Is there a spirit world?

[Ivan Seeking]

...Spiritualism as a movement began in 1848...
One night in late March, 1848, the two little Fox sisters — Margaret and Kate (also called Catherine), said they heard strange knockings in the cottage where they lay in their beds. Haunted houses were nothing new but this was different.

As the story goes, when Margaret snapped her fingers twice and told the rapper, "Do as I do," he knocked twice. "Count to 10," she commanded, and there were 10 rappings.

Neighbors and skeptics came over to witness this strange communication with the spirit world. At times there were as many as 500 people in the Fox house at one time to hear the sounds.

It was discovered that by means of a code (for instance, one rap for "yes," two raps for "no," three raps for "don't know"), the spirit would answer questions about the future. It wasn't long before Margaret, Kate and their older sister Leah took up spirit rapping as a profession.

Spiritualism was born. [continued]

http://reviewappeal.midsouthnews.com/news.ez?viewStory=23385

I find this a little misleading. These beliefs are ancient. Consider the following from a Bible search. Note that this is presented purely in a historical context. No religion specific arguments please.

Search words "medium" 14 results. |

Leviticus 19:31
" 'Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be defiled by them. I am the LORD your God.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 19 In context: Leviticus 19:30-32)


Leviticus 20:6
" 'I will set my face against the person who turns to mediums and spiritists to prostitute himself by following them, and I will cut him off from his people.
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 20 In context: Leviticus 20:5-7)


Leviticus 20:27
" 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
(Whole Chapter: Leviticus 20 In context: Leviticus 20:26-28)


Deuteronomy 18:11
or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead.
(Whole Chapter: Deuteronomy 18 In context: Deuteronomy 18:10-12)


1 Samuel 28:3
Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned for him and buried him in his own town of Ramah. Saul had expelled the mediums and spiritists from the land.
(Whole Chapter: 1 Samuel 28 In context: 1 Samuel 28:2-4)


1 Samuel 28:7
Saul then said to his attendants, "Find me a woman who is a medium, so I may go and inquire of her." "There is one in Endor," they said.
(Whole Chapter: 1 Samuel 28 In context: 1 Samuel 28:6-8)


1 Samuel 28:9
But the woman said to him, "Surely you know what Saul has done. He has cut off the mediums and spiritists from the land. Why have you set a trap for my life to bring about my death?"
(Whole Chapter: 1 Samuel 28 In context: 1 Samuel 28:8-10)


2 Kings 21:6
He sacrificed his own son in [ 21:6 Or [ He made his own son pass through ] ] the fire, practiced sorcery and divination, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD , provoking him to anger.
(Whole Chapter: 2 Kings 21 In context: 2 Kings 21:5-7)


2 Kings 23:24
Furthermore, Josiah got rid of the mediums and spiritists, the household gods, the idols and all the other detestable things seen in Judah and Jerusalem. This he did to fulfill the requirements of the law written in the book that Hilkiah the priest had discovered in the temple of the LORD .
(Whole Chapter: 2 Kings 23 In context: 2 Kings 23:23-25)


1 Chronicles 10:13
Saul died because he was unfaithful to the LORD ; he did not keep the word of the LORD and even consulted a medium for guidance,
(Whole Chapter: 1 Chronicles 10 In context: 1 Chronicles 10:12-14)


2 Chronicles 33:6
He sacrificed his sons in [ 33:6 Or [ He made his sons pass through ] ] the fire in the Valley of Ben Hinnom, practiced sorcery, divination and witchcraft, and consulted mediums and spiritists. He did much evil in the eyes of the LORD , provoking him to anger.
(Whole Chapter: 2 Chronicles 33 In context: 2 Chronicles 33:5-7)


Isaiah 8:19
When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?
(Whole Chapter: Isaiah 8 In context: Isaiah 8:18-20)


Isaiah 19:3
The Egyptians will lose heart, and I will bring their plans to nothing; they will consult the idols and the spirits of the dead, the mediums and the spiritists.
(Whole Chapter: Isaiah 19 In context: Isaiah 19:2-4)


Jeremiah 27:9
So do not listen to your prophets, your diviners, your interpreters of dreams, your mediums or your sorcerers who tell you, 'You will not serve the king of Babylon.'
(Whole Chapter: Jeremiah 27 In context: Jeremiah 27:8-10)

[Entropy]

Yes, spiritism is very old indeed. In Bible does warn people to say alway from spiritism and astrology. Also look in many ancient mythologies and you'll find lots of otherworldly realms filled with spirit creatures. What first comes to mind for me is Native American mythology, I think I here the word "spirit" coming from them more than any others.

