How ghosts can exist - scientific overview

[aimlesswalk]

No matter how hard the sceptics try they'll never be able to disprove ghosts because it's part of a universe of events which will never reveal itself wholly to anyone the barest outline of which is only perceptible to us.

Edited October 29, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[Leonardo]

Well if it's true what they say about energy not being able to be destroyed, and if humans do possess a measurable energy field, then ghosts can exist.

That doesn't necessarily follow. While energy does not simply 'disappear', it can be transformed or dissipated. If we consider human life as 'energy', then upon death that energy is transformed (through the process of decay) and dissipated. If we make an assumption of a 'soul' and that this is a cohesive energetic form, we might also consider this energy simply dissipates on death - rather than surviving the death of body as a ghost or spirit.

[Frank Merton]

No matter how hard the sceptics try they'll never be able to disprove ghosts because it's part of a universe of events which will never reveal itself wholly to anyone the barest outline of which is only perceptible to us.

You can't prove anything you might imagine doesn't exist, so that is a pointless thing to say. Skepticism isn't denial, it's "I will withhold belief of odd things unless you show me."

[aimlesswalk]

You can't prove anything you might imagine doesn't exist, so that is a pointless thing to say. Skepticism isn't denial, it's "I will withhold belief of odd things unless you show me."

That's a good way to approach things and what I usually do but it wasn't always so.

Edited October 29, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[Emma_Acid]

No matter how hard the sceptics try they'll never be able to disprove ghosts because it's part of a universe of events which will never reveal itself wholly to anyone the barest outline of which is only perceptible to us.

Firstly, skepticism is not about disproving things - its about not basing your worldview on pointless conjecture or wishful thinking.

Secondly, it isn't down to the skeptics to disprove ghosts, but to the believers to prove that they exist - which so far has never happened.

Thirdly, your point is what is known as "special pleading". Essentially saying that what you believe is outside the realms of measurement, and therefore cannot be understood by science - which is odd, given that believers go out of their way to try and prove these things scientifically. Special pleading is resorted to when this doesn't work.

[aimlesswalk]

Firstly, skepticism is not about disproving things - its about not basing your worldview on pointless conjecture or wishful thinking.

Secondly, it isn't down to the skeptics to disprove ghosts, but to the believers to prove that they exist - which so far has never happened.

Well that's very convenient for the sceptics and some of science is just conjecture (pointless or otherwise).

Thirdly, your point is what is known as "special pleading". Essentially saying that what you believe is outside the realms of measurement, and therefore cannot be understood by science - which is odd, given that believers go out of their way to try and prove these things scientifically. Special pleading is resorted to when this doesn't work.

I think science does it's own fair share of "special pleading" for example that humans evolved from apes!

[Rlyeh]

I think science does it's own fair share of "special pleading" for example that humans evolved from apes!

Evidence is a difficult concept for some to grasp..

[_Only]

Emotion can't power anything. Otherwise I'd be able to drive to work fueled on anger alone.

It fuels thoughts and memories. You can drive to work every time you shut your eyes if you witnessed something on the way that hit you deeply psychologically. This is fueled by memory, fueled by emotion. I hope this example shows you how your interpretation of the word 'power' as it relates to this idea is limiting itself unfairly.

For something like the afterlife, ghosts, etc to exist, there would need to be a reason in nature for these things to evolve. Thats how it works. And I don't want any of this "its supernatural" guff. Thats just special pleading.

Oh, so there has to be an evolutionary reason for ghosts?

Why?

My point about music/art was that there are some things we all do, and that are, that we don't understand a reason for. I'm not looking to do any pleading, considering I don't even know, or have any necessity to believe, that ghosts exist.

But to give rules/laws to something that may or may not even exist, and if so, isn't at all understood is silly. To understand even a little about what something is might give you clearance to make it adhere to rules about other things. If not, I guess I say that an abstract idea like ghosts have to follow the suit and tie rule. If they don't wear one, they can't exist.

I've never heard of ghost cavemen.

Well, there's no excuse for that, this being the information age. Check out your favorite search engine, which will have some accounts you may or may not want to see for arguments' sake.

And there is a very real possibility that 'ghosts' exist in some form of the mind (memory/emotion/acid trip/bad cheese) of the viewer. The viewer would very well be likely to see the ghosts of their dead cat, as opposed to something they've never witnessed before in their life, like dinosaurs.

