Yep! The human mind desperately wants an explanation for things, so it convinces itself of fantasy when it doesn't know what else to do.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Have You Ever Seen A Ghost?
- Thread starter ZenG
- Start date
I don't know about the ghost bit but I'm convinced the hand is travelling through time; it keeps disappearing instantaneously. 
Back in 1982 or 1983 (I don't remember which), I was sitting on my bed reading, with the dog lying down at my feet. The dog suddenly started to growl and look out the open door into the hallway. I put the book down and looked out, but didn't see anything. Then, I saw what for all intents and purposes was a "transparent person" walk past my door down the hallway. The image was about 6' tall, male, with long hair and a long beard, kind of hunched, with lots of wispy smoky stuff around him. I couldn't make out any clothing, just wispy stuff. I could "see through" him, as though he weren't solid. He didn't look at me or acknowledge me in any way, just walked on by. The dog got up and went out into the hallway, continuing to growl, with all his hair standing on end. I got up and followed the dog, but didn't see anything, so I went down the hall into the kitchen and there was no one there. The sliding door to the backyard was still locked, so I know a person didn't unlock it and go outside. I felt a little odd, but the dog was quite upset for a few minutes and I had to "talk him down" to get him to mellow out. No one else was home, just me and the dog.
I've thought about this experience a lot, and here are some possible explanations:
The dog was upset about something (perhaps a noise, or a scent, or a dust mote), and in the absence of anything tangible, my brain filled in the gaps and created the "apparition."
Perhaps some sunlight got reflected off a car window out on the street, and was beamed into the house through the living room window, I saw the image on the wall, and concurrent with the dog getting upset about something, and again my brain filled in the gaps.
I hallucinated the whole thing, including the dog being upset. Likely? No, but possible nonetheless.
Or, it was something else which I can't rationally explain, given what I know about how things work. All three of the explanations I listed above rely on my having some kind of sensory lapse or sensory embellishment to be plausible. But what if I really did perceive accurately what happened that day? That's the notion that sticks for me, and is like the chink in the wall where the wind gets in.
I put the existence of ghosts in the same category as UFO's or visiting aliens, or el chupacabra, or sasquatch. I don't believe in them, because I have no evidence to support that belief. But -- I'm also not arrogant enough to state that definitively, they do not exist. I do not, for an instant, believe that we have it "all figured out." After all, at one time, the existence of microbes was considered preposterous, and people who advocated for their existence were ridiculed and discredited. If someone claims to have seen a ghost, I don't take their account at face value, but I also don't try and explain away what they claim either. I'm ok with there being some uncertainty and/or mystery in life, and I also think we've only even seen the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to scientific understanding of the world around us.
I work with cancer patients and cancer survivors in my day job, and fairly often, I encounter people who wholeheartedly believe that it was their religious faith and devotion/prayers that put them into remission. I don't see it that way, and I could try and explain that away for them, but that would be cheap and mean -- kind of like telling kids there's no Santa Claus. If holding onto that belief helps them in some way, perhaps it should just be left alone.
So when someone recounts their "ghost sighting" experience, I remain "open-mindedly skeptical." Maybe they saw a ghost, maybe they didn't, and it's not for me to judge. And maybe, just like with my cancer patients, holding that belief does something for them that I can't explain and will never fully understand.
I've thought about this experience a lot, and here are some possible explanations:
The dog was upset about something (perhaps a noise, or a scent, or a dust mote), and in the absence of anything tangible, my brain filled in the gaps and created the "apparition."
Perhaps some sunlight got reflected off a car window out on the street, and was beamed into the house through the living room window, I saw the image on the wall, and concurrent with the dog getting upset about something, and again my brain filled in the gaps.
I hallucinated the whole thing, including the dog being upset. Likely? No, but possible nonetheless.
Or, it was something else which I can't rationally explain, given what I know about how things work. All three of the explanations I listed above rely on my having some kind of sensory lapse or sensory embellishment to be plausible. But what if I really did perceive accurately what happened that day? That's the notion that sticks for me, and is like the chink in the wall where the wind gets in.
I put the existence of ghosts in the same category as UFO's or visiting aliens, or el chupacabra, or sasquatch. I don't believe in them, because I have no evidence to support that belief. But -- I'm also not arrogant enough to state that definitively, they do not exist. I do not, for an instant, believe that we have it "all figured out." After all, at one time, the existence of microbes was considered preposterous, and people who advocated for their existence were ridiculed and discredited. If someone claims to have seen a ghost, I don't take their account at face value, but I also don't try and explain away what they claim either. I'm ok with there being some uncertainty and/or mystery in life, and I also think we've only even seen the very tip of the iceberg when it comes to scientific understanding of the world around us.
