Ghost stories!

[Mars Man]

Nice replies there folks ! Wow...so much information coming in, and I'm still kind of behind here. I'll try to put my line of progressivily developed argument aside, for a second, and pick through it to respond temporarily to a few things here.

A "release of energy" is what many think of as death - the spirit or essence of a person leaving the physical behind. This is also what could be defined as a "ghost". #43

(bold inclusion mine)

Let's think about this for a second. First of all it is a fact that we have no other valid reason for the moment to understand anything other than our physical bodies as being a conglomerate of cellular material. Likewise, this cellular material has very well been shown to be made up of other things--chemical and break-down earthly materials. These, in turn, are atomic and sub-atomic, and in whatever ways, quantum.

In otherwords, this is physical matter. Now, as we understand at the moment, when, for example, you unbind the mass of a certain uranium material, you get a massive release of energy. Of course, that energy is what had come together to be that mass, and that energy is no less physical than that mass, but. . . does not contain the properties of that mass.

It is very clear that the physical properties of the animal and plant organisims breakdown into their micro units and circulate. What that means is that no energy is released from those micro units...they are still 'living!' Each living cell that dies, no longer functions as a cellular unit, but the atomic particles that had made that cell, are still 'living' (active).

Living forms ingest earth material via living organisms (except for that one lady who would eat a certain form of raw earth...and live on it) and are motabolized by that. This is the 'energy' that maintains cell growth and vitality--along with the vehicle, good ole H2O. In clinical death, certain cells begin to die as they need oxygen, but are deprived of it. If the blood circulation problem (as most always that is the root evil in the final analysis) is not fixed somehow, all cells begin dying. The end result of that is somatic death, the hair cells seeminly being the last to die...they can remain active for some time after somatic death has been determined.

So, if there were any kind of 'other' energy or 'essence' wrapped up within a living organism, it would have to be the same for all living organisms, from the one celled ones all the way up to even those which survive in some caves in Mexico on poisionous gases rather than oxygen. How could know that such were the case? By what means could we determine that it would be 'known to be true' to the degree that a claim of such being true could be made with certain validity?

These are questions which must be dealt with and answered satisfactorily, in order to overcome the real evidence against that position.

Maybe this is what is referred to as losing "X" amount of grams at the moment of death? #44

While I am familiar with this 'study,' I have not come to know of it through any journals, and have noticed that there seems to be a major methodological flaw in the premise as well as the 'study.' I do not think the said conclusion is valid towards any related to anything 'spirit.'

That briings us to another word that needs to be defined, however, SPIRIT.

 

[Mars Man]

MadamePapillion san, I must apologize as my wording was not so concretely put together so as to avoid misunderstanding--which what may have happened in your #48. My intention was to show that there is an area of agreement that I have with others here, but I have not gotten even close to that area in my presentation, yet.

And then, your observation there, once again, is one of the side points that I had hoped to come to later as well. The connectedness and higher sensory functions of the very female wired brain can catch a lot of things, and percieve a lot of things that the very male wired brain cannot. With such a fine-tuned sensory perception, coupled by more inter-brain communication, there may be some cognition possiblity there that men do not have. Such has been offered as one reason why women had been so persecuted as witches back in the old days...simply because they were finer tuned...even if that did not involve any supernatural or paranormal events.

However that said, it still does not refute, to any degree the far greater likelihood that the total of neural matter and its function is just and only that. There is no reason to think otherwise, nor evidence to assign any element of mental state and disposition to anything other than the neuropeptides, neuron membrane materials, the electric circuitry, and genetic make-up.

There are all kinds of stories out there--I mean even my sister had had experiences like kind of like the one Goldigirl had had, but I never did when I stayed in that room upstairs...which I have done on a good number of nights.

Again, as I have been saying all along, that does not prove that an occurence of some type or phenomenon had not happened for my sister. What can be shown to be very being themselves of each and every living animal, however, quite certainly clenches the understanding that she had not seen a real person, and she had not seen.

As even Carl Jung, who was bigger on this than Freud, admitted that the tendency for humans to think of life after death may well be due to a symptom of the instinct of survival, the religious belief-systems applications of the idea that nobody dies was probably a comforter against the unknown.

I had prepared a lot of articles and information that easily shows the validity of the conclusion which is understood to be the best regarding the being's being the brain in its totallity; the ones on parasomnias (sleep disorders), savant autistics, prosopagnosias (face blindnesses), and memory altering procedures being the more interesting.

I will, however, give those of you who are a bit reluctant to disconnect the phantasma from the world of the living, thus having a phantasma being the very neural make-up in a non-physical state
(which is also contradictory, if it is actually seen through the eyes, because that requires light reflection, which is physical (surely by all means))
give your arguments to explain or describe just how a ghost or a spirit (as the common definition for them go when they are the synonymous) are the real, functioning brains of the being that has physically died.

I would hope to see some detail that can be validated, rather than simply stories, because you would have to explain how it can be so, and give rebuttles to objections raised.

