Why do ghosts wear human clothes?

[Kittamaru]

Pareidolia.

It's a common and very normal psychological phenomenon, in which the pattern-recognition function of the human mind "perceives" familiar patterns (or patterns that it's more motivated to discover) in objects of perception that bear only a faint resemblance to what's "seen". It's most commonly exemplified by "seeing" human faces in inanimate objects like clouds or rocks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia

A fascinating thing is that this phenomenon also occurs in computer vision programs. I would expect to see it in situations where 'neural networks' (whether organic or computer) are trained to detect certain patterns and become highly sensitive to them. With human beings, for obvious reasons it's other human faces.

Good luck - this has been explained to MR repeatedly - he refuses to accept the simplest explanation for his "ghost stories" because they contradict his worldview...

 

[river]

Hmm....ghosts are a psychological experience ; pattern based .

We have alot to learn about this phenommon.

 

[DaveC426913]

Two clouds, a face, and an apparition. So what?

Actually it is vapor from a person's breath, caught in forelight against a dark background.

...doing doing pretty much what you said such things don't do, here:

Nope. Hazy clouds don't reflect light like that. Next?

here:

Right. A bright reflection off of night mist. Makes perfect sense. You have explained it all Einstein. lol!

here:

No..mist or fog does not present a reflective surface like metal or glass does. It absorbs and disperses light.

and here:

Nice try but there is nothing for this image to be reflected off of.

 

[Magical Realist]

View attachment 961

Actually it is vapor from a person's breath, caught in forelight against a dark background.

...doing doing pretty much what you said such things don't do, here:

here:

here:

and here:

No..the image of the kid screaming looks nothing like a cloud. Too many hard lines and colors. See? It's obviously a real image. Also notice your cloud is not reflecting the flash of a light. It is simply an illuminated cloud. That's exactly my point. Mist doesn't reflect light like glass or metal.

 

[river]

The limitations of logic .

 

[Magical Realist]

"Just as the outer world imprints itself on one’s inner cognitive consciousness, so also is the activity of the psyche reflected upon the outer external world, which is often perceived clairvoyantly and even photographed. As there is no actual boundary preventing this mental and emotional psychic phenomenon from being projected onto the energy-mirror of the... physical world, psychic imprinting occurs. Both mind and world are in a constant state of interactively reflecting each other. C. G. Jung, in Aion: Researches into the Phenomenology of the Self, informs us that:

"The Psyche cannot be totally different from matter, for how otherwise could it move matter? And matter cannot be alien to psyche, for how else could matter produce psyche? Psyche and matter exist in one and the same world, and each partakes of the other, otherwise any reciprocal action would be impossible. If research could only advance far enough, therefore, we should arrive at an ultimate agreement between physical and psychological concepts."

Joseph R. Buchanan, an American professor of physiology first coined the name psychometry in 1842, a term derived from the Greek words psyche, meaning "soul," and metron, meaning "measure. He began running a series of psychometric experiment using his students, with the goal of identifying different unknown chemical substances in glass vials. The results of these experiments were successful, which he published in his book, Journal of Man in 1887.

Psychometry is the ability to be psychically aware of the energy patterns that we all leave on the objects around us. These impressions received through psychometry not only include images but often sounds, tastes, smells and emotions as well. As physical objects are not consciously aware of their surroundings, where do these memory-fragments of past events come from? They are imprinted on the objective world by a human mind – by the consciousness of an individual experiencing a particular psychological or physical event. Imprinting is a phenomenon that is constantly taking place between all of us and the things and places that we are constantly in contact with.

Imprinting can also occur in a particular place in which a very dramatic or emotional event has occurred, being literally imprinted on the surrounding atmosphere and remaining there for an extended period of time. I remember walking into a large retail store at Christmas time and being confronted with the negative atmosphere created by the hundreds of shoppers who had come and gone, all in a mutual state of distress over the urgent emotional need to finish their shopping in time. This is also what happens in the creation of residual haunting phenomena.."===http://esotericotherworlds.blogspot.com/2013/07/psychic-imprinting-101.html

 

[Yazata]

No..normal isn't whatever science can explain.

