Why do you believe in ghosts?

3/27/07 6:28:18 AM

Of course all those proofs or disproofs would fail.

Attempting to prove or disprove the non-physical by physical means is an exercise in futility - by definition.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #279,733

by folkert

3/27/07 10:22:59 AM

Sort of like proving Photography to a Blind person!

--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ i_wethey
Freedom is not FREE.
Yeah, but 10s of Trillions of US Dollars?

SELECT * FROM scog WHERE ethics > 0;

0 rows returned.

Post #279,749

3/27/07 12:04:04 PM

It's not "non-physical", though, is it?

The whole point of ghosties and ghoulies is that we can see them - with our eyes, we can feel them - with our heat-sensitive skin, and we can have things thrown at us. We even take pictures of them!

That's some pretty darned physical phenomena right there, isn't it?

Post #279,709

by imric

3/27/07 6:53:16 AM

I grew up in a haunted house.

We had a cookie jar throw itself across a room and smash itself on a wall. During dinner.

Just one thing that happened.

I know your faith that we know enough to rule ghosts out will make you accuse my family of mass hallucination or some such nonsense in order to rationalize your belief - but there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in YOUR philosophy.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #279,747

3/27/07 11:59:20 AM

Naturally, the answer is "ghosts".

It's far more likely, of course, that all known laws of physics were breached and an event took place which has never, ever been repeated in any lab, anywhere, than there be some perfectly natural cause unknown to you.

You're a rational man, Skip. Why do you have this blind spot? Why can you apply Occam's razor everywhere else but not here?

The nonsense lies in your assertion that an entity existing beyond the bounds of our universe but which can interact with it chucked a jar across the room.

During dinner.

Post #279,765

by imric

3/27/07 1:34:23 PM

ROFL

Not trying to convince you.

I saw.

My family saw it.

We had to clean it up.

It was only one of many incidents.

Some were images of people.

Some were voices heard.

Some were experienced by people that had no idea the place was haunted.

So yeah, the coincidence of things moving about in full sight, with voices and images of people in 19th century dress, says "ghosts".

You say Occam's Razor, and it makes me laugh. You say that, but you would find it less complex to imagine all sorts of 'natural' reasons and wild coincidences - without any evidence to the contrary - to fit these phenomena into a framework that you have faith is complete?

I have no such illusions, and illusion it is.

Because, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, fits into the same weight range as a duck, and lays eggs that produce ducklings, I think the label 'duck' probably applies.

Would it make you feel better to apply another set of scientific-sounding labels? Go ahead! I just don't need that sort of 'comfort'.

Now - do I claim to know the nature of these things, why they appear, or how they fit into the natural order? Nope.

Do I claim they don't exist because it's not scientifically politic, do I disbelieve evidence (pottery shards) and reliable eyewitnesses because it doesn't fit into a framework I already know is at the very least incomplete? Also nope.

Do I get a chuckle when you claim I have a 'blind spot'?

*chuckle*

Again - I don't ask that you or anyone here 'believe in ghosts'. Nor do I expect it. I'm not some kind of psychic evangelist. You asked a question at the top of the thread; I answered.

'nuff said.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #279,770

3/27/07 1:44:06 PM

Re: ROFL

Not trying to convince you.

Maybe you're not trying to convince me.

I saw.

You saw something.

My family saw it.

As above.

We had to clean it up.

As above.

It was only one of many incidents.

As above.

Some were images of people.

Imagination.

Some were voices heard.

Imagination.

Some were experienced by people that had no idea the place was haunted.

They had an idea. It's amazing what you can pick up subliminally.

So yeah, the coincidence of things moving about in full sight, with voices and images of people in 19th century dress, says "ghosts".

No, it doesn't. It says "group hallucination".

You say Occam's Razor, and it makes me laugh. You say that, but you would find it less complex to imagine all sorts of 'natural' reasons and wild coincidences - without any evidence to the contrary - to fit these phenomena into a framework that you have faith is complete?

It is less complex. "Ghosts" sounds less complex, but it really isn't; it requires our view of the world to be so wrong and so broken that, given the fact that we can do reliable quantum cryptography now, I don't think it is.

I have no such illusions, and illusion it is.

If you say so. Cute phrase, but no dice.

Because, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, fits into the same weight range as a duck, and lays eggs that produce ducklings, I think the label 'duck' probably applies.

Unless, of course, it's not a duck and you've just been backfitting the "evidence" to suit your preconceptions, which is where most/all paranormal research and observation ends up.

Would it make you feel better to apply another set of scientific-sounding labels? Go ahead! I just don't need that sort of 'comfort'.

Now - do I claim to know the nature of these things, why they appear, or how they fit into the natural order? Nope.

Yes, you do. "Ghosts!"

Do I claim they don't exist because it's not scientifically politic, do I disbelieve evidence (pottery shards) and reliable eyewitnesses because it doesn't fit into a framework I already know is at the very least incomplete? Also nope.

The pottery shards are not evidence of "ghosts". They are evidence that a jar existed, and that it is now broken - nothing more. Your analysis is flawed and designed to fit a pre-chosen conclusion.

Do I get a chuckle when you claim I have a 'blind spot'?

You probably do, because on this point, you're wrong.

*chuckle*

*snigger*

Again - I don't ask that you or anyone here 'believe in ghosts'. Nor do I expect it. I'm not some kind of psychic evangelist. You asked a question at the top of the thread; I answered.

