) Originally posted by Ashles
Just for fun:
Links to 3 hitchhiker ghost stories in Australia (http://www.paranormalaustralia.com/experiences/)
Hitchhiker in North Carolina (http://www.prairieghosts.com/greensboro.html)
Hitchhiker - Kentucky (http://members.tripod.com/~lindaluelinn/index-14.html)
'Parapsychologists' even study them (http://www.parascience.org.uk/misc/ghost/road.htm)
The place - the A38 in Somerset - The story - another hitchhiker (http://beehive.thisisbristol.com/default.asp?WCI=SiteHome&ID=7542&PageID=40464)
Another place, another story (http://www.bellaonline.com/articles/art17503.asp)
Interstate 71 (http://www.shadowseekers.org/hitchhikerof71.html)

And so on, and so on.

It appears that Ian has chosen, as his example of a made up ghost story, one of the most commonly told and repeated ghost stories in history. Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If nobody has ever reported phantom hitchhikers or more generally the ghost type as outlined in "A", then it is of breathtaking absurdity to suppose that this type of ghost is just as likely as ghost type "B" which has been reported throughout history, across all cultures, and which is extremely common. Get real! Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I was assuming that the Skeptics on here were telling the truth when they said no-one has ever experienced any such apparent ghost.
BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

What a pathetic, twisting little liar it is. We spend ages and ages telling him such reports are common. He alone claims the story to be unique and unheard of. When we finally convince him of his stupid mistake, he claims that we misled him into it.

Ian, listen carefully. These tales of phantom hitchhikers are extremely common. So are tales of seing dead relatives. So are tales of alien abduction.

I would advise anyone else to go figure. You: just go. You will never figure.

I think I'll stick those quotes on TLN's thread, as well.

[Ashles]

I was assuming that the Skeptics on here were telling the truth when they said no-one has ever experienced any such apparent ghost.
Actually I was a little puzzled about that myself, but it was such an excellent example of Ian saying he had been told something and believing it and later finding out it wasn't true.

It appears that Ian does find some anecdotal evidence unacceptable, but only when it comes from sceptics.

Or skeptics, or squeptics or whatever.

[Interesting Ian]

There seems to be a bit of confusion here about different types of experience of ghosts. Allow me to clarify matters:

[list=1]
We have the type of alleged "ghost encounter" where we cannot find anyone who has actually claimed to have had the experience.

We have the alleged ghost encounter where someone is just flat out lying; that is to say someone claims to have experienced a ghost, but in fact they did not, nor did they think that they did.

We have people who genuinely think they saw a ghost but they misinterpreted the sensory data entering their eyes. In other words the ghost was an illusion.

We have those people who believe they encountered a ghost, but their memories do not actually correspond to any such actual state of affairs. This possibility might be combined with number three; that is their apparent experience might be both an element of misremembering, and an element of misinterpretation of their environment.

We have those people who believe they encountered a ghost, but it was purely hallucinatory. That is to say their experience was purely generated from within.

We have those people who allege they encountered a ghost, and indeed what they perceived was external to them, but in fact this perception did not correspond to the dead person concerned.

And finally we have those people who allege they encountered a ghost, and it truly was an encounter with a dead person.
[/list=1]

Now it certainly seems to me that skeptics are not sufficiently distinguishing between the first six of these possibilities. Is this not so?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Actually I was a little puzzled about that myself, but it was such an excellent example of Ian saying he had been told something and believing it and later finding out it wasn't true.

It appears that Ian does find some anecdotal evidence unacceptable, but only when it comes from sceptics.

Or skeptics, or squeptics or whatever.

You do not know what the word anecdote means. The skeptics on here were simply not telling the truth. Not telling the truth (or lying) is not an anecdote. And no, I do not trust them to speak the truth. Nevertheless I was not interested in disputing the issue.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There seems to be a bit of confusion here about different types of experience of ghosts. Allow me to clarify matters:

[list=1]
We have the type of alleged "ghost encounter" where we cannot find anyone who has actually claimed to have had the experience.

We have the alleged ghost encounter where someone is just flat out lying; that is to say someone claims to have experienced a ghost, but in fact they did not, nor did they think that they did.

We have people who genuinely think they saw a ghost but they misinterpreted the sensory data entering their eyes. In other words the ghost was an illusion.

We have those people who believe they encountered a ghost, but their memories do not actually correspond to any such actual state of affairs. This possibility might be combined with number three; that is their apparent experience might be both an element of misremembering, and an element of misinterpretation of their environment.

We have those people who believe they encountered a ghost, but it was purely hallucinatory. That is to say their experience was purely generated from within.

We have those people who allege they encountered a ghost, and indeed what they perceived was external to them, but in fact this perception did not correspond to the dead person concerned.

And finally we have those people who allege they encountered a ghost, and it truly was an encounter with a dead person.
[/list=1]

Now it certainly seems to me that skeptics are not sufficiently distinguishing between the first six of these possibilities. Is this not so?

You're a dolt. I'll try this again.

Any of the above explanations are fine by me. The problem here is you're picking one, declaring it "reasonable", declaring dissenting opinions "unreasonable" and then declaring victory. As usual, you have no evidence, just your assertions.

They're stories which are meaningless.

Get it?

They're stories which are meaningless.

Following yet?

They're stories which are meaningless.

Seriously Ian, it's just one English sentence. Even you're not this deluded and stupid.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Seriously Ian, it's just one English sentence. Even you're not this deluded and stupid.

I think we need more discussions on the psychology of believers.

"They need to believe" is simply not an adequate explanation. There has to be more to it than that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
There seems to be a bit of confusion here about different types of experience of ghosts. Allow me to clarify matters:

[list=1]
We have the type of alleged "ghost encounter" where we cannot find anyone who has actually claimed to have had the experience.

We have the alleged ghost encounter where someone is just flat out lying; that is to say someone claims to have experienced a ghost, but in fact they did not, nor did they think that they did.

We have people who genuinely think they saw a ghost but they misinterpreted the sensory data entering their eyes. In other words the ghost was an illusion.

We have those people who believe they encountered a ghost, but their memories do not actually correspond to any such actual state of affairs. This possibility might be combined with number three; that is their apparent experience might be both an element of misremembering, and an element of misinterpretation of their environment.

We have those people who believe they encountered a ghost, but it was purely hallucinatory. That is to say their experience was purely generated from within.

We have those people who allege they encountered a ghost, and indeed what they perceived was external to them, but in fact this perception did not correspond to the dead person concerned.

And finally we have those people who allege they encountered a ghost, and it truly was an encounter with a dead person.
[/list=1]

Now it certainly seems to me that skeptics are not sufficiently distinguishing between the first six of these possibilities. Is this not so?

Can you explain how we tell the difference between these 7?

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I think we need more discussions on the psychology of believers.

"They need to believe" is simply not an adequate explanation. There has to be more to it than that.

Oh, I don't think so. Ian must believe. It's a typical human reaction to their own mortality, as much as Ian would like us to believe he's somehow unique.

I'm very fond of the phrase you coined in a long-ago Ian thread "blueprint believer"; it fits Ian perfectly.

I just feel the interesting question here is really why any of us bother. Clearly, he's not even paying attention and is unreachable. People need to know this.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Can you explain how we tell the difference between these 7?

I can.

Because Ian says so. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171)

So there!

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now it certainly seems to me that skeptics are not sufficiently distinguishing between the first six of these possibilities. Is this not so?
No.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by TLN
Oh, I don't think so. Ian must believe. It's a typical human reaction to their own mortality, as much as Ian would like us to believe he's somehow unique.

I'm very fond of the phrase you coined in a long-ago Ian thread "blueprint believer"; it fits Ian perfectly.

I just feel the interesting question here is really why any of us bother. Clearly, he's not even paying attention and is unreachable. People need to know this.

If the Ian's of this world go unanswered, soon they'll be the only one's heard. Edmond Burke (in my sig) said why they must always be answered better than I ever could.

The alternative is unchallenged creationism being taught in our schools, with evolution as a footnote in history books.

[TLN]

Originally posted by jmercer
If the Ian's of this world go unanswered, soon they'll be the only one's heard. Edmond Burke (in my sig) said why they must always be answered better than I ever could.

The alternative is unchallenged creationism being taught in our schools, with evolution as a footnote in history books.

Ian has not gone unanswered. We've been answering him for three years.

We've heard it all, addressed it all and solidly refuted it all. All Ian does is dress up his old nonsense with new words, then vomits it out again.

It's over now. Time to move on.

[Nyarlathotep]

Originally posted by TLN

I just feel the interesting question here is really why any of us bother. Clearly, he's not even paying attention and is unreachable. People need to know this.

Here are two reasons that I, at least, bother.

1) Just because Ian will not ever be convinced, doesn't mean the argument itself isn't interesting. I think of it a lot like sparring for a boxer, the point isn't to knock the other guy out, just to learn how to duck a punch and/or to throw one.

2)Though the discussion is with Ian, he isn't the only person reading it. Maybe something someone says will make sense to some thrid party who isn't eveninvolved int he conversation, someone who is just lurking.

I am sure other people have their own reasons.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
1) Just because Ian will not ever be convinced, doesn't mean the argument itself isn't interesting. I think of it a lot like sparring for a boxer, the point isn't to knock the other guy out, just to learn how to duck a punch and/or to throw one.

Oh, agreed. I'd just prefer a sparring partner that at least played fair, or wasn't playing golf while I tried to box.

Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
2)Though the discussion is with Ian, he isn't the only person reading it. Maybe something someone says will make sense to some thrid party who isn't eveninvolved int he conversation, someone who is just lurking.

The lurkers have heard it all before too. :)

Isn't it time for a different example? What haven't we covered here?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
I can.

Because Ian says so. (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51171)

So there!

Hm. I want to see some arguments.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by jmercer
If the Ian's of this world go unanswered, soon they'll be the only one's heard. Edmond Burke (in my sig) said why they must always be answered better than I ever could.

The alternative is unchallenged creationism being taught in our schools, with evolution as a footnote in history books.

Yes, you are right. We must meet this with sound arguments.

TLN, an article, on my desk, by the 26th of this month.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
Ian has not gone unanswered. We've been answering him for three years.

We've heard it all, addressed it all and solidly refuted it all. All Ian does is dress up his old nonsense with new words, then vomits it out again.

It's over now. Time to move on.

Not good enough. There are lots of Ians, and they need to be countered with sound arguments.

The 26th. You got the material, now do it.

[TLN]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, you are right. We must meet this with sound arguments.

TLN, an article, on my desk, by the 26th of this month.

I'm waiting for Ian's web site. :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TLN
I'm waiting for Ian's web site. :)

Then, you will have to wait forever.

You got more than enough material. Write the goddamn article.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Then, you will have to wait forever.

You got more than enough material. Write the goddamn article.

I think he should wait. Just wait a year until my website is completed.

[jmercer]

Originally posted by TLN
Ian has not gone unanswered. We've been answering him for three years.

We've heard it all, addressed it all and solidly refuted it all. All Ian does is dress up his old nonsense with new words, then vomits it out again.

It's over now. Time to move on.

I understand how you feel based on other things I've had to do in similar (but different) contexts.

But I meant what I said. As long as there are Ian's out there ready, willing and able to repeat their mantra, there have to be people like you ready to rebut them.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think he should wait. Just wait a year until my website is completed.

You said that a year ago.

I'll be right over here on the edge of my seat.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think he should wait. Just wait a year until my website is completed.

You've had more than a full year. If you haven't been able to clarify what you mean by now, you will never be able to.

The more time passes, the more obvious it becomes that your thinking is as muddled as a mud pond filled with muck.

You had your time, Ian. Time to admit that you are a muckhead.

[TLN]

Originally posted by jmercer
I understand how you feel based on other things I've had to do in similar (but different) contexts.

But I meant what I said. As long as there are Ian's out there ready, willing and able to repeat their mantra, there have to be people like you ready to rebut them.

Again, I agree, I would just take a different approach. It would go like this:

Ian post.

A link to the Ian Archive Thread. Where it's all been answered before.

[Interesting Ian]

UrsulaV
The second one sounds like about half of an urban legend, too--something you'd get in a "Five Hundred Five Minute Ghost Stories" collection with a title like "The Un-updated Will." No names, no locations, no dates--it's a Friend Of A Friend story at best.


