What are your thoughts on the origin of ghosts?

Discuss the October 2016 Book of the Month, Unspeakable Acts by Janet Leigh Green.
CaitlinE
Posts: 28
Joined: 07 Oct 2016, 14:37
Currently Reading: The Monstrumologist (The Monstrumologist, #1)
Bookshelf Size: 41
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-caitline.html

Re: What are your thoughts on the origin of ghosts?

Post by CaitlinE »

I'm not sure whether I believe in ghosts or not, but if I had to guess, I would say they are the souls that have remained on Earth. Maybe people who are particularly protective of those they left behind, or who feel like they wasted their lives.
User avatar
Wasif Ahmed
Posts: 662
Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
Favorite Author: J.K. Rowling
Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
Bookshelf Size: 110
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
fav_author_id: 1778

Post by Wasif Ahmed »

CaitlinE, your post gave me Goosebumps. :)
When people say you've changed, it just means that you have stopped living your life, their way.
User avatar
lane_vespertine
Posts: 126
Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 22:55
Currently Reading: Ilium
Bookshelf Size: 18
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-lane-vespertine.html
Latest Review: "Hell Holes 2" by Donald Firesmith

Post by lane_vespertine »

wasif_ahmed wrote:Gali, not believing in paranormal activities is fine but then how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced? Read the 'Do you believe in ghosts?' forum on this topic, the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly. :)
I disagree with both the question and how you phrase it.
The "weird encounters written about in that forum" can be explained by many things. For instance:
1. Ghosts
2. Drugs
3. Aliens
4. Literally anything else you can think of.
The point here is that you can't ever say that there is only one explanation for anything. For example, gravity could be either the natural attraction between things with mass OR a giant hoax propagated by the "pro-gravity" lobby. The point is that you can only speculate on the most likely cause and never the "only" cause. Yes, some of the other causes might be silly and obviously wrong (like my example of "pro-gravity" lobbies), but they are still possibilities.
So when you say "can only be explained," you exclude through logical fallacy any, perhaps more reasonable, possible explanations.

On top of this, you assume an anecdote to be fact. An anecdote is one persons interpretation of an event. It inherently is subject to the natural biases and experiences of the person relating it. I'll give you an example:
Two people see a married couple having sex.
The first person is a modern adult and says, "This is natural and I shouldn't be looking at this."
The second person is a small child and says, "That man is beating that woman and I should get help!"
They both are using what they have learned up until that point in their life to interpret what is happening to the best of their knowledge. In this example I gave you the facts of what is happening first, but real life is never as accommodating.

Facts can only ever be called facts when they have been tested against other possible interpretations and are clearly shown to be the most likely explanation by a consensus (there is a bit of a rabbit hole here, what does it take to establish a consensus? Suffice it to be defined as "the majority agreement of well informed people." The more people involved with the consensus and the more they are informed, the stronger the likelihood of correctness. Yes, they do make mistakes, such as witch trials and medicinal leeches, but the point is that a large consensus is MORE likely to be correct than any single individual person, not that it always has been the case.)

Now that I am armed with all this logical stuff, let me get back to your original quote.

"...how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced?"

I do not disagree that people believe they have experienced "ghostly encounters."
But, this is their interpretation of an event.
If a person is inclined to suspect ghosts due to a preexisting belief, then an unexplained event may be attributed to them. If, on the other hand, that person had been inclined to suspect aliens, then it would have been unsurprising if the unexplained event had been attributed to aliens. Or fairies. Or demons. If a person is inclined to look for more physical explanations for the same event, they may have attributed it to chemical misfires in their brain. Or gravity. Or optic illusion. If that person was truly and utterly skeptical, they might have simply shrugged and said "I don't know what happened."
All of these examples are legitimate reactions to the same event, and thus carry the same legitimate weight.
In order for the interpretation of "ghosts" to be made fact, it must compare to every other possibility (all of those stated above, as well as those not stated, and for the sake of not having to compare things until the literal ending of time, we can limit these possibilities to those most likely.) At that point a consensus must be achieved.

I have seen no robust consensus ever agree that the most likely cause of any event was ghosts.

I cannot argue for every single possible event individually, since that would make this way too long posting even more way too long (approaching infinity in fact.)

"...the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly."

Nope. Not true. At all. Because of everything I've already said.