I believe in having an open mind. However, one should be careful that one's mind isn't so open that one's brains fall out.

Post #279,778

by imric

3/27/07 3:16:36 PM

*shrug* whatever.

Not trying to shake your reality, friend.

Like I said - you'd rather shrug off evidence as 'imagination', and invent things you have no evidence of occurring to keep your core beliefs from being shaken. S'alright. It's human.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #279,800

3/27/07 5:16:43 PM

You have no evidence.

At all. Zip. Nada.

Post #279,811

by imric

3/27/07 5:38:20 PM

Uh huh. Whatever. Don't blow a fuse.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #279,798

3/27/07 4:56:20 PM

Ah, your faith is touching . . .

. . but it will be betrayed.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #279,801

3/27/07 5:16:58 PM

Will it?

When?

Post #279,849

3/28/07 12:58:07 AM

Oh, you'll know.

It'll be when you have to spout this "rationality" stuff at yourself to convince yourself your faith is true.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #279,860

3/28/07 9:07:35 AM

Faith is belief in the absence of evidence.

I have no faith.

Post #279,863

by boxley

3/28/07 9:47:12 AM

you have as much faith as the rest of us by yer standard

Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free american and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 51 years. meep

reach me at [link|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net|mailto:bill.oxley@cox.net]

Post #279,865

3/28/07 10:08:42 AM

That's quite right.

No, wait.

The other thing.

"Wrong."

Post #279,875

3/28/07 12:45:03 PM

Every logical argument . . .

. . traced far enough back will be found based on a premise that is not itself supported by logic. You have simply buried your premises under so many layers of "facts" you hope you will never have to face them.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #279,877

by mmoffitt

3/28/07 1:10:15 PM

However.

There is a difference between intuition and superstition. The Choice Axiom, for instance, without which much of mathematics disappears, is (at least in practice) accepted without proof. Even in the presence of Zorn's lemma which is vastly less intuitive than the Choice Axiom, but which has been shown to be equivalent. But acceptance of the Choice Axiom without proof is completely different from binding one's self to superstitous nonsense about ghosts, holy or otherwise.

bcnu,
Mikem

It would seem, therefore, that the three human impulses embodied in religion are fear, conceit, and hatred. The purpose of religion, one might say, is to give an air of respectibility to these passions. -- Bertrand Russell

Post #279,878

3/28/07 1:17:15 PM

<homer>

Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true!
</homer>

Post #279,884

3/28/07 2:12:04 PM

And, you do :)

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #279,880

3/28/07 1:42:08 PM

Sure.

Just like if you look at things closely enough you see that stuff is really mostly nothing - e.g. [link|http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/scanning-tunneling-microscopes.html|I'm not touching this keyboard], the electron wave functions that are part of "me" are repelling the electron wave functions of this keyboard thingy. Rutherford showed that atoms are [link|http://www.chemsoc.org/timeline/pages/1911.html|mostly empty space].

You're right that it's hard, and perhaps impossible, to construct a logical framework that doesn't involve some basic assumptions. An important one in our understanding of the universe is that the same physical laws apply everywhere. We have no way to prove that, but assume it to construct a framework to understand our surroundings. So far, it has been a pretty good assumption.

As you say, it's important to realize the limitations of our understanding, but to argue (as some - not here - do) that because we can't prove everything we can't prove anything is sophistry.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #280,472

by jb4

4/3/07 3:33:00 PM

You also have no evidence.

Which wins?

(Hint: In America, the tie goes to the runner...)

jb4
"It's hard for me, you know, living in this beautiful White House, to give you a firsthand assessment."
— George W. Bush, when asked if he believed Iraq was in a state of civil war (Newsweek, 26 Feb 07)

Post #279,771

by boxley

3/27/07 1:46:04 PM

sorry, thats anecdotal evidence :-)

Post #279,816

3/27/07 6:42:10 PM

Could have been infrasound, perhaps.

[link|http://www.ghostexperiment.co.uk/theories-infra.html|The Ghost Experiment].

There are lots of things that can affect us, and our surroundings, that we aren't consciously sensitive to.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #279,828

by imric

3/27/07 8:54:36 PM

It could have been

a family of midget stage magicians living in the walls, too. *grin*

So.

Let's see.

Mass hallucinations. (no evidence, but always handy when you want to discount something)

Infrasound. (no evidence)

Subconcious communications (that were oddly specific) to people that didn't know anything about
the history of the place. (no evidence even possible)

Maybe a small localized yet violent earthquake that only affected the cookie jar, and other pieces of furniture at various times, too? (that was NOT the only incident). *chuckle* (no evidence that thats any more likely than 'ghosts')

When do these amazingly unlikely events, joined together, become less likely than the midgets, eh?

IMO, these 'explanations' are reaching, especially since there is NO evidence supporting any of those explanations.

Truly, I don't mean to offend the sensibilities of those that feel we know almost everything about reality, but I do kind of find these kinds of 'explanations' to be amusing.

Now. Was it the manifestation of dead people? Some kind of weird echo across time? Midget stage magicians? Dunno. Quite likely something altogether different. I'm pretty sure that throwing away data (and data it is, to me, even though it's just anecdotal, to you) because it leads to uncomfortable conclusions isn't scientific, though. Hey! Maybe 'string theory' can explain it! *chuckle*

I was just answering a question, and now you know why I believe in ghosts, even if I don't claim to understand their nature.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #279,834

3/27/07 10:01:37 PM

I'm not doubting what you saw.

