Poltergeists!

What, like the way you can't bring yourself to accept that you may simply have just imagined your ghost experience, or dreamed it, or were the victim of a prank, or were deluded or hallucinating at the time?Even though that's a very strong possibility?Is something like that what you're talking about, here?

Crashfrog, you've been here on this forum a while. I'm thinking about what you keep asking CS about what he "gains" from his belief, or his willingness to believe. I also wonder about why I am not content to dismiss ghosts and poltergeists as nonexistent until proven otherwise. I do think that a large amount of anecdotal proof exists, but as yet no empirical evidence. Why am I interested? Maybe what could be explored here is whether a "need to believe" is something that humans evolved. Religion seems to have been a part of existence for homo sapiens and neanderthals. Why would they, and no other organisms, exhibit this behaviour? Did it develop along with consciousness and intelligence? And do we end up feeling we're missing something in our lives without it -- could there really be something biological that compels us to want to believe? There must have been a thread on this in the past. Can you remember one?BTW, the definition of mental illness does not by default include psychosis. I don't think you'll find that a quarter of the American population is hallucinating. Though you never know I guess

You may be cooler than me, but at least I'm proverbial. It isn't that I can't "bring myself" to consider the possibility. I have considered the possibility and, based on the available evidence, I have concluded that the ghost/poltergeist explanation is extremely improbable. Well, the proverbial "I" said that people love to delude themselves, even when a simpler explanation - e.g. sleight-of-hand - is available. That seems self-contradictory. How can you see something unnatural/supernatural with your natural eyes? Nobody is saying that though. We're looking at the same evidence as you are and we're saying we're more comfortable with, "I don't know," than with speculation.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think you'll find that 100% of the American population is mistaken about one thing or another.What I find interesting is that you seem so eager to make the leap from "mistaken" to "hallicinating/psychotic". Why so defensive?

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Because you like believing in ghosts.Here's the thing, though. Just like not going to church doesn't mean you have to stop liking church music, not believing in ghosts doesn't mean you can't appreciate a good ghost story, or even believe that you'll never meet dead loved ones again in a next life.It just means you stop believing in things that there's no good evidence for, and much evidence against. It doesn't mean you turn your back on everything that you enjoy. The problem is that there's no such thing as "anecdotal proof." This is the subject of Dawkins' "The God Delusion." I recommend you read it. I'll wager money, though, that you'll find that a much greater portion of the American population has had hallucinations at one time than has ever had the experience of "seeing a ghost."So, seeing things that aren't actually there is fairly common. More common than seeing ghosts. That suggests that it's not unlikely that everybody who is seeing a ghost is seeing something that isn't there. (It's a statistical pigeonholing argument.)

Oh, well, the evidence was good enough for me. Remember that it convinced me? Oh, I see. I wouldn't gain anything, but that's not what I'm doing. I haven't really chosen to believe in ghosts. I saw one. Now I believe in them. I don't really have much of a choice, unless I want to be dishonest with myself. What you think is a good reason differs from what I think is a good reason. Me seeing a ghost was a good enough reason for me to think that ghosts exist. I don't really see any risk or reward for whether or not I believe in ghosts.I guess if I started seeing more of them, and they started interacting with me, then I could gain to believe that they are actually real beings rather than dismissing them. I don't really have a desire to believe in ghosts. My belief is just a consequence of my experience. Because that's all I've seen. If I saw a Bigfoot then I would believe in them too. I wouldn't automatically assume that I was in delusion if I was walking around in the woods and saw a big-ass primate.

---

How is it? It looks like a cool idea. Is the story any good? What about the gameplay? I like the scenery/atmosphere and the graphics look good, but I'm usually more impressed by good gameplay and a good story.

I'm not being defensive. But by saying that a quarter of the population is mentally ill, I thought Crashfrog was imlying that their judgement cannot be trusted, or that they are all hallucinating. I had depression for a while. It didn't change my perception of the physical world, I just felt like crap

You say I don't have to believe that I'll never meet dead loved ones again in a next life. I would say that this is even more impossible to prove than poltergeists. So why is it OK for me to believe that stuff happens after death, when no empirical proof exists; yet it's foolish to believe poltergeists exist?I can't see any room for religious or quasi-religious beliefs like this if the rules of skepticism are applied the way people here have explained them to me, can you?I'll look up the Dawkins book. Before I came to this forum, though, I'd read people talking about him in another forum and he sounded to me like a cold-hearted atheist. Judging from the title, this book is going to paint a pretty bleak picture. I'm more of a Joseph Campbell fan myself. Comparative mythology, and maybe some universal truths to be learned.

