Ghosts/Apparitions/Spirits etc

Genghiz Cohen

Zombrex wrote: »

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!

gillad

Zombrex wrote: »

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!

Thats just dumb,because I AM.:D

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

What evidence is there that the mind is independent to the body?
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.
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.
LOL, how has the problem between gravity and QM been solved by supposing that human consciousness forms everything?

You dismiss Goswami but you don't even understand at the most basic level what he is talking about. It is quite amazing to me that something can be explained to you several times and you still totally don't get it (at all, not even a sniff of it).

I am not proposing that mind and brain (or body) are separate. I am not proposing that the human mind forms everything or anything for that matter. What I am proposing is that you have matter (particles, the brain), energy (waves, the human mind) and consciousness (an information field). Consciousness is the computer that holds all the information which gives rise to energy which gives rise to matter. We have not yet discovered the nature of consciousness, all we see are its effects (Plato's cave).

The idea that mind and brain are separate came from the brilliant mind of Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), a 17th century mathematician, philosopher and scientist. He was so religious the pope banned his books and he was accused of being an atheist.

I suspect I cannot help you anymore. I suggest you go to the www.closertotruth.com website, click on the Consciousness tab, and listen to interviews with absolutely the greatest minds alive today, people like Paul Davies, John Searle, Henry Stapp, David Chalmers and in particular Ray Kurzweil. You may want to crack open a beer as be prepared to have your mind blow a hole through the top of your skull.

In the meantime, let me propose a TOE for you. There is another universe separate to ours, one with a different set of physical laws to ours so we cannot detect it. It is far more advanced in terms of technology. A high school student completes his final year physics project and sets our universe in motion. We are a simulation running on a high school student's ipad. Perhaps he lost his ipad and we are stuck with all the imperfections of his programming which is why we may never solve some of the greatest mysteries of our universe.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

You dismiss Goswami but you don't even understand at the most basic level what he is talking about. It is quite amazing to me that something can be explained to you several times and you still totally don't get it (at all, not even a sniff of it).

Explain in detail what bit I'm not getting. Because I can explain in detail all the bits that are wrong about it.

nagirrac wrote: »

I am not proposing that mind and brain (or body) are separate. I am not proposing that the human mind forms everything or anything for that matter. What I am proposing is that you have matter (particles, the brain), energy (waves, the human mind) and consciousness (an information field).

Define "information field".

nagirrac wrote: »

Consciousness is the computer that holds all the information which gives rise to energy which gives rise to matter. We have not yet discovered the nature of consciousness, all we see are its effects (Plato's cave).

We have no discovered the nature of consciousness, but you feel confident in proclaiming that it is the "computer that holds all the information which gives rise to energy which gives rise to matter"

Explain in detail how consciousness produces energy.

nagirrac wrote: »

The idea that mind and brain are separate came from the brilliant mind of Rene Descartes ("I think, therefore I am"), a 17th century mathematician, philosopher and scientist. He was so religious the pope banned his books and he was accused of being an atheist.

The idea that the mind and brain are separate did not come from Descartes. It is one of the old concepts in human history, explained by the fact that humans have evolved a brain to consider a persons mind independently to their body.

nagirrac wrote: »

I suspect I cannot help you anymore. I suggest you go to the www.closertotruth.com website, click on the Consciousness tab, and listen to interviews with absolutely the greatest minds alive today, people like Paul Davies, John Searle, Henry Stapp, David Chalmers and in particular Ray Kurzweil. You may want to crack open a beer as be prepared to have your mind blow a hole through the top of your skull.

How about we fast forward to the part where they detail how consciousness produces energy.

nagirrac wrote: »

In the meantime, let me propose a TOE for you. There is another universe separate to ours, one with a different set of physical laws to ours so we cannot detect it. It is far more advanced in terms of technology. A high school student completes his final year physics project and sets our universe in motion. We are a simulation running on a high school student's ipad. Perhaps he lost his ipad and we are stuck with all the imperfections of his programming which is why we may never solve some of the greatest mysteries of our universe.