Only providing a possible physical explanation. My bias is to look for things like that when I see or hear about things I can't explain.

My search-fu seems to be broken, so I'm sorry if this is repetitive (or if it's not the same version I told before several years ago. I haven't thought about it recently so [link|http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg19325961.400-future-recall-your-mind-can-slip-through-time.html|this version may be different]).

Once in late winter I was in a class in an old building. The steam heat was on full blast and the windows were open. It was a boring lecture, so I was daydreaming. Late afternoon light was streaming through the window. When I looked straight ahead, everything looked normal. But there was a guy sitting in a desk in the sunlight and he looked like he was on fire when seen with my peripheral vision! I looked at him directly and didn't see the effect. It was only when I used my peripheral vision.

The heat rising from the hot radiators explains the shimmering, but what about the red color? It wasn't simply the sunlight - the light wasn't the same color.

I told a friend about it and he said he thought it was an illusion that was an artifact of our peripheral vision having [link|http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/rodcone.html|different color sensitivity] than the center of our visual field.

If I were a superstitious person, I would have thought that I was seeing his future or something. I don't believe that. :-)

Obviously, I wasn't there - I don't know what was going on in your house. I do know that [link|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton's_Laws|Newton's Laws] have worked pretty well for explaining physical phenomena for several hundred years so I'm not willing to give them up without a fight.

:-)

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #279,835

by imric

3/27/07 10:22:39 PM

Oh, I applaud skepticism.

After all - the phenomena we witnessed over the years (and which hasn't happened in over 10 years) was neither predictable nor controllable. Not something that lends itself to testing. I find the various tv shows on hauntings to be really funny, actually. Seems like people are just spooking themselves, more often than not.

Influences on the brain could account for most of the 'sightings' that people have had at the farm over the years, I suppose - it's the physical, and sometimes violent manifestations thats the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. It's hard to argue with it when inanimate objects move - sometimes quickly, and sometimes destructively right in front of multiple witnesses.

Again - I'm not looking for believers - or to convert people to being believers. Just saying why I believe.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #279,864

by boxley

3/28/07 9:48:59 AM

might have been electronic field fluctuations

from the particle accelerator you built in the barn
thanx,
bill

Post #279,867

3/28/07 10:53:29 AM

That's EXACTLY what I was thinking!

Post #279,886

by imric

3/28/07 2:33:14 PM

Heheh.

We built the particle accelerator at the school. Between 2 classrooms and the main hallway. Under the gas pipes. 2MeV using a 6' Vandegraff for the charge differential...

*grin*

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #279,805

by Ashton

3/27/07 5:23:06 PM

Oh ye of little nonfaithlessness..

You walk right over, sightlessly
(what I'd deem..one of the best simple replies to such a simplistic Question-posed-as/Assertion)
-- The Bard's perfectly valid, utterly concise, Universally-useful: encapsulation.

Simpler yet, for the overcaffeinated(?)

Life is an illusion.

Nothing 'out there' Exists [for thee] unless.. unless..
*It* 'exists' >within thy jelloware<. PERIOD.
Thou art Leibnitz ... watching that movie projector in that dark 'room'
(and, as a perk: he was creating 'philosophy courses' for legions of academic mindsets as surely would run with it..)

Here's an example, (if you really Don't Get *It*, still)

"Being Partkdolg Duty"

Pure bafflegab in *Your* mentation -
A useful 'reminder' in the mentation de Moi.
It exists-Not in your 'mentation' !!
Yet... it IS.

Please, Peter - mechanics, molecular physics, heat and sound cha cha cha
(Also the title of a physics textbook by.. Sears IIRC?)
are about the limited, the Mechanical, the CPA POV: wherein, only Things are imagined to be 'real'.

We 'are' simmering roiling cauldrons of variegated autonomic *chemical* processes!
[Too..]
But That is [Also..] not *ALL* that 'we' 'are', you cabbage!

Drop some acid?
Empty mind ... and see what rushes-in to fill that void?

Post #279,810

3/27/07 5:35:11 PM

You're right. There is no out there

Is there?

Post #279,713

3/27/07 8:02:25 AM

No.

No reliable or repeatable observations in an age where subatomic particles and brain activity can be observed. Nothing vaguely similar can be created in a lab. No derivation of existing, established theories that suggests them. No hypothesis about the physical forces that sustain or drive them. The only consistent hypothesis about them, being the dead with unfinished business, is contradicted by their absence near traffic accident black spots.

More likely to be hangover, brain structure used by pre-historic man that needed to predict motives of unknown movement with little data and collective mythology. This is the same reason that succubi were replaced by alien abductions.

Matthew Greet

Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortgage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself. Choose your future. Choose life... But why would I want to do a thing like that? I chose not to choose life. I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?
- Mark Renton, Trainspotting.

Post #279,725

by boxley

3/27/07 9:44:57 AM

nit

multi dimensional theory has room for that kind of phenomena
thanx,
bill

Post #279,750

3/27/07 12:06:23 PM

How so?

Post #279,760

by boxley

3/27/07 12:49:19 PM

start with this link

[link|http://books.nap.edu/html/mctcc/chap4.8.html|http://books.nap.edu...ctcc/chap4.8.html]
that extends the possibilities to this link
[link|http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/8459/species8472.html|http://www.geocities.../species8472.html]
enjoy,
bill

Post #279,773

3/27/07 1:47:34 PM

From advanced geometry to Star Trek.

