Barbara McBeath On Ghosts
Posted in Parapsychology, Science, Thinking Critically on | 5 minutes | 4 Comments →
I recently read an essay titled My Ghost Theories by Barbara McBeath. I found much of what she said pertinent to the ongoing discussion of anomalous phenomena myself and others were having last year. For example,
Researching and studying the subject of ghosts for so many years, and having my share of ghost experiences, I know that this is something that cannot be researched in the lab. The scientists and serious researchers must go out into the field and study this where it takes place. This may be one reason why such a large part of mainstream science seems to have ignored this phenomenon. It is something that cannot be studied in the enclosed and controlled laboratory. This phenomenon seems to occur on it’s own terms and conditions. And, another thing – to me there are so many amateur and professional ghosthunters and researchers who appear that they feel the need to claim to be psychic, just so they can give some answers. I acknowledge that there are some people that have psychic abilities, but very few can back up what they say, so it does not prove anything. So, like I said, some ghost researchers may have had many ghost related experiences, but there are no experts – just a whole lot of personal beliefs and theories!
Her ideas about our inability to contain paranormal phenomena to the laboratory ring true for me. There is most certainly a class of phenomena that occur “on their own terms,” and that does not mitigate their authenticity one bit. The more I think about it, the more I realize that if consciousness can exist without a biological body, its study becomes akin to something more like quantum anthropology than physics or chemistry. There is a certain arrogance in the idea that what man cannot measure cannot be justifiedly called real.
McBeath’s sentence about there being “just a whole lot of personal beliefs and theories” reminded me of a past discussion at SI’s. Though I understand the unwillingness of certain atheists to directly confront the issues, as someone committed to rationalism, I need explanations for things like the video game incident and my own precognitive experience. Myself and the others who experienced these events would be acting irresponsibly if we did not concede the authenticity of these events simply because they couldn’t be reproduced in the laboratory. Certain atheists tend to view this as a cop-out, but neither Barbara nor anybody else who believes in spirits cops-out when they declare them not amenable to conventional laboratory study. She continues:
Although there has been a major change in attitudes in the general population in the last ten years or so, there are still so many who will deny even the possibility that ghosts might exist, even if that person has had an experience with one. These people will think of the most irrational excuses for what they’ve experienced – more irrational than admitting that ghosts maybe do exist! I have come to realize that for some people, their fear of ghosts, along with their preconceived notions and misconceptions, are sometimes just too much for them to be open minded about the idea or possibilities.
I wholeheartedly agree, and immediately thought of all the extraordinary claims that my old buddies on Team Scarlet A offered in response to the aforementioned incidents. That’s not to paint every skeptic as closed-minded, but skeptics are no less vulnerable to flaws in reasoning than the next human, and we’d be foolish to hold that their are no closed-minded skeptics. Barbara writes:
It is true that ghosts seem to be able to defy our logic – they seem to be able to do the impossible, such as make things disappear and/or reappear; move solid heavy objects; create sounds when none should exist; effect temperatures and electronic equipment; produce unexplainable fragrances or odors; manifest the sensation of being touched; this list goes on. Most of the reported and documented experiences defy all rational explanations. We are not able to explain the ghost phenomena in any rational way and we cannot prove it with any known mainstream scientific methods – the tools and instruments have not been developed yet. But I believe that one day, mainstream science and technology will have the means, the tools and the knowledge to prove that our consciousness survives the death of the physical body – and that we do continue to exist – that we make choices after death, just as we do in life, and that how we live in this life often effects how we live after we die.
Barbara’s position there is what I would call the “reasonable middle ground” between the extreme denier and the extreme enthusiast. Note that she said “documented experiences” despite the fact that atheists constantly claim there is “no evidence” for spiritual beliefs. Clearly, not everyone who holds the “not amenable to our laboratory science” position is looking for a Sagan’s dragon.
jayman777
says...cl:
I’m a little over half-way through the book Irreducible Mind and I think you would find it very interesting. The basic message is that mainstream psychology fails to explain a large amount of what you call “anomalous phenomena” and that this anomalous phenomena needs to be studied more in order for psychology to provide a more accurate account of the mind. The book proves (yes, I’m going to use that word because simply denying the data is intellectual cowardice) that the mind is not just the brain and that it survives death (for at least some people). It is also noteworthy that some of the things the book covers can be studied in the lab in the sense that certain people can repeat certain anomalous phenomena.
Barbara McBeath:
The “folk theory” that ghosts are generally the spirits of deceased human beings seems to explain the phenomena quite well. The mere fact that it is not materialistic does not make it irrational.
And what would proof of ghost phenomena consist of? I have not studied the topic in any depth but I’ve at least heard the following claims: (1) countless people throughout history and across cultures have claimed to have seen ghosts; (2) ghosts have been captured in photos and videos; (3) ghosts have communicated through EVP and other means; (4) ghosts have made accurate predictions of the future; (5) animals have reacted to ghosts; and (6) ghosts resemble deceased persons who used to live on the haunted property. If these claims are true then do we not already have proof?
The ideal ghost hunting approach I can think of is to record as much information as possible on an allegedly haunted property for an extended period of time. Make sure there are no “blind spots” and record for months on end. There are at least three problems with my proposal, however: (1) if the property is inhabited it would be an invasion of privacy; (2) if the property is uninhabited who is going to go over all the data?; and (3) if the property is uninhabited is it possible that the ghost activity will cease since the ghosts will be undisturbed?