You flip flop between proclaiming the most extra-ordinary things about the universe without any evidence, and then retreat the idea that we don't know much about the universe in order to justify why I can't prove you wrong.

You make the claim that consciousness produces energy. Can you back that up at all with anything other than the spiritual ramblings of some scientists?

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

Explain in detail what bit I'm not getting. Because I can explain in detail all the bits that are wrong about it.

The bit you are not getting is that the mind-brain does not operate by classical mechanics principles, it operates by quantum mechanics principles. Neurophysicists and evolutionary biologists only think in terms of classical mechanics, they are not considering what the implications are if the brain operates under quantum mechanics principles.

Go to the site I recommended, listen to the interview with Henry Stapp entitled "Is Consciousness entirely material" and then we can have a discussion in detail. If you reject out of hand what Stapp, Brian Flanagan and others are proposing then there's nothing to discuss.

The issue is the contrast between the classical world view and the quantum world view. If the quantum worldview is correct (and it has to be correct because the classical world is built from the quantum world) then it is consciousness (the psychological realm) asking the questions that determines the materialistic outcome.

"Once you accept that consciousness has a causal impact then you defeat materialism".

I don't know what consciousness is made of so there's no point asking me. Nobody else does either. All we know is it is a psychological process and classical mechanics does not explain it. It cannot come "from" the brain if the brain operates by quantum mechanical principles, quantum mechanics simply describes the potential for something happening not what actually happens.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

The bit you are not getting is that the mind-brain does not operate by classical mechanics principles, it operates by quantum mechanics principles. Neurophysicists and evolutionary biologists only think in terms of classical mechanics, they are not considering what the implications are if the brain operates under quantum mechanics principles.

Explain, in detail, what the implications are if the brain operates under quantum mechanics that neurophysicists and evolutionary biologists are not considering.

Micky Dolenz

The older I get, the less I believe.

If spirits could come back, there would be loads. Even if the only ones who came back were murdered or had unfinished business. Take WW II for example, millions and millions of people brutally murdered. A lot of these would have wanted revenge for the crimes caused against them, if they could.

Take a serial killer for example who has never been caught, why doesn't his victims come back and seek revenge?

Because they can't.

Myrddin

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

If spirits could come back, there would be loads. Even if the only ones who came back were murdered or had unfinished business. Take WW II for example, millions and millions of people brutally murdered. A lot of these would have wanted revenge for the crimes caused against them, if they could.

Take a serial killer for example who has never been caught, why doesn't his victims come back and seek revenge?

Because they can't.

Go one step further, if every single human that ever lived lives on after death, well if you go back to the origin of the species some 100k+ years ago...thats a lot of spirits.

You shouldn't be able to walk to the corner shop without seeing one.

EnterNow

EnterNow wrote: »

Go one step further, if every single human that ever lived lives on after death, well if you go back to the origin of the species some 100k+ years ago...thats a lot of spirits.

You shouldn't be able to walk to the corner shop without seeing one.

Imagine the amount of tables moving around if this were true

maccored

I wouldnt be a person that would believe spirits come back to haunt us all after death, but I would point out the trap of over simplification. Considering we have no notion of what goes on after death, you'd have to consider a non-zero possibility that there might be some kind of rules of governance in play that would determine just what spirits might be able to come back again and which cant. maybe it just plays out that a tiny, tiny percentage can. Maybe none can at all.

Myrddin

maccored wrote: »

I wouldnt be a person that would believe spirits come back to haunt us all after death, but I would point out the trap of over simplification. Considering we have no notion of what goes on after death, you'd have to consider a non-zero possibility that there might be some kind of rules of governance in play that would determine just what spirits might be able to come back again and which cant. maybe it just plays out that a tiny, tiny percentage can. Maybe none can at all.

Who would create such rules?
Who would enforce them?
Who decided on the rules?

