Possible Reason's For Ghost

[Aroundthecorner]

Our minds are wonderful things, they have given us a really good imagination full of fears loves lights and darkness. 

[preacherman76]

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Seems to me blind believers always say something like that when their ideas are illustrated to be unworkable. 
 

First, thank you for actually responding instead of just hitting the laugh emoji like a 10 year old middle school kid like others here seem to think is an appropriate response. 
 

What is it about me that would make you think I’m a blind believer? I’ve never expressed a solid belief when it comes to these matters, let alone a blind belief. 
 

Nothing in those links makes any idea unworkable. In fact they all start out with the assumption that the paranormal can’t be real. In other words they have reached conclusions without examining anything but what they want to believe. While some of them had some interesting information, I’d hardly call them scientific. Without in-depth information from both sides, or even many sides, all you have here is opinions. 

 

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Rubbish. 

No scientists on earth have anything more to work with other than anecdotes so they look further. Thermodynamics is a classic example of physics refuting the cultural ideas that suggest the existence of ghosts. Several physicists have indeed explained how physics refutes the notion of an afterlife and his thermodynamics refutes the idea of the classical ghost. The AWARE project looks specifically into NDEs and nobody is laughing at them. 
 

NDE’s as looked at at face value is seriously frowned upon. I watched a video you posted a while back, and the guy dismissed the idea outright because one doctor who had an experience wrote a book. From that he concluded all NDE’s are money making scams. Completely dismissed the millions of others who there isn’t a obvious motive at all. 
 

That’s all I have time for right now. I’ll be back later

10 hours ago, psyche101 said:

Because you limit your understanding deliberately to cultural ideologies. You don't question if 2+2=4 but you question basic physics that give the same level of validity. 

Depends on if a person thinks this life has bearing in the next or not. Some extremists who believed that flew planes into buildings. 

That because cultural ideology has polluted your mode of thinking. Science is observation. Things we can repeatedly watch or demand to happen. That is only answers. Theory and hypotheses are more what you are really referring to here. Science doesn't preempt facts. It can suggest them, as it did with the Higgs, but even the Higgs, as likely as it was to exist, was not fact until proven. 

Whilst that's not hard to believe, we can know by observation. Saying we cannot is untrue and defeatist. 

 

[XenoFish]

When you get back follow the intended purpose of this thread. 

[psyche101]

13 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

First, thank you for actually responding instead of just hitting the laugh emoji like a 10 year old middle school kid like others here seem to think is an appropriate response. 

I respect your view. I do not agree with you often, but you strike me as a pretty decent bloke. 

Quote

What is it about me that would make you think I’m a blind believer? I’ve never expressed a solid belief when it comes to these matters, let alone a blind belief. 
 

Not you, PG and Walker, unless you agree with those charlatans? 

I don't think they have done anything to dismiss the links, and those two would have the least credibility on UM. Reality is not being dismissed in any of those links, I object to both their frivolous empty claims based in superstition and imagination.

Quote

Nothing in those links makes any idea unworkable. In fact they all start out with the assumption that the paranormal can’t be real. In other words they have reached conclusions without examining anything but what they want to believe. While some of them had some interesting information, I’d hardly call them scientific. Without in-depth information from both sides, or even many sides, all you have here is opinions. 

They offer other realistic possibilities, which seems a good idea as they are education based links, and physics refutes the existance of any classical ghost. What Walker is saying is that there are probably other reasons for things we call ghosts, but may not actually be an afterlife representation as per classical superstitions. 

The information to refute the ghost idea is in physics. It's not new, it's just avoided. 

Quote

NDE’s as looked at at face value is seriously frowned upon.

That's not true.

And here is a paper to prove the point 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25301715/

Quote

I watched a video you posted a while back, and the guy dismissed the idea outright because one doctor who had an experience wrote a book. From that he concluded all NDE’s are money making scams.

But you only watched the first few minutes. 

That's why you have it all wrong.

And that's not unusual. Afterlife proponents fear that video. I don't know of a single on here at UM that has managed to make it past the first ten minutes. 

It's damning of the afterlife and it's information is irrefutable. That alone closes ears immediately. Nobody wants to learn that the afterlife does not exist. It's a human fantasy, like the fountain of youth. 

What you are remembering is when Sean Carroll had a light hearted jibe at Eben Alexander and his rather silly claims. That consisted about 30 seconds of the 45 minute presentation. 

So like all others, as soon as it got serious you found a reason to turn it of and dismiss it.

It's dead set disheartening to find how many truly fear that knowledge.

Quote

Completely dismissed the millions of others who there isn’t a obvious motive at all. 

