jerome wrote:Well ghost means different things to different people. I tend to use it in the way you might expect me as a parapsychologist too and forget most people don't spend their lives writing and researching apparitions-- but "seeing a ghost" hardly means one assumes it's a dead guy does it? After all the recording hypothesis is pretty common in woo circles? Anyway I think we often talk at cross purposes. I saw the ghost of my grandmother. It was a mop in a bucket. Scared me half to death though till I looked and found out what it was.

j x

Yes, I can imagine how complicated it must get for you when "ghost" can mean pretty much anything. Turns out I am a ghosthunter, took me ages to find the Vileda Superghost last week. So is the traditional meaning of "ghost" in ordinary English not the standard anymore?

Well seeing a ghost refers to an experience. The causes of that experience are not addressed in the statement "I saw a ghost". It is a phenomenological statement, not an ontological definition. I had this discussion at length with Andrew Oakley, a very good friend, who has offered the following reward --

andy on Parasoc website wrote:
In the manner of a financially-challenged James Randi, I'd like to propose a prize of a crisp five pound note to anyone who can prove that Argos catalogue number 700/3213 is *NOT* a ghost.

https://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stor ... 3DFacebook

My point here is that, without a widely-accepted definition of the word "ghost", psychical research is not going to get anywhere. When we say "ghost", what do we mean? Must it be a humanoid apparition? Must it have some connection with life after death? How does a ghost differ from, say, a table? What is it about a ghost that means that we cannot define it as "a horizontal surface with three or more vertical supports?"

Anyway in the Formal debate I am attempting to give evidence for your definition of ghost, in the ontological not phenomenological sense.

j x

jerome wrote:Well seeing a ghost refers to an experience. The causes of that experience are not addressed in the statement "I saw a ghost". It is a phenomenological statement, not an ontological definition. I had this discussion at length with Andrew Oakley, a very good friend, who has offered the following reward --

andy on Parasoc website wrote:
In the manner of a financially-challenged James Randi, I'd like to propose a prize of a crisp five pound note to anyone who can prove that Argos catalogue number 700/3213 is *NOT* a ghost.

https://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stor ... 3DFacebook

My point here is that, without a widely-accepted definition of the word "ghost", psychical research is not going to get anywhere. When we say "ghost", what do we mean? Must it be a humanoid apparition? Must it have some connection with life after death? How does a ghost differ from, say, a table? What is it about a ghost that means that we cannot define it as "a horizontal surface with three or more vertical supports?"

Anyway in the Formal debate I am attempting to give evidence for your definition of ghost, in the ontological not phenomenological sense.

j x

It is not really my definition, it appears to be a fairly common use.
From here.

1. The spirit of a dead person, especially one believed to appear in bodily likeness to living persons or to haunt former habitats.

Besides, this is slightly irrelevant because my issue was with people telling others that they have seen ghosts. Adding that you do not define ghosts as ghosts is neither here nor there.

People like Morgan would find it much harder to suck blood from the credulous without people talking about their ghost sightings, even if it later turns out that they were actually talking about mops or tables.

So you want to stymie any scientific progress because some people will exploit a subject? So Dawkins should stop writing because Creationists abuse biology via intelligent design, and Martin Rees because astrologers look at the stars?

j x

jerome wrote:Well ghost means different things to different people. I tend to use it in the way you might expect me as a parapsychologist too and forget most people don't spend their lives writing and researching apparitions-- but "seeing a ghost" hardly means one assumes it's a dead guy does it? After all the recording hypothesis is pretty common in woo circles? Anyway I think we often talk at cross purposes. I saw the ghost of my grandmother. It was a mop in a bucket. Scared me half to death though till I looked and found out what it was.

j x

You didn't see the ghost of your grandmother - you saw a mop and bucket. I would say that ''seeing a ghost'' most certainly means one assumes it's a dead guy (or girl). That's what everyone who I've ever seen say that means when they say ''I saw a ghost''. They mean they saw someone who is dead. People don't sit around talking about how that castle is haunted by a coat hung up on a peg. They don't say ''I saw the ghost of an old man - it was washing on the line''. They say ''I thought I saw a ghost (apparition of a dead person) of an old man, but it turned out to be washing on the line''. You are the only person who I have ever seen say that they saw a ghost who does not mean a dead guy. And even then, what you really meant to say was that you thought you saw the ghost of your grandmother, but then it turned out it was actually a mop and bucket.

