Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Ghosts/Apparitions/Spirits etc

12357

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    You will find that the universe doesn't really care what you prefer ;)

    You havent a clue about what im saying but its hard to grasp so thats ok.
    I had your beliefs a year ago but i changed because i had to..You will get your proof eventually because its here already,its just that scientists(not all of them) and people like you are ignoring it at the moment due to a unconscious fear of what you cant understand, so the important link is blocked out(ignored).....If you can understand this post then great, you are getting there:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gillad wrote: »
    You havent a clue about what im saying but its hard to grasp so thats ok.

    I know exactly what you are saying, it is a pseudo-science that is very common and has been around for years in various guises.

    You don't seem to understand what I'm saying, since you seem to be just ignoring all the points where it is pointed out to you the flaws and misunderstandings you are making about physics.
    gillad wrote: »
    I had your beliefs a year ago but i changed because i had to..You will get your proof eventually because its here already

    "It's here already"? You sound like a bad astrology piece. Gillad do you have any meaningful response to the corrections made about your statements. Or do you just want to keep talking in wishy washy nonsense language, the last retreat of the New Age hipster who has run out of pseudo-science words to throw?

    Until you open your mind your heart will remain forever stuck in your anus ... that sort of thing :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    Er no it isn't. Not at all. In fact it is the only concept of the mind that we have any evidence for.
    The people who object to this are people who find it unsatisfactory. But finding something unsatisfactory, because it doesn't fit with a pre-conceived notion (see theory of mind) is not justification for rejecting something.
    What are you talking about? That is ONLY explained from a materialistic position.
    If thought was not a physical process in the brain how could it alter the brain?

    Do you even understand the mind-body problem at a basic level?
    The mind-body problem is explaining what the metaphysical relationship is between mental phenomena and physical phenomena. Neuroscientists, cognitive scientists and philosophers of mind continue to struggle with the questions that arise from the problem. How can materialism account for subjectivity? for intentionality? What are these made of?

    Once you even try and state the problem in a more specific way you begin to favor some specific theory or other. In a general sense once you state mental processes are produced by physical processes in the brain (as you are) you assume the truth of materialism, and once you state that immaterial thoughts (as we currently understand them, what is a thought made of?) can interact with the brain you assume the truth of dualism. Philosopher have been debating this since philosophy began and the deabte rages on.

    The debate between materialists and dualists, like the debate between atheists and theists/desists, is not a scientific debate but a philosophical one. That is why understanding the mind-body problem to any serious degree involves detailed philosophical study. The binding problem is a good example, how do discrete brain processes in different parts of the brain add up to a meaningful unified experience? Are the individual brain processes conscious? While this may just be a gap in our scientific knowledge it has been argued that it is most likely impossible for there to be a materialistic neuroscientific solution to it.

    Resolving the mind-body problem will likely involve a radical change in our metaphysical picture of reality. Sticking one's head in the "materialistic" sand camp or the "dualist" sand camp is not going to get us there. It will likely emerge froma completely new theory that combines materialism and dualism.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    Zombrex wrote: »



    "It's here already"? You sound like a bad astrology piece. Gillad do you have any meaningful response to the corrections made about your statements. Or do you just want to keep talking in wishy washy nonsense language, the last retreat of the New Age hipster who has run out of pseudo-science words to throw?

    Until you open your mind your heart will remain forever stuck in your anus ... that sort of thing :rolleyes:

    Be carefull now with your language please.No need to resort to that.Your true colours are starting to show

    Its nothing to do with astrology or new age hipster stuff.
    Its normal members of the public,people of all ages and they are all good people.These are the people that are going to change peoples view but maybe not yours because your head is stuck in the sand and you dont even know it


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    nagirrac wrote: »
    How can materialism account for subjectivity? for intentionality? What are these made of?

    Because everyone's brain is very slightly different from everyone elses. Different neurons have different weighted connections and thresholds. The chemical and hormonal balances are slightly different. Everyone on earth has a slightly different experience because of the differences in the brain.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Quick question gillad.
    How likely is it you are wrong about this whole mind and consciousness thing?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Because everyone's brain is very slightly different from everyone elses. Different neurons have different weighted connections and thresholds. The chemical and hormonal balances are slightly different. Everyone on earth has a slightly different experience because of the differences in the brain.