What about the solid science used to illustrate that those millions are driven to a cultural conclusion as opposed to an evidence based one?

Is science dismissable based on anecdotes? 

Quote

That’s all I have time for right now. I’ll be back later

 

Edited October 20, 2020 by psyche101

[OpeningThe Veil]

Most scientists now agree that energy cannot be destroyed. So what happens to human energy after the physical  body dies?

[psyche101]

3 hours ago, OpeningThe Veil said:

Most scientists now agree that energy cannot be destroyed. So what happens to human energy after the physical  body dies?

It disappates as heat via thermodynamics 

[Mr Walker]

On 10/20/2020 at 1:12 PM, psyche101 said:

I respect your view. I do not agree with you often, but you strike me as a pretty decent bloke. 

Not you, PG and Walker, unless you agree with those charlatans? 

I don't think they have done anything to dismiss the links, and those two would have the least credibility on UM. Reality is not being dismissed in any of those links, I object to both their frivolous empty claims based in superstition and imagination.

They offer other realistic possibilities, which seems a good idea as they are education based links, and physics refutes the existance of any classical ghost. What Walker is saying is that there are probably other reasons for things we call ghosts, but may not actually be an afterlife representation as per classical superstitions. 

The information to refute the ghost idea is in physics. It's not new, it's just avoided. 

That's not true.

And here is a paper to prove the point 

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25301715/

But you only watched the first few minutes. 

That's why you have it all wrong.

And that's not unusual. Afterlife proponents fear that video. I don't know of a single on here at UM that has managed to make it past the first ten minutes. 

It's damning of the afterlife and it's information is irrefutable. That alone closes ears immediately. Nobody wants to learn that the afterlife does not exist. It's a human fantasy, like the fountain of youth. 

What you are remembering is when Sean Carroll had a light hearted jibe at Eben Alexander and his rather silly claims. That consisted about 30 seconds of the 45 minute presentation. 

So like all others, as soon as it got serious you found a reason to turn it of and dismiss it.

It's dead set disheartening to find how many truly fear that knowledge.

What about the solid science used to illustrate that those millions are driven to a cultural conclusion as opposed to an evidence based one?

Is science dismissable based on anecdotes? 

what if the "afterlife " is a reconstruction of your body and mind, using science  rather than mysticism? 

How will you argue against the possibility of an after life when human science has made it possible.

Ie you die and remain dead for some time, but then your body and memories are recreated by science, from stored data,  and you  live again 

Edited October 22, 2020 by Mr Walker

[the13bats]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

what if the "afterlife " is a reconstruction of your body and mind, using science  rather than mysticism? 

How will you argue against the possibility of an after life when human science has made it possible.

Ie you die and remain dead for some time, but then your body and memories are recreated by science, from stored data,  and you  live again 

That would be kind of like the movie 6th day with clones, the recorded memories stop with the death of the brain so that lapse of from dead to implating stored memories up to moment of death would be void but now that downloaded saved and uploaded mr walker would be 100% the dead one it would be starting from upload point making its own choices, only based on implanted uploaded memories.

Its great sci fi that might some day be a scary reality but its not at all the same as you die spirit leaves your body to photobomb ghost hunters as orbs.

An afterlife would basically have all the same issues and concerns as life.

[openozy]

I don't believe there is a reason for ghosts,they are just glimpses of the past and we can't erase that.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, the13bats said:

That would be kind of like the movie 6th day with clones, the recorded memories stop with the death of the brain so that lapse of from dead to implating stored memories up to moment of death would be void but now that downloaded saved and uploaded mr walker would be 100% the dead one it would be starting from upload point making its own choices, only based on implanted uploaded memories.

Its great sci fi that might some day be a scary reality but its not at all the same as you die spirit leaves your body to photobomb ghost hunters as orbs.

An afterlife would basically have all the same issues and concerns as life.

And as is typical, it's nothing to do with the discussion at hand. 

[the13bats]

15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

And as is typical, it's nothing to do with the discussion at hand. 

Me or him, i was just replying bored.

[psyche101]

56 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Me or him, i was just replying bored.

Him. 

The classical notion of an afterlife was being discussed. Not some technological possibility. The two have nothing to do with each other. It's like he tries to rationalise superstition with extrapolated future possibilities. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, openozy said:

I don't believe there is a reason for ghosts,they are just glimpses of the past and we can't erase that.

That sound romantic but hardly practical or believable.

[the13bats]

15 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Him. 

The classical notion of an afterlife was being discussed. Not some technological possibility. The two have nothing to do with each other. It's like he tries to rationalise superstition with extrapolated future possibilities. 