[selfAdjoint]

Ivan, I am curious about the repeated occurrence of the stock phrase "mediums and spiritists" in your quotes from different books of the Bible, evidently written at different times. I note that in the King James translation the Leviticus quotes come out "them that have familiar spirits [and] wizards." A person with a familiar spirit was not what we should call a spiritist, but what we should call a witch. Likewise a wizard is not the same thing as a medium. Care to comment?

[Ivan Seeking]

Oh boy, you got me there. I did some checking and as nearly as I can tell, "spiritist" refers to a person who holds the beliefs of spiritualism, and a medium is a person who communicates with the dead. It appears that since most mediums are spiritists, that is since they believe in an afterworld, the meanings have merged. My guess is that in its original form, the word spiritist refers to any person who has spiritual beliefs of an afterlife that are not based on or that violate the old or new testaments. A medium is merely the channel for communication between the living and the dead. Since channeling is forbidden by biblical teachings, the medium is a spiritist.

This is a composite impression from a number of defintions - ie it is only a best guess. Most sources list the two words as synonyms.

[Entropy]

word spiritist refers to any person who has spiritual beliefs of an afterlife that are not based on or that violate the old or new testaments

Actually the old and new testaments have no concept of an "afterlife" at all, there is only resurrection. Although not many Christians or Jews (ancient Hebrews did not believe in an afterlife) still believe this because during Christianity's earily days many Greeks were firm believers in an eternal soul that lived for ever. So an idea of an afterlife where your soul left your body and went to heaven or hell was created (without biblical support) to conserve this idea that no one can really die forever. These ideas also spread into Judaism soon after. The Bible clearly states that the dead are unconscious and aware of nothing.

[Ivan Seeking]

Good point. I hadn't thought about the distinction; though I don't think this is consistent with all forms of Christianity. Consider for example the Catholic's pergatory.

Edit: Actually, lets not. This opens up too many problem areas for our discussion. Suffice it to say that the Catholics have their beliefs and other disagree.

[selfAdjoint]

Good point. I hadn't thought about the distinction; though I don't think this is consistent with all forms of Christianity. Consider for example the Catholic's pergatory.

Edit: Actually, lets not. This opens up too many problem areas for our discussion. Suffice it to say that the Catholics have their beliefs and other disagree.

Just one historical note. Some Jewish sects believed in an afterlife from the time of the Maccaben wars, and the beginnings of the idea of purgatory date to then also. The story I was told was that after a fierce battle with the Greeks, the people went out to collect their heroic dead, and found to their dismay that many of these were carrying pagan good luck charms. Jewish thought of the time dictated that anyone who did this would never "shine like the stars". In order to resolve the cogitive dissonance, some thinkers posited an after-state in which the sinful but basically good soul could work off the bad judgment.

[loseyourname]

So are you just asking us when a belief in spiritualism began or are you asking us if we believe in spirits?

[Evo]

Consider for example the Catholic's pergatory.

Edit: Actually, lets not. This opens up too many problem areas for our discussion. Suffice it to say that the Catholics have their beliefs and other disagree.I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and they believe in ghosts/spirits, as in "Saints", who are dead people that you can ask favors of and they listen to you and will help you. Also, as is shown in the thread on the electronic devices in the town in Sicily, there is a belief in demons.

Ivan, you are right, belief in spirits and those able to communicate with them go back to the beginning of time. The article you cited should have more accurately stated it as the beginning of a new breed of "spritualists/mediums" and a renewed interest in it.

[Entropy]

Good point. I hadn't thought about the distinction; though I don't think this is consistent with all forms of Christianity. Consider for example the Catholic's pergatory.

Its not consistent with almost all forms of Christianity. Many forms of Christianity do believe in an afterlife and spiritism despite any biblical support. Most notibly would be many South American christians who mix christian beliefs with Native American ones.

I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and they believe in ghosts/spirits, as in "Saints", who are dead people that you can ask favors of and they listen to you and will help you. Also, as is shown in the thread on the electronic devices in the town in Sicily, there is a belief in demons.

One of the reasons I'm not Catholic anymore. Although I do believe in satanic forces through the actions of men I do not believe in ghosts or spirits, as in mortal men's souls haunting people after death.

[zoobyshoe]

I was raised as a Roman Catholic, and they believe in ghosts/spirits, as in "Saints", who are dead people that you can ask favors of and they listen to you and will help you. Also, as is shown in the thread on the electronic devices in the town in Sicily, there is a belief in demons.
I was also raised Roman Catholic, and although they definitely believe in an afterlife, the nuns were adamant with us that there were no ghosts. The concept of the spirit of a dead person wandering around the earth haunting places was something they worked hard to dispute. The souls of the dead went either directly to heaven, hell, or purgatory. Hell was a one way street. Purgatory was bad or not so bad depending on how much sin you had left to "purge" before being allowed into heaven. Heaven was great.