Blimey, basically.

How you can draw any conclusions based on the fantasies of a spotty bloke in his mother's basement in Wisconsin, I dunno.

And how you get there from a dry analysis of non-integer geometries is anyone's guess. I'm not going to pretend to understand the maths in the first link, but I'm willing to bet a pint that it's got fuck-all to do with what looks like an overdone waffle that can only be killed with "modified Borg nano-probes".

Post #279,722

by Seamus

3/27/07 8:46:47 AM

I don't know why some people do

But, it seems that the amount of really good ghost stories has decreased in the last century. The most likely cause seems to be the switch to electrical lighting. The previous sources could cause gas poisonings that could cause the sensations of sight and sound that became the sources for the ghost stories.

Seamus

Post #279,789

3/27/07 3:51:44 PM

Whadda ya mean science doesnt support "Ghosts"?

It's all about physics!

Quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of many worlds:

[link|http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/|http://plato.stanfor...es/qm-manyworlds/]
[link|http://www.station1.net/DouglasJones/many.htm|http://www.station1....lasJones/many.htm]

And look at the First Law of Thermodynamics. Energy can change from one form to another, but it can never be created or destroyed. When you get right down to it (way down, to subatomic particles), we are nothing but a buzzing, vibrating energy source. What happens to that energy when we die? What happens to the energy of consciousness? What happens to all that energy stored in the brain? It is very reasonable to me that some of this energy gets out of sync with the what we perceive to be our physical world. Just because we dont understand it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

I dont understand the internet or fax machines or how the remote control for the TV works. But they're real, just the same.

Post #279,795

by JayMehaffey

3/27/07 4:28:05 PM

Become one with the universe

Quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of many worlds:

The many worlds of quantum mechanics are totally independent. No interaction between them, and nothing to suggest it is possible.

What happens to the energy of consciousness?

Consciousness itself is not an energy form, it is a process driven by energy. That energy becomes waste heat when you die.

In one sense people that say you become one with the universe when you die are right. But somehow I think they had something other then waste heat in mind.

Jay

Post #279,804

by boxley

3/27/07 5:22:42 PM

care to prove that?

"Consciousness itself is not an energy form, it is a process driven by energy." thanx,
bill

Post #279,806

3/27/07 5:23:12 PM

Re: Become one with the universe

Ahhh...nothing to suggest *YET* that the many worlds dont interact. 100 years from now scientists in all disciplines are going to look back and laugh at what we believe to be science fact.

I believe that consciousness and thoughts ARE energy. Look at a brain MRI and watch how the physical brain responds to thought. This is my truth, based on my research, education and experiences. I'm not going to subscribe to the beliefs of someone else simply because it's fashionable or comfortable to do so. Sorry.

Post #279,813

by Ashton

3/27/07 5:41:27 PM

Not bad, Grasshopper

(And any who are trying to remain aloof from the popular myths du every-jour -?- wear that moniker as a Badge of Honour\ufffd.)

After 2.5 'careers' in Big Science\ufffd, I remain mystified at the Ayn-Randish mindsets of so many at the 'technician'-level, encountered within that milieu. Folks what have done not a microgram (Energy-equivalent; Einstein's will do) of the real (and Hard) 'Work'; that of exploring their *bloody-Own* inner dimensions, proclivities, habitual automatic-responses and the like -- and ever \ufffdchoose the simplistic/Obvious over the subtle.

(And apparently - also like All their 'music' blasted at \ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd\ufffd - to make damn sure that a moment of Solitude never. shall. be allowed to Occur. Either.)

...etc.

Carrion

\ufffd Quoth Rilke, for just one..

Always choose the difficult..

'Course... he never won a Nobel. Either. Oh well..

Post #279,814

3/27/07 5:45:11 PM

Thanks. I'm getting there.

Post #279,803

3/27/07 5:21:44 PM

You're falling prey to the woo-woos.

Go win yourself a Nobel prize and the undying admiration of your scientific colleagues.

Unless, of course, your "ghosts" theorem turns out to be a load of pseudoscientific toss, much like all that's gone before.

Post #279,808

3/27/07 5:29:02 PM

I dont have to prove anything

I've seen and experienced. That's enough for me. I'll sit back and wait for science to catch up if it wants to. Until then, I am most happy to keep an open mind.

Post #279,809

3/27/07 5:29:45 PM

The energy dissipates as heat

The energy of the brain is electrochemical within a complex system with electrical potential in the range of millivolts. Far, far too weak to do much beyond trigger other, electrochemical reactions, let alone create sound or light. Like a computer, it's a complex labyrinth of signals chasing each other so much, it mostly generates heat, and it doesn't do any useful work. Rather, it controls other organs that do useful work. You'd get better effects from the death of muscles but that's also too weak to generate detectable light or sound. Instead, the electrochemical potential just gets wasted as heat and the worms and bacteria consume the rest of chemical potential.

If you think the clever synergy of the brain must do something, you watch too much Star Trek. The effectiveness of synergy is tied up in the system that supports it. The state and synergy of a car engine cannot, even theoretically, be copied to a jet engine. They're sets of parts with different systems of interaction. A jet engine has no direct translation of piston position and velocity. The clever energy of the brain means sod all without the neural net it sits in. The electrical state of a PC just doesn't go into a Mac, let alone other electrical devices, let alone anything else.

