[Closed] Have you seen a Ghost?

On a similar note to ghosts.

I saw one of the X-Men on a children's funfair ride.

Storm in a teacup.

😀 silly boy

Problem is you have assumed we survive death, there is another world and some of us can cross it. All of those are pretty big leaps.

The "Good News" 😉 is that we do, there is and access has been granted to all, not to some. It all becomes a personal choice to make.

I doubt the existence of ghosts but fail to explain a figure that walked right in front of me in my house a few weeks ago (in broad daylight) and a ouija board experience 30 years ago. But I have always felt that this is not something to be messed around with.

Science <--- ❓ ---> God (no one creator God but yes there are ghosts)
(Carbon)<--- ❓ ---> (eternal soul)
(annihilationism) <--- ❓ ---> (eternalism)

Both are extreme views or annihilatic views so the answer is somewhere in between in the ❓ .

😆

The "Good News" is that we do, there is and access has been granted to all, not to some. It all becomes a personal choice to make.

Its not for me to tell you - its for you to decide. Once you overcome that, the rest is easy.

[But for personal reasons] I will refrain from a new thread on this - at least until after Wednesday.

My parents are very religious and don't believe in sex before marriage so my sisters at the time boyfriend (now fiancé) was sleeping in her bed (she was in with my other sister) when he felt someone dragging him out of the double bed he claims to have been sleeping in the middle of. He ended up on the floor, quite shook up.
There is a plaque in the garden of the house my parents rent as a remembrance type dealy to Granny Pat, the old lady who lived in that room for a few years when ill health took hold and then died in that room too.
Possibly he just rolled out of bed but why would he insist he was dragged out? I reckon he fell out of bed but it still begs the question why would he make something like that up. Nothing like that ever happened to my sister when she was in there for 4 years.
*Cue "Eerie Indiana" music*

Drac - Moderator

Calm down dear it's just a ghost story.

Why do you say this? Cougar said I was being hostile. I said I was trying not to be, and then explained why I had felt somewhat miffed. Quite reasonable IMO.

As for the mouse theory. Sorry but it isn't even remotely plausible. Mice smell. They have little scratchy claws for a start, the the sensation I felt was certainly not scratchy. If it had run onto my arm it would have realised I was a potential preditor and it would have been frightened, it might have squeaked in fright, it would certainly have stopped in it's tracks and turned around (at which point it's little claws would have scratched me). It would have made a sound. Where did it go? And I stand by my contention that Scraps would have gone crazy, he's a Jack Russell. No way was it a mouse or any other animal.

Hey, I got straight up and put the light on to look for an answer. I looked for something which might have fallen, blown, swayed or caused a draft across my skin. Nothing. Nah, it was Sam, his soul was leaving. The following day his body was cremated and that was an end in the physical and spiritual worlds. Time to grieve, be sad, then remember the good times and soon to move on and take on another rescue - Missy the Crazy-in-Head Dobermann.

What Tazzymtb said about science.

And what teamhurtmore said about an experience with a ouija board. Me too, 43 years ago, with two contemporaries. It scared the three of us sh1tless. I haven't messed around with it since. Really, truly, frightening.

Your blind adherence to "science says so, so it must be true" is just as flawed...

I'm not sure whether you can't read, just can't understand what you read, or deliberately chose not to.

I don't place blind faith in science. Scientific fact is ever changing, ever evolving, and often proven wrong. I merely pointed out that your statement

We both know however that "science" is our best guess based on available data, which is again based upon observation, perception and cognitive reasoning so it is just as fallible as any other hypothesis.

Is absolute bollox for the reasons I stated. It is not 'just as fallible'. Fallible, yes. But not 'just as fallible'.

Is absolute bollox for the reasons I stated

nice to see you are working hard on reasoned arguments and backing it up with data.

As i said "just as fallible" and have given clear examples where peer review is not only under question as a failing process, but where established journals and peer review have clearly and to the detriment of society wilfully ignored data as it didn't fit with the established dogma at the cost on billions of pounds being wasted when it could have been used to support more robust and beneficial science. This to me is just as fallible as believing in magical sky pixies or ghosts.

if however you can explain to me where the variance in fallibility occurs and at what predetermined level of misjudgement/error/can't be arsed to look etc.. we should be aiming before as a goal that would be rather jolly and spiffing.

Of course there are ghosts but there are no creator God nor all knowing science. 🙄

Why do you say this? Cougar said I was being hostile. I said I was trying not to be, and then explained why I had felt somewhat miffed. Quite reasonable IMO.

