The best question ever!

[ghosthunterbebunker]

People drive to the psychic's looking for answers! Could the ghost be their unanswered needs
with the loss of someone. Could we explain this wanting information has a want and need to be with someone they miss. Could the ghost be the mind allowing a good memory to seem real.

[tkingdoll]

Actually, that's quite an interesting way of putting it.

You are saying that someone has such emotions tied up with the memory of a dead loved one, that their mind creates a realistic projection of that person, which seems real to them.

OK, let's go with that theory for a moment. My question would then be: are most 'ghost' sightings of loved-ones, or are they of strangers? For example a traditional haunted house where the ghost is allegedly that of someone who died hundreds of years ago.

[Dr B]

In relation to the first OP - there is about 130 years of research on this. Bereavement hallucinations are similar in some ways and distinct in others to other haunt-reports. One peculiar thing about them is they tend to occur around 3 - 5 days since the death of the loved one and appear to be part of the grieving process.

I think, most people haunt themselves - but this can become reconfigured through memory and emotion when an attachment to the sense of self is lost. Indeed, this is well known in pathology.

Seems like you have a lot of reading to do.....enjoy O0

[Dr B]

Teek

My understanding is they are distinct classes of experience. People report both the scenarios you mention.

For obvious reasons, experiencing a loved one can be more profound

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Actually, that's quite an interesting way of putting it.

You are saying that someone has such emotions tied up with the memory of a dead loved one, that their mind creates a realistic projection of that person, which seems real to them.

OK, let's go with that theory for a moment. My question would then be: are most 'ghost' sightings of loved-ones, or are they of strangers? For example a traditional haunted house where the ghost is allegedly that of someone who died hundreds of years ago.




There are alot of people that believe in ghost's, and lets say you have some wierd noises that are explainable.
I am just wondering what a person that believes in a ghost will be thinking after hearing noises a few times.
Is it what was that weird noise? or I believe this house has a ghost?

[tkingdoll]

I suspect that if you already believe in ghosts, you are more likely to attribute a weird noise to one than if you previously held no opinion on the existence of ghosts (note: that's a suspicion on my part, not a fact). But believing in the existence of ghosts does not automatically mean you would attribute a weird noise to a ghost. Plenty of people believe in ghosts but apply Occam's Razor when it comes to bumps and bangs.

And of course, if you believe ghosts do not exist, you are very unlikely to attribute a weird noise to one :D

In fact, I'd almost say it's a certainty that someone who does not believe in ghosts will not have 'ghost' on their list of 'possible causes of noise'...

[ghosthunterbebunker]

I suspect that if you already believe in ghosts, you are more likely to attribute a weird noise to one than if you previously held no opinion on the existence of ghosts (note: that's a suspicion on my part, not a fact). But believing in the existence of ghosts does not automatically mean you would attribute a weird noise to a ghost. Plenty of people believe in ghosts but apply Occam's Razor when it comes to bumps and bangs.

And of course, if you believe ghosts do not exist, you are very unlikely to attribute a weird noise to one :D

In fact, I'd almost say it's a certainty that someone who does not believe in ghosts will not have 'ghost' on their list of 'possible causes of noise'...

Sure but the chances increase!

[Dr B]

The chances of what?

[Admin]

In fact, I'd almost say it's a certainty that someone who does not believe in ghosts will not have 'ghost' on their list of 'possible causes of noise'...


D'ya wanna bet? :D

I was getting dressed one morning and I heard a whooshing sound coming from behind me. I knew there was no-one else in the house and so in the half second that the experience lasted I thought that 'something' was present. :ghost:

It was quite frightening and confusing - just an instinctive reaction before I had time to think.

It turned out to be the windowcleaner closing the adjacent bedroom window from the outside! ;D

But, for a split second...... I was in Woo land. :o

[Dr B]

Is it still two for the price of one in Woo Land? ;D

As for hearing a whoosing sound behind you - I was already thinking of something to do with last night's curry ;D ;D

On a more serious note - lots of research suggestions that woo's dont search for the alternative hypothesis that much. They have an odd relationship with the notion of ambiguity (according to some).

[tkingdoll]

John, it's what happened after that's important though. You didn't continue to assume it was a ghost, and you didn't start parading your experience as proof of the existence of ghosts in general and a specific ghost in your house. I would say that's the major difference.

And of course, some people want there to be ghosts, and want to experience one. That's quite a powerful motivator.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

John, it's what happened after that's important though. You didn't continue to assume it was a ghost, and you didn't start parading your experience as proof of the existence of ghosts in general and a specific ghost in your house. I would say that's the major difference.

And of course, some people want there to be ghosts, and want to experience one. That's quite a powerful motivator.


And thats the problem with this haunted scenerios is the belief. And bring in a ghost hunter group claiming to be skeptical from the start...not a chance. For the most part a large number of these groups really believe that dust
and moisture photo'd with a digital is proof of a ghost.

[Admin]

Yes, if it had been a less obvious conclusion and I had a pre-existing belief in ghosts then I probably would have interpreted the event as a 'visitation' of some kind.

_________________________________________________

There is a major difference in assumption between the 2 groups of investigators in this field:

1) Believers who assume that the paranormal exists and they are searching for evidence to confirm this; and

2) Non-believers (including most skeptics) who assume that these experiences are real but that we need proof that they don't have normal (but perhaps complex) explanations (which need to be ruled out) before invoking paranormal hypotheses.

I'm in category 2.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Yes, if it had been a less obvious conclusion and I had a pre-existing belief in ghosts then I probably would have interpreted the event as a 'visitation' of some kind.

_________________________________________________

There is a major difference in assumption between the 2 groups of investigators in this field:

1) Believers who assume that the paranormal exists and they are searching for evidence to confirm this; and

2) Non-believers (including most skeptics) who assume that these experiences are real but that we need proof that they don't have normal (but perhaps complex) explanations (which need to be ruled out) before invoking paranormal hypotheses.

I'm in category 2.



Sure but I was speaking of the believers! But on the other hand I don't know to many skeptics ghost hunting.
Most ghost hunter's(or the only ones I have ever seen) definetly believe.

[Dr B]

Here in the UK - many skeptics do field research including myself and;

Richard Wiseman
Chris French
Paul Stevens
Simon Sherwood

In the USA - lots as well

Joe Nickell
James Houran
Rense Lange
Michaleen Maher
Gertrude Schmeidler did a great deal
Michael Roll

In Canada

Michael Persinger
Stan Koren


and I am sure there are many more I have forgotten. I think we have a case of selective evidence here. There is a wealth of good field-based stuff going on - it may not always get the TV coverage it deserves.....but if you based your world view on TV (and I know many do) - then you are likely to be deluded on most things. If you expose yourself to the correct material - you will see things are looking good O0

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Here in the UK - many skeptics do field research including myself and;

Richard Wiseman
Chris French
Paul Stevens
Simon Sherwood

In the USA - lots as well

Joe Nickell
James Houran
Rense Lange
Michaleen Maher
Gertrude Schmeidler did a great deal
Michael Roll

In Canada

Michael Persinger
Stan Koren


and I am sure there are many more I have forgotten. I think we have a case of selective evidence here. There is a wealth of good field-based stuff going on - it may not always get the TV coverage it deserves.....but if you based your world view on TV (and I know many do) - then you are likely to be deluded on most things. If you expose yourself to the correct material - you will see things are looking good O0


So these are all skeptics out ghost hunting...right!

[Dr B]

Your sentence is difficult to understand - but I think I know what you mean.

The answer is - they are all skeptical researchers who have gone into the field to examine cases of hautning and have proposed and developed psychological / neurophysiological models for the experiences. So they are skeptics in the sense they are skeptical of paranormal claims.

[Admin]

So these are all skeptics out ghost hunting...right!


I would say they are doing research and developing scientific theories rather than ghost hunting.

Ghosts may not be real in themselves but people do experience them. So if ghosts aren't real the experiences need explaining. A lot of these scientists are psychologists who investigate the cause of these anomalous experiences.

What they do is a far cry from orb chasing and waving EMF meters around. O0

[tablemonkey]

I think it's good to remember that in general the majority of people do not spend time thinking about whether they believe in ghosts or mediums abilities to talk to the dead. A lot of the time people grow with a belief without really going deeply into why they do.
Which is why I think these programmes on TV that show mediums walking around 'haunted' homes etc, are harming people by telling them what they should believe. There are hardly any alternative explanations for any phenomena. If the TV say it exists then many people believe then that it does.

All humans look for patterns. I think some that are not naturally skeptically minded would assume what they are seeing is what they most want to see. Yet the person with a skeptical and enquiring mind would see the pattern the same way as the other person, but would be able to consider all it's possibilities.
I think it is to do with how we are brought up to be honest.

[Allo Allo]

Michael Roll



In your list of paranormal investigators you had Michael Roll. I nearly fell off my chair with surprise – is there another – or is it the “Campaign for Philosophical Freedom” Michael Roll?

::)

M

[Dr B]

No - but I know who you mean :D

Actually I think its Bill Roll (William Roll) in USA - a Parapsychologist - sorry for the confusion.

