Ghosts and my inability to not be skeptical about it

[huskerjack23]

So as the resident skeptic, Husker_x (at least you're the most vocal about it lol), I'd like some help with skeptical inquiry about ghosts.

I watch Ghost Adventures (yes, go ahead and laugh) and I don't know why but I can't seem to be as skeptical as I'd like to be about it. My stance on ghosts is pretty agnostic but I kind of get super anxious whenever I'm in situations that are typical for "ghost activity". So it's not that I believe in them, it's just hard to bring a view of skepticism to the equation (fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of the void or something)

I'd like some help bringing up skeptical questions to the table. Google didn't do a good job of helping, nor did I really look hard lol.

Here are some questions I've asked as a skeptic and it helps somewhat.

1. How do they know that whatever presence they're feeling is a ghost or they're brain just effing with them? Or just random physical phenomena?

2. Why is it so hard to repeat the evidence? If it's there and they can respond, then they can repeat commands surely.

3. Regarding EVPS: what if it's some kids messing with you? How did you decipher that unintelligible garbage as a sentence?

It's also TV so people that are easily susceptible to manipulation can be led to conclusions that the producers want those watching to be led down.

So is it alright as a skeptic, to be an idiot but realize you're being an idiot? Or am I just being an idiot? lol

 

[knapplc]

Ever notice how ghosts have evolved over time? Back in the day ghosts used to be identifiable ephemeral images, observable shapes that looked human-shaped and were clearly a person. Often they were identifiable to a period based on the clothing they wore, the style of their hair, whatever. But now that we have a proliferation of cameras and sundry other recording devices, we have no ghosts on film. Now that we could - maybe - record images of ghosts, suddenly they've become random lights, or noises, or bumps in the night. You rarely hear about Class 5 Full-Roaming Vapors anymore - outside of Ghostbusters, that is.

One of the things that always bothered me was the clothes/accouterments the ghosts were wearing. A quick google gives a page full of examples. I get the concept that a ghost is the lingering spirit of a dead person, but I ask you - why are they wearing clothes? Are they dressed in the undead spirit of the shirt they wore when they died? Or the shoes? Do pants and underwear also have spirits? Logically, shouldn't every ghost be naked? On that page I linked there's even a ghost with a spear through its head. Spears have spirits?

As for this ghost hunter show, it'll run for two, three, four seasons or so. They'll have a bunch of scared people in dark, freaky situations with unexplained noises and fuzzy sounds on a tape, but they'll never once have a video of a full-fledged ghost. They'll never have proof of anything because there are no ghosts. It's all your imagination.

EDIT - and to your question of "Am I an idiot?" No, of course not. If you're entertained by this show, who cares? I like Star Wars and I know it's not real. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, real or imaginary, so long as you know it's imaginary.

 

[Husker_x]

Hey Huskerjack,

Ghosts are not my forte, per se, but I've done some reading/thinking about it.

My stance on ghosts is pretty agnostic but I kind of get super anxious whenever I'm in situations that are typical for "ghost activity". So it's not that I believe in them, it's just hard to bring a view of skepticism to the equation (fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of the void or something)

Even though I know what you mean by what's in the bold, I think it's important to start with the right groundwork. There are no known conditions or situations where we can actually demonstrate there is 'ghost activity.' There are situations where the brain is easier to trick that normal, where your senses are on high alert, or where you can create the expectations for something mysterious to happen, but to connect that with paranormal activity is to assume the conclusion.

And a lot of times, from what I've seen from shows like this, that's how it operates. These people assume there are ghosts––even if they claim to be skeptical––and they take whatever 'data', no matter how flimsy, and try to cram it into their model instead of letting the facts bear out the case. They do this by a number of methods. Russel Glasser of The Atheist Experience talks about some of them here.

1. How do they know that whatever presence they're feeling is a ghost or they're brain just effing with them? Or just random physical phenomena?2. Why is it so hard to repeat the evidence? If it's there and they can respond, then they can repeat commands surely.

3. Regarding EVPS: what if it's some kids messing with you? How did you decipher that unintelligible garbage as a sentence?

All excellent questions. Seems you already see through the charade. I'll add a few.

1. How are instruments that measure physical phenomena, radios, or cameras helpful in detecting something which is by definition a non natural occurrence?

2. How would something that retains what we'd call consciousness able to do so without the help of a brain, which has been destroyed/decayed and is nonfunctioning?

3. Why should I buy into a dramatic, almost plot-based, TV show when I know they have a financial interest in at least keeping the controversy going, if not inventing this stuff whole cloth? Imagine a show where every week four fat guys sit in a dark shack and say, "Well, that was worthless. Let's go home."