Of course, a car engine can input energy into another system but it must be transferred in particular ways that the receiving system can inherently accept. A car engine can directly drive a dynamo but not a radio. An engine can indirectly drive a radio but every single intermediate stage must directly compatible with the next. Ghosts from brain energy has the problem of how synapse electrochemistry can convert into anything else besides waste heat. And it still has to get out the head. It could drive muscles in its death throes but nothing sophisticated will come from that. It could escape via lots of electrodes shoved in the brain but that doesn't happen.

In short, ghosts from brain energy must be complex systems that're compatible with human neural nets, can get it out of the skull naturally, amplify the extremely weak signals and be sustained by energy not yet detectable.

Misapplied, pre-historic brain functions, collective mythologies and false memories are starting to look like a simpler explanation.

Post #279,821

by boxley

3/27/07 7:33:23 PM

what absolute rubbish

"electrical state of a PC just doesn't go into a Mac" the Mac is a PC, at least mine is.
that neural net doesnt work on its own it needs a driver, man is a ball of snot, water, feces and bacteria that is driven via interaction of the mind. When the organism dies the mind goes elsewhere, the brain remains behind.
thanx,
bill

Post #279,840

3/27/07 11:03:50 PM

The Mac is NOT a PC...

...because PCs have a BIOS.

That technical nit aside, it's not at all obvious that the mind goes somewhere. Man has spent considerable time and effort (despite all evidence to the contrary) convincing himself that this lifetime is not all there is - presumably in an effort to comfort himself that the universe isn't a harsh, uncaring place.

Post #279,820

by boxley

3/27/07 7:26:20 PM

pope chimes in

[link|http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21460090-2,00.html|http://www.news.com....1460090-2,00.html]
burn baby, burn :-)

Post #279,823

3/27/07 7:39:19 PM

He needs to get out more.

Or something. :-/

I like [link|http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html|this argument] better:

[...]

These witnesses all testify that sheol, or hell, in the Old Testament, has no reference whatever to this doctrine; that it signifies simply the state of the dead, the invisible world, without regard to their goodness or badness, their happiness or misery. The Old Testament doctrine of hell, therefore, is not the doctrine of endless punishment. It is not revealed in the Law of Moses. It is not revealed in the Old Testament. To such result has our inquiry led us; and now what shall we say of it?

THE NEW TESTAMENT DOCTRINE OF HELL.

Do we find the doctrine of endless punishment revealed in the use of the word Hell? Let the facts answer. There are three words translated "Hell" in the New Testament, Hades and Tartarus, which are Greek, and Gehenna, which is the Greek form of the Hebrew words Gee and Hinnom, meaning "the valley of Hinnom."

[...]

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #279,824

3/27/07 7:39:37 PM

And how many former popes are burning brightly there?

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #279,826

by tuberculosis

3/27/07 8:06:47 PM

Like he knows anything

I4 NOW!

Impeach, Indict, Incarcerate, Inject
Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice

Post #279,830

by boxley

3/27/07 9:13:54 PM

he is a licensed exorcist

have you ever met a walking talking person who has no humanity? Spend some time on the lockdown wards, you will see human bodies inhabited by others.
thanx,
bill

Post #279,844

by tuberculosis

3/28/07 12:32:53 AM

Those need psychiatry, not hocus pocus

I4 NOW!

Impeach, Indict, Incarcerate, Inject
Bush, Cheney, Gonzalez, Rumsfeld, Rove, Rice

Post #280,407

by orion

4/2/07 9:58:07 PM

Define ghost

and then we can see if such a thing exists or not.

If we go by the paranormal definition it is protoplasm left over when a living thing dies. Yet paranormal sciences don't exactly tell us what this protoplasm is. Pop culture like Ghostbusters calls it slime. Yes we would need a new law of physics to cover that sort of ghost.

In most religions, a ghost is a spirit. The spirit of a person is the pattern of energy in their brain that makes up their mind, will, and emotions. The software to our hardware to use computer terms. It is debatable what happens to this pattern of energy after death. Yet we know that in natural science that energy and matter cannot be destroyed or created and has to go somewhere. Saying that in death, ones mind, wills, and emotions are destroyed goes against the law of physics as we know it. The only theory that challenged that was Hawking's information paradox, which Hawking later dismissed as wrong because when black holes evaporate the matter and energy inside of them vanish, but Hawking clams there are alternative universes in which there was no black hole and in those the information is saved. I say that Hawking made a mistake, black holes must put the matter and energy back into the universe and if collected the information can be retrieved by unscrambling it if we had high enough technology to do so. I think that the energy in our brains gets scrambled after death and if we had high enough technology we can collect it and reconstruct the brain and the mind, will, and emotions and bring the dead back to life. Human beings have not reached that level of technology and science yet.

Now Richard Dawkins said that Jesus was a man millions of years ahead of his time. I propose that if God exists, he would be higher evolved than human beings, perhaps by millions of years. To the primate human being, God's science and technology seems like magic or miracles, but it is just millions of years ahead of ours and we don't understand it yet. I think that since Dawkins proved that Jesus was millions of years ahead of his time, that Jesus shows a possibility of being a "supreme being" millions of years in evolution ahead of human beings. Perhaps such a being is able to recover from death and heal illnesses using science and technology millions of years more advanced than ours? Now we know that God didn't want to create other gods so he made life flawed and molded life like clay, that seems to fit in evolutionary theory in showing the flaws in designs. Yet there existed a spiritual evolution as well as a physical one in that the mind, will, and emotions of human beings evolved to a superior level than that of other animals. So much so that humans are able to overcome natural selection and rise to become a dominate species on the planet.