I am writing a few articles at the moment from the perspective of neuroscience and consciousness and consciousness is a brain-driven thing. This means reading 'Mike Roll's garbage from a few web articles etc - which i think is where my slip came from O0

[Allo Allo]

Actually I think its Bill Roll (William Roll) in USA - a Parapsychologist - sorry for the confusion.



Thank you – it’s William Roll – watch this – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWcHXK3wOkE (not long)

William Roll’s suggested explanation of these “hauntings” brings me to ask if magnetic fields affecting the brain could cause THE SAME hallucinations in different people simultaneously?

My interest is really in “mystical” experiences having (possibly) similar causes.

Would one have to have collectively “sensitive” temporal lobes to experience group hallucinations – or would “insensitives” like Richard Dawkins experience nothing and become skeptics? >:D ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_-txbHNyOY

:ponder:

M

[Dr B]

Actually - Richard Dawkins and Sue Blackmore (both prominent skeptics) have both been to Persinger's lab and had their brains stimulated.

Sue had an intense experience - but richard just got a headache. Both were reported in New Scientist.

In relation to your other points - people never actually report the same hallucinations simultaneously (it's an urban myth). Experiences can be 'similar' due to other factors as well as neurological ones.

Persinger would argue that people can have similar experiences from similar fields and there is some speculative evidence for it. However, it is likely everyone 'hears' or see's something ambiguous and then arrive at similar misattributions of it. Either way - these are testable hypotheses currently being examined.

Psychological contagion can also compond these observations even further.

[Allo Allo]

Psychological contagion can also compond these observations even further.


Good Lord! Sounds awful! What is this?
(I can guess - might be something I don't want to suffer from :-\ )

A question : - What task has conciousness in evolution?

M

[ghosthunterbebunker]

Your sentence is difficult to understand - but I think I know what you mean.

The answer is - they are all skeptical researchers who have gone into the field to examine cases of hautning and have proposed and developed psychological / neurophysiological models for the experiences. So they are skeptics in the sense they are skeptical of paranormal claims.



You do not go into this kind of a field with out some sort of belief in what your hunting. The boy's on the ghosthunter
show also claimed to be skeptical, but believe in ghosts. I don't believe in ghost's, and I am skeptical but I am not going ghost hunting just to disprove it. You have to believe even if your claiming to be a skeptic, that the ghost
is a real possiblity. And with all the tech software out there for photo,video, and audio the ability to fake anything
is possible.

[ghosthunterbebunker]

So these are all skeptics out ghost hunting...right!


I would say they are doing research and developing scientific theories rather than ghost hunting.

Ghosts may not be real in themselves but people do experience them. So if ghosts aren't real the experiences need explaining. A lot of these scientists are psychologists who investigate the cause of these anomalous experiences.

What they do is a far cry from orb chasing and waving EMF meters around. O0


Are we talking para psychology here or what! The explainations are really a loss to people who beleive they are being haunted. Because for the most part if they are letting their minds believe they are being haunted, any explaination other than that will probably be dismissed by them. From what I know about this the belief in the haunting is so real in there minds, that can be the only answer.

[median]

You do not go into this kind of a field with out some sort of belief in what your hunting.

Belief is irrespective, in a true scientific sense, of the subject matter that you study.

[Araneus]

You have to believe even if your claiming to be a skeptic, that the ghost
is a real possiblity.

All skeptics will believe that the ghost is a possibility, what they won't believe is that it is a likely one or the best explanation in the circumstances. A skeptic will investigate phenomena which might be interpreted by believers as a "ghost", but will not jump to that conclusion himself.

[Nicky]

But doesn't Richard Wiseman only do it if there's a film crew in hot pursuit?

So .. do you think it's easier to turn a sceptic into a woo, or a woo into a sceptic?

There are people I've worked with in the field for the last two or three years who are still hell bent on believing that orbs are 'spirit'. This is despite the fact that they have participated in the most comprehensiveness study into the causes of orbs that has ever been done (which we completed over the last 18mths) and had the results very clearly outlined to them.

These same people still believe that the reason an NID goes off around them is because they are highly charged with energy, not because they insist and persist with wering manmade fibres.

And the same people who believe that they are so highly charged spiritually and electrically that they cause equipment to malfunction, when in reality, said piece of equipment had naturally earthed out.

This is all despite them having sat through hours and hours of me running training on critical thinking, the scientific method, natural causes of reported phenomena etc. etc.

You can lead a horse to water .....

[Admin]

Actually, I’ve been thinking about writing up something on simple logical reasoning and how paranormalists etc. make the mistake of taking a valid logical argument and then reasoning backwards to reach false conclusions.

Perhaps the most basic form of valid reasoning is Modus Ponens. Examples being:

If it’s raining outside then the outside path will be wet.

If it’s 2AM then it will be dark outside.

The general form being: If P then Q i.e. If P occurs then Q will follow.

The problem is that if it’s worked backwards a logical fallacy occurs (affirming the consequent). Examples:

The path outside is wet therefore it must be raining.

It’s dark outside therefore it must be 2AM.

The general form being: If Q then P – i.e. if Q is present then P caused it (fallacious).

Of course the fallacy occurs because Q could have more than one cause and these other possible causes are ignored in this type of reasoning. I’ve seen it occur quite a lot on paranormal or ‘believer’ type forums.

Things like:

Ghosts emit EMF waves so can be detected on an EMF meter – I picked up EMF readings on my meter therefore it was a ghost.

‘Spirit’ can interfere with electronic equipment - My walkie-talkie went off without anyone trying to contact me therefore it was a spirit.

The conclusion is usually implied in such statements rather than being overtly stated but it's the reasoning that's fallacious.

That’s just off the top of my head (and I could use some better, more concrete examples in a write up) but I wonder just how many people are reasoning this way and convincing themselves that they’re experiencing genuine paranormal phenomena when another, more tangible, explanation is all that’s required. ???

[Dr B]

You do not go into this kind of a field with out some sort of belief in what your hunting.

What utter nonsense. The only 'belief' - if you want to call it that - is in the scientific method and in generating testable hypotheses. I do not need to believe in dowsing, or be skeptical of it, to conduct a test looking into it.



The boy's on the ghosthunter
show also claimed to be skeptical, but believe in ghosts.

I agree many people do get confused over the term 'skeptical'. What alot of people really mean is "I'm not a nutter....honest...." :cheesy:


....but I am not going ghost hunting just to disprove it.

Why should you go anywhere to disprove anything? That would be unscientific. You should investgiate it to generate well thought out, reasonable conclusions and theories for the experiences. The conclusions most consistent with the best quality evidence / reasons will be most likely to be correct.



You have to believe even if your claiming to be a skeptic, that the ghost
is a real possiblity.

Not true. Logically of course anything is possible - but scientifically, only a few things are probable - so your use of the term 'real possibility' is unfounded and incorrect. You do not have to take a position at all. However, you do need to think about your reasoning, logic and methods to make sure you are on firm ground.

A skeptic would say something like; "well if x is true then y and / or z should be possible"

But this does not mean the skeptic believes x is true merely by testing it.

[SKIRRID5]

I remember a TV programme about ghosts and such, narrated by one of the actor Fox Brothers, James or Edward. Don't know if it was the one who "got religion" at some point. Perhaps because I suspected it was the Godly brother, I wasn't going to watch the show, expecting it to be woo-woo stuff. But I watched the last few minutes and was chastened. There was a case where people working in a lab were experiencing a horrid sense of threat, convinced something was creeping up behind them. It turned out to be the strip lighting, which was giving out a very low buzz, almost below the range of normal hearing, and this was screwing up people's nervous systems somehow. I wish I'd watched the whole programme.

[bobdezon]

That would be the late vic tandys work, I believe it was a fan though not a light that was producing the infrasound harmonics.

[hunter]

Let me begin by saying the following is by no means being forwarded as fact. It is my opinion, my experience and my deduction with as little of my illusion as can be helped.

When death occurs the event we observe is seperation. The seperating of matter from the rest of what we are, there being no one good word for, the rest of what we are. In life we entrench ourselves in the material, never having eyes but for light. When the union of life breaks all paths are rent, leaving a personality/mind with no source of emotion. As it is with all other things such a mind, at this point entity might serve, would suffer entropy eventually dissipating into the air of our earth. Unless this entity discovers the dead art of vampirism that is. By learning how to elicit an emotional response from the living it may be possible to maintain ones existance. Whilst we are alive 'Where ever our attention goes our energy flows.'

If emotional energy gleaned from the living is an entities prime sorce of substance, it would be fairly logical to assume such an entity would covet the energy it already has. Using subtle suggestion and nerve stimulation to circumvent the walls of belief and catylise a response funded entirely by the living person whom is having a super natural experience.

What I am taking great lengths to say is this, it may be that when a person sees a ghost they are manifesting the vision themselves, but this in itself can not disprove the existance of ghosts.

[Dr B]

That would be the late vic tandys work, I believe it was a fan though not a light that was producing the infrasound harmonics.


Bob

I would advise some skepticism towards the effects of true-infrasound on perception....O0 and particularly the evidence recruited by Tandy in support of the argument.

[Dr B]

When death occurs the event we observe is seperation.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?



The seperating of matter from the rest of what we are, there being no one good word for, the rest of what we are.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?



In life we entrench ourselves in the material, never having eyes but for light.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?