Anyone who got into heaven was a saint. Anyone who could pass the churches criteria for sainthood based on certain information about their life, could be officially designated as a saint. The churches list of saints is, of course, not considered complete. To be designated as saint, is just a way of saying that the church is really, really sure that person made it to heaven.

The nuns who taught at my school would have strongly objected to calling anyone who was in hell, purgatory, or heaven a "spirit" or "ghost". They were "souls". We always spoke of "the souls of the dead".

[Ivan Seeking]

I note that in the King James translation the Leviticus quotes come out "them that have familiar spirits [and] wizards." A person with a familiar spirit was not what we should call a spiritist, but what we should call a witch. Likewise a wizard is not the same thing as a medium. Care to comment?

I realized that I hadn't answered completely here. I believe that in the original meaning, a medium is still a witch or wizard [warluck] since he or she calls forth the powers of evil [ie not of the bible].

Here is the site used for the original quotes.
http://www.biblesearch.com/readtext.htm

[Evo]

I was also raised Roman Catholic, and although they definitely believe in an afterlife, the nuns were adamant with us that there were no ghosts.What about the Holy Ghost - the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity? :wink:

[zoobyshoe]

What about the Holy Ghost - the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity? :wink:
This would be exactly the wrong quetion to ask right after a nun just told you there's no such thing as ghosts.

[Ivan Seeking]

What about the Holy Ghost - the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity?

Do you mean the Holy Spirit? :biggrin:

[Evo]

Do you mean the Holy Spirit? :biggrin:Same thing, it's Holy Ghost, but sometimes called Holy Spirit. Here's a link showing it is Holy Ghost.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm

[jimmy p]

It is crazy. I was brought up Roman Catholic too. This part of the faith do not believe in spirits but will happily believe in the Holy Spirit. But Spiritualism, which believes in the same god, DO believe in spirits. Seems very contradictory of Roman Catholics.

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Margaret, Kate and their older sister Leah took up spirit rapping as a profession"

SO that is where M Marg Margaret, Katey B and Soul Sista' Leah got their start.

[selfAdjoint]

I realized that I hadn't answered completely here. I believe that in the original meaning, a medium is still a witch or wizard [warluck] since he or she calls forth the powers of evil [ie not of the bible].

Here is the site used for the original quotes.
http://www.biblesearch.com/readtext.htm

Now the ancient Jews mostly didn't believe in ghosts, but they did believe in angels and demons, and I presume that the witch of en-dor had a demon as her familiar spirit. This was also the view during the witch burning times of the early modern period; a familiar, such as a black cat, was thought to house a demon.

BTW, the male word for witch is witch. Warlock is just a dialect word for witch, used by Robert Louis Stevenson. The Old English word for a male witch was wicca, pronounce witch-ah, and a female witch was wicce, pronounced witch-eh. Both endings were later lost. Modern witches derive mostly from 19th century books, and their etymology is mostly bogus.

[zoobyshoe]

Regarding familiars:

The highly suspect, but none-the-less interesting books by Carlos Castenada go into great detail about this.

In the later book called The Fire From Within Don Juan, the Yaqui Brujo tells Carlos about the non-organic beings.

This is a vast, vast collection of beings that are conscious, and have some sort of reality, but which are composed of a kind of energy that makes interaction between them and us nearly impossible. A brujo can learn to see into the worlds of the non-organic beings, lure one out, and make it a slave to his or her will. They are essentially formless and depend on the mind of the brujo to give them some sort of appearance.

They are also neither good nor bad, just incredibly different than humans. Don Juan tells Carlos, that to a brujo who is able to see from the vantage point of different realities, a human looks to be heat energy, while a non-organic being looks more like electricity.

The reason they can be enslaved is that they are incredibly responsive to extreme human emotions. They seem to enjoy any human emotion, the stronger the better, and they seek it out. The brujo, who can control his emotions extremely well, can therefore also control the reactions of his pet non-organic being.

Don Juan does not refer to them with the term 'familiar" though. In his tradition they are called "allies".

Needless to say, when they aren't under complete and strict control, they will create mischief. The apprentice brujo would be lost without the master there to help him learn to control the ally. Because they like emotion they will take the form they sence will elicite the most emotion from the apprentice, which is normally something terrifying. These are not to be toyed with by curiosity seekers.

I found this explanation extremely intriguing. I wonder about it now and then when I hear that someone whose been playing with a ouija board seems to have attracted a mischief making spirit.

