Proof that ghosts don't exist

[spacetype]

How could one go about proving that ghosts do not exist?

Seems like we could make some basic assumptions about what ghosts are, and proceed to prove that that particular 'brand' of ghost cannot exist.

Any ideas?

[Ivan Seeking]

We can't prove a general negative. We can only offer evidence of an explaination for specific claims, or for specific types of claims.

[Natr0n]

Furthermore, it's not really your job to prove that they don't exist. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence and construct a "proof" of the existence of ghosts.

[Ivan Seeking]

Furthermore, it's not really your job to prove that they don't exist. It's up to the person making the claim to provide evidence and construct a "proof" of the existence of ghosts.

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how? My wife and I had some unsual experiences, but that doesn't mean that I know what it was or how to explain it. There is a difference between reporting an observation and claiming to have an explanation for it. Likewise, a claim of an observation or experience only counts as anecdotal evidence for whatever is claimed.

[whybother]

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how? My wife and I had some unsual experiences, but that doesn't mean that I know what it was or how to explain it. There is a difference between reporting an observation and claiming to have an explanation for it. Likewise, a claim of an observation or experience only counts as anecdotal evidence for whatever is claimed.

But making a claim to 'have seen a ghost' isn't providing a report, it's trying to provide an explanation. If someone claims to have seen a ghost, they should give evidence to why it was "a ghost" and not just something that seemed mysterious.

[Ivan Seeking]

The word "ghost" carries with it certain ideas about what we mean, but you are right in that the person making the claim should report exactly what was observed without adding any interpretations of what it might be. In fact that is part of what we like to do here: Make the distinction between evidence [be it anecdotal, scientific, or otherwise], and interpretations of that evidence.

[spacetype]

The word "ghost" carries with it certain ideas about what we mean....

Yes. I was thinking about something like the commonly thought 'characteristics' of ghosts and if it could be shown that such a thing cannot exist. Characteristics such as:
a. they can go through walls,
b. they possess intelligence,
c. they can move things,
d. they appear as 'foggy-looking' see-through-type beings,
e. etc. (Not sure if I'm forgetting something....)

Could it be shown that a 'being' with these characteristics cannot exist?

[spacetype]

We can't prove a general negative. We can only offer evidence of an explaination for specific claims, or for specific types of claims.


Maybe 'proof' is a bit strong. I guess what I'm asking is if we can make a strong argument against the existence of ghosts, and how we might construct such an argument.

Sorry to double post.

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes. I was thinking about something like the commonly thought 'characteristics' of ghosts and if it could be shown that such a thing cannot exist. Characteristics such as:
a. they can go through walls,
b. they possess intelligence,
c. they can move things,
d. they appear as 'foggy-looking' see-through-type beings,
e. etc. (Not sure if I'm forgetting something....)

Could it be shown that a 'being' with these characteristics cannot exist?

I think it fair to say that there is no accepted scientific evidence that ghosts, as suggested, exist. Given that, we have no explanation for what "ghosts" may be if they do exist. So already we can say that there is no known explanation for what people report. We could assume some model for ghosts and show that such a model would violate the laws of physics, but we would be working on assumptions, so the respective conclusions wouldn't mean anything except within the context of the assumptions made for the "ghost" model.

We already agree that the popular view or "model" for ghosts seems to violate the laws of physics and the notion of consciousness as we understand it.

[Ivan Seeking]

It is always possible that some claimed phenomenon, such as the claims of hauntings, will finally yield evidence that can be duplicated for proper study and peer review. In that event, it may be that physics will have to adapt to a "new" reality. But we have seen this before. Much of scientific knowledge was discovered, not predicted. For example, to this day we can't fully explain how lightning occurs. The issue of charge separation continues to haunt atmospheric scientists.

[Dadface]

Science can only explain so much and that probably is not very much at all.Personally I rather like the concept of all the ghosties and ghoulies and long leggedy beasties.The world would be a less fun place without Casper.

[Anticitizen]

Those who sell the idea of ghost haunts use terms like 'paranormal' and 'supernatural' that, by definition, exclude science from pouring cold water on their burning enthusiam.

[Ivan Seeking]

Those who sell the idea of ghost haunts use terms like 'paranormal' and 'supernatural' that, by definition, exclude science from pouring cold water on their burning enthusiam.

Those are the words used because we don't have any others to offer.

How does a word carry any significance at all here? What matters are the claimed phenomena.

[Natr0n]

The problem here is that no one has defined what it is they mean by "ghost", so there's not really any discussion to be had. If you say they're supernatural or paranormal then, by the definitions of those words, you can't "prove" anything about them one way or another. If you claim they aren't supernatural then we should be able to find physical evidence to support the proposition that ghosts exist. So, where's the evidence?

[russ_watters]

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how? No, but if you report a robbery and a robbery didn't happen, you go to jail for it. That's roughly the situation here. If someone reports seeing "something", that's fine. If someone reports seeing "a ghost", then they are responsible for proving that claim. "A ghost" isn't scientific data, Ivan, it is a claim and one that requires substantiation. Evidence that (for example), a cloud on a phot isn't just a cloud of dust but an actual ghost.

This is the problem with most of the typically accepted psuedoscientific pursuits: they skip half the steps of the scientific method and go about trying to gain evidence for something that hasn't been scientifically suggested, but is merelly assumed to exist. As a result, any evidence that isn't conclusively found to be something else is assumed to be that which they are looking for. It's using falsifiability to prove an hypothesis that isn't really falsifiable.

[zetafunction]

a claim about non existence , could be done by statistical proof or analysis

ghost , elves do Not exists because using statistic yo do not see them every day

for example i know electrons exists because i can go to a lab and measure them if i want, but i can not see or measure a ghost

[Ivan Seeking]

No, but if you report a robbery and a robbery didn't happen, you go to jail for it. That's roughly the situation here.

That is an assumption that can't be substantiated.

If someone reports seeing "something", that's fine.

Okay.

If someone reports seeing "a ghost", then they are responsible for proving that claim.

An if they report seeing a floating head passing through the livingroom?

"A ghost" isn't scientific data, Ivan,

REALLY? I was sure there is a section in my physics books somewhere. :rofl:

it is a claim and one that requires substantiation.

No it is a word. Would you be happy is they said floating head, instead?

Evidence that (for example), a cloud on a phot isn't just a cloud of dust but an actual ghost.

Tell me precisely what a ghost is so that we know what proof to require.

People make interpretations based on popular notions. I have already addressed that as a legitimate issue. Please read before posting.

This is the problem with most of the typically accepted psuedoscientific pursuits: they skip half the steps of the scientific method

Who is they?

and go about trying to gain evidence for something that hasn't been scientifically suggested, but is merelly assumed to exist.

You mean based on a claim.

As a result, any evidence that isn't conclusively found to be something else is assumed to be that which they are looking for. It's using falsifiability to prove an hypothesis that isn't really falsifiable.

The problem with reports like hauntings is that they can't be produced on demand and repeated in a laboratory. As I have asked before: Precisely what evidence would be sufficient; Casper in a bottle? Unless you can provide a list of required evidence, you can hardly complain about not having it.

Assuming that some people are indeed reporting genuine unexplained phenomena, the problem is the nature of the phenomenon, not the observers. We have the same problem with any phenomenon that can't be produced on demand, like ball lightning.

[Ivan Seeking]

Russ, all that you are really objecting to here are stories that you can't explain. If you can explain them, then you don't object.

Sounds like anti-science to me - it only exists if I understand it.

[Count Iblis]

About 1 percent of the population is schizophrenic. Some schizophrenics believe that the voices they hear or the things they see are real. Some will atribute what they see to ghosts.

I think that John Nash:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Forbes_Nash

believed he had some family members or friends who in reality do not exist.

[Natr0n]

No one is saying that there is no such thing as unexplained phenomena, in fact saying something as general and vague as that is almost entirely pointless. If everything was explained already, then this whole "science thing" would be irrelevant.

Of course, saying that you saw a ghost (by the way Ivan, definitions ARE important contrary to what you seem to believe) is providing an interpretation of an event that requires evidence. I would very much prefer that an observer simply describe what they saw rather than attempt to provide their own interpretation. I realize getting someone to provide a description that doesn't presuppose some interpretation is probably impossible, but they should try.

[junglebeast]

Yes. I was thinking about something like the commonly thought 'characteristics' of ghosts and if it could be shown that such a thing cannot exist. Characteristics such as:
a. they can go through walls,
b. they possess intelligence,
c. they can move things,
d. they appear as 'foggy-looking' see-through-type beings,
e. etc. (Not sure if I'm forgetting something....)

Could it be shown that a 'being' with these characteristics cannot exist?

Walls only appear to be solid structures. They are mostly just empty space and lots of things can go through them, such as waves, or high energy particles.

We could infer that a brain is required for intelligence because all intelligent organisms we know of have one, but we don't have the slightest clue what causes self awareness. Without knowing the source of that, you can't rule out the possibility that something like a "soul" exists which is separate from the body. For example, one might argue that the brain is only necessary to bind the soul to the physical world. I personally do not believe in ghosts, but I find the mere existence of self awareness in humans to be equally spooky.

The bottom line is that self awareness cannot be explained by any model of physics that we know of, and until we know more about it, it's not possible to make assumptions or proofs relating to it.

[zoobyshoe]

We could infer that a brain is required for intelligence because all intelligent organisms we know of have one, but we don't have the slightest clue what causes self awareness. Without knowing the source of that, you can't rule out the possibility that something like a "soul" exists which is separate from the body. For example, one might argue that the brain is only necessary to bind the soul to the physical world. I personally do not believe in ghosts, but I find the mere existence of self awareness in humans to be equally spooky.

The bottom line is that self awareness cannot be explained by any model of physics that we know of, and until we know more about it, it's not possible to make assumptions or proofs relating to it.
Do you really think it's even remotely possible that there's a "soul" that can exist apart from the body?

[junglebeast]

Do you really think it's even remotely possible that there's a "soul" that can exist apart from the body?

Modern science has shown us that the brain is responsible for sustaining consciousness, that our memories are stored non-volatilely in the neural and glial connections, that our emotions are regulated by chemical reactions. The brain is a turing complete machine and evolution provided a mechanism for optimizing that machine to maximize reproductibility of the human race. Ok, so this can explain the arbitrarily powerful computing machine we lug around on our shoulders that's apparently capable of surprisingly general computations involving pattern recognition and planning problems.

Going back to the OP for a moment, I guess I do need to revise my original statement a bit: I think that from this, we could conclude that in order for a consciousness to have memories or feelings, it must be linked to a functioning brain. Therefore, if it was possible for the consciousness / spirit / self-awareness-unit to be separated from the physical brain, it would not have the memories or emotions that are so commonly attributed to ghosts (and of course, it would not be visible as an ethereal visage).

Going back to your question, zooby -- do I believe that it is actually possible for this "soul" (which I equate to the self-awareness component of the brain) to be separated from the brain? Well, it depends on what you mean by that. I certainly do not think that "we go on thinking after our body dies." I take as empirical proof of this the fact that a person can be knocked unconscious. I personally have gone unconscious on several occassions due to lack of oxygenated blood flow to my brain and during that period my self awareness was most definitely offline, so it only stands to reason that it would continue to stay offline.

What modern science doesn't explain, not even remotely, is how this machine could possibly be aware of it's own existence...and how that awareness could be physically linked to the brain so that chemical levels could be registered as feelings. Also, I think we can all agree that self awareness is not required for reproduction...nor is it required for evolution...nor is it required for a general purpose computer that interprets sensory inputs and controls an organism throughout it's lifetime in the search of self preservation and reproduction. This begs the question: why are we self-aware at all?

Judging from the beautiful efficiency, diversity, and capabilities of organisms on this planet it seems to me that evolution is quite a powerful force for constructing an organism that is as efficient as possible. This suggests to me that, while self-awareness is clearly not necessary, it must somehow simplify the structure of the brain to have it there.

Now what could simplify the structure of the brain? Well, reusing an existing component. In other words, if there were some form of external "spiritual power", to which an input/output connection could be established via a physical brain, and the brain could then offload complex decisions to it. For example, this would be akin to building a quantum computer and then exploiting quantum mechanics to solve NP-hard problems that our conventional binary computer's cannot solve efficiently. Perhaps there's something like this...on another level...that our brains are outsourcing to for thought.

I don't know. I'm just rambling here, musing...but given the fact that self-awareness can't be explained by the standard model, general relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, or anything else...I don't see that we can really rule much out.

[Count Iblis]

The bottom line is that self awareness cannot be explained by any model of physics that we know of

No experiments involving (self aware) persons have ever demonstrated a violation of the known laws of physics. Therefore one cannot make the case that the known laws of physics are incompatible with self aware beings.

[Count Iblis]

Quantum mechanics is incompatible with the existence of ghosts. A ghost could e.g. observe which path an electron takes in a two slit experiment.

[junglebeast]

No experiments involving (self aware) persons have ever demonstrated a violation of the known laws of physics. Therefore one cannot make the case that the known laws of physics are incompatible with self aware beings.

Actually, the very existence of self-awareness is not a representable state under any modern physics model. Self-awareness is therefore one of the few loose ends that shows us our current physics model is incomplete.

Quantum mechanics is incompatible with the existence of ghosts. A ghost could e.g. observe which path an electron takes in a two slit experiment.

That's an odd assumption, why would a ghost be able to observe that?

[zoobyshoe]

What modern science doesn't explain, not even remotely, is how this machine could possibly be aware of it's own existence...and how that awareness could be physically linked to the brain so that chemical levels could be registered as feelings. Also, I think we can all agree that self awareness is not required for reproduction...nor is it required for evolution...nor is it required for a general purpose computer that interprets sensory inputs and controls an organism throughout it's lifetime in the search of self preservation and reproduction. This begs the question: why are we self-aware at all?
Neuroscience does explain consciousness remotely. Every day we get a better and better grasp on what elements are necessary for consciousness, and, at some point someone is going to have a breakthrough insight that puts it all together.

Incidentally, "chemical levels" are not the generators of emotion. Emotions, like everything else the brain does, are the direct result of patterns of neuronal firing. The role neurotransmitters play in mood is no more important than the role they play in any neuronal firing, be that activity abstract cogitation or motor responses.

Self awareness is an obvious evolutionary advantage in that it prompts us to think about ourselves, ruminate on our experiences, and plan ahead.

The average brain, a book I have asserts, has 14 billion neurons. It says also that each neuron may form from five to fifty thousand connections with other neurons. The number of possible connections is massive, and there is no telling what the "vocabulary" of an individual neuron might be: it might be as articulate as Morse Code, or an order of magnitude more articulate. Do individual neurons sing extravagant, complex songs to each other like birds and whales? No one knows. In any event, no one I have read has ever suggested there's any mystery in where the brain's potential for computing power might lie. There is no need to propose some external, non-corporeal source for this.

[DaveC426913]

... and there is no telling what the "vocabulary" of an individual neuron might be: it might be as articulate as Morse Code, or an order of magnitude more articulate. Do individual neurons sing extravagant, complex songs to each other like birds and whales? No one knows.I've always assumed it was merely binary - or nearso. It never occurred to me that is had any complexity.

Can you or anyone else chime in with comments on this?

[junglebeast]

Neuroscience does explain consciousness remotely. Every day we get a better and better grasp on what elements are necessary for consciousness, and, at some point someone is going to have a breakthrough insight that puts it all together.

Self awareness is an obvious evolutionary advantage in that it prompts us to think about ourselves, ruminate on our experiences, and plan ahead.

That's not self awareness. "Thinking" is just performing computations to enumerate possible actions, assess possible reactions to those actions, and make decisions. All of that can be done by any conventional computer. "Ruminating on our experiences" is vague -- rumination in and of itself is worthless if it does not have an influence on decisions. Planning ahead does not in any way require awareness. A chess program can plan ahead within the confines of the game. Creating a machine that could plan ahead in arbitrary situations is more complicated but still do-able. Look at Bayesian nets for example. Really all that is needed is the ability to make pertinent observations (eg, sensory input device and interpretation) and memory; the ability to recognize patterns and integrate probabilities; then it's possible to make predictions of reactions to self-induced actions; then the ability to enumerate all self-induced actions; then a heuristic evaluator of a set of reactions as they pertain to a hierarchy of goals. So it's entirely possible to make an arbitrarily complex computer that could control an organism and give it the ability to plan ahead and interact in the world in a functional way.

One could make a machine that is not self aware but is in all measurable ways behaviorally identical to a human being. It could be programmed to have the appearance of emotions such as love, anger, etc as well. The question is, since we know it's possible to build a machine that behaves exactly like a human which is NOT self aware, why are humans self aware?

I think that your answer, that "self awareness prompts us to think...X" is flawed because it's possible for an organism/machine to think without being aware of the fact that it's thinking.

Clearly, we would not have evolved self awareness if it didn't have a functional purpose -- it seems that in humans self awareness is somehow linked to thinking, but my point is that we could have evolved differently. We could have evolved to be, essentially, zombies, that walk around and perform all the same functions that we do but without being aware of it. A plant performs functions without being aware of it. Some plants are capable of motor control.

[zoobyshoe]

I've always assumed it was merely binary - or nearso. It never occurred to me that is had any complexity.

Can you or anyone else chime in with comments on this?
It is binary, but so is something like morse code: you have two choices, long or short. However, those can be used to represent all the letters of the alphabet and the numerals, and from there words and sentences.

The notion of something more complex than mere binary encoding of numbers, of the importance of rhythm, comes into play with regard to the thalamus whose neurons can fire one of two ways: once they reach the firing threshold they can release their energy in one shot, or they can release it in a series of smaller bursts. No one is sure why it might chose one or the other, what "message" either might be sending to the cortex. But it is evident the thalamus is "conducting" how the different areas of the cortex are interacting with each other.

Other neurons either fire or don't. There are also "inhibitory" neurons which, when they fire, instruct other neurons not to fire, even when they are ready to do so. The possibility of complex rhythms is endless and there has been a lot of focus on the role those rhythms play:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/mind/electric2.html

[junglebeast]

Dave, I don't think that the brain uses any kind of a uniform encoding system. Everything about the brain is completely plastic and dynamically evolving in function through Hebbian learning. That kind of system doesn't give rise to a regular encoding scheme like binary. Instead it's more of a "whatever works" encoding scheme. If you've ever programmed a neural network and then analyzed the network connections you'll know what I mean...even to solve simple tasks it often doesn't organize in a way that is intuitive, but the entirety of it "just works." However, the specific encoding (or lack thereof) does not affect computability. Certain encodings may be more or less efficient than others, but any encoding is equally capable of any calculation (aka, turing complete).