When the union of life breaks all paths are rent, leaving a personality/mind with no source of emotion.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?



As it is with all other things such a mind, at this point entity might serve, would suffer entropy eventually dissipating into the air of our earth.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?



By learning how to elicit an emotional response from the living it may be possible to maintain ones existance.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?


Whilst we are alive 'Where ever our attention goes our energy flows.'
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?



If emotional energy gleaned from the living is an entities prime sorce of substance, it would be fairly logical to assume such an entity would covet the energy it already has.
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?



Using subtle suggestion and nerve stimulation to circumvent the walls of belief and catylise a response funded entirely by the living person whom is having a super natural experience....
What do you mean? Could you be more specific?



What I am taking great lengths to say is this, it may be that when a person sees a ghost they are manifesting the vision themselves, but this in itself can not disprove the existance of ghosts.

What do you mean? Could you be more specific?

[hunter]

This is good, you make me so happy. It seems as though you are asking me to write you a book. Was I really being that vague or is there some other piont you would like to make? I kinda thought you might bridge the gaps yourselves. Have I sparked a raw nerve or keen interest here. I didn't come here to climb your walls but if thats whats on offer I'll have a go. Read it a few more times, you might warm up to it. I'll have another read of the quotes you picked out and see if I can elaborate

[Dr B]

Was I really being that vague or is there some other piont you would like to make?

I thought I was quite clear - I dont understand what you mean and need you to be much more specific. Was this in anyway unclear?



I kinda thought you might bridge the gaps yourselves.

..and here lies the problem.....



I'll have another read of the quotes you picked out and see if I can elaborate
Excellent O0 much appreciated!

[hunter]

when death occurs the event we observe is seperation.

What I mean here Doc is that while we are alive our minds and bodies are conected and when we die they are not. And it is this seperated state we find peoples bodies in and declare them dead. Although the body still exists it is nolonger connected to what we call life. It has become inanimate, disconnected or seperated from the life it lived.

[hunter]

There being no one good word for the rest of what we are.

Imagine there's a living person sitting next to a corpse. Now give me one good word that describes all that is different between the two and I'll use it to describe what more we are than the matter of our bodies. You are doing youself a great disservice by saying you don't understand this stuff.

[hunter]

We entrench our selves in the material, never having eyes but for the light.

In this statement I agree with you Doc. Its not specific and I haven't made my meaning clear. Undestanding this takes a willingness to accept there are things your eyes can not see, after that no explanation ought be required.

[hunter]

Entropy

Come on Doc, its a basic and fundamental principle of our universe, look it up. Energy must be spent, Yes?

[hunter]

Where ever our attention goes our energy flows

By thinking of me you are making a gift to me. What you put thought into you are putting yourself into. These are the specifics Doc. How may we clutch water besides freezing it, and in freezing water how may we grasp the dynamics of fluid motion?

[hunter]

Not a very good way to start, huh?
I apologise to DrB and any other offended party for the way I responded to your inquisition. I didn't get any more specific in my responses. I think I was bewildered because I hadn't expected such a sudden and drawn reply. I'm a bit new to the forum experience, so I might just sit back and watch for awhile to see how its done.O0

[Dr B]

when death occurs the event we observe is seperation.

What I mean here Doc is that while we are alive our minds and bodies are conected and when we die they are not.

How can something that no longer exists be connected to anything or indeed be seperated from it? I think the term 'separated' is unhelpful as it assumes both entities still exist - but have been 'seperated' from each other.

If I turn a light off in the room it does not become separated from the light....the light merely no longer exists.

[Dr B]

There being no one good word for the rest of what we are.


I still have no idea what you mean - but hey, maybe thats me.

[Dr B]

We entrench our selves in the material, never having eyes but for the light.

In this statement I agree with you Doc. Its not specific and I haven't made my meaning clear. Undestanding this takes a willingness to accept there are things your eyes can not see, after that no explanation ought be required.


eeerrr this is just porridge words and muddy thinking is it not? It does not actually mean anything and I suspect you just realised that...O0

[Dr B]

Entropy

Come on Doc, its a basic and fundamental principle of our universe, look it up. Energy must be spent, Yes?

What does this have to do with your earlier comments. Can you be more specific?

[Dr B]

Where ever our attention goes our energy flows

By thinking of me you are making a gift to me. What you put thought into you are putting yourself into. These are the specifics Doc. How may we clutch water besides freezing it, and in freezing water how may we grasp the dynamics of fluid motion?

I think the problem here is your thinking is bound up too much in metaphorical surface concepts. As such anything and everything seems connected to you - but in reality - none of it really makes a great deal of sense.

I am asking you to be more specific purely because I did not want to misunderstand you in anyway. O0

[Dr B]

Not a very good way to start, huh?
I apologise to DrB and any other offended party for the way I responded to your inquisition. I didn't get any more specific in my responses. I think I was bewildered because I hadn't expected such a sudden and drawn reply. I'm a bit new to the forum experience, so I might just sit back and watch for awhile to see how its done.O0

There is no need to apologise my friend. I am not offended and I doubt others here are offended either. My reply only really asked for you to try to be more specific. It is something we should all always try with our ideas. Of course we are all limited in how specific we can be - which is why a fourm helps with these types of discussions. It may be the first time you have tried to be more specific with ideas like those above and if you are finding it difficult - it may be time for some new ideas!

Please dont feel you have to sit back or anything - just try to avoid 'fluffy' statements that dont really go anywhere O0

[hunter]

why should we assume that anything ceases to exist upon death when such an event would break certain natural laws?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

why should we assume that anything ceases to exist upon death when such an event would break certain natural laws?

Which laws in particular?

[hunter]

How can something that no longer exists be connected to anything or indeed be seperated from it? I think the term 'separated' is unhelpful as it assumes both entities still exist - but have been 'seperated' from each other.

If I turn a light off in the room it does not become separated from the light....the light merely no longer exists.

I'm not sure turning off a light switch is a good example of the seperation here. If I turn off a tap the water stops flowing, but the water that has already come out is in the sink. If I then pull the pug out the water will go down the drain. All the while still having an existance but nolonger connected to the sink.O0

[Dr B]

why should we assume that anything ceases to exist upon death when such an event would break certain natural laws?

I am not assuming anything - i am keeping my thoughts restricted to the facts. However, again I am not sure what you mean here. Are you saying that the 'mind' continues after brain death? This seems to be the implication ???

[hunter]

Which laws in particular?

I accept as fact that nothing ever ceases to exist, nothing ever has and nothing ever will. I call this a natural law, change occurs and takes things out of our perception but how can anything stop existing?

[Dr B]

I'm not sure turning off a light switch is a good example of the seperation here.

It is an excellent example which reveals the flaws in your assumptions - which is probably why you don't like it. O0

Your thinking is too metaphorical. You need to be specific on what it is you are saying.

[Dr B]

I accept as fact that nothing ever ceases to exist, nothing ever has and nothing ever will.

Well, it is not a fact and you are mistaken on that issue.



I call this a natural law, change occurs and takes things out of our perception but how can anything stop existing?

You have already answered this yourself - because change occurs.

If nothing stops existing - where are the dinosaurs? :cheesy:

Are you trying to grapple with some notion of energy? Is that what you are trying to talk about?

[hunter]

where are the facts showing that a personality ceases to exist upon death? Utterly unprovable my dear chap. We can accept their absence from the phenominal world, but a personality is never really in it to begin with. So when the body breaks and looses its union with the soul and mind, spirit and presonality and begins to decay why would we entertain the notion that there is nothing left but that body?

[Fiona]

How are you defining personality ?

[hunter]

[quote=Dr B;31742]Well, it is not a fact and you are mistaken on that issue.





If nothing stops existing - where are the dinosaurs? :cheesy:

matter changes form and the substance which matter is made of never ceases to exist it continues into ever changing forms never stopping never going anywhere. it is a fact
The dinosaurs became dirt the dirt became worms the worms became worm shit, you probably know the rest Bob O0

[Fiona]

Yes, but what it is not is a dinosaur. What is your point?

[hunter]

How are you defining personality ?


I'm using it broadly, while we live we are a person when we die we are a body, what has gone is what I mean. I've already said there's no one good word for it. you got one I like I'll use it.

[hunter]

Yes, but what it is not is a dinosaur. What is your point?

I was not sugesting that it should be a dinosaur, I was asked where they where and my point was to say where they went and so insinuate where they might be today. What is your point?

[Fiona]

My point is that they are not dinosaurs so I cannot see why, even I accepted that mind/body/spirit were separate, that any one of them should persist as itself

[hunter]

It is an excellent example which reveals the flaws in your assumptions - which is probably why you don't like it. O0

Your thinking is too metaphorical. You need to be specific on what it is you are saying.
it is not an exelent example and I told you why. the reason you do like it is because it makes your point. I am not thinking metaphoricaly, We are discuing the real world

[hunter]

My point is that they are not dinosaurs so I cannot see why, even I accepted that mind/body/spirit were separate, that any one of them should persist as itself
nither do I, who said that? Does the corpse not persist for a time? How long do you think it would take to feel like dying?

