Classification Issue

Stoner

I was reading a book last night,
"The Ghost Hunters Guide Book" by Troy Taylor.
I'm very impressed with it, well as impressed as someone who reads lots of these books but has no real experience can be.
Anyway, I like it, has a very scientific strain running through it. What I did find interesting was that Taylor is not as black and white about the differences between Ghosts and Spirits as I understand/understood.
Up to this I thought that spirits are associated with levels of interaction and can in some cases be communicated with, where as ghosts are "recordings of past events" this is roughly the case as I believe.
However Taylor goes on to state that knocking, random footsteps (even in new places) and doors closing can be caused by ghosts, i.e. he states that the energy stored/due to the ghost can cause these things to happen, even though they were not present during the time of the original recording.
By this I understand that Taylor thinks that ghost's energy can cause random things to happen to objects that were not there when the original "recording" or "imprint" were made.
This is relevant to the place where I work as it has been associated with some strange sounds and door closing etc and I thought this blurred what I was dealing with.

Anyone ever come across this idea before, do more people seem to think that a ghost can’t be communicated with and is just a playback/record? Do you think that a ghost can cause seemingly "spirit" like activity to happen?

Zillah

It can't be very scientific if he's making statements about the nature of ghosts and spirits, as these things havn't even been proven to exist let alone be documented and codified.

My point being that if you ask ten people what the difference between a ghost and a spirit is you'll get ten different answers, ranging from a thesis-like rant to a shrug and rolled eyes.

Stoner

Good point,
I'm not saying the guy is scientific or not, but the approach to collecting data is. Discussing ghosts and spirits, or any subject that has not yet been proven is not reason enough to say someone is not scientific IMO.
It's true the these things have not been proven to exit, but all the more reason to look for them. The very basis of discovery is that something new or different is found. I know this thread is above the whole world is flat arguement, but you know where I am coming from.
It's true that you will get many answers for this question, but this guy has been around the block on this issue and most books I have read on the subject will distinguish between the theory of a ghost and the theory of a spirit etc.
It is clear IMO that the most common theory behind a ghost is that it is a recording of a past event, stored energy or something being replayed etc. this guy seems to think that this energy can cause an effect on the environement over and above the replaying of this event. I was just wondering if anyone agreed, obviously many won't.

stevenmu

Zillah wrote:

It can't be very scientific if he's making statements about the nature of ghosts and spirits, as these things havn't even been proven to exist let alone be documented and codified.

Well, if you want to prove if something exists or not, surely you'd have to begin by classifying exactly what it is your trying to prove/disprove the existence of ?


The descriptions raise an interesting point. We've discussed on the forums before that there may be both sentient interactive spirits, and also 'recordings' of past people or events, but I don't think we ever really mentioned that kind of middle ground, where a recording can in some way be interactive and for e.g. move present day objects.

6th

From what i know i cant see how a "recording/ghost" wouldnt interact with a modern enviroment? If its visable then the light it gives off have some (albeit minor) influence.

I think the difference is whether or not the effect is a conscious one or not.

For me it would be like this:

Spirit/Entity: Conscious being/energy.

Ghost/echo/recording: An unconscious energy, usually place or enviroment specific.

Haunting: Sustained or regular area of spirit/ghost activity.

Poltergeist: Discription of the activity of a spirit or *energy on an enviroment on a physical level i.e. object manipulation, knocking movement of objects etc.

*by energy I mean that this can be caused by the subconscious energy of a living person energy or a build up or natural energy in an area.

Now I'm not saying the above are perfect but the suit me for what i know now.

Stoner

Taylor calls these
Residual Hauntings, one of his point is as follows
"Residual hauntings will not involve missing or vanished items, as there is no consciousness present. While windows or doors may be opened or closed, it is because of the energy expending itself, not because it is physically being manipulated"

Reading this again I don't really see where it's coming from. Opening a window etc is an exact movement and would require a specific action over and above energy expending itself. If this was heat, a flash of light or a general movement of air then maybe, but to direct energy to open a window would take more then energy expending itself IMO.

does this mean we are in agreement 6th?

6th

Stoner wrote:

does this mean we are in agreement 6th?

It would appear so. Its a case of looking at an activity and deciding whether it is a purpose/conscious action or not.