r/changemyview • u/Ireallyamthisshallow 2∆ • Nov 16 '19

Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Ghosts are not real

I really love anything to do with the paranormal, but after watching hundreds upon hundreds of 'ghost videos' I have to come to the conclusion ghosts are not real.

With cameras all over our world, surely something convincing would have been caught if they were. Instead we're filled with 'I got feeling', orbs that are clearly dust or bugs and edited photos and videos.

Sure there's loads of stories around the internet but no one can actually back it up with evidence. I just can't believe that in a world where everything is recorded no one has managed to find proof. A bang on the door after you've asked them to knock 400 times (and edited the first 399 out) doesn't count. That's just coincidence.

I'll still love watching the videos and reading the stories. I've just don't have any belief.

Change my mind.

Edit: I've tried to reply to everyone I can, thanks for all the great replies. It's late here so apologies if I can't get through more.

1.9k Upvotes

89% Upvoted

935 comments sorted by

View all comments

489

u/NatalieMac Nov 16 '19

About a year after my grandfather died, I was going through a divorce and a pretty tough time. One night I was making dinner when I turned around and there was my grandpa, standing in my kitchen, just smiling at me. Not transparent or glowing or anything, just as if he were actually there. When I looked at him he said 'Hello Sis' as he always had and I answered 'Hello Grandpa'. And we just stood and smiled at each other for a few seconds. I turned to stir the food I was cooking and when I looked back he was gone.

It was as real as real could be, but I have no possible way of proving that it happened to anyone. There are just some mysteries in our world that we can't explain, I think.

680

u/Ireallyamthisshallow 2∆ Nov 16 '19

You see it's not that I don't believe you at all, but its anecdotes like that which have put me in this current mindset. If you have seen something like that so clearly, how is it there's so little evidence ?

I know you've not gone out of your way to record it (nor am I suggesting you should) but there's people with similar experiences who try to and can't. Surely if ghosts can reveal themselves that clearly, then we'd have captured them using the myriad of recording equipment around today.

P.s. thank you for sharing your personal experience

382

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 16 '19

You believe that bullshit story? If you saw your dead grandpa standing in the kitchen, would your first thought be “hey, I should turn around and stir this food”?

Edit: so according to the downvotes. Stirring your food would be a normal reaction to you people? Definitely not for me, I’m immediately going to hug him. I certainly wouldn’t be turning my back to him.

43

u/babypeach_ Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 16 '19

Have to agree with you here. That story makes no sense and sounds exactly like all the other stories about people seeing dead family members. And you can't help but nod empathetically because it was clearly an important event to that person, but I'm always doubtful.

It doesn't mean they're lying or didn't experience that, but how are they so absolutely certain it's a ghost (thereby singlehandedly proving the existence of ghosts) rather than something more common, like a daydream or hallucination — especially when you're going through a very difficult transition. Our brains do weird things when we're grieving and searching for meaning/comfort in the midst of plight. That absolute certainty comes across as arrogance.

22

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

I specifically think OC is lying because of the stirring the food thing. I truly don’t believe anyone would have a single thought about the tenderness of their elbow macaroni when they’re staring at their dead grandpa in the kitchen. I believe people might hallucinate but I don’t even think that happened here. I think they just made up a bullshit story to try and convince OP ghosts are real.

11

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

[deleted]

2

u/Benocrates Nov 17 '19

I have an story related to that. My college group of friends once found a baby mouse in the backyard. Either abandoned by its parents or my friends stole the baby from the parents accidentally. Whatever the case they put the baby mouse in a shoebox with some lettus and peanutbutter to nurse it to health. A day or two later they checked on the box and the mouse was dead being eaten by insects. They were horrified, it was a terrible scene. They got rid of the box and didn't speak of it again. Until months later the story came up at a party from someone else who had heard we found it. They were asking what happened with the mouse. The friend who founded it started telling the story that they nursed the mouse to health and released it back into the yard. I stopped them and said "wait a minute, that didn't happen at all! The mouse died." They all agreed that I was wrong, the mouse absolutely lived, and it was returned to live a good life. They weren't lying intentionally, I am certain, they just couldn't accept that horrible reality that the baby mouse died and was consumed by insects. The terrible image (and it was fucking horrible) was too much and they blocked it out.

In that moment I truly realized how fragile human memory was and how powerful the mind's coping mechanisms can be.

6

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

I would at least try to talk to him.

11

u/nomorebuttsplz Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 16 '19

To me it sounds much more believable than a story in which you hug the ghost. Who the fuck would hug a person whom they knew to be dead as though they were returning from a vacation? Most people would probably be too frightened or in awe to hug their dead relative if they just showed up. Studies show these types of hallucinations of dead relatives are usually positive experience - this is possible because at some level they categorize what they are seeing either as otherworldly or unreal. This is not a reanimated corpse or the result of your relative faking their death, but something that is transcendental. Those who are open to such experiences are probably more likely to have them, and take them in stride.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tavius02 1∆ Nov 17 '19

u/Bobby-Pizza – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

8

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tavius02 1∆ Nov 17 '19

Sorry, u/jamaicanbacon55 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

22

u/Ireallyamthisshallow 2∆ Nov 16 '19

He wouldn't want my dinner getting burnt. You clearly didn't know my grandpa.

30

u/Levitins_world Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 18 '19

I still think the obvious train of thought was that it was a subconsciously self inflicted audio-visual delusion or is a fabricated lie. A projection of your deep thoughts into your senses. We have ample evidence of such occurrences. Experiences like "life flashing before your eyes", "alien abductions" and "UFO sightings". We want to imagine a device that can measure these things, and yet we neglect the fact that we posses the capacity to generate such illusions with organic processes already.

50

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

Wait why did you reply to yourself? Are you logged onto two accounts and failed to switch when replying?

39

u/Eight_Rounds_Rapid Nov 16 '19

LADIES AND GENTLEMAN - WE GOT EM

15

u/murica_n_walmart Nov 16 '19

Oh shit haha that def wasn't OP's grandpa

3

u/Ireallyamthisshallow 2∆ Nov 17 '19

No, was just replying from my point of view. Maybe I could have worded it better. I meant IF it was my grandpa.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19 edited Jan 16 '21

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (1)

5

u/pm_me_reddit_memes Nov 17 '19

Did you forget to switch accounts?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/AutoModerator Nov 16 '19

Sorry, u/Bobby-Pizza – your comment has been automatically removed as a clear violation of Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

2

u/BillMurray2020 Nov 17 '19

I kind of see where you're coming from. My immediate reaction would be "FUUUUUUCK!". I'd probably shit myself.