What, other than NDEs, would this proof consist of? Perhaps something like this account from the book Irreducible Mind. A psi researcher wrote the word “seven” on a letter and placed it in a safe that was not to be opened until after his death. He intended, after his death, to try and convey the word “seven” through a group of automatists he worked with. The psi researcher’s friend (F.W.H. Myers) died before he did and appears to have successfully performed the “experiment” and even “signed” his name.
But, without knowing more about the nature of the afterlife, we are somewhat uncertain on what “experiments” to try. Assuming we survive death, we still don’t know: (1) who is allowed/able to communicate with living persons?, (2) how long after death can a spirit communicate with the living?, and (3) by what means is a spirit capable of communicating with us?
cl
says...Hey there. Thanks for the book tip. In fact, let me dig around a bit on it before I jump in here…
cl
says...My comments about repeatability – and I would imagine Barbara’s, too – pertained mainly to ghosts. I’m aware of various anomalous phenomena that have been successfully reproduced in the laboratory. Typical examples include the Ganzfeld meta-analysis, which, if I recall correctly, even Hyman found persuasive.
I agree.
Well, you and I both know that for many of those “educated” and “rational” types, that which is not materialistic is irrational by default. However, I’m a bit skeptical of the applying the “deceased relatives” interpretation to all “ghost” phenomena. To me, that just makes too much sense. It seems too easy, and very often in science, assent to an easy explanation has led to error [cf. cathode rays].
I would say yes, but, again, you and I both know that many materialists simply refuse to accept any claims of the type you list in points 1-6. Those types will simply continue to write false claims like, “there is no evidence for an immaterial soul.” Many materialists are to evidence of irreducible mind as many creationists are to evidence of an old Earth. Personally, I tired of arguing these sorts of things last year, which is why I wrote near-exclusively about morality this year. Now, I’m tired of that too!
What direction has your writing been heading in lately? I dig your exegesis but I also like hearing your arguments. I haven’t been to your blog lately, I suppose I ought to stop by.
I’m persuaded by bonafide instances of living people who manifest knowledge they clearly could not have via conventional reductionist means. I’m also persuaded by cases like Marianne George’s, which I’m pretty sure you recall. Although, neither of those provide compelling evidence for “life after death,” I believe that both provide compelling evidence for irreducible mind [or nonlocal mind, to use Larry Dossey’s term], and “life after death” seems compatible with that type of mind.
For me, such questions simply remind us of the problem of other minds. In the same way “objective science” gets fuzzy when turned towards human consciousness, I expect it to get at least as fuzzy when turned towards non-human consciousness. Probably even fuzzier, due to the lack of a concrete object to study.
While perusing reviews of this book, one thing in particular caught my attention: the accounts of “sudden healing” of dementia just before death. Have you ever read anything from the German pastor and psychologist, Kurt Koch? Koch also reports accounts of this phenomenon.
It’s all very interesting stuff.
jayman777
says...cl:
My point is not that the folk theory of ghosts explains every ghost story, it is that the folk theory does a decent job. In other words, the theory is at least somewhat rational.
No direction. I haven’t posted anything since October 11. All that’s planned is more commentary (Exodus 19-40).
Most of my arguments occur on other people’s blogs. “Recent” non-commentary posts on my blog are titled:
* A Review of The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values
* Index to my review of The Christian Delusion
* A Response to Richard Dawkins’ Haiti and the hypocrisy of Christian theology
I haven’t included links because that will probably get this comment flagged as spam. I’m open to suggestions on non-commentary topics if you have any.
Since you’ve posted a lot on desirism lately, I was somewhat disappointed no one at CSA bit on this comment I made under “Morality in the Real World 10: Questions and Answers #2”. Maybe they’ll answer it later, but I’d like to hear your thoughts if you have any:
Zeb’s question and your answers make me wonder whether desirism is compatible with an entirely materialist view of the mind.
First, you attempt to differentiate between intentional actions and unintentional actions. If materialism is true, what is the difference? That intentional actions occur in our conscious stream of thought while unintentional actions do not? If that’s all the difference is then why restrict oneself to influencing desires? Why not influence others’ unintentional actions as well?
Second, you attempt to differentiate between causal reasons for action and teleological reasons for action. Do you actually believe matter can have a goal or do you think goals reduce to mechanical cause and effect? If the former, how do you square teleology with materialism? If the latter, then there is no real difference between causal reasons for action and teleological reasons for action.
Ironically, if consciousness cannot be explained by brain states, we don’t have a concrete object with consciousness to study now. Irreducible Mind also mentions cases where, for example, someone’s arm appears to have its own separate consciousness that is inaccessible to the person it is attached to.
That’s the kind of little thing I would never have thought to look for myself but it kind of makes sense to me. If the brain/body in some sense filters/restricts/interfaces with our immaterial mind then it makes sense that as the brain degrades/dies the immaterial mind may be more free to reason. On the other hand, to observe (by natural means at least) the immaterial mind’s ability to reason requires that the body still be working pretty well.
No, I believe I first came across the phenomenon in question reading Michael Prescott’s blog. In fact, it may have been reading Prescott’s review of Irreducible Mind. You’d love his blog. It should give you a lot of books to put on your reading list.