Your right in that we just don't know, it just seems to me unlikely there would be such rules in place because rules are a man-made construct.

maccored

no offence, but considering things after death would happen after death then those are pretty silly questions to be asking. Rules would be the wrong word to use. Conditions may be a better one. Same time, its only a suggestion. Stick to the oversimplified ideas if you wish.

Myrddin

maccored wrote: »

no offence, but considering things after death would happen after death then those are pretty silly questions to be asking. Rules would be the wrong word to use. Conditions may be a better one. Same time, its only a suggestion. Stick to the oversimplified ideas if you wish.

Hey it was your word man, not mine. If you've no idea what happens after death, how is anyone elses opinion oversimplified? Given we're all ignorant about what happens after death, anything other than a simplified view would be conjecture would it not?

maccored

occams razor, the simplest explanation etc ... to a degree simplicity makes sense. Im trying to retain a level of proper skepticism though by viewing all angles.

TP1969

maccored wrote: »

occams razor, the simplest explanation etc ... to a degree simplicity makes sense. Im trying to retain a level of proper skepticism though by viewing all angles.

Of course, the danger of "viewing all angles" or keeping an open mind is that your brain might eventually fall out.

None of us can know for certain what happens when we die, but I think the evidence seems to suggest that death is an end, and unlikely to be a beginning. So horrified are we all about our own final end that we search for a glimmer somewhere that we are not going to die, and that death is not a final end.

The nice thing is this conversation can go on and on until one of us actually dies, and even after that those left behind still have no more knowledge or insight about what happens after death.

IRWolfie-

nagirrac wrote: »

The bit you are not getting is that the mind-brain does not operate by classical mechanics principles, it operates by quantum mechanics principles.

Asserting something is true is not the same as showing it to be true. The consensus opinion of physicists and biologists involved in the debate (yes physicists have addressed it too) is that there is no reason to think quantum mechanics is involved. There is no uptake of the idea by physicists. Philosophically, the implications of quantum conciousness are exactly the same as if it can be treated classically.

Now you can go and listen to some people claim otherwise and recommend it to others, but at the end of the day, when you make statements like:

nagirrac wrote:

What I am proposing is that you have matter (particles, the brain), energy (waves, the human mind) and consciousness (an information field).

I can see that you have no understanding of quantum mechanics, and appear to have a naive quantum mysticism type view of quantum mechanics. You do not appear to have the necessary prerequisites to judge the quality of their arguments. So why should I take anything you say seriously?


As an aside on your ability with the history of science:

magirrac 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.

The concept of a flat earth was never widely held in Europe in the last 20 centuries. Its basis is in legend not fact. There was no evidence for the earth being at the center of the universe; the issue was that it was assumed. On geocentrism, there was no evidence for geocentrism at the time, and Galileo's work was readily accepted by scientists once he made the case for heliocentrism. You also appear to forget that Newton's Laws are still completely and utterly valid in the areas for which the evidence has been gathered for it. Quantum mechanics has not overturned the use of Newto's laws which are perfectly good for describing the macroscopic world.

nagirrac

IRWolfie- wrote: »

I can see that you have no understanding of quantum mechanics, and appear to have a naive quantum mysticism type view of quantum mechanics. You do not appear to have the necessary prerequisites to judge the quality of their arguments. So why should I take anything you say seriously?

Of course I don't understand quantum mechanics and neither does Professor Henry Stapp. We should strip him of all his academic credentials, and hey why not burn him at the stake.. and while we are at it burn all those other scientists who have the cheek to speculate (whoops, that's most of them!).

Last time I checked this was the Paranormal forum, so if you don't mind I feel quite empowered to speculate. Nobody understands what quantum mechanics is telling us about our underlying reality, if they did we would not have 12 interpretations? If you understand it so well, then which one is the correct one, do you favor the Copenhagen Interpretation or the Many Worlds interpretation and why? In addition, nobody understand consciousness, consensus opinion is irrelevant given how little we actually know on the subject.