At the end of the day, most sightings are of Victorian people. They just are. And why is this? Because most ghost stories originate from Victorian times, when the public became obsessed with the supernatural.

No, many ghost stories of Victorian people exist in historic places around the time, which are known as being 'haunted' places. These are the places we see on ghost shows, which is why it makes it seem like there is an overflow of 'Victorian ghosts'. People often report seeing blobs and forms, and call them Victorian. Which wouldn't be all that unfair, considering the setting they are in, if they even exist.

I don't see the point in "what ifs", especially in a thread about the scientific basis for ghosts.

Yes, what is the point of 'what if' in science? Where could that possibly fit into the scientific method? We should just know things.. and then test them, right? lol

To be more serious, 'what if' can invite you to possibly understand something better when attempting to understand it in a new way. Scientists do this all of the time, whether you think it's necessary or not, and it is all we have to put here, unless you're looking to just find scientific evidence that doesn't exist, or to see people not be able to provide it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by _Only

[Emma_Acid]

Well that's very convenient for the sceptics and some of science is just conjecture (pointless or otherwise).

I think science does it's own fair share of "special pleading" for example that humans evolved from apes!

Who is this sort of post aimed at?

Do you realise that to 80% of the people on this site, all that post has done is shown how utterly ignorant you are of science? That is literally all you've proven.

[Emma_Acid]

By the way - don't come back with a "science is wrong, and I'm glad I don't get it" type of post. Being ignorant of the way the universe actually works is not a good thing.

[DeWitz]

Well that's very convenient for the sceptics and some of science is just conjecture (pointless or otherwise).

I think science does it's own fair share of "special pleading" for example that humans evolved from apes!

The branch of science known as evolutionary biology and its system of taxonomy does not claim "that humans evolved from apes."

Human beings and apes, as primates, share a common evolutionary ancestor, just as my house cat shares a common ancestor with the tiger. "Common ancestor" does not indicate a point on a "line" of evolution. It more resembles a tree trunk or large branch which, itself, spreads out in distinct directions from the common source.

To use the term "special pleading" for the arduous, decades long work of scientists such as Charles Darwin, James Watson and Francis Crick, Stephen Jay Gould and others doesn't stand a ghost of a chance of credibility. It's akin to saying George Washington was a whiner or Winston Churchill was a coward.

[Emma_Acid]

It fuels thoughts and memories. You can drive to work every time you shut your eyes if you witnessed something on the way that hit you deeply psychologically. This is fueled by memory, fueled by emotion. I hope this example shows you how your interpretation of the word 'power' as it relates to this idea is limiting itself unfairly.

You're completely misunderstanding what I'm saying.

Ghosts have to be powered by something, in the same way living things are. If they're not, then they're perpetual energy machines, which by definition don't exist.

So, on a scientific level - what is powering ghosts?

Oh, so there has to be an evolutionary reason for ghosts?

Why?

We're talking about the scientific basis of ghosts. All life on earth - and by extension throughout the universe - is based on evolutionary factors. For there to be such thing as a "spirit", and for it to exist on after the body has died, there has to be a evolutionary benefit for it - in the same way that there is an evolutionary benefit for humans to have two eyes or pubic hair.

My point about music/art was that there are some things we all do, and that are, that we don't understand a reason for. I'm not looking to do any pleading, considering I don't even know, or have any necessity to believe, that ghosts exist.

So there are things that humans do that we don't do for a reason. That doesn't then mean that things that don't make any sense can exist. This is a logical fallacy called a non-sequitur.

But to give rules/laws to something that may or may not even exist, and if so, isn't at all understood is silly. To understand even a little about what something is might give you clearance to make it adhere to rules about other things. If not, I guess I say that an abstract idea like ghosts have to follow the suit and tie rule. If they don't wear one, they can't exist.

I'm not "giving out rules" - I'm pointing out logical fallacies in the argument. That is; the arguments presented in favour of the scientific basis of ghosts don't stand up to even basic logical scrutiny, let alone scientific testing.

Well, there's no excuse for that, this being the information age. Check out your favorite search engine, which will have some accounts you may or may not want to see for arguments' sake.