Normal is whatever is typical and most common in a particular context. It isn't necessary that common and typical events have a scientific explanation in order for them to be common and typical. But... if we assume that science describes the regularities in existence, describes how reality around us typically behaves, then scientific understanding would describe what is normal, just by definition.

That's the essence of David Hume's argument against believing in miracles. Assuming that miracles are violations of the natural order, and if the natural order consists of what is most likely to happen, then violations of the natural order are going to be unlikely simply by their nature. (Not impossible, just unlikely, there's a difference.) So there will typically be an alternative natural explanation for a supposed miraculous event that will be more probable than the event being a miracle. Hence it will typically be more reasonable to accept the natural explanation.

It seems to me that you are effectively trying to argue for the reality of miracles in your many paranormal posts.

As for me, I believe that violations of what we imagine to be the natural order are not only possible, but probable. That's because our understanding of reality is extremely limited - in space, time, by limitations in our conceptual vocabularies and by limitations in our own inherent cognitive powers. That suggests that there might still be a lot out there capable of surprising us and that might not be consistent with our current belief and understanding. I think of those as 'anomalous events' and they are why I consider myself a Fortean.

Combining these two seemingly-opposed arguments suggests that while it isn't absolutely impossible that our scientific understanding is being violated, and in fact it might even be likely that violations are occurring somewhere and somehow, we still need to approach any proposed miracles, any proposed violations of the scientific order, with considerable skepticism. As Hume convincingly argued, credulity in these matters probably isn't rational.

So I guess that my bottom line is: While the general idea that what we take to be the natural order doesn't hold true in every instance arguably has a high likelihood, particular examples of supposed violations will typically have a low likelihood.

 

[sideshowbob]

If I say a ghost is doing it, that is an explanation no less than saying the wind did it.

It's much less of an "explanation." We know what wind is and how it works.

I'll ask again: Why do you choose "ghost" as an explanation for one observation and "space alien" as an explanation for another?

 

[Kittamaru]

It's much less of an "explanation." We know what wind is and how it works.

I'll ask again: Why do you choose "ghost" as an explanation for one observation and "space alien" as an explanation for another?

Personally, I'd bet on a mild psychosis... it would explain the apparent inability to accept reality as it is...

From https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001553.htm

Psychosis occurs when a person loses contact with reality. The person may:

• Have false beliefs about what is taking place, or who one is (delusions).
• See or hear things that are not there (hallucinations).

 

[Magical Realist]

It's much less of an "explanation." We know what wind is and how it works.

I'll ask again: Why do you choose "ghost" as an explanation for one observation and "space alien" as an explanation for another?

Because we know by thousands of investigations and firsthand accounts that's how ghosts manifest. Space aliens manifest in ufos. But that's another topic.

 

[Magical Realist]

But... if we assume that science describes the regularities in existence, describes how reality around us typically behaves, then scientific understanding would describe what is normal, just by definition

It may describe what is the norm, but its description doesn't define the norm as being normal. It was normal before science ever came along and described it. Lightning is normal for thunderstorms, but that doesn't mean it wasn't normal before science could explain it. Consciousness is normal for living humans, but that doesn't mean science can explain it.

That's the essence of David Hume's argument against believing in miracles. Assuming that miracles are violations of the natural order, and if the natural order consists of what is most likely to happen, then violations of the natural order are going to be unlikely simply by their nature. (Not impossible, just unlikely, there's a difference.) So there will typically be an alternative natural explanation for a supposed miraculous event that will be more probable than the event being a miracle. Hence it will typically be more reasonable to accept the natural explanation.

It seems to me that you are effectively trying to argue for the reality of miracles in your many paranormal posts

I don't think any natural order is being broken with paranormal phenomena. I just think what we believe to be "natural order" is much more flexible and varied than what we presently know. I think you would agree, seeing you accept the possibility of anomalous fortean phenomena. That's not to say any laws of nature are being violated. It's just saying there are many more phenomena out there than we presently know that fall outside what we observe to be lawful and regulated behavior. Does it mean they don't have their own laws? No not at all. We just haven't discovered them yet.

Combining these two seemingly-opposed arguments suggests that while it isn't absolutely impossible that our scientific understanding is being violated, and in fact it might even be likely that violations are occurring somewhere and somehow, we still need to approach any proposed miracles, any proposed violations of the scientific order, with considerable skepticism. As Hume convincingly argued, credulity in these matters probably isn't rational.

