Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Scientific evidence of "spirits"

ghost spirit paranormal evidence skeptical

  • Please log in to reply
127 replies to this topic

#91    SpiritWriter

SpiritWriter

  • Member
  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:on the ground

  • The greatest story ever told is Your story.

Posted 23 September 2012 - 08:57 PM

View PostProfessor T, on 10 September 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

If you consider that an Aura of energy is proof of the existence of spirit, then science has already discovered it.
The tip of this leaf was cut off prior to having it's aura photographed, yet the outline of the cut tip of the leaf is still there.

Posted Image

but are there photographs of this aura, for a form that is no longer there? I thought they had ghost detector gadgets out there... But I don't really know about that stuff. I just heard they Ghost hunters use gadgets. I wonder what their gadgets are, what they detect, measure etc...

The letter kills but The Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one sided and thus unsuited to express the incomprehensible. -Jung

#92    SpiritWriter

SpiritWriter

  • Member
  • 3,653 posts
  • Joined:21 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:on the ground

  • The greatest story ever told is Your story.

Posted 23 September 2012 - 09:00 PM

I wonder why skeptics don't consider the countless visual testimonies of witnesses as evidence. I mean other scientific measurements, photographs, captures of gas or other emissions would be great, but I feel that the verbal testimony is completely ignored (by some).

The letter kills but The Spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6

Non-ambiguity and non-contradiction are one sided and thus unsuited to express the incomprehensible. -Jung

#93    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,531 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 23 September 2012 - 09:10 PM

View PostSpiritWriter, on 23 September 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I wonder why skeptics don't consider the countless visual testimonies of witnesses as evidence. I mean other scientific measurements, photographs, captures of gas or other emissions would be great, but I feel that the verbal testimony is completely ignored (by some).

Simple. Personal testimony is not, and has never been accepted as scientific evidence. Even the slightest bit of research into the areas of perception and other such mental processes will show you that we have a solid scientific understanding of just how drastically our brains can fool us. Mixing "personal experience" up with "empirical evidence" is one short cut back to the scientific dark ages.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#94    Professor T

Professor T

    Λ Ο Δ, 2222

  • Member
  • 2,453 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • I'm not really a Professor so don't take my words as Gospel

Posted 23 September 2012 - 10:38 PM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 23 September 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

I have been asking for examples of this for several pages now. And yes - I am denying that science is discovering "undenyable truths" to what I call paranormal rubbish.

Prove me wrong.
I've done my limited bit of research into this.
A ten minute google on your part would be better for you. (take a leap of faith.)
To be honest I do not care that people like yourself deny these kind of things, you are welcom to your beliefs, and i enjoy reading the rebuttles and poking my nose in from time to time. Ultimately, like I said earlier, IMO this debate comes down to faith in science versus faith in anient old world beliefs. Your faith is your problem, not mine. & my faith is my problem, not yours..


#95    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,200 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:44 AM

View PostRlyeh, on 23 September 2012 - 04:05 PM, said:

Not if you consider various theories such as the string or M-theory. Time and space are made up of "stuff".
Your grasping my friend, strings must have a behavior aswell. If everything is made out of them what allows them to vibrate in 10 dimensions? Oh... Ok they just do.

How do think we can have a theory using maths to describe how strings behavior if they are not following immaterial rules?

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 12:46 AM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#96    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 12:56 AM

Again, on this silly business of laws-universe or universe-laws, I think it's a false dichotomy. Why do M-Theory 'strings' for instance need to have some set of immaterial laws which govern them? Why cannot the object and its behavior, at least in some cases, be one-in-the-same? Why must we presume that the universe has "laws" which govern the behavior of things within it? Is it not equally-valid to presume that the universe simply has intrinsic properties, which govern the behavior of things within it? To me, the question of "which came first, the universe or the laws" is nonsensical; given that one cannot exist without the other, logic dictates that they must be taken as a whole unit. The universe does not exist without the laws, the laws do not exist without the universe; ergo, they are a single object. The universe simply behaves in certain ways. And based on modern cosmological theories, those behaviors might exist in their present state due to having gradually evolved, having be born from ancestor universes with subtly different behaviors. I don't know... But it's an interesting hypothesis. In any case, I just think all this bickering about universe .vs. laws has to stop; it's absurd. The universe and its laws are indistinguishable.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#97    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,200 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 24 September 2012 - 01:51 AM

View PostArbitran, on 24 September 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

Is it not equally-valid to presume that the universe simply has intrinsic properties, which govern the behavior
The arrival  of "intrinsic properties" would be govern by another set of rules. There obviously is a set of fundamental rules. The question is weather they are material or immaterial in origins. Materialists have to live with a dogma that fundamental reality is based on "things". This is a failed axiom.

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 01:52 AM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#98    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,200 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:02 AM

Let's consider the speed of light.

What limits the speed of light to C.

Conductivity of space.

supposedly a virtual particle hands the information off to on other, that there is a photon there. So on and so on. Wel, obviously there is certain amount of time it takes to do this. This limit of the ability of virtual particles gives us c.

C has nothing to do with light. The law of C has nothing to do with Light. Light simply must obey.

Now, why is there this limit of virtual particles, why can't they hand off any faster?

I don't know ( not sure anyone one does).