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

where are the facts showing that a personality ceases to exist upon death? Utterly unprovable my dear chap. We can accept their absence from the phenominal world, but a personality is never really in it to begin with. So when the body breaks and looses its union with the soul and mind, spirit and presonality and begins to decay why would we entertain the notion that there is nothing left but that body?

Where are the facts showing that a personality doesn't cease to exist on death?

Do you see what I've done there?

[hunter]

Where are the facts showing that a personality doesn't cease to exist on death?
I am not aware of any

[hunter]

Could the ghost be the mind allowing a good memory to seem real.

This is the question I was discusing if any ones interested

[hunter]

it may be that when a person sees a ghost they are manifesting the vision themselves, but this in itself can not disprove the existance of ghosts.

and this was my opinion

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

I am not aware of any

Are you the type of person who has an idea or opinion about something and then searches out 'facts' that attempt to support it?

[Matt]

where are the facts showing that a personality ceases to exist upon death? Utterly unprovable my dear chap. We can accept their absence from the phenominal world, but a personality is never really in it to begin with. So when the body breaks and looses its union with the soul and mind, spirit and presonality and begins to decay why would we entertain the notion that there is nothing left but that body?

Certain things do indeed appear to be eternal, for example it has been hypothesised that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed it merely changes its form. Quite a bit of effort has gone into disproving this theory to no avail and so it is provisionally assumed to be true.

Implicit in this however is that not all things are eternal. Forms change, One form may be replaced by another. Forms are not eternal.

There is no natural law that states that all things are eternal. Forms especially are transient.

A material may have one property that is destroyed when it changes form.

The material that makes up my four month old son has the properties of life and personality.

I know that there properties are not eternal. If I were to hypothese that personality cannot be created or destroyed it would take minimal effort to disprove it. The observations of the last four months demonstrate to me that personality is created.

I have no reason to suspect that my personality pre-existed my physical being, no reason to suspect that it is eternal and not reason to suspect that it will survive my physical existance.

So it's is quite demonstrable that personality is created. I anticipate that you may be willing to accept that but still insist that there is no evidence that it is destroyed.

You should be aware of the burden of proof in this matter.

There are littery infinite concievable notion for which the is no evidence one way or another. Carl Sagan spoke of an invisible dragon in his Garage, Bertrand Russel spoke of a celestial teapot. There is no limit to the human imagination in conjuring new examples. I might say that Russels teapot cannot be true as that location is allready occupied by an equally unprovable pair of celestial underpants, in such a way that precludes the existance of the celestial teapot. As you can see from this contradiction not all things that cannot be disproved can be true. We have a choice: the celestial teapot, the celestial underpants or neither. By prior definiton, having both is impossible.

Accepting all things that cannot be disproven is therefore an impossible task.

The burden of proof is therefore with the claimant.

If you assert that personality survives after death then it is up to you to provide evidence for the case, suugesting that I cannot disprove it and then resting on your laurels is unsufficient.

Please feel free to read up on Russell's Teapot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celestial_teapot)

You have allready provided one piece of supporting evidence that personality survives - a natural law that says that all things survive. Examples have been given to demonstrate that this is not the case. It appears that persoanlity is a property and may such properties are indeed subject to creation and destruction.

You have a choice, attempt to prop up this discredited evidence, provide new evidence or re-examine your ideas.

It may be that you have no better reason for believeing that personality somehow survives death than faith. If you acknowledge that I will repsect it but it will do little to convince anybody else.

[Mulder]

Hunter - here's a question for you. It concerns not death but birth. In your philosophy, do personalities exist before the people they become are conceived? If so, what were they doing before that?

[Pebble]

where are the facts showing that a personality ceases to exist upon death? Utterly unprovable my dear chap. We can accept their absence from the phenominal world, but a personality is never really in it to begin with. So when the body breaks and looses its union with the soul and mind, spirit and presonality and begins to decay why would we entertain the notion that there is nothing left but that body?


If the personality was not simply an expression of brain function why is there a striking relation between cerebral injury and altered or deconstructed personality?

http://www.springerlink.com/content/2gj6m521q238u260/

Erin M. Warriner1 and Diana Velikonja
Abstract Traumatic brain injuries (TBI) are frequently accompanied by psychiatric disturbances, which can include striking to relatively minor alterations in personality, behavior, and emotional regulation. The persistence of these neurobehavioral syndromes often leads to deleterious effects on recovery and rehabilitation outcomes. A recent surge of studies has emerged in the past several years to quantify the extent of psychiatric disorders in TBI and to describe differential clinical presentations. Various pre- and post-injury factors also have been hypothesized to contribute to the development and maintenance of psychiatric symptoms in survivors of brain injuries. The identi.cation of high-risk individuals with distinct neuropathophysiological and psychosocial features permits the development of multidisciplinary and tailored approaches to the assessment, prevention, and management of the negative effects of personality and behavioral changes in TBI. This article summarizes the most recent research in these areas and highlights the gaps that need to be filled in subsequent future


If personality is a product of cerebral activity, why assume that it continues to exist after cerebral activity has stopped. Brain death occurs within 10 minutes of cessation of cardiac output, conciousness is lost in 10 - 30 seconds.:sad:

[hunter]

Are you the type of person who has an idea or opinion about something and then searches out 'facts' that attempt to support it?

No I don't believe I am, but in the absence of observable data I find myself postulating theory and then knocking it about with reason and logic to see if it can stand up.

[hunter]

Implicit in this however is that not all things are eternal. Forms change, One form may be replaced by another. Forms are not eternal.



I have mistakenly used the word nothing where I see I should have perhaps used the word energy. We are in agreement, I just haven't said it in the way you like to hear it

[hunter]

I have no reason to suspect that my personality pre-existed my physical being, no reason to suspect that it is eternal and not reason to suspect that it will survive my physical existance.

Your physical existance survives beyond your death without being eternal, why should it be different for the rest of your being?
By eating meat or vegetation we do not create matter, we transform what was until recently part of another being it into our being. By feeling and thinking we do not create energy either but it is a part of us while we feel it. where it goes and what it does I do not certainly know but that it did exist is clear and that it can not simply stop existing seems logical. In the absence of emperical evidence some assumption must be made. I merely choose to leave the possibility open rather than closed, on the existance of ghosts. The probability of me seeing one is zero because I don't want to see one. Having their existance proved to me would in no way I can see improve my life.

[hunter]

Bertrand Russel spoke of a celestial teapot. There is no limit to the human imagination in conjuring new examples. I might say that Russels teapot cannot be true as that location is allready occupied by an equally unprovable pair of celestial underpants, in such a way that precludes the existance of the celestial teapot. As you can see from this contradiction not all things that cannot be disproved can be true. We have a choice: the celestial teapot, the celestial underpants or neither. By prior definiton, having both is impossible.

I am familliar with the celestial teapot though the underpants are a new twist. You may be interested in the one about an infinite stack of tortoises

[hunter]

It may be that you have no better reason for believeing that personality somehow survives death than faith. If you acknowledge that I will repsect it but it will do little to convince anybody else.

Faith is the mind killer. Faith is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my faith. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the faith has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.

[hunter]

Hunter - here's a question for you. It concerns not death but birth. In your philosophy, do personalities exist before the people they become are conceived? If so, what were they doing before that?
No Mulder, none of our bodies exist before we are conceived in my philosophy. Although the stuff they will comprise does exist in some form or another untill it becomes us

[hunter]

If the personality was not simply an expression of brain function why is there a striking relation between cerebral injury and altered or deconstructed personality?




If personality is a product of cerebral activity, why assume that it continues to exist after cerebral activity has stopped. Brain death occurs within 10 minutes of cessation of cardiac output, conciousness is lost in 10 - 30 seconds.:sad:

The mind and body closely reflect each other, many physical issues manifest as emotion and vice versa emotion in forms such as stress can present physical symptoms. I veiw the brain as an interface between the mind and body rather than the cause of either. Damage to the brain logically effects the mind and its influence on the body.

The brain still exsists 10 minutes beyond the cessation of cardiac function but we are no longer able to relate with it as we did during its lifetime. Its theoretical particles are still in motion so to speak, but to a different affect. Because we can observe its continued existance we have no cause to doubt that it does. I acknowledge that we have many reasons to doubt the soul, spirit or mind continue. But it would be more logical if they did.

[Pebble]

The mind and body closely reflect each other, many physical issues manifest as emotion and vice versa emotion in forms such as stress can present physical symptoms. I veiw the brain as an interface between the mind and body rather than the cause of either. Damage to the brain logically effects the mind and its influence on the body.

The brain still exsists 10 minutes beyond the cessation of cardiac function but we are no longer able to relate with it as we did during its lifetime. Its theoretical particles are still in motion so to speak, but to a different affect. Because we can observe its continued existance we have no cause to doubt that it does. I acknowledge that we have many reasons to doubt the soul, spirit or mind continue. But it would be more logical if they did.