Yet this is all theory, bringing together several natural science theories to show what a ghost or spirit might be like if it exists or not.

I fail to see the standard belief that when a human being dies their mind, will, and emotions that are patterns of energy in the brain, are destroyed. That goes against natural science and the known laws of physics. That pattern still exists, somewhat scrambled and perhaps recycled by nature into something else. We do not have the science or technology yet to determine if this pattern of energy is really a ghost or a spirit, but we have to define it by using the known laws of physics. Saying that it ceases to exist is of course a fallacy, it exists in some altered state, and we are not sure what happens to it after death.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,429

4/3/07 2:31:27 AM

Go and investigate what entropy is...

...and then you'll understand why what you've written is tripe.

Post #280,468

by orion

4/3/07 3:25:20 PM

Entropy means

that one form is converted into another. Are you trying to say that matter and energy can be destroyed? That the information can be lost?

[link|http://library.thinkquest.org/3659/energy/law_of_conservation_of_matter.html|http://library.think...on_of_matter.html]

When a piece of copper metal is heated in air, it comes together with oxygen in the air. Then if it is weighed, it is found to have a greater mass that the original piece of metal. If however the mass of the oxygen of the air that combines with the metal is taken into consideration, it can be shown that the mass of the product is within the limits of accuracy of any weighing instrument, equal to the sum of the masses of the copper and oxygen that combine. This behavior of matter is in accord with what is called the Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.
Conversion of one type of matter into another are always accompanied by the conversion of one form of energy into another. Usually heat is leveled or absorbed, but sometimes the conversion involves light or electrical energy instead of, or in addition to heat. Many transformations of energy, of course, do not involve chemical changes. Electrical energy can be changed into either mechanical, light, heat or potential energy without chemical changes. Mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy in a generator. Potential and kinetic energy can be converted into one another. Many other conversions are possible, but all of the energy involved in any change always appears in some form after the change is completed.
[b]The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.
The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.[/b]

Are you saying the law of conservation is rubbish?

So you disagree with the very basics of the Laws of Physics?

Remember I said that nature might recycle that energy, that is where entropy comes in. If it still exists, it is in some different form or the information is scrambled. We don't yet have the technology or science to change it back or descramble it or even know what it is or how it works.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,475

by JayMehaffey

4/3/07 3:47:27 PM

The part you seem to have missed

Entropy means
that one form is converted into another. Are you trying to say that matter and energy can be destroyed? That the information can be lost?

What you seem to have missed is that information is not energy or matter. Information is the pattern of the energy or matter. Information is lost all the time, exactly because the energy or matter that stored that information was changed into something else.

Conservation of matter and energy only plays into information in that any change of information requires some energy. You need energy both to create and destroy information.

Jay

Post #280,477

by orion

4/3/07 4:21:06 PM

Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility?

[link|http://www.rdrop.com/users/green/school/informat.htm|http://www.rdrop.com...hool/informat.htm]

The Information Paradox was caused by a possible conflict between the general theory of relativity and quantum mechanics after Professor Stephan Hawking announced that black holes consume information (Susskind 53)

This theory was otherwise known as the notion that "black holes have no hair". In other words, the size and shape of a black hole depends not on the body that collapsed to form it, but just the mass and rotation (Hawking 120). Professor Hawking provides that since the only thing that is left to measure is the mass and rotation much of the information that falls into a black hole is lost.

[b]However, Professor Gerard 't Hooft of Utrecht University claims that if such information was lost, then quantum mechanics breaks down one of the important principles of quantum mechanics is reversiblity. This is the idea that regardless of what happens to particles, they can always be restored by reversing time and therefore recovering lost information. Otherwise, energy can be created or destroyed and that is a contradiction of one of the fundamental rules of quantum mechanics, which is the conservation of energy. (Susskind 53-54)[/b]

Finally, the Hawking Radiation that escapes from the boundry of the event horizon emits particles and therefore the black hole suffers a loss to both mass and energy. If this is true, Susskind and 't Hooft postulates that information can be carried out in the Hawking Radiation (Susskind 56).

However, physicists have yet to agree whether or not information can escape a black hole although it may pose a paradox if it couldn't. Cosmic string theory and a special new theory of relativity may help to answer this paradox yet.

You do understand the Information Paradox that Hawking proposed and other scientists were upset over? I understand that it is beyond basic Physics, and you might think that quantum mechanics is wrong?

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,531

by JayMehaffey

4/3/07 9:51:48 PM

Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility?

You do understand the Information Paradox that Hawking proposed and other scientists were upset over? I understand that it is beyond basic Physics, and you might think that quantum mechanics is wrong?

I know about the Information paradox, though some of the math involved is beyond me. Current theory says there is no violation. But the fix is pure conjecture, of course, the problem is also pure conjecture. It is not like we have any black holes to try these things.

As for quantum mechanics being wrong? In general no, it is too well tested for those things that happen on the Earth. For corner cases that don't happen here, it is not only possible but very likely. Both QM and general relativity are incomplete and are sure to be so until they can be merged, and that merger will probably involve some alterations of the way things work.

