Ghostly presence explained?
 

Interesting.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29939672

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

it still seems odd to me that in this day and age, the non-existence of 'ghosts' requires an actual study for proof.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

The general consensus that ghosts don't exist is only a belief people have at the moment - it's estimated that over a person's lifespan 50% of "scientific facts" will be disproved. So at the moment experiments will indicate ghosts are not real but in the future who knows.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

they can't keep changing their minds - this is a binary question. Do ghosts exist? Yes or No. for hundreds (or thousands) of years people thought Yes. Now we have a proven No. it's probably as far as it will go.

When you consider that we are so insignificant in the grand scheme of things (e.g., just living it out on a spinning rock on space, which could easily be wiped out at any moment), it's surely pretty obvious ghosts do not exist. what is much more likely is a human being's need for the belief in some kind of transcendence - the need to believe there is something more after death. death is, after all, quite final. it's hard for us to imagine or conceptualise nothingness. when in reality, we will simply be in the same place as before we were conceived in the womb - and that is that our consciousness will not exist as the neurons that fire in given orders to create our personality, our consciousness, will cease to fire and thus, so will the essence of what we are - who we are. we are nothing more than a mass of chemical reactions and electrical impulses that react to external and internal stimuli. however you want to dress it up, that really is all we are.

It might seem to some quite unthinkable or bleak, but that really is the reality of it. we're only hear for a short time. enjoy it.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

I'm not saying that they do. It may well be likely that they don't however perhaps we don't yet have the technology to detect or communicate with them.

My comment is more aimed that those who say they only believe in scientific fact and what science can prove (or disprove).

---------- Post added at 20:54 ---------- Previous post was at 20:52 ----------

That isn't the reality of it at all - it's just what you believe.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

no, it's fact - no activity in the neurons, no person. the brain is the hub of who and what we are. aside from any given physical feature, the brain (or more accurately, the mind - which is an abstract construction within the brain) defines us. if the brain stops working, the consciousness which we refer to as the person, or personality, also stops. the brain is everything to the mind and body.

many, many studies (feel free to use google - I'm sure I don't need to search for anyone here) whereby a subject's neural pathways have either been inhibited or damaged (induced, naturally or accidentally) show results whereby functionality of the body, the mind, or both, are noticeably affected - usually negatively. We also know that stopping the neural activity completely in the brain, either through starving the brain of required resources, or by damaging the brain so that the pathways are completely broken, will result in death.

surely, you are not denying these facts?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Really it isn't - it's just current scientific thinking, going on what we know *now*. Given how little we know about the brain it's entirely possible something else happens to our consciousness that present science has no knowledge or understanding of.

I doubt ghosts exist but I'd rather people kept an open mind given how science ends up wrong about a great deal of things over time.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

so what do you think happens when the neurons stop firing?

as for science's knowledge of the brain and it's functions, we actually know a great deal. granted, not everything, but a lot has been documented, studied and proven/dis-proven. and just because we might not understand a construct of the mind, doesn't mean it's some kind of magic! historically, I know that blaming the paranormal for things we couldn't explain was the done thing, but surely not these days - now we know to study and learn, not dismiss and call it magic....

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

No idea, I'm not a scientist.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

you don't need to be a scientist. you just need to read the findings of the studies they do.

as I said, Google will help you find an awful lot of information. there's some fascinating stuff out there. it can potentially answer a lot of questions without ever resorting to 'magical' dismissals. it will also pose more questions, which is why studies continue. there are many theories that have been confirmed or dis-proven and many more yet to be. I can recommend a starting point for you if you like? You can download a 5 part podcast from the Reith Lectures recorded by Radio 4 given by a neurologist by the name or Vilayanur Ramachandran found HERE. really, really informative. let it open your mind, before it dies!! ;)

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

...or you can Google the "half-life of facts".... ;)

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

will that also include blaming the currently unexplainable on magic?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