[zoobyshoe]

One could make a machine that is not self aware but is in all measurable ways behaviorally identical to a human being. It could be programmed to have the appearance of emotions such as love, anger, etc as well. The question is, since we know it's possible to build a machine that behaves exactly like a human which is NOT self aware, why are humans self aware?
Self awareness happened. Millions of years of constant "experimentation" with uncountable variations of cell structure lead to the superior mutation of a cell that polarizes and depolarizes many times a second. The extremely complex but unaware alternative you propose did not happen, and I can only suppose it's because the computational abilities of large populations of those kinds of cells is inextricably linked to the phenomenon of "awareness" that comes with. The zombie mimic, if it ever arose in Nature, would have to be based on some completely different organic process, and if such a thing ever got started here on earth there doesn't seem to have been any niche for it, unless it turns out that this describes insect colonies or weird purple jellyfish.

[Count Iblis]

...since we know it's possible to build a machine that behaves exactly like a human which is NOT self aware, why are humans self aware?

We don't know that at all! It may be that consciousness is linked to the running of an algorithm regardless of how you dedcide to implement that algorithm. So, if I consider your head to a black box that somehow computes some output, then any other black box that will behave in a simlar way must necessarily run the same type of algorithm (regardless of how that is implemented).

[junglebeast]

Self awareness happened. Millions of years of constant "experimentation" with uncountable variations of cell structure lead to the superior mutation of a cell that polarizes and depolarizes many times a second. The extremely complex but unaware alternative you propose did not happen, and I can only suppose it's because the computational abilities of large populations of those kinds of cells is inextricably linked to the phenomenon of "awareness" that comes with.

Yes, we evolved self awareness. You seem to be suggesting that the possible alternative course of evolution I suggested, an organism identical in function but lacking in self awareness, would require a more complicated brain structure.

However, there is no evidence to support the assumption that self-awareness allows for a more simple structure of the brain. The simple state of being "aware" does not imply an ability to think or make decisions...a state of being does not have functional value to the organism. This means that awareness evolved as a side effect of something else that evolved.

But the really interesting question is not so much why are we self aware, but how is it physically created and represented? You see, being "aware" is a state, but we do not know what the physical representation of that state is. As far as I can tell, it is the only (or one of the very few) states in the known universe that we don't have a clue of how to represent, in terms of fundamental particles.

I mean, solid/liquid/gas/plasma can all be explained in terms of configurations of particles. Cells can be represented as particles...action potentials can be represented in terms of particles...but tell me what is the representation of "awareness" in terms of particles?

Until we can say something along the lines of, "awareness is a state of matter that is defined by quantum entanglement of 2 opposite spin particles...etc", then it is not representable by physics. Clearly it is representable by the universe, but physics isn't there yet.

[zoobyshoe]

Yes, we evolved self awareness. You seem to be suggesting that the possible alternative course of evolution I suggested, an organism identical in function but lacking in self awareness, would require a more complicated brain structure.
No, a more convoluted, complicated evolutionary path. Envision non-artificial, natural, rock formations in the shape of humans, like Michelangelo sculptures: you'd have to have some pretty fancy, specific weather and erosion dynamics for that to occur. Zombie-like human mimics would have to be subjected to some incredibly weird environmental pressures to start writing books, inventing television, smoking pot, building pyramids, and forming organized religions. Where would the templates or instructions for all those behaviors come from? Where would the instruction to behave as if they were self aware come from? Where would the parameters of "self aware" come from? We act the way we do as a result of being self aware. What on earth would induce a being which was not self aware to adopt a slew of extraneous behaviors specific to self awareness, of all things?

But the really interesting question is not so much why are we self aware, but how is it physically created and represented? You see, being "aware" is a state, but we do not know what the physical representation of that state is. As far as I can tell, it is the only (or one of the very few) states in the known universe that we don't have a clue of how to represent, in terms of fundamental particles.

I mean, solid/liquid/gas/plasma can all be explained in terms of configurations of particles. Cells can be represented as particles...action potentials can be represented in terms of particles...but tell me what is the representation of "awareness" in terms of particles?

Until we can say something along the lines of, "awareness is a state of matter that is defined by quantum entanglement of 2 opposite spin particles...etc", then it is not representable by physics. Clearly it is representable by the universe, but physics isn't there yet.
This is all true, and is the big current Holy Grail of Neuroscience. A former PF mentor, Hypnagogue has gone off to join those searching for The Neural Correlates of Consciousness. There are many, many different teams of researchers on this problem. I am not aware there are too many who think the answer will be found on a quantum level. Most people are searching on the cellular level.

In any event, just because we do not know how the activity of neurons leads to consciousness, it is beyond dispute that their activity is necessary for it. That being the case there is no need to postulate external non-corporeal computing sources, or to propose that there is some entity, "consciousness," that can exist apart from the physical body.

Apropos: There are some people involved with the paranormal who think magnetic fields, for instance, are self-contained entities that happen to reside in magnets, as well as in people, and can leave those "containers" to take up residence elsewhere, or just float freely around. They also think that the "electrical activity" of the brain and nerves is much the same as you find in electrical and electronic devices, whereas the basic mechanism of an action potential is very different: whole cations are moved in a slow and cumbersome manner from the exterior to the interior of the cell and the "signal" propagates quite slowly compared to the vastly faster EMF based on pressurizing free electrons by moving a magnetic field at right angles to a conductor. While a current carrying conductor has a demonstrable magnetic field the field around a firing neuron is probably more like an alternately contracting and expanding electric field as the cations are let in and then pumped back out.

The notion that a magnetic field can just exist by itself unconnected to any current flow is, I think, the basis for a lot of "ghost" explanations. I have often heard claims that the "energy" that arises from the "electrical activity of the brain and nerves" "can neither be created nor destroyed" (according to Einstein, no less) and this is the basis for their belief that physics supports the possibility of ghosts and life after death.

[junglebeast]

No, a more convoluted, complicated evolutionary path. Envision non-artificial, natural, rock formations in the shape of humans, like Michelangelo sculptures: you'd have to have some pretty fancy, specific weather and erosion dynamics for that to occur. Zombie-like human mimics would have to be subjected to some incredibly weird environmental pressures to start writing books, inventing television, smoking pot, building pyramids, and forming organized religions.

Rock formations lack selective pressure and a means for reproduction and mutation. However, if we were to provide an artificial selective pressure (eg, a person living on Mars who goes around blasting every rock formation that doesn't look like Michelangelo), and introduce a means for reproduction and evolution (eg, a crazed artist with a sand blaster who randomly chooses 2 rock formations and then sculpts a third to resemble both of the originals), then given enough time, we would end up seeing sculptures that look like Michelangelo...even though the sculptor has no idea what Michelangelo looks like.

As for all the things we do...for entertainment, religion, etc...all of these behaviors can be explained as the result of behaviors that would have been promoted by natural selection among unconscious organisms in the same situation as the human race...I believe most of these explanations are standard fair anthropology. For example, early man probably evolved to walk on 2 feet to be able to see long distances over the plains. He then started to use his hands for things other than walking, such as using tools. This required him to evolve a larger and smarter brain so that he could use those tools in new ways for acquiring food. It then makes sense to form large packs where each person can collectively increase the well being of everyone else, by sharing tools, hunting together, etc. Reinforcement learning is already a basic instinct, so if one of the primitive humans was stealing food from everyone else, the other members of the pack would kick him out for their own mutual benefit. This provides a selective pressure for sharing. It's easy to see how these kinds of influences cause evolution to favor more advanced social interactions. As another example, consider the act of crying -- a primitive form of communication that indicates the need for help. A woman who needs help may cry, and there is a selective pressure for men to help a crying woman, because this will increase the man's favor with that woman, which will increase his chances of reproducing with her. Now consider religion. After the brain has evolved to the point where it is extremely good at recognizing patterns and making predictions, the primitive human would have a selective pressure for curiosity -- because curiosity leads to discoveries which can be beneficial to survival. Once the organism has evolved curiosity, he is likely to become curious as to the origin of the Earth and life itself...and the first most logical assumption he will come to is that, like everything else non-random (eg, man made) the only way for complex things to be created is for them to have a creator. This leads him to suppose there exists some form of "greater man" that made man to begin with (even though this is circular reasoning). There begins the concept of God. Why does man dream? A simple explanation is that it's an easy way to practice and get better at dealing with nerve racking situations in a safe environment before the individual is confronted with them in real life. Perhaps that's why we have so many "chase" dreams. Social interactions, although not life-threatening, can threaten an individual's ability to impress a potential mate -- and therefore they are equally important from an evolutionary standpoint, so we should have dreams involving social interactions, too.

I could go on...but the point is that none of these evolutionary pressures in any way necessitated self awareness. I would argue that there is not a single behavior characteristic of humans that cannot be explained as something that does not have a natural explanation through evolution of non-self aware organisms.

In any event, just because we do not know how the activity of neurons leads to consciousness, it is beyond dispute that their activity is necessary for it. That being the case there is no need to postulate external non-corporeal computing sources, or to propose that there is some entity, "consciousness," that can exist apart from the physical body.

Neurons are certainly necessary for maintaining an individual's consciousness, but one might argue that the conscious entity is a separate spiritual force, and then the physical neurons are simply creating a channel that allows communication with that "spiritual" force. I only use the word spiritual for lack of a better word. Discovery of this could someday be just as revolutionary as when we discovered the other spooky things such as electricity or electromagnetic waves or quantum entanglement.

The notion that a magnetic field can just exist by itself unconnected to any current flow is, I think, the basis for a lot of "ghost" explanations. I have often heard claims that the "energy" that arises from the "electrical activity of the brain and nerves" "can neither be created nor destroyed" (according to Einstein, no less) and this is the basis for their belief that physics supports the possibility of ghosts and life after death.

I think the concept that there is another form of energy associated with our brains, with its own conservation law, is a possibility.

[zoobyshoe]

Rock formations lack selective pressure and a means for reproduction and mutation. However, if we were to provide an artificial selective pressure (eg, a person living on Mars who goes around blasting every rock formation that doesn't look like Michelangelo)...
No, you miss the point of my saying "non-artificial". As with rocks, which are never in 10 billion years going to end up accidently carved into something resembling a human as specifically as a Michelangelo sculpture, zombie people are going to find no template in their genes for any behaviors so specific and peculiar as the ones we've seen arising from self-aware behavior, nothing from which to derive the instruction to ponder where they came from, etc. All the "natural" behaviors you list arise from self awareness + environment, not from mere existence in the environment alone. People who are not self-aware do not behave as if they were self aware. People having absence seizures stop what they're doing and stand unmoving staring at nothing. For two or three seconds, they simply stop being aware of anything, including themselves.

A machine constructed to mimic self-aware behavior requires a self-aware designer. Humans might make one, but it would never arise by itself in Nature.

One thing you're doing is saying "We evolved this (trait) in order to..." It absolutely does not happen like that. We can't will traits into being to serve a purpose. There is no drive behind evolution: things mutate randomly. Sometimes the mutations are better, sometimes not. If we're lucky, as a species, at any time the environment suddenly shifts on us there are enough people who have the traits to survive that shift who are "selected" by default, to keep humanity going.
Neurons are certainly necessary for maintaining an individual's consciousness, but one might argue that the conscious entity is a separate spiritual force...
One might argue this, but it's a violation of Occam's Razor. One might argue that all our behaviors are dictated by an invisible, unsensable weird, purple jellyfish we all have sitting on our heads. Another might argue elves inhabiting the sulci of the brain are the root cause of consciousness. One might argue that consciousness rains from the heavens in the form of hitherto undiscovered subatomic particles called "consciousons". I could spend the rest of my life inventing a list of the things one might argue.
I think the concept that there is another form of energy associated with our brains, with its own conservation law, is a possibility.
The concept is a possibility, it's possible to construct any outlandish concept, but let us first exhaust known quantities before proposing and speculating about things we haven't detected by any means whatever.

[atyy]

I could go on...but the point is that none of these evolutionary pressures in any way necessitated self awareness. I would argue that there is not a single behavior characteristic of humans that cannot be explained as something that does not have a natural explanation through evolution of non-self aware organisms.

How about efference copy? Isn't that a form of self awareness?

[zoobyshoe]

How about efference copy? Isn't that a form of self awareness?

What is "efference copy"?

[atyy]

The brain sends itself a copy of what it tells the muscles to do. This copy may be used to by the animal to model the muscles (ie. a part of the itself) to predict what will happen as a result of what the brain is telling the muscles to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efference_copy

[zoobyshoe]

The brain sends itself a copy of what it tells the muscles to do. This copy may be used to by the animal to model the muscles (ie. a part of the itself) to predict what will happen as a result of what the brain is telling the muscles to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efference_copy
Well, something like sending itself a copy must, of course be happening, but I find that to be a funny way of expressing it. I would have said the brain remembers what instructions it sends.

[junglebeast]

All the "natural" behaviors you list arise from self awareness + environment, not from mere existence in the environment alone.

Self awareness is completely unnecessary for the behaviors I listed to evolve..I'll respond more to that in detail lower down.

People who are not self-aware do not behave as if they were self aware. People having absence seizures stop what they're doing and stand unmoving staring at nothing. For two or three seconds, they simply stop being aware of anything, including themselves.

There are two possible explanations for that: (1) due to the way we have evolved, self-awareness is necessary for normal function (I think this is likely); (2) we simply do not know a means to shut off the self-awareness component without also shutting off components necessary for normal function. Either way, that does not prove that self-awareness is necessary to have a person walking around and acting self-aware. Clearly, it is possible to have a non-self aware organism that does more than simply stand unmoving. Even a mechanical robot is proof of that.

A machine constructed to mimic self-aware behavior requires a self-aware designer. Humans might make one, but it would never arise by itself in Nature.

That sounds like something a proponent of Intelligent Design would say. I never suggested that evolution would favor organisms that mimic self-awareness. I merely pointed out that, the behaviors we associate with self-awareness increase the likelihood of reproduction, and therefore would have been selected for through the natural process of evolution.

One thing you're doing is saying "We evolved this (trait) in order to..." It absolutely does not happen like that. We can't will traits into being to serve a purpose. There is no drive behind evolution: things mutate randomly. Sometimes the mutations are better, sometimes not.

That was merely a figure of speech I was using to shorten the explanation, because I assumed that you know how evolution works. I know how evolution works, and I assume you do too, so I won't waste either of our time by going into detail there. Suffice it to say that, if you know how evolution works, you should be able to accept the fact that through the random process of evolution, any trait that increases the likelihood of the organism reproducing will be selected for.

For each trait that I listed, I specifically pointed out a way in which that trait increases the likelihood of reproduction. Therefore, these traits could have just as easily evolved if the human race did not have self awareness.

The concept is a possibility, it's possible to construct any outlandish concept, but let us first exhaust known quantities before proposing and speculating about things we haven't detected by any means whatever.

Yes, of course...the simplest plausible explanation has the highest probability of being correct. But the fact that current understanding of physics does not predict an awareness state means that the model is incomplete, and there aren't any theories which have been proposed that I've ever heard of which could predict an awareness state (except for crackpot theories). If someone does present a simple and elegant generative model for awareness, I'd be all for it...

[Count Iblis]

I have posted all the answers on my blog:

http://countiblis.blogspot.com :approve:

[atyy]

Well, something like sending itself a copy must, of course be happening, but I find that to be a funny way of expressing it. I would have said the brain remembers what instructions it sends.

Well, the way I'm using "efference copy" is not just that it remembers, but also uses that as input to a model of itself. Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

[junglebeast]

Well, the way I'm using "efference copy" is not just that it remembers, but also uses that as input to a model of itself. Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

An entity that is self aware (A) implies that it has a model of itself (B) (eg, A implies B), but an entity that has a model of itself is not necessarily self aware (B does not imply A). Therefore it is illogical to conclude that the efference copy is a form of self awareness.

As a prime example of this, it's common for roboticists to program the robot to use a model of itself, which is useful because it can be used to predict it's own dynamics. This has been used in feedback learning so that the robot can adapt and re-learn how to walk if one of it's legs is removed, for example, by hopping around...but the robot is not self aware just because it has a model of itself.

[zoobyshoe]

Self awareness is completely unnecessary for the behaviors I listed to evolve..I'll respond more to that in detail lower down.

For each trait that I listed, I specifically pointed out a way in which that trait increases the likelihood of reproduction. Therefore, these traits could have just as easily evolved if the human race did not have self awareness.
Without self awareness there is no spontaneous thinking, questioning, exploration of alternative models. There's no crying: one must have an image of oneself, and the emotional reaction of self pity, to cry. There are no "sympathizers" either: no self image with an emotional reaction, no sympathetic response to others in distress. If a neural network can 'learn" it is because it was programmed to mimic the act of learning by self aware beings.
There are two possible explanations for that: (1) due to the way we have evolved, self-awareness is necessary for normal function (I think this is likely); (2) we simply do not know a means to shut off the self-awareness component without also shutting off components necessary for normal function. Either way, that does not prove that self-awareness is necessary to have a person walking around and acting self-aware. Clearly, it is possible to have a non-self aware organism that does more than simply stand unmoving. Even a mechanical robot is proof of that.
Famous case in Epilepsy Literature: Doctor X. During Complex-Partial seizures he was able to diagnose and accurately treat patients on occasion though he appeared, at these times, to be somewhat spaced out. After the fact he had complete amnesia for the events. His apparently deliberate behavior, despite the gross defect of consciousness, was possible due to his having so solidly established his medical knowledge in his procedural memory. Though he was not, himself, conscious of what he was doing, running on "auto-pilot" so to speak, the procedures were so familiar to him he could perform them, just about literally, in his sleep.