This really is fruit-bat land! I suggest the mind is a product of the brain and in evidence cite the ability to produce consistent alterations in the personality by causing localised lesions, and general personality fragmentation by more diffuse damage, though the precise sub type again depends on whether damage is cortical or subcortical. You maintain that there are minds out there: our brains are merely interfaces with these entities? You have no supporting evidence for this hypothesis, it makes unnecessary additional assumptions, and it infinitely increases the complexity of relation between body and mind (for example how does my mind know that it should only interface with my brain?, what do these loose minds do when their interface dies?, there are 6 billion people now and 1 billion a hundred or s years ago, where did all these new minds come from or were they hanging around waiting for the population explosion? etc etc)

[hunter]

You maintain that there are minds out there: our brains are merely interfaces with these entities?[quote]
I do not maintain nor have I sugested that there are minds "out there"

(for example how does my mind know that it should only interface with my brain?[quote]
It is the only brain it is connected to perhaps
what do these loose minds do when their interface dies?[quote]
Dissipate or rot in time, change form or expression like any body
there are 6 billion people now and 1 billion a hundred or s years ago, where did all these new minds come from or were they hanging around waiting for the population explosion? etc etc)
the same place all the new bodies came from.
Why do you automatically start talking about before the begining when I refer to after the end?

[Pebble]

[quote=Pebble;31841]You maintain that there are minds out there: our brains are merely interfaces with these entities?[quote]
I do not maintain nor have I sugested that there are minds "out there"

(for example how does my mind know that it should only interface with my brain?[quote]
It is the only brain it is connected to perhaps
what do these loose minds do when their interface dies?
the same place all the new bodies came from.
Why do you automatically start talking about before the begining when I refer to after the end?

OK so the contention is that the body and mind are inextricably linked (having a single origin and interdependent existence), but that the mind may persist for a period of time after death. Setting aside the huge raft of questions this begs in respect of logic, such a proposal has to be posed to help explain a phenomenon not currently explained using a simpler theory. So what observations not explained by the concept of the mind being an expression of active brain function are you referring to? Not wild claims but provable observations!

[Janot]

there are 6 billion people now and 1 billion a hundred or s years ago, where did all these new minds come from or were they hanging around waiting for the population explosion? etc etc)Obviously they (or we) are all from the planet Zog, orbiting the star Dschubbi, where global cooling has resulted in an equivalent decrease in population over the last Earth century. :cheesy:

[hunter]

So what observations not explained by the concept of the mind being an expression of active brain function are you referring to? Not wild claims but provable observations!

The concept of our minds being some kind of field leakage from cerebral activity goes nowhere and explaines nothing of why we think or where thought comes from but does deal with the mechanism of thinking. The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function. If thats all it were why would we even have desire beyond food and sex? Life is observation enough for me to know there is more to it than we have yet shown.

[Janot]

The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function.. Hey - you spelled Bach correctly :cheesy:
If thats all it were why would we even have desire beyond food and sex? Depressingly few people have - but I agree wih you, for those that do.

[Pebble]

The concept of our minds being some kind of field leakage from cerebral activity goes nowhere and explaines nothing of why we think or where thought comes from but does deal with the mechanism of thinking. The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function. If thats all it were why would we even have desire beyond food and sex? Life is observation enough for me to know there is more to it than we have yet shown.

Arguing that it is difficult to understand the connection between the evolution of the brain and high art, is fine. How does jumpimg from that statement to 'field leakage of cerebral activity' throw light on the nature of genius?

I would put it to you that there is much beauty in the natural world, the functionality of which is not always known, are you therefore going to further assert that beauty of unconfirmed purpose is evidence for a miasmic leakage from plants and animals?

[hunter]

I would put it to you that there is much beauty in the natural world, the functionality of which is not always known, are you therefore going to further assert that beauty of unconfirmed purpose is evidence for a miasmic leakage from plants and animals?

No. And nothing I have said sugests that I would

[hunter]

Arguing that it is difficult to understand the connection between the evolution of the brain and high art, is fine. How does jumpimg from that statement to 'field leakage of cerebral activity' throw light on the nature of genius?

I don't see any light thrown on the nature of genius by the nature of cerebral activity, I would ask you how it could?

[Pebble]

No. And nothing I have said sugests that I would


I don't see any light thrown on the nature of genius by the nature of cerebral activity, I would ask you how it could?

Breaking my response into two independent parts misses the point. If there are 2 or more competing theories that equally explain the world as we see it, logic suggests that we should accept the theory that has least assumptions. (Occam). Thus proposing a theory with more assumptions is fine but unnecessarily complicating one's theory is not a valid way forward, otherwise every crackpot musing requires equal assessment. So where one proposes a more complex theory, it is necessary first to demonstrate clearly that there are observations that are not adequately adressed by the simpler theory. Second that the new theory helps address these issues. I would argue that you have failed at the first hurdle, but you would probably disagree. The onus is however entirely on you in respect of the second aspect. Asking me how to support your hypothesis is weird, you are proposing that you view is worthy of consideration, I am not among those clamouring for a more complex view of life.

[hunter]

Breaking my response into two independent parts misses the point. If there are 2 or more competing theories that equally explain the world as we see it, logic suggests that we should accept the theory that has least assumptions. (Occam). Thus proposing a theory with more assumptions is fine but unnecessarily complicating one's theory is not a valid way forward, otherwise every crackpot musing requires equal assessment. So where one proposes a more complex theory, it is necessary first to demonstrate clearly that there are observations that are not adequately adressed by the simpler theory. Second that the new theory helps address these issues. I would argue that you have failed at the first hurdle, but you would probably disagree. The onus is however entirely on you in respect of the second aspect. Asking me how to support your hypothesis is weird, you are proposing that you view is worthy of consideration, I am not among those clamouring for a more complex view of life.

I have not sought support from you for my ideas. That brain function should reflect the nature of genius is a suggestion you made, which is why I have asked you to elaborate.
Perhaps you ought go back and read your own posts on this thread.

[hunter]

Arguing that it is difficult to understand the connection between the evolution of the brain and high art, is fine.
All well and good if you think its fine, but how does this reflect anything I have said?

[Pebble]

The concept of our minds being some kind of field leakage from cerebral activity goes nowhere and explaines nothing of why we think or where thought comes from but does deal with the mechanism of thinking. The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function. If thats all it were why would we even have desire beyond food and sex? Life is observation enough for me to know there is more to it than we have yet shown.

You made the above assertions in response to my suggestion that the mind was an aspect of brain function. If Shakespere, Bach, and Tolkien are not being dragged into the discussion for their genius in the fields of art, why are they? Not clear that they are famous for other reasons.

So, I believe, I did not bring up the genius/art aspect you did.

[FarSideOfTheMoon]

No I don't believe I am, but in the absence of observable data I find myself postulating theory and then knocking it about with reason and logic to see if it can stand up.

So you cherry pick bits of reason that fit your theory.

There's a good reason why science doesn't work this way, might be beyond your level of reason and logic though.

[Fiona]

I am utterly confused by this thread. I hope it will not be annoying if I ask a couple of questions about what has been said so far. to help me understand what is being argued.

1. Hunter, you seem to argue that the observable facts of the world show that mind is not adequately explained as a phenomenon which arises from brain activity. You are led to this conclusion because

a) the brain activity continues after the heart stops. While this might be true, I cannot see how it suggests that mind is separate from brain activity. The personality or the mind might well be the last part of us to die but it is not odd to think we die in parts, is it? I believe I read that nails and hair continue to grow for a long time after death. So I do not see that this helps your case. So long as the brain is functioning at a level which gives rise to "mind" then,arguably, you are not dead: so it is not evidence for post death persistence, is it?

b) you seem to see that brain activity is able to explain the process of thinking but to separate the process of thinking from the content of thought. I assume that the content part is the bit you see as separate ( as mind or personality in this context) but correct me if I am wrong. Thus you cite great artistic achievement as the extreme phenomenon to show that there is something more than brain activity at work. I do not really follow this. In support of this you ask why we would have desires beyond food or sex, if it were true: and I honestly cannot see how this is relevant. Why would the content be different if mind were separate? Why would a physical phenomenon necessarily be concerned with more direct need fulfillment and stop there? This seems to me to be a very strange idea. It is as if you believe that all physical process is functional but if evolution is correct this does not follow. Evolution works with what is there: it is not a designing process. So there is often redundancy and stuff which just happens.Why would consciousness be any different? ( In this connection you seem to agree with your opposition,btw: so it may be that I am the one who is out of step since I do not see functionality in the world, very much)

c. You are unhappy with the idea of personality as a side effect of brain function, because it explains nothing. I completely agree about that. It is a description but it has no explanatory force at all, if what you are interested in is the content of our thoughts. So the idea of a separate "mind" is attractive, I quite see that. The problem here is different: I can understand you might think it helps to explain the content, but so far there is no reason to suppose it exists. I am afraid I see nothing in your argument so far to suggest that it does, and this I think is where the real disagreement lies. As I understand it those who see it as a manifestation of brain function are seeing it as a bit like gravity: gravity arises from mass, but although we can see it exists and we can measure what it does, we cannot actually explain what it is in essence ( this may be wrong - it may be that we do now have such a conception: but I don't and if this analogy is not correct I hope you can see what I mean). That does not mean it is separate from mass, however. Or at least so I think. Where I will agree is that the content question is not likely to yield to reductionism. The content of thought and personality is not going to be explained by brain research and I think this is at the root of your unease, maybe. But not all who investigate the brain are convinced that everything is functional in those terms: indeed I think most are probably aware that there is more to life than that :smiley:

If I have misunderstood this whole debate I would be glad to be corrected

[Pebble]

[quote=Fiona;31897] But not all who investigate the brain are convinced that everything is functional in those terms: indeed I think most are probably aware that there is more to life than that :smiley:

quote]
Had hoped 'Hunter' might reply, but trail seems to have gone cold. Puzzled by your penultimate statement, Fiona. I think being 'aware' of something for which there is no evidence would not be particularly scientific. Do you have any particular researchers in mind?