Isn't it funny that virtual particles act in the same capacity as nurons do? Passing of information. Just saying.

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 02:04 AM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#99    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:04 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

The arrival  of "intrinsic properties" would be govern by another set of rules. There obviously is a set of fundamental rules. The question is weather they are material or immaterial in origins. Materialists have to live with a dogma that fundamental reality is based on "things". This is a failed axiom.

Why would intrinsic properties be required to "arrive" in the first place? Given they would be, by definition, intrinsic properties, the suggestion of an "arrival" is just ridiculous. The laws of the universe are simply principles which govern the objects within the universe; the suggestion of some "force" or "immaterial" law which acts above these very simple properties simply isn't necessary.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#100    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,200 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:07 AM

View PostArbitran, on 24 September 2012 - 02:04 AM, said:

The laws of the universe are simply principles which govern the objects within the universe.

See there, you said it. They are just principals they are just there. they govern matter but are not matter. That is immaterial my friend.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#101    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:09 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 02:02 AM, said:

Let's consider the speed of light.

What limits the speed of light to C.

Conductivity of space.

supposedly a virtual particle hands the information off to on other, that there is a photon there. So on and so on. Wel, obviously there is certain amount of time it takes to do this. This limit of the ability of virtual particles gives us c.

C has nothing to do with light. The law of C has nothing to do with Light. Light simply must obey.

Now, why is there this limit of virtual particles, why can't they hand off any faster?

I don't know ( not sure anyone one does).

Isn't it funny that virtual particles act in the same capacity as nurons do? Passing of information. Just saying.

Well, I'm no physicist, but I believe what you're referring to is Planck's time. An instant of time so infinitesimal that any duration smaller ceases to correspond to the definition of "time". I don't know... it all gets rather difficult to say after one reaches a certain depth to all this. But in any case, I've already said, that I am particularly intrigued by the theory that c is c due to having "mutated" and "evolved", as it were, from the physical laws of ancestor universes.

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#102    Arbitran

Arbitran

    Post-Singularitan Hyperturing Synthetic Intelligence

  • Member
  • 2,767 posts
  • Joined:13 Jan 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:10 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 02:07 AM, said:

See there, you said it. They are just principals they are just there. they govern matter but are not matter. That is immaterial my friend.

Who said that we need to speaking strictly of matter? Why not energy? Why not space-time manifolds? Well, when one brings space-time manifolds in the discussion, then we find the probable object of the physical laws. Tell me, is the universe itself non-physical?

Try to realize it's all within yourself / No-one else can make you change / And to see you're really only very small / And life flows on within you and without you. / We were talking about the love that's gone so cold and the people / Who gain the world and lose their soul / They don't know they can't see are you one of them? / When you've seen beyond yourself then you may find peace of mind / Is waiting there / And the time will come / when you see we're all one and life flows on within you and without you. ~ George Harrison

#103    White Crane Feather

White Crane Feather

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 11,200 posts
  • Joined:12 Jul 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

  • Potter: " is this real or is this in my mind?"

    Dumbledore: " Of course it's in your mind....., but that dosn't mean it's not real."

Posted 24 September 2012 - 02:20 AM

View PostArbitran, on 24 September 2012 - 02:10 AM, said:



Who said that we need to speaking strictly of matter? Why not energy? Why not space-time manifolds? Well, when one brings space-time manifolds in the discussion, then we find the probable object of the physical laws. Tell me, is the universe itself non-physical?
Matter/energy.... Same thing.

I believe "physical" is merely a representation of deeper realities. If these realities could be illuminated, determinists will simply insist on changing the definition of "physical" when in fact the term should have been dropped a long time ago. " Materialism" should have been dropped a long time ago aswell, as we are discovering more fundamental reality acts more like a symphony rather than a pool table.




I love Kaku, but here he also shows a troubleing habit of scientists to invent things to make the math in their theories work.

Edited by Seeker79, 24 September 2012 - 02:30 AM.

"I wish neither to possess, Nor to be possessed. I no longer covet paradise, more important, I no longer fear hell. The medicine for my suffering I had within me from the very beginning, but I did not take it. My ailment came from within myself, But I did not observe it until this moment. Now I see that I will never find the light.  Unless, like the candle, I am my own fuel, Consuming myself. "
Bruce Lee-

#104    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,127 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:20 AM

View PostSeeker79, on 24 September 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

The arrival  of "intrinsic properties" would be govern by another set of rules. There obviously is a set of fundamental rules. The question is weather they are material or immaterial in origins. Materialists have to live with a dogma that fundamental reality is based on "things". This is a failed axiom.
And immaterialists have to rely on faulty logic, as you have demonstrated. Materialists can at least support their view without invoking magical thinking and pseudo science.

Edited by Rlyeh, 24 September 2012 - 05:31 AM.


#105    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,127 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 24 September 2012 - 05:24 AM

View PostSpiritWriter, on 23 September 2012 - 09:00 PM, said:

I wonder why skeptics don't consider the countless visual testimonies of witnesses as evidence. I mean other scientific measurements, photographs, captures of gas or other emissions would be great, but I feel that the verbal testimony is completely ignored (by some).
Exactly, just look at the amount of witnesses who saw a leprechaun in a tree.








Also tagged with ghost, spirit, paranormal, evidence, skeptical

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users