Bereavement apparitions..

How many witnesses are on record as smelling the roses on the four floors of the hospital?

What is the value in yet another unverified anecdote?

 

Magical Realist:

How many times do you need me to answer the same question?

Read posts #2, 5, 28, 31 and 35.

I have dismissed nothing "willy nilly".

 

Except that subject is at the crux of this discussion, no? Bereavement apparitions and what people experience. He believes those who have seen or experienced these things and so do I. Does that make me gullible? Perhaps. Perhaps not.

If it brings him or anyone else comfort to believe what people say they experienced, if it makes him feel better about himself or about life in general, what harm is there in it? It's not harming anyone, is it? He's not infringing on anyone's rights by believing in it.

I am an eyewitness. Whether you take it at face value or not, is really kind of beside the point.

Look at religious belief as a prime example. People will believe in what they want to believe in. The difference between religious ideology and MR is that one infringes on the rights of others because of said beliefs, while MR's beliefs in ghosts, apparitions, UFO's, etc, does not.

In his experiences and mine, it is a simple case of 'you had to be there'. If someone had told me I'd experience what I did experience (and it didn't even end there, there were other weird things that happened that even had my kids, the dog and the cat run from the house), I would be highly doubtful and I have been in the past, as MR can attest. For example, I don't view UFO's as being evidence of aliens, simply because there is no proof that it is. I am exceptionally sceptical about these things and generally disbelieve that it's aliens. I do believe that people experienced or saw something, but I don't believe that it's aliens. It could be something fake, it could be their imagination, etc, but it does not make their experience any less real to them. There is a distinction there.

Don't let the police or criminal defence system ever hear you say that... Should we never believe in eyewitness testimonies? Is it always right or correct? No. We often interpret things that we see differently, often based on our own personal bias. So what normally happens is multiple statements are taken and we weed out the discrepancies. How about when people in studies are asked to document their experiences in medical studies or testing? Or new drug trials? People are asked to document their own personal experiences.

Is it wrong for MR to believe what others say they experienced? Is it harmful? Is it harmful to you or to anyone else? Or is it something quite personal, as beliefs often are?

Is it wrong for MR to believe that UFO's is evidence of aliens? A lot of people do. A lot of people believe that bigfoot is real. A lot of people believe that ghosts are real. I look at it this way, these people may have experienced or seen or heard something. Does not make their experiences any less valid or wrong. How they interpret what they experienced and whether people believe them - well, that really is up to the individual, no? I don't believe it's aliens and I've said this before. But what people experience is real to them. It doesn't have to be real to you or to me.

Do you feel better now?

Now that you've gotten that off your chest?

Do you think I am gullible for believing that people experienced something that is similar to what I have experienced?

He can't make you believe in anything that you don't want to, James.

That's quite dismissive and insulting, don't you think?

Why do you think his beliefs are trolling? You don't have to believe as he does. You can argue against his belief in what others have seen or experienced as being real and you can ask for proof. That is going to the crux of the subject matter. But you seem to be personally offended at what he believes in. He's not harming you or anyone else. He's not threatening to deny anyone their rights or how they choose to live their life with his beliefs. I also disagree with how he interprets other people's beliefs and thinks it is "fact". But I also understand where he is coming from and why he may choose to believe as he does.

There's a lot of reasons why. Some people believe because of their own experiences. Others believe in the testimonies of others on these topics because they want to believe there is something more out there, that what we have on this planet isn't it, that it doesn't end here. There's nothing wrong, naïve or stupid to believe like that. I mean hell, consider how many people believe in God or the spiritual realm?

My point is that it doesn't limit you or infringe on your existence or how you or anyone else lives their life. He's not posting this in the science section. You don't have to argue with him about it or even read it. You don't have to believe what he posts. You are free to disagree with him, as he is to disagree with you and I.

But you just think he is naïve, stupid and gullible for believing similar experiences of other people.

Dude, billions of people believe in life after death. Religion is based on this premise, that our spirits go on to another plane of existence, that our lives continue after we die.

Except, you are denying our experiences:

I don't even know what I experienced, James. How can you, someone who hasn't experienced it, be the one to tell me what it was not? Why do you think you are in the position to say that or to tell me what it was or was not?