    I'm not talking about how people differ, I'm posing the question how intentionality and subjectivity arise to begin with. If you seen the binding problem solved from a neuroscience standpoint I would be delighted to read about it. The Computational / Representational Theory of Thought is not universally accepted and has numerous arguments to overcome, not the least of which is the argument from reason.

    Both Zombrex and yourself are firmly nailing your colors to the materialistic view of the world. There are an astounding number of theories on the mind-body issue, and in reading them one can be convinced of the materialistic or dualist position or indeed the rapidly emerging monist position including panpscyhism. It is a bit like the gap between the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics and all the hypotheses in search for a TOE. Our understanding of reality is incomplete and it may be that in its current state the human mind cannot understand its complexity. The mind of course continues to evolve so I would remain hopeful.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    Quick question gillad.
    How likely is it you are wrong about this whole mind and consciousness thing?

    I am 100% correct because of the experiences that i have created.
    Other views will say im 100% wrong because of their own limited view but its this limited view that hinders their own consciousness.

    I am gone Way off topic now so just to get back,My view is that consciousness creates reality and Quantum Mechanics backs this up with "The Observer Effect".....Simple but not so simple if you believe consciousness is the result of chemical reactions.
    Its all a matter of views at the moment so the debate will go round and round untill more and more people connect with their consciousness and give their confused brain a rest from trying to control and run everything.The brain is for survival,Consciousness is for pleasure


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    gillad wrote: »
    I am 100% correct because of the experiences that i have created.
    Other views will say im 100% wrong because of their own limited view but its this limited view that hinders their own consciousness.

    With all due respect, its quite arrogant to assume your 100% correct, purely based on your own personal experiences isn't it?

    If they're not too personal, can you give us an example of what you mean by experiences you've created?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    gillad wrote: »
    I am 100% correct because of the experiences that i have created.

    That smacks of 'I'm right because I say I'm right'. Do you have any independently verifiable evidence for your opinion?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    I was asked a question by Ghengis about how likely it was that i was wrong so i answered it.what do you expect me to say ,:confused:

    I will give one example of what i have done that is not too personal but is proof.....Iv had reading glasses for a number of years so i tried a technique on my eyes and i dont need glasses anymore.This technique worked immedietly because it only involved me.Bigger things involving other people take longer........Its what possitive thinking is all about.

    This thread is about what ghosts/apparitions/spirits are.I have given my view on what they are.They are as real as everything else because everything is created from the consciousness.
    I would love to hear someone elses view on the thread topic.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    gillad wrote: »
    I will give one example of what i have done that is not too personal but is proof.....Iv had reading glasses for a number of years so i tried a technique on my eyes and i dont need glasses anymore.This technique worked immedietly because it only involved me.Bigger things involving other people take longer........Its what possitive thinking is all about.

    Cheers for sharing that. But isn't that a case for mind over matter, rather than exonerating the belief of spirits/ghosts/afterlife? How do you know that this wasn't a case of the human mind being able to control more than we thing it can?

    Also, you'd have the likes of terminal cancer patients, who are as positive as positive can be...who still unfortunately succumb to the disease, how come their equally positive approach wouldn't have helped them?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    EnterNow wrote: »
    Cheers for sharing that. But isn't that a case for mind over matter, rather than exonerating the belief of spirits/ghosts/afterlife? How do you know that this wasn't a case of the human mind being able to control more than we thing it can?

    Of course its mind over matter but what is mind? What is a thought made of? While science is making great progress in understanding functionality of various parts of the brain the mind-body issue has not been resolved unless I missed it.

    I think the question started out as what are ghosts (assuming they exist) made of? The argument was made that they could not be made of photons at rest. If we visually see an apparition and assume it is real for the sake of this argument then it has to be emitting photons that travel to our eyes through space otherwise we could not it. What it is that is emitting photons is the question, some kind of energy or wave I suppose that only materializes as far as we can see as photons.

    I think there is much confusion around the term "immateriality". A better definition than "non-physical" surely is "something we at present do not understand and cannot analyze with our existing techniques". Considering that 85% of the universe is calculated to be there but unknown in terms of what it consists of (dark matter and dark energy) then if we just say it cannot exist because we cannot measure it is a position of ignorance.

    I fully believe all these questions will be resolved by science in time and that the true nature of reality will shock scientists and non-scientists as much as Einstein's theories originally did. I am also convinced progress will be made by thought experiments (as Einsteins's original hypothesis on relativity was) as our minds continue to evolve.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    gillad wrote: »
    I am 100% correct because of the experiences that i have created.