What the hell are you talking about?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...rs/AZKnddo.gif

don't worry.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Apologies if I wasn't following your straw man.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

no straw men to be found.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

So what's the "magic" you're talking about?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

well, you're not willing to accept the facts that our proven knowledge to this point tells us about the consciousness, the mind and the brain and its workings. you have repeatedly said pointed out that these known facts are indeed not facts at all and just my belief, even though they are repeatable and observable in many, many studies (by qualified scientists) and situations and have been documented.

when questioned on what you believe to be the facts, you avoided the question by saying you're not a scientist. Well no you may not be, but that doesn't mean you cannot read and understand what the scientists have found through testing. anywho, you're not willing to accept the facts as the truth and imply that these facts are just beliefs. yet you stated yourself that you are not a scientist, so how are you qualified to dismiss the evidential findings of the actual scientists who have concluded to said facts?

which leads me to think that if you do not accept the facts as the truth, and you have no explanation for the observable functionality of the brain and it's death, it leaves me 3 presumptions about your stance;

1) you are trolling - but as an admin, I would expect better of you than that, so I think this can be discounted.

2) you are just ignorant and don't want to be taught new things - but again, I don't wish to think this is who you are. I believe (rightly or wrongly), that you are an intelligent and progressively thinking person. I don't think you are the type of person to say "I don't know how that works and although there is repeatably proven evidences available to me that will tell me, I'm going to stick my fingers in my ears and ignore it." but instead would seek to find the knowledge.

3) you dismiss the reality of the facts (which you have already stated is the case in this thread) and thus replace it with the premise that because you don't understand it, the brain works using some kind of witchcraft. - unfortunately, this seems the only viable option here, again, rightly or wrongly. but I cannot think of another option at this point which would explain your comments without making you out to be someone one is actively trying to be difficult or a jerk.

My conclusion MUST be wrong. At least, I hope it is. I don't want you to be one of those difficult-for-the-sake-of-it types, or a jerk. You cannot possibly think the brain, the mind and consciousness works by magic. So please explain ;

a) why you think the evidence from science is wrong (not all facts are proven wrong according to the theory of 'the half-life of facts' - some things are simply facts and that's it. the letter 'A' is indeed a letter 'A' and will not be found to be a 'Z')
b) what you believe the mind, consciousness and persona actually are - I don't for one second believe you have no opinion on it.

-----------------

EDIT - 21:32

I have thought of a 4th option;

4) You are suffering from cognitive dissonance - a currently held and valued belief system you have will be challenged by the facts, so you dismiss them and make excuses not to find them to be valid.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

So now you agree the 'magic' thing was a straw man? Good, although it would have been easier if you'd said so when I first mentioned it.

You seem to be of the opinion that just because science states 'a' is 'a' that it will forever be only 'a'. This is a well-worn example but it's valid nonetheless - we did used to think the Earth was flat. Why do we no longer think that? Because new evidence came to light to prove science wrong. We used to think the Sun was at the centre of the universe until new proof showed that's not the case.

With that in mind I view all science facts to have the potential to be disproved. Having a closed-off opinion of "Science says this so it must always be true" could not be more narrow-minded and arrogant.

Just to ensure you don't bring any more straw men in to this, I don't believe in ghosts but I'm not going to say they don't exist just as it's unwise for someone to suggest that science says they don't exist. I keep an open mind to the possibility that current scientific thinking is not yet at a level where it can conclusively state there are no ghosts.

I'm trying to get you to open your mind to the fact that although science strongly suggests ghosts are not real, you need to bear in mind science has a history of proving itself wrong, I tried to open your mind a little more (unsuccessfully it seems) but mentioning the half-life of knowledge.