Based on your rant about the history of science you clearly have no clue as to how human knowledge evolved. The sun was thought to revolve around the earth because that's what the evidence demonstrated, anyone could look up at the sky and see the sun moving from one horizon to the other and reach that conclusion. What seems obvious from the available evidence today becomes not so obvious when our method of observation moves on and we uncover new evidence. That is the history of human knowledge including science.

Don't discount something because science has not yet developed the methodology to measure it.

IRWolfie-

nagirrac wrote: »

Of course I don't understand quantum mechanics and neither does Professor Henry Stapp.

Straw man. Don't try and confuse me pointing out your lack of ability with quantum mechanics with saying anything about Stapp. Stapp having credentials does not say anything about you. Your argument is a straw man, and an appeal to authority rolled together. If you are in fact claiming an understanding of quantum mechanics beyond a basic level, then demonstrate it.

nagirrac wrote:

Last time I checked this was the Paranormal forum, so if you don't mind I feel quite empowered to speculate

Last time I checked, this was the skeptics corner, so I hope you don't mind if I treat your claims skeptically.

nagirrac wrote:

Based on your rant about the history of science you clearly have no clue as to how human knowledge ...

I have shown your specific examples to be false, and thus I now question your basic scientific literacy. Your answer with its simplistic notions brings the Dunning-Kruger effect to mind.

nagirrac wrote:

Don't discount something because science has not yet developed the methodology to measure it.

You defeat your own argument. You claimed quantum mechanics is the answer to the question. If that is the answer you claim, then clearly science can explain it. But now you say science has not measured it. you are flip flopping. Is it "science has not yet developed the methodology to measure it", or quantum mechanics explains it. Pick one.

nagirrac

IRWolfie- wrote: »

Straw man.. Don't try and confuse me pointing out your lack of ability with quantum mechanics with saying anything about Stapp.. and an appeal to authority rolled together.

You defeat your own argument. You claimed quantum mechanics is the answer to the question. Is it "science has not yet developed the methodology to measure it", or quantum mechanics explains it. Pick one.

I am confident Quantum Mechanics, when we understand it fully, will help explain a whole lot that is currently not understood, including the source of consciousness and how our reality is part of a much broader underlying reality.

My point about Stapp is he agrees with me, rather I agree with him, as what he says makes perfect sense. Skeptics are notorious for accussing others of using the appeal to authority argument while of course making the ultimate appeal to authority themselves i.e. the consensus view of science.

You never answered my question, which of course is unsurprising, skeptics hate questions. Which interpretation of QM do you favor and why? Is the question too hard?

IRWolfie-

nagirrac wrote: »

I am confident Quantum Mechanics, when we understand it fully, will help explain a whole lot that is currently not understood, including the source of consciousness and how our reality is part of a much broader underlying reality.

"Broader underlying reality"? Your sentence says nothing.

nagirrac wrote:

My point about Stapp is he agrees with me, rather I agree with him, as what he says makes perfect sense.

And as I pointed out, you don't have the necessary prerequisites to judge its correctness; you don't know quantum mechanics.

nagirrac wrote:

You never answered my question, which of course is unsurprising, skeptics hate questions. Which interpretation of QM do you favor and why? Is the question too hard?

I didn't answer your question because as I mentioned, you don't know enough about quantum mechanics for us to have a meaningful discussion on the topic. I don't think any of the current interpretations are correct, and they all have major issues. These are merely interpretations and not the science itself. How is this in any way relevant to this discussion?

nagirrac

IRWolfie- wrote: »

I didn't answer your question because as I mentioned, you don't know enough about quantum mechanics for us to have a meaningful discussion on the topic. I don't think any of the current interpretations are correct, and they all have major issues. These are merely interpretations and not the science itself. How is this in any way relevant to this discussion?

