@Ecmandu made the claim (here) that ghosts exist. They do not.
To start, let’s talk about what we’re talking about. Ghosts are usually understood to be a part of a deceased human that was detached from the body at death. Less commonly they are described as non-human beings from some other plane of existence that are somehow accessing and interacting with ours. For the purpose of this discussion, I’m talking about the former, common, stereotyped meaning: A non-corporeal entity that is a person or part of a person that remains in the world after that person’s body has died; that inhabits a specific place; that is perceivable by humans, whether by sight, sound, or other sensation; that has the ability to interact with the physical world, for example by reflecting or casting light, vibrating media to create sound, applying force to objects to overcome inertia, and/or causing an increase or decrease in the the vibration of molecules in a volume of gas, measurable as a change in temperature. They may have wants or desires, but may also be more like a fixed recording from the life of the deceased.
To be clear, I’m not talking about metaphorical ghosts, or fully-internal subjective perceptions that resemble what I’ve described above. I’m talking about literal, objective, measurable-by-anyone-because-they-are-part-of-shared-reality ghosts.
These things do not exist, they are stories deriving originally from the quirks of human perception and cognition, filtered through cultural interpretations and depiction and elaboration in works of fiction. Though by definition they produce a set of measurable effects in the world, there have been no objective observations that are best explained by reference to such entities. Any investigation relying on objective measurements and valid scientific methods will find a better, non-ghost explanation for any claimed ghost activity.
Subjective reports of ghosts are better explained as hallucinations, delusions, intrusive thoughts, misattribution of self-talk, pareidolia, etc. The objective phenomenon of ghosts is entirely unsupported.
Carleas. That was pretty wordy. They exist in a different dimension that some perceive and others don’t.
There are good ghosts and bad ghosts. I admire you for your secularism, I’ve already stated that. Secularism can protect beings. To a certain extent.
Your child was picked by the spirit world. You weren’t. It’s like trying to explain the color green to a blind person from reading the OED definition about the color green. It makes no sense.
As smart and kind you are Carleas, you have limits.
We all have to have limits to expand the cosmos. That’s a divine order. Existence can’t expand without limitation. That’s what causes creation.
Your daughter should be honored that the spirits chose her.
Even though you live in D.C. and I’m in Portland Oregon …
I agree that Carleas’s canned response doesn’t really address the powerful things that go into a ghost sighting.
Cultural this, that. Obviously we are talking about an intense event that leaves a profound impression. Bed time stories don’t do that.
I also agree that Ecmanad is going the extra step and attributing substance on the basis of intensity of experience.
I think the real question is: what can provoke such an intense experience, that it would give such a strong impression of substance?
It seems obvious to me that cultural tradition would far sooner be a record of this phenomenon than a cause. People throughout the ages coming to grips with what it might have constituted. The impressions seem to be clear and defifnite.
All I really have to say is that everything Carleas said can be true under panentheism, given various means of communication. Think on how in the New Testament, demons came from waterless places, and one solution was to cast them into pigs.
Here I would say that, barring the scammy reality show type “ghost hunting” expeditions, going back all the way to Victorian England voodoo scammers and backer, the problem with this notion is that something like seeing a ghost will invariably happen unexpectedly and in the context of emotional intensity. Almost by definition it could not conceivably be tested in the way suggested.
So probably these are the wrong questions to begin with. Unexpectedness and emotional intensity are, in any case, clear and objectively measurable indicators that might offer clues as to what it is we are looking at. I think, just as obviously, not nearly enough of a clue.
I s’pose I’ll add to my last post. Some of the evidences would probably be the same kind of evidence used for out-of-body experiences or near death experiences. However that does not fit the description of ghost in the original post.
Other evidences would be some of the things described during “possessions“ like knowing a language they had never previously been exposed to. However that same evidence was displayed on Pentecost following the resurrection. Except that everyone could hear in their own language. Speaking in tongues is considered a gift if there is an interpreter. Otherwise it is just noise, either because it is literally gibberish, or for the same reason it always sounds like noise when someone is speaking a language you don’t understand. Obviously if it breaks self=other, throw it out. That’s why we were told to test the spirits. Examine everything and hold fast to the good.
If you try to get rid of something that is bothering you and it won’t go away, then maybe you’re dealing with something that Paul dealt with. A thorn in the flesh to keep you humble.
As to why, because we are addressing a person that does actually experience these things, and we are trying to be of use.
A psychiatrist, holding pretty much Carleas’s view, asks the person “what did you see.” The person says “demons telling me to kill myself.” The psychiatrist says “that is a cultural blablabla, it is not real.” The person says “I assure you, sir, it is real.” The psychiatrist proceeds to chemically lobotomize them.
