Are Ghosts Insane?

[RealPaZZa]

So you don't hold a great deal of truck with the existence of ghosts, then? Any particular reason?

although we have as family ghost story, i posted it here....

i dont believe because ive never experianced one, ive lived in a 200 year old farmhouse in the middle of nowhere before, the house i live in atm was built in 1928, plenty of time for a ghost to be around, but im 42 and never seen a ghost (or experianced anthing like one). i genuinley think many supernatural things have a sensible non-fortean answer.




(stu edit - link tidied up)

 

[robbo616]

i genuinley think many supernatural things have a sensible non-fortean answer.

As do I.......
However,I would never say that;because I have no experience of ghosts that they DEFINITELY do not exist.




As for orbs....I mean really...there has to be a reason why you see 'em ONLY in pictures where the flash was used....

 

[stu neville]

Well, TBH many of us on here have quite happily stated that over the years - probably 90%, or even more, of what's touted as strange phenomena has a mundane explanation after some investigation. People post their experiences in IHTM for example, and subsequently in many cases they get a mundane explanation (whether or not they accept it is another matter, but let's not go there now.)

What we're concerned with on here is the remaining few per cent of cases that are genuinely intriguing. Yes, you can assign a mundane explanation to nearly anything, but now and then the mundane theories are more convoluted and bizarre than the mooted paranormal one.

I believe in ghosts. I believe in UFOs (though not the extra-terrestrial hypothesis). I believe there are large, unclassified primates in forests around the world. BUT, I don't believe that every report, every photo, every blurry video clip shows one of them.

 

[RealPaZZa]

Well, TBH many of us on here have quite happily stated that over the years - probably 90%, or even more, of what's touted as strange phenomena has a mundane explanation after some investigation. People post their experiences in IHTM for example, and subsequently in many cases they get a mundane explanation (whether or not they accept it is another matter, but let's not go there now.)

What we're concerned with on here is the remaining few per cent of cases that are genuinely intriguing. Yes, you can assign a mundane explanation to nearly anything, but now and then the mundane theories are more convoluted and bizarre than the mooted paranormal one.

i totally agree, there is a lot of weirdness in the wold, and a even more pople who have to learn common sense.

I believe in ghosts. I believe in UFOs (though not the extra-terrestrial hypothesis). I believe there are large, unclassified primates in forests around the world. BUT, I don't believe that every report, every photo, every blurry video clip shows one of them.

ghosts? i dont think they are spirits of the dead, more likely spirits do exist as a life form. UFOs. unlikely aliens come here and have a brightly lit craft, more like military test craft/human mistake/illusions. I realy wish someone would show me (us) something convincing!

 

[stu neville]

ghosts? i dont think they are spirits of the dead, more likely spirits do exist as a life form.

We've had lots of discussions on the possible true nature of apparitions: it's quite possible (IMHO probable) that there are a variety of them. Hence the frequent reminder that every case must be judged on it's own merit - blanket explanations, along with blanket acceptance and blanket denial are all distinctly non-Fortean .

I realy wish someone would show me (us) something convincing!

In some ways, yes - in others... well, where would the fun be in that ?

Besides, it doesn't matter how convincing something is - there will always be those who would dismiss it regardless.

 

[MaxMolyneux]

i genuinley think many supernatural things have a sensible non-fortean answer.

As do I.......
However,I would never say that;because I have no experience of ghosts that they DEFINITELY do not exist.




As for orbs....I mean really...there has to be a reason why you see 'em ONLY in pictures where the flash was used....

Depends on the incident to give a non sensible fortean explination though.

 

[BIg_Slim]

Back to "are ghosts insane"
Hmmm tough one ...after you die do you cast off physical afflictions or do you carry them on into the after life?
Hmmm i'd say your mental state stays the same, as we all have heard of ghosts in asylums.
Thats a pretty scary thought

 

[Semyaz]

Back to "are ghosts insane"
Hmmm tough one ...after you die do you cast off physical afflictions or do you carry them on into the after life?
Hmmm i'd say your mental state stays the same, as we all have heard of ghosts in asylums.
Thats a pretty scary thought

Here's where I feel the problem lies. Our mental states (during life (??)) constantly develop, we learn through interaction with the environment, other people, etc.

