The Lone Ranger

Well, that's kind of the point; pictures aren't convincing evidence for the existence of "ghosts," because they could so easily be fakes or camera/film artifacts.

Pictures of "ghosts" almost always turn out to be outright fakes or explainable by perfectly ordinary phenomena.

People sometimes fake pictures. Cameras sometimes doubly expose film. Cameras sometimes leak light onto the film. All these are known examples of how a "ghostly" image can be preserved on film.

To date, no one has provided a photograph of a "ghost" which cannot be explained thus. Where are the pictures of ghosts that were taken by professional photographers who are unlikely to make such mistakes, and whose cameras are in perfect working condition?

If ghosts do exist, why has the only evidence ever presented been stuff that can easily be explained by perfectly ordinary means. If they exist, why is it so difficult to provide unambiguous evidence for that fact?

***

If ghosts exist, then they have -- to put it mildly -- extraordinary characteristics.

With that in mind, for any given instance, what's more likely?

• 1.) The "ghost" is the result of perfectly normal, repeatedly-observed natural phenomena, such as camera malfunction, Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, etc.
• 2.) The "ghost" is real -- an entity which, by its very nature, flatly contradicts numerous currently-accepted, very well-studied physical laws and principles. *

*"Ghosts" are typically described as doing things which are physically impossible, in my experience. If they exist and can do the things they're supposed to be capable of, then some of our most basic understandings of the way that the world around us functions are seriously mistaken.

Are ghosts made of energy? Energy can be stored as potential energy, in chemical bonds, for instance, but that certainly doesn't seem to be what "ghosts" are.

What other forms of energy are there? Electromagnetism is energy, but by definition, electromagnetic energy moves at the speed of light -- approximately 186,000 miles per second. A ghost made of electromagnetic energy would have a rather difficult time holding still.

I think it's safe to assume that ghosts aren't made of gravitational energy.

Energy can be directly transferred between particles of matter, but if that's what ghosts were made of, then they should obey the laws of diffusion, and should immediately dissipate, even if they did form.

People throw around the term "energy" quite a lot in order to "explain" ghosts, but modern science has quite a firm understanding of the properties of energy, and they're quite incompatible with what ghosts are supposed to be able to do.

Are "ghosts" made of matter, either in the normal state or in the form of plasma?

If ghosts are made of matter, they must obey the physical laws that govern all matter. So, how do ghosts manage to pass through walls then, given that two particles of matter cannot simultaneously occupy the same space?

How do ghosts move about from place to place? To move matter, you need a source of energy. What is a ghost's fuel source?

***

The point is this: if a thing is explainable by perfectly ordinary means, then there's no reason to assume that there's anything extraordinary about it. If the thing in question would violate well-established physical principles by its very existence, then it's exceedingly unlikely that it actually exists.

In any event, while it's conceivable that such things as ghosts exist, until and unless someone provides convincing evidence, there is no logical reason to consider the claim to be anything other than an exceedingly unlikely hypothesis.

Cheers,

Michael

Nickle

Great post Michael.

One small point concerning earlier posts:
Hallucinations do not have to be the product of drugs or a mental illness. Sometimes the brain just messes up a little bit and this happens to normal people, including me.

A few years ago I was walking along the riverwalk in San Antonio and looked down to see swarms of mice crawling around my feet. I was about to panic until I noticed that nobody else was freaking out and realized that I was hallucinating, so I ignored them, although it was hard--they looked real, and I thought I could feel them!

edited to add:
Maybe they were ghosts mice trying to communicate me.

[ December 10, 2002: Message edited by: Nickle ]</p>

The Lone Ranger

As mentioned earlier, extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. Perhaps an expansion of this point would help.

Suppose that someone tells me that he saw a duck yesterday. This is a perfectly ordinary claim.

It is well-established that ducks exist, so I needn't be provided with proof of the hypothetical duck's existence. Furthermore, lots of reliable observers have seen ducks under conditions where fakery would be difficult, to say the least.

All in all, since ducks are known to exist, and since they are, in fact, quite commonly observed, there's no reason to question the claim that the person saw a duck yesterday.

Now, let's suppose that he tells me that there's a duck sitting on his head at this very moment. This is a somewhat extraordinary claim, since ducks are not normally noted for their tendency to perch on people's heads.

So, I take a look. Oddly enough, I can't see a duck on his head. "Oh," he explains, it's an invisible duck. So, I put my hand on his head, but can feel no duck there. "It's also an immaterial duck," he explains.

Now, we have a truly extraordinary claim, since ducks are not generally noted for being either invisible or immaterial.

If the claim is to be taken seriously, the claimant is going to have to provide some extraordinarily-convincing evidence, since the claim is not just unusual, but violates established principles of duck behavior.