I am sure you "know" more about quantum mechanics than I from a science standpoint, however that's not what is being discussed, we are discussing the implications of QM, not the science. By the way, basic QM is not that difficult, it is just counterintuitive to our normal way of thinking.

Yes, Newton's laws describe our macro world accurately. However we live in a quantum mechanical world, and our notion of reality based on our observed macro world is false. Our observed world appears classical to us because of decoherence, or at least that's the current thinking. I agree there is no reason to assume that the underlying rules of our universe should necessarily make any sense to us, so my comment regarding underlying reality is obviously philsosophical.. but that's who we humans are; inquisitive and we like to question. Except for the physicists that just keep their heads down and calculate of course

Until we have an agreed interpretation of QM, the debate is highly philosophical. There are interpretations of QM which consider the subjective observer, just as there are theories of mind which are based on quantum effects (Bohm, Penrose, Stapp). You don't like them, I like them, so what? Science cannot demonstrate either of us right or wrong at this point, you happen to be with the consensus view, but again, so what? If the history of science teaches us anything, it is that the consensus view is frequently overturned.

IRWolfie-

nagirrac wrote: »

By the way, basic QM is not that difficult, it is just counterintuitive to our normal way of thinking.

Unless by basic you mean a toy model like the Bohr model, then no, it's never basic.

nagirrac wrote:

... theories of mind which are based on quantum effects ...

See that magic word "theory" you used there. That means you think it is falsifiable. That also means the comparison to interpretations is invalid. Your argument largely consists of "We don't know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, therefore anything I say goes". Your comparison is nonsensical. The quantum conciousness brigade make statements about conciousness that are not similar to philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics; the comparison is erroneous.

nagirrac

IRWolfie- wrote: »

That also means the comparison to interpretations is invalid. Your argument largely consists of "We don't know which interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, therefore anything I say goes". Your comparison is nonsensical. The quantum conciousness brigade make statements about conciousness that are not similar to philosophical interpretations of quantum mechanics; the comparison is erroneous.

I'm beginning to think you don't understand quantum mechanics, or at least havn't studied it beyond undergraduate level.

All the work of the quantum consciousness brigade as you call them is based on variations of the von Neumann interpretation of QM. They all seek to link QM and the mind/body problem. Read Stapp's Mindful Universe and then we can continue the discussion. To claim the two are not linked is frankly hilarious.

IRWolfie-

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm beginning to think you don't understand quantum mechanics, or at least havn't studied it beyond undergraduate level.

My research area is theoretical atomic physics which involves the heavy use of quantum mechanics, what's your relevant qualification?

Have you ever thought, maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about because I've never studied quantum mechanics?

nagirrac

IRWolfie- wrote: »

My research area is theoretical atomic physics which involves the heavy use of quantum mechanics, what's your relevant qualification?

Have you ever thought, maybe I'm wrong? Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about because I've never studied quantum mechanics?

I'm a grad level chemist, but so what. I have studied quantum mechanics, not to your level academically obviously, but your academic credentials do not imply anything about a correct interpretation of QM.

Of course I accept I could be wrong, I am open minded. Have you ever thought you could be wrong? Its not like its settled science. Are you denying that Stapp and other physicists who propose a quantum basis for consciousness are basing it on variations of the von Neumann interpretation? Of course they could be wrong. Everyone could be wrong, many of the QM interpretations like dBB and many worlds suggest there is no collapse of the wave function, the interpretations are all over the map.

The fundamental question is how does our observed reality emerge from the microscopic quantum world, and the answer is, nobody really knows. Sorry for the snippy comment but your argument is becoming an argument form authority which you criticize in others.

IRWolfie-

nagirrac wrote:

Of course I accept I could be wrong, I am open minded. Have you ever thought you could be wrong? Its not like its settled science.

Interpretations aren't settled, aspects of using quantum mechanics aren't settled.

Chlorophyll is a very interesting case where there are actual solid theoretical models supporting quantum effects being important, but it still is in discussion.