    Does that not make you very closed minded?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    Does that not make you very closed minded?

    No,im very open minded and will listen.It may sound arrogant but it can also be called confidence, which sounds nicer:)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    EnterNow wrote: »
    Cheers for sharing that. But isn't that a case for mind over matter, rather than exonerating the belief of spirits/ghosts/afterlife? How do you know that this wasn't a case of the human mind being able to control more than we thing it can?

    Also, you'd have the likes of terminal cancer patients, who are as positive as positive can be...who still unfortunately succumb to the disease, how come their equally positive approach wouldn't have helped them?

    Yes it is a case of mind over matter and its what iv being saying all along, i believe its how ghosts are created.

    I know a man who has cured people of cancer using these principles but he admits that he cant cure everybody .....The patient must believe that they can be cured and with 100% belief from this man, they get amplified power from both conscious minds....He doesnt get instant results because it takes time for the old conditioned view of the mind to change.
    Its not just about being positive in your life its about being positive of a result that you want.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    gillad wrote: »
    Yes it is a case of mind over matter and its what iv being saying all along, i believe its how ghosts are created.

    I know a man who has cured people of cancer using these principles but he admits that he cant cure everybody .....The patient must believe that they can be cured and with 100% belief from this man, they get amplified power from both conscious minds....He doesnt get instant results because it takes time for the old conditioned view of the mind to change.
    Its not just about being positive in your life its about being positive of a result that you want.

    Yeah I hear what your saying, but how does a mind over matter situation 'create' ghosts? If they were merely created by people, wouldn't ghosts be real to those who believe & not real to those that don't...ultimately everyone is right in that situation?


  • Registered Users Posts: 17,736 ✭✭✭✭kylith


    gillad wrote: »
    Yes it is a case of mind over matter and its what iv being saying all along, i believe its how ghosts are created.

    I know a man who has cured people of cancer using these principles but he admits that he cant cure everybody .....The patient must believe that they can be cured and with 100% belief from this man, they get amplified power from both conscious minds....He doesnt get instant results because it takes time for the old conditioned view of the mind to change.
    Its not just about being positive in your life its about being positive of a result that you want.

    Gotta love that old chestnut. If your cancer goes into remission he gets all the credit for 'healing' you. If it doesn't then it's your own fault for not believing hard enough and he doesn't get any of the blame; and frankly that attitude makes me sick. I very much doubt that there's a cancer sufferer who wouldn't be able to feel very positively about not having cancer any more.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    kylith wrote: »
    Gotta love that old chestnut. If your cancer goes into remission he gets all the credit for 'healing' you. If it doesn't then it's your own fault for not believing hard enough and he doesn't get any of the blame; and frankly that attitude makes me sick. I very much doubt that there's a cancer sufferer who wouldn't be able to feel very positively about not having cancer any more.

    Gotta say too, I look upon these 'healers' as absolutely false


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    EnterNow wrote: »
    Yeah I hear what your saying, but how does a mind over matter situation 'create' ghosts? If they were merely created by people, wouldn't ghosts be real to those who believe & not real to those that don't...ultimately everyone is right in that situation?

    I have also met people that can see and hear ghosts,they believe in spirits 100% so they see and hear them or else they believe because they see.Im using consciousness as a possibile explaination because i know the power of it.

    Parrallel realities might be a better explaination for ghosts...Past and present realities entangling.....Death will end the debate because you will become a spirit and understand it all or your conscious mind will cease to exist and it wont matter then.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    gillad wrote: »
    Death will end the debate because you will become a spirit and understand it all or your conscious mind will cease to exist and it wont matter then.

    Unfortunately so :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    Resolving the mind-body problem will likely involve a radical change in our metaphysical picture of reality.

    It really doesn't. Resolving the mind-body problem to give an answer that is considered favourable to those who desire that the mind exists independently to the body requires this, but that is simply searching for a pleasing answer.

    All evidence from evolutionary biology, the study of the brain, physics and chemistry point to the brain being what produces consciousness.

    What reason is there then to suppose even the possibility that it doesn't, other than this is unsatisfactory to some humans (for reasons we also understand).