However, the learning of those procedures had to take place previously during self-aware periods of consciousness. Had Doctor X been in such a state all his life from birth he would have had to be institutionalized and would never have learned how to feed himself, dress, or walk.
That sounds like something a proponent of Intelligent Design would say.
Then you probably misread it.
I never suggested that evolution would favor organisms that mimic self-awareness. I merely pointed out that, the behaviors we associate with self-awareness increase the likelihood of reproduction, and therefore would have been selected for through the natural process of evolution.
But your original bewilderment seemed to be about the perceived (by you) non-necessity for self-awareness, which implies you think it hard to explain why we didn't evolve without it. Which implies you suppose Natural Selection would favor non-self-awareness.
That was merely a figure of speech I was using to shorten the explanation, because I assumed that you know how evolution works. I know how evolution works, and I assume you do too, so I won't waste either of our time by going into detail there. Suffice it to say that, if you know how evolution works, you should be able to accept the fact that through the random process of evolution, any trait that increases the likelihood of the organism reproducing will be selected for.
OK
Yes, of course...the simplest plausible explanation has the highest probability of being correct.
This is not the understanding of Occam's Razor I like, that the simplest explanation is probably the right one. Merriam-Webster's defines it with a broader range:

"a scientific and philosophic rule that entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily which is interpreted as requiring that the simplest of competing theories be preferred to the more complex or that explanations of unknown phenomena be sought first in terms of known quantities"

It's not that simplicity = higher probability, because some things end up being vastly more complex than ever was suspected. The point of Occam's Razor is that entities should not be unnecessarily multiplied.

But the fact that current understanding of physics does not predict an awareness state means that the model is incomplete, and there aren't any theories which have been proposed that I've ever heard of which could predict an awareness state (except for crackpot theories). If someone does present a simple and elegant generative model for awareness, I'd be all for it...
Given the acknowledgment that our current understanding is quite limited it is unnecessary to multiply the possibilities to include yet more even less comprehensible mechanisms for consciousness, such as external, non-corporeal computing power, or undetected energies with their own conservation laws.

If we simply proceed from the assumption that awareness arises from the activity of brain cells we can then start describing that activity, and the elements that comprise it, and start asking what is salient and what isn't. What's the importance of cations? Why positive charge? Why soft metals? Is that pertinent. Won't this work with electrons? Are neurons "aware" or is it the nearby glial cells that actually experience the "awareness"? As far as we know consciousness does not exist anywhere in nature except in a very specific configuration of organic matter, and that is what we have to study to learn what might be causing consciousness. There's no reason to expect that quanta, per se, would reveal anything about it.

In all, it has to be remembered that experimentation is highly limited in human subjects, restricted to non-invasive, non-destructive experiments. Huge amounts of information have been collected from people with pre-existing pathologies (Neurologist Wilder Penfield called Epilepsy "the great teacher") but we aren't allowed, and rightly so, to do any harm. We'll have to be patient with a much slower, more round about exploration.

[atyy]

An entity that is self aware (A) implies that it has a model of itself (B) (eg, A implies B), but an entity that has a model of itself is not necessarily self aware (B does not imply A). Therefore it is illogical to conclude that the efference copy is a form of self awareness.

As a prime example of this, it's common for roboticists to program the robot to use a model of itself, which is useful because it can be used to predict it's own dynamics. This has been used in feedback learning so that the robot can adapt and re-learn how to walk if one of it's legs is removed, for example, by hopping around...but the robot is not self aware just because it has a model of itself.

So what are the additional requirements?

[atyy]

Maybe that it has a model of a model of itself?

Infinite regression - needed or not?

[junglebeast]

Without self awareness there is no spontaneous thinking, questioning, exploration of alternative models. There's no crying: one must have an image of oneself, and the emotional reaction of self pity, to cry. There are no "sympathizers" either: no self image with an emotional reaction, no sympathetic response to others in distress.

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved without consciousness. It's very possible that the component of our brain which is responsible for consciousness is inextricably connected to the components which control logical thought, simply meaning that when we lose consciousness, the component that handles logical thought can no longer function. But that does not mean that consciousness is fundamentally necessary for logical thought. That would be like asserting that brake lights are necessary for starting a car just because whenever you cut a wire under the dashboard that turned off the brake lights, the car refused to start.

"Thinking" can be a few different things; it can be actively considering the aspects of a problem and how they can be rearranged in order to achieve a certain goal, it can be analyzing a sequence of events in order to determine causality and make future predictions, etc. But all of these components of thinking can be broken down into mathematical / statistical problems that could be solved by an unconscious machine.

If I am hungry and decide to go to the fridge to get some food, that decision doesn't require me to be aware of myself. All it required was for my stomach nerves to send an electrochemical signal to my brain saying that food is needed, then for my brain to enumerate known locations of food. The closest known location of food being the refrigerator. Then some motor controls are issued to cause me to walk over and get the food out of the fridge. I think you'll agree with me on this one, but perhaps only because people are known to get food while sleep walking.

However, this non-conscious analysis can be applied to any problem. For example, let's say that I am reading a research paper. Reading the text could be accomplished without consciousness -- as evidenced by the field of Computational Linguistics. This allows the words on the page to be translated into an abstract series of relationships that encode virtual world events. Knowing that the paper is describing a method for achieving a certain goal, the brain can then simulate the action of following the sequence of instructions described in the paper, and flag any potential problems that were encountered in the simulation. Perhaps one of those problems was previously encountered before and a solution had been saved. This solution can then be applied to the problem at hand, voila, original research can be done by an unthinking machine.

Plants are unthinking organism and they have evolved some complex mechanisms for "communication". This is not conscious communication, it's just a series of hormonal effects that evolution has devised that cause them to work together for mutually increased chances of reproduction --and that's all crying really is.

If each organism is programmed to secrete moisture from the eyes when their individual frustration becomes high, and each organism is likewise programmed to want to help another organism that emits the tears, then there is mutual benefit for the species because frustration is an internal indicator of personal goals not being met...and all personal goals are hierarchically related to the main goal of reproduction. Thus, if frustrations can be reduced through this behavior, then reproduction can be increased.

Why should the response be a secretion of liquid from around the eyes?
1) People look at the eyes, so it is a noticeable location
2) The eyes need moisture already, so it doesnt take much to put a tear duct there
3) The secretion can only be controlled involuntarily based on the individuals emotional levels. It's necessary that the indicator be controlled by involuntary means only because if it could be voluntarily made (eg, if it was a hand signal), then organisms would learn to just make the hand signal to get what they wanted, and this would abuse the system so that it was no longer beneficial to the whole.

If a neural network can 'learn" it is because it was programmed to mimic the act of learning by self aware beings.

Contradiction: the brain is a neural network which can learn, but it was not programmed by human beings.

However, the learning of those procedures had to take place previously during self-aware periods of consciousness. Had Doctor X been in such a state all his life from birth he would have had to be institutionalized and would never have learned how to feed himself, dress, or walk.

That's an interesting story, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make

But your original bewilderment seemed to be about the perceived (by you) non-necessity for self-awareness, which implies you think it hard to explain why we didn't evolve without it. Which implies you suppose Natural Selection would favor non-self-awareness.

I think that the fact that we did evolve self awareness, which I see as neither a benefit nor a burden, indicates that it was a side effect that came along with something that was beneficial. Specifically, I think that somehow the structure that was evolved to give us such good cognitive abilities incidentally also gave us self awareness.


Given the acknowledgment that our current understanding is quite limited it is unnecessary to multiply the possibilities to include yet more even less comprehensible mechanisms for consciousness, such as external, non-corporeal computing power, or undetected energies with their own conservation laws.

If we simply proceed from the assumption that awareness arises from the activity of brain cells we can then start describing that activity, and the elements that comprise it, and start asking what is salient and what isn't.

An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

So what are the additional requirements?

That's like asking, how do you mix the color white out of black paint? There's no way to define it, imo, given our current misunderstanding of the universe.

[atyy]

That's like asking, how do you mix the color white out of black paint? There's no way to define it, imo, given our current misunderstanding of the universe.

But if you don't know the additional requirements, then how do you know the definition I gave isn't sufficient? ie. maybe some robots and insects also have self-awareness?

[junglebeast]

Self awareness means I have a model of "myself", so efference copy is a form of self-awareness.

Because "having a model of itself" doesn't mean anything. A robot with 4 legs could have a CPU storing a virtual model of itself represented by some virtual representation of vertices, edges, and velocities. Or that model of itself could be represented more simply by a vector of 3 values representing the position of the robot. Or it could be a single boolean value indicating when the robot is turned on or not. It's meaningless.

Surely, adding a piece of code as simple as:

bool turned_on;

does not endow a robot with self awareness.

[Anticitizen]

Those are the words used because we don't have any others to offer.

How does a word carry any significance at all here? What matters are the claimed phenomena.

Because if they exist, they are part of the natural world.

'Nothing unreal exists.'

[Ivan Seeking]

Because if they exist, they are part of the natural world.

'Nothing unreal exists.'

That is precisesly the point that I was making. "Supernatural" and "paranormal" are merely words used to describe claimed phenomena that seemingly can't be explained.

[Count Iblis]

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved without consciousness.

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

[atyy]

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

But how do you know you are not conscious? By introspection?

[junglebeast]

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.

Ok, I admit that not all behaviors could be explained by an unconscious organism -- specifically those behaviors which are a result of being curious about one's own consciousness.

When I said that evolution could explain all human actions, I was thinking about actions that are useful to survival and reproduction, as well as a lot of other stuff like emotions and religion.

[zoobyshoe]

Just because humans only do these things while we are conscious doesn't mean that these things couldn't have evolved...

... this would abuse the system so that it was no longer beneficial to the whole.
All entities that survive for very long obviously act in their own favor whether they are conscious or not, yes, but the question is: would self preserving behaviors in non-self-aware humans take the same form they do in self-aware humans? Your argument is that they probably would, based on the fact that our behaviors seem to serve us pretty well. However, I think self awareness has lead to a lot of completely unnecessary and circuitous behaviors that require self awareness to sustain and which would, in reality, not be selected in zombie people. The necessary baseline for survival of the species is probably represented by primate groups, and I can't imagine any mutations more sophisticated than that happening for the zombies, given their lack of awareness. Take religion: where on earth would a mutation come from that instructed the zombie to refrain from work every seventh day and engage in appeals and supplications to an entity it could not sense in any way? You have to have awareness for something that peculiar and specific to happen.

All the examples you give of things that might perform complex, human-like thinking, are machines, which have been designed and programmed by self aware humans to mimic self aware humans. A computer can be programmed to do this, a computer can be programmed to do that, all without self awareness. That is a meaningless example when it is self-aware beings who are creating the instructions for it based on their own self-aware behaviors. The mutation or series of mutations that would cause untaught, spontaneous imitation of self-aware behaviors with all its extraneous pyramid building, crop circle hoaxing, pop music, wars, foot binding, surfing, gladiator contests, romance novels, gambling, drinking and pot smoking, schizophrenia and obsessive-compulsive disorders, organized crime, flagpole sitting and bungee jumping, etc in the absence of a model for those behaviors are beyond my imagining. You're suggesting something impossibly byzantine and convoluted.

Contradiction: the brain is a neural network which can learn, but it was not programmed by human beings.
By "neural network" I was referring to one of the various computer programs in that category which are, of course, unaware, but are alleged to mimic various learning and thought processes of the human brain.

The human brain is, in fact, 'programmed' by human beings: parents, teachers, peers. You didn't, for example, arrive at the English language accidentally on your own.


That's an interesting story, but I'm not sure what point you are trying to make
Doctor X entered, occasionally, into a zombie-like state where most of his self awareness was non-operational. He was, as you predict, able to perform complex tasks, BUT only because those had been learned during periods of self awareness and were stored in his procedural memory.
I think that the fact that we did evolve self awareness, which I see as neither a benefit nor a burden,...
You don't see it as a benefit? Would you give it up without a second thought? What difference would there be between an unconscious life, and death?
indicates that it was a side effect that came along with something that was beneficial. Specifically, I think that somehow the structure that was evolved to give us such good cognitive abilities incidentally also gave us self awareness.
I disagree because self awareness is an obvious extension of awareness of the environment and things in it, and greater awareness of the environment, and of yourself as an element in it, would constitute an obvious advantage that would get selected.
An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.
All good questions.

I think that awareness is probably suspected to be a dynamic process. It's not the particular atoms present, per se, but about the more macroscopic behavior of a very specific kind of cell. I don't remember the thread, or who said it, but someone here raised the point that quantum physics doesn't predict any organic life, much less consciousness.

In a gross way the answer is already there: it is simply a property of the things involved that when they interact with each other in this way, under these circumstances, awareness results. We don't know which elements and aspects of these interactions are the salient ones, the ones that might be abstracted to create an artificial awareness, but obviously they are present in whatever is happening in the brain:
The study of the causes of things must be preceded by the study of things caused.
http://www.whonamedit.com/doctor.cfm/2766.html

[zoobyshoe]

It could also be that humans indeed evolved without consciousness and that you are the only being in the whole universe who is conscious. Perhaps some cosmic ray particle hit your brain while you were a baby and caused a very exotic reaction leading to consciousness.

So, while we all act as if we are conscious, in reality we aren't. But we do behave in exactly the same way as you would expect a conscious person to behave. Almost no conscious person would deny that he/she is conscious. Therefore almost all real persons who, except you, are all unconscious, would insist that they are conscious. I'm the rare exception.
It's been clear to me for some time that junglebeast is a neural network someone programmed to argue matters of consciousness and set loose here for kicks.

[junglebeast]

would self preserving behaviors in non-self-aware humans take the same form they do in self-aware humans? Your argument is that they probably would, based on the fact that our behaviors seem to serve us pretty well. However, I think self awareness has lead to a lot of completely unnecessary and circuitous behaviors that require self awareness to sustain and which would, in reality, not be selected in zombie people.

You're probably right that some circuitous behaviors would not have been selected for without self awareness. I'm not going to count "going to church" because this is a social custom not an evolved trait, but social customs do have the potential to induce natural selection. However, are any of those circuitous behaviors actually beneficial to survival or reproduction? It seems the answer is no, and that would confirm my point -- if all the characteristics essential to reproduction could have evolved without self awareness, and self awareness itself only caused additional circuitous behaviors to be selected for, then what was the selective pressure for self awareness?

quote]All the examples you give of things that might perform complex, human-like thinking, are machines, which have been designed and programmed by self aware humans to mimic self aware humans. ....You're suggesting something impossibly byzantine and convoluted. [/quote]

You completely missed the point I was making: if we can create a machine that is not self aware and is capable of performing certain actions which have obvious benefit to survival (such as planning or "thinking" ahead in order to act in a seemingly intelligent way), then it must be possible for those actions to evolve in a non-self aware organism, because they have a selective pressure and can be achieved without self awareness. It is completely irrelevant to the point that they were designed by a human...

You have swayed me on the point that some actions are a consequence of self-awareness, so I'm not going to argue that "all" human behaviors can be explained by natural selection of non-self aware beings -- but it still seems that the ones which are important to survival can be explained that way.

Doctor X entered, occasionally, into a zombie-like state where most of his self awareness was non-operational. He was, as you predict, able to perform complex tasks, BUT only because those had been learned during periods of self awareness and were stored in his procedural memory.

We've already discussed that point, and I've pointed out that assuming that complex tasks cannot be performed without consciousness in an arbitrary life form just because that appears to be the case in humans is to make the err of "affirming the consequent." Furthermore I've pointed out abstract methodologies which could be used to program a machine with the abilities to perform complex learning and thinking tasks so this does not seem like a great mystery.

You don't see it as a benefit? Would you give it up without a second thought? What difference would there be between an unconscious life, and death?

For us, "death" is equal to permanent loss of consciousness. It also appears to be the case that humans are not capable of the same level of complex thought while we are unconscious -- but this does not prove that consciousness is necessary for complex thought in general! It only proves that our brains evolved to depend on consciousness for complex thought.

I disagree because self awareness is an obvious extension of awareness of the environment and things in it, and greater awareness of the environment, and of yourself as an element in it, would constitute an obvious advantage that would get selected.

There are two definitions for "awareness" -- on the one hand, we have a completely elusive definition for our mental awareness which I have trouble defining. It seems something magical. On the other hand, we have a very easy to define practical side of awareness: simply having knowledge relating to one's surroundings. A non-self-aware being could still have senses that detect the environment, it could still have a virtual model of itself in relation to the environment, and it could still react in a way that uses all that information to its advantage. It seems that all of the definably useful characteristics of self-awareness could easily be given to something non-self-aware. The only difference is that while it was doing these things, it would lack that certain "magical" aspect that humans have. So in other words, a non "self-aware" being could still have all the same knowledge (accessible data) pertaining to itself and its surroundings.

I think that awareness is probably suspected to be a dynamic process. It's not the particular atoms present, per se, but about the more macroscopic behavior of a very specific kind of cell. I don't remember the thread, or who said it, but someone here raised the point that quantum physics doesn't predict any organic life, much less consciousness.

The existence and proliferation of organic life is certainly representable and explainable within the quantum physics model. Perhaps this person was referring to the ambiguous origin of the first life forms on Earth. On that subject, I have read Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe", and the auto catalytic set theory that he proposes gives very straight forward logical explanations for how DNA itself would have evolved with high probability.

[zoobyshoe]

Basically everything you are saying boils down to expressions of awe:
An atom is not aware of itself. A photon is not aware of itself. Why would a collection of atoms be aware of itself? The question is completely baffling because we can't even represent the question properly -- I mean, what is awareness? We can't even define it. If the question could be defined, then I might accept that our current theories were only wrong in a small way...but the fact that we can't even define it causes me to think that our model is just massively off-base.

...on the one hand, we have a completely elusive definition for our mental awareness which I have trouble defining. It seems something magical.
Everyone who thinks about it is equally awed: There is no ready, apparent explanation. At this time.

However, and regardless, and back to the topic of ghosts, from my extensive reading about the selective deficits caused by brain pathologies, and the sometimes concomitant disinhibitions, it is beyond doubt that consciousness arises from the activities of brain cells. When that activity is suppressed, altered, or hyperactivated so are the aspects of consciousness arising from those activities. I don't see any suggestion of any new form of energy with its own conservation laws that would survive death. And I don't see any need to propose mystical mechanisms for consciousness.

On that subject, I have read Kauffman's "At Home in the Universe", and the auto catalytic set theory that he proposes gives very straight forward logical explanations for how DNA itself would have evolved with high probability.
What is relevant here is that he didn't predict DNA before it was discovered, he found a math to explain it after the fact of discovery. The math and physics that explain consciousness won't happen until after we pinpoint those aspects of brain activity that can't be done away with, which we're sure are the sine qua non of consciousness.

[WhoWee]

If one priest reported seeing an angel, and another reported seeing a ghost...which report would be considered more creditable?