 

I don't believe in God, spirits, anything religious or spiritual, I don't believe in ghosts or spirits, I don't believe in bigfoot or that UFO's proves the existence of aliens.

But I also don't know what the hell my husband and I both experienced and I certainly cannot and do not know why the nurse also smelled something in that room and thought I'd sprayed something in there, when I had not. Just as I don't know why or how she knew what was going on and told me that it happens all the time there. If I, someone who actually experienced it, can't explain it, why do you feel as though you are in a position to do so? My experience was real. My husband's experience was real to him. What the nurse smelled in my father's room was real to her and to me. I can't explain it. You can't either. I can't attest to what it was, just as I cannot say what it was not. I still don't believe in ghosts or the afterlife. But I do believe that some people experience things who makes them believe or it confirms beliefs they already had. Was it my father's spirit? I don't believe so. But I also can't say that it was not. It's not going to make me start to contemplate ghosts or spirits or their existence. But it's also not going to be something that will make discount it outright either. People experience things they can't explain. It's real to them and it was to me. I just prefer to leave it at that to me personally, because that is how I choose to interpret it personally. I'm not going to berate MR for believing in it.

You don't have to believe in an afterlife James. I don't. He can't force you to believe in something you don't believe in or you think is false or wrong. He's not holding a gun to your head and saying believe!

I don't know what I experienced, James. If I can't say what it was or was not, how can you? Was it my father's ghost? I honestly cannot say that it was not or that it was. It was just something that happened. A few times. I mean, I don't believe in ghosts, but I also cannot say for certain that it was not. Other things happened and were experienced by everyone in the house, both human and animal. Was it a ghost? I have absolutely no idea. Again, I don't believe in ghosts. But these things happened. We never told the kids what we'd experienced, never spoke about it in front of them. But they both experienced something that freaked the shit out of them and the pets. So who really knows? It's not something I dwell on, to be honest. It happened and I got a lot of therapy and moved on. Doesn't mean I'm setting up movement sensors and cameras in my house to try to capture evidence. There is no evidence. It's just these things happened. And there's nothing I can really do about it, nor do I want to do anything about it. I'm not about to bring in a medium to try to chat to my father from beyond. These things just happened and we experienced it and we've kind of taken the 'ermm okay' approach to it.

Why do you feel you need to or are in a position to do so? And don't you find it ironic that you can come up with a plausible scientific explanation, but you aren't really prove it and you'd expect to be believed? You see the irony there?

Except you do think he is gullible for believing that what other people experienced is real. A lot of what we believe in is often from having heard about something from someone else. Politics is a prime example of that. Religion is another.

He's asserting that he believes in it. And?

Would you ban the religion forum because people believe in the spiritual world? How is this any different to religious belief and belief in the afterlife? Perhaps if you spoke to him about exploring people's beliefs, he might be more interested instead of coming out and calling him gullible, naïve, stupid, etc from the outset, which puts him on the defensive. No?

No one is telling you that you can't discuss it, James. I don't know where you're getting this. I'm saying that people experience all sorts of things that cannot be explained. It's real to them. I think attacking him for believing in ghosts, spirits, afterlife, etc, particularly given what he has disclosed, could have been handled differently and with a lot more care and thought. It's about understanding people's experiences. I mean, I believe people who saw their loved ones post death, because that experience is very real to them. They experienced something. I've experienced the exact same thing, as have my family. It's real to us. It doesn't have to be real to you. It also does not mean that what we experienced is not real.

We should be mindful of dismissing people's experiences outright or telling them that it's just in their heads. There is a wealth of evidence to suggest that what people are experiencing is not just psychological or emotional. Ask any woman who's experienced endometriosis, fibroids, irregular bleeding, cysts, just how they are treated by the medical profession and how we are more often than not told that it's in our heads for years and years. Someone close to my family had breast cancer. She had had it before in the other breast in her mid 20's. A few years later, she had a feeling something was wrong. There were no symptoms, no lumps. She had regular checkup's, mammograms, tests and scans. It never showed up and she was told that it was in her head. For several months in fact. After much pushing from her, they agreed to an ultrasound. And they found it in the ultrasound. But she knew deep down that something was wrong. Again, she had no symptoms and none of the scans or tests picked it up, but she knew it was back. And she was right. How would you describe her knowing it was back, despite all evidence to the contrary? And these stories keep cropping up over and over again. Sometimes, we just know something is wrong or off, despite all evidence to the contrary. I mean, how would you define intuition?

