Ghosts/Apparitions/Spirits etc

Zombrex wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification. The point remains though, what organises these in a disembodied ghost?

The conversation I commented on was on the nature of reality and consciousness. Gillad and yourself are coming at it from opposite ends of the spectrum. Yours appears to be the classical materialistic view that the physical universe is as we observe it and that consciousness emerges from the brain. Gillad is expressing the view that consciousnes is fundamental and reality as we observe it is derived from it but is likely one of many possible realities. In Gillad's view of reality I asume ghosts are possible and in your view I assume they are not?

As far as quantum mechanics, here's what Max Planck and Erwin Schrodinger had to say:

Planck: "I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. All matter originates and exists because of a force that brings the particles of an atom to vibration and holds this minute solar system of an atom together. We must assume behind this force the existance of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter".

Schrodinger: "Consciousness cannot be explained in physical terms. Consciousness is absolutely fundamental. It cannot be accounted for in terms of anything else".

There is nothing we have learned since Planck and Schrodinger that contradicts what they say or explains consciousness any better. The brains' role in consciousness i.e the "mind-brain problem" is one of the most fascinating and least understood aspects of science.

nagirrac wrote: »

Gillad and yourself are coming at it from opposite ends of the spectrum.

And thats why our conversation is going nowhere, only around in circles:(

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

Not really.
The laws set out in Quantum Mechanics only seem to apply at very very small scales. When you get up to individual atoms and such you move to Newtonian physics. You may have heard of the search for the Grand Unified Theory, one set of rules that applies to matter in all scales.

Let me state it another way. If the laws of quantum mechanics did not apply at the subatomic level there would be no Newtonian physics.

mcmoustache wrote: »

That's a possible result of a GUT which still hasn't been postulated yet. It's not unreasonable, though. I actually think that a GUT will describe QM and spit out gravity as a consequence. Unfortunately, we're some time from that so I can't state such ideas as fact.

I'd like zombrex's questions answered, however. If not, could you answer why we're applying QA to macroscopic objects like ghosts?

Just to let you know, I think that if ghosts exist and are seen by humans, they must be emitting or reflecting photons and this puts them firmly in the domain of science.

I think you have to include gravity, postulate a TOE and forget about a GUT. Have you read Thomas Campbell's "My Big TOE"? Its a tough slog but worth it. He was a top physicist, worked at NASA and earlier at Bob Monroe's lab. We may be getting to the point with QM where we are going round in circles like an onion ring and getting no closer to the core.

Xombrex is thinking electrons and ghosts as we see them are made of photons and photons only. Photons behave the same as electrons when it comes to QM, except they have no charge. They also have essentially no mass at rest so have to come from something more fundamental i.e. consciousness. There is nothing physical about ghosts if they have no mass or charge.

Totally agree with your third paragraph. Everything should be explained by science eventually.

gillad wrote: »

Particles act the same way everywhere.

No they don't. Sometimes they crash into other particles. This causes the wave form to collapse. The fuzziness of quantum mechanics, where a particle doesn't actually exist at any particular point, is only present when the particle is isolated in a vacuum.

gillad wrote: »

It is when they are "observed" that the wave form collapses in to a single particle.Everything exists(including ghosts) untill its is "observed" and untill they are observed they remain in their own parrallel universe

"Observed" simple means interacted with. The particles in the atoms in your head are constantly interacting with other particles in other atoms also in your head. This forms the mass of your brain, which in turn forms the neural pathways of your brain, which is how your brain functions as a brain rather than say a rock or a tree.

None of the particles in your head are exhibiting the fuzziness of quantum mechanics because they are constantly being "observed". If you took a single particle out of your head and isolated it in a vacuum it would, but not as a mass in your brain.

So how can a ghost be a structure, made up of interacting particles, while still exhibiting the fuzziness of quantum mechanics?

gillad wrote: »

Everything is a soup of particles and we create our own realitys by putting them together in the way we were conditioned to.