Likewise, if two aethiests made the same reports...which report would be considered more creditable?

My guess is one priest would be dismissed as promoting an agenda regarding the angel...and the ghost story would be debated. The aethiests would experience the opposite reaction.

I know an accountant who bought a log cabin outside of Nashville, on the edge of a famous Civil War battlefield. The cabin was reportedly owned by Andrew Jackson and was very well constructed...thick walls, dark and a little damp. There is an southern plantation type home alongside and the local women reportedly watched the Civil War battle from the second story balcony.

I visited the cabin, but wasn't eager to spend a night The accountant (and his family) absolutely swear there is a ghost of a woman that lives there. They claim she visits quite often. Apparently they aren't afraid and as far as I know they still live there.

Who knows?

[NWH]

One thing I would question would by why my concious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions untill observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

[zoobyshoe]

One thing I would question would by why my concious decision to learn a piece of information about a particle, would coincidentally cause it to manifest in that form. Why when I observe the particle/wave, does it decide to react in a specific way? Acording to the maths (from what I've learned anyway), the particle take all possible actions untill observed by someone. If no-one looks to see what it did, it did everything. It's only once you look at it, that it takes a particular form.

It doesn't really explain anything, but it does make me heavilly question the impact that interpretation of information has on the universe. Who knows, maybe conciousness and the universe around us are more connected than we could ever imagine.

Quantum Physics is the new Magic. In less than a century people will be chanting incantations and dancing around statues of Niels Bohr.

[c12_z]

When I said that evolution could explain all human actions, I was thinking about actions that are useful to survival and reproduction, as well as a lot of other stuff like emotions and religion.

It could be said that self-awareness is an actively beneficial trait: it tends to imbue an elevated sense of importance to yourself and your species, and, I'd say give any previously present curiosity a far greater potency than before. I'd think the effect on looking after oneself on the individual level would remain basically unaffected, but I'd think an overall positive effect on species survival could be considered possible. This elevated sense of importance of species is going to cause a greater working together to look after each other, combined with an increased to desire to gain explanations for why things are how they are.

This is speculative, of course, but I think it has a bit more to it than the idea that self-awareness is just there and hasn't had any noticeable impact on our behaviours and developments. To be frank, I find the idea that self-awareness has no impact at all on our development as species, in terms of reproduction, and all that, is tremendously hard to credit much.

Ok, I admit that not all behaviors could be explained by an unconscious organism -- specifically those behaviors which are a result of being curious about one's own consciousness.

So, all our behaviours can be explained explained outwith self-awareness except for those which can't? I'd agree, but I'd figure it kinda screws your argument over (big time).

[sepfield]

hi all :smile: - ah been down this road a few times - some interesting points been raised - as tangents to the OP

so lets look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ?? - is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you cant , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

now if we base this on "probability " then the probability is that NEITHER of the above scenarios are true and in fact you would be right

BUT you CAN NOT prove that I ACTUALLY typed this post - as you where not here to witness the act of ME ( sepfield ) doing this - what you SEE is the result of SOMEONE posting this post BUT YOU CAN NOT prove it was me - you can reasonably ASSUME this to be the case - but IS this proof ??

so how do we PROVE that a person DID NOT see a ghost ( basing his report on the commonly ACCEPTED definition of such phenomena ) - WE CAN NOT we are not he /her - we can not honestly say that that particular person did not witness something - because we can not see through their eyes - and receive the stimulus that they perceive from THEIR brain , they COULD be the only person in the whole world WHO CAN see ghosts , SCIENCE can not dismiss this POSSIBILITY , for if it dismisses this POSSIBILITY ,however remote , then it is setting itself up as the ULTIMATE arbiter of ALL THINGS - vis PLAYING GOD ( but we wont get int a debate about his or her existence just yet :rofl: )

so in my view PROOF is at BEST a common CONSENSIS that something is so - it however is not however the begin all and end all

so to sum up - we can NOT prove that ghosts ( whatever they may or may not be - but accepting the commonly accepted definition that they are NOT mortal/human etc , )DO NOT exist - and NEITHER can we prove they DO exist either !!

we base a LOT of what we do or don't "believe " to be true on mass consensus - and also what others teach us or "proclaim " to be the truth because they have PhD, or some such , or they are alleged "experts " in the field

but ARE THEY ?? - after all most of what we are taught is only "perceived wisdom " - passed down by others who "perceive " it to be the truth or fact or whatever you want to call it

as the old song go's "it AIN'T necessarily so !! "

right you may attack sepfield as you see fit - i am well used to that :wink:

[zoobyshoe]

hi all :smile: - ah been down this road a few times...

...as you see fit - i am well used to that :wink:

Do you believe in ghosts?

[DaveC426913]

so lets look at the whole question of proof , and you will have to bare with me on this ( before pouncing on me .lol )

what ,first of all constitutes PROOF ??


Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.



- is proof a general agreement that something does or does not exist ? , - ( science has been mentioned a lot by posters - but does science TRULY have all the answers ?? and has science not been proven wrong before ?? - also what gives "science" the seeming right to say "we are right , and everyone else is wrong , mistaken, delusional, seeing things , etc etc )

You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".



try this - because you are reading this post from me - can you PROVE , that I am actually posting it ?? - no you cant , someone else using my name COULD be posting it - or conversely you COULD be imagining that your are reading a post by me .

Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

[sepfield]

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.

fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models



You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".


oh please - don't start insulting me - ( i am not some dewy eyed grad student you know ) i am fully AWARE of the scientific method - i am also aware of a lot of "proponents " who claim to use it and also claim they are right and i and others are wrong - frequently ,



Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.

oh occam's razor - the simplest solution's always the best ( and yes i do deliberately misquote ) - because something seems to fit - don't always assume that it IS the answer - assumption as it is said "is the mother of all c**k ups !! - and i know this through practical experience out in the real world - and assumptions can cost lives :wink:


It's not a question of whether it's the "right" answer, it's a question of whether we can proceed intelligently with that theory. We can. (We respond to it.) If evidence presents itself to suggest that it is not you, we will fold that evidence into our model (which may or may not change it).

That's science.


i prefer "right" answers - theories are fine - but proof positive is what stands up in a court of law .:approve: ( unless you have a good lawyer :rofl:)

that's life



But one thing you said is true: you cannot prove someone did NOT see a ghost.

(Okay, well, actually you could. For example: If you set up a hoax, and then the victim fell for it, you could certainly say they saw your sock puppet rather than a real ghost.)

oh gosh though i had won one then -and now you gone and spoilt it :rofl:

OK being a bit mean to you here - yes i do appreciate what you are saying and i have had these arguments many times - and in many ways you are right - BUT what i am saying to you is this , NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened - and even a couple of very skilled forensic scientists have been baffled

that's why we have a little thing called a verdict of "misadventure" in our legal system here in the UK - in layman's terms it means "despite all the experts - they don't know what killed them "

( i used to be in the fire and rescue game - just so's you know :wink:)

[junglebeast]

NEVER let science blind you to possibilities , i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method ,

I think you should NEVER make the mistake of forgetting ALL the lessons we've learned about what is and is not physically possible, because what you THINK you see is not always what really happened...vision is largely an active hallucination in which your brain interprets often unreliable signals that you then perceive with confidence. It's much more likely that a person just interpreted evidence in the wrong way. So in summary, you should ALWAYS trust that scientifically proven things are correct, and NEVER put your full trust into hearsay, perception, or improbable things that you just want to believe because they would make life more interesting.

[sepfield]

Do you believe in ghosts?

naughty , that's like asking do i believe in god ?? :rofl:

to answer that i will say this :

i have never SEEN an actual fully materialised ghost - i have seen what i THINK was a partly materialised animal "ghost" ,phantom, shade , or whatever on a couple of occasions - basing this on the fact that my old cat has been deceased for some time , i do not have any other cats here , and i don't "think" i am loosing the plot ( this of course is always open to conjecture :rofl:)

and i have seen other things that remain "inexplicable "

but do I "believe" in ghosts ?? - i don't have any evidence to suggest they DON'T EXIST ,in some form - and neither do i have any cast iron ,stand up in court evidence to say they do -so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost ?? it is easy to use the term loosely to describe what if you have studied the phenomena , of the "paranormal" what is a VERY broad spectrum of " possibilities "

let me state for the record here that i "believe " that 99% of what is "reported" as paranormal phenomena is little more than class 1A BS , driven by in part , motive , ( money , fame, etc ) and more so by the c**p put out on TV about the subject

BUT i do NOT dismiss ALL cases - as there are some that do still need answers - but they are as RARE as hens teeth ( imho)

[zoobyshoe]

i have seen some very weird and inexplicable stuff in my time ,with causes and outcomes that defy logic ,let alone the scientific method , but never the less they HAVE happened
What have you seen?

[sepfield]

I think you should NEVER make the mistake of forgetting ALL the lessons we've learned about what is and is not physically possible, because what you THINK you see is not always what really happened...vision is largely an active hallucination in which your brain interprets often unreliable signals that you then perceive with confidence. It's much more likely that a person just interpreted evidence in the wrong way. So in summary, you should ALWAYS trust that scientifically proven things are correct, and NEVER put your full trust into hearsay, perception, or improbable things that you just want to believe because they would make life more interesting.


selective quoting - tut tut .

the incident i mentioned had "scientists" with vast experience and the back up of the forensic service baffled - ( obviously i cant go into detail as that would not respect the deceased ) - but never the less it did happen - and is a matter of court record + numerous witnesses to the outcome of the incident all of whom are level headed professionals with in many cases years of experience in a variety of scenarios and disciplines

so you tell me given the "evidence " ( vis the crash killed 4 people ) and also the FACT that scientific analysis of the scene , the vehicle , the road surface and many other factors all said " this should NOT have been the outcome " - how come it did ??

there is no black and white - sometimes even the experts go away scratching their heads !!

like wise i have attended accidents where people have survived against all logic and odds ( given the scenario )

guess one just has to put it down to the possibility that we ALL have a day to die - and it was just not theirs ??

some times - ( just occasionally ) - outcomes defy ALL logic - and we may have to accept that we JUST don't have an answer as to WHY :wink:

[zoobyshoe]

-so i have an open mind on the subject ,biased by experiential factors
Is this a yes or a no? I am not asking if you can prove anything, just what you believe deep down.

but as i have said to many others in the past - define what you mean by ghost??
What I am asking is whether you believe the apparitions people see are in any way externally stimulated by authentic non-corporeal entities of any description, as opposed to being hallucinations: erroneous triggering of sensory reactions from within the brain.

[sepfield]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum :wink:

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )

[zoobyshoe]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum :wink:

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )
Yes, but what IS your opinion? As I said, I'm not asking for proof, just gut level belief. For example here's mine: on a gut level I believe in something you could call telepathy.

[DaveC426913]

Scientifically: there is no proof. What there is, is a preponderance of evidence that the proposed model explains better and more elegantly than any other competing model.
fine words - er but what "evidence " ?? as you say the proposed "model" explains better and more elegantly - but we are talking proof here - not models
Sorry, you're missing my point. I'm not talking about ghosts here, I'm talking about what you are expecting from science. Science does not seek proof. What science seeks is a preponderance of evidence etc. etc.

I'm demonstrating that your premise is wrong - well, it's the OP's premise that's wrong.
I'm pretty sure we established satisfactorily in the course of this thread that proof of non-existence of something is unreasonable and faulty. You;ve come a little late to the table.



You really might want to read up on the scientific method. The definition above sounds like the beliefs of someone who has never been exposed to it.

Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER claimed to know all the answers.
Proponents of the scientific method have NEVER said "we are right and the rest of you are wrong".

oh please - don't start insulting me

For the record, I worded it carefully to avoid saying you have never been exposed to it, I'd suspected you were aware of the scientific method. Indeed, that is what makes me wonder why you would say such ignorant things as you did. Do you wish to retract them?


- ( i am not some dewy eyed grad student you know ) i am fully AWARE of the scientific method - i am also aware of a lot of "proponents " who claim to use it and also claim they are right and i and others are wrong - frequently ,

Why would you raise an argument that you don't hold? If you don't think this way and I don't think this way, why bring it up at all? You're trolling for a reaction.


Based on the evidence at-hand, it is the most likely model of how this post got here. There are other models, but there's no reason to suppose them since this one explains the evidence nicely.


oh occam's razor - the simplest solution's always the best ( and yes i do deliberately misquote ) - because something seems to fit - don't always assume that it IS the answer - assumption as it is said "is the mother of all c**k ups !! - and i know this through practical experience out in the real world - and assumptions can cost lives

Who assumed it was the correct answer? Stop putting words in my mouth.

I made no assumptions about what is correct.

...You are not discussing this with me, you are discussing it with a puppet that you've painted to look like me, and putting words in its mouth.

If you wish to refute something in a discussion, refute the things that are actually being said.

[QUOTE]
i prefer "right" answers - theories are fine - but proof positive is what stands up in a court of law . ( unless you have a good lawyer )

And bang. You've laid your hand on the table. (I should have just skipped down to here)

You're not a proponent of the scientific method, you're a faith believer.

Ohhh... That's why you're misrepresenting the scientific method and why you're hinting at examples of bad apple scientists who tarnish it's name. (It is only becoming apparent as I read your posts in reverse order.) You're against the scientific method. You seek "Right" versus "wrong".

[DaveC426913]

I don't know zoobyshoe - as i do not claim to be an expert in the field - all i look at is possibilities of which there are many - but i NEVER dare to say this is SO ( end of story ) as i COULD be wrong , or delusional , or mistaken , etc etc - but then again i COULD ALSO be correct in my opinion

and that at the end of the day is ALL i offer, opinion - i am not so pompous as to say I KNOW anything - as what any of us "perceive" as reality may not actually BE reality as has been stated and discussed on this very forum :wink:

call this fence sitting if you like , but what i "believe" and what i can PROVE , ARE 2 TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS , and at the end of the day i am just one person , who's opinions count for very little on the grand scale of things - ( but that's being realistic )
This is all smoke-screen.
No one claims to be an expert (except the experts)
All of us might be wrong. All of us might be delusional.

You are fence-sitting.



Put it this way: Which one will you put your money on?

[sepfield]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now - as i have stated several times - i am giving a person opinion - i do not assume the arrogant position of saying that i KNOW one way or another -( and that is an honest answer) and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

one could argue that blind faith in the tenants of science is akin to blind faith in the word of religion - ( neither of which i subscribe to BTW )

and why Dave c are you taking this so personally ?? - i have no beef with you what so ever - so why are you trying to say that i am ??

i am mearly trying to point out that neither science nor "faith" as you put it have ALL the answers to everything - and that there are some things that remain "inexplicable " at this juncture - and also in a round about way - that PROOF , absolute and irrevocable proof is a difficult one to achieve ( but i think we agree on that )

and as to fence sitting ( from another poster ) - the great virtue of sitting on fences is that when either side come up with a convincing argument which is logical and fits the known facts - or better provides proof one way or another - the sitter of fences can then jump down ,one side or another - and i think if you all have actually read my posts - then you can see which way i have my legs dangling over

no more than i expected though - so i will say no more on this - and then someone can accuse me of running away from the argument :wink:

like i said - been here before - strange sense of dejaview - creeping in

( i leave the stage open so those who wish can get the "final word in :rofl:- and i guarantee there will be those who will wish to - go on for once prove me wrong :smile:)

[Dadface]

There are more things in heaven and earth,Horatio than are etc.

[DaveC426913]

ah here we go the veiled insults are starting now
The patronizing tone you've used throughout (tut tut, etc.)
is equally as hostile, it's just passive aggressive. You're trying to convince yourself you're above being challenged.

Being able to predict your opponent's behaviour does not give you a superior edge. It's a technique that indicates you're uncomfortable argiung the issue at-hand (the utility of science in finding answers) and are more comfortable having a meta-discussion (a discussion about the discussion.) It is a form of straw man.


and as to being a "faith believer" - what "faith" would that be then ?? exactly ??

I don't know, you're the one who believes there are "right" answers out there. The rest of us have only science and logic to guide us.


and as to fence sitting ( from another poster ) - the great virtue of sitting on fences is that when either side come up with a convincing argument which is logical and fits the known facts - or better provides proof one way or another - the sitter of fences can then jump down ,one side or another - and i think if you all have actually read my posts - then you can see which way i have my legs dangling over

This is the obvious advantage of fence-sitting. No need to restate it.

The problem is you're argung merely academically, you don't hold the power of your convictions. Everytime one of your statements is challenged, you'll merely wag you finger and point out that you haven't taken a stand on the issue. As you have been doing.


If you're bowing out, then we can get back on track as to the discussion about proof of ghosts.

[Ivan Seeking]

Let's stay on topic. No more personal comments please.

[Count Iblis]

Proof that ghosts don't exist

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

[Ivan Seeking]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

What? Are you assuming that not only do ghosts exist, but also that we have scientific evidence of such? One assumption does not necessarily lead to the other.

Many people will tell you that they know for a fact that there are unexplained things that we call ghosts.

[junglebeast]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous? Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.

Edit: Ivan, that's not how I interpreted the Count's post at all...I think he was just making a point that that ghosts would lose their interest if they were real. I don't think he was proposing that they are actually real.

[Count Iblis]

What? Are you assuming that not only do ghosts exist, but also that we have scientific evidence of such? One assumption does not necessarily lead to the other.

Many people will tell you that they know for a fact that there are unexplained things that we call ghosts.

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

[junglebeast]

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

What?

[zoobyshoe]

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous? Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.
This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.

[Anticitizen]

While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge. Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy, yet somehow reflect or even emit light... sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs... able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality. If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.

[atyy]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

But by this definition ghosts can't exist - except in quantum field theory.

[junglebeast]

This certainly accounts for the "rogue" believer: generally a social misfit who stands alone against "society", "science" or "authority", defining themselves as individuals with "special" experiences and insights others don't possess,etc. There is, however, a lot of free-range general acceptance of the paranormal that isn't so desperate or intense. This permits people like James van Prague, John Edwards, and other mentalists to gather large audiences.

Unless there is an innate desire in all of us that makes us want to be somewhat unique...in which case, it can be used to explain all of the followers of those who are truly eccentric, because being a follower makes them (in their minds) one of the "few" who know...or part of the "in" group. It's also much easier to believe in something as a follower because then you're latching onto a pre-established idea and you can use the other followers to back up your own faith, allowing a completely eccentric idea to grow through a population exponentially. Sounds like a pretty typical social phenomenon...

