Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

Magical Realist:

The changes appeared on camera almost immediately after they occurred, and stayed there until the end of the video. Yet you didn't notice them.

Most ghost sightings, as far as I am aware, do not involve full body apparitions walking right in front of a person with no distraction etc. If they did, there would be clear photographs of these full-body apparitions, and other evidence besides. Why don't these full body apparitions ever appear on national TV? Why don't they ever appear in the middle of a rock concert attended by thousands of witnesses? Why seldom, if ever, in brightly-lit places? Why don't they ever stick around long enough to allow somebody to pull out their iphone and interview them on camera?

I have made no claim that all ghost sightings are hallucinations. You seem fixated on the false dichotomy of "Either it is a ghost, or it is a hallucination, and nothing else is possible." Why are you so quick to rule out all alternate explanations? There are many of them.

Normal people, under the right conditions, regularly see all kinds of things that aren't really there.

No. The paranormal is not normal. It is supposed to be beyond normal. Supernatural. And there's no good evidence it ever happens. Not really.

Do you find this surprising, in a country that is so deeply religious, and that has developed quite a large industry for pushing woo of various sorts onto the general public?

About half of all Americans think that humans and apes do not share a common ancestor. Probably more Americans believe in witches and demons than believe in ghosts.

Americans are seriously misguided in lots of ways. Quite a lot of them apparently think that Donald Trump would make a good President.*

There's evidence for the electron stuff. There's no good evidence for ghosts.

If you have the appropriate equipment, you can check that an electron will pass through a barrier in a particular way, and it will do so reliably every time you do the experiment. But for some reason, we can't even get a clear picture of a ghost that hasn't been faked.

At least now you know that human perception isn't as reliable and finely-tuned as you believed it to be.

Nobody is going to say "Well, I admit that I'm a gullible fool, and I have always been scared of ghosts since I first heard about them. So when I saw one, it just confirmed my fears and my beliefs."

It sounds much better if you say "I'm a hardened skeptic. I never believed in any woo, so it was a completely surprise and shock when I saw a ghost. But now I want to go public and tell the world all about ghosts. Hey mum, look! I'm on TV! (My horoscope predicted this would happen.)"

Do you think it would be possible to remember an event from your childhood that never actually happened?

Why not? If a person had an experience and it was a hallucination, then it's explained. Isn't it?

You're trying to create a false dichotomy again - this time between "normal" people and people who have a "problem". It's far more likely that everybody, at least some of the time, has their mind play tricks on them.

What kind of brain does it take to believe in something for which there is no convincing evidence?

There's lots of evidence for giant squid. Video footage. Actual specimens that have been caught or found in the stomachs of whales. And so on.

Again, it seems I have to emphasise the point that person anecdotes are not the same as evidence - a point you seem to have trouble grasping.

I've never personally been on a ghost hunt, if that's what you mean. I have been involved in certain paranormal investigations. And I've read a lot of material about such investigations, and seen documentaries and probably some of the same woo videos and pseudo-documentaries that you spend your time absorbing uncritically.

Serious studies of this kind, in my experience, either return null results, or else return results on the edges of detectability. Perhaps that noise on the recording is a voice, or perhaps it's just the static. Perhaps that temperature change was a ghostly effect, or perhaps there's something about the air circulation in this building in the middle of the night...

I think that if somebody reports an apparition right in front of them, they are most likely either (a) lying (for the publicity, for monetary gain, or some other reason), or (b) delusional, or (c) the victim of a clever hoax, or (d) misinterpreting some kind of unusual by natural effect as an apparition.

Without details of the specific circumstances, it is hard to say what could be misconceived. That is likely to vary on a case-by-case basis.

You are very naive as to the possibility and ingenuity of fakers. If you truly believe that fakery of ghosts is impossible, then I don't think I can help you change your mind; you're living in a delusion all of your own. Suffice it to say: pranks are seldom ruled out.

Apart from that, most things taken as signs of ghosts are minor. Somebody feels cold, so it must be the ghost. Somebody heard a creaking noise, so it must be the ghost. Somebody felt scared in the dark, so it must be the ghost.

---
* Obviously, this is a gross generalisation. There are many intelligent, thoughful and educated Americans who think a Trump presidency would be a disaster and who don't believe in any woo. Obviously I do not include you, if you are part of this group.

 

birch:

You speak as if people carry an invisible aura of magical energy with them wherever they go. You're using the word "energy" in a way that is not scientific.

When you say "People can have very negative energies", all you're really saying is that some people do not come across to you as nice people. Or that you don't like them. Or that they act in ways that you don't approve of. The fact is, they are just people. They are the way they are because of choices they make about how they choose to behave. There's no need to invoke magical "energies" to explain the behaviour of people.