    Like so many quasi-religious notions of the human body, the idea of the mind being separate from the body lost all real seriousness when good old Charlie Darwin came along.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gillad wrote: »
    Be carefull now with your language please.No need to resort to that.Your true colours are starting to show

    Its nothing to do with astrology or new age hipster stuff.
    Its normal members of the public,people of all ages and they are all good people.These are the people that are going to change peoples view but maybe not yours because your head is stuck in the sand and you dont even know it

    Provide me with evidence for what you are talking about (linking to the front page of a website is not providing evidence). Don't just say some nonsense about my eyes will be open. That is New Age nonsense, and if you don't subscribe to that then why are you using such concepts?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gillad wrote: »
    Yes it is a case of mind over matter and its what iv being saying all along, i believe its how ghosts are created.

    I know a man who has cured people of cancer using these principles but he admits that he cant cure everybody .....The patient must believe that they can be cured and with 100% belief from this man, they get amplified power from both conscious minds....He doesnt get instant results because it takes time for the old conditioned view of the mind to change.
    Its not just about being positive in your life its about being positive of a result that you want.

    What did you actually do to your eyes and how did you verify this?

    How did you know what to do in order to fix your eyes rather than say, make them explode? (if we have mind over matter then surely we are just as dangerous with this ability as helpful)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,019 ✭✭✭nagirrac


    Zombrex wrote: »
    All evidence from evolutionary biology, the study of the brain, physics and chemistry point to the brain being what produces consciousness.
    What reason is there then to suppose even the possibility that it doesn't, other than this is unsatisfactory to some humans (for reasons we also understand).
    Like so many quasi-religious notions of the human body, the idea of the mind being separate from the body lost all real seriousness when good old Charlie Darwin came along.


    All evidence at one point stated that the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that the physical universe was perfectly described by Newton's Laws, that quantum entanglement only happened with subatomic particles until it was recently demonstrated on phonons in diamonds (a macro structure not a subatomic particle). Remember our human experience is that nothing is ever proven absolutely in science except for logic and mathematics.

    An open mind means being open to new ideas that do not fit with the accepted worldview. I can't speak for gillad but I think you are missing what he is saying. I know you are completely missing what I am saying so let me go through it again for you.

    There are three philosophical approaches to the mind-body problem:
    1. Material monists. The physical body is primary and the mind and consciousness are epiphenomena of the brain. Free will cannot exist in this model.
    2. Dualists. The mind and consciousness are separate from the physical brain and do not emerge from it. Free will can exist because mind is separate to brain.
    3. Monistic Idealists. Consciouness is primary and the mind and body are both epiphenomena of consciousness. Free will exists to a certain extent, limited by what the human mind can conceive (limited by the human brain).

    Nobody understand consciousness so to state that Neuroscientists, Evolutionary Biologists, physicists and chemists agree it emerges from the brain is utter horse manure. Dawkins himself has said that the question as to why subjective consciousness emerged is the greatest mystery of modern biology. What possible evolutionary function could subjective consciousness serve?, a philosophical zombie surely can survive just fine.

    Gillad is a believer in Monistic Idealism. He is not alone and in fact gave you a clue in an earlier post referenceing the work of Amit Goswami. Now I am sure you will dismiss Goswami as just another crackpot scientist who does not understand QM, except for the challenge that Goswami was (now retired) a Professor of Theoretical Physics and has written a college level textbook on QM so I suspect he understands QM a little better than most posters on boards.ie.

    The problem we are really grappling with is that science in terms of describing our ultimate reality is essentially stuck (not unusual in science, knowledge and understanding can move very slowly and then you get a major breakthrough like Darwin, Einstein, etc.). The inconsistencies between the Theory of Relativity and QM were known almost 100 years ago and are still not resolved. We try and get everything to fit into our materialistic model and some things just won't fit so we dismiss them. When scientists come up with hypotheses that do not fit with our materialistic worldview we call them crackpots but take the word of James Randi as if it were ultimate truth.

    The problem materialistic monists have with monistic idealists is that it has too many parallels with mystical traditions and introduces the whole "God" issue. However, if one has an open mind the monistic idealist view of the world is highly compelling. In fact I would even go so far as to say that it is the only current model that makes sense. A monistic idealistic can understand the materialtic monist (because they have been there) but the opposite is not true unless the materialistic monist can open their mind.

    Remember Plato's cave allegory, our view of reality is based on shadows which are merely projections of the real larger reality. Think about it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    gillad wrote: »
    No,im very open minded and will listen.It may sound arrogant but it can also be called confidence, which sounds nicer:)

    Could I convince you that you are wrong?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    nagirrac wrote: »
    All evidence at one point stated that the earth was the center of the universe, that the earth was flat, that the physical universe was perfectly described by Newton's Laws, that quantum entanglement only happened with subatomic particles until it was recently demonstrated on phonons in diamonds (a macro structure not a subatomic particle). Remember our human experience is that nothing is ever proven absolutely in science except for logic and mathematics.