[atyy]

What about this: Assume that ghosts existed. Then we would consider such ghosts to be part of our physical world. We wouldn't then called them ghosts, instead we would then have defined ghosts, spirits etc. to be other things that would still fall outside the normal physical world.

http://arxiv.org/abs/0709.2399? :rolleyes::smile:

[zoobyshoe]

Unless there is an innate desire in all of us that makes us want to be somewhat unique...in which case, it can be used to explain all of the followers of those who are truly eccentric, because being a follower makes them (in their minds) one of the "few" who know...or part of the "in" group. It's also much easier to believe in something as a follower because then you're latching onto a pre-established idea and you can use the other followers to back up your own faith, allowing a completely eccentric idea to grow through a population exponentially. Sounds like a pretty typical social phenomenon...

Off the top of my head I'd say there are two kinds of "followers" 1.) the kind you describe, who follow because it makes them feel special, which would apply to, say, Charles Manson's "family", and 2.) people who are just plain suggestible and don't seem able to resist anyone with a strong personality. The "Moonies" were mostly like this: very, very passive people who had a difficult time figuring out what life was about and what they should be doing. The followers of David Koresch and Jim Jones were probably also mostly the second kind and their near total dependence on being told what was right by others was evidenced by their ultimate agreement to kill themselves when told to do so. In the latter case compliance is secured by squelching any notions of individual "specialness"; they should obey because they can't see the big picture and wouldn't understand it if they did, sort of argument.

[Ivan Seeking]

No, what I'm saying is that there are things that are consistent with the laws of physics and there are (hypothetical) things that aren't. If you now consider any arbitrary universe with arbitrary laws of physics in which intelligent being would arise, they would define ghosts to be hypthetical entities of which there may be some vague anaecdotal evidence that are not coinsistent with the laws of physics (that are valid in their universe).

How precisely do you define "ghost"? Your entire argument assumes that we have a precise definition, when in fact what we find is a wide variety of reported phenomena that people lump together as if one. So, for starters, there is no reason to assume that one phenomenon has anything to do with the next except that they are declared to be "ghosts" based on popular notions of what that means.

Next, if you want to object on a physical basis, then you have to take one case at a time. To lump them all together as if one because it suits your objection is false logic.

[Ivan Seeking]

While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge.

Who says it is a creature? You?

Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy,

On what do you base this statement?

yet somehow reflect or even emit light...

Show me one example of someone claiming that a "ghost" reflects light. Next, if you can find one, show me the evidence that this is somehow related to other claims of light-emitting phenomena - that they are the same claim.

sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs...

Please show me some examples.

able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality.

Speakers make sounds and magnets can move objects. Which of these is a biological entity?

If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.

So a new discovery means that all that came before is false? That is not a scientific attitude. That is a faith-based belief.

[Ivan Seeking]

My thinking exactly. "Magic" is just the old fashioned word for magnetism, sleight of hand, electricity..."dragons" are just the old word for dinosaurs. The cyclops was just a myth sprung from elephant skulls. "Sea monsters" are just the old words for giant squids and whales. Everything that is unexplainable seems mysterious and interesting until we explain it, and then it just becomes part of the mundane. How many kids think it would be awesome if dinosaurs still roamed the Earth, but are bored and don't care to see a crocodile, elephant, comodo dragon, or rhinocerous?

You may be one of the only people who has ever visited this forum who correctly [with one exception] makes this point. In fact, what I think is operating here [the denial process] is human frailty and ego - the need to believe that we understand everything.

The exception: Not all phenomenon become mundain. Rogue waves are still not entirely understood; ball lightning and earth lights are a mystery. From what I can see, ball lightning is a complete mystery.

As soon as we saw Jules Verne's "milky sea" on satellite, like magic, we could suddenly imagine an explanation for it. But we don't really know the cause. We are just guessing.

Basically what it comes down to is that people want to be special. They want to be the one person who saw something nobody else saw...they want to believe that they are that person, and that's why people cling to these stories of ghosts, aliens, etc like a life raft...it's really just part of a larger identity crisis and wanting to feel special.

While I agree that this does happen, I completely disagree that it is true in all or even most cases. And beyond that, no one claiming to see ghosts or aliens or would be unique. At least millions of people have claimed to observe ghostly apparitions. As for aliens, while the claim is not as common, plenty of people have claimed to see them as well.

Edit: Ivan, that's not how I interpreted the Count's post at all...I think he was just making a point that that ghosts would lose their interest if they were real. I don't think he was proposing that they are actually real.

We were making assumptions. I was just trying to understand the nature and logical consistency of the assumptions made.

[junglebeast]

The exception: Not all phenomenon become mundain. Rogue waves are still not entirely understood; ball lightning and earth lights are a mystery. From what I can see, ball lightning is a complete mystery.

Well I wasn't saying that we have complete explanations for all phenomena, but pointing out that the only phenomena that capture our imaginations are those which he haven't been able to explain yet. After explaining the phenomena, it's like trying to rip a toy out of the hands of a child. People don't want to lose those things that capture their imagination, so they find ways to argue that the legends are still true, even after the original evidence for the legend has been explained.

[zoobyshoe]

While it's impossible to refute the existence of something so nebulous and ill-defined as a 'ghost', it's certainly safe to say that most of the alleged phenomena associated with the existence of such a creature is incompatible with almost all established scientific knowledge. Entities that don't appear to be made of matter or energy, yet somehow reflect or even emit light... sometimes visible to the naked eye, but sometimes appearing mischievously in photographs... able to make sounds, or even move objects... all without having the corpus of a biological organism, in violation with everything we know about reality. If ghosts exist, then we might as well throw out centuries of research and experimentation.
All good points.

If it can be seen walking through walls, suggesting it is not composed of matter, why would it also reflect, or otherwise emit, visible light? What do we know of which can simultaneously be seen with the naked eye and also have no interaction with matter?

In other reports, as with apparently human shapes appearing in photographs, if it can't be seen with the naked eye, by what "light" does it affect photographic processes? What do we know of that can't be seen with the naked eye, but which can be photographed? Here we have high voltage electric fields, and X-rays, but then you have to propose a speculative mechanism for how these sources of energy might arise and then contain themselves to project a humanoid form that mysteriously appears when the film is developed or the image later viewed.

In yet other circumstances, as with "poltergeists", if it can interact with air to produce sound, or interact with matter to move objects, why is it not then also visible to the naked eye? Gasses escaping from a pressurized situation, or released in explosions, are not visible to the naked eye, and can produce sound and could move objects, but you'd have to account for random pressurization in the absence of a container, or random, well-adjusted explosions that stack furniture, turn light switches on and off, and perform other apparently deliberate, controlled movements of objects.

I'd say the proposition of an entity that fits any of these scenarios is inconsistent with established physics, yes.

[junglebeast]

In other reports, as with apparently human shapes appearing in photographs, if it can't be seen with the naked eye, by what "light" does it affect photographic processes? What do we know of that can't be seen with the naked eye, but which can be photographed? Here we have high voltage electric fields, and X-rays, but then you have to propose a speculative mechanism for how these sources of energy might arise and then contain themselves to project a humanoid form that mysteriously appears when the film is developed or the image later viewed.

Indeed, it's pretty much a waste of time to seriously entertain the concept of a ghost for any believer in the scientific method, so it's not surprising this thread has been so off-topic -- it's pretty much a "sausage fest" of non-believers. But then again, didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy? And if you can debunk ghosts on the grounds of the scientific method, then why not telepathy?

[DaveC426913]

...didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy? Why do you assume that telepathy requires some "magical spiritual force"? You should probably withhold judgement on this until you know more about what he is claiming.

As a whimsical example: Perhaps he has access to some obscure studies that show how alpha brain waves can affect other people at very short distances. That requires no magical spiritual or mysterious forces.

I'm not saying he's right, or that he even has a leg to stand on, just that your judgment seems premature.

[Anticitizen]

Who says it is a creature? You?

I'm going by the definition of the word 'ghost'. As in, spirit, spectre, whatever.

On what do you base this statement?

The fact that ghosts are, by definition, noncorporeal.



Show me one example of someone claiming that a "ghost" reflects light.

Anything visible is either reflecting or emitting light.


Next, if you can find one, show me the evidence that this is somehow related to other claims of light-emitting phenomena - that they are the same claim.

Don't really know what you're asking, here. 'Claims of light-emitting phenomena'?


Please show me some examples.

It's one of the most common 'ghost sighting' claims. 'When I took this photograph of the graveyard, there was nobody here, but when I developed the film, you can see the shadow of a person floating above a grave', etc.


Speakers make sounds and magnets can move objects. Which of these is a biological entity?


Ah, I see... you seem to think that I'm discounting all claims of unexplained phenomena. I'm not. I'm arguing that the idea of a 'ghost', as per definition, would be incompatible with what we know about science.

So a new discovery means that all that came before is false? That is not a scientific attitude. That is a faith-based belief.
Not just a new discovery; a new discovery that specifically invalidates a prior belief.

By the way, breaking up the post like this is maddening, as context is quickly lost.

[zoobyshoe]

But then again, didn't you just say the other day that you believe in telepathy? Weren't you also arguing that consciousness is simply a byproduct of the neural circuitry using existing laws of physics, rather than some new mysterious forces? All these opinions seem contradictory. If you don't believe we are all linked by some magical spiritual force, then how can you believe in telepathy? And if you can debunk ghosts on the grounds of the scientific method, then why not telepathy?
You can certainly debunk any report of telepathy I make. There are probably a dozen rational alternate causes that could be suggested to explain any instance of it I have experienced. When I say I "believe" in it, I am more or less merely reporting a gut level, knee-jerk reaction I have whenever one of these incidents occurs. I think that, if I said I did not believe in it during a lie detector test that answer would register as a lie: it's a deep level automatic reaction, not the end product of informed analysis. That says something about me and nothing at all about telepathy.

To the extent I feel there is anything authentically unexplained about the incidents I am reacting to, I am more apt to suspect it is because there are neurological and psychological dynamics at work which haven't been completely defined and isolated as subjects of study. These are spin-offs of the matter of "rapport" which comes up so often in material about NLP and hypnotism.

In this youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwvA0rJ6rC0&feature=related

Derren Brown causes these strippers to feel that he has touched them when we can clearly see he hasn't.

On the subject of rapport Brown says:

"I develop that rapport by learning to see the situation from the perspective of the other person, not my own. Consider what happens in a normal conversation. Someone sits and talks about themselves, while you pick up on a few things that relate to you. You wait for then to finish so that you can say, 'Yes, I ...' and then start talking about yourself. They then respond by returning to their own stories and opinions, and so the dialogue continues. In other words, you are listening to someone to see how the conversation relates to you.
Now consider the alternative: you listen to whatever they have to say to learn how the content of their conversation relates to them. You build in your mind a representation of their way of seeing the world, and you piece together their patterns. People love talking about themselves, so you can happily ask any questions to complete those patterns and gain more information about their world. After a while, this will become almost second nature to you, and you will be able simply to look at someone and tell almost immediately what their reactions to various stimuli might be.

Mind control?
Once you understand someone else's perception of a situation, you can mentally exist inside their heads. If they want you to sort out a problem for them, you can do so more effectively, for you are not letting your own prejudices and ideas get in the way.
It is from this starting point that I can begin to play with the mind control for which I am known. It's not that I am really controlling other people. Rather, I am seeing events through their eyes and second-guessing their responses and thoughts. It's great fun"

Given that, you can see why he chose strippers for this demonstration. It's clear from the get-go that strippers are hyper-sensitive to being touched, and their hypervigilance against it has lead them all to become sensitive to the mere intention of touch inherent in a client's movement. I don't think he'd be able to demonstrate this eyes-closed ability on anyone who wasn't trained to be hypervigilant about being touched, and I don't think it would work without him working himself into the authentic intention to touch. At any rate, with strippers he is sure to have hypervigilance to work with.

He might have presented this somewhat differently as a demonstration of telepathy, of the girls' ability to read his mind, but he actually ends up demonstrating that they are perhaps not actually being touched all the times they accuse their clients of it.

This is all pertinent because it directly bears on some of the "telepathic" experiences I have had. Here's one:

I was in a store and there was a customer ahead of me who was taking a long time to wait on. Bored, I started examining the face of the cashier, (which is normal for me since I like to draw portraits). I'd seen her there before but never taken a good look. As I stared at her I began to realize that she was a lot more attractive than I'd ever noticed. The more I observed her, the more attractive her face looked. At some point this perception rose to become formulated as a sentence in my mind. I thought to myself: "My God! What a sweet face!"

She turned to me then, and mouthed the words "Thank you!" Then went back to helping the guy in front of me.

Needless to say, I was startled and felt my face turned red.

It seems at times to me that the intention to do or say something is mysteriously perceived by the other person as actually having been done or said. Not quite telepathy, but something that can convincingly present as telepathy. It doesn't require that we be linked by some "magical, spiritual force," just that the ability to read body language, facial expressions, the meaning of movements, is a great deal more precise and subtle than we might suppose, and also that, some people are prone to taking the information they pick up this way and developing it, synesthesia-like, into the actual experience of it: strippers feeling touched when they actually weren't, a woman hearing an enthusiastic compliment when none was actually uttered.

[zoobyshoe]

Why do you assume that telepathy requires some "magical spiritual force"? You should probably withhold judgement on this until you know more about what he is claiming.

As a whimsical example: Perhaps he has access to some obscure studies that show how alpha brain waves can affect other people at very short distances. That requires no magical spiritual or mysterious forces.

I'm not saying he's right, or that he even has a leg to stand on, just that your judgment seems premature.
I haven't read any studies like that, but I often wonder to what extent we can be directly physiologically affected by another's presence. When we talk about the "vibes" that people give off we mean their body language, facial expressions, the quality of their movements, the tone of their voice. If A sits next to B can A entrain B into his brain wave pattern by force of the above mentioned "vibes"? I can't help but think it often happens. It's clear that certain people elicit certain moods from us and that we prefer some people to others citing the effect they have on us.

edit: I do have A Leg To Stand On, by the way, and it's funny you mention it because I was just re-reading it last night:

http://www.amazon.com/Leg-Stand-Oliver-Sacks/dp/0684853957/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1240885618&sr=1-1

[junglebeast]

She turned to me then, and mouthed the words "Thank you!" Then went back to helping the guy in front of me.

Needless to say, I was startled and felt my face turned red.

Well, you're right I do have a rational explanation for that: girls are so hyper sensitive to being gawked at that they almost have a sixth sense for noticing when it happens. She was probably just glad that you preferred staring at her face than her boobs!

From the sounds of it, you might have been pretty obvious about it, and even if she wasn't looking directly at you, it's not hard to notice being stared at out of your peripheral vision.

It seems at times to me that the intention to do or say something is mysteriously perceived by the other person as actually having been done or said. Not quite telepathy, but something that can convincingly present as telepathy. It doesn't require that we be linked by some "magical, spiritual force," just that the ability to read body language, facial expressions, the meaning of movements, is a great deal more precise and subtle than we might suppose,

Well, I certainly can't argue with that...but I think it's a bit misleading to refer to it as telepathy.


-- on telepathy --
I don't think it would be impossible to build a biological sensor for detecting and interpreting brain waves, I just don't see any evidence that humans have such a sense...and if they did, it would surely be limited to extremely short ranges due to wave interference and signal decay, which would make it either impractical or redundant in comparison to vocalization.

--cool idea--

I do think it would be possible to create telepathy artificially. From what we know the brain is quite plastic and capable of interpreting signals. For example, people have learned to see through interpreting the electrical signals from digital sensors that have been fused into their visual cortex, or even from muscle patterns felt on their chest. Therefore, I suspect that it would also be possible to build a radio that was fused into the brain with a receiver and transmitter that the brain could then learn how to interpret and send messages with, provided there was feedback.

[zoobyshoe]

Well, you're right I do have a rational explanation for that: girls are so hyper sensitive to being gawked at that they almost have a sixth sense for noticing when it happens. She was probably just glad that you preferred staring at her face than her boobs!

From the sounds of it, you might have been pretty obvious about it, and even if she wasn't looking directly at you, it's not hard to notice being stared at out of your peripheral vision.
Even if she was well aware of me staring with a look of approbation for her appearance on my face, which I don't doubt, it would still be highly peculiar for her to stop what she was doing and mouth the words "Thank you!" It's way too specific to what I was thinking: "My God! What a sweet face!" and the timing of that thought.
Well, I certainly can't argue with that...but I think it's a bit misleading to refer to it as telepathy.
I usually qualify "telepathy" with "or something that convincingly presents as telepathy". The point is, it always seems more uncanny than mere body language reading, while being less impressive than long distance telegraphy of distress signals, as you often hear about in stories: "I had a weird feeling he was in pain. I don't know why. Then the phone rang, and it was the police saying he'd been in a car crash!"
I don't think it would be impossible to build a biological sensor for detecting and interpreting brain waves, I just don't see any evidence that humans have such a sense...and if they did, it would surely be limited to extremely short ranges due to wave interference and signal decay, which would make it either impractical or redundant in comparison to vocalization.
What is your explanation for the strippers thinking they'd been touched, and knowing the number of times he almost touched them? Suppose they heard his jacket rustling. Why did they then feel a physical touch?

[junglebeast]

What is your explanation for the strippers thinking they'd been touched, and knowing the number of times he almost touched them? Suppose they heard his jacket rustling. Why did they then feel a physical touch?

Notice that he made 3 quick touching gestures over the first girl's hand, and she specifically reported feeling 3 touches. That's probably not a coincidence. By the nature of the experiment, she was expecting to be touched lightly at least once, so it is conceivable that she felt the air currents from those three gestures and interpreted them as light touches given her hyper-sensitive state of awareness. However, the second girl, having just witnessed what he did to the first girl, would be prepared to be touched zero times, and would therefore not fall for a subtle suggestion of touch that wasn't real. The fact that she was very confident in being touched tells me that she was touched, most likely by some sleight of hand trick where he dropped a grain of sand onto her hand or something.

If she was not actually being touched, then why would Derren make touching gestures? It would certainly be more convincing to have someone perceive being touched if your hand wasn't poking around in the air right next to it. A trickster wants his tricks to look as good as possible, so if it wasn't necessary to poke around like that as part of the trick, he would have not done that. This is another strong argument for sleight of hand.