Yes, emotions are real. Emotions happen in your brain due to real brain activity. Your brain responds to outside stimuli, which includes the way that other people around you behave. If you feel bad around somebody, you're reacting your perception of them (which may be right or mistaken). There's no magical energy emanating from them that magically affects you.

What is this "energy" you keep referring to?

Energy is a word used in science. It has a specific meaning in science. But the way you're using it is nothing like the way it is used in science. So, it would be good if you could explain what this "energy" of yours is, exactly.

How can a thought create this energy? How can we detect this energy? What instruments would be use? Is it only detectable by a human being's "gut feelings"? If so, in that case how do you know it's not just a feeling you have but it is real, external thing?

These energies themselves have agency? That is, the energies themselves "want" things (such as they want to attack people in a "predatory" way)?

If your mood or emotions change, isn't that an internal thing that happens to you? Why do you think that your emotions or mood can be manipulated by invisible "energies" from outside? If you think that, aren't you just making excuses for your own feelings?

I understand that the actions of other people, or events that occur to you in the world, can and do affect how you feel. But why do you need invisible and undetectable "energies" to explain that? I don't understand.

I agree with you on everything here except for the "spiritual" part. What makes you think that "spiritual" things can affect one's health? What do you actually mean by "spiritual"? Is that different from "mental" and "emotional"?

Are you, in fact, saying that spirits can affect your physical health? As in ghostly spirits or entitites with magical "energy"? Or what?

 

Magical Realist:

So your excuse that you didn't notice very obvious changes in the people's clothing and in the colours of the backdrop and the table cloth is that you were distracted and not paying close enough attention to things.

And yet, these changes were obvious, weren't they?

So the fact remains that you didn't notice what was obvious and right in front of you. And yet you claim to have impecable perception of the world.

I know there are lots of photos of what are claimed by believers to be ghosts. Some of them have been exposed or revealed as fakes. Some of them remain unexplained, but that doesn't rule out fakery. Some of them just don't show what they are said to show. They are mistakes of perception - you know, the ones you say never occur.

I don't know that ghosts don't exist. I'm open minded to the possibility.

Show me some convincing evidence that shows they exist and I'll accept that they exist.

I don't know that a purple dragon called Claude doesn't exist, either, and the same thing applies to him.

I've already told you:
(a) The person is lying about seeing the transparent person.
(b) The person making the claim is delusional.
(c) The person making the claim is the victim of a clever hoax.
(d) The person making the claim has misinterpreted a natural or mundane happening as a supernatural one.

Look at this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

What do you see?

It's just a bunch of rocks, right?

Interestingly, both of those things had their existence doubted for a very long time. I'm not sure what the current status of ball lightning is, but rogue waves are certainly accepted by the scientific community.

How did it come to be that scientists started to "believe in" rogue waves? There's a simple answer: accumulation of evidence to the point where it became impossible to deny. And this despite the fact that rogue waves are relatively rare.

There are lots of good reasons to doubt people who claim to have seen a ghost. You just choose to ignore them all.

A certain percentage of Americans claim they have been kidnapped by aliens. I guess you believe them too. Which means you accept the whole hokey UFO nonsense. (Don't bother. I already know you believe that woo as well.)

Already done. Couldn't find anything convincing.

I could post 28 articles debunking specific claims of ghosts. What would that do to your beliefs? Nothing. Right?

People don't tend to see ghosts as they go about their regular daily lives. They tend to see them in unfamiliar environments. Except the delusional ones.

I am? About what?

No.

I think if they have a paranormal experience there are five possibilities:

(a) The person is lying about the experience.
(b) The person making the claim is delusional.
(c) The person making the claim is the victim of a clever hoax.
(d) The person making the claim has misinterpreted a natural or mundane happening as a supernatural one.
(e) The experience is real.

I think one should carefully consider (a) to (d) before concluding (e). You, on the other hand, don't want to investigate. You just believe them and leave your brain switched off.

Then let me introduce you to something undreamt of in your philosophy:

https://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/sciam.htm

To save you some reading, scroll done the article until you see the heading "False childhood memories". Or (better), read the entire article.

Most ghost sightings, as far as I am aware, do not involve multiple witnesses or physical evidence. Most just involve one person telling a story.

As to the hallucination claim, you are wrong. Even mass hallucinations have been known to occur on rare occasions.

Normal ghost sightings don't involve ghosts in old clothes walking in front of people in broad daylight, or the ghost sitting down with the sighter and chatting over coffee at an outdoor cafe. Why is that? You couldn't give an answer last time I asked.

One that has learned how to think critically? There is a difference between denial and questioning, by the way, and it's a good illustration of the difference between you and me. You'll believe in ghosts no matter what I say, but I'm actually open to being convinced that ghosts exist. You're in denial that ghost sightings are ever faked or that they are ever lies. I simply question the plausibility of claimed sightings of ghosts, on the basis of the evidence that has been presented.