Anyway, sorry if I come across as a jerk. Hope you have a great day!
:D
Latest Review: "Hell Holes 2" by Donald Firesmith
User avatar
gali
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 53652
Joined: 22 Oct 2013, 07:12
Favorite Author: Agatha Christie
Currently Reading: The Suite Life
Bookshelf Size: 2287
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-gali.html
Reading Device: B00I15SB16
Publishing Contest Votes: 0
fav_author_id: 2484

Post by gali »

lane_vespertine wrote:
wasif_ahmed wrote:Gali, not believing in paranormal activities is fine but then how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced? Read the 'Do you believe in ghosts?' forum on this topic, the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly. :)
I disagree with both the question and how you phrase it.
The "weird encounters written about in that forum" can be explained by many things. For instance:
1. Ghosts
2. Drugs
3. Aliens
4. Literally anything else you can think of.
The point here is that you can't ever say that there is only one explanation for anything. For example, gravity could be either the natural attraction between things with mass OR a giant hoax propagated by the "pro-gravity" lobby. The point is that you can only speculate on the most likely cause and never the "only" cause. Yes, some of the other causes might be silly and obviously wrong (like my example of "pro-gravity" lobbies), but they are still possibilities.
So when you say "can only be explained," you exclude through logical fallacy any, perhaps more reasonable, possible explanations.

On top of this, you assume an anecdote to be fact. An anecdote is one persons interpretation of an event. It inherently is subject to the natural biases and experiences of the person relating it. I'll give you an example:
Two people see a married couple having sex.
The first person is a modern adult and says, "This is natural and I shouldn't be looking at this."
The second person is a small child and says, "That man is beating that woman and I should get help!"
They both are using what they have learned up until that point in their life to interpret what is happening to the best of their knowledge. In this example I gave you the facts of what is happening first, but real life is never as accommodating.

Facts can only ever be called facts when they have been tested against other possible interpretations and are clearly shown to be the most likely explanation by a consensus (there is a bit of a rabbit hole here, what does it take to establish a consensus? Suffice it to be defined as "the majority agreement of well informed people." The more people involved with the consensus and the more they are informed, the stronger the likelihood of correctness. Yes, they do make mistakes, such as witch trials and medicinal leeches, but the point is that a large consensus is MORE likely to be correct than any single individual person, not that it always has been the case.)

Now that I am armed with all this logical stuff, let me get back to your original quote.

"...how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced?"

I do not disagree that people believe they have experienced "ghostly encounters."
But, this is their interpretation of an event.
If a person is inclined to suspect ghosts due to a preexisting belief, then an unexplained event may be attributed to them. If, on the other hand, that person had been inclined to suspect aliens, then it would have been unsurprising if the unexplained event had been attributed to aliens. Or fairies. Or demons. If a person is inclined to look for more physical explanations for the same event, they may have attributed it to chemical misfires in their brain. Or gravity. Or optic illusion. If that person was truly and utterly skeptical, they might have simply shrugged and said "I don't know what happened."
All of these examples are legitimate reactions to the same event, and thus carry the same legitimate weight.
In order for the interpretation of "ghosts" to be made fact, it must compare to every other possibility (all of those stated above, as well as those not stated, and for the sake of not having to compare things until the literal ending of time, we can limit these possibilities to those most likely.) At that point a consensus must be achieved.

I have seen no robust consensus ever agree that the most likely cause of any event was ghosts.

I cannot argue for every single possible event individually, since that would make this way too long posting even more way too long (approaching infinity in fact.)

"...the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly."

Nope. Not true. At all. Because of everything I've already said.

Anyway, sorry if I come across as a jerk. Hope you have a great day!
:D
:text-yeahthat:
A retired Admin/Mod

Pronouns: She/Her

"In the case of good books, the point is not to see how many of them you can get through, but rather how many can get through to you." (Mortimer J. Adler)
User avatar
Janetleighgreen
Posts: 666
Joined: 05 Jul 2016, 19:04
Favorite Author: Janet Leigh Green
Currently Reading: Before She Disappeared
Bookshelf Size: 204
fav_author_id: 42198

Post by Janetleighgreen »

gali wrote:
lane_vespertine wrote:
wasif_ahmed wrote:Gali, not believing in paranormal activities is fine but then how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced? Read the 'Do you believe in ghosts?' forum on this topic, the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly. :)
I disagree with both the question and how you phrase it.
The "weird encounters written about in that forum" can be explained by many things. For instance:
1. Ghosts
2. Drugs
3. Aliens
4. Literally anything else you can think of.
The point here is that you can't ever say that there is only one explanation for anything. For example, gravity could be either the natural attraction between things with mass OR a giant hoax propagated by the "pro-gravity" lobby. The point is that you can only speculate on the most likely cause and never the "only" cause. Yes, some of the other causes might be silly and obviously wrong (like my example of "pro-gravity" lobbies), but they are still possibilities.
So when you say "can only be explained," you exclude through logical fallacy any, perhaps more reasonable, possible explanations.