[atyy]

What is your explanation for the strippers thinking they'd been touched, and knowing the number of times he almost touched them? Suppose they heard his jacket rustling. Why did they then feel a physical touch?

http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/post_4.html

[zoobyshoe]

http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/post_4.html
Yes!

He told them he was going to touch them and where, so they were primed for that, (as opposed to having a word whispered in their ear, or some other sensory experience) and so they reacted to some small sound of his clothing rustling when he moved, or air moving, by creating the hallucination of his touch, just the way people create the hallucination of a vibrating cell phone!

[Ms Music]

I have a friend that does massage, and energetic healing - I think it is called cranial sacral? I don't know anything about it at all, but one time she needed a body to practice on, so she used me. (its so hard to turn down a free massage!) She apparently found something that wasn't working right, so she started the energetic healing part, and still couldn't get it to "work right", what ever that meant. I decided to tell myself to focus my energies to help her, and literally within 5 seconds of my making the decision in my mind, when suddenly she says "Whoa! I have never felt this before! I couldn't get (this part) to move right, then suddenly all this extra energy came out from nowhere and now it is working right!"

Now I know nothing of what she does. But if people like her can "heal" with their own energies, and I apparently did something to help her, can't that be proven somehow? I watched part of the video posted in #101 (although I don't have speakers to hear what he said), I didn't find anything interesting in that at all (too easy to explain away). But I find zooby's story very interesting, and possibly proof of something that we can't fully understand yet. But can't science determine if something is changing within a body based on this stuff? How does science so readily wave this away as being hocus pocus?

[junglebeast]

Now I know nothing of what she does. But if people like her can "heal" with their own energies, and I apparently did something to help her, can't that be proven somehow? I watched part of the video posted in #101 (although I don't have speakers to hear what he said), I didn't find anything interesting in that at all (too easy to explain away). But I find zooby's story very interesting, and possibly proof of something that we can't fully understand yet. But can't science determine if something is changing within a body based on this stuff? How does science so readily wave this away as being hocus pocus?

Concentrating your mental energies to heal yourself is a completely different thing from telepathy. I've heard a lot of convincing evidence suggesting that many biological functions which are not generally thought to be under conscious mental control can, through training, be controlled.

[Ms Music]

Why is it different? If someone can make energetic healing changes within me, how is that different from zooby being telepathic? I mean, on the surface I understand the differences, but fundamentally, why is it so different?

[junglebeast]

Why is it different? If someone can make energetic healing changes within me, how is that different from zooby being telepathic? I mean, on the surface I understand the differences, but fundamentally, why is it so different?

Because your brain is already physically connected to your body, and your thoughts are obviously able to control many body functions (eg, muscle movement). You may be able to heal yourself mentally, but that doesn't mean somebody else can heal you just by thinking about you...your brain is not connected to someone else's brain...so there's no way to communicate directly.

[zoobyshoe]

Why is it different? If someone can make energetic healing changes within me, how is that different from zooby being telepathic? I mean, on the surface I understand the differences, but fundamentally, why is it so different?
I think you have misunderstood my posts on this subject: I did not claim I was telepathic. The claim I made was that the cashier seemed to be telepathic. Also, you need to watch the Derren Brown video with sound and then also read the article linked to by Atyy:

http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/03/post_4.html

The overall thing I am calling attention to is that there seems to be situations where the intention to say or do something can be experienced by someone else as the fact of it being said or done. My proposed mechanism for this is hypersensitivity to a particular stimulus coupled with a primed hallucination when properly triggered.

In the case of your massage I would explain it by saying your friend has done it enough to figure out when someone is somewhat resisting the experience or when they let go and completely put themselves in her hands. There's a number of different, purely physical, reactions she could get this information from, and then proceed to hallucinate the sensation of "energy" flowing in her hands, according to her beliefs about what's going on. To her, it feels completely real, just like the phantom cell phone vibration feels so real that people take their phones out and check them, and are surprised when there is no actual call.

[Ms Music]

You may be able to heal yourself mentally, I can??? Well, I guess I will just cancel that doctors appointment then! Who needs medical science when I can heal myself! (sorry for my sarcasm, I say that in fun only) :smile:

but that doesn't mean somebody else can heal you just by thinking about you....

But that was my point. Some people "apparently" CAN heal others, and it is something my friend is apparently gaining the ability to do. Okay, so maybe it involves touching the person to sense what is sick in the body. But once again, how is that different from zooby? Couldn't that be considered telecommunication with cells in another persons body?

[Ms Music]

There's a number of different, purely physical, reactions she could get this information from, and then proceed to hallucinate the sensation of "energy" flowing in her hands, according to her beliefs about what's going on. To her, it feels completely real, just like the phantom cell phone vibration feels so real that people take their phones out and check them, and are surprised when there is no actual call.

This is the point I was leading to. thank you. :cool: But can science monitor if something is truly happening?

I think you have misunderstood my posts on this subject: I did not claim I was telepathic. The claim I made was that the cashier seemed to be telepathic.

Sorry for my twisting it.

[zoobyshoe]

This is the point I was leading to. thank you. :cool: But can science monitor if something is truly happening?
Absolutely. Mental events have physical consequences: the release of hormones, blood vessel dilation or constriction, and others. The thought of danger alone starts the fight or flight response in a person. That's important to understand: the thought alone! Thinking and the consequent emotions it provokes have measurable physical consequences.

Back when Transcendental Meditation was the big fad there were many studies done in which people were hooked up to EEGs, heart and breathing monitors, etc, and it was shown beyond doubt that meditation produced remarkable changes in all these readings: brain waves slowed down, blood pressure dropped (maybe other stuff I don't recall, too).

Extended periods of mental stress have been shown to lead to less effective immune system responses. To the extent a person can be made to relax by meditation or massage it puts the body in a much better position to heal itself naturally.

This is why the thought you are being touched can, under the right circumstances, cause all the neurons involved in feeling a touch to fire, even when they haven't actually been stimulated by touch receptors in the skin. They've proven this with magnetencephalography: some people who are going deaf sometimes hallucinate hearing music. Scans of their brains show that the part of the temporal lobe involved in hearing music is actually firing and active, just as if actual music were being played.

[Ms Music]

So someone seeing a ghost is no different than the fact that I have The Cure in my head right now.

[junglebeast]

But that was my point. Some people "apparently" CAN heal others, and it is something my friend is apparently gaining the ability to do. Okay, so maybe it involves touching the person to sense what is sick in the body. But once again, how is that different from zooby? Couldn't that be considered telecommunication with cells in another persons body?

But the example you gave was not an example of a person healing another...

here was your example:
She apparently found something that wasn't working right, so she started the energetic healing part, and still couldn't get it to "work right", what ever that meant. I decided to tell myself to focus my energies to help her, and literally within 5 seconds of my making the decision in my mind, when suddenly she says "Whoa! I have never felt this before! I couldn't get (this part) to move right, then suddenly all this extra energy came out from nowhere and now it is working right!"

The only thing this is an example of is her feeling that your muscles became more relaxed while massaging you after you consciously made an effort to relax. How is it that you interpret that to be an example of her using mental powers to heal you of anything? As far as I can tell, you did not even have a problem that needed to be healed.

[Ms Music]

My point was actually very similar to zooby's story. I didn't heal myself, I just told myself to think like she does and told my "energy" to help her. She just happened to notice it immediately, just like the cashier noticed zooby making the mental comment on her sweet face. I have no idea what she thought was wrong with my body, or what she or I did. All I know is I made a mental decision, and she noticed the energy flow.

And I didn't say she healed me. I say some claim to be able to.

[zoobyshoe]

So someone seeing a ghost is no different than the fact that I have The Cure in my head right now.
What?

[DaveC426913]

My point was actually very similar to zooby's story. I didn't heal myself, I just told myself to think like she does and told my "energy" to help her. She just happened to notice it immediately, just like the cashier noticed zooby making the mental comment on her sweet face. I have no idea what she thought was wrong with my body, or what she or I did. All I know is I made a mental decision, and she noticed the energy flow.

And I didn't say she healed me. I say some claim to be able to.
No, she noticed it by touching you. Before: bad, after: good. No mysterious forces there.

The only thing that could be considered a mystery is you healing yourself.

[Ivan Seeking]

Hey Zooby, while I know that you bring a wealth of great information to the discussion, you are getting specific enough wrt TM and physiological effects such that some references would be appropriate.

[atyy]

http://books.google.com/books?id=CXYa_Khlk9kC&printsec=frontcover#PPA233,M1

[zoobyshoe]

Hey Zooby, while I know that you bring a wealth of great information to the discussion, you are getting specific enough wrt TM and physiological effects such that some references would be appropriate.
Abstract from a 1970 study:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/167/3926/1751

Oxygen consumption, heart rate, skin resistance, and electroenceph-alograph measurements were recorded before, during, and after subjects practiced a technique called transcendental meditation. There were significant changes between the control period and the meditation period in all measurements. During meditation, oxygen consumption and heart rate decreased, skin resistance increased, and the electroencephalogram showed specific changes in certain frequencies. These results seem to distinguish the state produced by transcendental meditation from commonly encountered states of consciousness and suggest that it may have practical applications.

From American Medical Association:

Overall, of the 103 participants who were enrolled, 84 (82 percent) completed the study. At the end of the trial, patients in the Transcendental Meditation group had significantly lower blood pressure; improved fasting blood glucose and insulin levels, which signify reduced insulin resistance; and more stable functioning of the autonomic nervous system. “These physiological effects were accomplished without changes in body weight, medication or psychosocial variables and despite a marginally statistically significant increase in physical activity in the health education group,” the authors write.

“These current results also expand our causal understanding of the role of stress in the rising epidemic of the metabolic syndrome,” they continue. “Although current low levels of physical activity, unhealthy eating habits and resultant obesity are triggers for this epidemic, the demands of modern society may also be responsible for higher levels of chronic stress.” Such stress causes the release of cortisol and other hormones and neurotransmitters, which over time damage the cardiovascular system.
http://www.tm.org/american-medical-association

[sepfield]

Let's stay on topic. No more personal comments please.

well said sir ! - just popped back in to say that to be fair ,i was just fishing to see the GENERAL tone of the board and Dave unfortunately fell right into my trap - so i offer Dave a full apology for bating him - so sorry mate nothing personal :smile:

the whole point of the exercise is to show that when we start talking about the nebulous concept of "ghosts" it appears there are just 2 camps the skeptics - who will brook no argument and the believers who also will brook no argument

unfortunately - the skeptical tend to use the same dismissive set of tactics each time - hence my original comment of " been here before " - and i just wondered if this board was any different ?? - obviously not

anyways - i will thank you all for your time - and forbearance - oh and for the record Dave

yea i do believe in them - as like a lot of other things not accepted by science ( par ce ) - to do otherwise is the height of folly - or the height of arrogance - not too sure which

have good and safe lives all - and whatever you believe - be comfortable with it - because at the end of the day YOU and YOU alone have to live with it - the rest out there ?- do they REALLY care a jot WHAT you think or believe in ??

one to ponder

thanks again for your time all

my best regards to you all

sepfeild has NOW left the building :rofl:

byeeeeeeeee

[zoobyshoe]

This should probably also have a reference, and needs a couple corrections:
This is why the thought you are being touched can, under the right circumstances, cause all the neurons involved in feeling a touch to fire, even when they haven't actually been stimulated by touch receptors in the skin. They've proven this with magnetencephalography: some people who are going deaf sometimes hallucinate hearing music. Scans of their brains show that the part of the temporal lobe involved in hearing music is actually firing and active, just as if actual music were being played.
(I said "magnetoencephalography" when it was actually a PET scan. Also, the activity is not described as being in the temporal lobe but in the "music processing regions of the brain", which are not limited to the primary auditory cortex of the temporal lobe.)

Griffiths has taken this research further. He studied six elderly patients who developed musical hallucinations after they began to go deaf. The music they heard ranged from rugby songs to the hits of British singer Shirley Bassey. Griffiths scanned his subjects' brains with a technique known as PET (positron emission tomography). He injected a radioactive marker into their bloodstream, which accumulated in the most active parts of the brains of his subjects. Each time he scanned his subjects' brains, he asked them whether they had experienced a musical hallucination during the scan. If they had, he asked them to rate its intensity on a scale from one to seven.

Griffiths discovered a network of regions in the brain that became more active as the hallucinations got more intense. He was taken aback by their pattern. "You see a very similar pattern in normal people who are listening to music," he says. The main difference is that musical hallucinations don't activate the primary auditory cortex, the first stop for sound in the brain. When people hallucinate, they use only the parts of the brain responsible for turning simple sounds into complex music.

Griffiths has used these results to build a hypothesis: The music-processing regions of the brain are continually looking for patterns in the signals arriving from the ears. As these regions recognize a tune, they amplify certain sounds that fit the music and minimize extraneous sounds. That's how you can hear the melody of a piano in a noisy lounge. When no sound is coming into the ears, Griffiths argues, neurons in the music network sometimes spontaneously fire off random impulses. The brain can seize on these signals and try to impose some structure to them, rummaging through its memories for a match. A few notes may suddenly turn into a familiar melody.

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2004.php?subaction=showfull&id=1177189852&archive=&start_from=&ucat=7&

[DaveC426913]

well said sir ! - just popped back in to say that to be fair ,i was just fishing The word you're looking for is trolling. :rolleyes:

[Ms Music]

What? Sorry, that comment was relating to this part of what you said:

This is why the thought you are being touched can, under the right circumstances, cause all the neurons involved in feeling a touch to fire, even when they haven't actually been stimulated by touch receptors in the skin. They've proven this with magnetencephalography: some people who are going deaf sometimes hallucinate hearing music. Scans of their brains show that the part of the temporal lobe involved in hearing music is actually firing and active, just as if actual music were being played.
If I hear music in my head, my brain is active as if I was actually hearing it. So if someone sees a "ghost", their brain is probably firing in the same way as if they had actually seen a person. I believe the brain is capable of making people think they have experienced something, but that is just their neurons firing. And that my friend thinking she is moving things in my body energetically just might be the same thing, also. But her (or someone better) being able to heal energetically should be easier to prove than proving ghosts. Same as if zooby can prove the cashier actually "heard" his thought.

The only thing that could be considered a mystery is you healing yourself.

But I didn't heal myself. If I could heal myself, I would be ecstatic. No more doctors visits! But unfortunately, I am in the doctors office far more than I care to be. No mysteries there, no healing myself.

[DaveC426913]

But I didn't heal myself. If I could heal myself, I would be ecstatic.
Look, since there's no physical evidence that she fixed you, why would you assume it is she that did it? Why do you find it easier to believe that someone else can make you feel better from a distance than that you can make yourself feel better from within? You know perfectly well this is possible. It is well-documented that people can psychosomatically make themselves ill as much as they can make themselves better.

Your claim is that you don't know how to heal yourself. But you also don't know that she can heal anyone. All you have is her belief in herself. But believing something does not make it so.

I know you want to believe that your friend can and did heal you with her energies. But ask yourself, given the circumstances under which it happened, do you really, dispassionately, think that is the most logical conclusion?

[zoobyshoe]

If I hear music in my head, my brain is active as if I was actually hearing it.
The people in the study, people with musical hallucinations, 'hear' the music as totally real. They do not doubt it's coming from some radio or TV or CD player, and they spend a great deal of time at first hunting around for the source, but they can't find one. It sounds external to their head and is distinctly different from normal imagining of music that anyone might do, which can't be mistaken for being "real". It takes a long time for people with musical hallucinations to logically put the facts together and realize it's an hallucination.

So, I can't really answer your question because I don't know if when you say "hear music in my head" you are saying 'imagined' music sounds as real to you as what comes from an ipod or CD player. There is some confusion in my mind because of the way you put it.

At any rate, what Griffiths discovered was that the brains of people with musical hallucinations were almost as active as those listening to real music, the difference being that the primary auditory cortex, which is where imput from the outside would be received, is not active. Processing areas after that are active, though, and the patterns he saw were "remarkably similar" to the patterns of people listening to actual music.

So if someone sees a "ghost", their brain is probably firing in the same way as if they had actually seen a person.
"In the same way" meaning whatever picture they construct of the "ghost" gets inserted into their perception of the visual field as if it were actually in the visual field, when it isn't.
I believe the brain is capable of making people think they have experienced something, but that is just their neurons firing. And that my friend thinking she is moving things in my body energetically just might be the same thing, also. But her (or someone better) being able to heal energetically should be easier to prove than proving ghosts. Same as if zooby can prove the cashier actually "heard" his thought.
The basic idea is that if you have a pattern of neuronal firing set up in your brain, as with the experience of cell phone vibration coupled to anticipation, that whole sequence can be triggered from within the brain without the cell phone actually vibrating. It's much like Pavlov's dog.

My telepathy notion is that the whole thing can get very much more sophisticated than that.

[DaveC426913]

The people in the study, people with musical hallucinations, 'hear' the music as totally real. They do not doubt it's coming from some radio or TV or CD player, and they spend a great deal of time at first hunting around for the source, but they can't find one. It sounds external to their head and is distinctly different from normal imagining of music that anyone might do, which can't be mistaken for being "real". It takes a long time for people with musical hallucinations to logically put the facts together and realize it's an hallucination.

So, I can't really answer your question because I don't know if when you say "hear music in my head" you are saying 'imagined' music sounds as real to you as what comes from an ipod or CD player. There is some confusion in my mind because of the way you put it.

At any rate, what Griffiths discovered was that the brains of people with musical hallucinations were almost as active as those listening to real music, the difference being that the primary auditory complex, which is where imput from the outside would be received, is not active. Processing areas after that are active, though, and the patterns he saw were "remarkably similar" to the patterns of people listening to actual music.


"In the same way" meaning whatever picture they construct of the "ghost" gets inserted into their perception of the visual field as if it were actually in the visual field, when it isn't.

The basic idea is that if you have a pattern of neuronal firing set up in your brain, as with the experience of cell phone vibration coupled to anticipation, that whole sequence can be triggered from within the brain without the cell phone actually vibrating. It's much like Pavlov's dog.

My telepathy notion is that the whole thing can get very much more sophisticated than that.
Oliver Sacks goes into this in great detail in his book Musicophilia (http://www.musicophilia.com/). Fascinating stuff. Then again, everything Sacks studies always is.