And there is a very real possibility that 'ghosts' exist in some form of the mind (memory/emotion/acid trip/bad cheese) of the viewer. The viewer would very well be likely to see the ghosts of their dead cat, as opposed to something they've never witnessed before in their life, like dinosaurs.

Your first statement is a moot point - the Victorians were obsessed with the supernatural, and subsequently the traditionally the majority of "sightings" are of ghosts in Victorian dress. The reason why there are no reports of caveman or dinosaur ghost sightings, is because the idea of Victorian ghosts is well ingrained in our psyches.

Your last point is also moot - the people who report seeing a gentleman in Victorian attire have never seen a live Victorian person, any more than they've seen a live dinosaur.

Yes, what is the point of 'what if' in science? Where could that possibly fit into the scientific method? We should just know things.. and then test them, right? lol

If the "what if" is as wildly baseless as all ghost sightings and hypotheses are, then the "what ifs" are pointless.

To be more serious, 'what if' can invite you to possibly understand something better when attempting to understand it in a new way. Scientists do this all of the time, whether you think it's necessary or not, and it is all we have to put here, unless you're looking to just find scientific evidence that doesn't exist, or to see people not be able to provide it.

I am trying to understand it in a new way. This thread is about the scientific basis for ghosts - and yet there has not been one example of anyone giving a scientific explanation.

"What are they powered by?"

"Emotions"

...is not scientific.

[aimlesswalk]

By the way - don't come back with a "science is wrong, and I'm glad I don't get it" type of post. Being ignorant of the way the universe actually works is not a good thing.

Science can describe how things happen but not why.

Edited October 29, 2013 by aimlesswalk

[Emma_Acid]

Science can describe how things happen but not why.

Worst come back of the month award right there - and a very public display of just how little you understand science.

[+DieChecker]

I would think those who believe in Heaven and Hell would have a similar problem. The ghosts are perceived as "stuck" hereabouts for some reason (unfinished business), but sheesh, surely we all have unfinished business when we die. In other words, the idea of ghosts just doesn't fit with other religious ideas, and of course if one is an atheist, then I presume that means no ghosts (rather frightening scenario otherwise).

Being a practicing Christian, I can state that most Christians do not actually believe in ghosts, they believe in demons. Christians with ghosts is like science with a bigfoot in a freezer... It's like, "Whoa! Is that what I think it is?", when you know good and well that they don't exist. I do guess that there are a lot of "bad" Christians also, who do drugs, do amoral sexual behaviors, who hate many things, and hate many people, so probably those sad souls could very well believe in ghosts.

[francis da don]

I think this is a platform on which physicists can use to develop an adjustable frequency machine that with the right 5 key settings of light,sound etc., we will be able to then decipher the presence of ghosts..!

[JesseCuster]

I think science does it's own fair share of "special pleading" for example that humans evolved from apes!

How is the idea that humans evolved from apes "special pleading"? Do you know what the "special pleading" fallacy is?

Note: Technically speaking, humans didn't evolve from apes. We are apes.

Anyway, please explain how the idea that humans evolved from apes is an example of special pleading. That makes no sense to me, but I'm willing to hear your argument.

[Mikko-kun]

That we're only physical machines is a view, an opinion, whether it's true or not. You can find meanings for dance and art even from the biomachine-worldview, like reproduction indoctrination, exercise (and that is useful for a plethora of things), maintaining your body as light exercise does that, and lifting your spirits so you dont feel so weary. And emotions in biomechanical worldview can be states which affect our body. Stress affects our body, but it's not the only emotions that does so. Rage and intense emotions can make you perform better at gym and other heavy activities and good feeling releases endorphines which allow your body to relax better blabla so on. Emotions shouldn't be meaningless for a biomechanical worldview, even if you feel you need to restrict yourself to such a view.

Instead of using the word scientific it's better to talk about the issue itself and why it's a problem, because scientific is becoming the new Hitler-card. To be scientific is to explore the possibilities. Scientific is not restrictive, by the nature of the word, by it's true meaning. Clinical, that's the word you should use.

The scientific basis is that if a phenomena is observed, you find out about it. Whether you can reproduce it at certain conditions or not. Humans have emotional sense. I know many sceptics and denialists especially choose not to believe this but it's true, like the sense of when you're being watched. All animals should have it, I know my rats do have it, I know I have it, people who seem to be level-headed swear they have it, I've seen a study where they came to conclusion people have it.

