The possibility of ghosts existing proved with physics!

[Paper Carnival]

Well, either way, I think there's something to all this ghost stuff, as there's just so many strange unexplained things out there that we may not fully understand or be able to prove or disprove with science or logic.

Maybe true, but what makes me more skeptic (or is it with k?) is that nothing "strange" hads ever happened to me. I consider myself rather open minded but still...

I had a lot of dreams that were just weird. Some of them even showed me things that happened the next day or during the next week. I understand that it could be just a series of coincidences. But still...

[Nikolas]

If you're talking about deja-vu I think that there is a scientific explanation. Actually I have a lot of deja-vus but my father (a doctor), told me that it has to do with some kind of "electricity" in the brain. The same proccess that causes someon to be epiliptic... I think anyway...

[Afflict]

This is interesting, but I think that trying to see ghosts with the spectrum of the hydrogen atom is like trying to see God with a telescope.

<drum role please>

Dude... that's awesome!

I don't know dude all sounds a little funky to me, I agree with the PhD Dude that said we can see certain wavelengths and that special equipment can see other wavelengths that are "invisible" to the human eye.

And anybody that played Monkey Island knows that ghost exist. No really they do, we have a long line of "Ghost seers" in our family. And I for one inherited this unique ability, too some degree anyway.

[shitar]

 Don't mean to sound off-topic but IMO the spirit is the 6th sense, or it could be the 4th dimension essentially. No way to truly see it (while its in a person), smell, hear, taste, or feel. Im not saying ghosts by "spirits". Everyone has a spirit whether, has nothing to do with religion or atheism. Your brain is the cockpit, what's the pilot?

For those of you that are fanatical about being "scientific" about everything no matter what is presented to you, you would say brain waves. But if you think about it, it really dosen't make too much sense. I mean WHY would the brain waves tell you to be a "nice" person in a certain situation etc. Something has to be driving it and we have no way of seeing it at this point in history. Just something to arouse some thought.

[Nikolas]

I'm sorry but I don't quite understand what you're saying. 

The 4th dimension, I believe, that has to do with time essentially.

[Janik]

And, if you believe in string theory, dimensions 5 through 11 are also already taken.  So we're left with the 12th dimension

All kidding aside, a lot of people think that things like ghosts and spirits will never be explained by science. But I don't believe that - sure enough, science can't explain that kind of thing now, but science is just another word for a body of knowledge on a particular subject. We don't know what ghosts are or if they really exist, but if they do then they are a part of nature, and it would be possible to find a way to observe them, reproducibly and objectively.

[Vince Twelve]

a lot of people think that things like ghosts and spirits will never be explained by science.

They'll be explained by psychology: Everyone who's seen a ghost is a nutjob.

-Vince Twelve, settling issues via generalization and trivialization since 1958-

[2ma2]

shitar: The brain being the cockpit is a philosphical question at best. There's no reason not to assume that selfawareness and ethics are the result of highly complex chemical reactions, in which case we're nothing more but high-end biological machines. I think the real question lies in does it matter?

If we ever achieve true AI, we've reached beyond simple selflearning robotics to not a simulation of intelligence, but actual intelligence. This thing must in all aspects be regarded as a living thing, even though it by all means is a 'cockpit' in it's very construction. What the pilot constitutes of is no real issue if we have achieved actual intelligence.

In which case another thesis in ghosts pop up. Could we in the distant future have houses haunted by deceased robots? We've allready been fed with the idea of selfaware viruses spreading throughout the networks, which basically is a teknocratic haunting of multiplying proportions. The core is that an intelligence is unbound to a specific mainframe, but instead limited to the connections and powersupply. Is it then hard to assume that human intelligence could transcend its mortal coil, being fed by unorthodox energy supplies. The very reason specific buildings are haunted may be that the connections are limited to within the construction.

We're all basically robots with AI, so perhaps we can upload ourselfs in some way

[SSH]

The idea of some people percieving things that others cant means that there is somethign out there that we dont understand is fallacious and assumes that our senses are infallible. Optical illusions prove this to be wrong, for a start. Also, our behvaiour and perceptiosna re very succeptible to chemicals like alchohol and other drugs and even things like sugar make a huge difference: most people are grumpy when tired or their blood sugar gets low: especially noticable with diabetics having a hypo.  And they dont realise that its happenign to themselves.

[2ma2]

How could an optical illusion prove that wrong. Your thesis are based that the mind unaffected sees the world as it is, and drugs fudge it up. This must also be taken into consideration.

Why couldn't mind altering substances make you see the world as it REALLY is.