[geometer]

I read a lot of philosophical arguments on the existence of the spirit world here, but no scientific arguments. So, I'd like to pose some questions. First, I should probably state my base assumptions here: 1. The Universe contains all that exists. 2. Anything that exists in the Universe must obey all the laws of the Universe. Now, the questions:

1. How does the existence of spirits square with the Laws of Thermodynamics?

2. What is the physics by which we see spirits/ghosts?

3. What is the physics behind their (the spirits) interactions with the material world? How do they satisfy Newton's Laws?

[Overdose]

I remember a while ago reading some scientists hypothetical on what it be like to be a being who could percieve/exist in the 4th dimension. And it completely explained all the things that have puzzled me that ghosts/spirits are able to do. Walking through solid objects, materialising, making predictions about the future. Really nothing that unuseall
if you realise that they just exist in a higher dimension.

[geometer]

From Overdose:

" Really nothing that unuseall if you realise that they just exist in a higher dimension."


I think you missed an important point. By assumption 2, any event in the universe, including the 4 dimensions we experience directly, must be able to be traced back to one of the physical laws that govern the operation of the Universe. How do these "higher dimensional" beings accomplish this?

By the way, we perceive/exist in the 4th dimension (time) too.

And finally, can anyone give an example of something that exists in only one dimension? Everything that I can think of exists in at least two dimensions, time and at least one spatial dimension. And, if you really want to get technical, I'm not sure anything can exist in less than 4 dimensions. Even the "one-dimensional" line you draw on a piece of paper has some thickness.

[geometer]

You know, it never fails. As soon as I offer some explanation of something, I think of a better way to say it. So, my apologies for repeating myself somewhat, but here's a slightly different, and better I think, version of my previous post

By assumption 2, any event in the Universe, including the 4 dimensions we experience directly must SATISFY all the physical laws that govern the operation of the Universe. For example, if something's state of motion changes in this Universe, by Newton's 2nd Law, a force must have been applied, and again by Newton's 2nd Law, you can't apply a force without having some mass. So, how do these higher dimensional beings accomplish this?

[Ivan Seeking]

Time is treated as the fourth dimension. I think we exist in time.

if you realise that they just exist in a higher dimension

You have to be careful here. What exactly do you mean by "dimension"?

[Overdose]

From Overdose:

" Really nothing that unuseall if you realise that they just exist in a higher dimension."


I think you missed an important point. By assumption 2, any event in the universe, including the 4 dimensions we experience directly, must be able to be traced back to one of the physical laws that govern the operation of the Universe. How do these "higher dimensional" beings accomplish this?

I have to admit i dont really understand your question, how do the 'higher dimensional' beings accomplish what? I cant work out what your asking me.
:smile:


By the way, we perceive/exist in the 4th dimension (time) too.


I know i tried to be careful with my wording to illustrate that fact, we exist in the 4th dimension absolutely but of course we only percieve it in a very limited fashion.



And finally, can anyone give an example of something that exists in only one dimension? Everything that I can think of exists in at least two dimensions, time and at least one spatial dimension. And, if you really want to get technical, I'm not sure anything can exist in less than 4 dimensions. Even the "one-dimensional" line you draw on a piece of paper has some thickness.


I never suggested that these spirtis ONLY exist in these higher dimensions, people frequently see ghosts, spirts, mothmen etc..
However it may well be that other beings beings exist in the very higher dimensions that cannot be seen atall by humans, since, as i understand it they would be occuping miniscule densley folded space. So yes they would be occuping the lower dimensions as well but to ours eyes they may as well not be.

[Overdose]

You know, it never fails. As soon as I offer some explanation of something, I think of a better way to say it. So, my apologies for repeating myself somewhat, but here's a slightly different, and better I think, version of my previous post

By assumption 2, any event in the Universe, including the 4 dimensions we experience directly must SATISFY all the physical laws that govern the operation of the Universe. For example, if something's state of motion changes in this Universe, by Newton's 2nd Law, a force must have been applied, and again by Newton's 2nd Law, you can't apply a force without having some mass. So, how do these higher dimensional beings accomplish this?

Ive no idea, its not as if ive developed any kind of theory on this, i just heard a scientist come up with an explaination for spirts/ghosts, and from the experiences ive had and the experineces of others its been the 'best fit' so far. Its the only explaination which has has consistantly made sense to me going from case to case.

