Scientific explanation for Ghosts?

Ziphius wrote: »

But why would we expect this? Women certainly seem to have a higher interested and belief in supernatural phenomena such as astrology, psychics, and ghosts than men. I'm interested to know why this is but I reckon it's more likely due to targeted marketing of women via news papers or magazines and/or socialisation than a difference between male and female brain organisation.

Well, astrology and psychics, etc., are not supernatural phenomena, they are scams carried out by fraudsters who prey on people, male and female, who are 'lost', feel that they have no control over their lives and are looking for answers to questions that they don't really ask. They tap into human insecurities for profit.

I think it has been shown that supernatural phenomena can have an external cause and I would suggest that it may be possible to define supernatural phenomena in terms of an interaction between the aura of the person having the experience and any other similar type of energy field including other auras of other people and, perhaps, of any sentient being.

If we regard what is measured by an EEG as being part of a field from which the aura is constructed and accept that a dynamic electrostatic field exists around every brain then it is easy to see how external electromagnetic/electrostatic fields might induce changes in an aura that could possibly be 'felt' at a neural level.

It may simply be the case that women have more sensitive sensing apparatus than men. And again this would make some sense in an evolutionary context. It is in a woman's interest to avoid trouble whereas men pick up swords and look for trouble. Women benefit more from early warning systems than men and natural selection might favour those who respond to supernatural phenomena.

Ziphius wrote: »

I'd group belief in psychics, ghosts, alien abduction and so on together. Do you think 'paranormal phenomena' would be a fairer collective term?

Mystic Meg may say she is in contact with the spirit world but she's not really. Astrologers, clairvoyants, tarot readers make unfalsifiable claims that appeal to the weak of mind. This is neither supernatural nor paranormal, it's simply fraud. Belief in psychics and astrology is no different in nature to faith in doctors or science. Or religion for that matter.

People who get a spooky feeling of being watched by eyes that can't be seen are experiencing an actual effect that is qualitatively different from that which is experienced by someone phoning a tarot-card reader for advice on life.

Ziphius wrote: »

I don't understand what you mean by a person's 'aura'. And I disagree that any supernatural phenomena have been proven to exist.

The brain produces a field which can be sensed to some extent by an EEG machine. I am suggesting that that entire electrostatic field generated by the brain could be considered to be an 'aura'. It would be dynamic in nature because the movement of ions in the brain is a dynamic process. It could be that the electrostatic field can be effected by other electrostatic fields that can effect the brain at a neural level thus acting as a sensory input that can be utilised by mechanisms of the brain.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: I think that all supernatural phenomena have their roots in the physical realm and are in fact 'natural' phenomena. What I'm saying is that some people experience things that defy explanation. Things like having the feeling that you're being watched or being warned of impending disaster by a long-dead loved-one and everything in between. These things actually occur in reality, the causes of these kinds of experiences are what I refer to as 'supernatural phenomena' which are real effects with real causes.

Ziphius wrote: »

To clarify. You are saying that 'ghost' (or sentient aware agents) can communicate with people via electromagnetic fields (or something similar)?

No more than a river can communicate with people due to their proximity to it. If you are looking for water and you are close enough, the river will tell you that it is there.

I am saying that in the same way that a river provides information to the ears, 'auras' constitute a data source for the brain. My thinking is that electromagnetic energy can cause the aura to become distorted, lines of force being stretched and compressed in sympathy with an external field. I can envision how currents could be induced in the brain that interferes with ion movement and that the brain may be able to detect those changes and initiate a response that removes you from dangers posed by earthquakes or electrical storms etc. A little fine tuning by natural selection and to a certain extent, we read minds.

Ziphius wrote: »

Is this really true though? While women, generally, seem to have more acute senses than men, for example women tend to be better at differentiating colours, I would be wary of attributing this to differential selection pressure between the sexes. I think a more likely explanation would be the fact that women posses two copies of the X chromosome per cell whereas men only have one. Women can use the second X chromosome to compensate for any poor genes on the first. Whereas men cannot. This is why colour blindness is more prevalent in heterozygous XY men.

I don't know if it's really true but I do know that women necessarily have a different world-view to men. Men only have to contend with each other whereas women have to contend with each other but in addition they have to contend with men too. For reasons of survival, women had to learn about men, they had to cross a mental bridge that men don't have. It would seem natural to me that the ability to empathise is the result of selection pressures between the sexes.

Of course, intuitiion is a tool that benefits a man too but I think he gets it from his mother.

Ziphius wrote: »

Of course. However feeling like your being watched is ostensibly an evolved trait that improves our survival chances. I don't think it's the actual perceptions of some yet un-described sensory organ.