On your third question, briefly: have you ever listened to backmasking? It's the same concept. You play a song backwards and what usually comes out is nothing but grable, except here and there you can make out what sounds like specific words. Not usually enough to make it coherent, but it might lead your brain to a certain explanation. A famous example is Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven." If you listen to the song without someone telling you what words to listen for, you'll maybe pick out three or four (Satan, six-six-six, power, etc.) But then when they tell you their––and I stress their––interpretation, you can hear it clear as day when you listen again. (Try it. Go down to the 'allegations of backmasking' section, be sure to listen to the reversed track BEFORE you read the lyrics interpretation. Then read the interpretation and listen again). It's the same concept with the white noise from ghost hunting shows. The point is the brain is highly susceptible to suggestion.

It's also TV so people that are easily susceptible to manipulation can be led to conclusions that the producers want those watching to be led down.
So is it alright as a skeptic, to be an idiot but realize you're being an idiot? Or am I just being an idiot? lol

Nothing idiotic about fearing the unknown. Evolution has ground that so deep in our species we'll probably never get rid of it, and probably wouldn't want to if we could. The problem with our pattern-seeking nature is that we tend to want any explanation over no explanation. So when we hear a noise, a bump in the night, even though we can't identify it our first instinct is to conclude SOMETHING, right or wrong. I think 'Ghost Hunting' is a cash-in on this trait.

Hope that helps. Knapplc made some excellent points as well. The interent is chalk full of people who debunk this stuff, some of them for a living. Skeptoid.com probably has some short podcasts on specific (or general) cases of 'ghost activity.' If you have a specific case you're looking at I'd be happy to take a look.

 

[Hingle McCringleberry]

I'm glad you started this thread. Over the weekend Animal Planet had a ghost show on, yes Animal Planet. The short of it was, poor single mother of two, saves and buys an old home. Shortly after moving in 17 y/o daughter starts having "experiences". Over the hour (yes this crap went on for an hour) the "experiences" get worse. They call in some paranormal team and they attempt to "cleanse" the house of the spirit, they have film of them walking through the home burning sage and the owner yelling "get out this is my house". At that point for some reason they stop filming, and the 17 y/o starts yelling in a deep voice "this is my house", according to them her eyes had turned back, and the dogs started to nip and growl at her. At this point they run out of them home carrying the girl, and once they step off the curb, she snaps back to normal. The paranormal "team" tells the owners there is nothing they can do to get rid of the ghost. I guess burning sage is the ghost equivalent of a hydrogen bomb, and this guy was having none of it. Spangler needn't worry about crossing the beams, cause hey we're burning sage! All of this leads up to the mom staring into the camera, and saying there was no way I was going to let my family live there, we would of died, so I LET THE BANK TAKE THE HOUSE BACK.

I think X is right, in the end these show are total BS. In this case why would you not film the ENTIRE night, why wouldn't you turn the camera on when the girl was possessed by this "spirit", film of that would of been worth a fortune.

 

[huskerjack23]

Hey Huskerjack,

Ghosts are not my forte, per se, but I've done some reading/thinking about it.

My stance on ghosts is pretty agnostic but I kind of get super anxious whenever I'm in situations that are typical for "ghost activity". So it's not that I believe in them, it's just hard to bring a view of skepticism to the equation (fear of the dark, fear of the unknown, fear of the void or something)

Even though I know what you mean by what's in the bold, I think it's important to start with the right groundwork. There are no known conditions or situations where we can actually demonstrate there is 'ghost activity.' There are situations where the brain is easier to trick that normal, where your senses are on high alert, or where you can create the expectations for something mysterious to happen, but to connect that with paranormal activity is to assume the conclusion.

And a lot of times, from what I've seen from shows like this, that's how it operates. These people assume there are ghosts––even if they claim to be skeptical––and they take whatever 'data', no matter how flimsy, and try to cram it into their model instead of letting the facts bear out the case. They do this by a number of methods. Russel Glasser of The Atheist Experience talks about some of them here.

1. How do they know that whatever presence they're feeling is a ghost or they're brain just effing with them? Or just random physical phenomena?2. Why is it so hard to repeat the evidence? If it's there and they can respond, then they can repeat commands surely.

3. Regarding EVPS: what if it's some kids messing with you? How did you decipher that unintelligible garbage as a sentence?

All excellent questions. Seems you already see through the charade. I'll add a few.

1. How are instruments that measure physical phenomena, radios, or cameras helpful in detecting something which is by definition a non natural occurrence?

2. How would something that retains what we'd call consciousness able to do so without the help of a brain, which has been destroyed/decayed and is nonfunctioning?

3. Why should I buy into a dramatic, almost plot-based, TV show when I know they have a financial interest in at least keeping the controversy going, if not inventing this stuff whole cloth? Imagine a show where every week four fat guys sit in a dark shack and say, "Well, that was worthless. Let's go home."