[zoobyshoe]

2. What is the physics by which we see spirits/ghosts?
The physics for the bulk of apparitions is to be found in the physics that underly the operation of the human brain. Normally, the brain recieves its imput signals from external sources and "decodes" them for us as the reality we percieve. Under strange circumstances the brain will accept signals that are from within itself, not externally generated, and erroneously "decode" them as external signals. These are mis-presented as external reality, and very vividly, too.

[Ivan Seeking]

Of course this assumes that there are no real ghosts.

[zoobyshoe]

Of course this assumes that there are no real ghosts.
Pay attention to the fine print: I say "the bulk of apparitions". I always like to leave myself wiggle room incase it turns out I'm not omniscient. :-)

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, I skimmed right over that. Just keeping you honest :biggrin:

[geometer]

From Zoobyshoe:

"The physics for the bulk of apparitions is to be found in the physics that underly the operation of the human brain. .....Under strange circumstances the brain will accept signals that are from within itself, not externally generated, and erroneously "decode" them as external signals. These are mis-presented as external reality, and very vividly, too."

I agree Zoobyshoe. I suspect that the bulk of "sightings" are just exactly this. Other than this explanation, I have been unable to come up with any acceptable answers to my questions myself or to have anyone else give me any acceptable answers.

Further, postulating the existence of beings composed of energy indicates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of energy (I'll admit, this misunderstanding could be mine!) Energy is not a THING, it's a CONCEPT. It's always associated with a particular system and does not have an independant existence. Further, a system can possess or not possess energy simply by changing the definition of the system. A classic example would be an object on a table. The object possesses energy with respect to the floor (gravitational potential energy), but has no energy with respect to the table.

[loseyourname]

You know, I have to completely honest here. I'm not going to make any assumptions one way or the other. I've never experienced anything remotely paranormal. A good deal of ghost claims are very obviously bunk or can be explained away. On the other hand, I have seen some cases that seemed very well thought out, that genuinely could not been explained. I really hope that these turn out to be true, and that there does exist a great deal of reality that we have never had the means to detect.

I don't hope this is the case so that I can survive my physical death, but rather for the value of discovery. Imagine what a great discovery it would be. I think any scientific-minded person of curiosity should be enthralled at the thought of there being entirely new facets to existence that we have never even begun to explore. A whole new frontier, so to speak.

[zoobyshoe]

Further, postulating the existence of beings composed of energy indicates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of energy...
People who believe these kinds of thing are generally totally untroubled by physics. The energy is "spiritual" energy, and wouldn't be subject to the laws of physics in their minds. I believe the ill-defined term "metaphysics" is sometimes used as a catch all for all this, and would be invoked to explain how a non-physical being might sometimes interact with matter and sometimes not.

[geometer]

People who believe these kinds of thing are generally totally untroubled by physics. The energy is "spiritual" energy, and wouldn't be subject to the laws of physics in their minds.

Again, I agree zoobyshoe, I have heard the "spiritual energy" argument myself.

I have two comments in this regard. First, in the context of this discussion this is a circular argument. Since we are questioning whether the spirit world exists, we can't postulate the existence of "spiritual energy" until that question is settled. Second, again by my second basic assumption even if spiritual energy exists in the Universe, it must be subject to all the laws of the Universe.

[Ivan Seeking]

Further, postulating the existence of beings composed of energy indicates a serious misunderstanding of the nature of energy (I'll admit, this misunderstanding could be mine!) Energy is not a THING, it's a CONCEPT. It's always associated with a particular system and does not have an independant existence. Further, a system can possess or not possess energy simply by changing the definition of the system. A classic example would be an object on a table. The object possesses energy with respect to the floor (gravitational potential energy), but has no energy with respect to the table.

So you are demanding a ghost particle? The ghosticle? :biggrin: Really though your point is completely valid.

1. How does the existence of spirits square with the Laws of Thermodynamics?

2. What is the physics by which we see spirits/ghosts?

3. What is the physics behind their (the spirits) interactions with the material world? How do they satisfy Newton's Laws?

Clearly, if they even exist no one knows these answers; less one's that assume omnipotence in a creator that makes all things possible. But I don't think we can get into omnipotence in a very scientific way, less perhaps by example from Michio Kaku and others by using the idea of Type IV Beings. So, first and foremost, we might consider the scientific equivalent notion of a god as a T4 Being. This was also the model for Star Trek's Q. Are you familiar with any of this? Do you care to tell me the rules? Where do you start? Hasn't this question of a omnipotentence been a problem for theologians for thousands of years?

No matter what we argue we can only guess. If we had a complete TOE we might feel a bit of confidence to proceed, but given that we can always point to unanswered issues like the possibility of parallel universes for example, we always have wiggle room, as Zooby says. If I say that ghosts come from a parallel universe, prove me wrong. :biggrin: Where do we go from here? Obviously I can't prove such a thing.