What you may not be aware of is that Penrose (who you mentioned by name) and Hameroff's arguments are not based from any interpretation, but from postulating that microtubules play the quantum roll etc.

nagirrac wrote:

Sorry for the snippy comment but your argument is becoming an argument form authority which you criticize in others.

Sorry for giving that appearance.

Zombrex

nagirrac wrote: »

I'm a grad level chemist, but so what. I have studied quantum mechanics, not to your level academically obviously, but your academic credentials do not imply anything about a correct interpretation of QM.

Of course I accept I could be wrong, I am open minded. Have you ever thought you could be wrong?

You are wrong.

The big question is what would make you see that you are wrong, because you have been posting this nonsense for months and ignoring everyone with a much better understanding of QM than you (and I'm happy not to include myself in that set if you like), you keeps telling you that you are wrong.

You take QM and then invent these "implications", implications that only you seem to think are implications, and then when pressed to support this say that they are only implications and you don't have to support this (how convenient) or you say that no one understands QM so no one can tell you that you are wrong (how convenient)

You state things like this on one hand (normally when you are being pressured to support your claims)

Nobody understands what quantum mechanics is telling us about our underlying reality

and then moments later state things like this

I am confident Quantum Mechanics, when we understand it fully, will help explain a whole lot that is currently not understood, including the source of consciousness and how our reality is part of a much broader underlying reality.

So no one understands what QM is telling us but some how you are confident that it is going to explain the human mind.

And again when you are pressed you retreat to saying you are just speculating.

If you are just making stuff up that is fine, but don't also pretend that what you are making up is supported by Quantum Mechanics, or is the "implication" of Quantum Mechanics.

nagirrac

Zombrex wrote: »

If you are just making stuff up that is fine, but don't also pretend that what you are making up is supported by Quantum Mechanics, or is the "implication" of Quantum Mechanics.

You obviously neither have a clue about the science of quantum mechanics nor its interpretations. I have no interest in trying to educate you on either, as I don't have the time on my hands and frankly I don't think you would ever get it. Try and educate yourself though.. and maybe go for a walk and relieve the angry athiest.

IRWolfie-

nagirrac wrote: »

You obviously neither have a clue about the science of quantum mechanics nor ...

Pure ad hominem which you used to ignore what Zombrex actually said, and remarkably similar to what you said to me. Attack the argument, not the man.

nagirrac

IRWolfie- wrote: »

Pure ad hominem which you used to ignore what Zombrex actually said, and remarkably similar to what you said to me. Attack the argument, not the man.

What are you talking about, I have been attacked consistently by Zombrex since I started posting on boards. I guess athiests like to stick together:(.

If Zombrex or yourself are interested in a discussion or argument about the interpretations of QM, let's have it. I doubt we will hear much from Zombrex as he typically runs away when challenged with anything technical.

This is my position which I have consistently stated in these types of discussions:

1. QM describes mathematically how the subatomic world behaves. It describes how an isolated subatomic system evolves until a measurement of some physical property is made.

2. QM experiments such as the various double slit experiments suggest very weird behavior at the subatomic level which is non intuitive to our classical way of thinking.

3. There is no agreed interpretation of QM. There are interpretations that involve wave function collapse and interpretations that involve no wave function collapse. There are interpretations that say observation is involved in wave function collapse and interpretations that disagree.

4. There are interpretations of QM that involve the role of a conscious observer (von Neumann and variations on von Neumann).

5. One can choose to ignore the philosophical implications of QM (keep your head down and calculate) or consider them. Once you decide to consider them, you cannot avoid the mind-body question.

I am in the camp of the quantum brain brigade as IR Wolfie calls them. I believe that consciousness is the interface between the observed system and the observing system. Evidence for this theory for me is that conscious intentions (thought) can effect the activities of the brain, in fact even result in "rewiring" of the brain. This to me is a result of consciousness being an interface between observer and observed.

Fire away.