[zoobyshoe]

Oliver Sacks goes into this in great detail in his book Musicophilia (http://www.musicophilia.com/). Fascinating stuff. Then again, everything Sacks studies always is.
Yeah, that book is where I found out about Griffiths:


"In 2000, Timothy Griffiths published a detailed and pioneering report on the neural basis of musical hallucinations; he was able to show, using PET scans, that musical hallucinations were associated with a widespread activation of the same neural networks that are normally activated during the perception of actual music."

Oliver Sacks
Musicophilia
p.84


20+ years ago I knew a family; a guy, his wife, and his mother. The mother was in her late 60's. The guy made fun of her behind her back to me one day because she was always chasing around, he said, trying to find out where this music was coming from, music no one else could hear. I thought it was very peculiar because the mother was a no-nonsense, level headed person.

Anyway, some years later I read the two cases of the same thing Sacks put in The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat. Then, as you know, he goes into even greater depth about it in one chapter of Musicophilia. It turns out to be extremely common, not the rare thing he supposed when he wrote about it the first time. People don't tell their doctors a lot of things, Sack's says, because they're afraid they're going to be label as "crazy" or, in a lot of cases, they assume these things just happen, and don't think of them as "symptoms" of anything.

[zoobyshoe]

I just remembered that in Seeing Voices Sacks describes a similar hallucinating what you expect, or mental filling in of some sensory piece that is missing from a pre-established habit of concurrance of inputs from two separate stimuli. In this case it can happen to people who become deaf after having had hearing long enough to learn language. He describes David Wright, here, who became deaf at age seven:


Wright speaks of the “phantasmal voices” that he hears when anyone speaks to him provided he can see the movements of their lips and faces, and of how he would “hear” the soughing of the wind whenever he saw trees or branches being stirred by the wind. He gives a fascinating description of this first happening - of its immediate occurance with the onset of deafness:

"[My deafness] was made more difficult to perceive because from the very first my eyes had unconsciously begun to translate motion into sound. My mother spent most of the day beside me and I understood everything she said. Why not? Without knowing it I had been reading her mouth all my life. When she spoke I seemed to hear her voice. It was an illusion that persisted even after I knew it was an illusion. My Father, my cousin, everyone I had known, retained phantasmal voices. That they were imaginary, the projections of habit and memory, did not come home to me untill I had left the hospital. One day I was talking with my cousin and he, in a moment of inspiration, covered his mouth with his hand as he spoke. Silence! One and for all I understood that when I could not see I could not hear."

Though Wright knows the sounds he “hears” to be “illusory” - “projections of habit and memory” - they remain intensely vivid for him throughout the decades of his deafness. For Wright, for those deafened after hearing is well established, the world may remain full of sounds even though they are “phantasmal”.

Seeing Voices
Oliver Sacks
Pp 5-6

[veattaivatsan]

I was in a store and there was a customer ahead of me who was taking a long time to wait on. Bored, I started examining the face of the cashier, (which is normal for me since I like to draw portraits). I'd seen her there before but never taken a good look. As I stared at her I began to realize that she was a lot more attractive than I'd ever noticed. The more I observed her, the more attractive her face looked. At some point this perception rose to become formulated as a sentence in my mind. I thought to myself: "My God! What a sweet face!"

She turned to me then, and mouthed the words "Thank you!" Then went back to helping the guy in front of me.

Needless to say, I was startled and felt my face turned red.


I have examined many girls for a hour or so,like this! but not even a single girl responded or acknowledged!:cry::cry:
not even single said "thank you"!

[zoobyshoe]

I have examined many girls for a hour or so,like this! but not even a single girl responded or acknowledged!:cry::cry:
not even single said "thank you"!
Heheheh. It seems like it would make things so much easier doesn't it?

[veattaivatsan]

But that was my point. Some people "apparently" CAN heal others, and it is something my friend is apparently gaining the ability to do. Okay, so maybe it involves touching the person to sense what is sick in the body.

No.It may not be healing ability of the other,but the rise in faith in you.Your hope raises when someone touches you while in stress or fear!
I have experienced it a lot. When you feel tensed,just hug or keep hand on others shoulder,you may feel the tension reducing suddenly. and also if someone hugs or touches your shoulder or head , while you're nervous or anxious,you will feel comfortable . This is becuase,your mind believes that "ok,I have someone to help me or to stand by me" , and will divert its attention to some other things. thereby reducing your fears ! When you're ill, a experienced doctor will touch and feel your heat rather than keeping thermometer in your mouth. touching can heal,not because of toucher's ability,but because your mind catches hope in that touch. That why touching or patting lightly on baby will make him/her sleep. If you want to reduce your friend's anxiety or illness,just hug or touch them .It will be best than speaking and consoling them for hours.(dont do this in case of swine flu :wink:).

[veattaivatsan]

Yes!

He told them he was going to touch them and where, so they were primed for that, (as opposed to having a word whispered in their ear, or some other sensory experience) and so they reacted to some small sound of his clothing rustling when he moved, or air moving, by creating the hallucination of his touch, just the way people create the hallucination of a vibrating cell phone!

Ya,I had this cell-phone-ringing-when-it-doesnt many a times. I dont text a lot using my cell,but sometimes,I feel or hear ringing and after few seconds,the cell will ring! It scares me many times.I dont even expect and sit near cell,but I may be in other room and may suddenly come hearing the tone. but the cell doesnt ring,I turn back and suddenly the cell really rings.
One of my friends also told me about the vibration in his pants! BUt not all experiences this! only one or two of people i have met told of this when asked!

[veattaivatsan]

Heheheh. It seems like it would make things so much easier doesn't it?

No.
Here,in India,girls never approach a guy nor say a word.Its an unwritten rule here that guys should go behind girls!
leave it. I think we need to debunk this "approach"!

[catawampous]

For a start, one has to disprove that ghosts do exist... not prove that ghosts do not exist as this is impossible. Silly really because disproving the existence of ghosts is also impossible.. for now anyway. Though I am totally looking for theorists to explain the paranormal, instead of the closed minded skeptics ranting on and on without a shred of usable evidence...

[zoobyshoe]

For a start, one has to disprove that ghosts do exist... not prove that ghosts do not exist as this is impossible. Silly really because disproving the existence of ghosts is also impossible.. for now anyway. Though I am totally looking for theorists to explain the paranormal, instead of the closed minded skeptics ranting on and on without a shred of usable evidence...
Damn bastard skeptics. If they would only go away anything would be possible!

[catawampous]

Damn bastard skeptics. If they would only go away anything would be possible!

anything is possible... just skeptic the skeptics...

[Ivan Seeking]

For a start, one has to disprove that ghosts do exist... not prove that ghosts do not exist as this is impossible. Silly really because disproving the existence of ghosts is also impossible.. for now anyway. Though I am totally looking for theorists to explain the paranormal, instead of the closed minded skeptics ranting on and on without a shred of usable evidence...

You have things a little backwards. Claims of the paranormal require evidence, not the other way around. Skeptics have nothing to prove.

[catawampous]

You have things a little backwards. Claims of the paranormal require evidence, not the other way around. Skeptics have nothing to prove.

yeah, claims do require evidence... but what I mean is that proof requires that a thing can not be disproven. Like, god can not be disproven, therefore there is still a chance God exists, the same as ghosts.

[CEL]

yeah, claims do require evidence... but what I mean is that proof requires that a thing can not be disproven. Like, god can not be disproven, therefore there is still a chance God exists, the same as ghosts.

You are right. You cannot prove a universal negative. So you cannot prove that ghosts, alien visitors, gods, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy don't exist.
The impossibility of proving their existence does not mean that they do exist and says nothing about the likelihood of their existence.
As Ivan said, believers in those things must present only one instance of those beings to prove their existence. While no instance is presented there is no proof one way or another.

[Ms Music]

I told myself I wasn’t coming back to this thread…… In fact, I shouldn’t be here now, as I don’t get a lunch break for the 2nd day in a row. But I decided I am tired of seeing myself quoted when I never finished what I was trying to get to. And it probably is only fair to you guys that I finish explaining. I rarely have time to spend on posting, so it can take several days to finally get enough said to make my point. And we seemed to disagree on a certain sticking point….. So it may take me all day to type this response, and hopefully I can finally get it all said. I wasn’t trying to prove that my friend did anything special, nor that I did anything special. I was just using an example to get to a point in a round about way.

So now, with my disclaimer handled, on to what I was trying to get at way back when.

But that was my point. Some people "apparently" CAN heal others, and it is something my friend is apparently gaining the ability to do. Okay, so maybe it involves touching the person to sense what is sick in the body. But once again, how is that different from zooby? Couldn't that be considered telecommunication with cells in another persons body?

The reason I said “apparently”, is that there are people that believe they can heal, and there are people that believe they have been healed by the healers. This should be testable (with fMRI). It is the same with telecommunication. What happened with Zooby is very testable. Did you ask her if she “heard” your comment? If so, you definitely have your own proof that there was telecommunication between the two of you. If you didn’t ask her, all you have is your own perception of what you want to believe happened. And what happened could be as simple as my assuming that when you had the thought “what a cute face”, that a tiny smile actually crossed your own face. She sees that tiny smile, and realizes that you are being patient and understanding while she deals with this difficult customer. So she looks at you and whispers “Thank you” [for your patience and understanding] while the difficult customer is looking away.

I just remembered that in Seeing Voices Sacks describes a similar hallucinating what you expect, or mental filling in of some sensory piece that is missing from a pre-established habit of concurrance of inputs from two separate stimuli.

Explains exactly what I was describing above. With my example of cranial sacral, there is no proof that there was anything wrong with me, there is no proof that she (or I) did anything to fix me. It is easy to “hallucinate what I/you expect” that she or I healed something. It is possible that something similar to an fMRI could be used to show what was going on in the brain, since FMRI can be used to show blood flow increasing when neurons are activated. Without some sort of physical proof of what occurs during cranial sacral, there is no proof that anything at all happened, especially if it can’t be duplicated. But it doesn’t mean that it can’t be proven in the future.

The same with ghosts. You can’t prove something was observed. But that doesn’t mean it wont be provable in the future. Which means you can’t disprove ghosts. People will believe what they want to believe, but it isn’t in any way proof neither for, nor against the existence of ghosts. It is possible it is merely a hallucination, but it is also possible that there really is something there. Non believers have just as much to prove as the believers do.

Same with string theory. :biggrin: It hasn’t been proven yet, but it definitely explains what we are observing.

Okay, now I hope I am a little closer to what I was trying to get at. If you want to believe I healed myself, you first need a leap of faith in the “chi”. If you want to believe that there are ghosts, you need a leap of faith that ghosts exist. If you DON’T want to believe that ghosts exist, then you must have a leap of faith that there is no such thing as a ghost. So far, it isn’t testable either way.

Oh, and I wanted to make a comment on the cell phone thing. It really isn’t anything special to know you are getting a phone call before the phone rings. I use a wired hands free when driving, because I don’t like Bluetooth. When my phone is about to ring, there is a very faint click that I hear in the ear bud one to two seconds before the phone actually rings. So if you know your phone is about to ring, you probably are just picking up on the signal going into your phone. It just takes a couple of seconds for your phone to “wake up” and ring.

Aren’t I just a party pooper? o:)

And now I see that others have said similar things through out the day… <sigh>

[sganesh88]

I have examined many girls for a hour or so,like this! but not even a single girl responded or acknowledged!:cry::cry:
not even single said "thank you"!
In that case, she would have to thank a dozen others too. :tongue2:

[zoobyshoe]

What happened with Zooby is very testable. Did you ask her if she “heard” your comment? If so, you definitely have your own proof that there was telecommunication between the two of you. If you didn’t ask her, all you have is your own perception of what you want to believe happened. And what happened could be as simple as my assuming that when you had the thought “what a cute face”, that a tiny smile actually crossed your own face. She sees that tiny smile, and realizes that you are being patient and understanding while she deals with this difficult customer. So she looks at you and whispers “Thank you” [for your patience and understanding] while the difficult customer is looking away.
Why you damn bastard skeptic!! How DARE you suggest the PARANORMAL isn't REAL?!??

(Heheh Just kidding.)

I don't have any loyalty to my experience, and I'm not about to try and defend it. I am just reporting what seemed to have happened. You're quite right that she could have smiled and said "thank you" for some completely different reason than it seemed. Or, I could have hallucinated her reaction due to low blood sugar or something. I have noticed that I become extremely physically uncomfortable when standing in lines: my muscles start to tense and hurt, and my stress level rises, and my breathing becomes shallow, so I wouldn't be surprised to find out that a review of the security camera revealed that she did not once even look at me before she actually waited on me.

What's interesting to me is that because of this, and other incidents, I have a acquired a knee-jerk belief in telepathy. After, like, three solid instances like this, you get conditioned. I don't really see this as necessarily saying anything about telepathy. After I was rear ended three times in one year while at red lights and stop signs I went through a period of hawkishly watching the rearview and calculating the level of attention of the drivers pulling up behind me. Stuff happens: you form a mental filter about it.

[veattaivatsan]

Well,let me put forward my view on how we can convince ourselves that ghosts doesnt exist!
Instead of taking every living being as having soul,we can see them as conglomerate of cells.Cells with different functions and different secretions,yet interdependent on each other for living.
for example,the cells that make up the eyes are cells that live converting lights into electrical signals.And they receive their nutrition from blood supply and liquid filled in aqueous and vitreous chamber.We can observe that though the level of memory and logical thinking varies between animals,yet their eyesight is perfect except any aberrations created by external sources. SO,we can assume that cells that made up eye in multicellular organisms were once unicellular organism which lived on light and emitted ions when light rays fell on them.and when these cells form a colony and gets attached to nutrient rich cell group,it got its rich nutrition and so on it merged with the other cells that made up the first multicellular organism.similarly,the other cells of the respective organ merged and some went dormant while others remain active in due course of time. So there is nothing called "soul". we , living beings , are combination of cells which were not created for purpose but joined us for their purpose! so there is nothing which gives us life. the cells live,therefore we live. the cells feed and the cells are fed,so we live.
After a limit had reached,the congress of cells might have become over dependent on nourishing part of our body - blood! so the actions which stops provision of blood to specific areas of cells makes it inactive thereby resulting in death of the cells . If heart cells are not fed with blood or reduced the supply of blood,heart attack occurs.as heart is pumper of blood for whole body,most of cells in our body doesnt get their feed and dies. similarly stands for all kinds of death!!
So,death denotes the death of cells of organ which serves as the sole bread-supplier of all the cells of human body! so the cells of eye,ear,tongue lose their nourishment and cease their work.so escape of soul is not death,but stopping of function of cell is death. thats why we can transplant organs after death(within sometime.before cells gets zero nourishment) to a body of cells which can nourish it.

as the role of a "soul" is ruled out,how can there be an escaped soul roaming out??
so "ghosts" do not exist!:approve:

This is my own idea! may be or may not be right! but I believe in this theory(of mine)!

[Ivan Seeking]

First of all, you are assuming that alleged ghosts are the souls of dead people. Who says that they are?

Secondly, simply explaining a biological process does not rule out that souls could still exist.

[sganesh88]

First of all, you are assuming that alleged ghosts are the souls of dead people. Who says that they are?



Wordweb defines ghost as "The visible disembodied soul of a dead*person"
merriam-webster.com says "A disembodied soul ,especially the soul of a dead person believed to be an inhabitant of the unseen world or to appear to the living in bodily likeness"
Dictionary.com declares "The soul of a dead person, a disembodied spirit imagined, usually as a vague, shadowy or evanescent form, as wandering among or haunting living persons."

If ghosts aren't defined as disembodied souls, they simply cease to cause a lasting fear or curiosity. 'Ah just another species perhaps' would be a passing comment. :smile:

Secondly, simply explaining a biological process does not rule out that souls could still exist.
True.. There is either an external hand like soul or a beauty not-yet-unraveled in the so called 'biological processes'. I'd personally prefer the latter.

[Ivan Seeking]

Haha, well you've got me on the popular definition! I never realized that it was so limiting. Suffice it to say that is only one interpretation of what is reported. In many cases, people claim to experience hauntings [attributed generally to "ghosts"] without ever claiming to observe an apparition of a person. What they are really reporting is unexplained phenomena. In fact there are people who believe that reported ghostly apparitions of dead people are not actually the souls of the dead, but they still call them ghosts.

[ibcnunabit]

Not really. In principle the person making the claim is merely providing a report. If I report a robbery, am I liable to explain who did it, or how? My wife and I had some unsual experiences, but that doesn't mean that I know what it was or how to explain it. There is a difference between reporting an observation and claiming to have an explanation for it. Likewise, a claim of an observation or experience only counts as anecdotal evidence for whatever is claimed.

No, you could report a description of what you saw, but labeling the phenomenon a ghost is drawing a conclusion about it, which goes to interpretation, not reporting.

[ibcnunabit]

as the role of a "soul" is ruled out,how can there be an escaped soul roaming out??
so "ghosts" do not exist!:approve:

This is my own idea! may be or may not be right! but I believe in this theory(of mine)!

Well, as stated it might not meet the criteria for being a formal theory, but I do think the general gist of what your saying is absolutely correct! Probably any non-religious scientist would consider it absolutely non-controversial, except for the particular way you described the evolution happening. But in this context that's just details.

[ibcnunabit]

P.S. What you say doesn't RULE OUT a soul, but it does provide a more realistic description of life/death as opposed to the soul leaving the body. What it does do, however, is point to the concept of soul and ask for that to be demonstrated. Until it can be determined that a "soul" exists, the question of ghosts being escaped souls is moot. The onus is on those who claim that it exists to provide evidence, not for those who don't to provide evidence that it doesn't.

[ibcnunabit]

First of all, you are assuming that alleged ghosts are the souls of dead people. Who says that they are?

Secondly, simply explaining a biological process does not rule out that souls could still exist.

True, but nothing rules out the existence of fairies, unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. But most of us accept these as fantasy until evidence is provided that they do exist.

[Ivan Seeking]

True, but nothing rules out the existence of fairies, unicorns, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, either. But most of us accept these as fantasy until evidence is provided that they do exist.

I am not aware of many fairy, unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster reports. In order to understand a phenomenon, or even a class of claims, first one has to make a little effort to keep things in perspective. There are at least millions of people alive today who claim to have experienced unusual and seemingly inexplicable phenomena. One cannot take examples for which there is little to no anecdotal evidence, and put that on the same level as something claimed to be true - through personal experience - by millions of people.