Keeping your mind open will benefit you in the long run.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

A straw man argument would require me to intentionally misrepresent your argument in order to elevate my own opinion. I did not do this. I'm sorry you felt I did, but if you read back, you will see that you repeatedly denied to accept that the brain (and the mind / consciousness) is an abstract construction built around neural pathways which, when the neurons making these pathways cease to function, then dies.

if we take into account that I go into this discussion with a belief that you are an intelligent person (a fair believe I think), what other conclusions beyond the four I have stated, could I possibly have drawn from that? I certainly do not expect you to be sat on the fence about everything, ever, in case at some stage in the future someone might find out that observable evidence was either wrong or our understanding was not in it's entirety.

hmmm - composition argumentation and historic anecdotal evidence, this bit - because these 'facts' were proven wrong, all facts are therefore wrong. nah.

the examples you have given here (the Earth is flat and the Sun is the centre of the universe) were conclusions drawn without any viable, repeatable or observable studies being done. they were belief systems not based on any facts - they were just beliefs, because they had nothing else, no way to prove or disprove, but still questioned their surroundings and purpose. The fact (if I may use that word) that the brain ceases to function (and as such, so does the consciousness it harbours) under certain, repeatable and observable conditions holds far more weight.

Might I also add that it is well documented that the belief the Earth was flat is in fact a myth. there is little to not evidence people ever thought this to be true. the myth is thought to have come about in the 19th century in an attempt to belittle the church, saying that people of religious beliefs in the middle ages were taught that the world was flat because they were so backward thinking.

I absolutely agree, when there is room for change. 'potential' is the key here. there is a difference between science saying "we believe that..." or "evidence points towards..." as opposed to "we now know that....".

there is absolutely no denying that if the brain is damaged or the neurons cease to fire at all, the brain's functionality changes or stops completely. something you seem reluctant to agree to in this thread for some reason.

Indeed, an open mind is good. to a point. there comes a stage however when keeping an 'open mind' can be used as a way of disguising the absurd. we know that people die when the brain ceases to function. more accurately, when the brain ceases to function, people die.

I'm happy to have an open mind, but I'm not going to dismiss my belief in evidence in order to place a belief in something that has no evidence. Thank you for trying to 'teach' me, but it's un-necessary. I am already aware of the half-life of facts. I'm also aware that not all rules apply to all situations. some things, like death, are just what they appear to be - the end of a consciousness. as much as it's hard to swallow, and as much as people may not want to believe it, when your brain stops, all those memories, those moments, those thoughts, loves, fears and traits stop too. as Roy Batty once said:

"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain"

And yes, science is all about proving itself right and/or wrong. it refuses to lay down and blindly accept things without going out of it's way to prove or dis-prove it's theories. but just because it can or has also built on past knowledge to better understand something, does not always mean it was initially wrong. sometimes science simply improves on it's current understanding without actually being wrong in the first place. sometimes there is nothing more to prove because all the facts are there.

---------- Post added at 22:37 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

right - I'm off to bed. I look forward to continuing this one tomorrow! :)

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

You can't prove the absence of something such as ghosts.

---------- Post added at 23:33 ---------- Previous post was at 23:32 ----------

Agreed.

'Scientists' still can't agree on what causes OBEs in near death patients.

Indeed, can't remember where but it was recently mentioned 50% of scientific 'facts' are disproved over any individual's lifetime.

---------- Post added at 23:44 ---------- Previous post was at 23:33 ----------

It's all nice and stuff that you keep preaching about 'facts' and 'evidence' but I'm yet to see a single piece of actual 'evidence' coming from you, nor any reference or link to any reputable source of evidence other than telling people to 'Google it'.

If you want anyone to take your argument seriously then post a link or reference to a single reputable peer reviewed article that states categorically that ghosts do not exist.

In the absence of this, the rest of all you've said is irrelevant.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing that what you've said applies but will remind you that a life after the death of the body is a central tenet to most religions, so to those who follow such belief systems the evidence required is far stronger than merely balance of probabilities and in some cases there simply isn't any level of evidence. Indeed in some cases said believed life after death appears to take precedence over this one.

Do 'ghosts' exist? Probably not. There is exactly zero proof of it and it appears to be something that should be consigned to superstition. The human brain is very prone to confusion and hallucination. Like any extremely complex machine it can malfunction.

Life after death? Probably not and as a continuation of life now almost certainly not - we are now at the stage of scientific discovery where we can literally watch memories being formed, and hence personalities as much of what we are is what we have experienced. The rest we can heavily influence through modification of brain chemistry and electrical impulses. The alternative explanation is somewhat to hide in the gaps and claim that our brains are somehow a conduit to some other plane of existence but there is no evidence of that.