It's a joke I wasn't being serious.

Sorry but it isn't even remotely plausible. Mice smell.

Well I'm convinced it was your ghost dog how could I've thought it could possibly been anything else at all.

nice to see you are working hard on reasoned arguments and backing it up with data

His argument is perfectly reasonable it is fallable just not as fallible

You may possibly be generalising your experience to all areas of science. It was not like that when i was [ nearly ] one. It was very open to anyone with data

This to me is just as fallible as believing in magical sky pixies or ghosts.

as for what we are aiming for

“The aim of science is not to open the door to infinite wisdom, but to set a limit to infinite error.”
? Bertolt Brecht, Life of Galileo

One day scientists may find a way of measuring these phenomenon, that would be great, really exciting.

I find things that have been explained are still as wonder-ful, amazing, awe-some, as before. Like the wonder of reproduction, we understand it, but it's still amazing, a miracle.

I'm still trying to work out how your mouse (or bat) moved the free-standing mirror and the tumble dryer. 😆

I once saw a highwayman on a 29'er

Was he dandy?

beaker2135 - Member

None believer here. In my experience it is the living you have to watch out for, the dead have never hurt anybody

[img] [/img]
😀

then you are wrong. A belief that god made the world because it is in a book is just as fallible as the scientific explanations of how we got here....be have yerself fella.

ahhhh dear old junky... dogmas favourite friend. You see I would never be arrogant enough to assume my way was right. I'm (as explained an earlier post) just postulating on the perception that science is right without questioning it when it is a new and total minority view with regards to the population of the world and history and spirit and soul and art and love. There is no scientific need for art or music or love, yet we crave it maybe, just maybe, we are more than just science.

and i still love you even when you are mr grumpy pants

I felt a bit cross because people say it's a stretch for me to suggest some kind of unusual energy, but quite believable to suggest a mouse? Scrappy would have gone crazy if there was a mouse in the room.

Aside from the fact that mice actually demonstrably exist; it seems odd to be cross at me that I didn't take into consideration during my suggestions (which you asked for) a dog in the room that you'd never mentioned. Or at least, if you had, I'd missed that.

There are more unanswered questions in the mouse/bat scenario yet people cling to this. Fear perhaps? Fear that there IS something we don't know about - and worse - that we can't control?

In the religious debates here I'm often on the back foot to an extent in that my knowledge is basic; to wit, I welcome intelligent discussion as it furthers my understanding. Conversely, when it comes to random supernatural stuff I've done a lot more legwork to look into it so I'm on much more comfortable ground.

--

Mice smell. They have little scratchy claws for a start, the the sensation I felt was certainly not scratchy.

Mice smell when they're dead, but not noticeably so when they're alive IME. Also, they might well have 'little scratchy claws' but when one ran over me in the middle of the night a few years ago it didn't feel scratchy at all, felt like tiny little kitty paws.

There is no scientific need for art or music or love, yet we crave it maybe, just maybe, we are more than just science.

There has to be a 'scientific need for art, music, and love'. It has obviously provided an evolutionary advantage as it is prevalent in all human societies.

Whether it provides greater social cohesion, or simply a greater determination to live, it clearly has a scientific need/advantage.

Tazzy > you seem to be confusing process with implementation.

The scientific process is solid. The fact that we lack the resources / inclination to always properly apply it does not undermine that. Plenty of companies have vested interests, which doesn't help. (I really should read Goldacre's Bad Pharma at some point)

There has to be a 'scientific need for art, music, and love'. It has obviously provided an evolutionary advantage as it is prevalent in all human socities.

if it provided evolutionary advantage then it wouldn't be present in all society. Only those that are dominant as the society without it would have been out competed.

Considering most early art was linked to religion that surely means that "god" created it as god is everywhere where as "science" is a new construct of man?

if it provided evolutionary advantage then it wouldn't be present in all society. Only those that are dominant as the society without it would have been out competed.

Sorry you're quite right - I should have stated "all existing and all known societies"

Those societies which failed to embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace.

The scientific process is solid

well solid-ish. At the end of the day it is still based on human observation which is based upon perception, which based differing human physiology and upon context and development of that persons cognitive and perceptual buffers, which is totally individual.

the best we can say is that good science is broadly consensual.

good science will always question and review and re-assesses what we tend to get is non scientists spouting sound bites and putting more certainty on outcomes and more faith in the process than is actually wise.