You're too focussed on your own experience. We need to look at all the evidence for and against things. One or two or even 50 personal anecdotes just aren't good enough for something as extraordinary as ghosts. And just because you believe you have experienced something doesn't mean you have. You could be (a) delusional; (b) mistaken; (c) the victim of a clever hoax, etc.

I've heard of anecdotal evidence. Have you explored the fact that anecdotal evidence is generally considered to be a very weak form of evidence by educated people?

Anecdotal evidence is not enough to send a criminal to the gas chamber. If it is, where you live, then I'd be very worried.

That news is everywhere, and some such "investigations" have indeed been exposed as frauds. You live in a bubble, Magical Realist. Read some skeptical literature for a change.

Lots of things other than ghosts can cause sounds that sounds like footsteps or bangs or voices. Ghost "orbs" are usually photos of floating dust particles illuminated by a camera flash.

If the "investigators" are out to make a buck, they have an incentive to get the results they set out to get, by whatever means. And if, on the hand, they are honest, then they may well be primed to see what they expect to see. True believers are much more likely to see ghosts than skeptics. Why is that?

I believe the reports are real. The ghosts? Nah.[/quote]

 

birch:

I'm not sure what you're saying.

Are you saying I should accept your belief in "bad energies" because you're "vulnerable"? Or that I shouldn't challenge your beliefs because that makes you unhappy and you'd rather have a comforting fantasy? Or that I'm being nasty to you because I didn't just agree with you that some people have negative energies? Or that you prefer not to hear another point of view than your own? In which case, why are you on a discussion forum? Why not start a blog?

 

Magical Realist:

You keep missing the point. You claim that people are good observers whose memories and perceptions can always be trusted. And yet, I've just shown you three separate examples of how perception can fail. And you don't seem interested in that. Why?

Not all the time. Not under all conditions.

For example, you see a face in those rocks I showed you. For example, about 1 in 5 people can be led to "remember" something that never happened to them. For example, you thought there was nothing amiss about the card trick video, when in fact all kinds of dodgy stuff was going on there.

How many examples will you need before you will consider that perception might be fallible?

How do you know that's all I do? It might be convenient for you to imagine that I have never watched any of the woo you watch, but I have. I've even watched some of the nonsense you've posted here from time to time.

No. I've made no such claim, and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my views in future.

Do you think that most photos of ghosts are "the real thing"? I'm sure you do. Is that openminded?

Which ones? Telly Salavas's ghost anecdote?

Let's just say that I'd be extremely surprised if Claude the purple dragon turned out to exist outside my head. But if you have some evidence that he does, I'm open to examining it.

No. Other things explain that. Like I said earlier, a lot of the audio recording stuff is barely at the detectable level, and is often a case of interpreting random static with a liberal dose of wishful thinking.

You missed the point again. You see a face in that rock, even though there's no face there. It's just rock. So, there's an example of something right in front of you that you perceive even though it isn't real. It's your mind playing a trick on you.

But, of course, this kind of thing would be impossible when it comes to ghosts - or so you'd have us believe. Because ghosts are special and you think they're cool, whereas you're not that interested in rocks or houses that look like Hitler.

None of it is ignored. There's no conspiracy of scientists actively working to suppress knowledge of ghosts. Indeed, there are plenty of people spruiking the "reality" of ghosts all over the internet, and nobody is shutting you down. Nor do I think they should.

Ghosts aren't part of the scientific literature because there's no good evidence that they exist. The same can be said for all supernatural things.

Following where the evidence leads is what a careful thinker does. Blindly believing is something a crank does.

Wrong again. It is very much something you are likely to make up or hallucinate.

Link me to the posts where the three videos are. How long are they? I don't want to waste hours on this crap, especially since I know that no matter what I say it wouldn't change your mind.

In fact, is there anything that would convince you that ghosts aren't real?

Yes. In other words, people are primed to see ghosts in certain places. They expect to see ghosts. So they see ghosts.

Post a link to information on the most persuasive "investigation" you are aware of that proves beyond doubt the reality of any paranormal phenomenon. Let's see you put your money where your mouth it. Give it your best shot.

I'm just going on what you told me. You keep saying you are willing to believe anybody's story about just about anything, unless you have definite proof that it isn't true. You've said that over and over again in this thread.

Are you going to back off on what you said now? Did you insult yourself?

I was editing it to correct a problem while you posted your knee-jerk reply. But you have access to the cut-and-paste functionality of your computer the same as I do. Why not use it?

What do you think I'm trying to do by saying "I'm not sure what you're saying", and then following up with a whole lot of questions to birch?

How am I supposed to find out what birch means without asking questions? Perhaps you have a suggestion.

As far as getting snarky, I'm not snarky at birch, but I'm getting a bit snarky at you right about now. There is nothing in my posts to birch that indicate that I took offence at anything she said.