What I will say, however, is that the burden of proof should lie on those who make the claim of the existence of something to prove it, not on anyone else to disprove it.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

This says it all :clap:

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Strangely enough, this is what the OP's linked article is actually about.

Quite true. but that does not mean we know nothing about the brain, the mind or consciousness. saying that scientists can't yet agree on a theory about NDE does not nullify all the knowledge we do have. And although there may not yet be a single, agreed explanation for NDE, a couple of theories really do stand out and have an awful lot of supporting evidence to back up the processes involved as a brain actually dies.

Link 1
Link 2

Does the fact that 50% of facts are disproved include the fact that 50% of facts are disproved? and don't forget about the 50% of facts that are correct and remain so. don't concentrate too much on the figures and facts that only support your opinion.

The OPs link in post one might be worth a read. also....

1) I'm afraid you have mis-attributed the 'fact' I am referring to in this thread. the 'fact' of which I speak is actually that the brain, mind and consciousness dies when neurons in the brain cease to fire - a point which, if you read back, Russ seemed reluctant to accept. I was NOT referring to ghosts not existing. I fear you may have jumped into a thread without properly reading it in its entirety before posting.

2) I prefer not to treat other people like idiots. rather than spoon-feed people, I'd like to assume that others have an intellectual level where they can do their own research, even if it counters their own belief. all the same, I will humour you. please find below some links which support to some extent the fact that the brain does indeed die when neurons no longer create, receive or allow the transition of communications in the brain, either through the starvation of required resources such as oxygen or nutrients, or through substantial and sustained damage of a degree that the neurons cannot communicate;

Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Link 5
Link 6

Link 5 makes an interesting point which some of you might like to follow up. I always find it a little saddening when people refuse to listen or research themselves unless someone provides links. I feel it shows a lack of an inquisitive nature, and when we stop questioning, we stop learning.

btw, I like the irony or you questioning the legitimacy of my 'facts' and 'evidence' talk, yet you expected me to just believe something you say you read or heard some time ago about 50% of facts being disproved. double standards?

well made points all round in this post. the brain is a most fallible organ and the mind a most creative abstract. something I have come to appreciate more and more whilst studying through my psychology diplomas in the recent years.

I think the important thing we should consider is our current defining of 'ghosts'. historically, they have been believed to be elements of stimuli originating from an external source. it now seems more likely (as the article originally linked by OP goes toward proving), that they are far more likely to actually originate internally, from the mind itself - so do we now need to redefine our definition of what a ghost is? I would certainly expect this study to seed many more that will go a long way to improving our understanding of the mind.

as for watching memories being formed, you are quite right. techniques such a fMRI have opened up a whole new world in neurology. needless to say, the benefits of such un-intrusive techniques allows science to do so much more without risk to the subject. it means science will be far less reluctant to perform tests and studies.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

The human brain is the most complex structure we know of anywhere. In the context of that what we know about it is extraordinary.

Our perception of 'reality' is an incredibly complex amalgamation of an incredible number of different inputs, all processed on a massively parallel scale. We estimate it requires about 100 exaflops, that a 1 with 20 0s behind it, to simulate the human brain in full. Just to match the raw computational power of the human brain, ignoring everything else required to simulate it, requires 20 petaflops, 2 with a mere 16 0s after it.

Give someone a load of L-DOPA, LSD or any other dopamine agonist and see what happens. That's just one chemical you've messed with and things go completely pear shaped.

I tend to stick with the idea that the brain is an information processing device, however it's one that's so powerful we have an incredibly profound sense of ourselves and the world around us. We've had no choice but to develop this else we wouldn't have survived and thrived as a species given the various other species stronger, faster and more endurant than us who wanted to eat us.

A 'mind' is the consequence of the right 'programming' and enough computational power to handle input, both from external and internal sources, and process it according to that program.

My 2p.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Might I point out that those were considered facts until they were proven wrong. They may well have been based on observations, but those observations would have been made with the limited technology of the time. After all, unless you go up thousands of feet, the earth looks flat.