    Correct, and these theories altered when new better ones came along.

    Saying a theory could be wrong doesn't mean it is, and it certain isn't evidence for an alternative.

    What evidence is there that the mind is independent to the body? Merely saying it could be, we can't prove it isn't, is not evidence it is. Your evidence would have to provide a better explanation for all the evidence that the brain produces consciousness, such as the effect on personality brain damage has.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Nobody understand consciousness so to state that Neuroscientists, Evolutionary Biologists, physicists and chemists agree it emerges from the brain is utter horse manure. Dawkins himself has said that the question as to why subjective consciousness emerged is the greatest mystery of modern biology. What possible evolutionary function could subjective consciousness serve?, a philosophical zombie surely can survive just fine.

    You are confusing (perhaps on purpose) two different things, why we evolved the brain we have and whether the mind is separate to the brain.

    There is no way to get an independent mind to work within current evolutionary models. Or to put it more bluntly, when and how did the early human ancestors divorce their minds from their brains. Such a question doesn't even make sense.

    The idea that the mind is separate to the brain comes from religion where evolutionary biology is ignored wholesale, so there is no issue about how a divorced mind could come about because people just suppose a deity did it.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    Gillad is a believer in Monistic Idealism. He is not alone and in fact gave you a clue in an earlier post referenceing the work of Amit Goswami. Now I am sure you will dismiss Goswami as just another crackpot scientist who does not understand QM, except for the challenge that Goswami was (now retired) a Professor of Theoretical Physics and has written a college level textbook on QM so I suspect he understands QM a little better than most posters on boards.ie.

    That is simply an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy. Writing a text book doesn't make Goswami correct, nor does it add support to his notions.

    There is no evidence for Goswami's notions, it is a spiritual belief he has, basically a religion. He can believe it all he likes, but others should not misrepresent it as science.
    nagirrac wrote: »
    The problem we are really grappling with is that science in terms of describing our ultimate reality is essentially stuck (not unusual in science, knowledge and understanding can move very slowly and then you get a major breakthrough like Darwin, Einstein, etc.). The inconsistencies between the Theory of Relativity and QM were known almost 100 years ago and are still not resolved. We try and get everything to fit into our materialistic model and some things just won't fit so we dismiss them. When scientists come up with hypotheses that do not fit with our materialistic worldview we call them crackpots but take the word of James Randi as if it were ultimate truth.

    LOL, how has the problem between gravity and QM been solved by supposing that human consciousness forms everything?

    Show me the maths that does that please ...


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    Could I convince you that you are wrong?

    Maybe you could,but it would take a huge amount of convincing and explaining things to change my view because iv had the old view and it doesnt fit in with my life anymore.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 368 ✭✭gillad


    Zombrex wrote: »
    What did you actually do to your eyes and how did you verify this?

    How did you know what to do in order to fix your eyes rather than say, make them explode? (if we have mind over matter then surely we are just as dangerous with this ability as helpful)

    Im not posting about my personal experiences here.I gave one just to give people an idea of what can be achieved.

    Im not going to change your view and you wont change mine.
    We have different views on consciouness and science is not going to explain it in the near future....Its the ordinary person thats going to change the view and then science will change because it will have to,just like i had to.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    gillad wrote: »
    Im not posting about my personal experiences here.I gave one just to give people an idea of what can be achieved.

    Im not going to change your view and you wont change mine.

    Well no not if you aren't going to present the evidence that you actually did this so it can be discussed and examined.
    gillad wrote: »
    We have different views on consciouness and science is not going to explain it in the near future....Its the ordinary person thats going to change the view and then science will change because it will have to,just like i had to.

    Er, you still haven't explained how this ordinary person is going to do that, and you refuse to discuss examples where you think you did something extraordinary.

    So again like so much of this new age/spiritual nonsense things quickly fall apart when you actually try and examine them in any detail.

    It is easy to say X happened. It is a lot harder to say X happened and then justify that statement with reason and evidence. Anyone can claim anything happened.

    Oh and I'm the second coming of Jesus, don't believe me well that is your problem I don't have to demonstrate anything. Now worship me minion!


Advertisement