However, that 'recent research' is all to do with "feeling /sensing a presence". It doesn't explain visionary 'ghostly' scenarios - actually seeing the solid form of a person (objectively, outside of the mind, so to speak). Looks as though this article is more in line with the findings of the Swiss neurologists mentioned here:

A presence (called a ‘shadow person’) was accidentally evoked in a clinical setting by Swiss neurologists when they used electrical stimulation to probe the brain of an epileptic patient, looking for evidence of organic brain damage. It was a presence, an unseen being felt by the patient to be close at hand. But it was not the Third Man. Its most important feature, its powerful beneficence, that critical attribute that has helped people to survive and transcend extreme conditions, was missing.

Ketchup wrote:
However, that 'recent research' is all to do with "feeling /sensing a presence". It doesn't explain visionary 'ghostly' scenarios - actually seeing the solid form of a person (objectively, outside of the mind, so to speak).

Ketchup wrote:
However, that 'recent research' is all to do with "feeling /sensing a presence". It doesn't explain visionary 'ghostly' scenarios - actually seeing the solid form of a person (objectively, outside of the mind, so to speak).

How do you know that the form is solid, and is outside your mind?

Steven Novella has written today about the recent Feeling of Presence research. Part of his conclusion.......

The deeper lesson from these lines of evidence is that we cannot trust our own experiences. When someone tells me of an unusual experience they had, they are relating a constructed and reconstructed memory of flawed and filtered perceptions that were themselves constructed into an internal model of events. Given what we currently know about neuroscience, it would be naive to interpret the experience as solid evidence for a real phenomenon, especially a real and highly unusual or even supernatural phenomenon.

its interesting stuff - has been around for a while. Quite an extensive literature on sensed / felt presence experiences. They can impact on other sensory (i.e., vision) as well, thus creating an experience-inducing context.

As I have said before, on various forums, I have seen a ghost. It was a very vivid, frightening experience and seemed very real at that moment in time. Like most ghost experiences, it was late at night in a dark room.

When I was on a Kilroy TV show about ghosts I commented that everyone seemed to have been asleep when they saw their ghosts. A woman said that she certainly wasn't asleep when she saw a ghost and told a long and rambling story that ended "and I was so frightened that I jumped out of bed..."

I certainly don't take the "I know ghosts are real because I've seen one" position seriously. I've seen a ghost and I still doubt that they are anything other than imagination and illusion.

In some ultimate sense - yes. But what i dont like is when i encounter people who say "isnt it JUST imagination / hallucination?" as if that was an explanation - as it most certainly is not. Some skeptics say this and think 'job done' - I'd say, no, it most certainly is not.

The ghost experience has a lot to offer the development of theories of hallucination, which are far from complete or comprehensive enough at the moment. The sensed-presence experience is very common in cases of ghosts / hauntings and yes they can be applied to visual experiences in some cases as well (though its a complicated explanation). They are well worthy of investigating as an experience and we have a lot to learn.

They are a combination of misperception, aberrant experience, belief, and hallucinatory experiences, - but the mechanics of these experiences needs more work. That's how I see it. In that sense, a number of the posts above can co-exist and are not really arguments against each other.

Dr B wrote:In some ultimate sense - yes. But what i dont like is when i encounter people who say "isnt it JUST imagination / hallucination?" as if that was an explanation - as it most certainly is not. Some skeptics say this and think 'job done' - I'd say, no, it most certainly is not.

The ghost experience has a lot to offer the development of theories of hallucination, which are far from complete or comprehensive enough at the moment. The sensed-presence experience is very common in cases of ghosts / hauntings and yes they can be applied to visual experiences in some cases as well (though its a complicated explanation). They are well worthy of investigating as an experience and we have a lot to learn.

They are a combination of misperception, aberrant experience, belief, and hallucinatory experiences, - but the mechanics of these experiences needs more work. That's how I see it. In that sense, a number of the posts above can co-exist and are not really arguments against each other.

Yes. I agree with all of that. I was just being too brief. If it were a simple imagination / hallucination thing then I'd have seen a lot more ghosts on many more occasions.