jerome wrote:Well seeing a ghost refers to an experience. The causes of that experience are not addressed in the statement "I saw a ghost". It is a phenomenological statement, not an ontological definition. I had this discussion at length with Andrew Oakley, a very good friend, who has offered the following reward --

andy on Parasoc website wrote:
In the manner of a financially-challenged James Randi, I'd like to propose a prize of a crisp five pound note to anyone who can prove that Argos catalogue number 700/3213 is *NOT* a ghost.

https://www.argos.co.uk/webapp/wcs/stor ... 3DFacebook

My point here is that, without a widely-accepted definition of the word "ghost", psychical research is not going to get anywhere. When we say "ghost", what do we mean? Must it be a humanoid apparition? Must it have some connection with life after death? How does a ghost differ from, say, a table? What is it about a ghost that means that we cannot define it as "a horizontal surface with three or more vertical supports?"

Anyway in the Formal debate I am attempting to give evidence for your definition of ghost, in the ontological not phenomenological sense.

j x

To further refer to this, you say

Well seeing a ghost refers to an experience. The causes of that experience are not addressed in the statement "I saw a ghost"

The causes of that experience are addressed in the statement. If you say that you saw a ghost, then you are saying that light bounced off a ghost (or was emitted by the ghost) and entered your eye giving you a representation of what was infront of you. It is a testimony to a thing existing.
If you were to say "I thought I saw a ghost", that would leave far more wriggle room for mops etc, without having to invoke wandering spirits.
If someone tells people that they have seen a ghost, it is that personal testimony that I claim helps scum like Acorah and Morgan.
It is that truth claim that is harmful.

jerome wrote:So you want to stymie any scientific progress because some people will exploit a subject? So Dawkins should stop writing because Creationists abuse biology via intelligent design, and Martin Rees because astrologers look at the stars?

j x

Nope.
I want people to stop saying they saw ghosts.

Why? OK, I saw an apparition. Is that better? People see "ghosts". Why would they claim otherwise? This is getting frighteningly bizarre. You want people to stop reporting Nessie? UFO's? why?

j x

Fallible wrote:

You didn't see the ghost of your grandmother - you saw a mop and bucket. I would say that ''seeing a ghost'' most certainly means one assumes it's a dead guy (or girl). That's what everyone who I've ever seen say that means when they say ''I saw a ghost''. They mean they saw someone who is dead. People don't sit around talking about how that castle is haunted by a coat hung up on a peg. They don't say ''I saw the ghost of an old man - it was washing on the line''. They say ''I thought I saw a ghost (apparition of a dead person) of an old man, but it turned out to be washing on the line''. You are the only person who I have ever seen say that they saw a ghost who does not mean a dead guy. And even then, what you really meant to say was that you thought you saw the ghost of your grandmother, but then it turned out it was actually a mop and bucket.

I did see a "ghost" though which I did not subsequently explain too. I just used the mop incident as an example. Lots of poster son this forum say they have seen ghosts. I doubt many of them believe it was the unquiet dead!

trubble76 wrote:

To further refer to this, you say

Well seeing a ghost refers to an experience. The causes of that experience are not addressed in the statement "I saw a ghost"

The causes of that experience are addressed in the statement. If you say that you saw a ghost, then you are saying that light bounced off a ghost (or was emitted by the ghost) and entered your eye giving you a representation of what was infront of you. It is a testimony to a thing existing.
If you were to say "I thought I saw a ghost", that would leave far more wriggle room for mops etc, without having to invoke wandering spirits.