I work with cancer patients and cancer survivors in my day job, and fairly often, I encounter people who wholeheartedly believe that it was their religious faith and devotion/prayers that put them into remission. I don't see it that way, and I could try and explain that away for them, but that would be cheap and mean -- kind of like telling kids there's no Santa Claus. If holding onto that belief helps them in some way, perhaps it should just be left alone.
So when someone recounts their "ghost sighting" experience, I remain "open-mindedly skeptical." Maybe they saw a ghost, maybe they didn't, and it's not for me to judge. And maybe, just like with my cancer patients, holding that belief does something for them that I can't explain and will never fully understand.
I find this to be true of many of my hallucenations, as well. For example the six foot tall mermaid who feeds me shrimp whenever I take I-94 W towards Otterton. She is the source of most of my wisdom, and none of my sceptics have seen her, which is why I can't claim her as a dependant on my tax returns. Well, my FEDERAL tax returns, anyway...
Thanks for the interesting post.
I have a much easier time understanding the part about cancer patients as I've no doubt about the power of the mind to heal or harm the body (though I don't believe the dichotomy is a good way to describe the connection of both).
Sounds about right! Except not necessarily faked, in the last example. It could just be something else.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Seeing neither proof nor evidence, I think I'll stick with non-belief. I mean this in the most loving way possible, but your analogy is pretty danged lame.
Ha! I am not one of the easily offended. Save you love for when you mean it.
I will say this. You must be an expert on every single thing you believe in. Because otherwise you are taking other people's word for it selectively. Some "experts" you believe and some you don't.
One more thing...... what do you do when there is conflicting evidence? Just pick the one that fits your personal narrative the best?
Part of being intelligent is recognizing where you don't know things and ceding to those who are qualified to say things about it. Of course that takes a bit of thought and consideration to sort out the conflicting opinions, and sometimes that might require you to get over yourself and your uninformed opinions.Ha! I am not one of the easily offended. Save you love for when you mean it.
I will say this. You must be an expert on every single thing you believe in. Because otherwise you are taking other people's word for it selectively. Some "experts" you believe and some you don't.
One more thing...... what do you do when there is conflicting evidence? Just pick the one that fits your personal narrative the best?
It's not a crazy idea at all, but lots of people struggle with it. Not all opinions are equal, and opinions don't belong in many things. There is so much to learn that people already know and have figured out, the Internet makes that easy.
Of course postmodernists will reject such a notion and just freewheel their own thoughts.
OK, fair enough. But there is a conflict here you must admit.
"I only believe in things that are supported by mounds of hard evidence."
However, you can't be an expert on everything. So how do you pick and choose which side to believe when you don't even uderstand the data that is used as evidence? There are very few things that are "settled science". I would argue there are virtually none. And if the subject matter is one that you haven't studied, I believe you can't really have strong feelings about it either way if you "only believe in things supported by hard evidence". If you do have strong feelings about something you know virtually nothing about then you too, even as an "intellectual", have chosen the opinions that best fit your own value system. You will CHOOSE to believe the version that best fits the narrative of what you already wanted to be true going in.
Nah. There is lots of "settled science" (although that can and will change with new evidence, which is what makes science so powerful). Things we deal with on a regular basis are generally very well understood. I personally won't take a position on anything until I know I know what I'm talking about. Up to that point I will simply say "I don't know." There's nothing wrong with not knowing something; that's where science and learning happen: in the unknown. There is, however, much wrong with insisting you know something which is wrong or for which you do not have evidence.
Science is the best tool we have for understanding reality. Scientific uncertainty doesn't mean we can never know anything, contrarily it gives us a reasonable understanding of how well we can know something. For a great deal of things the uncertainty is very small. Theoretically it's possible for all the atoms that make up your body to spontaneously and simultaneously teleport to some random place in the universe, but based on observation we know that's highly unlikely.
I didn't say anything about conflicting evidence. I said "no" evidence. As a scientist, anecdotes don't mean anything in terms of evidence. As an expert, eyewitness testimony is among the weakest of all evidence. In light of the fact that there has never been any evidence for the existence of ghosts, I'll continue to be a skeptic. Unless, of course, you consider a bunch of knuckleheads running around at night in abandoned mental hospitals with video cameras "evidence."Ha! I am not one of the easily offended. Save you love for when you mean it.
I will say this. You must be an expert on every single thing you believe in. Because otherwise you are taking other people's word for it selectively. Some "experts" you believe and some you don't.
One more thing...... what do you do when there is conflicting evidence? Just pick the one that fits your personal narrative the best?
Yup, and all the evidence I need to dismiss all these paranormal and supernatural claims is the fact that there is still an unclaimed 1,000,000$ prize up for grabs for anyone who can prove any of it is real. If that isn't incentive, I don't know what is.