 

Well, for some people, I did provide evidence of the afterlife. Because that is their experience and what they have been taught is part of the afterlife. Just because I don't believe in it, does not mean they are wrong to believe in it. Spiritualism, religious belief, belief in what we can't see or hear, is very personal and is often based on anecdotal evidence. St Paul had visions that were mostly likely from a form of frontal lobe epilepsy. But his experiences were very real to him and drove him to a different purpose, which unfortunately, went on to result in religious ideology that has been harmful to many in society. But can we say the same thing about people who believe in ghosts, spirits and aliens? No. You aren't forced to believe as he does. You don't have to believe what evidence he does provide. You are free to believe as you wish to believe, just as he is free to believe as he wishes to believe.

Who are you to say that it was not a ghost? If I can't even say what it was, how can you say what it was not? I experienced it. I saw it. And I can't even define it. Maybe it was a ghost? Maybe it was my grief? Maybe it was my imagination? Maybe I am batshit crazy? Maybe I had inadvertently inhaled something when I'd gone out that morning? Maybe, like all things in the universe, things don't really ever just disappear. Is that even spiritual? I honestly don't know. The point is that you don't have to believe it. But you aren't really in the position to definitively say what it was not. You can interpret it as you wish, but you aren't really in any position to declare what it was not definitively.

And you think you are? Am I? No!

You don't know what I experienced, or what my husband experienced. So how can you, as the rational individual, be in a position to tell us what it was or wasn't?

And the thing is, you aren't prodding.

But why do you feel the need to do that to begin with?

And who's "we"?

 

She actually died on the operating table, during open heart surgery.

She'd had heart issues before and had another flare up and ended up dying on the table and could not be revived. Kulman was a fairly interesting figure. She was an evangelical preacher of sorts, a faith healer, deeply religious. Her autobiography is interesting in that it was quite critical of her as a person and she was known to have authorised only one person to write her story with a critical lens. Stories around her death vary wildly. From her autobiography, it was said that a white light was above her body when she died in the operating room. The whole thing about the scent or roses, lights going out, etc, came much later, possibly from her believers and her flock.

The whole smelling roses thing, particularly during or after death, has an interesting history and religious organisations, particularly the Catholic Church, has relied on it quite extensively to signify the divine - particularly around saints and people who would go on to be saints. So it's kind of stuck around and is deeply connected to religion and something saintly (for lack of a better word).

It isn't surprising that the stories of smelling roses spread after Kulman passed away. It was a way to signify she was divine, or had ascended to heaven, or that angels had come to collect her. It's called the Odour of Sanctity. I'm pretty sure it used to be connected to the beatification process of saints in the past - the bodies would be exhumed and if the body had not decomposed and there was a smell of roses, it showed or signified the divine. Something along those lines anyway.

So it's not surprising that her church or people close to her suggested that was the case when she died.

 

Bells:

It's going to take a few posts to reply to what you have written. I'd like to start near the end:

Because the two are not the same thing. I would add "obviously", but clearly this isn't obvious to a lot of people, so it needs to be pointed out explicitly.

The 'sci' in 'sciforums' stands for 'science', as far as I'm aware. Science studies the natural world. Science has methodological filters that are fine tuned for distinguishing repeatable, reliable evidence from one-off, ephemeral evidence, which is typically unreliable.

Of course, you might want to argue that ghosts are outside of science and are therefore exempt from its principles and methods, but beyond science we still have notions of critical thinking and rationality. Both of those things demand that we consider more than one possible explanation for events that can have more than one possible explanation. They also demand that we do not jump to conclusions when we don't know something. We keep an open mind. We spin multiple hypotheses.

A lot of people are inconsistent when it comes to applying critical thinking in their own lives. When they receive an email from a Nigerian Prince who just needs to use their bank account to transfer a billion dollars and who is willing to offer a paltry million for the privilege, a lot of people (though by no means all) are carefully and appropriately skeptical. They don't just assume the Nigerian Prince's story is real. They don't even assume that the emailer is a real Nigerian Prince. Why not? Because (a) there's a lack of evidence in support of the claims that are being made and (b) a lot of people these days are aware of a far more likely explanation for the email.