Next, if we assume some sort of dimensional argument then we are immediately in trouble because we don't know what we mean. The "metaphysicists" talk of higher planes of energy, and higher vibration frequencies of existence, for example, which clearly I can't know what the heck they mean. It sounds like nonsense to me. Then it hits me, all of this time they have been talking about the vibrations of strings. :biggrin:

[geometer]

[QUOTE=Ivan Seeking]
Clearly, if they even exist no one knows these answers; less one's that assume omnipotence in a creator that makes all things possible. But I don't think we can get into omnipotence in a very scientific way, less perhaps by example from Michio Kaku and others by using the idea of Type IV Beings. So, first and foremost, we might consider the scientific equivalent notion of a god as a T4 Being. This was also the model for Star Trek's Q. Are you familiar with any of this? Do you care to tell me the rules? Where do you start? Hasn't this question of a omnipotentence been a problem for theologians for thousands of years? [/QUOTE}

You don't need to have the detailed answers right off the bat. The first thing to do is to look at the big picture. Is the existence of spirits even consistent with physical law. If the answer is yes, then apply for a grant and start looking for the detailed answers. However, I find nothing but inconsistency when I consider this issue.

[geometer]

No matter what we argue we can only guess. If we had a complete TOE we might feel a bit of confidence to proceed, but given that we can always point to unanswered issues like the possibility of parallel universes for example, we always have wiggle room, as Zooby says. If I say that ghosts come from a parallel universe, prove me wrong. :biggrin: Where do we go from here? Obviously I can't prove such a thing.

Here's my proof: See Assumption 1. Granting that, no parallel universes exist.

[Ivan Seeking]

I don't need a theory in order for them to exist.

Is the existence of spirits even consistent with physical law. If the answer is yes, then apply for a grant and start looking for the detailed answers. However, I find nothing but inconsistency when I consider this issue.

Then you assume too much. Sure, we can't explain this stuff, in fact we don't even know where to begin. We can't even prove that ghosts exist. This doesn't mean that they don't. Many people believe that they know otherwise. Prove they are all lying. If you can do this then you should go and get a grant and save us all from this nonsense.

Edit: In fact this brings up an interesting point. The means to do this may soon be within reach. Lie detection is a rapidly advancing field, according to some recent reports in the tech news.

[Ivan Seeking]

Here's my proof: See Assumption 1.

An assumption is not a proof. You have things a little mixed up. :wink:

[zoobyshoe]

Is is pretty clear to me that neurology provides more than ample evidence to conclude that the entire concept of spirits, afterlife, magical beings etc. originally arose from neurological malfunctions (including drug-induced ones) which, up to the 20th century, were not able to be conclusively linked to pathology, and therefore, gained an enormous head of steam: millenia of being taken as "real". The momentum these ideas have gained is tremendous. For millenia parents have taught their culture's version of the spirit world to their children. It is extremely difficult to completely deracinate beliefs we aquire as children. They are always there, lurking beneath the adult overlay.

I think this is as far as anyone looking for a scientific explanation need go. The notion of inviting believers to explain their beliefs interms of physics is to invite alot of very unclear thinkers into physics, which I don't find to be a desirable prospect.

[Ivan Seeking]

Only if we assume that a large percentage of people are lying. Too many cases leave no doubt: Either the witnesses are lying or not. Where is the evidence that they are all lying? The burden of proof lies with you.

[Ivan Seeking]

The answer is that you can't prove that anyone who reports something that you don't like is lying. There is not ample evidence to suggest any conclusions. If there is then present your evidence.

[zoobyshoe]

I'm not sure who or what you are adressing, Ivan, in your last two posts.

[Ivan Seeking]

I was addressing your last post.

Is is pretty clear to me that neurology provides more than ample evidence to conclude that the entire concept of spirits, afterlife, magical beings etc. originally arose from neurological malfunctions...

[Ivan Seeking]

I actually find your comments outrageous.

Edit: Okay, maybe I should tone that down a bit, but we are hardly in any position to declare God dead based on science. To say that all spiritual experiences can be attibuted to physiology is going way, way too far. This is more like the wishful thinking of guys like Persinger and others, at best.

[zoobyshoe]

Only if we assume that a large percentage of people are lying. Too many cases leave no doubt: Either the witnesses are lying or not. Where is the evidence that they are all lying? The burden of proof lies with you.
I don't think any of them are lying. In general, I automatically assume that people now and in the past who report this kind of thing are telling the truth as they experienced it.