He has found new and better ways to save face ( in his mind ).

im still waiting for his proof a ghost lives in his house.

14 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That sound romantic but hardly practical or believable.

Idk, i tend to believe something like stone tape theory might be possible to explain why some alleged haunted spots have the same scene replayed enless loop style, it would take everything lined up just right for the right person to see it, but it has its holes and flaws,

I like it better than trying to claim ghosts, haunts, etc are any type of autonomous entity,  i just dont believe that tripe, i find it make believe like santa, which some kids are sure exists because they know he is real theyve seen him, sounds like ghost believers, huh?

 its even more plausible to say everyone making paranormal claims is making up stuff or mental.

[ChrLzs]

On 10/2/2020 at 3:45 AM, MstrMsn said:

Over the course of human history, particularly regarding science - how many times has something that has been outright dismissed, for a lack of credible scientific evidence, later been proven through the development of better tech? 

Certainly it's happened, but can you give an example that is a useful analogy to what we are discussing here?  I suspect if you look at the history and context of such happenings, they will not be even remotely comparable.

But by all means, bring your best example...

 

[openozy]

17 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That sound romantic but hardly practical or believable.

Well I'm just a romantic kind of guy,lol.So you have never seen something like what people call ghosts 101?If not you are in a very tiny minority.I know you like to have a rational answer for everything but come on.

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, the13bats said:

That would be kind of like the movie 6th day with clones, the recorded memories stop with the death of the brain so that lapse of from dead to implating stored memories up to moment of death would be void but now that downloaded saved and uploaded mr walker would be 100% the dead one it would be starting from upload point making its own choices, only based on implanted uploaded memories.

Its great sci fi that might some day be a scary reality but its not at all the same as you die spirit leaves your body to photobomb ghost hunters as orbs.

An afterlife would basically have all the same issues and concerns as life.

Indeed modern science is already tinkering with the basics required to do this.

Some top scientists, including some working for Darpa,  claim that children born today will potentially be immortal, and many others see this coming within this century.

  Human cloning is already with us, and only needs some work around the edges to perfect.

Copying of our minds memories etc is a little more difficult, but scientists in Europe and america have been working on some different models since the 1960s and believe they are close to achievng it 

Basically, like genome sequencing, increased computer speeds will make it practical 

once the neurology of a human mind is understood, it can be replicated /loaded into advanced artificial intelligences/computers.  it can then be  reloaded into a different   human brain

The thing holding it back ATM is the power and speed of computers, and the lack of a true independent artificial intelligence on par with a human being 

Thats predicted to be achieved before 2050, and quite possibly before 2030 

indeed its not the same But the evidences of my life lead me to suspect it is already occurring using an advanced alien intelligence /computing system

As stated, i dont think ghosts are anything as simple/mystical or magical, as natural unbound spirits. I don't think the y are religious or supernatural.  I suspect they are recordings of some form,  or even a form of virtual reality glitch  Some seem preprogrammed to repetitive behaviour, while others seem aware and able to make choices about how the y behave. Some recognise and respond  to human presences, while others do not. 

 

[Mr Walker]

32 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Him. 

The classical notion of an afterlife was being discussed. Not some technological possibility. The two have nothing to do with each other. It's like he tries to rationalise superstition with extrapolated future possibilities. 

The after life was being discussed. not everyone agrees on what, if any, form an afterlife will take  

if it is real and happens then it has a natural and scientifically discoverable explanation. 

ghosts are real Thus they are not simply superstition, although human beliefs and superstitions may influence how we perceive and understand a ghost.

  If i see a ghost my first thought is of holographic projection or virtual reality, not magic or spiritual religious  forms.

People in the past didn't have tha t sort of option in their thinking, and so HAD to construct their beliefs/understandings  about ghosts, on their wider  beliefs/understandings, and the available  science of their times 

[the13bats]

5 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Indeed modern science is already tinkering with the basics required to do this.

Some top scientists, including some working for Darpa,  claim that children born today will potentially be immortal, and many others see this coming within this century.

  Human cloning is already with us, and only needs some work around the edges to perfect.