If such anomalous phenomena are possible and sometimes occur, then dismissing them out of hand with "default positions" and skepticism seems prejudicial to me. We will never really know if this is a real phenomena if we do not suspend our disbelief and at least accept the possibility that in every mysterious case the paranormal or anomalous HAS occurred. Then, if it gets debunked by mundane causes, no big deal. We move on to the next case, always open to the possibility that it may happen in the future. Note I speak with the perspective of one who accepts that the paranormal DOES indeed occur based on tons of accounts and investigations.

 

[Magical Realist]

Personally, I'd bet on a mild psychosis... it would explain the apparent inability to accept reality as it is...

From https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001553.htm

Another attempt to insult and defame by SciForums chief troll moderator. It never ends with you does it?

it would explain the apparent inability to accept reality as it is...

Define "reality as it is". How do you know that is "as it is"? Do you think you perceive all there is to reality? You believe in God, Jesus, angels and demons don't you?

 

[DaveC426913]

Because we know by thousands of investigations and firsthand accounts that's how ghosts manifest.

This has been addressed and dismissed as fallacious logic. Again, it is a tautology.

Another attempt to insult and defame by SciForums chief troll moderator. It never ends with you does it?

In order to take umbrage with that, it would behoove you to not commit it yourself, as has occurred several times in this thread.

 

[Magical Realist]

In order to take umbrage with that, it would behoove you to not commit it yourself, as has occurred several times in this thread.

If I am psychotic as he and apparently now you are claiming, I can't NOT commit it. It means I'm insane and have no control over my own thoughts.

 

[DaveC426913]

If I am psychotic as he and apparently now you are claiming,

I never made any such claim. Please review the last couple of posts.

I am calling attention to the fact that you were the first and subsequent poster to question other's mental wellness in this thread, quite early on, in fact. You kicked that door open, you have no complaint if others walk through it.

I can't NOT commit it. It means I'm insane and have no control over my own thoughts.

So ... your choice of response to confirm the supposition, by acting it out?

Are you sure that's the route you want to take?

 

[Magical Realist]

I never made any such claim. Please review the last couple of posts.

I am calling attention to the fact that you were the first and subsequent poster to question other's mental wellness in this thread, quite early on, in fact. You kicked that door open, you have no complaint if others walk through it.

You just said not to commit what Kittamaru accused me of--being psychotic. So ofcourse you are claiming that.

I am calling attention to the fact that you were the first and subsequent poster to question other's mental wellness in this thread, quite early on, in fact. You kicked that door open, you have no complaint if others walk through it.

Show where I claimed anyone was psychotic.

So ... your choice of response to confirm the supposition, by acting it out?

Are you sure that's the route you want to take?

Show how my alleged "acting out" confirms that I am psychotic. Back up your claims.

 

[DaveC426913]

You just said not to commit what Kittamaru accused me of--being psychotic. So ofcourse you are claiming that.

No. Please review:

Kitt:

I'd bet on a mild psychosis

MR:

[ accusing me of a mild psychosis is ] another attempt to insult and defame

DaveC:

In order to take umbrage with [ the accusation of mental unwellness ], it would behoove you to not commit [ accusations of mental unwellness ] yourself,

 

[Magical Realist]

No. Please review:

Kitt:
MR:
DaveC:

Here's the unedited version of what you said:

"In order to take umbrage with that, it would behoove you to not commit it (psychosis) yourself, as has occurred several times in this thread."

That's what you said. I am committing psychosis. Where have I done that? Why do you agree I would even be capable of something like that?

If you are changing what you meant now, show where I called anyone psychotic.

 

[DaveC426913]

Here's the unedited version of what you said:

"In order to take umbrage with that, it would behoove you to not commit it (psychosis) yourself, as has occurred several times in this thread."

That's what you said.

You say it is unedited, and yet you edited it.

Does it never end with you?

 

[Magical Realist]

You say it is unedited, and yet you edited it.

Does it never end with you?

So now on top of being called psychotic, another troll jumps in, defends the insult, and accuses me of saying the same thing to others. But he presents no evidence for it. You really are trying to get this thread closed aren't you?