On top of this, you assume an anecdote to be fact. An anecdote is one persons interpretation of an event. It inherently is subject to the natural biases and experiences of the person relating it. I'll give you an example:
Two people see a married couple having sex.
The first person is a modern adult and says, "This is natural and I shouldn't be looking at this."
The second person is a small child and says, "That man is beating that woman and I should get help!"
They both are using what they have learned up until that point in their life to interpret what is happening to the best of their knowledge. In this example I gave you the facts of what is happening first, but real life is never as accommodating.

Facts can only ever be called facts when they have been tested against other possible interpretations and are clearly shown to be the most likely explanation by a consensus (there is a bit of a rabbit hole here, what does it take to establish a consensus? Suffice it to be defined as "the majority agreement of well informed people." The more people involved with the consensus and the more they are informed, the stronger the likelihood of correctness. Yes, they do make mistakes, such as witch trials and medicinal leeches, but the point is that a large consensus is MORE likely to be correct than any single individual person, not that it always has been the case.)

Now that I am armed with all this logical stuff, let me get back to your original quote.

"...how do you explain the ghostly encounters which many people have experienced?"

I do not disagree that people believe they have experienced "ghostly encounters."
But, this is their interpretation of an event.
If a person is inclined to suspect ghosts due to a preexisting belief, then an unexplained event may be attributed to them. If, on the other hand, that person had been inclined to suspect aliens, then it would have been unsurprising if the unexplained event had been attributed to aliens. Or fairies. Or demons. If a person is inclined to look for more physical explanations for the same event, they may have attributed it to chemical misfires in their brain. Or gravity. Or optic illusion. If that person was truly and utterly skeptical, they might have simply shrugged and said "I don't know what happened."
All of these examples are legitimate reactions to the same event, and thus carry the same legitimate weight.
In order for the interpretation of "ghosts" to be made fact, it must compare to every other possibility (all of those stated above, as well as those not stated, and for the sake of not having to compare things until the literal ending of time, we can limit these possibilities to those most likely.) At that point a consensus must be achieved.

I have seen no robust consensus ever agree that the most likely cause of any event was ghosts.

I cannot argue for every single possible event individually, since that would make this way too long posting even more way too long (approaching infinity in fact.)

"...the weird encounters written about in that forum can only be explained through something ghostly."

Nope. Not true. At all. Because of everything I've already said.

Anyway, sorry if I come across as a jerk. Hope you have a great day!
:D
:text-yeahthat:
Even though, I do believe in ghosts, I absolutely love this response Gali! I also love the fact that someone asked the questions to elicit such a response! I am still smiling so big my cheeks are hurting!

I still say ghosts are out there though! Haha!
User avatar
Aleah
Posts: 20
Joined: 08 Oct 2016, 17:34
Currently Reading: The Fault in Our Stars
Bookshelf Size: 30
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-aleah.html

Post by Aleah »

Maybe people with schizophrenia saw ''ghosts'' and nobody knew about their mental illness so they believed them.
User avatar
karolinka
Posts: 213
Joined: 11 Oct 2016, 15:06
Bookshelf Size: 20
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-karolinka.html
Latest Review: "Loose Threads" by J. O. Quantaman
Reading Device: 1400698987

Post by karolinka »

I think that ghosts maybe the astral body leaving the physical one. The astral body cannot exist on the material plane, so it has to exist in the ethereal one, hence- ghosts.
Latest Review: "Loose Threads" by J. O. Quantaman
User avatar
Wasif Ahmed
Posts: 662
Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
Favorite Author: J.K. Rowling
Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
Bookshelf Size: 110
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
fav_author_id: 1778

Post by Wasif Ahmed »