Copying of our minds memories etc is a little more difficult, but scientists in Europe and america have been working on some different models since the 1960s and believe they are close to achievng it 

Basically, like genome sequencing, increased computer speeds will make it practical 

once the neurology of a human mind is understood, it can be replicated /loaded into advanced artificial intelligences/computers.  it can then be  reloaded into a different   human brain

The thing holding it back ATM is the power and speed of computers, and the lack of a true independent artificial intelligence on par with a human being 

Thats predicted to be achieved before 2050, and quite possibly before 2030 

indeed its not the same But the evidences of my life lead me to suspect it is already occurring using an advanced alien intelligence /computing system

As stated, i dont think ghosts are anything as simple/mystical or magical, as natural unbound spirits. I don't think the y are religious or supernatural.  I suspect they are recordings of some form,  or even a form of virtual reality glitch  Some seem preprogrammed to repetitive behaviour, while others seem aware and able to make choices about how the y behave. Some recognise and respond  to human presences, while others do not. 

 

Its a shame that all you have are beliefs and stories zero proof of any of it.

Its always the same symptom though guys like you always think you are a little more special than the rest of the heard.

[psyche101]

18 minutes ago, the13bats said:

He has found new and better ways to save face ( in his mind ).

im still waiting for his proof a ghost lives in his house.

I agree, it's not an answer in any way shape or form. It's just deviating from the subject. 

Good luck, last discussion I had, he tried to tell me eBay sales pitches override dictionary definitions. I'm done after that incredible silliness. 

18 minutes ago, the13bats said:

Idk, i tend to believe something like stone tape theory might be possible to explain why some alleged haunted spots have the same scene replayed enless loop style, it would take everything lined up just right for the right person to see it, but it has its holes and flaws,

I like it better than trying to claim ghosts, haunts, etc are any type of autonomous entity,  i just dont believe that tripe, i find it make believe like santa, which some kids are sure exists because they know he is real theyve seen him, sounds like ghost believers, huh?

 its even more plausible to say everyone making paranormal claims is making up stuff or mental.

Energy impressions? 

I don't see how that's logical or viable. Especially as a hologram style recording. That's a lot of power required to consider that process. More than any human generates in a lifetime. 

[the13bats]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

ghosts are real

Prove it.

[the13bats]

3 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Energy impressions? 

I don't see how that's logical or viable. Especially as a hologram style recording. That's a lot of power required to consider that process. More than any human generates in a lifetime

As i said its full of holes and flaws i find it more fun that serious.

[Mr Walker]

21 minutes ago, the13bats said:

He has found new and better ways to save face ( in his mind ).

im still waiting for his proof a ghost lives in his house.

Idk, i tend to believe something like stone tape theory might be possible to explain why some alleged haunted spots have the same scene replayed enless loop style, it would take everything lined up just right for the right person to see it, but it has its holes and flaws,

I like it better than trying to claim ghosts, haunts, etc are any type of autonomous entity,  i just dont believe that tripe, i find it make believe like santa, which some kids are sure exists because they know he is real theyve seen him, sounds like ghost believers, huh?

 its even more plausible to say everyone making paranormal claims is making up stuff or mental.

You wont get proof of a ghost living in our house, given that it burned to the ground 15 years ago  

you are speaking of your  belief/disbelief, not the truth/reality.

You are able to disbelieve because you weren't there. I know a ghost lived there, for the same reasons i know my wife was there ie, as well as myself,  other  people could see and hear her .

Plausible is what you are willing to believe.  What you a re willing to believe depends on your own experiences and also on your form of logical thinking.

Total disbelief requires refusing to accept the millions of encounters people claim to have had with ghosts as being with real independent entities  Some of these encounters are very simple and some very complex. Some encounters are  with ghosts which hang around for decades haunting a place or an object   and are encountered by dozens of people over that time period  Some ghosts do repsond to human presence Others do not 

[psyche101]

15 minutes ago, openozy said:

Well I'm just a romantic kind of guy,lol.So you have never seen something like what people call ghosts 101?If not you are in a very tiny minority.I know you like to have a rational answer for everything but come on.

Nope. I have looked I'm earnest too when my father passed on. It's what lead me to really look into the idea, how it came about, and how valid it was. Humans have left a fairly decent record to follow on this subject. I find one can see the evolution of the myth as many cultures played with it over the centuries. 

What I can't find is any good reason to believe it's more than human wanting personified. It's clearly a rehashed old idea that has been revised to seem more viable as people started to question it. 

A genuine earnest in depth search (I think it was about 5 years of personal digging) revealed that the sciences paint a very different picture to philosophers. The sciences are supported, philosophies are often just a wild thought. That's what research teaches me in this case. 

Have you ever had something inspire you to look at the idea in great depth and detail? 

[psyche101]

9 minutes ago, the13bats said:

As i said its full of holes and flaws i find it more fun that serious.

Indeed. 

Personally time intrigues me in that sense. It's so full of paradoxes. You think you're into something, and then you go,hey that shouldn't be there.....