Cheers,

Michael

Seraphim

"Hmmm... not sure what to call this technique, but is the use of the word 'nut' intended to deflect skeptical inquiry? In order to further this line of argument, we might have to call someone else a 'nut', which might cause offence. Therefore said person evades questioning.

So let's not use loaded language. Forget 'nut', too much value judgement in there. Is it feasible that Seraphim had one or more schizophrenic hallucinations?"

My reply : Hmmm ... what's wrong with the word "Nuts"? I don't think it is such a bad or offensive word and I always use it (especially on myself) to describe a person (or myself) doing things out of his (or my) ordinary behavior. I think word such as Crazy or Mad sounds more offensive, word "Cuckoo" is OK but sounds too much like sarcasm.

I guess it is OK for you guys says I had a schizopherinic experiences, it is when any one of you start to suggesting treatment when I will get annoyed.

"Fact: schizophrenia exists - in many forms. For some, there are well known chemical, mental and behavioural manifestations. For some, there are treatments. Many millions suffer from some form of this disease. "

My reply : This is supposed to be a logical explaination behind experience of seeing ghost, right? Is there any characteristics of person who experiences such things? I want to see whether I fit the characteristics of such person.

"Fact: ghosts have never been definitively observed by multiple simultaneous objective viewers. Not one. Ever."

My reply : Multiple people had heard the same type of noises and felt the same sensations such as sudden drop in the temperature or increase in temperature in places known for its haunting.

As for "multiple simultaneous objective viewers", I'm not very sure what it means since it doesn't seem to refer to everyone in general.

"On the balance of probability, which is the more likely reason: ghost or hallucination? Sorry, it's a no-brainer. "

My reply : How sure are you? A person who is normal in everyway (such as myself) could have an hallucination for no apparent reason? Doesn't sound right here.

Seraphim

"- if, as some people have believed, ghosts are "spirits" or the "essence" (i.e., non-corporeal remains)of a person, why do they need clothes?"

My reply : It is more toward how the "spirit" sees itself rather than how you sees it. Ghost are simply an energy (or soul if you may) who refused to accept death and cling to physical plain by any means, which including gathering enough matter to form an illusion of itself based on what it was during his/her life.

"- if, as other people believe, ghosts are the "electromagnetic remains" of a person, could you exorcise a haunted house with a can of Static Guard? "

My reply : Hmmm ... Exorcism ... one of my favorite topics. Most of you probably have pictures of scene in Exorcise by now with Linda Blair twisting her neck 360 degrees (that's one twisted lady).

While this should be the case with Arabic religions (Jews, Christians and Muslims), that is not the case with other Eastern beliefs. In Eastern belief, to successfully exorcise a ghost, you must first "solve" its problem to bring peace to it that it will stop clinging to the physical realm and accept "death" once more.

On why you can't exorcise a ghost with a static can, the most logical explaination is - You CAN do it, but you will only disperse the energy which the spirit gathered to form its illusion rather than make the spirit stop clinging to the physical realm.

PS : Anyone here have experience with people who were possessed once?

Seraphim

"Well, that's kind of the point; pictures aren't convincing evidence for the existence of "ghosts," because they could so easily be fakes or camera/film artifacts.

Pictures of "ghosts" almost always turn out to be outright fakes or explainable by perfectly ordinary phenomena.

People sometimes fake pictures. Cameras sometimes doubly expose film. Cameras sometimes leak light onto the film. All these are known examples of how a "ghostly" image can be preserved on film.

To date, no one has provided a photograph of a "ghost" which cannot be explained thus. Where are the pictures of ghosts that were taken by professional photographers who are unlikely to make such mistakes, and whose cameras are in perfect working condition?"

My reply : All this are logical explainations regarding cameras been malfunctioning and all. Can't say much about it since I never seen a real-life picture with ghost by someone with malfunctioning camera.

"If ghosts do exist, why has the only evidence ever presented been stuff that can easily be explained by perfectly ordinary means. If they exist, why is it so difficult to provide unambiguous evidence for that fact?"

My reply : Depends on the evidence and the fact and whether one accepts such. You said malfunction camera is the reason why there is a odd feature in the middle of a prefectly good looking picture (like the one I have seen in the Internet a few times) but I cannot say your camera malfunctioning theory is wrong because I never examined such camera before either.

"If ghosts exist, then they have -- to put it mildly -- extraordinary characteristics.

With that in mind, for any given instance, what's more likely? "

My reply : You seems to be forgetting a simple fact - Ghost are considered to be spirits/soul trying to cling to the physical realm because they refused to accept death.

In that context, just as you cannot fly now, I doubt if you die an untimely dead and return back as a ghost, you could fly then.