Basically:

Mind 'unaffected' by drug - Sensing A out of WORLD
Mind affected by drug - Sensing B out of WORLD

Neither A nor B are truth. Only WORLD is truth.

The unaffectedness is still an affection, but by bodily produced chemicals, some which have mind altering functionalities.

In the same way:

Person X sees GHOST out of WORLD
Person Y sees NOTHING out of WORLD

Still, neither GHOST nor NOTHING true.. only WORLD

[Kinoko]

Because Person #1 on drugs will see B and person #2 on drugs will see C and person #3 on more drugs will see TRIANGLE.

It's a silly argument because we know that drugs aren't a key to seeing another side of the world, they are chemically effecting the brain and body, and you'd probably be amazed at how thoroughly we can analyse how the brain works these days.

Also, his point was that optical illusions prove that our senses aren't infallible - which is exactly true. The fact that arranging shapes in a certain way to work with our blind spot or something will make us -see- (referring to our perception, not what is physically in front of our eyes) what isn't there is indeed proof that our senses are not perfect.

[SSH]

How could an optical illusion prove that wrong. Your thesis are based that the mind unaffected sees the world as it is, and drugs fudge it up. This must also be taken into consideration.

My thesis was that senses are fallible... drugs was an example of how they can be altered. So I agreed mostly with what you said. Stop arguing with me when I agree with you 

For an example of the kind of optical illusions I mean: http://tinyurl.com/3ovoq

[EldKatt]

Keep in mind that what our eyes physically see (as opposed to what we really perceive, which is created in the brain) is not the true forms of the objects in the real world. It's the light that reaches our eyes after being emitted from a light source and potentially bounced off of objects. Optical illusions like SSH's example are not a bug, but a feature. They're the brain's way of turning the light we see into some kind of perception of physical objects. Some "imagination" is necessary for this.

Take a look at this optical illusion. If our brain let us perceive the "dark" unshaded squares as the same colour as the "light" shaded squares (which is actually true) we would have much more difficulty seeing that the cylinder is casting a shadow, and that the pattern of the material it's standing on is uniform. It'd be child's play for us to see the precise shades of the light that reaches our eyes (painters might like this very much) but our ability to perceive and interpret a three-dimensional world would be completely disrupted.

So when we look at one of these optical illusions, we're not seeing our senses failing. We're seeing them doing a great job of telling us what is actually going on.

[2ma2]

SSH: Yes, but my thesis was that some person seeing something that others can't is a occurance where the possible solution is that this person actually CAN see a figment of reality he/she shouldn't be able to. What I was trying to say was that people often regard the normal state of the senses as fallible AND at it's peak. Anomalies are regarded as limitations (colorblindness etc) but there is no reason not to assume that an anomaly could ENHANCE the sight.

"The idea of some people percieving things that others cant means that there is somethign out there that we dont understand is fallacious and assumes that our senses are infallible."

Because I don't see how this assumes our senses are infallible..

Kinoko: Apart from what I stated above, I'm aware on how throughly we can analyse in what way the brain works today - but note: not HOW. Tracking signal substances do give us an idea on how extrenal stimula is transformed into chemical reactions, thus spawning activity in specific parts of the brain, but to assume that an alteration in chemical balance does nothing more than falsify the input is still to assume the anomalies are of decreasing (or altering) nature only - raising our current set-up of input decoding as mans prime.

[rharpe]

supernatural = above or beyond natural
(If we are natural, we will not be able to completely understand above our natural understanding.)

Ghosts, spirits, demons, devils, poltergeists, angels, etc., are beyond our understanding level... therefore will always remain mysteries to us. In most cases, faith is the only way you can understand these things. 

[Janik]

Well, this is a bit cliché, but lightning and wind and the sun were, at one time or another, beyond our understanding level. And they were thought to be manifestations of god(s), or spirits, or whatever depending on the culture and era you're looking at. But the belief that Thor was responsible for shooting lightning bolts around gave way to our knowledge of how it really happens, and that it is not supernatural, but natural.

[Haddas]

And, if you believe in string theory, dimensions 5 through 11 are also already taken.  So we're left with the 12th dimension

"Theories such as string theory predict that the space we live in has in fact many more dimensions (frequently 10, 11 or 26), but that the universe measured along these additional dimensions is subatomic in size."

Now I want to know, how do they get 26??!

[EldKatt]

Wikipedia knows, sort of, but not really. Apparently it's 26 because

1-(D-2)/24 = 0 => D = 26

in Rambu's theory. Nowhere does it say what the equation means or who Rambu is, though.