No it's not. Light does not reflect off ghosts in the theories of Myers, Sidgwick, Gurney, Tyrell, H. Hatherly Price, Hart or many of the other theorists of apparitions. Al of them believed the apparition was a hallucinatory production, that had a real cause (generally telepathic). and I don't know mediumship is fake, whatever I think of Acorah and Morgan. There is a considerable body of scientific evidence that supports the mediumistic hypothesis after all, and VK is the only person ever to offer a coherent critique of some of the papers i have seen. You have far more faith in things that me.

j x

jerome wrote:Why? OK, I saw an apparition. Is that better? People see "ghosts". Why would they claim otherwise? This is getting frighteningly bizarre. You want people to stop reporting Nessie? UFO's? why?

j x

That does not help, assuming that when you say "apparition" you are referring to a ghost. If you make claims like this then you are testifying to the world that the world is a magical one where people like Acorah and Morgan will grow fat on the blood they suck from the rubes.

And yes, I would like people to stop reporting Nessie sightings, because I don't like people to make money from scamming the credulous.

jerome wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

To further refer to this, you say

Well seeing a ghost refers to an experience. The causes of that experience are not addressed in the statement "I saw a ghost"

The causes of that experience are addressed in the statement. If you say that you saw a ghost, then you are saying that light bounced off a ghost (or was emitted by the ghost) and entered your eye giving you a representation of what was infront of you. It is a testimony to a thing existing.
If you were to say "I thought I saw a ghost", that would leave far more wriggle room for mops etc, without having to invoke wandering spirits.

No it's not. Light does not reflect off ghosts in the theories of Myers, Sidgwick, Gurney, Tyrell, H. Hatherly Price, Hart or many of the other theorists of apparitions. Al of them believed the apparition was a hallucinatory production, that had a real cause (generally telepathic). and I don't know mediumship is fake, whatever I think of Acorah and Morgan. There is a considerable body of scientific evidence that supports the mediumistic hypothesis after all, and VK is the only person ever to offer a coherent critique of some of the papers i have seen. You have far more faith in things that me.

j x

Saying that you saw a ghost, even if the act of seeing was actually an invisible ghost making itself visable by telepathy (I would say that you couldn't make it up, but clearly somebody has), is testimony of something existing. It is rubbish, it helps the parasites and hurts the credulous.
If I have faith, it is in the endless ability of humans to be fucking idiots.
Have you tried reading some of this back? Invisible telepathic ghosts? And you think it reasonable? Un-fucking-believable.
Well, you keep spreading your ghost stories then, Morgan will keep sucking blood and idiots will keep suffering. Sounds fair to me.
Meanwhile anyone with a correctly operating brain will notice the complete absense of any fucking sense.

jerome wrote:

Fallible wrote:

You didn't see the ghost of your grandmother - you saw a mop and bucket. I would say that ''seeing a ghost'' most certainly means one assumes it's a dead guy (or girl). That's what everyone who I've ever seen say that means when they say ''I saw a ghost''. They mean they saw someone who is dead. People don't sit around talking about how that castle is haunted by a coat hung up on a peg. They don't say ''I saw the ghost of an old man - it was washing on the line''. They say ''I thought I saw a ghost (apparition of a dead person) of an old man, but it turned out to be washing on the line''. You are the only person who I have ever seen say that they saw a ghost who does not mean a dead guy. And even then, what you really meant to say was that you thought you saw the ghost of your grandmother, but then it turned out it was actually a mop and bucket.

I did see a "ghost" though which I did not subsequently explain too. I just used the mop incident as an example. Lots of poster son this forum say they have seen ghosts. I doubt many of them believe it was the unquiet dead!

I'm not sure I understand your first point, and I'd strongly disagree with your second. The mop wasn't an example of you seeing a ghost, it was an example of what people often subsequently find out to be the cause of a phenomenon which they initially thought was a ghost. I obviously cannot comment on a sighting which you didn't bring up.

Secondly,I am pretty sure that people who say they have seen a ghost with no further qualification either on this board or off it mean they saw a dead dude walking around. I doubt that many people at all on this forum have seriously said they have seen a ghost though - most people here would either be joking or go on to qualify their statement by saying that the explanation probably lies somewhere other than with actual spirits of dead people.

trubble76 wrote:

jerome wrote:Why? OK, I saw an apparition. Is that better? People see "ghosts". Why would they claim otherwise? This is getting frighteningly bizarre. You want people to stop reporting Nessie? UFO's? why?

j x

That does not help, assuming that when you say "apparition" you are referring to a ghost. If you make claims like this then you are testifying to the world that the world is a magical one where people like Acorah and Morgan will grow fat on the blood they suck from the rubes.