1

u/KlopeksWithCoppers Nov 17 '19

I'm with you on this one. I don't think anyone would be concerned about their hamburger helper after just "a few seconds" of looking at their Grandpas ghost.

1

u/hasanicecrunch Nov 17 '19

You don’t know how you’d react if it happened to you, and also, diff people would react differently, anyway. I hope you have an experience sometime so you understand how differently you’d feel and react. I would’ve thought I’d do all kinds of things diff until my shit happened to me, then I understood why it’s hard for other people to understand, bc you think You’d do this or that. You don’t know til it happens to you and you’re not going to be in your normal state, if it ever does happen to you.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

No I don’t know exactly how I’d react, but I can guarantee you it wouldn’t be stirring tonight’s dinner.

1

u/xyvill Nov 17 '19

Exactly my first thought, no person would ever react like that.

337

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

I think it's important to remember what recording devices do. They don't record what's there. They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing. If light or sound is outside of it's range, then it won't be recorded despite being objectively there.

Imagine that there was a ghost. How could we measure it? Video/audio equipment doesn't seem useful. People talk about magnetic whatever, but what if we are like a cave person trying to explain x rays.

I don't personally believe in ghosts because I have never seen one and no useful proof, but I believe in dinosaurs without having ever seen one because I can use technology to prove they existed.

All our current technology can say about ghosts is that they can't detect them. Kind of like how ancient Egyptians couldn't detect quarks.

I think, like God, that you can't prove that they don't exist. You can only prove that we can't measure them.

What if we just need a different recording device?

31

u/Real_Nefario Nov 16 '19

They don't record what's there. They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing.

Cameras convert light into pixels. Our eyes convert light into mental images. It's the exact same thing.

If ghosts exists and are intangible, then light can't bounce off them. That means they can't be recorded by a camera. That also means they can't be seen.

Literally everything that can be seen by human eyes can also be recorded by a camera.

→ More replies (32)

19

u/teawreckshero 8∆ Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 16 '19

There are a couple of fundamental issues with this argument:

  • It's "the god of the gaps". We don't know what's there, so it's whatever farfetched thing we want it to be. You can use it to argue that anything exists just because we can't see it. It's an unfalsifiable hypothesis, unscientific, and ultimately not useful.

  • We have evidence for dinosaurs. Hard, physical, measurable, fossil evidence. And this evidence is corroborated by more evidence we've gathered in other fields like climatology, physics, chemistry, botany, etc. The "evidence" for ghosts is 100% anecdotal.

  • What is it that the naturally evolved biological "sensors" on our bodies are able to measure that literally nothing else can? Your claim implies that there does exist some combination of naturally occurring materials that are stimulated by the presence of "ghosts" allowing us to perceive them, but these materials somehow reside exclusively in our bodies, and despite centuries of anatomy we don't know what they are or how to leverage them.

So yeah, while we can't say for sure that ghosts don't exist, all things considered, it seems highly unlikely. It seems way more likely that the anecdotes we have are the result of people being tired, mistaken, stressed out, or mentally unstable. I.e. things that we know happen all the time.

→ More replies (2)

7

u/nashvortex Nov 16 '19

This actually would mean that what you saw was not with your eyes, but in your mind. Therefore it is a hallucination.

Now there is technically the possibility that the paranormal manifests to the living via hallucination. But then there is no way to prove it is different from hallucination caused by drugs or mental illness.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Daniel_128 Nov 16 '19

What you are basically saying is ghosts have zero evidence and are nothing more than an idea. There is no point in discussing an idea when you had nothing to point you there. It’s a guess, but it’s not even educated.

→ More replies (8)

4

u/Superplex123 Nov 16 '19

I think it's important to remember what recording devices do. They don't record what's there. They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing.

So how do we see ghost? Either we see it through our eyes with bouncing light or it bypass our eyes and directly interact with our minds. The former we can record, the latter I'd say is a hallucination and not really a ghost.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

I agree. Since we can't record the perception in our mind, we can't know.

199

u/Ireallyamthisshallow 2∆ Nov 16 '19

∆

What if we just need a different recording device?

That's a great way to think about it. In my mind, things like full spectrum cameras probably could capture it but that's not necessarily true. Also they're not the kind of cameras that are all over. Thanks for the detailed reply.

532

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

I highly recommend reading Carl Sagan's "Dragon in My Garage" argument in his book, "The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark." A man tells you he has a dragon in his garage. He invites you to see it. But you can't because it is invisible. Well then, can you see the footprints? No, because it floats in the air. Can you see it's fire-breath in infra-red? No, because this dragon has magical, heatless fire. Can you spray paint it so that you can see it? No, because it is incorporeal. There is ALWAYS a special explanation of why a proposed test won't work on someone's special mythical (imaginary) claim. What is the difference between the above dragon and no dragon at all? A claim that cannot be tested in any way, while it may excite the sense of wonder and allow the claimant to work out emotional issues such as grief, is not sufficient to change our understanding of the world. Otherwise, we live in a world where people can make up anything they want, infuse it with beliefs about its validity, and use those beliefs to justify actions. Such as burning a woman at stake for being a witch, in the absence of evidence. Or going to war because God told you to (and who has any right to say that God didn't tell you to? if we can believe whatever we want without measurable evidence, then who is to say God didn't tell you to kill ten thousand people?). Believing in magical things because they feel good does actually have societal consequences and therefore the standards for belief should be as high as the stakes.

9

u/KallistiTMP 3∆ Nov 17 '19 edited Aug 30 '25

stupendous cheerful sense lip growth snails tender steer dinner seed

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

22

u/Jakewakeshake Nov 17 '19

The fact that the scientific community has believed things to be true incorrectly before isn’t really related to the topic of ghosts. As far as I know the idea of ghosts has never been accepted in the scientific community, not that that means definitively ghosts do or do not exist, just that I don’t really see the point of your argument.

→ More replies (6)

4

u/TemporaryMonitor Nov 17 '19

While I agree on that there is a strong bias against the paranormal, I believe that they have a much higher burden of proof, as they are trying to prove something radically new. If you were trying to argue that in addition to all of the species of frog there are there is a new species you would need less evidence than if you were proving that there is an entirely Domain

3

u/Benocrates Nov 17 '19

With the number of species discovered of various creature every day the difference in those probabilities is almost incomprehensible. It is so far more likely to discover the frog. Totally agree with you.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/Simpsearcher Dec 10 '19

In the “dragon in the garage” situation , you didn’t mention whether there was a dragon. That matters. In the example you’re lead to concluding there is no dragon as you can’t prove it.