We improved on that technology and we were able to observe that the earth is not flat.

The observations we make are still limited by the technology available. The technology will be improved and we will, in some areas re-evaluate what we know based on new observations.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

The scientific method has come a long way since those were considered to be accurate. These days the burden of proof for a theory is somewhat higher than any standard that'd be satisfied by those thoughts.

Just FYI the Earth was considered to be spherical by the Ancient Greeks. Not sure they had a way to go thousands of feet up. It was dogma, not science, that gave birth to the idea that the Earth is flat, and that it was widely accepted is largely a myth.

Said myth was actually largely perpetuated as a result of 'friction' between science and religion over the theory of evolution by natural selection. All the more amusing as even in the Middle Ages most Christians believed the Earth to be a sphere.

Science doesn't just make guesses on things and consider them viable theories. The burden of proof required for a scientific theory is considerably higher than that. Theories tend to be refined, some details about them corrected but they tend to remain accurate - Einstein's quantum theory of gravity is superior to Isaac Newton's in that it can handle a number of other scenarios. Does that mean Newton was spouting nonsense? Given his equations are used to guide space craft you'd presume not.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

---------- Post added at 15:38 ---------- Previous post was at 15:13 ----------

the numbers are staggering when it comes to the brain. another example of this is there are an estimated 80 billion to 100 billion neurons in the brain. each of those able to make up to 10,000 connections to other neurons (these connections are called synapses). This means the number of potential permutations that the brain can be configured in, exceeds the number of estimated particles in the known universe. it's little wonder some people suffer strange mental disorders such as capgras or cortard's, let alone 'feel' or 'see' ghosts. there is so much in the brain to go wrong, to be wired slightly differently or configured in an unexpected way. the potential results really could be anything in terms of what the subject either suffers, believes to be true or experiences.

even depriving someone of sleep can produce some quite unexpected results.

I would second your view on this. it actually doesn't take too much to reprogramme the mind (or at least behavioural patterns, belief systems and the such). influence and belief re-framing are a lot easier to commit to a mind than most would like to believe.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Ghosts are a purely human concept, as humans are the only creature with the capacity to make things up. Id est - an imagination.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Wrong, other animals have imaginations too. Whether they 'imagine' ghosts though... completely different story.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Spirits, other worldly entities etc, have been around since the dawn of time.

But the "ghost", the modern "ghost story" as most of us accept is mainly a Victorian invention.

As mention earlier, since the dawn of time to collect evidence, and in recent times with sophisticated technology, there is still no compelling evidence that ghosts exist.

This recent study has put forward compelling evidence on why people alone, and in the dark, may perceive a "presence".

These feelings felt by our ancestors, and ourselves, go someway to explain ghost theory.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Humans are the only species to have any idea or suggestion of what ghosts (if they exists) are as we're the only ones to be aware of our own mortality.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Trouble with statements like this is that they are very difficult to prove or disprove.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Very much under debate.

Other high order mammals and the odd bird without question are aware of the mortality of other animals, they grieve and show changes in behaviour. Whether they are aware of their own we don't know.

We tend to be too busy using them for entertaining videos in the case of domesticated animals or killing them for sport when we aren't wiping out their habitats in the case of wild ones to try and communicate with them to that degree.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

I defer to the knowledge of Stephen Fry and Qi - he stated that current scientific thinking is that we're the only species with awareness of self-mortality.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Do you agree with Stephen Fry's statement?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

I suspect I know where this one is going.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Merely interested the statement was presented authoritatively, but then it appeared at least to be distanced from when a good counter argument was presented. Nothing more than that. Of course, I could be totally reading it wrong. I'm happy to accept that! :) it's no biggy. Just an observation.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Yes, I agree that it's the current scientific thinking. Do you agree with him?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Yes, I think so. Other animals may be aware of death, but I'm not convinced as of yet that they contemplate their own mortality. Seems like a sound theory to me.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

I think it is sloppy thinking to consider that it should be regarded as a sound theory, I would go as far as regarding it as an hypothesis as it would be difficult to gather enough evidence either way.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

But then no animal I'm aware of wants to be killed and eaten.