II
I got it from Afterlife by Colin Wilson. He got if from "phantasms of the living" by Gurney, Myers and Podmore (Volume 1, p. 559). It's just one of hundreds of cases in that book (although it is not clear to me that these are all crisis apparitions. I haven't read the book although I'd like to get hold of it)



Here is the original account as put in phantasms of the living:


The next account, which we owe to the kindness of Major Taylor, of the Royal Military College, Farnborough, is from a lady, Miss L., who withholds her name from publication, in deference to the views
of a near relative.
"Jan. 4th, 1886.
(211) "On one of the last days of July, about the year 1860, at 3 o'clock p.m., I was sitting -in the drawing-room at the Rectory, reading, and my thoughts entirely occupied. I suddenly looked up, and saw most distinctly a tall, thin old gentleman enter the room and walk to the table. He wore a peculiar old-fashioned cloak, which I recognised as belonging to my great-uncle. I then looked at him closely, and remembered his features and appearance perfectly, although I had not seen him since I was quite a child. In his hand was a roll of paper, and he appeared to be very agitated. I was not in the least alarmed, as I firmly believed he was my uncle, not knowing then of his serious illness. I asked him if he wanted my father, who, I said, was not at home. He then appeared still more agitated and distressed, but made no remark. He then left the room, passing through the half-open door. I noticed that, although it was a very wet day, there was no appearance of his having walked in mud or rain. He had no umbrella, but a thick walking-stick, which I recognised at once when my father brought it home after the funeral. On questioning the servants they declared that no one had rung the bell, neither did they see anyone enter. My father had a letter by the next post, asking him to go at once to my uncle, who was very ill in Leicestershire. He started at once, but on his arrival was told that he had died exactly at 3 o'clock that afternoon, and had asked for him by name several times in an anxious and troubled manner, and a roll of paper was found under his pillow.
" I may mention that my father was his only nephew, and, having no son, he always led him to think that he would have a considerable legacy. Such, however, was not the case, and it is supposed that, as they were always good friends, he was influenced in his last illness, and probably, when too late, he wished to alter his will. « j] jr ^ »
In answer to inquiries, Miss L. adds :—
" I told my mother and an uncle at once about the strange appearance before the news arrived, and also to my father directly he returned, all of whom are now dead. They advised me to try to dismiss it from my memory, but agreed that it could not be imagination, as I described my uncle so exactly ; and they did not consider me to be either of a nervous or superstitious temperament.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
You've had more than a full year. If you haven't been able to clarify what you mean by now, you will never be able to.

The more time passes, the more obvious it becomes that your thinking is as muddled as a mud pond filled with muck.

You had your time, Ian. Time to admit that you are a muckhead.

About 9 months I started it. I'll take as long as I like to complete it. I am not being paid for it, and I certainly have no obligation to either you or TLN.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Here is the original account as put in phantasms of the living:

Here's a complete account of the history of Middle-earth. It proves about as much as Ian's nonsense, only it's fun.

The Encyclopedia of Arda (http://www.glyphweb.com/arda/default.htm)

[jmercer]

Hey, you're right - it is fun! Thanks!

[TLN]

Originally posted by jmercer
Hey, you're right - it is fun! Thanks!

My pleasure. :)

Best Tolkien site on the web.

[Marian]

I want the 5 minutes that I spent reading this of my life back.



http://eqscreenshot.homestead.com/files/littlestory.jpg

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Here is the original account as put in phantasms of the living:

This is almost too funny for words. She has not seen her great-uncle since she was "quite a girl" and therefore it can't have been imagination as she described him "so exactly".

But she recognised his old fashioned cloak as soon as he walked in. :D

Do you have many relatives where you can't remember what they look like because you have not seen them for an extended period of time but who you can identify by their clothing?

[RamblingOnwards]

Not particularly germane to the topic, but -

A true story isn't precluded from becoming an urban legend. There were in fact a number of dentists charged with raping women under chloroform, but a story starting "Well, this friend knew this women who went to the dentist..." is still an urban legend.

Also remember that life does imitate art - if events happen to us that are 'close enough' to a half remembered (and well constructed) story, there is a strong tendancy to recreate or remember those events instead. We tell and repeat the stories that make good stories, so out of the options:

A) I heard what's-his-name - my second cousin, John or Jack or something - was ill, and I was trying to remember who he was again. So I was walking down the street and I saw this tall guy with a limp, and I suddenly remembered that Jack was the guy who had his hip shattered ten years back so that when he stood still he looked like the leaning tower of Pisa. Now I promised Dad I'd look in on him, but by the time I got there, he'd already pegged. I'm *sure* I didn't wait that long, a couple of days maybe, I had things to do, you know? Anyway, they told me he had died quietly while reading the newspaper. What a way to go.

B) I was walking down the street, when I saw my second cousin walking along reading the paper. I tried to catch up with him but he disappeared. The next day, my Father told me he was ill and asked me to look in on him. I went along that afternoon, but he had already passed away. When I told them he had looked fine when I'd seen him the day before, they were stunned - apparently I'd seen him at the exact moment he had died, still reading his newspaper.

Which would you be more likely to repeat?

[Ashles]

You do not know what the word anecdote means. The skeptics on here were simply not telling the truth. Not telling the truth (or lying) is not an anecdote. And no, I do not trust them to speak the truth. Nevertheless I was not interested in disputing the issue.
Ian, I know what anecdote means - it realates to a story told.
Anecdotal evidence is evidence merely told, without any evidence to back it up.
Lying can very much part of anecdodatal evidence. That is exactly the problem with it.

Or do you have a way of subdividing stories you are told? You have some amazing way of telling which story is a lie, which is true? Which is told in error? Which is basically true but has been exaggerated?

Because if you don't have an amazing method then you cannot distinguish betweeen true stories and false stories.

Thus you will find (as has been very nicely illstrated by this thread) that you have no way of knowing which stories you tell are true or false.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

In the original post, the woman received a letter from her father asking her to visit her sick uncle, which she does.

In the fuller account now posted it is the father that receives the letter and goes to visit the sick uncle.

Also I notice that the woman cannot remember the date "one of the last days of July" or even the year "about the year 1860" when this was supposed to have taken place.

Given the significant differences between different versions of the story, the fact that there appear to be significant gaps in the memory of the person involved, that the account itself is anonymous and appears not to have been received first hand "The next account, which we owe to the kindness of Major Taylor, of the Royal Military College" and the apparent inconsistencies within the story as told (e.g. recognising clothes but could not have remembered description so cannot be imagined), then to present this as evidence of the existence of ghosts shows how lacking that evidence must be.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Marian
[B]I want the 5 minutes that I spent reading this of my life back.


Excuse me?? If you do not like my threads, then don't read them.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You do not know what the word anecdote means. The skeptics on here were simply not telling the truth. Not telling the truth (or lying) is not an anecdote. And no, I do not trust them to speak the truth. Nevertheless I was not interested in disputing the issue.
Ashles --- If Ian wasn't too scared of me to read my read my posts, he's know that his fatuous offensive lies (ironically, and typically, an accusation of dishonesty) have been exposed for the stupid lying trash they are, and that Ian has been exposed as the stupid lying trash he is.

So maybe you could quote this post?

Cheers.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
This is almost too funny for words. She has not seen her great-uncle since she was "quite a girl" and therefore it can't have been imagination as she described him "so exactly".

But she recognised his old fashioned cloak as soon as he walked in. :D



A peculiar old-fashioned cloak (emphasis added). It is perfectly understandable to immediately recognise some peculiar item of some nature immediately, even though you have not seen the item concerned since childhood. Nothing unusual in this at all. On the other hand you might not immediately be able to place a face.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
In the original post, the woman received a letter from her father asking her to visit her sick uncle, which she does.

In the fuller account now posted it is the father that receives the letter and goes to visit the sick uncle.



Yes Colin Wilson got it wrong.



Also I notice that the woman cannot remember the date "one of the last days of July" or even the year "about the year 1860" when this was supposed to have taken place.


Well, certainly I'm just the same. If some unusual events has occurred in my past, I most probably would not be able to specify the year precisely in which it happened. Are sKeptics different from all human beings in this respect and in other respects already mentioned? I am baffled at the difficulties that sKeptics have in understanding that which is perfectly understandable. :confused: I think you must all live on a different planet! :eek:



Given the significant differences between different versions of the story,

What significant differences?



the fact that there appear to be significant gaps in the memory of the person involved,


I have no idea how you got this impression.



that the account itself is anonymous and appears not to have been received first hand "The next account, which we owe to the kindness of Major Taylor, of the Royal Military College" and the apparent inconsistencies within the story as told (e.g. recognising clothes but could not have remembered description so cannot be imagined),


Inconsistencies? What inconsistencies? Also I do not understand that which you have enclosed in brackets.

[Ashles]

Ian, message from Dr Adequate:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You do not know what the word anecdote means. The skeptics on here were simply not telling the truth. Not telling the truth (or lying) is not an anecdote. And no, I do not trust them to speak the truth. Nevertheless I was not interested in disputing the issue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Ashles --- If Ian wasn't too scared of me to read my read my posts, he's know that his fatuous offensive lies (ironically, and typically, an accusation of dishonesty) have been exposed for the stupid lying trash they are, and that Ian has been exposed as the stupid lying trash he is.

So maybe you could quote this post?

Cheers.

He says hi.

I think he was referring to this earlier post of his:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nyarlathotep
I find them both absurd but I voted that I find 'A' slightly more absurd. The reason is very simple, 'A' is almost exactly a retelling of the 'vanishing hitchiker' urban legend that seems to crop up all over the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
The "phantom passenger" is an urban legend with age-old antecedents. In another modern version, a car stops to aid a motorcyclist who has had an accident. He notices very distinctive markings on the bike. The injured biker is put in the back of the car. He suddenly disappears. Driver shortly after notices very distinctive bike outside house. Mother answers door : "Oh. That was my son, Charlie. We keep his bike as a memento. He died three years ago at the spot you describe."

These are typical "round the campfire" tales. Only some children and very childish adults would believe this stuff was true.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ratman_tf
A did sound like the phantom hitchhiker story.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UrsulaV
The first one is a classic urban legend
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
So, what we have here is in fact two paraphrases of anyonymous anecdotes, which sound suspiciously like urban myths
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ashles
Firstly the phantom hitchiker is a commonly told story (I have heard a variant myself before, and heard it ascribed to a celebrity once), so just because you haven't heard it before Ian doesn't mean no-one has.

By the way Ian, since the ghostly hitchhiker story is not a common tale it is rather strange that it even has a page on Snopes devoted to it.
Ghost Hitchhiker
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ashles
Just for fun:
Links to 3 hitchhiker ghost stories in Australia
Hitchhiker in North Carolina
Hitchhiker - Kentucky
'Parapsychologists' even study them
The place - the A38 in Somerset - The story - another hitchhiker
Another place, another story
Interstate 71

And so on, and so on.

It appears that Ian has chosen, as his example of a made up ghost story, one of the most commonly told and repeated ghost stories in history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If nobody has ever reported phantom hitchhikers or more generally the ghost type as outlined in "A", then it is of breathtaking absurdity to suppose that this type of ghost is just as likely as ghost type "B" which has been reported throughout history, across all cultures, and which is extremely common. Get real!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I was assuming that the Skeptics on here were telling the truth when they said no-one has ever experienced any such apparent ghost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


BWAHAHAHAHAHA.

What a pathetic, twisting little liar it is. We spend ages and ages telling him such reports are common. He alone claims the story to be unique and unheard of. When we finally convince him of his stupid mistake, he claims that we misled him into it.

Ian, listen carefully. These tales of phantom hitchhikers are extremely common. So are tales of seing dead relatives. So are tales of alien abduction.

I would advise anyone else to go figure. You: just go. You will never figure.

I think I'll stick those quotes on TLN's thread, as well.


Ian where you say this:
I think you must all live on a different planet!
I think I'm enclined to agree.

Anyway - Greetings From Earth.
Is Cassini flying near your planet any day soon?

And do you have any answers to my questions about your incomprehension of the uselessness of anecdotal evidence?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Excuse me?? If you do not like my threads, then don't read them.

Ian, I believe what Marian was trying to say is "anecdotes are not evidence."

Get it? C'mon, say it along with me now...

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

Can you explain how we tell the difference between the 7 different types of experience of ghosts?

[The Mighty Thor]

Ian has been told over and over again that the main flaw with Berkeley's immaterialism is that it cannot differentiate between hallucination and reality. He chooses to ignore this for, what I can only term, "religious" reasons. Ian is philosophically stuck in the eighteenth century. Perhaps he has read nothing but tracts on immaterialism. Certainly, whoever introduced him to Berkely should be severely spanked for not pointing out the flaws.