[zoobyshoe]

The answer is that you can't prove that anyone who reports something that you don't like is lying. There is not ample evidence to suggest any conclusions. If there is then present your evidence.
You mistook me as saying something I didn't say. In answer to geometer's quest for a scientific explanation for the spirit world, I am saying, if you're interested in a scientific explanation look to neurology.

What I meant about inviting mystical types to defend their beliefs in terms of physics was "Don't bother, because what you'll get are people speculating about the existence of quantum ghost particles and Human Telepathic Field Wave Energy which is unrelated to any energy, or field known to science, and so forth."

[Ivan Seeking]

Like I said, this ignores too many examples where, for example, multiple witnesses are involved along with observed physical phenomenon.

[Ivan Seeking]

You mistook me as saying something I didn't say. In answer to geometer's quest for a scientific explanation for the spirit world, I am saying, if you're interested in a scientific explanation look to neurology.

Whewww! You scared the Jesus out of me there, :biggrin: but I see where you are going. I still don't agree entirely but I can see your point. I have always believed that we may find "physical" explanations for "genuine mystical" phenomenon, but this is certainly a personal bias. Still, based on some of the most extreme ideas from physics we are starting to see some potential cracks in the lining to explain some claimed phenomenon.

What I meant about inviting mystical types to defend their beliefs in terms of physics was "Don't bother, because what you'll get are people speculating about the existence of quantum ghost particles and Human Telepathic Field Wave Energy which is unrelated to any energy, or field known to science, and so forth."

I understand. This is most frustrating in that by many belief systems, people make all sorts of silly statements that are indefensible by any scientific standard. I do try to keep an open mind that people may recognize some essential truth even if they can't explain it in sensible terms.

[zoobyshoe]

Whewww! You scared the Jesus out of me there, :biggrin: but I see where you are going. I still don't agree entirely but I can see your point.
OK.
I have always believed that we may find "physical" explanations for "genuine mystical" phenomenon, but this is certainly a personal bias.
Actually, I'm right with you on this one. I think that if any phenomenon turns out to be "genuine" it will have properties that are detectable in terms of conventional physics.
Still, based on some of the most extreme ideas from physics we are starting to see some potential cracks in the lining to explain some claimed phenomenon. Without knowing what specific extreme ideas you mean, I can only say that, in general, as long as they remain extreme they are as fragile as they are extreme, their potential subject to whether or not someone comes up with a better different theory.
I do try to keep an open mind that people may recognize some essential truth even if they can't explain it in sensible terms.
Same here.

[Ivan Seeking]

With the understanding that tomorrow's conventional physics might be considered voodoo today, I think we agree. As for the potential cracks, the emphasis on these two words was meant to make clear that as you said, these are fragile ideas for now at least. I read and consider but surely don't adhere to ideas like a conscious universe, quantum telepathy, or spontaneous parallel worlds hopping, but these are the sorts of things being kicked around.

One thought on this point of fragile theories, or more appropriately perhaps, fragile suppositions. My first year chem professor once commented that today’s popular literature is like the old fireside and brandy, "gentlemen’s" discussion of the once elite communities of academia. Consider the stuff that today generates lots of book sales for subjects like physics but that officially are fringe; say for example some of the discussions found in books by Michio Kaku - perhaps the Carl Sagan of modern physics. My professor’s suggestion was that these sorts of discussion were once kept mostly within the walls of the ivory tower, or even by the fireside, because academic life was so sheltered. Now, with the advent of the university systems and mass education, academic life has spread out over the globe. The fireside chats wtihin this once closely knit community of academics has been replaced with the popular “scientific” literature of today that raises eyebrows in any serious scientific discussion.

[geometer]

Actually, I'm right with you on this one. I think that if any phenomenon turns out to be "genuine" it will have properties that are detectable in terms of conventional physics.

Had a couple of the wife's girlfriends for the weekend, so I have been out of the loop here for a bit. Zooby makes a critical point here, and more clearly than I made it earlier. Any true phenomenon must satisfy ALL the laws of physics.

Given this, I find many of the phenomena postulated by "spiritualists," using the term very loosely, to be impossible on their face. For example, consider the idea of poltergeists; to change an objects state of motion requires a force to be applied by Newton's 2nd Law, and this requires that the object applying the force have some mass. However, spirits, as I understand their current definition are massless.

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, this sort of supposition about what a ghost is or is not is rather insignificant given the lack of data. This is the problem. If there is such as thing as ghosts we don't know enough to suggest the physics of them [the Casper kind]. We can say that we have no generally accepted physical evidence that they exist but it is fallacious to argue that for this reason ghosts don't exist. This I think is the core of your arguement and it simply doesn't hold.