I have no problems with scientists addressing claims made by others, for which there is no evidence, where they concede there is a valid argument, but investigating nonsense claims wastes time and money. The premise put by 'hunter' seems to fit in the fantasy group, neither use nor ornament. It doesn't meet the requirements of a religious stance, nor any major cult belief, so what purpose would be served by investigating this particular noton?

I agree no one has disproved this specific point but what difference would it make to the world as we know it if one's memories (I presume that is what is meant by content) persisted for a few seconds after cerebral death? First this is unlikely, second what observed phenomena does it help us resolve? PS. Why do specific brain injuries affect memory in different ways, unless the brain is entirely responsible for housing our memories?

[Fiona]

No idea what you are talking about Pebble, sorry

[hunter]

I am taking this opportunity to thank all of you whom have taken the time to speak with me. I haven't gone cold Pebble although I have been trying to extricate myself from this thread since I appologized to Dr B, without giving the impression I've gone off to sulk in the corner.:smiley:

I thank Dr B, Matt, Pebble and Fiona for giving me great insight into critical thinking. I would like to say, I certainly will be reevaluating the way I present my views in the future and ofcourse these views themselves.O0

I would like to thank Far side of the moon and Janot for trying.:tongue:

And Mulder, thankyou for according me the possibility of having a philosophy.:-*

Fiona, please don't think that I'm running away from your questions, I simply don't yet have the skills to answer them. I think I fit into option c though.:-[

I'm not going anywhere, I feel like my mind has just embarked on a growth spurt. I will however endevour to make more sense and better articulate my point the next time I choose to post.

I hunt for a world view devoid of falacy. I walk a long road, I know;D

[hunter]

A question for John,
Do threads, this one in particular, remain on the site indeffinitly, if not when do they expire?
I hope to be able to revisit this one in the future and have a laugh at my own expence, just a little unsure of when I'll be ready for it.;D;D

that'll do

[Admin]

Hi, Hunter.

The threads will stay on indefinitely. O0

[Mulder]

If you come back Hunter, I have a question. You seem intent on producing a philosophy that incorporates the human mind surviving bodily death. Is there some special reason for this? Do you have any evidence that this happens? Having studied this subject for decades, I have yet to come across any remotely convincing evidence of life after death so I'd be interested to know if you have any and what it is.

On the other hand, if you don't have any evidence for life after death then I'm curious as to why you are developing these ideas.

[Dr B]

I have mistakenly used the word nothing where I see I should have perhaps used the word energy. We are in agreement, I just haven't said it in the way you like to hear it

Aha!

So you are talking about energy....which was a question I asked you about 50 posts ago......8)

[Dr B]

The brain still exsists 10 minutes beyond the cessation of cardiac function but we are no longer able to relate with it as we did during its lifetime. Its theoretical particles are still in motion so to speak, but to a different affect. Because we can observe its continued existance we have no cause to doubt that it does. I acknowledge that we have many reasons to doubt the soul, spirit or mind continue. But it would be more logical if they did.

This is both factually incorrect and logically fallacious.:undecided:

[Dr B]

The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function.

and these are famous brain scientists are they?

[Dr B]

Hunter

While on your journey I would recommend a reading of critical thinking, logic and reason coupled to the latest accessible information on brain science.

Stay clear of 'coffee table' popular science books written by charlatons as these will just send you down a cul-de-sac of confusion.

My top-tip is to always try to be as specific as you can be with your thoughts and claims. None of us are perfect - but it is an admirable aim. O0

[Matt]

Hey - you spelled Bach correctly :cheesy:

Shakespeare dates from before formalised spellings, he spelt his own name in many different ways.

[Michael D Price]

D'ya wanna bet? :D

I was getting dressed one morning and I heard a whooshing sound coming from behind me. I knew there was no-one else in the house and so in the half second that the experience lasted I thought that 'something' was present. :ghost:

It was quite frightening and confusing - just an instinctive reaction before I had time to think.

It turned out to be the windowcleaner closing the adjacent bedroom window from the outside! ;D

But, for a split second...... I was in Woo land. :o

That just goes to show how open minded you in IMHO.
Your Openminded That Your Beliefs may not be correct.

If you were closed minded, you would say it is impossible.

[Mulder]

... And Mulder, thankyou for according me the possibility of having a philosophy.:-*

You wouldn't thank me if you knew what I thought about philosophy ...

[Janot]

Shakespeare dates from before formalised spellings, he spelt his own name in many different ways.I knew that - and I guessed someone smart would point it out. OK, so 1 and a half out of 3 right then. Spelt is also spelled correctly. :cheesy:

[hunter]

I hope to be able to revisit this one in the future and have a laugh at my own expence, just a little unsure of when I'll be ready for it.

I've just read this thread back from my first post. It may be some time before I can laugh, I'm too busy cringing at the moment.:-[

It also may be, I'm too arrogant to be as embarrassed as I should. A rhetorical statement please don't respond.

Please bare with me while I actually attempt to address some of the questions I've been asked with specific responses.O0

[hunter]

[QUOTE]How can something that no longer exists be connected to anything or indeed be seperated from it?
I'm still not ready to accept that it nolonger exists in some energetic form but I realise I don't have any evidence to prove that it does.



I think the term 'separated' is unhelpful as it assumes both entities still exist - but have been 'seperated' from each other.

Yes I was assuming both enities still exist, because I want that to be true which is not a reason to act as though it is.


If I turn a light off in the room it does not become separated from the light....the light merely no longer exists

I didn't think this was a good analogy because the light does not stay connected to the light bulb whether you turn off the switch or not. The light which was moving through the room is no longer light but still exists as energy absorbed into surfaces. Alas in light of Fiona's analogy to gravity I conceed your light switch may well be correct. It also may be that I don't fully understand light.

[hunter]

Are you the type of person who has an idea or opinion about something and then searches out 'facts' that attempt to support it?
I originally said no to this question but under further consideration I think this is what I have been doing. Have I been trying to hold water with leaky buckets or is that yet another missunderstanding on my part?
I will endevour to curb my propensity toward such 'muddy thinking'

[hunter]

[QUOTE]
Certain things do indeed appear to be eternal, for example it has been hypothesised that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed it merely changes its form. Quite a bit of effort has gone into disproving this theory to no avail and so it is provisionally assumed to be true.

Implicit in this however is that not all things are eternal. Forms change, One form may be replaced by another. Forms are not eternal.

There is no natural law that states that all things are eternal. Forms especially are transient.

A material may have one property that is destroyed when it changes form.

I didn't realy understand this concept untill you explained it to me, which is why I didn't articulate it very well, nothing to do with how you like it said.




You have a choice, attempt to prop up this discredited evidence, provide new evidence or re-examine your ideas.

I choose to re-examine my Ideas.

[hunter]

[quote=Dr B;31734]It may be the first time you have tried to be more specific with ideas like those above and if you are finding it difficult - it may be time for some new ideas!

I think you've hit the nail on the head, you seem to be quite good with a hammer. And yes, I am aware 'hitting the nail on the head' is a term coined at dock side auctions not on building sites.

[hunter]

[quote=hunter;31860] The works of Shakespere, Bach and Tolken go along way past explanations of mind being an expression of brain function.

What I was trying to say was that brain function does NOT explane high art. I realise now Pebble you were probably being kind in suggesting that I was saying its difficult to understand how it does. I acknowledge that I did in fact bring up the genius/art apect despite having previously denied doing so. What I still don't understand is this, although many varied forms of life sport brains, only humans go in for art and higher thought. I expect our brains have distinct differences but opperate in much the same fashion as most, mamalian at least.

[hunter]

There's a good reason why science doesn't work this way, might be beyond your level of reason and logic though.
hmmm... beyond my current level yes

[hunter]

You seem intent on producing a philosophy that incorporates the human mind surviving bodily death. Is there some special reason for this? Do you have any evidence that this happens?

On the other hand, if you don't have any evidence for life after death then I'm curious as to why you are developing these ideas.
No I don't have any verifiable evedence, I suspect you already know this, otherwise I'd be applying for a million dollars. I have been considering what special reasons I have if any. There must be something motivating this wish thinking. Aside from several first hand accounts of paramormal expeirence from people I respect for entirely different reasons, I think this desire may stem from my mother being a life time member of the Woo Woo Brigade and my wanting to leave room for her beliefs. I am not in the habit of blaming her for my failings though so I'm still searching for the answer to your question.

[hunter]

Aha!

So you are talking about energy....which was a question I asked you about 50 posts ago......8)
Yes, sorry I didn't reply directly. I had made the retraction before I read your question and then hoped you would see it. Instead of hoping I should have made sure you got an answer

[hunter]

and these are famous brain scientists are they?
I was trying to suggest that brain scientists hadn't explaned imagination in terms of cerebral activity. I should have actually said this, although in all likelihood would still have been wrong.