Maybe the society without it has already been outcompeted and died out long ago. It is merely present in all current/recent human societies not necessarily all societies ever.
.
(EDIT) what ernie just said

Those societies which failed embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace.

no they didn't there are fine examples of neanderthal art, even apes paint for pleasure in captivity. Is that a scientific need to suddenly communicate or evolve?

anyway as i said early on, I'm as thick as fk, so thanks for taking the time to read and hopefully help me work through my very basic understanding of things.

"Those societies which failed embrace art, music, and love, disappeared without trace."

no they didn't there are fine examples of neanderthal art, even apes paint for pleasure in captivity.

And ? Neanderthals obviously embraced art. Where's the bit where I claimed they hadn't ?

My point is there must be an evolutionary advantage to art, ie a scientific need.

And ? Neanderthals obviously embraced art. Where's the bit where I claimed they hadn't ?

in which case we'd still have then here as well then wouldn't we mr smarty pants as with art they wouldn't have become extinct, if as you claim it provides an scientifically based advantage.

now "My point is there must be an evolutionary advantage to art"

is just plain supposition with no scientific evidence, it could equally be argued that art is a means of communication with god and if god liked the paintings he blessed his followers with food. which is why most theories on early cave art tend towards it as a communication with the gods and spirits to provide a bountiful hunt

so again we come full circle that people have believed and seen gods and ghosts and spirits far longer in our existence as a species than have seen an electron.

in which case we'd still have then here as well then wouldn't we mr smarty pants as with art they wouldn't have become extinct, if as you claim it provides an scientifically based advantage.

LOL I didn't claim that art was the only factor which was needed to guarantee that a society was successful ! 😀

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post beyond the sentence which referred to "mr smarty pants",
I decided it probably wasn't worth it.

I didn't bother reading the rest of your post beyond the sentence which referred to "mr smarty pants",
I decided it probably wasn't worth it.

shame as you'd have missed this bit

so again we come full circle that people have believed and seen gods and ghosts and spirits far longer in our existence as a species than have seen an electron.

and can you honestly tell me that something like quantum field theory is any more likely than someone seeing a ghost?

it's all made up and everyone is bloody mad I tell thee! 😀

is just plain supposition with no scientific evidence,

[b]it could equally be argued[/b] that art is a means of communication with god and if god liked the paintings he blessed his followers with food. which is why most theories on early cave art tend towards it as a communication with the gods and spirits to provide a bountiful hunt

One of the most hilarious threads ever. 😆 I love the wrestling with rudimentary logic ('all societies that lack art die out' implies that 'all societies that die out lack art'..!?).

But everyone seems to have missed this: "I felt a [b]dog[/b] brush against my arm, and it couldn't have been any kind of animal because the [b]dog[/b] in the room would've gone nuts"! OK, I'm sure there's a reason why the dog was ruled out, but "animals have super sensory powers" and yet the dog in the room didn't react to a [b]ghost[/b] in said room!?

Seriously though, surely arm outside the covers chilled slightly and got goosebumps. Or a spider or fly ran over it. Occam's razor, innit bruv.

saw this on facebook this morning

[img] [/img]

Occam's razor, innit bruv.

There is a razor involved? OMG we are into self harming now, it's all getting very EMO 😀

I know the difference between spiders, flies, goosebumps, mice and drafts; and the feeling of a dog. Scrappy wouldn't have reacted to Sam's 'ghost'- they were BFFs in this world.

Don't worry, science will catch up someday. In the meantime, as I said previously, and echoed above, check out some quantum physics. It makes doggy-ghosts look positively quotidien.

I think that the vast majority of, what I shall call for brevity, 'supernatural' events are fake. Mistakes, hope, grief, fear, greed, dishonesty.

Leaders learned a long time ago to manipulate religious beliefs and superstitions to keep their underlings in order through fear.

Emperor Constantine (and his mum) re-wrote parts of the Christian Bible to get rid of the idea of reincarnation. They thought it would be easier to scare the populace if they (the populace) thought they only had one go at life, and if they were bad they would burn in hell for all eternity.

Landowners who wished to keep peasants off their land would certainly welcome, and probably activity promote, rumours of ghostly happenings.

The entertainment industry has made a fortune from the theme: countless films about demons, werewolves, hauntings, possessions, vampires.

But, I think, after giving it a good shake, and all the con-men and charlatans fall out, what remains are supernatural events.

I can't do this when I think deliberately about it but, if I am vacuuming (not often!), or bike cleaning or something like that, into my head pops a thought about someone. Within a few minutes whoosh! (that's the sound texts make when they arrive on my phone) and it's a text from that person.

