Ghostly presence explained?

[idi banashapan]

no straw men to be found.

[Russ]

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

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

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

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.

[Russ]

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.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

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!

[qasdfdsaq]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

Agreed.

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

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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.

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.

[Russ]

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.

This says it all

[idi banashapan]

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

[Ignitionnet]

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.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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 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.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Stuart

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.

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.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Stuart

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.

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

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 no 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.

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

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

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.

[ThunderPants73]

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

[qasdfdsaq]

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