The widows/widowers (often in a hypnopompic state) hallucinated when they saw their loved ones. Given the trauma of grief, the phenomenon is hardly surprising. But, for Ian, these hallucinations must be real apparitions because of his flawed philosophy.

The philosophy of Berkeley represents a highly developed and energetically defended statement of the position that reality consists wholly of minds, the divine Mind and the multiplicity of finite minds that includes all men. Whatever exists does so either because it is a mind or because it is dependent upon a mind; nothing material exists. Berkeley argued that the notion of the material should play no role in one's thinking, for its existence is unverifiable, its postulation unnecessary, and, at bottom, the very notion is self-contradictory. How does Berkeley view the status of tables and chairs, rocks, the Moon, and all of the other apparently material things that everyone accepts as existing? Berkeley agreed that they do indeed exist but only as collections of ideas that exist in the mind of God and that are often caused by God to exist in the minds of men as well.

There are well-known difficulties in Berkeley's view. His account of the nature of tables and other objects cannot be accepted as an account of the meanings of these terms because it is implausible to think that the concept of a divine Mind is somehow part of their meaning. Nor does it seem a plausible scientific theory about such objects because of its ad hoc character and its lack of predictive value. If the notion of God is dropped, however, the philosopher is left with the phenomenalistic theory that such objects are collections of appearances. But phenomenalism also has serious difficulties; in particular, it cannot in the end account for the difference between real objects and illusions because it cannot provide an account of the difference between circumstances in which perceptions are veridical and those in which they are not.


from Britannica DVD, 2004

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by The Mighty Thor
Ian has been told over and over again that the main flaw with Berkeley's immaterialism is that it cannot differentiate between hallucination and reality.



If that truly were so then they would be one and the same thing! One distinguishes between hallucination and reality in precisely the same way as the materialist does! LOL.


He chooses to ignore this for, what I can only term, "religious" reasons. Ian is philosophically stuck in the eighteenth century. Perhaps he has read nothing but tracts on immaterialism. Certainly, whoever introduced him to Berkely should be severely spanked for not pointing out the flaws.


I agree that there are flaws, but no one's ever pointed them out on this board.



The widows/widowers (often in a hypnopompic state) hallucinated when they saw their loved ones. Given the trauma of grief, the phenomenon is hardly surprising. But, for Ian, these hallucinations must be real apparitions because of his flawed philosophy.

Ah, an hallucination, thank you for informing me! ;)



quote:The philosophy of Berkeley represents a highly developed and energetically defended statement of the position that reality consists wholly of minds, the divine Mind and the multiplicity of finite minds that includes all men. Whatever exists does so either because it is a mind or because it is dependent upon a mind; nothing material exists. Berkeley argued that the notion of the material should play no role in one's thinking, for its existence is unverifiable, its postulation unnecessary, and, at bottom, the very notion is self-contradictory. How does Berkeley view the status of tables and chairs, rocks, the Moon, and all of the other apparently material things that everyone accepts as existing? Berkeley agreed that they do indeed exist but only as collections of ideas that exist in the mind of God and that are often caused by God to exist in the minds of men as well.

There are well-known difficulties in Berkeley's view. His account of the nature of tables and other objects cannot be accepted as an account of the meanings of these terms because it is implausible to think that the concept of a divine Mind is somehow part of their meaning.



The concept of the divine mind is not somehow part of their meaning. Objects simply consist of a family of sensory experiences which tend to be found together. The ideas in God's mind are not the objects themselves but rather stand for the disposition of God to convey appropriate sensory qualia to finite beings on appropriate occasions.


Nor does it seem a plausible scientific theory about such objects



Berkeley's account of objects has absolutely nothing to do with science! :eek: It is a metaphysical thesis.


because of its ad hoc character and its lack of predictive value.


The person who was written this clearly has no understanding of the philosophy of science. Berkeley's metaphysical hypothesis, is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a scientific hypothesis! As such, in common with all other metaphysical hypotheses regarding the nature of reality, such as for example materialism, it seeks to account for reality. If Berkeley's metaphysic explains reality, then what meaning is conveyed by saying it is ad hoc? Same goes for materialism. If materialism explains reality, then what meaning is conveyed by seeing it is ad hoc? None whatsoever! And as for its alleged lack of predictive value, the same goes for materialism or dualism, so I do not see how it is a disadvantage of Berkeley's metaphysic.

It is worth mentioning here that Berkeley's metaphysic is certainly more consonant with science than materialism is.



If the notion of God is dropped, however, the philosopher is left with the phenomenalistic theory that such objects are collections of appearances. But phenomenalism also has serious difficulties; in particular, it cannot in the end account for the difference between real objects and illusions because it cannot provide an account of the difference between circumstances in which perceptions are veridical and those in which they are not.

First of all it doesn't matter whether the notion of God is dropped or not (the author is clearly presupposing that Berkeley's metaphysic involves a duality of ideas ie God's ideas and our ideas. I think this is a tad misleading). But anyway, an illusion is simply a misinterpretation by the mind; it's illusory nature is subsequently revealed by future sensory qualia. There is a problem here for Berkeley, but it is very easily solved. We just need to consider that the mind moulds the information entering our senses so as to present it in an appropriate form. What we actually perceptually perceive is a low level theory about the world. Sometimes that implicit theory is inappropriate; this is an illusion. Actually this is a hugely complex subject which I don't feel disposed to go into at this time.

Oh, by the way, please note that this article is saying that Berkeley can't distinguish between an illusion and reality not an hallucination and reality! Please learn the difference!

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If that truly were so then they would be one and the same thing! One distinguishes between hallucination and reality in precisely the same way as the materialist does! LOL.

How? You still haven't answered this question.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Berkeley's account of objects has absolutely nothing to do with science! :eek: It is a metaphysical thesis.

The person who was written this clearly has no understanding of the philosophy of science. Berkeley's metaphysical hypothesis, is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a scientific hypothesis! As such, in common with all other metaphysical hypotheses regarding the nature of reality, such as for example materialism, it seeks to account for reality. If Berkeley's metaphysic explains reality, then what meaning is conveyed by saying it is ad hoc? Same goes for materialism. If materialism explains reality, then what meaning is conveyed by seeing it is ad hoc? None whatsoever! And as for its alleged lack of predictive value, the same goes for materialism or dualism, so I do not see how it is a disadvantage of Berkeley's metaphysic.

It is worth mentioning here that Berkeley's metaphysic is certainly more consonant with science than materialism is.

If it's not science then we don't care. Metaphysics, like philosophy, is worthless towards generating new facts about the universe.

So no one cares.

Questions you'll ignore because they go to the heart of your claims and show how silly they are:


How do we tell the difference between the seven different types of ghost experience?
How can we tell a hallucination from reality?

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

Can you explain how we tell the difference between the 7 different types of experience of ghosts?

[Nex]

Originally posted by TLN
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If that truly were so then they would be one and the same thing! One distinguishes between hallucination and reality in precisely the same way as the materialist does! LOL.

How? You still haven't answered this question.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Berkeley's account of objects has absolutely nothing to do with science! :eek: It is a metaphysical thesis.

The person who was written this clearly has no understanding of the philosophy of science. Berkeley's metaphysical hypothesis, is a metaphysical hypothesis, not a scientific hypothesis! As such, in common with all other metaphysical hypotheses regarding the nature of reality, such as for example materialism, it seeks to account for reality. If Berkeley's metaphysic explains reality, then what meaning is conveyed by saying it is ad hoc? Same goes for materialism. If materialism explains reality, then what meaning is conveyed by seeing it is ad hoc? None whatsoever! And as for its alleged lack of predictive value, the same goes for materialism or dualism, so I do not see how it is a disadvantage of Berkeley's metaphysic.

It is worth mentioning here that Berkeley's metaphysic is certainly more consonant with science than materialism is.

If it's not science then we don't care. Metaphysics, like philosophy, is worthless towards generating new facts about the universe.

So no one cares.

Questions you'll ignore because they go to the heart of your claims and show how silly they are:


How do we tell the difference between the seven different types of ghost experience?
How can we tell a hallucination from reality?


These are good questions. I'm sure Ian would like to see them, and therefore be able to refute them.

My question is: How can one decide between two equally implausible stories, which is less implausible? That's like asking us to decide between two stories about unicorns, or about fairies.

And you're missing a Planet X option, as I'm sure you've been told at least once. Shame on you, excluding the Planet Xers like that. :D

[TLN]

Originally posted by Nex
These are good questions. I'm sure Ian would like to see them, and therefore be able to refute them.

Ian's quoted me a few times since putting me on "ignore". He's not ignoring me, he just can't debate me or answer my questions so he lies. Typical...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nex


These are good questions. I'm sure Ian would like to see them, and therefore be able to refute them.



One does not refute questions. I'm sorry, why do people want me to answer these questions rather than someone else? Why are these questions being asked?

The question about distinguishing the different hypotheses for anecdotes of apparitions is an interesting one. I don't want to give all the answers up front though. I want to encourage people to think for themselves first. So I throw that question open to the good posters here before giving my response.

And as for hallucinations, I'm guessing that the question here is not how we know everyday apparent physical things are hallucinations or not (the answer to which is is trivially obvious), but rather how do we know apparitions are hallucinations (or not as the case might be)? In which case this question is subsumed under the first one, and I invite people to respond.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The question about distinguishing the different hypotheses for anecdotes of apparitions is an interesting one. I don't want to give all the answers up front though. I want to encourage people to think for themselves first. So I throw that question open to the good posters here before giving my response.

Read: I can't answer, so I won't.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And as for hallucinations, I'm guessing that the question here is not how we know everyday apparent physical things are hallucinations or not (the answer to which is is trivially obvious), but rather how do we know apparitions are hallucinations (or not as the case might be)? In which case this question is subsumed under the first one, and I invite people to respond.

Yeah, but we invited you to respond since the questions grow directly out of your claims. The fact that you can't respond only further highlights the absurdity of your claims. Nice attempt at a dodge though...

[Nex]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
One does not refute questions.
You can, actually, refute a question by proving it nonsensical or worthless to the conversation.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm sorry, why do people want me to answer these questions rather than someone else? Why are these questions being asked?
Because they're good questions. I hope you have some answers, or can refute them as unnecessary to the discussion.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The question about distinguishing the different hypotheses for anecdotes of apparitions is an interesting one. I don't want to give all the answers up front though. I want to encourage people to think for themselves first. So I throw that question open to the good posters here before giving my response.
English translation: "Hold on, I'm still thinking on that."

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And as for hallucinations, I'm guessing that the question here is not how we know everyday apparent physical things are hallucinations or not (the answer to which is is trivially obvious), but rather how do we know apparitions are hallucinations (or not as the case might be)? In which case this question is subsumed under the first one, and I invite people to respond.
How do we know these "apparitions" occurred at all? That is the basic question being asked.

Anecdotes are not evidence. Where is your evidence that any of the stories you tell have ever happened?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nex


Because they're good questions. I hope you have some answers, or can refute them as unnecessary to the discussion.



Well yes, but why should I answer them rather than anyone else? I can of course answer them; but I'm curious, why do you want me specifically to respond? Because I'm cleverer than anyone else contributing to this thread? ;)



How do we know these "apparitions" occurred at all? That is the basic question being asked.



Well in the 7 possibilities I listed they do not in 1 or 2. Are you suggesting that, say, crisis apparitions come under 1 or 2? If so how do you propose to argue for this?




Anecdotes are not evidence. Where is your evidence that any of the stories you tell have ever happened?

Anecdotes are evidence. The evidence is that people say they have experienced apparitions. The question is, which of the 7 explanations, on the whole, tend to be appropriate for each of the particular ghost types?

[Sharon]

Well yes, but why should I answer them rather than anyone else? I can of course answer them; but I'm curious, why do you want me specifically to respond? Because I'm cleverer than anyone else contributing to this thread?

Hi Ian

But surley you should answer them. I would if I could but I can't. Just wish Brierre de Boismont was still around to answer this one.

If only I was a medium;)

I could get the answer from him..LOL

But seriously Ian it does strike me as you should answer the questions, I can't understand why you won't?

Sharon

[Nex]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well yes, but why should I answer them rather than anyone else? I can of course answer them; but I'm curious, why do you want me specifically to respond? Because I'm cleverer than anyone else contributing to this thread?
Well Ian, you're the only one here claiming to have an answer. Seems kind of appropriate to ask you, doesn't it?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well in the 7 possibilities I listed they do not in 1 or 2. Are you suggesting that, say, crisis apparitions come under 1 or 2? If so how do you propose to argue for this?
I don't. You are putting words in my mouth, a.k.a. creating a strawman argument.