Before mobile phones were invented I could tell who was going to ring, before they rang. I quite often know things before I am told them. It used to be a bit alarming, but I'm used to it now.

I can't do this when I think deliberately about it but, if I am vacuuming (not often!), or bike cleaning or something like that, into my head pops a thought about someone. Within a few minutes whoosh! (that's the sound texts make when they arrive on my phone) and it's a text from that person.

Before mobile phones were invented I could tell who was going to ring, before they rang. I quite often know things before I am told them. It used to be a bit alarming, but I'm used to it now.

That's just a couple of examples of confirmation bias, unless of course you also recorded all the times that you though about someone and they didn't text you, someone texted you when you hadn't thought of them, when you got the phone call thing wrong.

It's a remarkably easy trap to fall into.

Karinofnine - check out that PDF of the Sagan book I linked to on the previous page.

gonefishin: over 57 years? - it's way more than a 'couple of examples';

It's a remarkably easy trap to fall into.

It's a remarkably easy answer 🙂

gofasterstripes: will do

gonefishin: over 57 years? - it's way more than a 'couple of examples';

If you had all the information (including all the times you were wrong) over 57 years, it would be interesting but even then not necessarily indicative of anything extra ordinary. If you have millions of people simply guessing stuff it is likely that you would find someone who out of chance was correct far more often than they were wrong. That's just how chance and probability works.

I think that the vast majority of, what I shall call for brevity, 'supernatural' events are fake. Mistakes, hope, grief, fear, greed, dishonesty.

Yours presumably are all genuine though?

How is this NOT confirmation bias?

Scrappy wouldn't have reacted to Sam's 'ghost'- they were BFFs in this world

You sure he would not have gone to say goodbye - just ignored it completely

No offence but this is just silly. your dog died and you think it came =back to say goodbye. that is the basis of this story and ntohing i say will alter your opinion

check out some quantum physics. It makes doggy-ghosts look positively quotidien

Just because the truth is strange than fiction

As for the rest you are remembering the few times you did this and it came true and ignoring the thousands of other times that you had these thoughts and nothing at all happened

richmtb: because I'm not trying to con anyone, and I am quite sanguine about the events that are simple happenstance.

These are just standard replies from people who don't want to accept there's something odd going on 🙂

...and yours is the standard response of a someone with a closed mind who doesn't want to accept simple, reasonable explanations of what at first hand appears to be odd goings on.

I'm a sceptic however there has been instances that couldn't be explained away (to me).

There was a tiny plastic toy box. The toys were all tightly packed into the box in such a way that it couldn't be replicated. I commented on this to mrshora. She hadn't done it and neither had our son (1 at the time). No matter what neither of us could do this. In addition at night the bin in the kitchen used to lift and drop on its own. No wind/windows open and only when I put a 5litre bottle of water ontop did this stop. If I didn't it used to do this every other night.

The last owner died/lay in the kitchen from a heart attack/retiree.

Recently we found out another woman had died prematurely (30 yr old) in the back living room.

Do I believe? Unsure, never seen one but things happen that can't be explained leave me perplexed.

Its interesting that most peoples 'experiences' of ghost and contacting the dead etc in the UK closely mirror the writings and culture of the Victorian period that really popularised the occult for the first time.

People who claim to be completely unconnected report the same experience and rather that connect that to a shared memory of cultural influence this is then used to prove a connection that must be supernatural.

It's total nonsense, ghostly encounters differ around the globe and surprise surprise, they reflect the common beliefs of the culture. An unexplained visit in the night will be dead pets in the UK, ancestors in the Aboriginal people, jungle spirits in Brazil.

We are far more influenced by culture and upbringing than the spirits of trillions of dead creatures.

These are just standard replies from people who don't want to accept there's something odd going on

What I want is neither here not there in what the evidence suggests.

Have we been called close minded yet?

@Junkyard, no you haven't been called it, but I have, a few posts up.

I accept science AND supernatural.

Scientists only accept science.

Who's mind is closed?

Well what would persuade you that all of the things you have mentioned aren't the result of anything supernatural?

I had a frightening and inexplicable experience in 1990.

I will never forget it.

I was completely lucid and have no doubt that what happened was paranormal.

I accept science AND supernatural.

Scientists only accept science.

Who's mind is closed?

best of luck with your challenge under scientific conditions

I know the difference between spiders, flies, goosebumps, mice and drafts; and the feeling of a dog.