All that we can say is that we don't have enough data, and we can't imagine an explanation consistent with known physics to explain ghosts. Or simply, we have no physical evidence to suggests that ghosts exist. But that's it. If they don't exist, we will likely never do better than this unless all of the reports simply go away, or until we can scrutinize people's honesty and memories so as to determine exactly what they really may have, or may not have experienced.

spirits, as I understand their current definition are massless

For example, says who? Who would know and how would they know?

[zoobyshoe]

For example, says who? Who would know and how would they know?
Ivan, I had the ghost of Isaac Newton over just the other night. Just for the hell of it, I put him on the bathroom scale. Believe me: he weighed nothing.

[geometer]

For example, says who? Who would know and how would they know?

Well, after a quick search for a definition, I found the following from the American Ghost Society:

"A ghost is by definition, a disembodied spirit or mind." And, from Websters Unabridged Dicitionary of the English Language, a spirit is: " A concious, incorporeal being, as opposed to matter."

Certainly implies masslessness (Is that even a word?)

[zoobyshoe]

The thing is, those definitions are delineating the current usage of the word "ghost" by the general population. The general population is not physics savy, and by saying "incorporeal" "as opposed to matter" they are not really alluding to any rigorous physics definition of matter. The opposing pair here is matter vs. spirit, not matter vs. energy.

[geometer]

Those were the best definitions I could find quickly. I had a lot of difficulty finding even those (except for the Webster's of course). This is an indication I think of the complete lack of any kind of scientific rigor in the paranormal area. One site I visited had four different, and very vague, definitions of ghost - pick which one you like I guess!

[Ivan Seeking]

Ivan, I had the ghost of Isaac Newton over just the other night. Just for the hell of it, I put him on the bathroom scale. Believe me: he weighed nothing.

Newton has always been a special case. Did you consider that, less a simple conversion, you were trying to measure Newton in Newtons? This sort of thing is disallowed.

[zoobyshoe]

Newton has always been a special case. Did you consider that, less a simple conversion, you were trying to measure Newton in Newtons? This sort of thing is disallowed.
ROFLMAO!!!

[garfield13]

I am sorry for joining this thread so late, and refering back quite a few posts, a new thought:

(As a disclaimer, I did study chem in college so I do think logically, but I am not a physicist.)

First, does a shadow have mass?

The reason I ask it: I remember a theory I heard in high school that any object throws a shadow in its next less dimension. That is, 3-D objects throw a 2-D shadow. If the shadow does not have mass in itself, could the apparitions being discusses be 3-D shadows of 4-D objects?

Also, that same theory discussed the concept that the shadow dimension can only see the shadow of the higher dimension, never the objects casting the shadows. So we would be as alien to a living 2-D organism as the "spirit" realm would be to us?

And since this something that may be defendable, do any laws in the 3-D realm defy any laws that may be accepted within 2-D space? So does that help us rationize the same trend between 3-D and 4-D space?

[Ivan Seeking]

If the shadow does not have mass in itself, could the apparitions being discusses be 3-D shadows of 4-D objects?

My answer is that no good evidence exists that suggests any such ideas are true. However, you are not the first to suggest these sorts of ideas. If something like this is true, scientifically we are completely oblivious to it for now.

Here is some information on Flatland [ a 2D +time world] that I think you might enjoy. Flatland is considered a classic.

Flatland: A romance of many dimensions
by Edwin A. Abbott, a Square
"Fie, fie how franticly I square my talk!"
[Fifth edition, revised.]

Text by Edwin A. Abbott, 1884; copyright expired.
Etext version transcribed by Aloysius West.

http://www.alcyone.com/max/lit/flatland/

Time Travel in Flatland:
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/patricia/lctoc.html

[mee]

I am sorry for joining this thread so late, and refering back quite a few posts, a new thought:

(As a disclaimer, I did study chem in college so I do think logically, but I am not a physicist.)

First, does a shadow have mass?

The reason I ask it: I remember a theory I heard in high school that any object throws a shadow in its next less dimension. That is, 3-D objects throw a 2-D shadow. If the shadow does not have mass in itself, could the apparitions being discusses be 3-D shadows of 4-D objects?

Also, that same theory discussed the concept that the shadow dimension can only see the shadow of the higher dimension, never the objects casting the shadows. So we would be as alien to a living 2-D organism as the "spirit" realm would be to us?

And since this something that may be defendable, do any laws in the 3-D realm defy any laws that may be accepted within 2-D space? So does that help us rationize the same trend between 3-D and 4-D space?


But it seems to me that a shadow is not 2d when thrown by a 3d object. At any point in the shadow, not merely on a surface the shadow intersects, one will find shade.