How do "we" put particles together? Our cells put the atoms in your brain together.

gillad wrote: »

People that believe deep down in the paranormal will experience the paranormal and people who truely dont,wont.
Your own brain and mind are the result of the true/higher form of "The observer" which you can call consciousness or god if you are religious.

That is not what "observed" means in quantum physics. It is not the act of being watched. It is the act of interacting with something. The particles in your brain are constantly interacting with each, which is constantly collapsing the wave form of the particles in your brain.

gillad wrote: »

Ghosts are just as real as everything else you see.Everything is created by consciouness and EVERYTHING is possible but we dont truely believe that, so then"everything is possible" cant manifest into reality.

That doesn't even make sense, since "everything" already existed long before any consciousness had evolved in the first place. The particles you are made up of are old hydrogen atoms altered in the centre of a star into the various atoms that make up humans, such as carbon atoms.

Zombrex...You still dont understand what im saying and you dont understand the implications of The Observer effect at all and you may never grasp it...........consciousness creates reality.Its not in your brain,it creates your brain.......Its known as the ghost in the machine and it explains ghosts,god,afterlife and whatever you want it to explain.. its a growing view and its will be proved.

This is where im comming from
http://www.amitgoswami.org/

Zombrex wrote: »

There is tons that we have learned since them that contradicts this view. When they said both those things studies of the role of the brain were in their infancy.
This is why people have to go back nearly a century to find quotes from reputable scientists. Modern understanding of the brain, particularly the effect brain damage has on personality, memory and reasoning ability, has completely debunked the mystical idea that consciousness exists independently to the brain.

Lets see if we can get somewhere with a discussion of the brain. Quantum Mechanics is too difficult to discuss without a complete understanding of the math involved. Planck and Schrodinger were talking about the nature of reality and not the brain and in that respect we are still a long way from understanding the complete picture. I don't think discussing quantum mechanics will get us anywhere in this forum at least but if you care to search you will find lots of modern physicists that still think what Planck and Schrodinger expressed.

It is absolutely true that brain damage can lead to loss in cognitive function. Brain damage also results in completely unexplained addition in cognitive function. There are many examples of savants who suffered brain injuries and afterwards had capabilities they never had before. Neuroplasticity shows that the brain can be physically altered by meditation. How can a thought change something as physical as a neuron pathway?

Consciousness is not at all understood, it is the hard problem, so any hypothesis is based on very little scientific evidence but on observation.

Have to run, more later.

gillad wrote: »

I believe in the new view.
Because i have experience in the power of consciousness that defies logical science.

That doesn't make any sense, you have basically said your beliefs are illogical.

Zombrex wrote: »

There is no evidence that consciousness is anything other than a product of the physical brain. And there is tons of evidence that consciousness is nothing other than a product of the physical brain (such as the effect brain damage has on personality, reasoning and memory)

We do not understand consciousness and anyone stating "we have tons of evidence that consciousness is nothing other than a product of the physical brain" is basically on the same unsolid footing as those claiming the opposite. It is true that the majority of neuroscientists believe that consciousness emerges from the brain but then they would, their area of research is the brain. The idea that the brain is like computer hardware and the mind like software is hopelessly discredited and out of date.

There are lots of examples where consciousness emerging from the brain makes no sense. Savants who suffer brain damage and exhibit abilities afterwards they did not have before. Neuroplasticity, a growing field in the treatment of disorders such as OCD, where meditation is shown to cause permanent physical changes in the brain (using fMRI). Hard to explain from a materialistic position.

It is not called the hard problem for nothing. There are many reseachers who claim that the human mind will never be able to explain consciousness. I would tend to disagree (wishful thinking perhaps), and believe the human mind will continue to evolve and eventually understand consciousness.

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:)

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.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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.

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 ,

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.

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.

Genghiz Cohen wrote: »

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:)

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?

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.

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 ...

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.