The instinct of every animal, I think, is to survive.

They know they cannot do that if they're dead. So they try to avoid lions and sharks. Therefore they are aware that they are alive, and if they are eaten they are dead.

So wouldn't that suggest they are aware of their mortality?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

it could suggest an awareness of their own mortality. However, I see staying alive for most other animals as being instinctive rather than as a result of contemplating self-mortality, as is mating (the animal doesn't know why it's doing it, it just has the urge and overwhelming drive to do so). I don't believe frogs, for example, wonder about what might happen when they die, or consider in depth what they should do in life before passing on. They, like most animals, go about their business as part of instinctive or learned behavioural patterns.

animals and humans alike, regardless of cognitive ability, tend to live by the 'freeze, flight or fight' rule. these three reactions, in that order, are a direct result of a perceived threat to the self, absolutely. but because an animal contemplates mortality as humans do? I don't think so. it's more likely that the reactions are either a result of instinctive reactions (such as the avoidance of high temperatures as evolution has developed nervous systems that make it uncomfortable, and therefore create a necessity for avoidance), or because of learned behaviours from the group, herd or parents (such as running when a lion comes near because that's what is experienced any time time a lion is near).

---------- Post added at 23:16 ---------- Previous post was at 23:02 ----------

true, it would indeed be hard to gather evidence. you may even be right that calling it a sound theory is perhaps too far.

but although we cannot yet prove one way or the other the internal thoughts of any species without relying on introspection (which in turn requires a bi-directional and mutually understood communicative method), I personally believe that the most likely hypothesis is that which humans are probably the only species on this planet to contemplate the self and self-mortality. an example that goes towards this could be that we are the only species, who actually repeatedly, observably and to a point, predictably plan for the event of our own death.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

I agree to a point, especially about lower order organisms.

But when you start looking at some mammals and birds I'm not so sure. It's not all just " instinct".

If you've ever observed a cat, for instance, they are very measured, they weigh up,their surroundings, they make clear decisions based on the inputs around them.

What about chimps, you can't say they just run on instinct? They are every much self aware.

Birds!, crows, magpies etc show proper reasoning and problem solving skills. Not just Instinct.

Do they lock themselves away and ponder the meaning of life. Who knows, cavemen probably didn't. The luxury to ponder the meaning life probably came when we didn't have to think about surviving from day to day.

It's interesting because we can never really know what an animal is thinking, and even if we could hear their thoughts their point of reference to existence would be so far removed from ours we wouldn't understand it anyway.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Survival isn't the same as 'not wanting to be dead'. Not wanting to be killed really comes from the fact that the act of being killed is usually rather painful. Fear of heights after all, doesn't come from not wanting to be high, it comes from the fear of rapid lithobraking when you lose height too quickly.

No. Would you say a baby who tastes something that's disgusting and then avoids it necessarily does so because they are 'aware of poisons' or the concept of rotting food? Would you say an animal that avoids electric shocks is necessarily aware of electricity?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Do animals know that being killed is painful?

I'm not afraid of heights and I know lots of species that aren't either.

Does an animal avoid an electric shock? Probably not the first one.

After that it is aware of the pain that a shock gives and it avoid it. So yes it is aware of electricity. Does it know how electricity works? No. But neither do many humans.

In regards to the baby, I don't understand your point.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Cognitive reasoning is not the same as a developed ability to question on an existential level. by far, humans have the largest pre-frontal cortex in relation to the rest of the brain. we are far more developed in the realm of being self-aware. we are planners - big planners. other species may show an ability to reason, predict and logical processing, but not the the degree of a human adult. if cavemen presumably didn't ponder life / death, I doubt that animals do either, regardless of them being lower order or primates.

most likely is that the animal learns to avoid dangerous situations from its main caregivers. an adult zebra will run in the presence of a predator. the child learns to run in the presence of that predator in future.

