from Russell2

Hi LindaLou

With respect, what conclusions do I seem to be leaping to?

To the conclusion that natural phenomena which are currently unexplained are supernatural. I have no problem with leaving open the possibility that there may be some ‘supernatural’ things going on in the world but we need to keep in the front of our minds that such a finding would be absolutely without precedent. There are many phenomenon that we don’t understand at the moment but to date not a single phenomenon has ever been shown, by good evidence, to be of supernatural origins. Maybe that will change in the future but if history is any guide it’s at least highly improbable. The more likely outcome of this research will be that we find new natural phenomenon that we did not formerly understand.

Just as in the past lightning was shown to have nothing at all to do with angry god’s we will probably find that what underlies so many potentially supernatural phenomenon today will turn out to have a mundane cause that we simply don’t understand yet.

My experience with ghosts is about as productive as yours; the source of the phenomenon seems to be located within the heads of those describing the phenomenon IMHO at least among all of the ghost believers I have yet come into contact with.

I think it's safe to say that if a phenomenon like ghosts has been reported regularly for thousands of years, something is going on here.

I’m sure there’s something going on the question is is it going on in outside the heads of those reporting such encounters? I’d like to see some evidence for that before I put much time into exploring the idea of ghosts.

That doesn't mean we can be sure we know what ghosts are or what physical rules are involved in their manifestation.

I would suggest that is a massive understatement of the limitations of our knowledge of ghosts.

They could simply be psychic imprints on some kind of invisible medium which sensitive people can "pick up."

Does that statement actually mean anything? What is a ‘psychic imprint’ and what sort of medium do you suspect could be involved that can’t be detected by any instrument we have ever invented?

I would like to see scientific investigations into this area but it's a tricky one because you can't make a ghost appear inside a lab at will.

That’s true, it is difficult but if ghosts exist there must be some method by which they interact with our space time dimensions if they exist outside them or some way in which they hide their presence in it if they cohabit it with us. All of these are areas in which science (physics in particular) could be brought to bear but someone has to find some rational framework on which to base these investigations before they can even start. Do you have any idea how it could work?

I would claim that black holes break the rules as we understand them. No one is able to describe what a singularity is, and all equations break down when one is reached. I don't see many people claiming that black holes are therefore impossible though.

Beyond the event horizon they exceed the abilities of modern physics to explain in any great depth though we have some insights from the likes of Hawking on what goes on behind that mask. Outside the event horizon their behaviour is well modelled and understood, we can and have modelled them, observed and measured them. Ghosts on the other hand have no theoretical framework what so ever to explain them. While with black holes there are well defined limits beyond which we can’t explain their behaviour with ghosts it’s all outside the limits of our models and our understanding. That is a major difference I would suggest.

And heck, string theory -- where's the evidence for that? Why do some people accept string theory as a possibility yet reject something like the possibility of the existence of ghosts?

String ‘theory’ is a hypothesis, it has not been proven though people are working on it. People accept it as possible because it does accurately describe observable phenomenon though at this stage it doesn’t do so in enough detail to be tested verses the currently accepted theories. Ghost theory does not make any predictions that I have ever heard of and it certainly doesn’t explain the observations any better than many alternative theories based in human psychology. And psychology has the distinct advantage (ala Sir William) that we know people exist, that they are subject to illusions and delusions, that they lie and invent stories and that they like to believe in scary things that go bump in the night regardless of whether there’s any truth to them at all.

Maybe ghosts would help us understand more about how the world works. Maybe our picture isn't complete.

That’s true but science has often wasted a great deal of effort chasing crackpot ideas that have no basis in reality what so ever. How can we be sure that ghosts are not such an idea without first finding some evidence?

I’ve read a little of Sheldrake’s work and I suspect that there is a much simpler reason why he finds so much opposition to his work among main stream scientists. I don’t believe in the mega conspiracy theories that so many suggest are behind the opposition to such work, I don’t even buy the bias against supernatural angle, I think the real reason is far simpler, I suspect that the majority of scientists disagree with him because the evidence does not support his conclusions. Good scientists are very picky about such things.

What I'm talking about, though, is the simple acceptance of reported phenomena as genuine and not all hallucinations or mistakes. If you wanted to claim that a ghost was the spirit of a dead person, then that is a belief.

Let’s take NDE’s as an example for a moment and let me explain my position. I believe that people who claim to have experienced NDE’s really had the experiences they claim in at least many cases. I believe that the evidence clearly shows that the origins of these experiences is internal to the brain of the experiencer. They are not lying, they are not attempting to deceive us, they genuinely had an experience just not the one they may believe they have had.

Likewise with ghosts in many cases at least. Those people really believe what they tell you but then so do those who report orbs etc yet you know that these are, at least sometimes, of mundane origins. I have yet to see any good evidence that any ghost experience is of supernatural origin though the exact source of many is difficult to tie down.

The point of the flat earth example was simple, commonly held beliefs are not necessary based in truth. You are correct that people were reasonable to conclude, from the evidence they had to hand, that the earth was flat, but they were still wrong.

Many people have concluded that ghosts are real over a very long time, today we have some powerful scientific tools available to add evidence to these ideas. Many such tools have been employed yet no evidence is forthcoming. Like the gods of the gaps ghosts now inhabit less and less accessible realms as they attempt to hide from scientific scrutiny as more and more tests show that there is no evidence for them.

By the way, what interests me about NDEs is that some people who have had them have accurately described what people in the room were doing, and others have also been able to describe what people in other rooms were doing. These claims were confirmed by the people present, who also confirmed that the person experiencing the NDE was unconscious with their eyes shut. Even if they were "peeking," they would not have been able to describe events in adjoining rooms. The only way you can "get around" this interesting phenomenon is to dismiss it as delusion or lies in 100% of cases. I do not believe that is logical.

It is not illogical to suggest that a rarely reported phenomenon that would have to break many well established laws of physics if it were found to be real probably does not exist and those who claim otherwise are probably deluded or worse. I’ve read of a number of studies in which secret objects were hidden in emergency rooms out of sight of the people in the room but in plain sight of any disembodied spirits taking up the typically described top down viewing position. No one has ever correctly identified one of those objects. I’ve seen many claimed NDE viewings debunked by accurately looking at the circumstances and what was claimed. I’ve never seen any good evidence for people remote viewing the goings on in another room while they were apparently experiencing an NDE so I’ll have to leave that one till someone can show me the evidence. Do you have any good evidence for any of these claimed phenomenon?

All the best Linda

Russell