"1.) The "ghost" is the result of perfectly normal, repeatedly-observed natural phenomena, such as camera malfunction, Temporal Lobe Epilepsy, etc."

My reply : So why such natural occuring phenomena seems to be taking shapes, move, make noises etc? It seems to me that I was watching something that independant of my own brain like movement of another person.

"2.) The "ghost" is real -- an entity which, by its very nature, flatly contradicts numerous currently-accepted, very well-studied physical laws and principles. "

My reply : Mind showing me one of the laws which contradict with possible existence of a pocket of energy free floating in space?

"*"Ghosts" are typically described as doing things which are physically impossible, in my experience. If they exist and can do the things they're supposed to be capable of, then some of our most basic understandings of the way that the world around us functions are seriously mistaken."

My reply : doing things which is physically impossible? Such as?

"Are ghosts made of energy? Energy can be stored as potential energy, in chemical bonds, for instance, but that certainly doesn't seem to be what "ghosts" are.

What other forms of energy are there? Electromagnetism is energy, but by definition, electromagnetic energy moves at the speed of light -- approximately 186,000 miles per second. A ghost made of electromagnetic energy would have a rather difficult time holding still. "

My reply : And yet, our molecules are been hold together by energy which is considered electromagnetic as well. What makes us hold together? We should be flying in 100 direction at every second.

"I think it's safe to assume that ghosts aren't made of gravitational energy."

My reply : Agreed/

"Energy can be directly transferred between particles of matter, but if that's what ghosts were made of, then they should obey the laws of diffusion, and should immediately dissipate, even if they did form."

My reply : Assuming of course that a ghost could form itself into matter thus dissipate. What if the ghost could simply gather enough energy to become something like "excited" stated where it could be detected by those of living, then dissipate again when it couldn't hold it for long? Like Quantum mechanics where enough energy gathered in a matter to make it leap to become excited and "leap" only to dissipate and return to its normal once again?

"People throw around the term "energy" quite a lot in order to "explain" ghosts, but modern science has quite a firm understanding of the properties of energy, and they're quite incompatible with what ghosts are supposed to be able to do."

My reply : Now that's an arrogant remark. You assume that Physicts and Mathematicians had learn EVERYTHING which there is to learn? I'm sure someone like Stephen Hawkings could disagree with that.

"Are "ghosts" made of matter, either in the normal state or in the form of plasma?"

My reply : Depends on what you mean by matter, normal state and plasma. I could say it simply exist in state of low-level energy which could be increase to a certain portion enough to make it detectable (especially by those with Yin, Demon or Cat's Eyes).

"If ghosts are made of matter, they must obey the physical laws that govern all matter. So, how do ghosts manage to pass through walls then, given that two particles of matter cannot simultaneously occupy the same space?"

My reply : And what is a solid state? Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that a solid state is simply a matter grouped together in more condensed form than those with another state. Take a human body for example, water cannot past through us because we have more condensed molecular state, true? But X-Ray (Gamma rays) could do so easily.

In this context, a ghost could dissipate enough of its matter to go through another solid mass and come the other side.

"How do ghosts move about from place to place? To move matter, you need a source of energy. What is a ghost's fuel source?"

My reply : Nope, Ghost don't travel a lot from where it is situated, usually in a small area like a room or a house.

To think back why it forms enough energy to be detected only to dissipate again, I could guess that the reason is that when ghosts moves or becomes excited, it could use that energy (which it gathered) to do so and remain in that place (in low energy form) till it gathers more energy.

"The point is this: if a thing is explainable by perfectly ordinary means, then there's no reason to assume that there's anything extraordinary about it. If the thing in question would violate well-established physical principles by its very existence, then it's exceedingly unlikely that it actually exists."

My reply : Assuming of course that you can produce unmoveable evidence to support your explainations. What I see here is mostly based on logics.
As for well-established physical principles, I don't think there is such thing as a well-established physical principle. Even as we speak, there are physics and Mathematicians out there trying to improve our science. Nuf said.

echidna

Seraphim, how do you KNOW all this stuff about ghosts ?

Chinese folklore ?
Personal experience ?
Objective evidence ?

echidna

Another easy one, do you accept that neurological dysfunction can (on occasion) create the illusion of a ghost or other paranormal events ?

Seraphim

"Seraphim, how do you KNOW all this stuff about ghosts ?
Chinese folklore ?
Personal experience ?
Objective evidence ? "

My reply : How?

1. Various folklores (not Chinese alone ... I read a lot and talk to various people).

2. Personal experiences.

3. Hearing personal accounts from others who had similar experiences.

Not very sure what you meant by objective evidence though.

Mad Kally

Possessed by what or who? What on the earth are you talking about?