My stance is that they sound an awful lot like urban myths. One was even listed in Snopes. It's going to take more than a story to convince me, especially a story that gets told by 12-year-old girls at a slumber party.

Which is more plausible? Urban myths passed along as factual, or ghosties from beyond the grave? Hmm... :D

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Anecdotes are evidence. The evidence is that people say they have experienced apparitions. The question is, which of the 7 explanations, on the whole, tend to be appropriate for each of the particular ghost types?
All ancdotes could possibly be evidence of is that someone said something about something. They are not actual evidence of the "something" in question, or even if there is a "something" at all.

During the witch trials that raged through Europe, there were anecdotes galore about succubi, flying witches, toads that could speak, and even more ridiculous stuff. This is common knowledge.

Those anecdotes are nothing more than a testament to mass hysteria, hallucination, and outright deceit. They are not anywhere near being actual evidence of speaking toads and the like.

Ian, what I would like to understand, and I ask this honestly and with respect, is why you do not agree that anecdotes aren't evidence. Can you please give a good, solid reason why anyone should take an anecdote as fact?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sharon
Hi Ian

But surley you should answer them. I would if I could but I can't. Just wish Brierre de Boismont was still around to answer this one.

If only I was a medium;)

I could get the answer from him..LOL

But seriously Ian it does strike me as you should answer the questions, I can't understand why you won't?

Sharon

Because no-one else has attempted to answer the questions as of yet. I'm just claiming apparitions are what they appear to be. The onus is not on me to argue for this (although I certainly could). Rather the onus is on those who are claiming apparitions are not what they appear to be. You see?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Rather the onus is on those who are claiming apparitions are not what they appear to be. You see?

No, it isn't. Because, if they had to, we would have a universe where ghosts would appear at any moments notice. We would have objects disappearing any time. We would not be expecting airplanes to work at all, because the scientific laws that makes the engineering feats possible should not work.

This doesn't happen. The exact opposite happens: The universe works. It is described admirably by natural laws. If anything unusual seem to happen, you must prove that it does, and then explain why.

The onus is on you, Ian.

We do not live in a magic universe!

[TheBoyPaj]

Personally, I don't see the point in Ian's 7 hypothetical types of encounter. Really, there are only 2 types. Ones which are proven to be real, and those which are just anecdotes.

How many of the former do you know of, Ian?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nex
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well yes, but why should I answer them rather than anyone else? I can of course answer them; but I'm curious, why do you want me specifically to respond? Because I'm cleverer than anyone else contributing to this thread?

Nex
Well Ian, you're the only one here claiming to have an answer. Seems kind of appropriate to ask you, doesn't it?


The Mighty Thor has also given an answer, he says they are hallucinations. Why don't you ask him to justify this hypothesis? And presumably everyone else thinks that reported sighting of apparitions (of the "B" variety) are either illusions, false memories, or hallucinations. Why don't any of them give some justification for their position??


quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well in the 7 possibilities I listed they do not in 1 or 2. Are you suggesting that, say, crisis apparitions come under 1 or 2? If so how do you propose to argue for this?

Nex
I don't. You are putting words in my mouth, a.k.a. creating a strawman argument.



You said: "How do we know these "apparitions" occurred at all? That is the basic question being asked". Given that about 50% of all widows/widowers claim to have experienced an apparition of their dead spouse, it seems rather unlikely that no-one has ever had an experience of an apparition! :eek:



My stance is that they sound an awful lot like urban myths. One was even listed in Snopes. It's going to take more than a story to convince me, especially a story that gets told by 12-year-old girls at a slumber party.


I gave the list of 7 possibilities for a reason. Namely so we don't have to talk about vague woolly ambiguous phrases like "urban myths"!



Which is more plausible? Urban myths passed along as factual, or ghosties from beyond the grave? Hmm...



You mean persistence of consciousness after the body is functioning? I don't know. If you're talking about type "B" ghosts then obviously "Urban myths" is not a contender since people definitely have these experiences. Therefore "ghosties from beyond the grave" is more likely.



quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Anecdotes are evidence. The evidence is that people say they have experienced apparitions. The question is, which of the 7 explanations, on the whole, tend to be appropriate for each of the particular ghost types?

Nex
All ancdotes could possibly be evidence of is that someone said something about something. They are not actual evidence of the "something" in question, or even if there is a "something" at all.

During the witch trials that raged through Europe, there were anecdotes galore about succubi, flying witches, toads that could speak, and even more ridiculous stuff. This is common knowledge.


So we also had evidence for those things. So what? It is poor evidence because they no longer get reported .i.e they are peculiar to a particular time and place. One should always be sceptical of claims which are tied to a particular culture and time, or of a single anecdote of some alleged phenomenon of an unusual nature.


Those anecdotes are nothing more than a testament to mass hysteria, hallucination, and outright deceit. They are not anywhere near being actual evidence of speaking toads and the like.


They might well be nothing more than what you stated, but you do not understand what the word evidence means (in common with almost everyone else on here).



Ian, what I would like to understand, and I ask this honestly and with respect, is why you do not agree that anecdotes aren't evidence. Can you please give a good, solid reason why anyone should take an anecdote as fact?

I do not agree that anecdotes are not evidence because this equates to saying that someone allegedly witnessing some phenomenon makes the existence of that phenomenon no more likely than if no-one had ever claimed to witness it. That is preposterous. You might judge the probability of that phenomenon existing as to only be about 0.001%, but that is still greater than the probability of that phenomenon existing if no-one had ever witnessed it - eg 0.0005%.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I gave the list of 7 possibilities for a reason. Namely so we don't have to talk about vague woolly ambiguous phrases like "urban myths"!

Excellent! So explain how we tell the differences between those 7 possibilities!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
I do not agree that anecdotes are not evidence because this equates to saying that someone allegedly witnessing some phenomenon makes the existence of that phenomenon no more likely than if no-one had ever claimed to witness it. That is preposterous. You might judge the probability of that phenomenon existing as to only be about 0.001%, but that is still greater than the probability of that phenomenon existing if no-one had ever witnessed it - eg 0.0005%.
Probability, shmobability. The reason anecdotes are not evidence is because you have no way to determine which ones are true and which ones are not. Anecdotes may indicate a direction for investigation, but they are not evidence. For example, a huge pile of people saying that they saw the sun rise and therefore the sun orbits the Earth are each and every one of them wrong, yet the observation suggests it might be interesting to determine how the sun and Earth are related.

The probability of an unwitnessed event is 0.0005%?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Probability, shmobability. The reason anecdotes are not evidence is because you have no way to determine which ones are true and which ones are not. Anecdotes may indicate a direction for investigation, but they are not evidence. For example, a huge pile of people saying that they saw the sun rise and therefore the sun orbits the Earth are each and every one of them wrong, yet the observation suggests it might be interesting to determine how the sun and Earth are related.

The probability of an unwitnessed event is 0.0005%?

~~ Paul

You confuse "scientific evidence" with the normal use of the word evidence. I am not talking about scientific evidence.

[Nex]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The Mighty Thor has also given an answer, he says they are hallucinations. Why don't you ask him to justify this hypothesis? And presumably everyone else thinks that reported sighting of apparitions (of the "B" variety) are either illusions, false memories, or hallucinations. Why don't any of them give some justification for their position??
Probably because our hypotheses for what may have happened, if anything happened at all, don't assume any breaking of natural laws.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You said: "How do we know these "apparitions" occurred at all? That is the basic question being asked". Given that about 50% of all widows/widowers claim to have experienced an apparition of their dead spouse, it seems rather unlikely that no-one has ever had an experience of an apparition! :eek:
I never said no-one has ever experienced something that could be construed as an apparition. Again with the the strawmen...

How do we know these particular stories of yours ever happened?

We don't, do we?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I gave the list of 7 possibilities for a reason. Namely so we don't have to talk about vague woolly ambiguous phrases like "urban myths"!
Leaving an option out of your list does not negate the option itself.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You mean persistence of consciousness after the body is functioning? I don't know. If you're talking about type "B" ghosts then obviously "Urban myths" is not a contender since people definitely have these experiences. Therefore "ghosties from beyond the grave" is more likely.
Interesting take on Ockham, Ian.

I'm not talking about "type A" or "type B," I'm talking about both of them.

Again, neither of your anecdotes are more plausible. Both sound as if they are urban myths of some type.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So we also had evidence for those things. So what? It is poor evidence because they no longer get reported .i.e they are peculiar to a particular time and place. One should always be sceptical of claims which are tied to a particular culture and time, or of a single anecdote of some alleged phenomenon of an unusual nature.
(my emphasis)

Such as urban legends?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They might well be nothing more than what you stated, but you do not understand what the word evidence means (in common with almost everyone else on here).
Ian, our definition of "evidence" coincides with logical argumentation and critical thought.

There is a reason your personal definition differs. I'll leave it to you to infer what I mean.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do not agree that anecdotes are not evidence because this equates to saying that someone allegedly witnessing some phenomenon makes the existence of that phenomenon no more likely than if no-one had ever claimed to witness it. That is preposterous. You might judge the probability of that phenomenon existing as to only be about 0.001%, but that is still greater than the probability of that phenomenon existing if no-one had ever witnessed it - eg 0.0005%.
(my emphasis)

I see where your mistaken assumption lies, Ian. You assume that the anecdote is truthful-- that the person relaying it actually experienced it.

Nonetheless, even if said person did witness something, it cannot increase probability of that something. Hallucination, imagination, "eyes playing tricks," all these things are perfectly sound explanations for the incident in question.

On an interesting sidenote, I did once have a shockingly good conversation with a toad this afternoon about the state of American politics today. Sadly, he was a staunch conservative, and we ended up in a nasty row.

Do these words somehow increase the probability of speaking toads? According to your definition, yes.

Does the book Harry Potter increase the probability of witches on brooms, mountain trolls, and house elves? According to your definition, yes.

Does this story (http://www.occultforums.com/showthread.php?t=11787) about a (totally bizarre and completely unbelievable) haunting make it more probable? According to your definition, yes.

Does reducing your argument to a level of absurdity help you see why it's perhaps a bit fallacious?

[Nex]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You confuse "scientific evidence" with the normal use of the word evidence. I am not talking about scientific evidence.

What kind of evidence are you talking about then? I'm sure we would all like a full definition, in order to facilitate discussion.

:)

[Azrael 5]

Came across this,which isnt far off story A..

Thais and foreigners, however, are fueling ghost stories by retelling rumors and hearsay."Did you hear the one about the taxi driver, who picked up passengers who turned out to be ghosts?""

That question, spread through conversations, e-mail and the Thai media, has become an urban legend in Thailand.
Most versions of the tale describe an unidentified Thai taxi driver who picks up a "foreign tourist" and his Thai girlfriend, for a taxi ride to Phuket's airport or elsewhere.

When the taxi arrives at the destination, the driver turns around and freaks out when he sees the passengers have already disappeared.



http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0501/S00168.htm

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Because no-one else has attempted to answer the questions as of yet. I'm just claiming apparitions are what they appear to be. The onus is not on me to argue for this (although I certainly could). Rather the onus is on those who are claiming apparitions are not what they appear to be. You see?

Oh noes. Ian's going to show us up as the closed minded prejudiced skeptics we all are. :roll:

Ian's evidence can't possibly be weak. It has to be that skeptics are dismissing it out of hand. :rolleyes:

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You might judge the probability of that phenomenon existing as to only be about 0.001%, but that is still greater than the probability of that phenomenon existing if no-one had ever witnessed it - eg 0.0005%.

I thought we had been through all this. Wasn't there a consensus that the actual probability of a phenomenon existig is either zero or one.

What you are talking about is your own judgment of probability which, as Blackmore demonstrated, is less accurate in believers.

And it's even worse in BeLeivers like you.

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

Please explain how we tell the differences between those 7 possibilities.

You can do it, right?

[JPK]

Good morning Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You confuse "scientific evidence" with the normal use of the word evidence. I am not talking about scientific evidence.

This seems to be the underlying problem in many threads. Ian, what you seem to consider "normal use " of several different words, is different.
You fully understand that scientific evidence is what will be asked for on this forum, yet are troubled by the fact that the posters here will not conform to your definition of evidence, whatever that might be. If people are going to have a discussion that might lead somewhere, it helps if everyone is speaking the same language. If everyone brings their own private meanings to words with them, little can be accomplished.