This leads me to think ghosts might not show themselves to those who dont go to certain emotional states, like keeping parts of their emotional senses shut. Or something like that. If people who are unaware of a house's history, go there and meet ghosts, and this happens over and over again, it becomes harder to claim it must with 100% certainty be hallucinations. Or well, it's easy if you just ignore the ghost option. Everything is easy to think of when you use occam's razor at your own discretion.

Edited November 2, 2013 by Mikko-kun

[Frank Merton]

"Science" should not be confused with "mechanistic," which is what I think I'm hearing. Science has to do with approach and training and attitudes; mechanical explanations are a way of interpreting things that may or may not be scientific.

[sinewave]

An amazing elaborative explanation on the existance of ghosts through a scientific perspective, a MUST READ!

Here is the link http://howscience.wordpress.com/

How is this a scientific overview much less amazing? First of all, in addition to poor grammar and punctuation, the author clearly does not know how to spell supernatural. OK simple mistakes. Let's move on. In the first paragraph the author uses the term "proven fact" to describe established science. No responsible person of science would speak that way much less write it down. From the start, it is apparent this person knows little of the scientific method. In the next line the author states as fact that "ghosts are souls living in a parallel existence". This is presented without elaboration or supporting evidence. I guess we are just supposed to accept that and move on.

The document concludes with what amounts to a third grade analysis of the five basic senses stating that God designed them to have certain limitations. In this section the author also asserts that the EM spectrum is infinite, it definitely is not. Then the author goes on to assert that ghosts exist in the EM spectrum outside of our visual capabilities that is why we cannot see them. The other four traditional senses are similarly analyzed and their limitations are noted.

The conclusion we are to draw from this document is our senses are limited by design and that ghosts exist outside of those limits and that is why we cannot perceive them with our five basic senses. As it stands, this is document is an argument for the existence of ghosts but also an argument against being able to see, hear feel, smell, or taste (jeez) ghosts. Interesting paradox. What we really have here are statements of belief along side bad and accepted science, not a scientific paper.

Edited November 2, 2013 by sinewave

[Mikko-kun]

But it was pretty clear about that we can't perceive everything with our more physical, mundane senses. Shouldn't it be a no-brainer that those senses of ours dont bring everything there is to our consciousness?

[francis da don]

How is this a scientific overview much less amazing? First of all, in addition to poor grammar and punctuation, the author clearly does not know how to spell supernatural. OK simple mistakes. Let's move on. In the first paragraph the author uses the term "proven fact" to describe established science. No responsible person of science would speak that way much less write it down. From the start, it is apparent this person knows little of the scientific method. In the next line the author states as fact that "ghosts are souls living in a parallel existence". This is presented without elaboration or supporting evidence. I guess we are just supposed to accept that and move on.

The document concludes with what amounts to a third grade analysis of the five basic senses stating that God designed them to have certain limitations. In this section the author also asserts that the EM spectrum is infinite, it definitely is not. Then the author goes on to assert that ghosts exist in the EM spectrum outside of our visual capabilities that is why we cannot see them. The other four traditional senses are similarly analyzed and their limitations are noted.

The conclusion we are to draw from this document is our senses are limited by design and that ghosts exist outside of those limits and that is why we cannot perceive them with our five basic senses. As it stands, this is document is an argument for the existence of ghosts but also an argument against being able to see, hear feel, smell, or taste (jeez) ghosts. Interesting paradox. What we really have here are statements of belief along side bad and accepted science, not a scientific paper.

Interesting. what are you.., a 3rd grade science teacher?

[sinewave]

Interesting. what are you.., a 3rd grade science teacher?

So that's your best response? Seriously? You posted this as an amazing science based document. Surely you can defend it better than that.

[White Crane Feather]

Worst come back of the month award right there - and a very public display of just how little you understand science.

Hmmmmm .... actually science can only explain to a degree of why which ultimately means It cannot explain why at all. You can pose any question and there are quit a number if whys in the components until the great mystery is reached then "why" can no longer be answered by science.

[sinewave]

Hmmmmm .... actually science can only explain to a degree of why which ultimately means It cannot explain why at all. You can pose any question and there are quit a number if whys in the components until the great mystery is reached then "why" can no longer be answered by science.

Science has quite successfully explained a great many things and made many others possible. Belief however, has explained nothing.