Whether there is a difference between frequency of such "spooky feelings" I don't know but I doubt that it is significant if it at all.

I'm not really aware of any statistical analysis in relation to gender differences effecting supernatural perceptions but I was trying to imagine what might be the cause of such a difference if there is one.

As far as supernatural experiences are concerned though, I am suggesting that those 'evolved trait(s)' you mentioned are the same mechanisms that give rise to supernatural feelings. And further, that the ability to sense disturbances that are not interacting with the five basic senses gives one a survival 'edge'. I think that talented 'cold-readers' can tap into this ability and pass themselves of as 'psychics' which, in a way, they are if we tightly define 'psychic'.

I'm more of a cynic myself and I have also tapped into this 'power' in the sense that I can 'read the signs' of a disturbance that is detrimental to me or mine.

So, not a new, hitherto unknown human sensory organ but one that is very poorly understood.

I think it is clear that people have experiences that defy explanation. It would be more accurate to say that psychics and mediums take advantage of the fact that 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' phenomena are so inadequately explained.

But people do experience 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' phenomena and the feelings they cause are manifest in reality.

In other words, every sighting of a ghost has an effect on entropy.

In this sense, 'supernatural' and 'paranormal' phenomena are a result of natural and normal processes and science must concede that there is an area of research available to it in this field.

I would like to say something about 'onus' and 'burden of proof' now. While it may be the case that all psychics and mediums are cranks and thieves, this is not sufficient to show that supernatural phenomena and experiences can be dismissed by science. The fact that so many people make supernatural claims is in itself evidence of something and science has a responsibility to investigate these claims despite the fact that noone can prove that they have seen a ghost.

Let us consider a supernatural phenomena that is widely accepted as 'in existence' - Love.

How does one prove that they love someone? Does the purcase and presentation of flowers and chocolates qualify as incontrovertible proof of love? Some might consider that more to be proof of guilt. Does throwing himself off a high building constitute proof of a jilted jumper's love or does it demonstrate the instability of his/her mind? Who can know love except those in love?

And what approach should science take to love? Should anecdotal evidence have more scientific validity when it is related by a scientist?

Of course science must investigate the phenomenon of love in order to understand the human condition in a more complete way.

And it is the same for supernatural phenomena. There is an onus on psychics and mediums to prove that they are not thieves but there is also a burden on science to prove that they are in order to better understand human nature.

I'd like to say something about the male/female divide in relation to conspiracy theories, UFO sightings, etc., as I think this can be explained in the same terms as those I suggested as reasons for the male/female divide in relation to paranormal activity.

As I said earlier, it's a man's world and the problems of men trump the problems of women. That's why we have war - men don't mind sending their sons off to die as much as women do so the fact that we have wars at all is evidence that it is a man's world. In the case of women, empathy and guile are more useful tools than muscles and big sticks whereas the opposite is true in the case of men.

In the case of women, the mechanisms that are concerned with empathy and guile are the same mechanisms that give rise to paranormal perceptions and are a consequence of evolution that serve as a survival tool, a weapon even, for women. I'm not trying to state facts here, these are simply suggestions.

Women have to navigate a world of men and women and they have to do so without the aid of the 'might' and 'aggression' tools at the disposal of men whereas men need only be concerned about other men in a parallel world where empathy might be construed as weakness and strength and a big stick are much more useful as tools with which to overcome obstacles.

Women have evolved a mechanism, a kind of radar if you will, that is tuned to a particular frequency scanning for certain types of event that will, upon detection, elicit a certain response. In men, the equivalent mechanism has evolved to be tuned to a different frequency, scanning for a different kind of event which, upon detection, elicits a different response.

An intruder alert system would make a good analogy. Men and women have developed two different kinds of alarm system. One is based on a trip-wire which causes an alarm to be sounded and the other is a pressure sensitive mat which causes a two-ton weight to be dropped.

The thing is, there are things other than an intruder that can trip these alarms but the alarms themselves provide no data concerning such events. When the alarm is tripped, there is a subconscious assumption made that a certain type of event has occured.

In women, a false trigger is perceived as an 'other-worldly' unseen force whereas in men, a false trigger is percieved as a possible unseen enemy in the real world. In men, this gives rise to feelings of fear, suspicion and paranoia just the same as it does in women but it causes men to sharpen their swords in readiness to protect himself whereas women try to hide in order to protect themselves.

It is useful for man to perceive that conspiracies are in operation, it keeps him sharp. It is especially useful to men who are imperialistic by nature, i.e., do unto others what you suspect they want to do to you before they have the opportunity to do it. That's how empires are built and empires are built by superstitious men.

It's not supernatural or paranormal, it's evolution.