I bet you don't in a dark room or with your eyes closed.

It's nice you want to believe your dead dog wanted to say goodbye but it doesn't make it right because science "hasn't caught up".

I always get deep into threads such as these (established fact vs. unsubstantiated rumour) and have an overwhelming sense of grief...all of the contributors probably have the right to vote, and breed. 😐

I always get deep into threads such as these (established fact vs. unsubstantiated rumour) and have an overwhelming sense of grief...all of the contributors probably have the right to vote, and breed

Thanks your for your valuable contribution.

"There is much that science doesn't understand, many mysteries
still to be resolved. In a Universe tens of billions of light years
across and some ten or fifteen billion years old, this may be the
case forever. We are constantly stumbling on surprises. Yet some
New Age and religious writers assert that scientists believe that
'what they find is all there is'. Scientists may reject mystic
revelations for which there is no evidence except somebody's
say-so, but they hardly believe their knowledge of Nature to be
complete.
Science is far from a perfect instrument of knowledge. It's just
the best we have. In this respect, as in many others, it's like democracy. Science by itself cannot advocate courses of human
action, but it can certainly illuminate the possible consequences of
alternative courses of action.

The scientific way of thinking is at once imaginative and
disciplined. This is central to its success. Science invites us to let
the facts in, even when they don't conform to our preconceptions.
It counsels us to carry alternative hypotheses in our heads and see
which best fit the facts. It urges on us a delicate balance between
no-holds-barred openness to new ideas, however heretical, and
the most rigorous sceptical scrutiny of everything - new ideas and
established wisdom. This kind of thinking is also an essential tool
for a democracy in an age of change.

One of the reasons for its success is that science has built-in,
error-correcting machinery at its very heart. Some may consider
this an overbroad characterization, but to me every time we
exercise self-criticism, every time we test our ideas against the
outside world, we are doing science. When we are self-indulgent
and uncritical, when we confuse hopes and facts, we slide into
pseudoscience and superstition. "

The Demon Haunted World - P28/29 Carl Sagan

Stayed in this bothy once. It was supposed to be haunted by the ghost of some girl murdered there. It was a helluva creepy place in the pitch black. There was always this sense of "something" there that made your hairs stand up. I took the picture as we were leaving. The others didnt even want to look back at the place. I swear i could see something in the window. Even the picture creeps me out..

[IMG] [/IMG]

Scientists only accept science.

Take the scientists who make great boasts about the accuracy and precision of their experiments and theoretical predictions - they say things like "We've measured this phenomena to an accuracy equivalent to measuring the distance between New York and LA to within the width of a human hair" and all I hear is "We're brilliant at predicting this stuff, and yet we [i]still[/i] can't say it's fact! No one knows whether the next decimal place will disprove our theories!"

These are people who are 99.99993% certain, based on the combined works of thousands of others, and yet still have discipline which prevents them from saying things are 'fact'.

It doesn't really compare with 'I just [i]knew[/i] it'.
And nothing you say ever will, except that which you can measure to 99.99994% accuracy.

(disclaimer: I don't know anything)

Nope, non-believer here, but in my years on this planet i have had one thing which the scientist in me couldn't explain and that was when i was cooking in the kitchen of a previous house and a glass of water i had put on the kitchen table suddently just slid off the table and smashed against a cupboard door.

Spent the last 15 years trying to figure that one out to no avail.

was it in a tumbler?

I don't believe in ghosts, but I hope my dog comes back to say goodbye when he expires. I love that dog.

Here's one way that could happen - an impromptu air bearing.

If the tumblr had a depression in it's base, and if the surface was either very smooth or had a little water on, then it's possible for the trapped air to suspend the glass with VERY low friction, so either a breath of wind, or a very very small un-levelness of the surface would send it scooting off.

The interesting bit is if [for example, other ways this could happen are possible too] the contents were warmer than the tumbler, it might take a few seconds for the pressure to be generated, so you could put it down, mind your own business, and then [i]later [/i]see it suddenly scoot off and smash.

Sometimes near the end of a ride with my mate on fridays we approach a public house and then suddenly my memory jumps to riding away from the pub but my wallet is lacking a £10 note, very spooky, my wife doesn't agree.

gofasterstripes, that was my hypothesis too and one i am sticking too as i have seen this before but in very slow motion, the part i can't rationlise is for this process to give the glass enough speed to strike a cupboard approx 1.5metres from the table.

Love the tumbler joke!

I once watched the documentary Beetlejuice.