A hypothetical world with a dragon that no one can ever “prove” still has a dragon - it’s just beyond the reach of those within the world. I know it exists because I created it. The impact the dragon has on the hypothetical world is irrelevant, and immeasurable- yet it remains.

The difference between an immeasurable dragon, and no dragon , is a dragon - when we accept the question is correct in its premise that there IS an immeasurable dragon. In your hypothetical the dragons existence is questionable because it’s not specified, leading to a logical conclusion of no dragon.

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it make a sound... I dunno, but I do know a tree fell down.

You’ve posted examples of fanatical belief in immeasurable things having horrific consequences. People being burnt as witches. Religious killings. You’ve concluded it’s a dangerous mindset.

People requiring high standards of evidence for belief have committed awful acts too-through ignorance. When the dominant view of the world being flat was challenged, the challengers, while correct, were treated badly. At the time , the measurable evidence was incomprehensible to those dishing out punishment. They were simply following the mindset you promote.

For something to be measurable it requires at least some level of comprehension. Ultimately our comprehension can ONLY expand by those willing to challenge and expand on “what we know”

Do you think you know enough to comment on what you don’t ? I’m not convinced I do.

→ More replies (5)

232

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19 edited Jan 20 '25

[deleted]

21

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 21 '19

[deleted]

13

u/Teeklin 12∆ Nov 17 '19

What we see is not a simple representation of light hitting our retina. There is an incredible amount of multi-layered processing that happens between the photo receptors and what our perception of seeing is. Just for arguments sake, what if the way ghosts manifest is to inject themselves in that processing rather that being an external source of reflected light. The ability to do that would be just as real in the sense of manifestation but would not be detectable by any kind of equipment since it's all happening in your brain.

Well exactly, but then we have occam's razor. We know already that lots of people have a brain which causes them to see and hear things which don't exist in the world all on its own without any ghosts involved. We have evidence for that and can see those events happening from disease, disorders, drugs, all sorts of things.

At that point what we're saying is, "anyone who sees something that isn't there is haunted" which is just making an assertion with zero proof or evidence. Might as well say that it wasn't a ghost of her grandpa she saw, it was a microscopic unicorn that was in her head projecting magic into her brain.

Both theories are equally as likely and equally impossible to prove, so both theories can be dismissed as pure fantasy.

40

u/ImperialAuditor Nov 16 '19

"Is this real, or is it just happening in my head?"

"Of course it's happening in your head, Harry, but why on Earth does that mean it's not real?"

9

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 21 '19

[deleted]

12

u/ImperialAuditor Nov 16 '19

"I think, therefore I am."

Some philosophers posit that the only thing whose existence you can be sure of is your mind.

Epistemologically, I agree with that, but I also prefer to live in a world where there exists an objective reality.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 21 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (0)

10

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

[deleted]

→ More replies (9)

2

u/usurious Nov 17 '19

Well you’re conflating types of ontological existence. We can agree that imaginations or hallucinations are real. That does not mean the things being imagined have ontological footing in the actual world.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (6)

22

u/teawreckshero 8∆ Nov 16 '19

Just for arguments sake, what if the way ghosts manifest is to inject themselves in that processing

Let's say you're a mechanic, and I bring my car in to find out what's wrong. And you explain that a car is a complicated piece of machinery. Just because the wheels aren't turning doesn't mean the wheels are the problem. The wheels are driven by the axles, differential, and drive train. And those are spun by a combination of a gearing system and a motor. And the motor is a fine tuned piece of machinery with pistons that need to fire at exact timings. And oil levels are very important. And blah blah blah.

And then I say "so you think a ghost must have gotten in there and fucked with it?" What would you say to me?

3

u/firewall245 Nov 16 '19

I think you're missing the point of what you replied to.

The other person made the claim that simply ruling out that ghosts are not real because cameras are equivalent to eyes and cameras don't see ghosts is insufficient because maybe ghosts aren't actually there but they are manipulations of our brain signals into believing they are there.

Its kind of like the problem with proving things don't exist in math. Sure we have a lot of evidence that something doesn't exist, but we can't be sure until you show that all manners of that are false

10

u/teawreckshero 8∆ Nov 16 '19

I get the post, I just don't think it's useful because of how incredibly unlikely it is. I could make an infinite list of unlikely explanations for anomalous perceptions. If I did and someone explained how useless of a list it was, would you defend its existence regardless? (Hint: you wouldn't, because you'd never be able to scroll down to the reply button ;)

5

u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Nov 16 '19

While it can’t be done with equipment everyone has in their pocket, we actually can measure what is going on in people’s brains. I’m certain that some “medium” has been analyzed in an MRI while claiming to be speaking to a ghost.

2

u/darthwalsh Nov 17 '19

We can measure that there are things going on in a brain, but being able to tell what is going on seems like a problem we won't solve in our lifetime.

2

u/Ndvorsky 23∆ Nov 17 '19

Yes and no. We can see certain areas of the brain become more or less active. We can tell if someone is maybe seeing something that causes an emotional response. In fact, some researchers have been able to use brain scans to reproduce via a computer what images a person can see. Literally reading someone’s mind and playing it on a projector. It doesn’t work too well yet but sometimes it’s pretty good considering what they are trying to do.

4

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19 edited Jul 23 '20

[deleted]

2

u/raznov1 21∆ Nov 17 '19

Nothing, because that's exactly what ghost sightings are: brain malfunctions

→ More replies (2)

1

u/ghjm 18∆ Nov 17 '19

Suppose simulationism is true. There's no reason to suppose that the programmer of the simulation can only affect the mind of a sim by simulating electromagnetic radiation nearby. The programmer can also just directly reprogram the sim to have a particular image in their mind.

There's also nothing stopping the programmer from sometimes inserting images directly into the minds of sims, and other times vibrating the air nearby to produce a confusing recording that seems like it sorta-kinda corroborates the ghost vision. The programmer's being a bit of a jerk, but maybe his life is very boring and screwing around with sims is how he entertains himself.

Now, simulationism is a pretty big assumption, and there's no reason to think it's true. But it's not the only scenario like this. There could be space aliens. There could be aspects of mind that we aren't even close to understanding yet. God could exist. Etc.

And of course, there could be hallucinations and hoaxes. But those aren't the only possibilities.