But without a physical form, it is harder (though perhaps not impossible) to interact with the physical environment, etc, so does that mean ghosts are incapable of learning?? Does it mean there consciousness cannot evolve, and remains as it was at the moment of death??

And what about the consequences of this?? If ghosts cannot learn post-death, doea this mean they are incapable of acknowledging they are dead?? Do they continue to believe they are still alive?? And if they do, does their inability to interact with the environment, etc, cause psychological problems??

Perhaps, but this would be dependant on their consciousness not being able to evolve...a paradox!! :shock:

 

[RealPaZZa]

assuming ghosts are the spirits of the dead...

perhaps the shock of finding out your dead would send you insane, then the shock of finding out you have no body would send you totally insane, add to that the fact you can no longer learn...

but as your brain is probably now a "read only image" (no-way of storing further "data"), then you cant go insane because the contents of your brain are now "read only" so cannot go insane, so ghosts cant learn, think, make a action of free will, they are doomed to repeating pointless tasks forever (such as walking along a landing a tthe same time every nite etc.)

a theory i suppose, based on what a couple of ppl have suggested on here. i havent convinced myself, but seems kinda logical (in an illogical way, captain!)

 

[55_degrees_north]

A lot of the discussion has been on, well... "mechanical" terms about the brain and it's functions. It reminds me of the discussions from years ago about where exactly in the biological cortex the intellect lives.

Mental illness is indeed about brain chemistry and neurological linkages and misfiring synapes, but let's assume that what makes a person a person is more than just the mechanical "hum of it's parts".

Talking of ghost is a game of what if, predicated on the belief that something survives after death.

Let us also assume that which survives is that vital spark which makes you, "you" as it were.

Every quirk, mannerism, experience, every scrap of knowledge that you have accumulated up to the final moment. If your experience and world view has been afflicted with a mental or behavioural problem would that also form part of the tapestry of "you". It would be part of "you" and continue on as remembered behaviour.

Okay so unfortunate who was afflicted in life, continues to be afflicted as an apparition or entity following my theory. Could a rational person go gaga as a ghost?

Humans are sociable creatures. Even the loners amongst us have a small spark within them that craves companionship. Richard Dawkins can argue with his selfish gene theory that this is fufiling a biological imperative to reproduce, like acts of altruism ensuring that the "good" genes survive.

Okay - no suppose that our sociable human is removed from the corporeal dimension, no longer able to fully interact like the ration being they once were but still able to percieve the world. How long would it take to go "insane".

For example the repeater apparitions. What if it's not just a stone tape. What it those involved have only a moment of interaction with the corporeal dimension, in which they have to constantly repeat the actions leading to their demise - fully conscious of what's about to happen again and again and unable to avert it.

May be those ghostly screams aren't echos and didn't happen the first time through...

On the other side of the coin though - how about the apparitions which appear sentient, cognisent, calm and able to have a rational conversation with witness despite have undergone, or indeed at that moment undergoing a traumatic and painful demise ? Why are they often wearing clothing familar and associuate with them but not necessarily what was worn at the time of the demise.

Pehaps that there is a chance, a small chance that our surviving self can deliver on last message. By phone or in person, where "you" would want to appear as familar, or comforting in a well loved jacket or shirt. Once last final time to contact someone we cared about or have deep affection, that final impulse to say "before I go, I just want to tell you......."

Peharps the reason that ghosts go insane is that we don't all have that one person that we would want to contact no matter what.

 

[dan_uid0]

Re: Another Choice?

But that third state may stay around, perhaps believeing that is IS the soul of the deceased. Perhaps it itself decays, over a much longer period than the physical body - say 20 to 100 years-plus. And any physical expressions by that entity will become more crazy, more goofy, more senile, more "insane" as the years and decades pass.

