Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
You can't prove the absence of something such as ghosts.
|
Strangely enough, this is what the OP's linked article is actually about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Agreed.
'Scientists' still can't agree on what causes OBEs in near death patients.
|
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
Indeed, can't remember where but it was recently mentioned 50% of scientific 'facts' are disproved over any individual's lifetime.
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by qasdfdsaq
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.
|
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignitionnet
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.
|
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.