3 chimps in a cage with some steps. there are bananas on the top step. one chimp goes up the steps to get the bananas and gets sprayed with cold water. another of the chimps tries and the same thing happens. the third chimp tries and the other two warn it off.

one chimp is replaced by a new chimp which has no experience of the cage and steps. when it tries to get the bananas, the other two warn it off. another old chimp is replaced as before and again, this new chimp tries but it warned off by the other two.

finally, the last chimp is replaced. the cage now has 3 chimps that have never been sprayed with water, yet they all know not to try and get the bananas.

animals may not know the danger, but they know to avoid certain animals and situations through a level of semantic knowledge.

this is getting into Pavlov and Skinner territories of conditioning, reinforcement and superstition, and we could talk about that all day along with learning types. The animal does not know what electricity is, it is simply aware that a particular action results in an 'unpleasant state of affairs'. it has gained no knowledge of the technicalities of what happens, it just knows it hurt, and to avoid it.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

No, but that's the point. They avoid being killed because it is painful and they avoid pain. They don't avoid being killed on principle itself. Give an animal a choice of two identical options, where one will kill them instantly without pain, and another will not, it will make a completely random 50-50 choice. You'd have to indicate somehow that the lethal box contains the concept of death.

Can you figure out any way of communicating or indicating to an animal that 'this box features death' that does not actually indicate 'this box features pain'? Without doing so there is no way to determine or prove whether animals avoid being killed.


The point is your argument is flawed, simply avoiding something from your point of view, does not mean the animal understands or possesses awareness of it's underlying concepts. Animals (including us) avoid harm by reacting instinctively to environmental cues and senses, that can be proven. Without an experimental methodology that completely excludes this aspect of their behavior it is impossible to prove if an animal is avoiding 'being killed' because they are aware of mortality and death verses simply avoiding harm because they associate it with pain.

---------- Post added at 15:04 ---------- Previous post was at 14:58 ----------

P.S. This article is a good overview on the matter of animal self awareness and 'awareness of mortality':

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a..._suicide_.html

---------- Post added at 15:05 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

Exactly this.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

debatable, i think. would it not be more likely an animal avoids death because of a learned response (usually through observational learning - i.e., peers / caregivers will run from certain other animals), or through classical conditioning or operant conditioning (whereby an animal may not go an sit in a raging fire because the nervous system creates unpleasant sensory feedback when the animal gets too close to something hot and thus learns not to get too close next time, for example)?

I'm not sure an animal is aware that being killed is painful per-se. not unless it has been lucky enough to escape the jaws of it's killer, or drop and rolled when it walked through a fire, to use the previous examples.

it's also true that the animal may learn a fear response when it hears the cries of fellow animals during the killing process, but it may not necessarily understand the pain which its peer is suffering.

as a comparison, humans will let out screams when in extreme pain and extreme terror too (unless they are British, of course!), but they may not always be discernible from one another.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Isn't that what I just said?

Isn't that what I just said?

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

No. You stated that an animal avoids being killed because it is avoiding pain. Yet without the experience of being killed or at least caught and escaping, an animal will not necessarily know that being killed is painful. Thus, it is fair to presume that an animal avoids predators through observational learning rather than first hand experience. That is to say, it sees peers and caregivers running, so it runs too.

Unless I am reading your post wrong? Which plausible!!

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

I think you're reading it wrong. My point was animals avoid pain, and don't know anything about death or being killed, that's been my core point all along. Avoiding pain indirectly leads to not being killed because they have evolved to feel fear or pain when encountering dangerous things likely to lead to death. Just like many animals fear heights, even though heights alone will not kill you (well, unless you exit the atmosphere and suffocate), but associating fear with heights has the protective effect of also protecting you from falling dangerous distances which does kill you.

If you somehow told an animal "this will kill you but not hurt" vs. "this will hurt but not kill you" they could well avoid the painful experience and choose death.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Ah, ok. Cool

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Did you see David Attenborough's life story last night, the elephant herd came across the bones of a long dead elephant, it looked like they knew all about death.

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

Amazing series and that was indeed a wow moment...

Re: Ghostly presence explained?
 

All that article seems to do is show that they can emulate certain feelings, I fail to see how that proves (or disproves) the existance of ghosts.