Lane_vespertine. You deserve a medal for your post. :)
When people say you've changed, it just means that you have stopped living your life, their way.
User avatar
Kia
Posts: 351
Joined: 19 Feb 2016, 17:40
Currently Reading: Damaged Goods
Bookshelf Size: 46
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-kia.html
Latest Review: Wheel of Katarnum by James Calliotte
Reading Device: B00JG8GOWU

Post by Kia »

I don't believe in ghosts per se, but I do believe in spirits. Being religious, I believe that every person has a soul, and that after a person dies their soul will either go to heaven or hell. I think it might be possible though for souls to exist in a kind of limbo here on Earth, either because they are not ready yet to leave their loved ones or for whatever other reason. I'm sure a lot of the "ghost" encounters people have though are simply tricks of the imagination because they are somewhere someone told them was haunted.
"Yes, the past can hurt. But the way I see it you can either run from it, or learn from it."- Rafiki
User avatar
Wasif Ahmed
Posts: 662
Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
Favorite Author: J.K. Rowling
Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
Bookshelf Size: 110
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
fav_author_id: 1778

Post by Wasif Ahmed »

Definitely Kia. I do not think of them as dead spirits not ready to leave their ypung ones as God has power over all things and it is upto him to decide who stays in earth or goes to heaven.
When people say you've changed, it just means that you have stopped living your life, their way.
Michelle92
Posts: 74
Joined: 13 Oct 2016, 16:16
Bookshelf Size: 12
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-michelle92.html
Latest Review: "Yesterdat" by Samyann

Post by Michelle92 »

If I have to pinpoint the origin I would go with the soul of each person. I believe that for some reasons someone who has unfinished business may be tempted to stay in this realm for a longer period of time than necessary. And maybe even the people who have suffered terrible deaths can't rest in peace till something gives them a way to part. These are really just thoughts of mine.
Latest Review: "Yesterdat" by Samyann
User avatar
Wasif Ahmed
Posts: 662
Joined: 19 Sep 2016, 22:00
Favorite Author: J.K. Rowling
Currently Reading: The Face of Fear
Bookshelf Size: 110
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-wasif-ahmed.html
Latest Review: Sigfried’s Smelly Socks! by Len Foley
Reading Device: B00THRCA6E
fav_author_id: 1778

Post by Wasif Ahmed »

Wow Michelle.....you really have a wide imagination. Thanks for sharing your views with us. :)
When people say you've changed, it just means that you have stopped living your life, their way.
Jjnessie 33
Posts: 62
Joined: 15 Oct 2016, 19:16
Bookshelf Size: 93
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-jjnessie-33.html
Latest Review: "Audiobooks.com Book of your Choice" by Audiobooks

Post by Jjnessie 33 »

I believe it started as a story to freak children out then became something for loved ones to hold on to. the rumour is that a ghost is a spirit with unfinished business. how ever the story of ghosts started and if they are real is still unknown for sure it isn't as cut and dry as Dracula. But i do know one thing is for sure I do not want to be a restless spirits unfinished business!
Latest Review: "Audiobooks.com Book of your Choice" by Audiobooks
User avatar
greenstripedgiraffe
Previous Member of the Month
Posts: 836
Joined: 22 Oct 2015, 10:47
Currently Reading: The New Strong-Willed Child
Bookshelf Size: 274
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-greenstripedgiraffe.html
Latest Review: Swarm by Guy Morris

Post by greenstripedgiraffe »

"ghost" as we think about it encompasses many things. I don't believe in the spirits of dead people coming back to haunt someone. I do believe in demons, and I do believe it's possible for someone's energy to get stuck in a certain spot - more of an image than anything. not a real entity that you can communicate with. Once you start communicating with an entity, you're looking at more of a demon idea.
"no one down here" --- Up the Down Staircase
Latest Review: Swarm by Guy Morris
User avatar
Megwe85
Posts: 112
Joined: 16 Aug 2016, 01:48
Bookshelf Size: 91
Reviewer Page: onlinebookclub.org/reviews/by-megwe85.html
Latest Review: "Cryptic" by Conrad Luznar

Post by Megwe85 »

Sarah_Khan wrote:It probably started as a legend or maybe people started believing in ghosts to help them cope with the loss of their loved ones. There are a lot of things in this world that we can't explain, and as human beings we're always searching for an answer, which sometimes leads us to make up things. :P
This post says it all for me. Thanks Sarah!
Latest Review: "Cryptic" by Conrad Luznar
Post Reply

Return to “"Unspeakable Acts" by Janet Leigh Green”