JPK

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Nex
our hypotheses for what may have happened, if anything happened at all, don't assume any breaking of natural laws.



You should note that physical laws are supposed to describe reality, not vice-versa. But ok, what physical laws do apparitions break should they be what they appear to be?



Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You said: "How do we know these "apparitions" occurred at all? That is the basic question being asked". Given that about 50% of all widows/widowers claim to have experienced an apparition of their dead spouse, it seems rather unlikely that no-one has ever had an experience of an apparition!

Nex
I never said no-one has ever experienced something that could be construed as an apparition. Again with the the strawmen...

How do we know these particular stories of yours ever happened?

We don't, do we?



If you're going to be ridiculous about it we don't know anything. How do we know London is the capital of England?

We don't, do we?


Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I gave the list of 7 possibilities for a reason. Namely so we don't have to talk about vague woolly ambiguous phrases like "urban myths"!

Nex
Leaving an option out of your list does not negate the option itself.



I haven't left the option out! Depending on the particular urban myth you have in mind, it appears on that list. I am trying to get more precision here. If you do not feel that list is exhaustive, then by all means expand it but not by putting down aurban myth!


quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
They might well be nothing more than what you stated, but you do not understand what the word evidence means (in common with almost everyone else on here).

Nex
Ian, our definition of "evidence" coincides with logical argumentation and critical thought.



I am not interested in your definition and other people's definition of the word "evidence". I'm simply interested in what the actual word means -- it does not mean what you and others define it to mean.


There is a reason your personal definition differs. I'll leave it to you to infer what I mean.

If we take your definition of the word "evidence", then the fact that there is no "evidence" that apparitions are what they appear to be does not give any reasons whatsoever to suppose that they are indeed not what they appear to be.


quote:Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I do not agree that anecdotes are not evidence because this equates to saying that someone allegedly witnessing some phenomenon makes the existence of that phenomenon no more likely than if no-one had ever claimed to witness it. That is preposterous. You might judge the probability of that phenomenon existing as to only be about 0.001%, but that is still greater than the probability of that phenomenon existing if no-one had ever witnessed it - eg 0.0005%.


(my emphasis)

Nex
I see where your mistaken assumption lies, Ian. You assume that the anecdote is truthful-- that the person relaying it actually experienced it.


No no no no no, you just don't understand anything whatsoever do you? I think anecdotes are extremely unreliable. As I keep saying, whether we ought to believe in anecdotes depends on a whole variety of factors. In a case of certain types of apparitions where at least half of all widows and widowers experiences an apparition of their spouse, then it seems reasonable to suppose that they are really seeing something of external origin representing their dead spouse. Now, if you're maintaining that these apparitions are illusions, false memories, or hallucinations then the onus is up on you to give some reasons to suppose why you should suppose this. Can you not understand this simple fact??



Nonetheless, even if said person did witness something, it cannot increase probability of that something. Hallucination, imagination, "eyes playing tricks," all these things are perfectly sound explanations for the incident in question.



Of course it increases the probability! They may or may not be personally sound explanations, but what makes these explanations more likely than the more obvious explanation?



On an interesting sidenote, I did once have a shockingly good conversation with a toad this afternoon about the state of American politics today. Sadly, he was a staunch conservative, and we ended up in a nasty row.

Do these words somehow increase the probability of speaking toads? According to your definition, yes.

But you're obviously not being serious here. Also talking toads are believed to be biologically impossible. Now iff you are being serious then obviously this would increase the probability, but since it is vanishingly unlikely to be true anyway, then this is of no interest.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
I thought we had been through all this. Wasn't there a consensus that the [b]actual probability of a phenomenon existig is either zero or one.


I most certainly did not agree to that! You don't understand what the word probability means if you think that. Obviously we all recognise the trivial point that either something does or does not exist. Probability represents our estimated knowledge that something exists.



What you are talking about is your own judgment of probability which, as Blackmore demonstrated, is less accurate in believers.


And which other research failed to confirm. Even if it were so it fails to say anything about any specific individual.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

Please explain how we tell the differences between those 7 possibilities.

You can do it, right?

It is not achieved easily, but certainly I can give some suggestions. But as I keep repeating, why should I go first?? If people are claiming these type of apparitions are one of the first 6, then which of the 6 are most of these type of apparitions supposed to be, and what justifications have you for supposing this?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JPK
Good morning Ian,



This seems to be the underlying problem in many threads. Ian, what you seem to consider "normal use " of several different words, is different.
You fully understand that scientific evidence is what will be asked for on this forum, yet are troubled by the fact that the posters here will not conform to your definition of evidence, whatever that might be. If people are going to have a discussion that might lead somewhere, it helps if everyone is speaking the same language. If everyone brings their own private meanings to words with them, little can be accomplished.

JPK

AS I keep repeating, I'm using the normal sense of the word "evidence". I do not even understand what is meant by "scientific evidence". On pervious occasions people on here always have seemed to want to adhere to Popper's falsificationism. Surely you cannot have scientific evidence for a scientific theory if you subcribe to falsificationism?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It is not achieved easily, but certainly I can give some suggestions. But as I keep repeating, why should I go first?? If people are claiming these type of apparitions are one of the first 6, then which of the 6 are most of these type of apparitions supposed to be, and what justifications have you for supposing this?

Why should you go first? Because you were the one listing them.

Go ahead.

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I most certainly did not agree to that! You don't understand what the word probability means if you think that.

Well, in an earlier thread Plindboe posted the following:

There isn't any actual probability. Either something is true or it isn't. In reality something is either 100% true or 0% true. Probabilities are calculated because of lack of knowledge about the reality of things. Just because one receives additional evidence and raises a probability from 69% to 72% doesn't make any difference in the real world, since it is still either true or false.

And you replied with:

WOW! I was just about to post exactly the same thing! Yeah, probabilities are almost always based on available information. I say "almost" because of course quantum mechanics does introduce genuine innate randomness into the world.

So, you were about to post exactly the same thing, but you don't agree with it?

You've lost it, haven't you?

[Correa Neto]

If ghosts are real, then why are we not being flooded with reports of hauntings after the tsunami?

Why there are not hundreds of thousands of ghosts of soldiers lingering around battlefields?

Why there are not reports of thousands of ghosts of victims of terrorist acts?

What are the differences between all these people that do not become ghosts and those who became?

Something that those who belive in ghosts should think about...

Of course, there is a simple answer that solves the problem without the need of a complex explanation- THERE ARE NO GHOSTS.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I most certainly did not agree to that! You don't understand what the word probability means if you think that.



Well, in an earlier thread Plindboe posted the following:

quote:There isn't any actual probability. Either something is true or it isn't. In reality something is either 100% true or 0% true. Probabilities are calculated because of lack of knowledge about the reality of things. Just because one receives additional evidence and raises a probability from 69% to 72% doesn't make any difference in the real world, since it is still either true or false.



And you replied with:

quote:WOW! I was just about to post exactly the same thing! Yeah, probabilities are almost always based on available information. I say "almost" because of course quantum mechanics does introduce genuine innate randomness into the world.



So, you were about to post exactly the same thing, but you don't agree with it?

You've lost it, haven't you? [/B]

OK, I confess I would not have used Plindboe's exact words (ie "There isn't any actual probability"). The word "probability" is generally used to refer to our knowledge of the likelihood rather than reflecting any intrinsic uncertainty in the world (the only intrinsic uncertainty is QM events). But I'm simply repeating myself all the time here. Skip the games and say something of substance.

[TLN]

Originally posted by TLN
Read: I can't answer, so I won't.

Yeah, but we invited you to respond since the questions grow directly out of your claims. The fact that you can't respond only further highlights the absurdity of your claims. Nice attempt at a dodge though...

Still waiting.

Ian, you can't answer. Just grow up and admit it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
If ghosts are real, then why are we not being flooded with reports of hauntings after the tsunami?...
Flooded?

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But I'm simply repeating myself all the time here. Skip the games and say something of substance.

Well as far as I can tell your arguments seem to be exactly the same as they were in that other thread. ie. If enough people tell a story it becomes more real.

It didn't make sense before, so what makes you think it's going to convince anyone now? Unless you're hoping that the same "truth by repetition" rule applies to your own posts?

If you want to deal with substance, why not try answering some of the new questions which people have posted?

[Sharon]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
If ghosts are real, then why are we not being flooded with reports of hauntings after the tsunami?

Why there are not hundreds of thousands of ghosts of soldiers lingering around battlefields?

Why there are not reports of thousands of ghosts of victims of terrorist acts?

What are the differences between all these people that do not become ghosts and those who became?

Something that those who belive in ghosts should think about...

Of course, there is a simple answer that solves the problem without the need of a complex explanation- THERE ARE NO GHOSTS.

Very valid points. Something that has never crossed my mind before ( I don't believe in ghosts btw) but yet another reason why it doesn't make sense.

I was still stuck on the problem of clothing. I can understand how folk say the soul is everlasting so can understand that a soul can reform in the shape of the person it once was, hence a ghost, but the clothing??? It makes no sense to me. Are those who believe in ghosts saying fibres(the clothes) also have souls too?

Sharon

[TheBoyPaj]

Because no one can agree on what ghosts are, that leaves them open to any interpretation necessary to justify the BeLiever's position.

Why do they wear clothes? Because they choose to present themselves in that way, of course.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sharon
[B]Very valid points. Something that has never crossed my mind before ( I don't believe in ghosts btw) but yet another reason why it doesn't make sense.



Glad someone thinks so. I wasn't going to bother responding to his questions.



I was still stuck on the problem of clothing.

I can understand how folk say the soul is everlasting so can understand that a soul can reform in the shape of the person it once was, hence a ghost, but the clothing??? It makes no sense to me. Are those who believe in ghosts saying fibres(the clothes) also have souls too?


It's the same priciple involved for the body as it is the clothes. It is our mind which moulds and shapes what we see according to our implicit expectations.

[TheBoyPaj]

How do you know this, Ian?

And, if the appearance of a ghost is a product of the mind which is observing it, what is to keep one from the conclusion that the entire experience is in the mind?

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
It's the same priciple involved for the body as it is the clothes. It is our mind which moulds and shapes what we see according to our implicit expectations.
Exactly what many have been saying, Ian. It's all in the mind, i.e. imaginary.

[Nex]

Originally posted be Intersting Ian
No no no no no, you just don't understand anything whatsoever do you?

If you can't be civil, then don't post.

I would appreciate an apology. That personal insult was totally uncalled for-- I have been nothing but patient with you, trying to understand where you're coming from while explaining my point of view, and this is what I get?

Ian, why I should even bother with you if this is how you behave with me, time and time again...

[Sharon]

Glad someone thinks so. I wasn't going to bother responding to his questions.

But Ian surley you can't have your cake and eat it. There is either such a thing as actual ghosts are there is not. If there is then like Correa Neto points out we would surley be follded with ghosts at every turn?

Also the clothes just doesn't add up. I can at a strech make sense of the soul still hanging around, the ghost, but not the clothing.

Sharon

[Interesting Ian]

I'll go into more detail why ghosts supposedly "wear clothes" tomorrow. Busy with my website at the moment.

[TheBoyPaj]

You know, if it's HTML tips you're after, you could learn a lot from that Timecube guy.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
You know, if it's HTML tips you're after, you could learn a lot from that Timecube guy.

How not to do it, yes.

It is rather remarkable that someone as relatively eloquent as Ian has so great difficulties making himself understood.

One may wonder why...

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'll go into more detail why ghosts supposedly "wear clothes" tomorrow. Busy with my website at the moment.

We see what we expect to see, based on our experiences, so when the spirit manifests itself we "see" it with clothes...

The spirit also has its own experiences, memories, etc., so it will appears to us as it recalled to be in its past life, with clothes, but also usually as the person was the last time we saw her/him...

The spirit may also still be attached to this material life, thus representing itself with clothes...

The spirit chooses to represent itself in this way to make the contact easier for us, by providing us a reference frame...

These plus a few remarks regarding how we experience -or create- the external world, qualia, etc. and you´ll have an explanation that may impress woos.

But still, the question remains-

Why there are so few ghosts?

And it is a problem, regardless if you bother to respond it or not.

To this I must add-

Those who belive in ghosts usually claim that they are from people who sufered some traumatic event -or left unfinished business- and are still trapped "between the material and spiritual planes". Eventually they manage to set themselves free from the material world and the ghost is no longer seen. Others say that they are "memories" of facts and persons somehow recorded at certain places. Those who are sensible enough, at the right place and at the right condition might then be able to "play" these recorded. The records may also "fade" with time.