[hunter]

Hunter

While on your journey I would recommend a reading of critical thinking, logic and reason coupled to the latest accessible information on brain science.

Stay clear of 'coffee table' popular science books written by charlatons as these will just send you down a cul-de-sac of confusion.

My top-tip is to always try to be as specific as you can be with your thoughts and claims. None of us are perfect - but it is an admirable aim. O0
I appreciate your advice and will follow it. I checked at my local book store today but they didn't have any books of this nature (its not a very big store). I'll be getting to town in the next few days and should have more luck there. In the order of avoiding coffee table charlatans could you name a few authors of note in these subjects?

[Melanie]

Hi Hunter, I'm sure Dr B will suggest some material, but while you're waiting, have a look at our UKS bookstore - you'll find it interesting, I'm sure.

[hunter]

You wouldn't thank me if you knew what I thought about philosophy ...
After giving this statement some thought I can appreciate how an association to philosophy might not be a complement, especially coming from a skeptic. But in the context of 'a philosophy' being a world veiw or an attitude to life I can still take it as one.

[Matt]

I choose to re-examine my Ideas.

Reading that has just cheered my morning right up.

[Mulder]

[quote] What I was trying to say was that brain function does NOT explane high art...

It is true that 'genius' it not so far understood in terms of brain function. Neither are most mental disorders. However, the technology to study brain function is still in its infancy. I think these things will be understood by scientists fairly soon.

Looked at simplistically, everyone is different and so are there brains. It is inevitable that some people will think in a different way. Genius is often defined as an ability to see meaningful connections between ideas that others can't (insight, if you like). Note the word 'meaningful'! Many paranormal believers make connections which are illusory (like seeing faces in random patterns, attaching meaning to coincidences, etc). Geniuses may simply have their brains wired up in a way that's slightly different to most other people, so that they see connections between disparate ideas easily but then have the necessary logical faculties to make sense of them.

The important point is that there is no evidence to suggest that the ideas of geniuses came from outside their brains. If you read the biographies of great artists you will often discover where they got their ideas from. They simply had the ability to adopt and adapt an idea that others didn't.

[DrS]

What I still don't understand is this, although many varied forms of life sport brains, only humans go in for art and higher thought. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that only humans go in for art and higher thought that is identifiable to humans as art and higher thought.

I expect our brains have distinct differences but opperate in much the same fashion as most, mamalian at least.Which suggests to me that it's at least possible that other mammals might have their own "art".

[Dr B]

Hi Hunter

There are some useful PDFs which can be downloaded from the main site here (critical thinking / logic / reason). I would suggest you start there. They deal mainly with principles of resoning and argumentation.

In terms of books on the subject - everyone has their favourite - but Brown & Keeley "asking the right questions" is a good one as is Todd Carroll's "Becoming a critical thinker". I recommend both to my students along with a host of others. You should also consider Carl Sagan as well (try amazon). Shermer has written extensively in this field ("Why people beleive weird things") and also has some nice books out.

In terms of the brain - well there are lots of good accessible books out there that you should consider reading. For example, Ramachandran, Bentall, Claxton, all have numerous recent books on fascinating subjects concerning the brain / mind relationship.

Sue Blackmore is always a good read (OBE / NDE stuff) - her recent stuff on consciousness is interesting but not uncontroverisal. O0

I hope this helps - feel free to ask for suggested texts in specific areas as there are a lot of people around here with expertise in a variety of fields.

[Dr B]

In fact here is the list i give to students......:smiley:


Weston, A. (2000) A rulebook for arguments (3rd edition) Indianapolis / Cambridge.
Hackett Publishing.
A very basic and short (can be read in one or two sittings) introduction on how to make
cogent arguments. The concepts are explained very well and should not be too demanding
for the student. Gives a good introductory guide on making short arguments,
extended arguments, and how to compose and write an argumentative essay. Despite its thin
content – it is an excellent starting place for students.

Browne, M.N., & Keeley, S.M. (2007) Asking the right questions. A guide to critical thinking
(8th Edition), New Jersey. Pearson Prentice Hall.
An excellent book for the beginner or intermediate. It has a very clear style and is well suited to the psychology / science student. Watch out for the latest edition and make sure you get that one. If you are wondering where to start – start here!

Carroll, R.T. (2005) Becoming a critical thinker. A guide for the new millennium (2nd Ed).
Boston. Pearson Custom Publishing.
A comprehensive book, more one for the intermediate and advanced student rather than the beginner. Covers many aspects like complex arguments and logic that are not covered in Browne & Keeley. I recommend it highly – but if you find it hard going – start with Browne & Keeley and then come back to this one. Together they both cover all you need to know.

Meltzoff, J. (1998) Critical thinking about research: Psychology and related fields.
WashingtonDC. American Psychological Association
This is an excellent and useful resource for thinking critically about empirical as well as theoretical issues. This book contains lots of example papers / practical articles to illustrate the pitfalls in argumentation, method and reason. This is definitely one for students needing to boost their methodological and statistical reasoning. This should be a big help with laboratory reports and those final-year projects.

Damer, E.T. (2005) Attacking faulty reasoning: A practical guide to fallacy-free arguments.
CA, USA. Thomson / Wadsworth.
A useful intermediate level text covering many aspects of logic and fallacious
arguments. Has an excellent discussion of the many central principles of scientific
argumentation and provides a host of useful examples to help understand them and how
they become violated in arguments

Engel, M.S. (2000) With good reason: An introduction to informal fallacies (6th Edition) Boston:
New York. Bedford / St Martin’s.
An excellent introduction to informal logic and fallacious reasoning. Many concepts are
given an in depth discussion and are provided with useful illustrations. Has a good list of
fallacies and how they occur in everyday / scientific thinking.

Shermer, M. (2002) Why people believe weird things. New York. Henry Holt & Company.
A general book on why people believe weird things. It is very accessible and entertaining. Does not contain much in terms of formal reasoning etc, but gives plenty of real-world silliness and a psychological interpretation for why some people find weird ideas convincing. Shermer’s style is very engaging.

Thouless., R.H. (1968) Straight and crooked thinking. London, Pan Books.
A classic of its day. Although many of the examples are now dated the book is worth its weight in gold for the chapter on dishonest tricks in argument alone. It is a short book and can be read in one or two sittings – but really easy to read, will make you laugh from time to time, and is regarded by some as an absolute classic.

Whyte, J. (2005) Crimes against logic. New York. McGraw-Hill.
A modern book very much in the style of Thouless (above) but with a contemporary flavour. Easy to read, and full of humorous examples from politics and other areas that are rife with bad thinking. Not so much one for the scientist – but more one for the general thinker. Very entertaining.


Miscellaneous /general sources
Carroll, R. T. (2003) The skeptics dictionary. A collection of strange beliefs, amusing deceptions and
dangerous delusions. New Jersey. John Wiley & Sons,
An accessible resource / reference book for thinking critically about the weird and wonderful.

[vbloke]

If I may, I'd like to add to Dr B's excellent list:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/1897597320

Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
by Charles Mackay
'Every age has its peculiar folly; some scheme, project, or fantasy into which it plunges, spurred on by the love of gain, the necessity of excitement, or the mere force of imitation,' said author Charles Mackay in 1841. It was true then, and it is certainly true now. This intelligent, humorous collection of popular delusions, from money mania to religious relics, has become a classic study of mass manias, crowd behaviour, and human folly. The book encompasses a broad range of scams, and deceptions, including witch burnings, the Great Crusades, the prophecies of Nostradamus, and tulipomania - where speculators lost fortunes on a single tulip bulb. Here are the human quirks that make hemlines rise and fall, hairstyles change, and beards sprout. For every reader who has ever been a part of it all - remember McCarthyism and Elvis? - or is just curious about grand-scale madness, major schemes, and bamboozlement, here is a book that shows how any age, even ours, is susceptible to mindless hysteria.

[Mulder]

Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that only humans go in for art and higher thought that is identifiable to humans as art and higher thought."

I would say the creations of the Bowerbird constitute art! You could argue that they are solely to attract a mate. However, I understand many human artists have similar motivations.

[hunter]

Thanks for your reccomendations DrB, Vbloke and Melanie. Lots there, the PDF's and 'Becoming a critical thinker' sound like exellent places to start. If I don't have any luck in the city today I'll see about buying my first book on line.


I would say the creations of the Bowerbird constitute art! You could argue that they are solely to attract a mate. However, I understand many human artists have similar motivations.
Boom, yet another of my assumptions sinking to the bottom.
A-mon to that

[dalriada]

This is a teeny wee book, but it's almost worth learning off by heart to recite at parties:

On Bullshit by HG Frankfurt (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bullshit-HG-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946) Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University.


One of the most salient features of our culture is that there is so much bullshit. Everyone knows this. Each of us contributes his share. But we tend to take the situation for granted. Most people are rather confident of their ability to recognize bullshit and to avoid being taken in by it. So the phenomenon has not aroused much deliberate concern. We have no clear understanding of what bullshit is, why there is so much of it, or what functions it serves. And we lack a conscientiously developed appreciation of what it means to us. In other words, as Harry Frankfurt writes, "we have no theory."