Just a speculation, of course. But it would help to explain the inane and nutty pablum that "comes through" to even the "best" and most honest seance mediums.

Could it be that ghosts are actually on an extremely limited energy budget, so little that their minds (such as they are) are never fully powered-up and are always operating just on the edge of oblivion.

That would explain the extremely limited intelligence you see with them, and the fact that activity is usually patchy; they have the energy to make one lot of noise, then must recuperate for quite a time to do more.

If you also have some sort of quantum observer effect going on too, which doesn't preclude random non-personal communication but which is collapsed to nothing by direct intelligent observation, then this would explain camera-shyness.

It would also explain why ghost hunts are rarely successful; all that awareness focussed all over the place would damp the effect right down.

Finally, it explains why ghosts are more a nocturnal phenomenon. People are mostly asleep or somnulent at night, thus less good observers so quantum strangeness could possibly persist better in the absence of things observing (and thus damping out) the ghosts.

 

[OldTimeRadio]

Mental Disorders

Psychiatry seems to be coming around to the position that all (or almost all) mental disorders are BIO-CHEMICAL in nature. This seems to be true for not only garden variety neuroses but also for major psychoses.

If that's true, how can ghosts HAVE mental disorders? They no longer have a "biological" component and absolutely no "chemicals." In fact that's the reason the Skeptics insist that ghosts don't/can't exist.

Now ghosts may be EVIL, but good-vs-evil isn't usually thought of as a bio-chemical imbalance. And being Evil is by no means the same thing as being Insane. Some people turn to Evil for the simple reason that they PREFER it to Good. That's a hideously wrong decision to make, at least as far as I'm concerned, but it CAN be quite SANELY arrived at.

 

[Anonymous]

True...but psychiatry is based on the medical model and has (IMO) only recently started to embrace elements of consciousness that have been explored within psychology over the last 50 years. As a psychologist I find a lot of ...wait for it...quackery....(Yes!) within psychiatry. I am sure many psychiatrists would say the same for my discipline; however, I not only have a huge amount of respect for medical models, I also believe that 'mental software' can be manipulated without recourse to drugs. Back to ghosts and questions of sanity. As discussed above, there are many definitions of what is sane or not (legal terms) and of course, we can debate about good and evil. However, let us approach this from another perspective....If a person were mentally retarded (take your pick of disorders) does this condition stay or not after death? If so, then any era's notion of insanity would be reflected within the spirit community. However, if there is a god (and all the attendant stuff), then wouldn't the dead be healed of their disabilities? Discuss......

 

[OldTimeRadio]

I realize that psychology and psychiatry are perpeatually at war (which is probably a good thing). So I SHOULD have pointed out that the bio-chemical model of (most) mental disorders, both mild and severe, seems to be one of the few things on which psychiatrists and psychologists now agree.

At least nurturing and caring mothers of schizophrenics are no longer crucified as "refrigerator mothers" just to make the diagnosis agree with the pre-ordained psychiatric model.

 

[Anonymous]

Indeed. However, off the top of my head, I thought that refridgerator mothers related to autism - am away from my psych books right now.

Actually, many psychologists who aren't too new age (or too right on) follow the notion of nature via nurture. So, the intersection vector(s) mean that there is still too much data to be analysed with complete confidence. While I believe that damage to the structure of the brain (and differing levels of neurotransmitters and so forth) are the 'ground' for many illnesses, I am as sure that there are 'software' problems that do no need to be treated by drugs. One of the old aphorisms in psych is that 'pills' don't provide learning/training - however, an ex pointed out that a patient soon learns to take their pills (however, sadly this while funny, is not true).

My previous points re:defining ghosts and what constitutes sanity (hmmm) still stand. This debate seems less to do with a question of sanity and discussing this via psychology and physics/biology but more to do with sociology, culture and theology. Perhaps the clash of opinions stems from this divide. Although I will always listen to both sides of an argument, I do not have much time slavish adherence or theories based on sociology or religion.