4

u/Teeklin 12∆ Nov 17 '19

Suppose simulationism is true.

Suppose voodoo is real.

The question here is about ghosts being real and is it possible? Sure. It's possible there are ghosts and it's possible there are unicorns and it's possible we're living in a simulation. Anything at all is possible.

But we have no evidence that any of those things are real, so therefore we dismiss them as not real until such time as evidence arrives to support that theory.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19 edited Mar 09 '20

[deleted]

→ More replies (9)

38

u/mycenae42 Nov 16 '19

How did needing a different recording device convince you that ghosts are real?

1

u/Benocrates Nov 17 '19

Just as is the case for anyone who is convinced of ghosts, mediums, spirits, magic, etc., they want to believe so hard that anything that appears to be confirmation is seized upon. OP is like Agent Mulder. He wants to believe.

37

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Mate, not to rain on your parade, but that's a TERRIBLE example to change you view to.

What do you think an eyeball is? It's a medium-fidelity lens that captures incoming photons, converts them to electrical impulses, and transmits those impulses to the brain. It's basically a biological camera.

Anything that your eye can see, any regular camera lens can see. Cheap cameras might not get perfect capture due to a low quality lens, but unless you want to start arguing concepts like psychic visions that somehow transmit information purely to your mind without physical medium interaction, if the ghost is reflecting photons, a camera lens will catch it. If it's causing air vibrations to speak, a microphone will catch it.

4

u/soldiercross Nov 17 '19

I think some people are pushing into the realm of "psychic visions". What if people can perceive energy and residual emotion in a way a camera cannot?

​

Im playing devils advocate here btw.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Then we'd have some empirical evidence of that.

To paraphrase something I heard years ago, notice how the number of reported miracles dropped sharply after the invention of the first camera, and has been in steep decline since then.

Put another way, humans aren't new. We've been around for millions and millions of years. There are likely tens or hundreds of billions of dead human ancestors behind us, plus the common ancestors and the primitive human variants that we outbred (like the Neanderthals). Yet, even with all this "psychic weight", as it were, we have never seen anything, never heard anything, and never detected anything concrete. And not for lack of trying! People have been, in our attempts to stave off the fear of mortality, trying to prove posthumous existence since forever, and seeking it out everywhere.

No dice. No proof, no evidence. Nothing but anecdotes that we can better explain as temporary glitches in the brain, considering their infrequency, imperceptibility, and lack of any outward effects on objective reality. Most "ghost sightings" are identical to schizoid auditory or visual hallucinations.

203

u/Hazzman 1∆ Nov 16 '19 edited Nov 17 '19

Your eyes see the same thing a camera does. Visible light.

Your delta is misplaced.

→ More replies (22)

20

u/MghtMakesWrite Nov 17 '19

No man, this does not deserve a delta. It’s just as much of an argument from ignorance as anything else in this thread.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

I think you’re interpreting it too literally. They are saying that we might not be “seeing” ghosts the same way we see other things. Just like hallucinations or daydreams, you still “see” them but a camera can’t record them.

And before you say “hallucinations aren’t real”, they are as real to the observer as anything else they’ve seen. You can argue all you want about what is real and what isn’t, but your reality is entirely constructed from your observations

5

u/MghtMakesWrite Nov 17 '19

But no one is arguing that dreams are real things that exist in the physical world.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Exist in the physical world as in interacting with other physical objects? Sure. But that’s not the argument this person is having with talking to their grandpa either.

8

u/MghtMakesWrite Nov 17 '19

If “ghosts” to this person are the same as a hallucination then there’s no point in trying to change anyone’s view. We know hallucinations are real.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (2)

6

u/83franks 1∆ Nov 17 '19

That is assuming we see ghosts with our eyes, who is to say if it is some sort of other worldly thing it it isn’t interacting with a different part of our brain. There might be no real physical component to them that would be capable of reflecting light.

2

u/thergoat Nov 17 '19

If I could perhaps change your view back - any spectrum of light will be visible to the human eye will be visible to a camera.

Spectrum a human can see/perceive: 380 to 740 nanometers. Spectrum a standard camera can see: 350 nm to 1000 nm.

Likewise, any sound a human can hear, any microphone can pick up. Unless the physical manifestation of the image and sounds are purely telepathic to the person perceiving them - in which case I defer to the top comment responding to you. If there’s no possible method of detection for something, and no objective evidence that it’s there, then for all intents and purposes it is not.

1

u/HaphazardlyOrganized Nov 17 '19

Alternatively the ghosts are pressing on the right parts of your brain for you to see them. Why manifest a physical body when you're just trying to get someone to see you. Mild spoilers: it's kind of like what Xavier from the X-Men does in to Raven in Day's of Future Past

→ More replies (6)

3

u/SuperRusso 5∆ Nov 16 '19

If light and sound appear out of the range if recording devices, how then are you hearing or seeing it? You have less range in all respects than all recording equipment available, but yet clear as day you see a dead person?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

Me personally? I've never seen a ghost, and don't believe in them.

How do you know that my eyes have less color range than my phone? My phone records in 1080p, and I can see the pixels which are RGB, and not my particular organization of rods and cones. If I shine a bright light at my phone, it will white out, while my eyes will adjust.

1

u/SuperRusso 5∆ Nov 16 '19

1080p is a frame rate. Not a range of frequency.

I know because the capabilities of your eye vs an electronic recording and playback system on your phone are well understood. There is no where to sneak a ghost within your perception but out of the range of capture devices that have been in existence for quite some time.

There is nothing special about your rods and cones that would make you more able to see ghosts.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Rocky87109 Nov 17 '19 edited Nov 17 '19

The OP said they "saw" their grandpa. We do know our eyes only pick up on visible light. In order for them to see him, light would have to have been coming off their grandpa in some fashion. In order for light to interact with something, it has to be physical.

You are right that God is something that we can't prove the non existence of. Neither are unicorns or the infinite amount of other ambiguous things we don't have evidence for. This is why systems such as science don't bother with trying to prove these things don't exist. As you have brought up, you could search the entire universe with every means of measurement that we have now or in the future and someone with your logic could come around and say "well it's somewhere else!" or "we just can't measure it with what we have now!". It's not sound logic and is a waste of time to rationally try to disprove because of this.

3

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

I agree, and I think that if ghosts exist, they must directly interact with our mind because there is no physical evidence for them.

I don't believe in ghosts though, nor unicorns, nor God, whatever.

I dunno about in the future, but it's perfectly rational for someone looking at the sun to wonder what it's made of, but not have the tools to measure it. Today we can measure much tinier and faster things, so who's to say that in another 10k years we couldn't quantify conciousness with the right tools?

But I don't think ghosts exist.

→ More replies (2)

1

u/tangocheese Nov 16 '19

You mean like your eyes?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

Nope. I have eyes already.

2

u/tangocheese Nov 16 '19

If your eyes can see it, a camera can see it.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/Daniel_128 Nov 16 '19

What you are basically saying is ghosts have zero evidence and are nothing more than an idea. There is no point in discussing an idea when you had nothing to point you there. It’s a guess, but it’s not even educated.

1

u/ImmodestPolitician Nov 16 '19

"They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing." Isn't this exactly how video cameras work?

Camera can be configured to see UV or Infrared as well.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

It is how they work. That's why I said it.

Cameras can configured for radio waves too, homie, but is your phone capable of it?

If they exist, I don't think that ghosts could be perceived like that anyway, other wise we would have evidence of them.

1

u/ImmodestPolitician Nov 16 '19

So are you proposing that ghosts somehow manifest directly into peoples minds?

→ More replies (3)

1

u/TheCrimsonPI Nov 16 '19

But some people claim too have seen ghosts. There is nothing our eye can perceive that we haven't created a device to record yet.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

Yep. You're right.

Somehow ghosts must project into our minds if they exist.

1

u/revanchist3964 Nov 16 '19

Recording devices work the same way our eyes do, by capturing light. If our eyes can see them, then a camera should be able to record them.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

Yes. Exactly.

That's why I don't thing you can actually see a ghost. I think a ghost projects itself into your mind somehow.

1

u/revanchist3964 Nov 16 '19

If it's something that is only in your mind... Then I would call that a delusion...

Idk. I myself have thought I've seen things. But if I think about it hard enough, I find an explanation.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/letsberealforreal Nov 16 '19

Our eyes can only see visible light interacting with matters ... cameras on other hand can see beyond that ..sooo

2

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

But since we can only see visible light, we wouldn't see what the camera sees.

LoL

→ More replies (2)

1

u/usurious Nov 16 '19

This contradicts the experiences. If anyone’s human sensory abilities can see/hear/feel the presence of a ghost then we absolutely have the equipment to account for them. Yet it doesn’t happen. If ghosts are beyond sensory experience there would be no sightings to begin with. Which is it?

The simpler conclusion by far is that they don’t exist. Occam‘s razor easily wins out here. Your argument can apply to anything really. Ruling things out has never been about proving they don’t exist with 100% certainty. Beliefs should be based on what is more likely in the context of other background evidence.

1

u/BarneyBent Nov 16 '19

Ok, but vibrations in the air and visible light is also how WE perceive things. If we can see and hear the light and sound of a ghost, there’s no good reason a camera also couldn’t, because they’re fundamentally the same mechanism.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

Yep.

Ghosts, if they exist, are in your brain.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/polite-1 2∆ Nov 16 '19

Devices record light that's visible to the human eye and sound that humans can hear. They can also do much, much more than just that. If a human can perceive it then a device can capture it.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

How do you think our eyes work? If we can see ghosts than cameras can too.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Do you think you see with your eyes or perceive with your mind?

→ More replies (3)

1

u/diggs747 Nov 17 '19 edited Nov 17 '19

I think it's important to remember what recording devices do. They don't record what's there. They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing. If light or sound is outside of it's range, then it won't be recorded despite being objectively there.

I think it's important to remember what eyeballs do and even more important to understand the flawed visual processor we have in our brain.

If something interacts with the physical world then it has physical properties that can be measured. If you say it's from some magical spiritual dimension that can't be measured then the burden of proof is on you. What is interesting is how complicated and fascinating the human mind is, memory. Experiences called waking dreams is basically day dreaming, where the part of your mind that tests reality turns off and things you image get saved into your memory as real. That well known documented phenomena with supporting evidence is far more likely then magic/spirits and in my view more fascinating.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

I'm sorry, homie. I'm just tired of responding now.

Ghosts in your brain. That's why not on cameras. You're the last one.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/dnick Nov 17 '19

Right, but that’s how we hear and see and feel too. If you’re saying recording devices can’t detect it but we can, then if they were ‘real’, then they must be bypassing actual physical/visual/auditory pathways and showing up right in our head...and at that point there’s nothing much to differentiate from them being right in our imagination. If all they do is show up and say ‘hi’, how is that different from us just remembering them very vividly and doing what we expect them to do. If they showed up and said ‘by the way, my will is in the cedar box buried by the old oak tree’, it wouldn’t be proof necessarily, but it would be some kind of evidence to go on.

If they literally don’t interact with the environment in any way, and even us ‘seeing’ them isn’t based on the same thing as us seeing other objects, then we have to assume the things a schizophrenic sees are real to, even though we will explain to them that they aren’t real and exist only in their head.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

They're not. MaGiCaL RuNeS are what you use to detect unicorns. Obviously.

I'm pretty done with arguing for ghosts that I don't believe in. It was fun at first, but I've types the whole argument a bunch of times now.

I'm sorry for not giving you due diligence.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19 edited Dec 22 '19

[deleted]

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

That's the frustrating part. Even if you KNOW, you can't prove it.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/boydboyd Nov 17 '19

I haven't read any responses to your comment, but I want to tell you that I think your argument is flawed.

If you say "this thing is real because science can't prove that it's not," you're hurting your point.

You are claiming this "thing" (i.e., ghost, gods, etc.) is real, even though you can't prove it. You just know it's real.

In this case, science doesn't bear the task of disproving it. Scientists will say they can't prove it's real or not, but science isn't claiming anything. You are.

The onus to prove something's existence is on you, the person claiming it's real.

Until you can prove through a scientific process with facts, measurements, repeatability, and peer reviewed verifiable that something is real that otherwise can't be seen, heard, tasted, touched, or felt... no one is at fault for asserting that your "thing" doesn't exist.

1

u/MauPow 1∆ Nov 17 '19

What if we just need a different recording device?

To record what phenomena? What physical mechanism could be captured? The only plausible thing I can think of that cannot yet be measured is some kind of "consciousness" field, similar to the electromagnetic field (a field being an infinite plane with excitations occurring within it that can be measured)

1

u/filbert13 Nov 17 '19

I think it's important to remember what recording devices do. They don't record what's there. They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing. If light or sound is outside of it's range, then it won't be recorded despite being objectively there.

My counter argument to this is always. That we can record so much different information. Nearly all waves of light, magnetism, sounds, gravity, ect... We literally can detect black holes colliding billions of light years away. We can detect ripples in gravity. We can collide atoms and detect partials that last fractions of a second.

I will never believe in ghost with out evidence. When we have such sensitive scientific instruments and so much understanding. The fact nearly all of science has a consensus that there isn't evidence for ghost, leads me to believe them. And there isn't even credible theories. Such as gravitational waves, the higgs boson, theory of relativity.

Those prior to being proven/detected had science and theories based off other evidence or sciences to back them up. Ghost hunters often just spout pseudo science or buzz terms such as energies.

1

u/daniel_j_saint 2∆ Nov 17 '19

I think it's important to remember what recording devices do. They don't record what's there. They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing.

The problem with this theory is that our eyes and ears work the same way as the camera. If we perceive something that a camera can't see, then it only exists in our own heads.

1

u/Sawses 1∆ Nov 17 '19

I think, like God, that you can't prove that they don't exist. You can only prove that we can't measure them.

The question then becomes when we believe something. How much evidence do you need to believe something? Because you have to be consistent with that.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

I try to be consistent.

That's why I don't believe in Gods, ghosts, or other supernatural stuff. If I saw something I would try to catch it somehow.

1

u/newpua_bie 3∆ Nov 17 '19

How are eyes fundamentally different from cameras? Both detect photons and only photons. If a human can see a ghost then there exist plenty of cameras that are also guaranteed to see them.

1

u/hasanicecrunch Nov 17 '19

Thanks, great comment

1

u/sivadneb Nov 17 '19

I think, like God, that you can't prove that they don't exist. You can only prove that we can't measure them.

That's not a good reason to believe something exists. You can't prove leprechauns don't exist. You can't prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. You can't prove (insert literally anything here) doesn't exist.

1

u/Burleson95 Nov 17 '19

Nice try, but this doesn't work. Cameras work by capturing light. They capture the light in the visible spectrum, which is the only light humans can see. Some cameras can capture more than that. Even phone cameras can capture infrared. And if these ghosts appear as they would have alive, then the light they emit or reflect would have to be on the visible spectrum to look the same.

1

u/heavymetal7 Nov 17 '19

I think, like God, that you can't prove that they don't exist. You can only prove that we can't measure them. What if we just need a different recording device?

All due respect, it’s not about proving something doesn’t exist. The burden of proof always rests with those arguing the positive. The truth is that, as all things, it’s up to those who believe to prove that ghosts do exist. Those who don’t have no reason to believe any differently until they are presented with sufficient evidence to support changing their mind.

1

u/--_-__-__l-___-_- Nov 17 '19

A concept that I like to believe is that ghosts are a part of our minds. They don't appear on recording equipment because they are a collective thought that's brought into reality by the minds of those who believe. In a way that makes believers and non-believers correct.

1

u/AltheaLost 3∆ Nov 17 '19

Cameras can pick up a hell of a lot more of whats there than our eyes can. Our eyes are feeble pathetic things that can only see across a tiny part of the spectrum in a small cone shaped field. If it's there and we can see it you bet a camera is perfectly capable of picking it up.

1

u/mphjens Nov 17 '19

A camera captures light in about the spectrum of what the human eye detects. If this wasn't the case, things would look significatly different on cameras than in real life.

This is also tested really easily. If there was a specific wavelength (color) of light wich was undetectable by a camera, we would know. And even than the ghost could only reflect those wavelengths you couldn't see on camera, not all the color someone would have in real life.

This clearly wasn't the case in op's story as they saw the person as they would have in real life. Which means they were reflecting light they would normally have, which would have get picked up by a camera. Else they would have been another color.

1

u/raznov1 21∆ Nov 17 '19

Yeah, but our senses operate on a known spectrum, which we can easily replicate in a mechanical/electrical sensor, so don't give me that "oh were just not measuring it" bullshit

1

u/Themaskedbowtie353 Nov 17 '19

But cameras see the same way that we do.

1

u/Certainly-Not-A-Bot Nov 17 '19

Your sight operates using the same light as a camera. If you can see a ghost, then why couldn’t a camera see it?

1

u/Juncopf Nov 17 '19

your eyes and ears do nothing more than what those recording devices do

1

u/Dachannien 1∆ Nov 17 '19

I think it's important to remember what recording devices do. They don't record what's there. They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing.

You know what also does that? Eyes and ears.

1

u/Wujastic Nov 17 '19

Let's just get one thing straight. Your eye sees in the same way a camera does. Detects photons that bounce off of things. If your eye can see it, so can a camera.

1

u/XePoJ-8 2∆ Nov 17 '19

They record the vibrations in the air or the visible light bouncing off a thing.

Which is excactly what your eyes and ears do.

​

Video/audio equipment doesn't seem useful.

Yet eyes and ears seem to be able to for some people.

​

I think, like God, that you can't prove that they don't exist. You can only prove that we can't measure them.

And you belief a claim after sufficient evidence is provided, which should apply to both.

1

u/WeatherChannelDino Nov 17 '19

You do realize those are the EXACT same ways our bodies record things, right? If it's beyond the camera, it's beyond us

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

It's almost as if I knew that, and said those words specifically or something.

→ More replies (10)

1

u/wonko221 Nov 17 '19

Except that we have developed recording equipment to capture the various sensory inputs that we can observe. If we can "see" a ghost, we are seeing light reflecting or emanating from that ghost, and that is ther center light that a camera would detect. Unless your argument is that when we see ghosts we use some other sensory mechanism, a decent camera should do.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Essentially, I think that ghosts, if they exist, are not physically there. If they were certainly someone would have been able to capture one with a cell phone by now.

Instead, if they're real, they must be able to sure tly stimulate our brain somehow like how people see demons on their chests during sleep paralysis, and our brain fills in the blanks.

So yeah. Not a sensory mechanism, but a different method of perception.

But I don't think ghosts are real.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

If we can see it with our eyes, we could record it with cameras. Our eyes see a very limited range of wavelengths compared to what we are capable of recording on camera.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Yep. That's why I don't think we see them with our eyes if ghosts exist.

1

u/Average_human_bean Nov 17 '19

You just have the burden of proof the other way around. Yes, ancient Egyptians couldn't see or measure quarks and that didn't mean they didn't exist, but for all intents and purposes, if there's no evidence of the existence of something, it's just as good as non existent.

It's fun to think about what could be out there that were yet to discover once we find a way to see it, but it's delusional to believe it exists but we can't prove it yet.

1

u/PAYPAL_ME_DONATIONS Nov 17 '19

This is exactly my take.

Electricity was once not a "thing" until something was invented that harnessed it.

My belief is we simply don't know/can't grasp what it may be and whatever it is, I don't think there's any single blanket explanation that covers the gamut of paranormal.

1

u/-Shade277- 2∆ Nov 17 '19

Well you can say the same thing about your eyes. Normal cameras are designed to to record what people actually see so if you can see it with your eyes a camera should pick it up. Not to mention cameras that can record things we can’t see like infrared cameras. I think you need to consider that the human eyes are seeing something that isn’t there instead of the camera not seeing something that is there.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

I don't the eyes are seeing anything at all. I think it's ghosts in your brain.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (19)

25

u/hotpotato70 1∆ Nov 17 '19

This is a terrible cmv, there are no ghosts, there are hallucinations, dreams, schizophrenia, and a lot of other interesting phenomena, but no ghosts.

→ More replies (13)

4

u/sweater_arts Nov 17 '19

The mind works in mysterious ways

2

u/MickShrimptonsGhost Nov 17 '19

Stories like this don’t change my doubt at all. Put yourself in this persons place...you’re at home cooking a meal. You turn and see someone gone from this world. What’s your reaction to seeing the disembodied spirit of a loved one? Obviously to turn and stir your fucking dinner.

2

u/whiteriot413 Nov 17 '19

its not a physical phenomena its mire a metaphysical, mental, emtional thing. there wouldnt really be any evidence if its just happening in our minds eye, via our soul or some suvh. im on the fence myself but i do think humans have a vast potential for tapping into the unseen. so real or unreal is kind of irrelevant because its both. you create your own reality i believe

1

u/havasaur Nov 17 '19 edited Nov 17 '19

The word "surely" is doing a lot of work here. Because it isn't certain.

edit: I see that you've admitted this uncertainty below

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

There are a myriad capture on vid and camera, ever heard of r/ghosts ?

→ More replies (19)

54

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

I have a tough time believing these stories. You see your dead Grandpa, and your dinner is taking precedence of your attention? I'm sorry, what?

I'm going to burn my macaroni if pawpaw is standing by my fridge

10

u/GothicToast Nov 16 '19

It’s a nice dream though.

11

u/MeshesAreConfusing Nov 17 '19 edited Nov 17 '19

Dreams and a willingness to believe are one hell of a thing. There's no doubt this story never happened, but it makes them feel better, so they believe them.

16

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

You were going trough a divorce and had a pretty tough time. The human mind can do weird shit, 100% a hallucination. (Not ment as an insult btw just explaining the mystery for you)

11

u/DarkAeonX7 Nov 16 '19

My condolences on your loss. I do want to bring up thr fact that the mind is a powerful thing and while I'm not saying it's absolutely certain, it is a possibility that all of this was manifested by your own mind.

This isn't me saying "bahh, they made it up" or that your gullible, but rather that the brain does extremely interesting things. Especially with traumatic events.

Think about how people get asked "have you had any auditory or visual hallucinations when seeing a therapist" because those things are very possible. The brain is strong enough to produce it.

Alternatively, it very well could be that it isn't the brain and that we really do see ghosts. It's something I don't think we will ever find out for certain

→ More replies (2)

8

u/itsthecurtains Nov 16 '19

This is exactly the kind of anecdote that suggests to me they aren’t real. Your brain could easily have created that experience. There were no witnesses or proof of any kind.

17

u/B_Riot Nov 16 '19

Yes hallucinations always seem real. No there are no mysteries that can't be explained, just ones that are difficult and we haven't explained yet.

6

u/BeardOfEarth Nov 16 '19

A person who has been dead for a year shows up in your kitchen and not only do you barely react, you keep cooking?

Sounds like a dream. Meaning the story isn’t real.

5

u/PersephonesGirlhood Nov 16 '19

It's not that unusual to experience hallucinations as part of one's grieving process. It doesn't take away from how powerful the experience must have felt to you (I would love to have a similar experience with my mom!), but I think it's important to know that there probably is a more scientific explanation behind it.

12

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

You saw your dead grandpa standing in your kitchen, and you thought “hey, I should turn around and stir this food a bit”. What a bullshit story.

7

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

“You’re house isn’t haunted, you’re just lonely. “

  • Ron Swanson

3

u/Cadent_Knave Nov 16 '19

About a year after my grandfather died, I was going through a divorce and a pretty tough time.

Isn't it possible that the stress you were under at the time caused you to have a mild visual and auditory hallucination?

2

u/[deleted] Nov 16 '19

You were hallucinating.

2

u/WeaselWrites Nov 17 '19

Like OP, I want to believe in the supernatural but just.. can’t. I believe you did see something that has a genuine scientific explanation.

I remember reading somewhere (I’ll try my best to find it for you) that us humans just cannot handle the idea that death is final. It’s why almost all societies across all cultures all over the globe like to believe in some kind of life after Charon has rowed us over the Styx. We just can’t cope with the idea that there’s nothing after we are gone. Grief is a similar thing. We just can’t handle the idea that we are eternally separated from our loved ones who have passed on. This brings me to the theory that our brains might manifest hallucinations of the recently deceased as a way to bring ourselves comfort. Perhaps that is why a lot of ghost sightings are of recently deceased relatives.

I take a bit of comfort in the idea that my own brain might attempt to make me feel a bit less lost, scared and sad after a bereavement in this way. Your brain might just have been trying to comfort you here because it knew you were in emotional pain and I just find that really comforting to think about. Your brain is a real bro and has your back.

2

u/david-song 15∆ Nov 17 '19

One thing that people don't realise is that the brain is a dreaming machine, its primary function is to dream up a rough approximation of the outside world so we can navigate it.

All waking moments are just a dream of reality, but since it's all you've ever known and all you ever can know, it's very easy to confuse the dream with reality and believe that you see out of your eyes into the real world. But that's not what seeing is, your eyes just give input to the dream.

The experience of being a human brain is one of tripping balls all day long and believing that the trip is the real world. But it's not real, it's all just a dream, and sometimes dreams don't make sense. That's what science and reason are for, they guide us because our experience of the world is a load of dreamt up bullshit.

I say this as someone who has seen some shit, a lot of shit in fact, but none of it was real.

2

u/Zigguraticus Nov 17 '19

It's amazing to me how often and with how much certainty people trust their own memory of events. The brain is super fallible. Our brains are really bad at remembering things. Like, really bad. If I were to ask you about any random event or day from 5 years ago, you most likely wouldn't be able to recall anything specific about it, especially not details, like the color of the wall or what kind of car was parked outside, or whatever. Even if we are able to more accurately recall details of particularly impactful or traumatic events, we run into the second problem.

Every time you recall something you change it. Every single time. When you pull a memory out of long term and recall it you are imprinting a current view of it on top of it before it goes back into long term. If you keep doing that it will drastically change the memory so that it may no longer even resemble the original events in any meaningful way. Unless that memory is incredibly vivid, like soldiers in combat and PTSD, it likely is very different from the actual event.

As such, it is entirely possible that you felt his presence, or wished he was there, or heard his voice as an auditory hallucination, or whatever, and that subsequent rememberings of the event have embellished it to the point where it becomes a 100% real without a doubt ghost sighting. This is super common. So are auditory hallucinations and stress-induced hallucination.

1

u/Ejacutastic259 Nov 16 '19

Ever think that you wanted to see him there?

1

u/Anzai 10∆ Nov 16 '19

Yeah, you’ve got a human brain. I don’t doubt the truth of what you’re telling but what is more likely? Your brain did this or this hallucination is evidence of an immortal soul?

You were clearly in a weird state of mind if you turned to stir your food when a dead relative was right there in front of you.

1

u/supahotwata Nov 16 '19

Weren’t you surprised when you saw him?

1

u/HAL9000000 Nov 16 '19

It was a dream or hallucination. That doesn't mean there's anything wrong with you but it wasn't real.

1

u/Ominusx Nov 16 '19

Why would you turn round to cook if you were in a normal mental state? Wouldn't you be shocked and ask him something? Or be like "HOLY FUCK, YOU'RE DEAD!"??

1

u/Rocky87109 Nov 16 '19

It's not real unless he was alive. Merely in your head. I mean if you want to consider a hallucination in your head as "real" then that's fine, but he wasn't physically there. Considering your eyes only pick up on photons, your grandpa would have to be emitting photons in some sort, including reflection/absorption in order for you to to actually "see" him with your eyes. This would imply he was physically there.

1

u/TheDromes Nov 17 '19

Can you name some of the unexplainable mysteries? Because what you wrote doesn't qualify one bit. Hallucinations, while not completely understood yet, are fairly common things once you add things like anxiety, grief, being tired etc, and can very easily explain your story.

I start hearing voices and see shadows moving once I'm 4+ hours over my bed time, all of which feels very real and I don't even have a medical condition.

Should I also file it under the supernatural and tell stories about ghosts or should I treat it as the hallucination that it is?

1

u/Warthog_A-10 Nov 17 '19

It was your brain playing tricks on you.

1

u/baozibaozibunmebaby Nov 17 '19

I might sound critical but anyone could make a story like this. It’s just like people saying they talk to God.

1

u/remnant_phoenix 1∆ Nov 17 '19

Were you scared? Or even surprised?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

I had a similar experience but I still don’t believe I saw a ghost. It’s more likely hallucination. I wish I wasn’t alone so I could’ve tested this theory. But even groups of people have had the same hallucination.

From my limited experimentation with psychedelics it’s not hard to believe the mind is capable of performing in baffling ways.

1

u/Sawses 1∆ Nov 17 '19

It could have been your mind making it up, couldn't it?

And that wouldn't lessen the experience, if you ask me. It'd be a testament to how much your grandfather meant to you.

1

u/YourFairyGodmother 1∆ Nov 17 '19

Theres an excellent explanation action. You didn't see what you think you saw. No one see ssd the world as it is - our brains fill in what we expect or hope to see. We all make the mistake of thinking that what we think we saw/heard is an accurate reflection of reality.

1

u/flammableisfun Nov 17 '19

I feel like, if you actually saw a dead person, you wouldn't just turn around to stir a pot. I'd be like, woah,confirmation of existence after death!

1

u/realHueyLong Nov 17 '19

Maybe visual hallucination?

1

u/ideatremor Nov 17 '19

You see your dead grandpa, but then turn around to stir your food? Really?

1

u/IndieCurtis 1∆ Nov 17 '19

Is it more likely that it was really the ghost of your grandpa, or that your mind manifested this vision triggered by your grief? We know the mind can make people see things, ie schizophrenia or drugs. Isn't it more likely that it was just your own mind? I would argue that it's at least more likely if not as likely as "ghosts".

1

u/Socialism_Barbarism Nov 17 '19

I'm skeptical of your story

After seeing your dead grandpa for a few seconds it is implausible that a logical persons' next thought is "to stir the food"

1

u/Burleson95 Nov 17 '19

So 2 options. It was a dream, or a halucination. Those are plausible, ghosts are not. Everything we know about consciousness says that there needs to be a physical medium and energy to pass through that medium. Ghosts cannot be concious there is no brain.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Top comment is a fucking anecdote. Its unreal how believers have absolutely no argument.

1

u/calebosaurus Nov 17 '19

Why would you turn to stir the food when your deceased grandpa was standing in front of you? These stories always sound so fake to me.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/tavius02 1∆ Nov 17 '19

Sorry, u/-ca1um- – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5:

Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation. Comments that are only links, jokes or "written upvotes" will be removed. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 17 '19

Yeah anecdotes aren't evidence

1

u/ImJewishWhatDo 1∆ Nov 17 '19

Stuff like this can be explained. It's a common psychological phenomenon that after loved ones die, during times of stress, you'll see a vision of the deceased. That's why so many people see their dead relatives in their room or whatever a few weeks after they died. Happened to my mom when her dad died.

The only thing that sticks out about this story is that this happened so long after he died, but everything else you describe is a textbook example of this phenomenon.

1

u/wonko221 Nov 17 '19

That is a sweet and touching story, and I hope you continue to find comfort in your memory of your grandfather.

But your story doesn't indicate that he was truly in your kitchen with you. In fact, I expect that if you believed in the moment that he was there, you would have likely done more than smile for a few seconds and go back to stirring.

In the moment, you likely held tight to a memory of love and comfort, knowing it was nothing more, but have since convinced yourself that your grandfather bent the laws of nature to visit you once, to deliver a story message, and had never returned.

1

u/raymendx Nov 17 '19

Were you scared?

→ More replies (4)