Frankfurt, one of the world's most influential moral philosophers, attempts to build such a theory here. With his characteristic combination of philosophical acuity, psychological insight, and wry humor, Frankfurt proceeds by exploring how bullshit and the related concept of humbug are distinct from lying. He argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to their audience not as liars do, that is, by deliberately making false claims about what is true. In fact, bullshit need not be untrue at all.

Rather, bullshitters seek to convey a certain impression of themselves without being concerned about whether anything at all is true. They quietly change the rules governing their end of the conversation so that claims about truth and falsity are irrelevant. Frankfurt concludes that although bullshit can take many innocent forms, excessive indulgence in it can eventually undermine the practitioner's capacity to tell the truth in a way that lying does not. Liars at least acknowledge that it matters what is true. By virtue of this, Frankfurt writes, bullshit is a greater enemy of the truth than lies are.


See also Bullshit and the Art of Crap Detection (http://criticalsnips.wordpress.com/category/postman/)

[hunter]

If I don't have any luck in the city today I'll see about buying my first book on line.
Amazon have informed me that I should be getting 'Becoming a critical thinker', 'The skeptics dictionary' and 'Asking the right questions' in the mail around the 22 feb.;)

[Dr B]

Happy reading O0

Remember books like these act like tools - you need to read them, digest them, and learn to apply them.

My top tip is to think of an interest you have - say in the paranormal (i.e., the existence of ghosts). Then, with your new found skills and information see what the evidence really has to say about it. Work through all the nonsense arguments with the tools of reason you will have gained.

This will also help you focus on future questions and what future research should be doing to improve the state of affairs.

Let me give you an example from my own 'interests'

Over the years I have been researching the claims that complex and weak-amplitude magnetic fields could be causally related to some haunt-reports. When I first encountered this research I thought it was unlikely to be true because the amplitudes proposed as being involved were simply too weak to induce changes in neurophysiology (less than 1000nT - 10,000nT). In terms of the known principles of induction this is true. So, according to induction, weak fields have no consequence for human experience because the 'energy' contained within the applied field is not strong enough to over come the energetic processes going on within neural systems themselves.

However, maybe there are other mechanisms (more indirect ones) via weak weak complex magnetic fields could interact with neural processes. In other words - maybe induction is not the only method for a coupling between magnetic fields and human brains. Growing research is suggesting that such coupling is possible (to a degree). The laboratory research is interesting - but what we really need is a proper double-blind study. One was recently carried out - but its own methods were flawed for other reasons and all it has done is generate more confusion in the field.

Independent labs are getting effects with medium-intensity fields (< 100,000nT) but only one seems to be getting effects with really weak fields. So where does this leave us? What can we conclude? Are the lab results false-positives? Is the lack of a known mechanism of coupling problematic here? and so on.......8)

[ZERO]

See what you miss out on when your PC goes down. >:-)


What a fantastic thread.

Well done hunter. All the best with your quest for truth. O0

[hunter]

On the other hand, if you don't have any evidence for life after death then I'm curious as to why you are developing these ideas.

This question has been bugging me something fierce, because I'm also curious as to why I have chosen to include ideas of life after death in my developing philosophy without supporting evidence.

A few days participation in this forum is all it took for me to realise there is, to date, no evidence.

Because its a choice I have made, the only person with the answer is me, I have looked long and deep and found an irreducable answer.
This is it's simplest form although I can assert it in a few ways.

I do not want to die.

I will whether I want to or not, I no longer hold any allusion as to out living my body. They were heavy illusions and I have been made lighter in their absence.

Thank you, not for making this happen, but for making me make this happen.

P.S. It might be time this conversation became a thread of its own if it is to continue.

[Matt]

This question has been bugging me something fierce, because I'm also curious as to why I have chosen to include ideas of life after death in my developing philosophy without supporting evidence.

A few days participation in this forum is all it took for me to realise there is, to date, no evidence.

Because its a choice I have made, the only person with the answer is me, I have looked long and deep and found an irreducable answer.
This is it's simplest form although I can assert it in a few ways.

I do not want to die.

I will whether I want to or not, I no longer hold any allusion as to out living my body. They were heavy illusions and I have been made lighter in their absence.

Thank you, not for making this happen, but for making me make this happen.

P.S. It might be time this conversation became a thread of its own if it is to continue.

There are advantages to this new unblinkered way of thinking. People given a terminal diagnoses often report a sense of clarity and purpose. They know they're going to die soon and so they cherish every moment they have left by using it and living it to the full.

This is the gift you've now been given. There's no do-overs, no second chances. This is not a dress rehearsal so make the most of it.

[hunter]

There are advantages to this new unblinkered way of thinking. People given a terminal diagnoses often report a sense of clarity and purpose. They know they're going to die soon and so they cherish every moment they have left by using it and living it to the full.

This is the gift you've now been given. There's no do-overs, no second chances. This is not a dress rehearsal so make the most of it.

Absolutely, I've been using these baseless concepts to accept inactivity and mere time travelling, rather than using the time I have.

I never held to the idea of second chances, though I tried to believe there would always be some thing happening. Kind of like an ocean of energy where you dip your cup at birth and tip it back in at death.

[Mulder]

People know they're going to die but (in most cases) not when. That's how most of us cope.

[hunter]

I merely choose to leave the possibility open rather than closed, on the existance of ghosts.
I think this is where I said it without saying it.;D;D;D

[Dr B]

Hi Hunter

I agree - we should leave the possibility open. However, science is concerned with the probability of something being true. Logically speaking these are not the same thing. 8)

There is also another issue. When many people say they are leaving the possibility of ghosts open - they nearly always mean a whole host of other things as well (i.e., survivial, spirits of dead people, etc). For me, acknowledging that ghosts could be real (theoretically) does not, in and of itself, force me to accept any other preconception about what ghosts are. One does not follow necessarily from the other.

[Janot]

I agree - we should leave the possibility open. However, science is concerned with the probability of something being true. Logically speaking these are not the same thing. 8)
Just a question of terminology - I always thought that possibility and probability are just non-technical expressions for mathematical probability, with possibility being near zero, and probability being over 0.5. Why do you say they are logically different?

[Dr B]

Because logically (informal logic), they are different. It is possible that ghosts do exist, but it is so unlikely that it is highly improbable. Neither you nor I can say with 100&#37; certainty (or expressed as a probability) that ghosts exist or that they do not.

The 0 (zero) and '1' in probability is often a hypotheical ideal (though not always of course) - particularly in the inductive sciences (i.e., psychology, neuroscience, social sciences etc).

For me the best way to think about it is by keeping in mind the differences and relationships between possibility, probability, and plausibility. There are of course relationships and these concepts may not be fully orthogonal to each other - but there are also important distinctions as well.

It may be we are using a slightly different language to describe the same thing - but remember highly improbable things can and do happen (i.e., they are possible).

[Janot]

I think we are saying the same thing. Saying something is improbable, however, could mean one of two things: it is improbable that you could toss a coin as heads 100 times in succession, but you can assign an exact mathematical value to the probability. But that Ghosts are improbable does not allow a mathematical probability to be stated, just that it is very low.

[hunter]

Hi Hunter

I agree - we should leave the possibility open. However, science is concerned with the probability of something being true. Logically speaking these are not the same thing. 8)

There is also another issue. When many people say they are leaving the possibility of ghosts open - they nearly always mean a whole host of other things as well (i.e., survivial, spirits of dead people, etc). For me, acknowledging that ghosts could be real (theoretically) does not, in and of itself, force me to accept any other preconception about what ghosts are. One does not follow necessarily from the other.
You do realise DrB that I was laughing at how close I got to calling myself open minded rather than trying to revive the argument don't you?Hence the three ;D's. I do like your response though.

[Vikingraider1]

Actually - Richard Dawkins and Sue Blackmore (both prominent skeptics) have both been to Persinger's lab and had their brains stimulated.

Sue had an intense experience - but richard just got a headache. Both were reported in New Scientist.

That means that Sue is going to heaven and Richard is going to hell. Trust me. I know these things... ::)

[lost thought]

Hello is this now a closed thread only I heard that you life passes before your eyes before you die, it's called living. Sorry just a bit of humour. I have enjoyed this thread and if you don't mind can I use the list of books for myself to get educated. I have never heard of dawkins untill I found this site. I have allways relied on being a cynical b&*t$%d. Thanks for the thoughts. :-X>:D::) Lost Thought

[asydhouse]

What a fantastic thread! :smiley:O0

I almost feel as if I've witnessed a miracle! I'd love to shake hunter's hand...nay, I'd give him a big hug and tell him (or her!) I love 'em... so rare to see a woo-bedazzled poster grow and free themselves, and humbly reexamine their presuppositions... in short, start to really think!

And after such an unpromising start too. Really like spring arriving after a long cold winter, the feeling hunter has given me this morning (helped along by the persistence and magnanimous devotion of time from so many regulars... you've proven the worth of persistence in reiterating methods and principles of critical thinking... I feel so grateful to you all!) O0:hammock::ladiesnight:

But what's happened to hunter? Anyone heard from him/her? Now I'm worried about hir well-being! I was keen to congratulate hir on being such a fine example of a human being, actually engaging in the kind of self-examination that the religious usually fail to manage, even when pretending to do so...

An inspiration! Come back hunter, where are you! :sad: