Another question from Dikkii...
On ghosts: yes, you should stop trying. They fail the usefulness test - what possible applications would ghosts have once you found them?
These are people, remember. Many living people fail the usefulness test, but we don’t brush them aside. We look after them, we even give them jobs as administrators and politicians. Besides, I dispute your test of usefulness. One of many schisms in science centres on the debate of consciousness. What is it? Where is it? Well, we all think it’s in our heads because that’s where we experience it, so that’s a good place to start looking.
Some believe that consciousness is a purely physical matter, derived from chemical reactions and electrical impulses in the brain. But they can’t prove it. Others believe that consciousness operates through the brain but can exist independently of it. They can’t prove it either. Until one or the other finds proof, the debate will continue. There is a third possibility – that both are right. Consciousness may indeed be formed through chemical and electrical activity, but what form does it take? Does it die when the brain does, or does it continue? Now, I know you’re going to say ‘It dies when the brain dies’, and I’m going to say ‘Prove it’. You can’t. I can’t prove the opposite.
Perhaps it happens that way. Perhaps it doesn’t. Perhaps it sometimes happens and sometimes not. There’s only one way to know for sure at the moment. It’s a drastic step and a pointless one – if you died, and found that you did indeed still have consciousness, nobody in science will listen to you. A medium might, but that doesn’t help because science won’t listen to him or her either.
You could give the medium details of your life. If they are such intimate details that nobody can verify them, they prove nothing. If they are verifiable, the medium could have looked them up. Again, not proof.
It’s been tried. Earlier this century, an experimental procedure called cross-correspondences was applied to test whether the mind survived death. Participants agreed to send specific messages via mediums after their death (if possible, of course) and those left alive would collect these. The messages were coded, so the mediums would have no idea what they meant. Remember, they didn’t automatically believe the mediums were real either, so they didn’t use messages that a medium could get from cold reading.
Did it work? The answer is a resounding and disappointing ‘maybe’. The codes were so well done that those compiling them were dismissed with ‘Oh, you’re just taking random words and stringing them together’. Mediums were accused of using telepathy – which is odd because skeptics don’t believe in that either (I haven’t experienced it or studied it myself). Interest in the experiment faded after about 1935, because we were all a bit busy after that, and it was never revived. It takes a lot of setting up, and if nobody’s going to accept the results anyway, well, it’s difficult to find researchers willing to literally die for something that’s going to be ignored, and no scientist wants to be remembered as a kook.
There are a lot of references on the internet. Here’s a random one – I don’t endorse any of the views on any of the sites, I picked this one because it’s fairly complete. It's not unbiased but then I've never seen one that is, one way or the other. If people didn't have strong feelings on the subject they wouldn't go to the trouble of putting up websites.
A last note on the usefulness test. Science, in its true guise, is not interested in application. There's very little of that form of science left, now that even universities are run as businesses, but that's how it once was. They used to chase knowledge. Now they are forced to chase money. It's one of the reasons I'm not keen to go back.
Application came later. Knowledge was first. I doubt Einstein considered that his theories could be applied to produce atomic bombs. If he had, he might well have kept them to himself, and that would have held physics back by many years. On the other hand, we might not now be worried about getting vapourised in a flash. Knowledge leads to application, not the other way round, but there are also consequences to consider. Those are not always predictable.
More to follow.
2 comments:
Hi again, Romulus.
These are people, remember.
OK. This is a positive claim. But does anyone really have any evidence for this?
Many living people fail the usefulness test, but we don’t brush them aside. We look after them, we even give them jobs as administrators and politicians.
Much as I agree with your sentiments re administrators and politicians, this is somewhat flippant and irrelevant. It also equivocates on the meaning of usefulness.
One of many schisms in science centres on the debate of consciousness. What is it? Where is it? Well, we all think it’s in our heads because that’s where we experience it, so that’s a good place to start looking.
I'm staying well away from the discussion on consciousness here. Why? Because as yet, the term consciousness doesn't appear to have a quantifiable definition that keeps philosophers and scientists happy - I say "awake", you say "I think therefore I am" etc...
Incidentally, I found that experiment that you referred to rather interesting, if a tad convoluted.
But in any event, this post appears to hinge on the pre-supposition that "ghosts", however we describe them, were people once.
Again, it's premature to arrive at this conclusion. We currently have this:
1. Phenomenon (or phenomena)
2. Hypothesis: a "ghost", assuming that it is a superior hypothesis to all others.
3. (Which we haven't arrived at yet) Define ghost in terms of phenomenon, i.e. "our best explanation for the phenomenon was a "ghost".
4. (Miles away) Investigate nature of ghost.
.
.
.
n. Simplified explanation of nature of ghost and characteristics. This is where you're able to say that your ghost phenomenon might have been a person, once.
Looks like a fair bit of work? Sure. But this is how the scientific method works. Test and re-test. Add bits. Make ad-hoc leaps of faith on the run?
Not on your life. This is very bad science
"A last note on the usefulness test. Science, in its true guise, is not interested in application. There's very little of that form of science left, now that even universities are run as businesses, but that's how it once was. They used to chase knowledge. Now they are forced to chase money. It's one of the reasons I'm not keen to go back."
Well, usefulness is one way to ensure you get your grant money. Research doesn't just do itself, you know.
2 stars, because I'm charitable.
Usefulness is now the only way to get grant money. Applied science will soon be all there is. Research for research's sake no longer gets funding. That's not how it used to be. 'Blue Sky' research was the term for no-immediate-application studies. I doubt you'll hear that term much any more.
I'd have to adjust your method though.
1. Phenomenon.
2. Look for non-paranormal explanation. There usually is one.
3. Alternatives exhausted, consider possibility of paranormal.
4 - don't assume it's a human ghost. At this stage, it's an unexplained phenomenon. There are other possibilities, including the possibility of clever fraud. Many investigators have been caught out with that one.
5. Does it happen again? is it the same? Does it happen on different visits? Does it happen when 'certain people' are absent, or only when they are present? Caution is essential unless you want to hit the headlines looking like a totally gullible muppet.
6. Catalogue and record... sightings (photos if possible) sounds (recorded), temperature fluctuations, electric fields, any sources of low-frequency vibration, any nearby railway lines or heavy road traffic. There's a lot to do before you can underline that paranormal possibility and upgrade it to 'very likely'. There's no way to upgrade it to 'definite' unless you actually see a full apparition. Even then, you can't prove it to anyone else, so the official record will only ever say 'very likely'.
7. Accumulate data, look for connections, try to control the urge to force those pieces to fit. That's tempting. Take poltergeists, for example. They are often considered to be ghosts, but are they? Are they telekinesis? Are they human ghosts? Are they something else? Are there a dozen, a hundred, different types of cause that can have the same effect? We have the effect, but really we don't have a handle on the cause.
The trouble with most of these phenomena is that they don't persist. Just when it's getting interesting, whatever's causing the effect buggers off. Not always, true, but most times. So you don't get far along the method before the experiment ends.
I work on the premise that (at least some of) these paranormal events are ghosts because I've seen them. That's why I think they're human. It's not a leap of faith, it's observation, but it's also not proof. It's a working theory. I can't grab one by the scruff of the neck and parade him in front of TV cameras. Pity.
Post a Comment