Yet, when it comes to something like hearing about somebody's experience of seeing a person they know is dead, they apply a whole different set of principles in deciding what to believe about that experience. Out goes the need for appropriate corroborating evidence. Out goes the recognition that there's never been any reliable evidence for ghosts before this. Out goes any knowledge that science has never recorded a ghost. Instead, there's a sudden willingness to suspend all skepticism and just believe the anecdote. Why? Because they want to believe. The reasons why vary from person to person, but that's what it boils down to. And they want to believe so strongly that they are willing to apply a standard that they do not apply in virtually any other area of their daily lives - one that is much more lax and forgiving.

And what of those experiences that are not second-hand anecdotes, but direct, personal experiences? Well, those experiences are often subjected to even lower standards of proof that the anecdotes. Why? Because lots of people assume that their senses can't deceive them, that they have good recall of all events, that they are always of sound mind and so on. After all, only crazy people hallucinate things or have delusions. It's not like it's a not uncommon kind of human experience. Or is it?

Why do I spend quite a bit of my time here banging on about skepticism and evidence and critical thinking? It's because I think there should be more of it, Bells. That's why.

 

Bells:

Before I get into a point-by-point response to your posts, compare and constrast yours and Magical Realist's posts about Katherine Kulman.

Let me start by saying I've never heard of the woman before now and I know only what I've read here.

In post #41, Magical Realist posted an anecdote about the death of Kulman. I'm betting he didn't know anything about her either, before discovering that tale on the interwebs. He probably just went googling for any anecdotes he could find regarding his "bereavement apparitions" and stumbled across that.

As is usual practice with MR, he posted nothing about his own thoughts about the incident, because he has none. He just accepts that it all happened as advertised - hook, line and sinker - because he already believes in ghosts and he has no interest at all in thinking rationally or skeptically about them. Moreover, he wants other people to mimic his mindless acceptance of all "paranormal" anecdotes at face value, because - let's face it - it probably gets lonely when you're as far out in woo land as he is.

Compare MR's post with your post #49. What did you do differently to MR? You did not immediately accept that all the details in the anecdote actually happened as advertised. Instead, you suggested a number of plausible reasons for why elements of the anecdote might have been concocted. So, we learn that Kulman was a bit of a cult leader whose followers might have been motivated to, let us say, embellish the truth about her death. But even without deliberate fraud, some elements of the story are potentially explainable with reference to the sorts of things that certain Catholics expect to happen around the time of certain people's deaths. In this case, the rose smells fit a certain narrative and expectation, for instance.

To summarise, then, you applied a different standard of evidence and critical thinking than MR did in evaluating the Kulman anecdote.

I take it that you would not complain about anybody believing in the story of the smell of roses at the time of Kulman's death. After all, as you said: "The point is that you don't have to believe it. But you aren't really in the position to definitively say what it was not. You can interpret it as you wish, but you aren't really in any position to declare what it was not definitively."

I wonder why, then, you would even raise the matter of the Catholic expectation of the smell of roses, or Kulman's background as a religious figure with followers. Why should any of us concern ourselves with such details? Why not just allow people to believe the anecdote, or not, without providing unnecessary (perhaps irrelevant) facts? Aren't you simply intruding on their right to believe what they want?

Remember: this is essentially what you're accusing me of doing, and telling me it is inappropriate to do so. So, why are you doing it?

Then we come to your analysis of MR's report of his own personal experience. Do you believe he saw the ghost of his dead mother, or do you think it is possible that, as in Kulman's case, there could potentially be alternative explanations? Neither you nor I (not Magical Realist, as a matter of fact) are in the position to definitively say what MR's ghost was or was not, so is every interpretation as good as the next? Nobody is holding a gun to out heads, so it's okay for us all to just believe whatever?

Finally, we come to your own personal experience. Please understand that I have never wanted to intrude on your grief. I said that at the start. However, in your replies to me, you have made the details a point for discussion, so I'm assuming that it is okay to discuss the matter further.

You seem quite skeptical about the Kulman anecdote. I'm not sure exactly where you land with the MR anecdote, but I imagine you have some degree of skepticism about that, too. So, how does that skepticism translate when it comes to examining your own experience? Are your own experiences given a free pass, because you experienced them yourself?