Also, not only is it true that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, it is also true that transient phenomena are often difficult to document.

Again I ask, what specific evidence for ghosts would you find acceptable? Aside from Casper appearing in a lab and sticking around, I'm not sure what could constitute proof of these sorts of claims - those associated with ghostly encounters.

[ibcnunabit]

I am not aware of many fairy, unicorn, or flying spaghetti monster reports. In order to understand a phenomenon, or even a class of claims, first one has to make a little effort to keep things in perspective.

If only it weren't so; here are some websites dedicated to the belief that fairies really exist:

http://www.suite101.com/blog/nepenthette/fairy_sightings

http://www.fairygardens.com/sightings/

http://www.ilovefairies.com/fairy_sightings.html

And there used to be one called: http://www.faeriebelievers.com, but it seems to be down.

[sganesh88]

^^
No references for Unicorns and FSM?
Jokes apart; you just can't substantiate your claim simply by quoting a few websites. Hosting sites and loading them with **** isn't that difficult. Even wikipedia is not a completely trustworthy source.

[sganesh88]

Oh!! PF automatically asterisks the so-called foul words? :O

[DaveC426913]

Oh!! PF automatically asterisks the so-called foul words? :O
Yes, for those who are unable to censor themselves... :wink:

[sganesh88]

i first thought it was the work of ghosts residing in the PF server. Lol.

[mikelepore]

Would people here think that I'm saying this right? You cannot prove the nonexistence of undetectable things. If things are detectable, and the region for searching is finite, you may be able to prove that something doesn't exist. For example, are there any elephants in my living room? Certainly not. But if something is undetectable, its nonexistence cannot be proven. Are there are any invisible, inaudible, and otherwise undetectable elephants in the room? As a matter of principle I cannot prove that the answer is no, and not only for all space, but also for the ordinarily-easier problem of a finite space in which to search.

(I think the popular phrase "you can't prove a negative" is incorrect, so I tried to fix it.)

This is the problem with the ghost question. They're not _always_ visible fluffy white blobs, therefore I think it's necessary to apply my above generalization about all undetectable things.

[CEL]

^^
No references for Unicorns and FSM?
Jokes apart; you just can't substantiate your claim simply by quoting a few websites. Hosting sites and loading them with **** isn't that difficult. Even wikipedia is not a completely trustworthy source.

If you want a trustworthy source, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed that the Cotingley Fairies were real.

[sganesh88]

This is the problem with the ghost question. They're not _always_ visible fluffy white blobs, therefore I think it's necessary to apply my above generalization about all undetectable things.
How could you say for sure some x is undetectable? Truth always reveals itself to the intent seeker.

[CEL]

Would people here think that I'm saying this right? You cannot prove the nonexistence of undetectable things. If things are detectable, and the region for searching is finite, you may be able to prove that something doesn't exist. For example, are there any elephants in my living room? Certainly not. But if something is undetectable, its nonexistence cannot be proven. Are there are any invisible, inaudible, and otherwise undetectable elephants in the room? As a matter of principle I cannot prove that the answer is no, and not only for all space, but also for the ordinarily-easier problem of a finite space in which to search.

(I think the popular phrase "you can't prove a negative" is incorrect, so I tried to fix it.)
In reality, the phrase is "You cannot prove a universal negative."
You can prove that there are no elephants in your living room, but you cannot prove that elephants don't exist.

This is the problem with the ghost question. They're not _always_ visible fluffy white blobs, therefore I think it's necessary to apply my above generalization about all undetectable things.
That is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Science tries to explain detectable phenomena. Pseudo-science tries to detect unexplainable phenomena.

[DaveC426913]

How could you say for sure some x is undetectable?If it's fictional...

[StandardsGuy]

If someone reports seeing "something", that's fine. If someone reports seeing "a ghost", then they are responsible for proving that claim.

In this hypothetical discussion of a hypothetical report of seeing a ghost, you have made it abundantly clear that you would not believe it. Why then would anybody make such a report knowing they would be severely criticized and told they would have to prove it?

[AUMathTutor]

Very few things can actually be proved in this world. I don't think the existence of non-existence of ghosts is one of those things.

[DaveC426913]

In this hypothetical discussion of a hypothetical report of seeing a ghost, you have made it abundantly clear that you would not believe it. Why then would anybody make such a report knowing they would be severely criticized and told they would have to prove it?Which is just fine since that same 'anybody' wouldn't want someone to burst their bubble by making a dispassionate judgement on their pet ghost story anyway. "If you don't want it shot at, don't stick it out there." the key element there being 'don't want it shot at'.

Only those hoping for some truth are going to make reports.

[sganesh88]

In this hypothetical discussion of a hypothetical report of seeing a ghost, you have made it abundantly clear that you would not believe it. Why then would anybody make such a report knowing they would be severely criticized and told they would have to prove it?

Just because i would be criticized and asked to prove what i claim, i can't and wouldn't refrain from claiming something which i believe wholeheartedly, level-headedly to be true. Think about SR and the non-absolute nature of length and time that it proposed. Ghosts if proved would have a milder effect, i suppose. :smile:

[Ivan Seeking]

That is the difference between science and pseudo-science. Science tries to explain detectable phenomena. Pseudo-science tries to detect unexplainable phenomena.

That is absolutely false.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is in the method, not the subject. One can make a scientific study of something like earthquakes, but one can study the same by using pseudoscience, meaning that the methods for collecting or evaluating evidence are fallacious or unfounded. What's more, one cannot say what is or is not explainable unless one already has proof of existence.

The problem is that many seemingly inexplicable claims are investigated using pseudoscience, so the subjects tend to become asssociated with the methods of evaluating those claims. The claims are also associated with interpretations of personal experiences, rather than the essential [alleged] facts related to a claim.

"Ghosts" are not pseudoscience, however, claimed events that are interpreted to be encounters with ghosts are often investigated by using pseudoscientific methodology. In the most extreme cases where people literally claim a direct encounter with the soul or the "life force" of a dead person - as in "my dead brother Bob sat and talked with me" - we have a claim, not science or pseudoscience; with the caveat that it is really a claim of an encounter with something. Even if the claim were essentially true, we don't know it was Bob. :biggrin:

[CEL]

That is absolutely false.

The difference between science and pseudoscience is in the method, not the subject. One can make a scientific study of something like earthquakes, but one can study the same by using pseudoscience, meaning that the methods for collecting or evaluating evidence are fallacious or unfounded. What's more, one cannot say what is or is not explainable unless one already has proof of existence.

The problem is that many seemingly inexplicable claims are investigated using pseudoscience, so the subjects tend to become asssociated with the methods of evaluating those claims. The claims are also associated with interpretations of personal experiences, rather than the essential [alleged] facts related to a claim.

"Ghosts" are not pseudoscience, however, claimed events that are interpreted to be encounters with ghosts are often investigated by using pseudoscientific methodology. In the most extreme cases where people literally claim a direct encounter with the soul or the "life force" of a dead person - as in "my dead brother Bob sat and talked with me" - we have a claim, not science or pseudoscience; with the caveat that it is really a claim of an encounter with something. Even if the claim were essentially true, we don't know it was Bob. :biggrin:

The subject is neither science nor pseudoscience. In this we agree.
Neither ghosts, nor fairies or the flying spaghetti monster are pseudoscience. They are entities that have scant or null evidence of existence.
I have never heard of a reputable scientist investigating those entities. So their study, if existent fall in the domain of pseudoscience.

[Anticitizen]

The subject is neither science nor pseudoscience. In this we agree.
Neither ghosts, nor fairies or the flying spaghetti monster are pseudoscience. They are entities that have scant or null evidence of existence.
I have never heard of a reputable scientist investigating those entities. So their study, if existent fall in the domain of pseudoscience.

What do you mean by 'investigating those entities'? If you're talking about investigating their existence, there's the James Randi foundation, which does apply legitimate scientific study to claims of paranormal phenomena.

[CEL]

What do you mean by 'investigating those entities'? If you're talking about investigating their existence, there's the James Randi foundation, which does apply legitimate scientific study to claims of paranormal phenomena.

No, the James Randi foundation does not study those phenomena. They offer a million dollar prize to anyone that can demonstrate, under controlled conditions, the existence of such phenomena.

[Anticitizen]

Sure, but they put effort into evaluating and debunking the claims, which is a key part of the 'rigors of science'.

[LawrenceM]

Unfortunately, it's impossible to prove that ghosts do not exist without providing evidence that demonstrates how their existence is not possible. Lacking that evidence, we can only prove that phenomenon used as evidence of the existence of specific paranormal activity can be reattributed to something natural. In other words, the lack of evidence that proves Ghosts can exist, in general, makes it impossible to prove the contrary.

[mabs239]

Why all "of" are in red. Hope it isn't the mischief of a ghost ;)

[DaveC426913]

Why all "of" are in red. Hope it isn't the mischief of a ghost ;)
You alone are seeing that. It is caused by the fact that you have arrived at this page by a search in which one of your keywords was "of".

[wittgenstein]

[QUOTE=CEL;2284608]In reality, the phrase is "You cannot prove a universal negative."
You can prove that there are no elephants in your living room, but you cannot prove that elephants don't exist.

I agree. But what about this universal negative? All ravens are not white?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

[DaveC426913]

[QUOTE=CEL;2284608]In reality, the phrase is "You cannot prove a universal negative."
You can prove that there are no elephants in your living room, but you cannot prove that elephants don't exist.

I agree. But what about this universal negative? All ravens are not white?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven_paradox

Can you clarify how this applies? You cannot prove that there are no white ravens.

[fillindablank]

Seems to me the Ghost Hunters TV show is all the proof you need that they don't exist.

[ideasrule]

I don't consider it all that unlikely that consciousness can exist outside of a body. I know this point has been discussed before, but nobody has the faintest clue what consciousness is. Nobody can say that if a system fulfills criteria A, B, and C, then it is conscious; otherwise, it is not. Put another way, what specifically causes consciousness? Is it a chemical in the brain? If so, I should be able to synthesize the chemical, pour it onto a table, and make the table conscious. Is it the system of connections between neurons? If so, could I make several billion wooden blocks, connect them with string to simulate these connections, and have the blocks gain self-awareness. Is it the electrical signals that the neurons send each other? If that's the case, why isn't my computer, which also uses signals, conscious?

Whether the underlying reason for consciousness is chemical, physical, or something else entirely, it's possible that existing non-living objects fulfill the necessary and sufficient criteria for consciousness, whatever they may be, and are therefore self-aware.

[fillindablank]

..... Put another way, what specifically causes consciousness? Is it a chemical in the brain? If so, I should be able to synthesize the chemical, pour it onto a table, and make the table conscious. Is it the system of connections between neurons? If so, could I make several billion wooden blocks, connect them with string to simulate these connections, and have the blocks gain self-awareness. Is it the electrical signals that the neurons send each other? If that's the case, why isn't my computer, which also uses signals, conscious? .....

This post seems to me to be flawed on several levels. By analogy: I have a car that is traveling at 120mph. What makes it do that? Is it gasoline? If so I should be able to pour it on a table and make the table go 120mph. Is it the motor? I should be able to make pistons out of wood put them in a box on the table, pour gasoline on it and make the table go 120mph. Is it the gasoline burning? Now we are getting somewhere, all I have to do is light a match to the gasoline on the wooden box of pistons on the table and it will go 120mph. Hmmm, it still isn't moving.

[ideasrule]

This post seems to me to be flawed on several levels. By analogy: I have a car that is traveling at 120mph. What makes it do that? Is it gasoline? If so I should be able to pour it on a table and make the table go 120mph. Is it the motor? I should be able to make pistons out of wood put them in a box on the table, pour gasoline on it and make the table go 120mph. Is it the gasoline burning? Now we are getting somewhere, all I have to do is light a match to the gasoline on the wooden box of pistons on the table and it will go 120mph. Hmmm, it still isn't moving.

In the case of your car, the necessary & sufficient criteria for movement is a sophisticated system consisting of the engine, the gasoline, the spark plug, the transmission, the wheels, etc. However, it's clear that you can take the radio, the hood, the sunroof, and even much of the frame off without disabling the car.

The difference between a car and a brain is that it's possible, at least in principle, to spell out exactly what arrangements of components are sufficient to get a car moving. (In reality, there are in infinite number of possibilities, but we can easily figure out whether a certain one will work or not.) For a brain, nobody can come close to explaining what arrangements of chemicals can and will cause consciousness. How can we be sure that it isn't something simple, like a single chemical?

[cosmo123]

This post seems to me to be flawed on several levels. By analogy: I have a car that is traveling at 120mph. What makes it do that? Is it gasoline? If so I should be able to pour it on a table and make the table go 120mph. Is it the motor? I should be able to make pistons out of wood put them in a box on the table, pour gasoline on it and make the table go 120mph. Is it the gasoline burning? Now we are getting somewhere, all I have to do is light a match to the gasoline on the wooden box of pistons on the table and it will go 120mph. Hmmm, it still isn't moving.

I think what ideasrule getting at is that what causes self awareness is not understood. He's just 'throwing ideas out there'. Testing ideas to see if they work- if they don't, try something else- if they do, learn from it. Toddlers do it, as do scientists.

[DaveC426913]

I don't consider it all that unlikely that consciousness can exist outside of a body. I know this point has been discussed before, but nobody has the faintest clue what consciousness is. Nobody can say that if a system fulfills criteria A, B, and C, then it is conscious; otherwise, it is not. Put another way, what specifically causes consciousness? Is it a chemical in the brain? If so, I should be able to synthesize the chemical, pour it onto a table, and make the table conscious. Is it the system of connections between neurons? If so, could I make several billion wooden blocks, connect them with string to simulate these connections, and have the blocks gain self-awareness. Is it the electrical signals that the neurons send each other? If that's the case, why isn't my computer, which also uses signals, conscious?

Whether the underlying reason for consciousness is chemical, physical, or something else entirely, it's possible that existing non-living objects fulfill the necessary and sufficient criteria for consciousness, whatever they may be, and are therefore self-aware.
I don't see the answer to this as any mystery.

Consciousness arises from the sum of all these connections.

The blocks do not gain self-awareness, but if your billion block-and-string contraption is able to gather and store input from around it, and in particular modify its own connections in constructive ways, then yes it would be conscious.

[Freeman Dyson]

Interesting thread. I just want to add a few things. It seems that most people here agree that consciousness is a product of natural selection. That isn't proven. Very plausible but not proven. We don't even know if language was naturally selected. The leading linguist in the world, Chomsky, actually thinks language is a spandrel. If such a high cognitive process as language can be a spandrel than just about anything can.

"Spandrel is a term used in evolutionary biology to describe a phenotypic characteristic that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other character, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection. The term was coined by the Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould and population geneticist Richard Lewontin in their influential paper "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" (1979). In this paper Gould and Lewontin employed the analogy of spandrels in Renaissance architecture: curved areas of masonry between arches supporting a dome that arise as a consequence of decisions about the shape of the arches and the base of the dome, rather than being designed for the artistic purposes for which they were often employed."

Could it be a saltation?


"In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, "leap") is a sudden change from one generation to the next, that is large, or very large, in comparison with the usual variation of an organism. The term is used for occasionally hypothesized, nongradual changes (especially single-step speciation) that are atypical of, or violate, standard concepts - gradualism - involved in neo-Darwinian evolution."

I read something interesting by a neuroscientist who first proved lucid dreaming. He written extensively on near death experiences and out of body experiences. Both of which he says are totally explained by biology and are hallucinations and not supernatural. So he knows a thing or two about the tricks the mind and body can play. He was asked if his work had given him any insight into the afterlife:

"DJB: What do you think happens after biological death and has your experience with lucid dreaming influenced your thoughts in this area and about the nature of God?

Stephen: Let’s suppose I’m having a lucid dream. The first thing I think is, "Oh this is a dream, here I am." Now the "I" here is who I think Stephen is. Now what’s happening in fact is that Stephen is asleep in bed somewhere, not in this world at all, and he’s having a dream that he’s in this room talking to you. With a little bit of lucidity I’d say, "this is a dream, and you’re all in my dream." A little more lucidity and I’d know you’re a dream figure and this is a dream-table, and this must be a dream-shirt and a dream-watch and what’s this? It’s got to be a dream-hand and well, so what’s this? It’s a dream-Stephen! So a moment ago I thought this is who I am and now I know that it’s just a mental model of who I am. So reasoning along those lines, I thought, I’d like to have a sense of what my deepest identity is, what’s my highest potential, which level is the realest in a sense? With that in mind at the beginning of a lucid dream, I was driving in my sports car down through the green, Spring countryside. I see an attractive hitchhiker at the side of the road, thought of picking her up but said, "No, I’ve already had that dream, I want this to be a representation of my highest potential. So the moment I had that thought and decided to forgo the immediate pleasure, the car started to fly into the air and the car disappeared and my body, also. There were symbols of traditional religions in the clouds, the Star of David and the cross and the steeple and near-eastern symbols. As I passed through that realm, higher beyond the clouds, I entered into a vast emptiness of space that was infinite and it was filled with potential and love. And the feeling I had was-- this is home! This is where I’m from and I’d forgotten that it was here. I was overwhelmed with joy about the fact that this source of being was immediately present, that it was always here, and I had not been seeing it because of what was in my way. So I started singing for joy with a voice that spanned three or four octaves and resonated with the cosmos with words like, "I Praise Thee, O Lord!" There wasn’t any I, there was no thee, no Lord, no duality somehow but sort of, ‘Praise Be’ was the feeling of it. My belief is that the experience I had of this void, that’s what you get if you take away the brain. When I thought about the meaning of that, I recognized that the deepest identity I had there was the source of being, the all and nothing that was here right now, that was what I was too, in addition to being Stephen. So the analogy that I use for understanding this is that we have these separate snowflake identities. Every snowflake is different in the same sense that each one of us is, in fact, distinct. So here is death, and here’s the snowflake and we’re falling into the infinite ocean. So what do we fear? We fear that we’re going to lose our identity, we’ll be melted, dissolved in that ocean and we’ll be gone; but what may happen is that the snowflake hits the ocean and feels an infinite expansion of identity and realizes, what I was in essence, was water! So we’re each one of these little frozen droplets and we feel only our individuality, but not our substance, but our essential substance is common to everything in that sense, so now God is the ocean. So we’re each a little droplet of that ocean, identifying only with the form of the droplet and not with the majesty and the unity."