On your third question, briefly: have you ever listened to backmasking? It's the same concept. You play a song backwards and what usually comes out is nothing but grable, except here and there you can make out what sounds like specific words. Not usually enough to make it coherent, but it might lead your brain to a certain explanation. A famous example is Led Zeppelin's "Stairway to Heaven." If you listen to the song without someone telling you what words to listen for, you'll maybe pick out three or four (Satan, six-six-six, power, etc.) But then when they tell you their––and I stress their––interpretation, you can hear it clear as day when you listen again. (Try it. Go down to the 'allegations of backmasking' section, be sure to listen to the reversed track BEFORE you read the lyrics interpretation. Then read the interpretation and listen again). It's the same concept with the white noise from ghost hunting shows. The point is the brain is highly susceptible to suggestion.

It's also TV so people that are easily susceptible to manipulation can be led to conclusions that the producers want those watching to be led down.
So is it alright as a skeptic, to be an idiot but realize you're being an idiot? Or am I just being an idiot? lol

Nothing idiotic about fearing the unknown. Evolution has ground that so deep in our species we'll probably never get rid of it, and probably wouldn't want to if we could. The problem with our pattern-seeking nature is that we tend to want any explanation over no explanation. So when we hear a noise, a bump in the night, even though we can't identify it our first instinct is to conclude SOMETHING, right or wrong. I think 'Ghost Hunting' is a cash-in on this trait.

Hope that helps. Knapplc made some excellent points as well. The interent is chalk full of people who debunk this stuff, some of them for a living. Skeptoid.com probably has some short podcasts on specific (or general) cases of 'ghost activity.' If you have a specific case you're looking at I'd be happy to take a look.

Thanks for the reply. I was trying to figure out my susceptibility to the show and I couldn't finger it out. You hit the nail on the head on the biggest skeptic question that needs asking would be "assuming the conclusion". So many conclusions can be drawn but ghost is the sexiest one.

I had a they're/their misstep in my post too lol.

Would you think hard skepticism is a great trait in an unknown situation like that?

 

[AR Husker Fan]

Thanks for the reply. I was trying to figure out my susceptibility to the show and I couldn't finger it out. You hit the nail on the head on the biggest skeptic question that needs asking would be "assuming the conclusion". So many conclusions can be drawn but ghost is the sexiest one.
I had a they're/their misstep in my post too lol.

Would you think hard skepticism is a great trait in an unknown situation like that?

There's another component at work, as well. Regardless how convinced a person is that there is no god or no after-life, the reality is that with sentience comes the unshakable belief (not knowledge) that one cannot simply cease to exist. From the moment man gained the ability to see himself as a discrete entity and to contemplate his life and death - as evidenced throughout recorded history - he has attributed the inexplicable to supernatural (or religious) forces. I am agnostic - I recognize that there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, or an after-life. Regardless of this, when I contemplate my death I still feel that somehow I will still exist in some state, and that I will be able to make my presence known. There is no logical basis for this, of course. Intellectually, I recognize that and I recognize that when I die I will leave no residual - but I can't make myself believe that. Its a function of the Id and the Ego.

Given that, it naturally follows that people would find TV shows like that compelling - people want evidence that they won't simply cease to exist, and hope (even subconsciously) that such shows will provide proof of that.

Parenthetically, it can be argued that the above is the sole reason that religion was created by man. I'm not making that argument - hell, for all I know, there is a god or gods, and this is its or their subtle or humorous way of making their presence known to man. There are a number of days that I'm convinced there is a god - not only that, but that god is a woman and I've pissed her off.

Anyway...

 

[huskerjack23]

Thanks for the reply. I was trying to figure out my susceptibility to the show and I couldn't finger it out. You hit the nail on the head on the biggest skeptic question that needs asking would be "assuming the conclusion". So many conclusions can be drawn but ghost is the sexiest one.
I had a they're/their misstep in my post too lol.

Would you think hard skepticism is a great trait in an unknown situation like that?

There's another component at work, as well. Regardless how convinced a person is that there is no god or no after-life, the reality is that with sentience comes the unshakable belief (not knowledge) that one cannot simply cease to exist. From the moment man gained the ability to see himself as a discrete entity and to contemplate his life and death - as evidenced throughout recorded history - he has attributed the inexplicable to supernatural (or religious) forces. I am agnostic - I recognize that there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, or an after-life. Regardless of this, when I contemplate my death I still feel that somehow I will still exist in some state, and that I will be able to make my presence known. There is no logical basis for this, of course. Intellectually, I recognize that and I recognize that when I die I will leave no residual - but I can't make myself believe that. Its a function of the Id and the Ego.

Given that, it naturally follows that people would find TV shows like that compelling - people want evidence that they won't simply cease to exist, and hope (even subconsciously) that such shows will provide proof of that.