And what would you advise an unbiased reader of this thread to believe, respectively (not to mention respectfully), about the Kulman, MR and Bells anecdotes? Should I, or another reader, be more convinced about the existence of ghosts because of your personal experience, compared to MR's? Should I be more convinced by MR than by the Kulman story?

Should I not demand similar standards of proof for all three stories, if I want to be consistent? Bear in mind that I truly want to believe in true things and reject false things.

 

Bells:

Now I will get into a point-by-point reply:

In general, believing things that aren't true can have many consequences in the short or longer term, not all of which are immediately foreseeable. The same goes for rushing to conclusions about things in the absence of good reasons to do so.

As to the specifics, MR's project on this forum has been for years to encourage other people to accept things that he has insufficient evidence for or which are, in fact, demonstrably false. (e.g. "(Most) UFOs are craft with pilots.") He goes about that partly by telling deliberate lies - e.g. falsely claiming that the evidence points to one and only one conclusion - and partly by simply trying to overwhelm the forum with spammed anecdotes which - like the Kulman story - are practically useless as evidence of anything "paranormal".

MR is not content to merely believe in a lot of nonsense. He is a propaganda mouthpiece for it. And he is certainly not the village idiot figure that he plays on this forum; that excuse lost its plausibility several years ago. He is very well aware that his many wooish claims don't stack up, evidence-wise, but he is more than willing to lie about that and to play the fool.

No. My point is precisely that one should not simply take these things at face value. If somebody claims to have seen a ghost, it is right to question whether they actually saw a ghost.

It's not about denying that they had an experience. We know that human perceptions and memory are both malleable and fallible. So, it is right to look more deeply than the anecdotal evidence, into what did - or might have - actually happened.

Which is part of the reason why so many people believe in religions without sound justification.

Personal beliefs aren't a sacred, no-go zone, Bells. What people believe about things tends to affect how they act towards other people, so personal beliefs have effects on the wider world. It's okay to question beliefs. In fact, in some cases I think it's a moral duty to do so.

MR's belief in ghosts, UFOs and other woo is essentially a religious ideology.

If you think that believing in, say, aliens, is always harmless, consider cases like the Heaven's Gate cult.

That distinction is precisely the one that, at the end of your reply, you queried me on. See my reply in post #50, above.

Do you think MR's personal experience could possibly be something fake, or his imagination, etc.?

And how about yours?

What normally happens is that cases aren't based just on eyewitness statements. Cases tend to be stronger when there is physical evidence as well as testimony. Forensic evidence. Documentary evidence. Photographic evidence. And more.

Many potential criminal cases are never run, because the only evidence police have is statements from one or more eyewitnesses.

They are asked to document because physical tabs can't be kept on participants in a drug trial at all times. Nor it is practical to continuously monitor patients for physical signs that the drug is or is not working, or is having side effects. Some effects are actually hard to detect using physical tests. Experiences such as pain and pain relief tend to be very subjective, for example. The placebo effect is a thing, too.

Documenting of people's subjective impressions during medical trials provides useful supplementary information, but the effectiveness of drugs is seldom, if ever, determined based solely on such impressions.

Is it harmful to MR? Quite possibly.

Again, the potential is there for MR's beliefs to cause harms to other people, down the track. MR acts on his beliefs, like we all do.

Beliefs are always personal. When you believe something, it simply means that you have become convinced - for whatever reason - that the thing is true.

People become convinced of things for good reasons and for bad reasons. They become convinced of true things and false things.

It matters to you whether other people believe true things, I'm sure.

Yes, Bells. It's wrong for people to believe things that aren't true. It's wrong because it means that they became convinced for bad reasons.

Some of the things that they believe which aren't true might be comforting to them, but that doesn't mean the rest of us should necessarily go along with the pretence that the things are true.

There are demonstrable harms caused to at least some of the people who believe in things like Bigfoot. Bigfoot belief is fed by a money-making industry, of sorts, just like a lot of false beliefs. People profit at the expense of other people who buy their lies.

Erm... excuse me?

If somebody experiences a hallucination, is that more or less "valid" than experiencing something that is real?

I assume you're not actually trying to argue that all experiences have equal "value", just because they are experiences. So, what are you actually trying to say?

Not entirely. We don't really choose our beliefs. We become convinced of things, or not.

Certainly, whether or not people have robust bullshit filters or baloney detectors in place, to guard against being sucked into shoddy beliefs, is up to the individuals.

I'm a strong advocate for teaching critical thinking.

 

(continued...)

I think "real to me" or "real to them" or "real for you" are all weasel words.

There's real, and there's not real. People's beliefs about what is real and what is not differ, but I don't think there's any justification for throwing out the baby with the bathwater and pretending that any belief about reality is as good as any other belief.

The same goes for expressions like "my truth", "our truth", "your truth" etc. There's the truth, and then there's what's false.

And, of course, our good friend "alternative facts" is in the same paddock with all of these.

I'm more interested in whether you agree with me than I am in whether you think I feel more comfortable about having said something.

On the other hand, you're really just trying to dismiss what I said, with that, aren't you? You're trying to imply that I'm having an emotional outburst, rather than making a reasoned argument, which perhaps makes to think you're justified in not taking it seriously.

Again, I have to be careful to distinguish between (a) having an experience and (b) believing that having that experience provides good objective evidence for some truth about the physical world.

If you are talking about (a), then I don't think you're gullible. I, too, accept that many people report having similar experiences of seeing ghosts.

If, on the other hand, you are talking about (b), then I think it would be a little gullible of you to believe in the existence of ghosts based solely on the existence of a lot of anecdotal evidence. After all, lots of people have been wrong before about lots of things for which they had only anecdotal evidence.

That's actually out of my control because, as I said, we don't get to choose our beliefs. If he manages to convince me that the aliens are here, for instance, then I'll believe it, regardless of what I might want.

Trolling is an activity, evidenced by actions. It's not MR's beliefs that are trolling, Bells. His trolling is to be found in his pattern of behaviour on this forum. haven't you noticed it?

No. I don't care what he believes in, at least insofar as what he believes in does not harm other people. I also used to worry about the harms that he inflicts on himself, but these days I don't think he's even honest about what he believes. I think he is probably damaged by past experiences that none of us know about. After all, you don't get to be like that for no reason. But I know that he has enough knowledge now - after reading this forum for years - to inoculate himself against some of the harms that his ostensible belief system might otherwise cause him. These days, I'm more concerned about the harm he is potentially doing to others, knowingly. It's one reason I like to counter his efforts.

I'm not sure that you should trust what he says about where he is coming from. Not that he ever says much about that, anyway.

You're an atheist. But here you're telling me you think there's nothing wrong, naive or stupid about believing in God.

Really, Bells? Nothing at all?

If there's nothing wrong with it, or naive or stupid, why don't you believe in God? Or - if you prefer - why take a position on the matter at all? If believing in God is just as good as not believing, why not just sit on the fence?

Actually here's why: you didn't make a choice not to believe in God. You just didn't become convinced there is a God - or you became unconvinced at some stage in your life, having been convinced previously. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't random that you ended up where you are on the God issue. Was it?

Actually, I think that going through life believing in the supernatural and superstition and astrology and 7 years' bad luck from broken mirrors and that kind of thing does limit a person in a number of ways. They might not feel like they are constrained by those beliefs - they might never consider the question - but they are.

None of us have to argue with anybody here, Bells. None of us have to post anything at all. But, as you say, any of us is free to disagree with another of us.

I disagree with MR's positions on a number of matters. So, if you don't mind, I will continue to post on those matters, when disagreements arise.

I'm puzzled as to why you're so keen that I stop.

He certainly plays up the naive, stupid and gullible, on this forum. Whether he is or isn't those things is debatable. But while I often find myself second-guessing whether he is a legitimate participant in discussions here, in my replies the easiest thing to do is to take him at face value. If he is not, in fact, a trolling fraud, then naive, stupid and gullible all fit him to a tee. He has a very long history here. Haven't you noticed?

Argumentum ad populum.

That's a well-known argumentary fallacy, Bells. I'm surprised this is the basis of your defence of MR.

I was very careful to distinguish sense (a) from sense (b), mentioned earlier in this post.

I in no way deny that either of you had experiences (sense (a)). I do not believe that either of your experiences - or your experiences taken together - prove that ghosts exist (sense (b)).

I thought I explained that clearly before. In fact, I believe I made that point at least twice, if not three times, to both you and MR, prior to the post of yours that I'm quoting here.

I did not presume to tell you what it was or was not.

What I told you is that I am not convinced you saw an actual ghost. In addition, I told you why I don't think anybody else should be convinced that you saw a ghost, based on your account.

I could be wrong, of course. Maybe ghosts are real, and you saw one. All I can say is that, I'll need better evidence before I'll be convinced that either of those things are facts.

Again, I have not tried to tell you what it was or was not. Please understand that.

 

Bells:

I don't think I am in a position to provide any kind of definitive explanation. At best, I could suggest some possible explanations.

I have been a card-carrying Skeptic (which isn't exactly a thing, but you get my meaning) for more than 30 years, Bells. In that time, I have read accounts of probably thousands of ghost sightings, including ones very similar to yours. I have also learned quite a bit about the human mind, including how human perception and memory work (and, sometimes, don't work). I have read up on a lot of ghost investigations. I have talked about ghosts on this forum with numerous people on and off for more than 20 years.

I believe that my experience and knowledge on these matters puts me in a good place to offer some potential explanations for your experience that do not invoke supernatural or "paranormal" causes. I have not, at this time, done that. You haven't asked me to, and I get the impression that you don't want me to.

I'm saying this a lot, but I'll say it once again. I accept that your experience was "real" in sense (a) [see above]: that you had an experience that you remember as one that felt as real as any of your other experiences. I question with your experience was "real" in sense (b): that you saw an actual ghost.

I also accept your word that your husband reported a similar experience that felt real to him, although as a matter of obvious fact, his experience is second-hand from my point of view, whereas I'm hearing a first-hand account from you of your experience. That makes a difference in itself.

From my point of view, the nurse in this story is even more removed than your husband is. If I wanted to track down the nurse to get her version of the story first-hand, I'm guessing I would have a hard time. But even if I accept that you have reported her story accurately to me, I can still think of some possible explanations for what she experienced that don't involve the supernatural.

So, again, what this all adds up to is that I'm not yet convinced there was an actual ghost. And, I'm sorry to say it, but the two subsidiary accounts you have brought in support of your own first-hand account do not, for me, add much weight to any claim that your story supports the existence of actual supernatural ghosts or spirits, or whatever you want to call them.

Can I explain what you experienced? I cannot. I have insufficient evidence to explain it. Even you have insufficient evidence, by your own admission, and you're obviously much closer to it all than I am.

I assume you have some explanations in your own mind. I don't know if you have a preferred explanation.

Again, don't take away from this that I don't believe you had an experience that was very meaningful to you. I have no reason to doubt you on that.

For clarity, I want to go through this quote piece by piece.

• Like you, I also believe that some people experience things that make them believe or confirm existing beliefs. That's how people become convinced of things: they experience things.
• I cannot say that spirits do not exist or cannot exist. All I can say is that I'm not convinced they exist.
• I agree that people experience things they can't explain. Some people even experience things that other people can't explain.
• People's experiences are "real" in the obvious sense that they really had the experiences. Their interpretations of the experiences they have are not, however, always accurately indicative of facts in the world.
• "Real to them" and "real to me" are weasel words, if you're concerned about what is objectively true. If somebody experiences a hallucination, for example, then (a) they really had an experience (of having a hallucination) but (b) their interpretation of the experience is not indicative of objective facts in the world. The hallucination might be "real to them", but it isn't real.
• I probably am going to berate MR for continuing to evangelise that "real for me" or "real for them" always equates to "real" in sense (b). Because he has no excuse for doing that, these days. If it isn't all an act on his part, then he's a gullible, stupid, fool, because he's had years here to learn how to think critically about this stuff, and patient, careful teachers to help him.

Thanks, but I'm aware of that already.

It's not me I'm worried about, you know. I have a very effective baloney detection kit, but lots of other people do not.

Again, I'm sorry Bells, but allusions to "other things" doesn't measurably add to my willingness to accept that anything supernatural happened. You understand why that is, right?

Science is an interest of mine, and I'm quite well educated in it.

I enjoy learning things about the world, Bells. I enjoy a good mystery. I'm curious about things. I enjoy knowledge for its own sake, as well as for its usefulness. I'm interested in the world around me and in what makes people tick.

I also like to model critical thinking to others who are less familiar with it.

In other words, there are quite a few reasons.

No. Please explain the irony to me.

Not quite. I think he is gullible because, if we are to take him at face value, he accepts that anything another person says they experienced must be true.

Actually, I don't believe that is what he actually does, which is one reason why I think that he's a lying troll, these days.

Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, Bells.

I'm not as likely to doubt somebody's story that Barnaby Joyce was filmed chatting on his phone while flat on his back on a Canberra sidewalk as I am to doubt that Jesus Christ rose from the dead on the third day. The former story is at least reasonably consistent with past behaviour, whereas the later is an account of something that has never been confirmed to occur in the history of the world, or even to be scientifically possible.

I do find it a little surprising that you're running a lot of the same surface-level rationalisations that MR has been trotting out on this forum for years. On any other topic, I'm almost sure you'd be advising against blindly accepting anecdotal evidence for extraordinary occurrences, but here you are making excuses on behalf of MR.

 

(continued...)

And he's not honest about it, or in how he goes about it.

Belief in ghosts is not very different from believe in souls of the departed or other spirit beings.

You speak as if you're entirely unfamiliar with MR's long history on this forum, and of my history of conversations with him. It's very puzzling. Have you not followed his writings here? Have you not followed what I have written to him? He's been posting here for years, Bells. Do you think this is the first time he and I have had this kind of conversation? Where have you been?

Do you honestly think I haven't talked at length to Magical Realist about exploring people's beliefs?

Do you honestly think that I called him gullible, naive and stupid from the outset? The outset, Bells, was many many years ago. You ought to know me well enough that I rarely call anybody gullible, naive or stupid. People have to really work hard for me to apply those labels to them; I don't hand them out to just anybody you know.

You're applying a different standard to him and to me, when it comes to care and thought in one's postings to this forum. Are you completely unaware of how Magical Realist habitually conducts himself here? If so, please do yourself a favour and read through the last 20 pages of the UFO thread, for instance.

The fact is: I did handle his disclosure with thought and care. He made light of it, in effect. It was more or less a throwaway line, to him. His real agenda this time around was to re-prosecute his agenda concerning how everybody should accept that whatever another person tells them always represents unequestionable reality and truth - an obviously ridiculous position but one that he regularly trolls up. Watch him deny it, again, following this post, only to repeat it tomorrow or next week, for the n-th time.

You're repeating yourself, Bells. I understand what "real to us" and "real to me" mean. They mean that you know that what you're saying is not like solid scientific evidence. You're saying you recognise that lots of people won't necessarily accept that it was real "real", as in objectively real.

I understand something of these kinds of experiences, Bells. I have personally had one or two rather strange experiences - though not as vivid as the ones you have reported here - which I might be inclined to put down to paranormal or supernatural causes if I didn't know better.

I was careful from the start of this conversation not to dismiss your experience, or MR's. I have not told anybody that it's just in their heads. I have, however, canvassed that as a possibility, which it very obviously is.

When it comes to ghosts, you mean?

What evidence are you thinking of?

You're introducing a new topic, here. I don't think it has much to do with "bereavement apparitions".

There's a lot to unpack, there.

I'm not sure where you want to go with this. Are you asserting that some or all women have a supernatural or paranormal ability to discern the state of their own health? Or are you merely asserting that some people have a keen, albeit natural, awareness of their own bodies?

As for the "medical profession", there's a lot we could talk about regarding the treatment and diagnosis of various patients in "the system". I don't know if it's an appropriate topic for this thread, though.

I define "intuition" as a feeling that something might be the case. Some intuitions turn out to be correct; others turn out to be wrong.

At best, intuition is educated guesswork that draws on personal experience and learning to accurately predict likely outcomes. At worst, intuition is an excuse people give for making unreliable predictions.

 

Magical Realist:

I didn't.

You would know this if you had bothered reading and trying to understand any of my posts in this thread.

Alternatively, perhaps you did read and understand them, and you're just trolling again. That strikes me as highly likely. Either that or you really are the village idiot.

(See what I mean, Bells?)

Nothing, but it seems unlikely that it was, seeing as there has never been a confirmed ghost sighting, to date.

I'm not convinced it was.

What convinced you?