Now, wars and catastrophes are pretty traumatic for a lot of people, aren´t they? Lots of business are left unfinished, I suppose. Some spirits would not even realize they died -a commonly invoked cause for hauntings.

So, the ghosts from Pompeii might have faded, but what about those from the people who died in wars and natural catastrophes in the XX century? Why don´t we have loads of hauntings in Hiroshima, Berlin, London, Hanoi, Bam, Tokyo, Normandy, Beijing, etc.?

Now, why the ghosts of obscure problematic nobles or aristocrats from 200 years ago or more are still being reported? Was their suffering and/or material links stronger than that from all those people?

A last tidbit- "ghost passengers" are also urban and rural legends here in Brazil, as well as the haunting of a blond woman in white who causes car crashes at several places...

[JPK]

Fasten your seat belts. Ian might have a different definition for clothes.

JPK

[The Mighty Thor]

Ian,

How would someone who is hallucinating differentiate between an illusion and a hallucination?

BTW, the writer of the Berkeley/epistemology article in Britannica DVD was Avrum Stroll, Research Professor of Philosophy, University of California, San Diego, at La Jolla. Author of Twentieth-Century Analytic Philosophy and others.

I guess he hasn't heard of the new philosophical revelations about to be published on your website.;)

[Sharon]

Hi Neto

Thanks for all the reasons about wearing clothes that you posted.

I have a question, it sounds silly I know, but hand on heart it is serious.

If believers say..'they wear clothes to make it easier, we expect it', blah, blah blacksheep then say for example someone died in the buff, on a beach on a nudists camp say, would thyat mean a nude ghost haunting that area? surley it would as the nudists would 'expect' it to be nude. Has there ever been reports of nude ghosts;)

I know I haven't worded the above quite right, sorry, I know what I mean and jut find it hard sometimes to explain myself

Sharon

[Sharon]

Mind you the reports have started already

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Tsunami_Disaster/0,,2-10-1777_1647259,00.html

Tales of ghost sightings in the six worst hit southern provinces have become endemic, with many locals saying they are too terrified to venture near the beach or into the ocean.

Spooked volunteer body searchers on the resort areas of Phi Phi island and Khao Lak are reported to have looked for tourists heard laughing and singing on the beach only to find darkness and empty sand.

Forgoodness sake!

Mind you we do get some logical sensible info too

he majority of Thais are deeply suspicious, believing ghosts reside in most large trees and keeping a spirit house in every home where daily offerings of food and drink are given to calm nearby paranormal entities.

Mental health experts warn tsunami survivors have picked up on this cultural factor as a way of expressing mass trauma after living through the deadly waves and witnessing horrific scenes in their aftermath.

"This is a type of mass hallucination that is a cue to the trauma being suffered by people who are missing so many dead people, and seeing so many dead people, and only talking about dead people," Thai psychologist and media commentator Wallop Piyamanotham said.

He said people who claimed to have seen ghosts first-hand were people that mental health specialists would be paying particular attention to.

Volunteers helping at Thai temples, transformed into scenes of grisly death as forensic experts struggle with the task of identification, are especially vulnerable, psychologists and doctors said.

Wallop said widespread trauma began to set in about four days after the waves hit.

Sharon

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Sharon
Hi Neto

Thanks for all the reasons about wearing clothes that you posted.

I have a question, it sounds silly I know, but hand on heart it is serious.

If believers say..'they wear clothes to make it easier, we expect it', blah, blah blacksheep then say for example someone died in the buff, on a beach on a nudists camp say, would thyat mean a nude ghost haunting that area? surley it would as the nudists would 'expect' it to be nude. Has there ever been reports of nude ghosts;)

I know I haven't worded the above quite right, sorry, I know what I mean and jut find it hard sometimes to explain myself

Sharon

That would be a different type of ghost from those I've been discussing.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Correa Neto
We see what we expect to see, based on our experiences, so when the spirit manifests itself we "see" it with clothes...

The spirit also has its own experiences, memories, etc., so it will appears to us as it recalled to be in its past life, with clothes, but also usually as the person was the last time we saw her/him...

The spirit may also still be attached to this material life, thus representing itself with clothes...

The spirit chooses to represent itself in this way to make the contact easier for us, by providing us a reference frame...

These plus a few remarks regarding how we experience -or create- the external world, qualia, etc. and you´ll have an explanation that may impress woos.



No, the clothes issue shouldn't give any reason not to think ghosts are not what they seem. It's a bit involved to explain it all though.




But still, the question remains-

Why there are so few ghosts?



So few? Got the references to the research handy?


Those who belive in ghosts usually claim that they are from people who sufered some traumatic event -or left unfinished business- and are still trapped "between the material and spiritual planes". Eventually they manage to set themselves free from the material world and the ghost is no longer seen.


These are different types of ghosts then account "B".



Others say that they are "memories" of facts and persons somehow recorded at certain places. Those who are sensible enough, at the right place and at the right condition might then be able to "play" these recorded. The records may also "fade" with time.



Again this is a completely different type of ghost and is very poor evidence for a "life after death". These ghosts are not aware at all. Crisis apparitions, the ghosts of their spouse that widows/widowers see, and ghosts in deathbed visions and NDEs are all aware of you. Completely different type of ghost.



Now, wars and catastrophes are pretty traumatic for a lot of people, aren´t they? Lots of business are left unfinished, I suppose. Some spirits would not even realize they died -a commonly invoked cause for hauntings.

So, the ghosts from Pompeii might have faded, but what about those from the people who died in wars and natural catastrophes in the XX century? Why don´t we have loads of hauntings in Hiroshima, Berlin, London, Hanoi, Bam, Tokyo, Normandy, Beijing, etc.?

[/B]

I have no idea; I'm not really interested in this type of ghost.

[JPK]

Good morning Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That would be a different type of ghost from those I've been discussing.

How many differant types of ghosts are you aware of?

JPK

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by JPK
Good morning Ian,



How many differant types of ghosts are you aware of?

JPK

I'm not a great authority on the subject, but for what it's worth . . .

[list=1]
There's the situation where you actually appear to have travelled into the past. So its not just people which are ghosts but your whole environment. Really weird!

There are poltergeists. Many people think that there is no actual ghost involved here, but it is simply spontaneous macro-psychokinesis originating from an adolescent. Others disagree annd think the disturbance is caused by a genuine spirit.

There are those ghosts which merely seem to be like a recording of some past event. For example, in some cases they are not walking level with the ground, but rather as if they were walking on an elevated or sunken ground level, perhaps corresponding to the height of the ground in some past time.

There are those ghosts as experienced in crisis apparitions, NDEs, deathbed visions, or where one simply sees a loved one sometime after they have died. Normally this type of apparition appears to be sentient, and aware of you, and conveying love. These arguably are all of the same type.

There's the hitchhiker type of ghost (also as exemplified by account "A")
[/list=1]

[Ashles]

Then there's Nearly Headless Nick, The Bloody Baron, Moaning Myrtle...

I do not agree that anecdotes are not evidence because this equates to saying that someone allegedly witnessing some phenomenon makes the existence of that phenomenon no more likely than if no-one had ever claimed to witness it. That is preposterous. You might judge the probability of that phenomenon existing as to only be about 0.001%, but that is still greater than the probability of that phenomenon existing if no-one had ever witnessed it - eg 0.0005%.
I think it has already been expklained why you are wrong about this but we need to clear up a couple of things Ian.

These are things which aren't down to personal opinion but about which you are flat out wrong.

Anacdotal evidence is NOT evidence of a scientific phenomena. Ever.
If you create an imaginary scale of how worthwhile or relevant anecdotal evidence is on a scale of 1-100 it is Zero.
This is because we have no way of distinguishing between real reports and false reports. In the absence of any ability to make this distinction all anecdotal evidence is xonsidered equaly invalid.

This leads us on to the second thing you are very wrong about. Multiple reports of anecdotal evidence or no more valid than a single one.
Remember it has ZERO weight on the scale so
10,000 X 0
=
1 X 0
= 0

The number of reports of a thing are absolutely, without doubt irrelevant.

I hope we are now clear on these issues and can move forward.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
[B]Then there's Nearly Headless Nick, The Bloody Baron, Moaning Myrtle...


I think it has already been expklained why you are wrong about this but we need to clear up a couple of things Ian.

These are things which aren't down to personal opinion but about which you are flat out wrong.

Anacdotal evidence is NOT evidence of a scientific phenomena. Ever.

How does a "scientific phenomena(sic)" differ from a non-scientific one?

[Ashles]

How does a "scientific phenomena(sic)" differ from a non-scientific one?
Well that proves my point. You really aren't listening to explanations.

Do you understand how a scientific 'theory' differs from a non-scientific 'theory'? Do you understand how terminology varies depending on context?

Well outside science an anecdote is a story and that's really the end of the definition. It's up to you if you believe it.

In science an anecdote is also a story, but it has a more specific meaning.
It could be used to start research into something.
Eg "I have the ability to change the colours of leaves on trees with my mind".
It is not accepted as a true statement but a scientist might start research into this based on that statement.
Subsequently any number of people telling the scientist that they too can do this does not add any weight whatsoever to the actual claim.
The scientist needs to find some real evidence towards this. Can they do this in front of cameras? Spectrographic measurements? Can they demonstrate this on other items etc. Can other scientists replicate these results? Do the leaves on trees change colours in the absence of the claimant?

But the anecdotes themselves do not add any weight in a scientific sense.

This is unlike how people think of anecdotal evidence when they hear the same story many times and come to believe it, when, as we know, many of these stories are utterly untrue. This is why the personal, subjective sense of anecdotes is completely useless for helping us to gain any sense of whether a story or claim is true or not.
this may feel counter-intuitive to you Ian, but that is why anecdotal evidence is actually no evidence at all as to whether something is real.

You mentioned yourself how the Salem anecdotal evidence was a product of its time. Well all the anecdotal things people believe now may well prove to be products of our time with equally no basis in fact.
Without real evidence this is always a likely possibility.
In my opinion the most likely.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, the clothes issue shouldn't give any reason not to think ghosts are not what they seem. It's a bit involved to explain it all though.
So, dear me, it'll have to remain Ian's Big Secret.

"...a bit involved to explain..."

So he doesn't have to. I mean, idiots like us wouldn't understand anyway.

I wonder, is it anything to do with the reason why aliens wear human-style clothing (http://www.theprojectatearth.com/Demetrius.html)? Or is it somehow connected with the reason why the Cottingley faries (http://www.randi.org/library/cottingley) were wearing the fashions of the day?

That would be my guess.

[TheBoyPaj]

Translation:

"I managed to stall for a day and still haven't been able to come up with a decent explanation for the clothes thing. (Though I did find a nice animated gif for my new web site. It says "email" and it spins and everything. Cool, eh?)

Anyhoo, I'll just mutter sagely and pretend that it's too clever to explain, them being so dumb and all. They respect me for that."

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
A peculiar old-fashioned cloak (emphasis added). It is perfectly understandable to immediately recognise some peculiar item of some nature immediately, even though you have not seen the item concerned since childhood. Nothing unusual in this at all. On the other hand you might not immediately be able to place a face.

In the report you give there is a claim that:

"it could not be imagination, as I described my uncle so exactly"

the clear implication is that the ONLY way she could have given such a description (which is not reported and there is therefore no way of verifying how accurate it was) is if she had seen his "ghost". Yet she can remember his cloak.

Now given that she can remember what his cloak looked like, which nobody is claiming requires anything other than memory, do you not think it is just possible that her description could also be based on memory, rather than seeing a ghost?

Nothing to do with being immediately able to place a face.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Yes Colin Wilson got it wrong.

So it is apparent that, as with most stories, it can change with every telling. Do you not think that is quite important, given that the story as related appears to have been received from someone other than the person to whom it happened? In other words, how do you know that the person relating the story has done so accurately?

Well, certainly I'm just the same. If some unusual events has occurred in my past, I most probably would not be able to specify the year precisely in which it happened. Are sKeptics different from all human beings in this respect and in other respects already mentioned? I am baffled at the difficulties that sKeptics have in understanding that which is perfectly understandable. :confused: I think you must all live on a different planet! :eek:

You think it quite normal that someone who saw a ghost would forget which YEAR it happened? I suspect we are on different planets. Do you not think it just slightly curious that all of the easily verified facts in the whole story (the date the uncle died, family names etc) are not included? That is exactly what I would do if I was spinning a yarn and didn't want it checked. With no names and no dates there is no way to check anything in the story. Of course you are willing to take it at face value.