This really has nothing to do with life on our scale though. In a quantum sense information can not be destroyed, but only because you might be able to reverse time and work backwards to recreate it. This is roughly like saying if I take a sledge hammer to a watermelon, the watermelon is still there because all the parts are there and I could put it back together.

Jay

Post #280,539

by orion

4/3/07 10:05:58 PM

Re: Then quantum mechanics breaks down reversibility?

Well like I said it is beyond our science and technology to bring the dead back to life or even learn how a spirit works or how to encode or decode one. If we manage to figure out how to reverse time, it could be possible, though I doubt that would happen in our lifetimes.

In truth there is a lot about life and death that we do not fully understand yet. We can only speculate. When it comes to these sorts of things, we are still living in caves technology and science wise. I liken it to a Neanderthal who cannot figure out how to put a puzzle back together, but millions of years later and farther down the evolutionary path, one of his future relatives figures it out and solves the puzzle. Millions of years from now, who knows, maybe farther down the evolutionary path and one of our future relatives figures out how to put dead people back together?

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,478

4/3/07 4:27:15 PM

Maybe not.

There are some interesting paradoxes that occur around black holes if they're allowed to radiate and evaporate over time.

[link|http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html|John Baez]:

The bet went like this:

Whereas Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne firmly believe that information swallowed by a black hole is forever hidden from the outside universe, and can never be revealed even as the black hole evaporates and completely disappears,

And whereas John Preskill firmly believes that a mechanism for the information to be released by the evaporating black hole must and will be found in the correct theory of quantum gravity,

Therefore Preskill offers, and Hawking/Thorne accept, a wager that:

When an initial pure quantum state undergoes gravitational collapse to form a black hole, the final state at the end of black hole evaporation will always be a pure quantum state.

The loser(s) will reward the winner(s) with an encyclopedia of the winner's choice, from which information can be recovered at will.

Stephen W. Hawking, Kip S. Thorne, John P. Preskill
Pasadena, California, 6 February 1997

It's signed by Thorne and Preskill, with a thumbprint of Hawking's.

After a bit of joking around and an explanation of how the question session would work, Hawking began his talk. Since it's fairly short and not too easy to summarize, I think I'll just quote the whole transcript which I believe Sean Carroll got from the New York Times science reporter Dennis Overbye. I've made a few small corrections.

[...]

Hawking conceded that he lost the bet, but argues that both sides were really right.

Cheers,
Scott.

Post #280,483

by orion

4/3/07 5:19:04 PM

Re: Maybe not.

Yes thank you. A black hole is the ultimate in scrambling information, if information can be recovered from a black hole as a possibility, then information can possibly be recovered from a dead person.

Even if not, that information exists in a scrambled state and perhaps becomes part of a new life form with possibly no memories of being alive before. If ghosts do in fact exist, their mind, wills, and emotions would exist in a scrambled state sort of like brain damage and might not even resemble a human being any more. What we think of as a ghost might actually be part of the dead person being recycled by nature as a pattern of energy into a new form. It might show Buddhists correct that if a person dies, they come back as another life form as their pattern of energy is changed and recycled by nature into something else. I doubt they will keep their memories though. Even the carbon and water in the dead person's body is recycled into the environment to become part of something else.

While I admit it does not exactly prove any religion right or wrong, it does possibly explain what a ghost might be in theory. Though I could be wrong, as I only have a bachelors of science and a basic understanding of these natural science theories.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,502

4/3/07 8:07:22 PM

This requires reversing time

The reversability of Quantum physics means an original state can be restored by reversing time. A ghost can be created by reversing time in the ever-growing section of the Universe, which would recreate the original body, not a ghost. Sadly, time flows in one direction for us, so information of the dead is not coming back on its own.

Of course, this still allows a copy of a neural net that is slowly degrading. This still suffers problems of what could sustain such a copy, degarding or not, and how could it get it out of a skull? It'll have to a really neat, natural process that can read most of vast numbers of synapse states and physical connections and sustain it. It would have to be made from solids, not gases nor liquids, to prevent Brownian motion rapidly wiping out the information. Ghosts don't seem to be solid.

Post #280,503

by boxley

4/3/07 8:10:21 PM

wrong idea

the damn car is junk, you cannt start it and the battery is dead. You get out and look for another vehicle. Hopefully your ashkashic credits will allow an upgrade, with my credit I think I will be driving a snail next time.

Post #280,514

4/3/07 8:32:35 PM

It just doesn't make sense to me.

If one believes that we continues as a being (of some sort) after death, then why don't we believe that we existed as a being before we were born? And if we do believe that we existed before we were born, then let's consider the implications of that when the population increases exponentially over time. Wouldn't it be cruel for a God to create billions of souls and keep them in storage, slowly letting them out over time to match the increase in population?

On the other hand, if the soul were created at conception, then why would it be horrible for it to be natually destroyed at death?

[link|http://hinduwebsite.com/reincarnation.asp|Hinduism] tries to solve this problem.

I don't believe in ghosts.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who envisions Box coming back as something a bit more flamboyant than a snail. Maybe a [link|http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/camo/|cuttlefish]. ;-)

Post #280,516

4/3/07 8:57:56 PM

Individual souls . . .

. . are expressions of a composite entity. They are created and absorbed back similarly to how your body (a composite entity) creates cells and absorbs them back. In this way the composite entity gains experience and capability.