But the fact remains that the judgement of most people cannot be trusted. I've attended too many live debates between real honest to goodness scientists and local preachers to trust people's judgement.At these live debates, I saw scientists demonstrating just how ignorant the creationist/preachers were. But at the end, the crowd continued to cheer for the preachers. Why? Because they were incapable of telling the difference between real science and bullshit.Now, apply that to seeing ghosts. People like myself are always constantly checking our mental capabilities. We are always on the lookout for anything with ourselves. Personally, I occasionally do mental exercises to make sure that there isn't anything wrong with my ability to tell reality from hallucination. In other words, a booming voice identifying itself as god telling me to go kill some people because they're demons will only cause me to go see a doctor. If I ever see a ghost, I'd be scrambling to do all sorts of experiments right there and then to check out if it's my hallucination or if whatever the hell it is actually has an effect on the physical world.Can the same discipline be said about most people out there? Not to appear to pick on a fellow forum member, but even our own very openminded Phat demonstrated that most people can't tell the difference between hallucination and reality.Just remember that just because a whole lot of people believing in some incredible thing doesn't necessarily make it true. Just because a whole lot of people have experienced some kind of hallucinations doesn't necessarily mean the hallucinations aren't just hallucinations.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

Personally, I wouldn't recommend the book to most people. It goes against too much of what's been ingrained in people's minds: the will to believe incredible stuff without any good reason whatsoever. If you like to believe in things beyond what we can objectively measure or sense, then yes you're going to think of people like him and me as cold-hearted atheists. People like me just want people to stop wasting their time chasing after things that can't be objectively quantified.

---

Disclaimer:

​

Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.

​

He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

First, mental illness is just that, an illness. Way more than a quarter of the population is physically ill from time to time.Second, it's pretty reasonable to suggest that a mental illness would effect one's judgement - and a lot of people who are not diagnosably mentally ill have poor judgement.Third, please stop fixating on hallucinations. Misinterpreting what you see isn't hallucination.Critical thinking begins with accepting the fact that people might be mistaken about some things - not barking mad, not lying, just mistaken.

---

“Faith moves mountains, but only knowledge moves them to the right place” -- Joseph Goebbels
-------------
Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Concerning natural phenomena, you have the flow of evidence backward. A phenomenon is not considered to exist until we prove otherwise, which would never be possible anyway. Rather, a phenomenon is not considered to exist until evidence is provided.It gets rather complicated after this. Someone will show you a photograph with a blob of light and say, "There, evidence of ghosts!"I'll take my evidence for poltergeist just like the original movie. As they open the door to Carol Anne's room, one of the paranormal investigators is relating the story of how he once watched a model train engine all night during which it slowly moved by several inches, then the door swings open to reveal a room overflowing with highly animated floating objects.I wouldn't recommend Dawkins' book, either. It's a screed that arbitrarily dismisses all theology at the outset and goes downhill from there. Dawkins never addresses the arguments of religion but instead sets up his own strawmen before mowing them down.--Percy

I can see why Dawkins is such a controversial figure.On the subject of evidence then. I know that choosing to believe anecdotal evidence can be a dangerous thing, because people can be convinced of something but be wrong. This happens everywhere all the time. I do choose to believe that some of the anecdotal evidence for ghosts is probably true. If you try mentioning it to people you know, you tend to find that they actually come out with their own stories. And again, yes I accept that they could simply be wrong. But every last one of them? Everyone who has ever reported a ghost, all over the world, for thousands of years, is . . . wrong? My feeling is there must be more to it than that.Can someone explain to me how my husband, his sister and his father could actually be mistaken, on a number of occasions, about the milk bottles? Are we agreed that it's difficult to find a normal physical explanation for how a milk bottle could move from a shelf on the wall, 12 feet (I've measured it this time) across the room, and land upright against the kitchen door? On every occasion. It didn't roll or break, and the sound always heard was a gentle "thunk." On at least one occasion my husband was home by himself, the doors and windows were locked, there were no earth tremors or heavy traffic, and no pets in the house. This family is down-to-earth and honest. I have known all of them as genuine, truthful people, and I can't see any possible reason why any of them would be lying about this.Granted, because this is anecdotal in itself, it probably doesn't count for many people here. But can anyone offer a possible explanation? How could all 3 people have been mistaken?

You should read his letter to his daughter - you'll see that cold hearted is a terrible thing to call him. However, if you don't want to read the book, the core of his argument can be found in his recent documentaries: The Root of All Evil?Enemies of ReasonThey are just the first parts, but the second parts are easily found (and Dawkins has put links to his documentaries on his website, so I don't think I'm stepping on any copyrighted toes with this.

Except that it wasn't evidence that convinced you at all. It was just some experience that you had.I mean we don't even know what it was, because you haven't said. I don't know how I could debate the merits of a situation, but clearly if it was legitimate evidence that you thought reasonable people would have accepted, you'd have presented it by now.Instead you're playing it close to your vest. You've choosing to think you saw one instead of wondering if you could have been mistaken.That's the choice. You know your experience isn't conclusive; you're making a choice to act like it is. What do you gain by doing so? But you didn't see one. Don't you see the problem, there? So you've never seen an optical illusion? You've never dreamed?You see things all the time that aren't really there, I'm sure. Every night, at least. But for some reason, you don't believe you're actually flying around on a mgaic carpet with Giselle and the cast of Scooby Doo, or whatever you do in your dreams, presumably because the memories you have of those weird adventures are often bookended by getting into and out of bed.It's just that, with ghosts, you suspend your regular skepticism, even though there are a thousand more likely explanations for your experience. You're making a choice to suspend your skepticism in this one single case.And for the life of me, I still can't figure out what you think you gain by doing so.