What significant differences?

Who received the letter. ("she received" or "My father had a letter")
Who wrote the letter. ("from her father" or unknown but presumably not her father as he received it)
Who visited the uncle. ("She went" or her father "started at once")
Who she thought the uncle was there to see. ("come to see her" or "asked him if he wanted my father")
When he died ("the previous afternoon" or "that afternoon")

I have no idea how you got this impression.

You think not remembering which YEAR you saw a ghost is not a gap in memory? She did after all have the small matter of the date of her great uncle's death to jog her memory.

Inconsistencies? What inconsistencies? Also I do not understand that which you have enclosed in brackets.

See previous post for an explanation of the bit in brackets. Add in the inconsistencies already mentioned in this thread and those mentioned above.

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Sharon
Hi Neto

Thanks for all the reasons about wearing clothes that you posted.

I have a question, it sounds silly I know, but hand on heart it is serious.

If believers say..'they wear clothes to make it easier, we expect it', blah, blah blacksheep then say for example someone died in the buff, on a beach on a nudists camp say, would thyat mean a nude ghost haunting that area? surley it would as the nudists would 'expect' it to be nude. Has there ever been reports of nude ghosts;)

I know I haven't worded the above quite right, sorry, I know what I mean and jut find it hard sometimes to explain myself

Sharon

Thanks. What I learned at my past on the dark side (I´m an ex-woo) sometimes is handy.

Easy question- they will show up in clothes because that´s how they were seen most of times when they were alive -a cultural iinfluence, created by the spirit and also the observer.

The nude ghosts line brought some memories of what "experts" told me about spirits.

The more "evolved" and free of materialistic desires is the spirit, according to the experts, will show little or no signs of it in its manifestations. The observer should also be able to influentiate this, "evolved" persons will not necessarily see the spirit as it "sees" itself, but they may be able to look underneath the way the spirit chooses -counsiently or not- to show itself. I´m not sure if I managed to write this correctly due to my limitations with English language.

Anyway, as a general rule, according to a number of mediuns I met (most of the Kardecists), spirits that are still very linked to the material plane would show up identically as the person was a bit before his/her death (clothes included); if the spirit is a bit more advanced one would not perceive distinctive clothes just what would look like diaphanous semitransparent fabric and sexual organs are no longer visible; more advanced entities would show just a basic human outline, sometimes with the legs fused, quite often just the face is recognizable, to allow faster identification. The most advanced spirits would be seen just as "shapeless energy", whatever it means... I can´t help but see shades of sexual repression here, but this may be due to my own biased opinions when it comes to the way religions and cults deal with sex.

So, the ghosts were singing and dancing? Well, being dead must not be that bad after all...

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So few? Got the references to the research handy?

Countless hours of reading newspapers of several places and trends. I admit I should have found something better to use that spare time for other than reading the tabloids... Oh, also some research done by myself at a number of places here in Brazil, when helping friends to gather a database of myths. Pesky nobles/aristocrats, Romeo and Juliet-like stories plus ghost hitchhikers variants dominate.

Originally posted by Correa Neto
Now, wars and catastrophes are pretty traumatic for a lot of people, aren´t they? Lots of business are left unfinished, I suppose. Some spirits would not even realize they died -a commonly invoked cause for hauntings.

So, the ghosts from Pompeii might have faded, but what about those from the people who died in wars and natural catastrophes in the XX century? Why don´t we have loads of hauntings in Hiroshima, Berlin, London, Hanoi, Bam, Tokyo, Normandy, Beijing, etc.?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have no idea; I'm not really interested in this type of ghost.

You should be! Why most people killed in the aforementioned places during wars and natural catastrophes do not show themselves to their surviving relatives, becoming "type 4 ghosts"? Even if just a small percentage (say 5%) eventually managed to make themselves perceivable, that would still generate a lot of reports when you consider the massive casualities numbers.

[Chocolate Chip]

We see what we expect to see, based on our experiences, so when the spirit manifests itself we "see" it with clothes...

Easy question- they will show up in clothes because that´s how they were seen most of times when they were alive -a cultural iinfluence, created by the spirit and also the observer.

If I understand correctly, if ghosts are clothed because that's how we perceived the person in the past (clothed), how would we explain photographs of ghosts. I don't believe in ghosts, but you see alot of photographs with clothed ghosts. The camera itself is an inanimate object with no past perception of what is being photographed, it should record a naked ghost.

The spirit also has its own experiences, memories, etc., so it will appears to us as it recalled to be in its past life, with clothes, but also usually as the person was the last time we saw her/him...

But how can it do this if clothes are inanimate objects with no spirit/soul? (rhetorical question)

[Correa Neto]

Originally posted by Chocolate Chip
If I understand correctly, if ghosts are clothed because that's how we perceived the person in the past (clothed), how would we explain photographs of ghosts. I don't believe in ghosts, but you see alot of photographs with clothed ghosts. The camera itself is an inanimate object with no past perception of what is being photographed, it should record a naked ghost.
...snip...

Excellent question!

But dont ask me, ask those who belive in these things! I quitted being a woo before learning the answer!:D

[Interesting Ian]

I somewhat doubt that the type of apparitions I'm talking about can be photographed. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Translation:

"I managed to stall for a day and still haven't been able to come up with a decent explanation for the clothes thing. (Though I did find a nice animated gif for my new web site. It says "email" and it spins and everything. Cool, eh?)

Anyhoo, I'll just mutter sagely and pretend that it's too clever to explain, them being so dumb and all. They respect me for that."

Reality is a construct. All our perceptual experiences implicitly incorporate low level theory, and we are deluded in supposing that we can somehow perceive the world in abstraction from any theoretical framework. Optical "illusions" illustrate this very nicely. Our implicit low level theories about the world mould what we see.

Very very simplistically, the reason why we see ghosts wearing clothes is for much the same reason why we see squares A and B as being different colours in the picture below. We see what we're used to and what we expect.

BTW, for those who do not know, it is claimed that squares A and B are the same colour. :rolleyes: I acknowledge that the colour of the pixels are the same but disagree the squares are the same colour.

http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/images/checkershadow/checkershadow_illusion4med.jpg

[TheBoyPaj]

Very very simplistically, the reason why we see ghosts wearing clothes is for much the same reason why we see squares A and B as being different colours in the picture below. We see what we're used to and what we expect.

Right. Now take out the words "wearing clothes".

Isn't that the real explanation for these phenomena? If not, why not? Why do you accept that the mind can construct the clothes, but stop short of giving it the credit for the whole experience?

[Ashles]

Not great example Ian. The checkerboard illusion is a function of our visual processes and how we perceive contrast and shading.

For example in this image we would not expect to see grey dots, but we do.

http://www.brainbashers.com/illusionimages/square2.gif

Expectations don't come into it.

Indeed you could argue that, as we know those grey dots aren't really there our 'expectations' should delete them. We should expect not to see them and thus not see them.

But our vision processes in certain ways that we can't help.

And by the way the squares in your example are identical colours as anyone can check in Photoshop or even PowerPoint:

[TheBoyPaj]

What's your definition of "colour"?

Does it describe the quality of an object to absorb or reflect different wavelengths of light? If so, those squares could themselves be different colours (in that they would appear different under identical illumination), but they appear the same because of the different light falling upon them.

Basically, if I look at a red ball under a green light, does the ball itself change colour?

(BTW Ian, don't let this diversion derail you from offering your explanation of what makes clothes imaginary but ghosts real).

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Right. Now take out the words "wearing clothes".

Isn't that the real explanation for these phenomena? If not, why not? Why do you accept that the mind can construct the clothes, but stop short of giving it the credit for the whole experience?

You are talking about a hallucination in that case; not an "illusion". I cannot rule out the possibility of hallucinations, I merely claim we have no reason to suppose ghosts are hallucinations (or at least none have been advanced). Mind can create the clothes as much as the mind can create the 2 differing colours, but in these cases i.e illusions, there has to be something external which the mind can mould to its expectations and experiences.

So this refutes the clothes issue.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Not great example Ian. The checkerboard illusion is a function of our visual processes and how we perceive contrast and shading.


I don't agree. It's the mind which has an implicit low level theory about the world. It's the mind which moulds - of course there are neural correlates to this moulding if that's what you're saying, but that's not interesting or relevant to anything.


Expectations don't come into it.


I wasn't referring to conscious overt expectations. It's rather what the mind is used to.



And by the way the squares in your example are identical colours as anyone can check in Photoshop or even PowerPoint:

No, we can check simply by opening our eyes and looking. As you directly can see squares A and B are different colours.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
BTW, for those who do not know, it is claimed that squares A and B are the same colour. :rolleyes: I acknowledge that the colour of the pixels are the same but disagree the squares are the same colour.

What do you mean by this?

If you put the squares next to each other, they are still different colours?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
What do you mean by this?

If you put the squares next to each other, they are still different colours?

Put the squares next to each other? What do you mean? If that was an image of a real 3 D object and you approached the object and cut out the squares and compared, they would be different colours yes.

Not as Ashley has done though. He's not taking the image seriously.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I somewhat doubt that the type of apparitions I'm talking about can be photographed. I'm happy to be proven wrong though.
If they cannot be photographed, then they cannot be seen. Cameras record the same ranges of light as the human eye (and in some cases, more).

So if the person is not really "seeing" them, that would suggest that they are in the person's mind, would it not? And what do we call those things which we can only visualize in our minds? I'm getting an "i"...

[Ashles]

Not as Ashley has done though. He's not taking the image seriously.
Ian you're talking nonsense. The squares are actually identical. A trick in our visual processing makes us think they are different, but they are not.
3d glasses make us think an image has depth but it doesn't.

Once again you confuse your opinion with fact.

I don't agree. It's the mind which has an implicit low level theory about the world. It's the mind which moulds - of course there are neural correlates to this moulding if that's what you're saying, but that's not interesting or relevant to anything.
This sums up your entire method of arguing.
Starting with "I don't agree..." demonstrating that your argument is only your opinion, not based on any facts.

Then you dismiss the actual facts as "not interesting". Well they remain facts whether you find them interesting or not.

Using facts that support your theory and dismissing them when they directly oppose your theory is a rather ignorant and thus unconvincing way to argue. And it's something you frequently acuse others of.

No, we can check simply by opening our eyes and looking. As you directly can see squares A and B are different colours.
Optical illusions are illusions i.e. they don't represent reality. If you assume everything you see is true then all films are real people moving on sheets of fabric, cartoons exist, hallucinations are real, dreams are real etc.
You are misperceiving the colours. They are not different and to claim otherwise is stupid.

You have made a poinless distcinction between the illusion being a picture and 3-d real world objects. In fact there are many 'real world' illusions that can be created out of real solid objects. They are also illusions.

You are failing to make your 'point' in an almost breathtakingly inept way.

And also you have once again forgotten that you are forming theories on a subject you know nothing about. You don't know a single 'fact' more about ghosts than anyone here so your theories are based on pure assumption.
Any validity you associate with them is entirely illusory.

Have you entirely lost the ability to admit when you are wrong, or to recognise when you are talking dribbling nonsense?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Put the squares next to each other? What do you mean? If that was an image of a real 3 D object and you approached the object and cut out the squares and compared, they would be different colours yes.

Not as Ashley has done though. He's not taking the image seriously.

Ian, Ashles took the image - the image - and moved the two squares next to each other. Are the two squares still different in color? Yes or no, please.

Nobody is talking about 3D. Stop obfuscating. You are perfectly aware of what we are talking about.

[MESchlum]

As to the colors: print the drawing, and fold it.

Proof, without having the evil (materialist) software alter things. :D

[TheBoyPaj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You are talking about a hallucination in that case; not an "illusion". I cannot rule out the possibility of hallucinations, I merely claim we have no reason to suppose ghosts are hallucinations (or at least none have been advanced). Mind can create the clothes as much as the mind can create the 2 differing colours, but in these cases i.e illusions, there has to be something external which the mind can mould to its expectations and experiences.


We do have good reason to suppose that many ghosts are hallucinations. We have documented, replicable cases of hallucinations occuring whereas we have nothing of the kind regarding spirits. Unless I haven't been paying attention, the idea of ghosts is much odder than simply imagining things. That's why ghosts are called paranormal and hallucinations are just normal.