Parenthetically, it can be argued that the above is the sole reason that religion was created by man. I'm not making that argument - hell, for all I know, there is a god or gods, and this is its or their subtle or humorous way of making their presence known to man. There are a number of days that I'm convinced there is a god - not only that, but that god is a woman and I've pissed her off.

Anyway...

I'm sure there is a little bit of this at play. I sometimes have trouble with the afterlife question since I've become an atheist, the whole ceasing to exist thing. It's not about it's hard to believe I cannot, it's more about the "I'm afraid of not" existing thing.

But on the surface, I find its more about fear of dark open voids. I went to a farm cemetery, so no street lights or anything, and I couldn't even get out of the car. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. There's nothing out there I know, but there might be I believe. It's so weird.

 

[Husker_x]

Thanks for the reply. I was trying to figure out my susceptibility to the show and I couldn't finger it out. You hit the nail on the head on the biggest skeptic question that needs asking would be "assuming the conclusion". So many conclusions can be drawn but ghost is the sexiest one.
I had a they're/their misstep in my post too lol.

Would you think hard skepticism is a great trait in an unknown situation like that?

There's another component at work, as well. Regardless how convinced a person is that there is no god or no after-life, the reality is that with sentience comes the unshakable belief (not knowledge) that one cannot simply cease to exist. From the moment man gained the ability to see himself as a discrete entity and to contemplate his life and death - as evidenced throughout recorded history - he has attributed the inexplicable to supernatural (or religious) forces. I am agnostic - I recognize that there is no way to either prove or disprove the existence of a god or gods, or an after-life. Regardless of this, when I contemplate my death I still feel that somehow I will still exist in some state, and that I will be able to make my presence known. There is no logical basis for this, of course. Intellectually, I recognize that and I recognize that when I die I will leave no residual - but I can't make myself believe that. Its a function of the Id and the Ego.

Given that, it naturally follows that people would find TV shows like that compelling - people want evidence that they won't simply cease to exist, and hope (even subconsciously) that such shows will provide proof of that.

Parenthetically, it can be argued that the above is the sole reason that religion was created by man. I'm not making that argument - hell, for all I know, there is a god or gods, and this is its or their subtle or humorous way of making their presence known to man. There are a number of days that I'm convinced there is a god - not only that, but that god is a woman and I've pissed her off.

Anyway...

I'm sure there is a little bit of this at play. I sometimes have trouble with the afterlife question since I've become an atheist, the whole ceasing to exist thing. It's not about it's hard to believe I cannot, it's more about the "I'm afraid of not" existing thing.

But on the surface, I find its more about fear of dark open voids. I went to a farm cemetery, so no street lights or anything, and I couldn't even get out of the car. I just couldn't bring myself to do it. There's nothing out there I know, but there might be I believe. It's so weird.

What what was it Mark Twain said? Something like: 'I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.'

 

[knapplc]

For me the bummer of death is that I won't know what happens. I want to see the next great breakthrough, I want to see cancer cured. I want to see humans on Mars, I want to see an end to the energy crisis. I want to see the first contact we have with alien life. I want to see... everything.

That's what I don't like about death. It's that everything continues without you. Sucks.

 

[kchusker_chris]

That's what I don't like about death. It's that everything continues without you. Sucks.

But it's comforting to pass away knowing everything will still continue without you. Whether it's your kids' lives, your spouse, Husker football - it'll all go on.

 

[HuskersNow]

That's what I don't like about death. It's that everything continues without you. Sucks.

But it's comforting to pass away knowing everything will still continue without you. Whether it's your kids' lives, your spouse, Husker football - it'll all go on.

Well, if you want to be technical, eventually all life on earth will end because the earth will become far too hot, and then far too cold, for life. Even if you object and say that humans can find planets in other solar systems to live on,eventually they will become uninhabitable, too. In due time every single star in the universe will die out leaving a bevy of cold, dead stars in a universe void of light.

 

[knapplc]

Well, if you want to be technical, eventually all life on earth will end because the earth will become far too hot, and then far too cold, for life. Even if you object and say that humans can find planets in other solar systems to live on,eventually they will become uninhabitable, too. In due time every single star in the universe will die out leaving a bevy of cold, dead stars in a universe void of light.

Whether you adhere to the Big Crunch theory or the various forms of the entropy theories, you're right - most any scientifically plausible theory of the universe's fate ends poorly for humans.

 

[Judoka]

One of the things that always bothered me was the clothes/accouterments the ghosts were wearing.

I'm not a big believer in ghosts anymore, but if they are real, I think The Matrix sums it up nicely. Residual Self-Image.

 

[Judoka]

Whether you adhere to the Big Crunch theory or the various forms of the entropy theories, you're right - most any scientifically plausible theory of the universe's fate ends poorly for humans.

Interesting sort-of-related Asimov stories The Last Question and The Last Answer