And yes, I would like people to stop reporting Nessie sightings, because I don't like people to make money from scamming the credulous.

You think the scientific study of anomalous phenomena is illicit because shysters exploit it? So we should for example stop researching quantum physics because very woo and his dog cites it to his own ends and use it to peddle fake cure alls etc? Incidentally great time to mention my talk this week at Skeptics in the Pub Cheltenham - http://cheltenham.skepticsinthepub.org/ ... -of-Ghosts

Does that further Sally Morgan's ends?

j x

j x

Fallible wrote:

Secondly,I am pretty sure that people who say they have seen a ghost with no further qualification either on this board or off it mean they saw a dead dude walking around. I doubt that many people at all on this forum have seriously said they have seen a ghost though - most people here would either be joking or go on to qualify their statement by saying that the explanation probably lies somewhere other than with actual spirits of dead people.

Oh there is plenty of discussion of ghosts from time to time, and some people have explicitly said they can;t explain the experience.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I know there is plenty of discussion of ghosts, but I don't at all think your comment that when people say they have seen a ghost they mean something different from having seen a dead dude walking around is in any way accurate.

To be fair to jerome, though he uses vague definitions of the word "ghost", which admittedly can be confusing, he does so consistently, and I've never seen him switch definitions in order to "prove" the existence of supernatural apparitions.

jerome wrote:

trubble76 wrote:

jerome wrote:Why? OK, I saw an apparition. Is that better? People see "ghosts". Why would they claim otherwise? This is getting frighteningly bizarre. You want people to stop reporting Nessie? UFO's? why?

j x

That does not help, assuming that when you say "apparition" you are referring to a ghost. If you make claims like this then you are testifying to the world that the world is a magical one where people like Acorah and Morgan will grow fat on the blood they suck from the rubes.

And yes, I would like people to stop reporting Nessie sightings, because I don't like people to make money from scamming the credulous.

You think the scientific study of anomalous phenomena is illicit because shysters exploit it? So we should for example stop researching quantum physics because very woo and his dog cites it to his own ends and use it to peddle fake cure alls etc? Incidentally great time to mention my talk this week at Skeptics in the Pub Cheltenham - http://cheltenham.skepticsinthepub.org/ ... -of-Ghosts

Does that further Sally Morgan's ends?

j x

j x

No, I think telling people that you have seen a ghost is harmful.
No, I don't think we should stop researching quantum phsyics.
Perhaps your talk will further Morgan's ends, do you lend credence to a fantasy world where invisible ghosts telepathically project themselves into people's brains?

jerome wrote:

trubble76 wrote:
He claims to be a psychic, that rules out him being a lovely bloke. the two are mutually exclusive.

I've known lovely people who think they are psychic. the world is full of them

Possibly so, but even if someone starts off self-deluding, surely the more public/professional a 'psychic' gets, the more opportunities they will have had to realise they're not actually psychic. It's not my fault if they fail to take those opportunities.

And in the end, there comes a point where what they think isn't necessarily too relevant and it's not necessarily anyone else's responsibility to try and guess exactly how self-aware they are, at least until they have been prevented from selling fake services.

If someone claims to be a competent and qualified gas fitter or surgeon when they aren't, how much does it really matter whether they're actually deluded or a knowing fraud?
Either way, they can cause the same quantity and type of damage, and deserve sanctions sufficiently heavy to make them stop making false claims.
Whether an individual should be dealt with by the police or by psychiatric services is just a detail.

Yes, I accept that the fact that self-delusion should not be an defence is totally legitimate. Of course some may not be self deluding or frauds - some may be able to do what they say. Note my objection to their practices is regardless of whether or not they can actually talk to the dead, which I think puts me in a minority of one; but I am pretty familiar with the evidence to back up some mediumistic claims.

j x