I still don't understand what you are claiming, however. If you are saying that a ghost's clothes are an illusion like the colours in the squares (ie, mis-interpreting a visual stimulus) then do you think that the reported visions of Roman soldiers are really just images of naked ghosts which LOOK like they are wearing armour and carrying spears? How could a naked body look like that? (please, do not post picture examples. At least not self-posed)

As for external stimuli, what's wrong with good old shadows and mis-recognised objects?

[Dr Adequate]

So... everyone who "sees" a ghost is simultaneously having a hallucination of the ghost's clothing. Every time. But the ghost itself is not a hallucination.

Wow. Wow, wow, wow.

I wonder why we're so great at hallucinating clothes on naked ghosts, so as to see what we expect, but never clothes on naked people who are still alive? You'd think, for example, that if the human mind has this capacity, anyone stumbling unexpectedly onto a nudist beach would see everyone wearing trunks.

I have a much better alternative explanation. People don't survive after death. However, clothing survives --- in etherial form --- after it's been thrown away. It goes on walking around on its own. It doesn't know it's dead. But the expectations of our minds make us hallucinate people inside. This seems much more sensible.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
If they cannot be photographed, then they cannot be seen. Cameras record the same ranges of light as the human eye (and in some cases, more).

So if the person is not really "seeing" them, that would suggest that they are in the person's mind, would it not? And what do we call those things which we can only visualize in our minds? I'm getting an "i"...

No, it's a "h". You're confusing illusions with hallucinations.

If the camera cannot photograph it, then it is non-physical. A hallucination therefore? Well maybe. But simply because it is non-physical does not in itself entail it does not have an external origin. It only entails it if you presuppose materialism. But if you presuppose materialism you therefore would not believe in either "life after death" or apparitions. Thus you are begging the question. :)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, it's a "h". You're confusing illusions with hallucinations.

Ian again redefines the English language to suit his whimsies. Where have I heard this before?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If the camera cannot photograph it, then it is non-physical. A hallucination therefore? Well maybe. But simply because it is non-physical does not in itself entail it does not have an external origin. It only entails it if you presuppose materialism. But if you presuppose materialism you therefore would not believe in either "life after death" or apparitions. Thus you are begging the question. :)

Ian, I direct you to my current signature.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ashles
Ian you're talking nonsense. The squares are actually identical. A trick in our visual processing makes us think they are different, but they are not.
3d glasses make us think an image has depth but it doesn't.

Once again you confuse your opinion with fact.


This sums up your entire method of arguing.
Starting with "I don't agree..." demonstrating that your argument is only your opinion, not based on any facts.

Then you dismiss the actual facts as "not interesting". Well they remain facts whether you find them interesting or not.

Using facts that support your theory and dismissing them when they directly oppose your theory is a rather ignorant and thus unconvincing way to argue. And it's something you frequently acuse others of.


Optical illusions are illusions i.e. they don't represent reality.



No no no no. Allow me to paste in what I put before in another thread regarding this so-called illusion.

If you could manage to train yourself to avoid seeing all "optical illusions" and you were to apply that to real 3D objects as well as pictorial representations of 3D objects, then you'd reach a position of being able to visual negotiate the environment as effectively as a person, born blind from birth, who had just regained his sight ie you wouldn't be able to negotiate your environment at all! (you might both have perfect vision but you wouldn't be able to see).

The point is that if this were a real board of squares that you were seeing from the same perspective as the 2D representation, then you would surely agree that squares "A" and "B" are differing colours, yes? And if your answer is yes, then you're not taking the 2D representation of a real 3D object seriously. If on the other hand your answer is no, then, for eg, everything that you see on the TV, which are also strictly speaking 2D images, would be an optical illusion as well! Lol

I am the only person who is saying that the squares represented by A and B are different colours. Thus to everyone apart from me, it seems that the experience of colour is not a quale, but some abstract scientific definition of what constitutes a particular colour. I suggest this demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge regarding the philosophy and psychology of perception. Most crucially the mind actively creates reality when we perceive.

By labelling certain of our perceptual experiences as optical illusions you are by implication drawing a distinction between these so called "illusions" and the rest of our perceptual experiences. But the truth of the matter is that "optical illusions" are not particularly special in this regard. What we actually perceptual experience, whether you label them "optical illusions" or not, is largely a product of our minds. Yes our perceptual experiences have their origin in an external world. But what we actually see is not just a passive assimilation of the information flowing through our senses. No, what we see is shaped and moulded by the mind. Reality as we perceive it is very largely a product of the mind.

Reality is a construct. All our perceptual experiences implicitly incorporate low level theory, and we are deluded in supposing that we can somehow perceive the world in abstraction from any theoretical framework. Optical "illusions" illustrate this very nicely.

But what was the response of all the materialists when confronted with these optical "illusions"? Something like "Eeeeee isn't that great, we're seeing something that isn't really there!"

I forlornly tried to rectify people's error in this regard only to be accused of being a troll by everyone. So much for the intellectual capacity of the vast majority of people on this forum ie the materialists

They are not the same colour no. The fact that if you carry out certain operations, they then look the same colour, is not relevant to this.

If with good non-defective eyesight, and in clear light, 2 colours appear not to be same, then they are not the same by definition.

There is colour as experienced, and colour as defined scientifically. But a scientific description of the world abstracts from reality. Only our qualia are truly constitutive of reality.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No, it's a "h". You're confusing illusions with hallucinations.

If the camera cannot photograph it, then it is non-physical. A hallucination therefore? Well maybe. But simply because it is non-physical does not in itself entail it does not have an external origin. It only entails it if you presuppose materialism. But if you presuppose materialism you therefore would not believe in either "life after death" or apparitions. Thus you are begging the question. :)
If it cannot be seen by a camera, then it is not reflecting light in the visible range, therefore the image is not coming from the "ghost", but originating at some point behind the optical apparatus. It would be quite a discovery to find that spirits could somehow influence retinal nerves, as it would imply the ability of spirits to generate the nerve impulses. However, for the images to occur in the brain, it would require no other mechanisms than that which generates your thought processes and dreams, i.e. imagination. Occam suggests that this is the most likely method.

Now you can argue if you wish that the "ghost" somehow forces the brain to imagine the ghost's presence, but really, brains don't even need a push. They imagine weird stuff all the time, and often convince themselves that it is true.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian, Ashles took the image - the image - and moved the two squares next to each other. Are the two squares still different in color? Yes or no, please.



No they are not. But that question is totally irrelevant and uninteresting.

[Azrael 5]

The headless suit ghost
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v194/Paparazzi/Suit.jpg
:D ;)

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I forlornly tried to rectify people's error in this regard only to be accused of being a troll by everyone. So much for the intellectual capacity of the vast majority of people on this forum ie the materialists.

No Ian, you're accused of being a troll because you've been corrected on this many, many, many times and are just plain ignoring us.

It's really that simple folks. Ian, you simply gloss over the sentences that conflict with your precious, magical world view. They don't even exist to you. This thread is a perfect example of that.

Here is a list of the lessons you have seen hundreds of times yet refuse to acknowledge as you demonstrate again in this latest post:

Anecdotes are not evidence.

You are not the supreme arbiter of truth vs. illusion. Just because you deem a proposition reasonable or not is completely irrelevant. Your opinion is worthless towards the generation of facts.

You are incapable of proving or disproving any particular proposition in any way, period, as you have agreed.

What's left to talk about other then why won't you shut up and stop wasting everyone's time?

You're a troll because you read the above, ignore it, then go on as if no one has addressed your stupidity before.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No they are not. But that question is totally irrelevant and uninteresting.

It's actually an empirical matter. The squares are the same color.

If you sample squares A and B in any graphics editor, you'll find the RGB vales are 120, 120, 120 for both squares.

Not only are they the same color, they're the exact same color. Ian is provably incorrect.

Ian, what makes you a troll is you'll see the above sentence and still declare yourself correct.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TheBoyPaj
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You are talking about a hallucination in that case; not an "illusion". I cannot rule out the possibility of hallucinations, I merely claim we have no reason to suppose ghosts are hallucinations (or at least none have been advanced). Mind can create the clothes as much as the mind can create the 2 differing colours, but in these cases i.e illusions, there has to be something external which the mind can mould to its expectations and experiences.


TheBoyPaj
We do have good reason to suppose that many ghosts are hallucinations. We have documented, replicable cases of hallucinations occuring whereas we have nothing of the kind regarding spirits. Unless I haven't been paying attention, the idea of ghosts is much odder than simply imagining things. That's why ghosts are called paranormal and hallucinations are just normal.



The fact that apparitions are seen wearing clothes does not give any evidence that they are hallucinations. That is the pertinent point.



I still don't understand what you are claiming, however. If you are saying that a ghost's clothes are an illusion like the colours in the squares (ie, mis-interpreting a visual stimulus)



No no no . .it is emphatically not mis-interpreting a visual stimulus. The colours in the squares are not illusions. The apparitions wearing clothes is not an illusion. It is the interpretation by the mind moulding reality to its implicit theoretical conception of reality!

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No no no . .it is emphatically not mis-interpreting a visual stimulus. The colours in the squares are not illusions. The apparitions wearing clothes is not an illusion. It is the interpretation by the mind moulding reality to its implicit theoretical conception of reality!

You're proven incorrect above. You will ignore it to maintain your world view.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Tricky
If it cannot be seen by a camera, then it is not reflecting light in the visible range, therefore the image is not coming from the "ghost", but originating at some point behind the optical apparatus. It would be quite a discovery to find that spirits could somehow influence retinal nerves, as it would imply the ability of spirits to generate the nerve impulses. However, for the images to occur in the brain, it would require no other mechanisms than that which generates your thought processes and dreams, i.e. imagination. Occam suggests that this is the most likely method.

Now you can argue if you wish that the "ghost" somehow forces the brain to imagine the ghost's presence, but really, brains don't even need a push. They imagine weird stuff all the time, and often convince themselves that it is true.

We see apparitions through ESP. I agree that if ESP doesn't exist then apparitions are hallucinations (not illusions though).

[Ashles]

If you could manage to train yourself to avoid seeing all "optical illusions"
Right Ian. Firstly you are starting off with a useless asumption. "If we assume that everything is different..."
After that you become incoherent for a short while during which you decide how someone would perceive the world who had a completely different perceptual process from anyone real.
everything that you see on the TV, which are also strictly speaking 2D images, would be an optical illusion as well! Lol
TV is an optical illusion in several different ways. What point are you trying to make?

And it would be perfectly possible to create a real world version of the checkerboard illusion in which A and B were actually exactly the same colour tile using light strengths in a clever way. So if this can apply in the real world, what is your point again?

I suggest this demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge regarding the philosophy and psychology of perception. Most crucially the mind actively creates reality when we perceive.
Well I'll take my degree in Experimental Psychology over your unfounded and incorrect decision that things work just like you reckon they do just because you reckon so.

Reality is shaped by our mind to a degree but not in the ways you are claiming.

Firstly the example you provided is unfortunately not an example of what you are saying. It is not an example of expectations moulding our perceptions.
Here is what it actually is an example of:
The Checker Illusion (http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_description.html)

Like the example I provided above it provides a clear example of how many illusions are totally unrelated to expectations. No matter what we know about the reality of the situation we perceive them like this. It is a function of our basic visual process.

If with good non-defective eyesight, and in clear light, 2 colours appear not to be same, then they are not the same by definition.
So if I look at a white sheet of paper through a red filter is the sheet of paper now red? Even if someone else is staring at the paper unfiltered?
What about a colour blind person? Do they define the reality of their surroundings?

Ian you are just completely wrong here. Our misperceptions of an object do not change the real attributes of that object.
Your opinion is your own to have and change as you want, but it doesn't affect how the world actually works.

Try it - perceive me as a multi-millionaire. I promise to be grateful if your worldview turns out to be corect.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
So... everyone who "sees" a ghost is simultaneously having a hallucination of the ghost's clothing. Every time. But the ghost itself is not a hallucination.

Wow. Wow, wow, wow.

I wonder why we're so great at hallucinating clothes on naked ghosts, so as to see what we expect, but never clothes on naked people who are still alive? You'd think, for example, that if the human mind has this capacity, anyone stumbling unexpectedly onto a nudist beach would see everyone wearing trunks.



I've just looked at this one post of yours.

You forget that ghosts also do not have physical bodies just as much as they do not have clothes. Thus seeing an apparition of someone who is naked is just as surprising as seeing one clothed. We see apparitions of people as we normally see them during life.

Our minds mould and shape reality, but we cannot simply see whatever our subconscious mind wishes! Reality puts limits on the minds shaping.