To some ways of thinking this composite entity is your personal God - but not likely the ultimate God.

It is not, of course, possible for us to comprehend the nature or purpose of the composite entity or the reality in which it exists. It probably has just as much trouble comprehending those as we have comprehending our own, and as our individual cells have dealing with their own environment.

It is also impossible to know to what degree our existence may continue after absorption, or whether fragments of our existence may be incorporated within subsequently generated souls - but reincarnationists say some of it is.

[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]

Post #280,518

by boxley

4/3/07 9:09:52 PM

but I do believe I existed before birth

on the population thing, think of recycling.
thanx,
bill

Post #280,553

by Lily

4/3/07 11:21:08 PM

I agree

We are eternal beings in physical form. When the physical body dies the consciousness continues to exist, just as it always has. We aren't separate from "God". We are simply an extension. We exist in the physical world to create.

Post #280,556

by orion

4/3/07 11:56:42 PM

I wish it were so

while we exist to create, there are some who would rather destroy instead.

I suppose you can call people who would rather destroy as negative people, and people who would rather create as positive people.

I think recently on the Job and Open forums, I got a taste of a few negative people, and I am sorry they did it on one of your threads. I was only trying to tell you that you had positive people you worked with, and working for negative people like I did had caused me a lot of stress and destroy a lot of who I used to be. When I worked with positive people I could create wonderful things. When I worked with negative people my creation ability was dampened and it became harder to create and even work under conditions like that and it led to my many physical and mental illnesses. My successful relationships have been with positive people, and my unsuccessful relationships have been with negative people. I try myself not to be negative and be positive instead, and I am helping out a lot of friends and family members.

If we are all extensions of god, I think the negative people exist to test us, but are also jealous of our creative abilities that they seem to lack as they can only destroy. I think that negative people suffer a lot because of that, and take it out on the rest of us. Some negative people not even knowing what they are doing. I think that positive people are more likely to believe in god and perhaps be religious. Though in some cases positive people might not believe in god or be religious. Yet there are negative people who believe in god and are religious, there are also negative people who do not believe in god and are not religious.

Changing from a negative person into a positive one is a lot of hard work, but it is possible to do so. Yet through suffering at the hands of negative people one might change from positive to negative. Such might be my case, as I try to work back into being positive and start to create things again to regain my lost abilities.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,574

by Lily

4/4/07 6:49:48 AM

It absolutely is so

We create our own reality, whether we like it or not.

Post #280,577

by orion

4/4/07 7:32:11 AM

Re: It absolutely is so

If we do, I hope I can create a better reality for myself in that I can improve and make changes needed. Thanks.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,581

4/4/07 7:58:31 AM

You can.

Stop being a weapons-grade cock-end, for a start.

Post #280,533

by orion

4/3/07 9:55:35 PM

What it could be

is that after death the spirit gets fragmented into shards. Each shard becomes part of a new person but is scrambled and the new person does not have the memories of the person the shard came from.

Let's say for example, I die, and my spirit is fragmented into seven shards. Each shard forms with new materials to form a new spirit and a new person. All seven people have no memory of being me, save many some cases of deja-vu or something, and all seven are spread out throughout the globe.

Yet the question is does any of the seven people have any memories or ideas that they used to be me?

In this way the population can grow and the spirits just keep splitting up after death.

There are no new spirits being made, just shards of the old spirits being split up into several or maybe hundreds of spirits and people with no memory of past lives.

I seem to recall in the Bible that Jesus heard musicians playing music and said they could have only gotten that way by thousands of years of playing. I forget the chapter and verse, but it might be possible that one time Christianity had a reincarnation idea like the Hindus have. If true, something survives the reincarnation or else the musicians being reborn wouldn't remember the music they played in their former life. There is also that being reborn thing that Jesus said and Christians take it figuratively as being reborn spiritually, and others thought it meant being reborn literally like physically. It depends on the interpretations though.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,526

by orion

4/3/07 9:34:50 PM

Interesting idea

I like your idea. The spirit tries to seek out a new body as the old one no longer works. Yet due to it being damaged from death, it has difficulty doing so. If it does end up in a newly born body, it might not have the memories of a past life anymore.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,530

by orion

4/3/07 9:41:14 PM

From what I heard

cases of "ghosts" usually happen when the person suffers a violent death. Otherwise there seems to be no cases of ghosts at all when someone dies.

Perhaps the violent death causes damage and allows a copy of the neural net to leak out? The witnesses who claim to see ghosts, actually end up with part of the neural net trying to bond with their brain and it causes them to see things temporally. But it does not work out and eventually the neural net breaks down and they stop seeing things. It is not a ghost they see, but an hallucination. Which explains why others cannot see it, and some can.

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,563

4/4/07 12:41:15 AM

Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots?

Post #280,578

by orion

4/4/07 7:33:51 AM

Re: Why are there no ghosts at traffic accident blackspots?

Hauntings seem to be mostly at houses. Perhaps the open space like a road is a factor in a "ghost" not forming? The neural net leaks out and is recycled faster in an open space? Wind?

"It is of interest to note that while some dolphins are reported to have learned English -- up to fifty words used in correct context -- no human being has been reported to have learned dolphinese."
Carl Sagan (1934 - 1996)

[link|http://district268.xormad.com|I am from District 268].

Post #280,580

4/4/07 7:57:54 AM

What "neural net"? "Recycled" how?

Post #280,585