 

[Sarapva]

The problem about "proving" that the non-physical exists is that it can't be proved in physical terms. But I believe, through my own reading and experiences, that there definitely is a non-physical world and that every live thing continues living after their physical body dies. I don't know how it could be explained that people who are physically alive can see people who aren't (since, as you said, Mars Man, there are no light waves to bounce off something non-physical, which is how we see with our eyes). But I've heard it said that the spirit of a person is a kind of physical thing that actually weighs something, as ArmandV mentioned, that the physical body weighs less after a person dies. Most of the books I've read about this were library books, so I don't have the names or examples with me.

But I understand the skepticism of the scientific world. When I was a teenager I decided that there was no God and that all religions in the world were wrong - that people wanted to believe in all these things because they couldn't handle life like it was, which was that this was all there is and then we die, and that's it. But in high school I read Raymond A. Moody's "Life After Life", which was a compilation of stories from people who had died for a short time and then came back to life (in the hospital or in a car accident, etc.). They had experienced lifting up out of their bodies, hearing what people were saying around their "dead" bodies, going somewhere else and seeing other people they knew who had died, seeing a light and feeling safe and warm (not scared or in danger), feeling a loving presence, getting directions from other people; and most of them didn't want to return to their bodies and leave this experience.

Since then, Raymond A. Moody has written lots of other books about the same thing. I remember thinking that so many people couldn't have the same experience if there wasn't truth to it.

 

[ArmandV]

Did anyone see the news this past week of a security camera at a gas station that recorded a floating blue (or green) blob? Visually, nobody could see it. But the camera did and recorded it.

I have a book that has a photo of a group of cats at a feeding dish and sitting with them was a cat who purportedly died some time before the photo was taken.

 

[ArmandV]

This happens if you let japanese girls around my age (and older ) see a j-horror movie:

That's hilarious! (Good movie, too!)

 

[Haruspex]

I bet this is fake, and they're showing them Jacko instead of those scenes. They can't take his feminine beauty lol. (No im not gay, nor am i serious now)

 

[Chi65]

Well, again, other beings can also see things, that humans cannot, not just cameras.
And a synaesthete may well not need light to perceive something, that can be translated into something visual in his/her brain. . .so can many artists, women AND men, as explained before.
Thus the light argument is very relative and limited and leaves other bain functions out, that are already under observation, for good.
I can very well feel a kind of "density", also wind, magnetism or electricity, if I do not see it with my very eyes with light, so can many animals. You often have them reacting much earlier and clearer than humans, if there is "something". And its not just the smell or sound then.
Remember their reactions before an earthquake too. . .
Actually, as for spirit, we germans have no separate name for spirit and ghost, its all Geist and stands for the non normal physical in general.
Inspired thus is "begeistert", full of good spirit, so to say, inhabitet by a good ghost you could as well say.
Its a much wider explanation for ghost and spirit alike.
(Often, it only is a translation problem, and one does not see the wood because of all the trees. . .)
How are the according japanese words for this?

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for your stab at that Sarapva san. It does give me a clearer picture of the position of learning that you are coming from. I would hope, however, that now you would give some further presentations.

Near Death Experiences (NDE) have been clearly shown to be urban legend as well. Again, and of course I can substantially lay out the data and evidence for this, THE key root for the 'the human and the human's favorite and known animals never die once they have been born' proposition is from religious-belief systems developed waaaaaay back in ancient times when there was absolutely NO knowledge of the brain and what it is.

The pulse of especially American society is so sad in that it is so over burdened by the eclipse of Christian fundimentalism (I mean it was practically born from the Puritan movement anyway) and pours into interpretations such as the book written by Mr. Moody. His premise has been shown to be invalid to the much larger degree. (just as that experiment to see if there were actually a 'soul' by weighing bodies before and after death was invalid--you see? they were looking for a presupposition--that makes it invalid)

There have been NDE experiences created by brain stimulation. There have been out of body experiences by subjects who without any doubt whatsoever had been created by surgically stimulated and controlled methods--they could turn on and off the experience.

Knowing how memories are laid down better will help a person understand that if a memory is laid down, it is totally a physical matter. If a person goes into a clinically dead state (recall what I have presented on this earlier, please) they are still alive and the brain is still working...although a prolonged state will cause brain cell damage to increase. (as what had happened with that lady in Florida...can't recall the name exactly so don't want to attempt spelling it here)

If a person who is without doubt alive, conscious and aware, and is able to communicate a memory which has been stored in the brain by the synaptic activity available in that same state, it is without doubt that the brain cells that hold that electro-chemical firing system (memory) in place had never died ! That means, that no physical damage had been done at all to that system, AND that the memory had been laid down in a living brain--so...that person never came close to somatic death, and thus had only been NEAR death, but did NOT die. This is the difference, and is a difference that the romance of such urban legend wishes to ignore, in order to maintain the emotional pull of the story.

But with my presentation of the brain and what it really is, I am covering not only the observer's point of mental make-up and capability, but also that of what it would mean for the clause that 'the animal doesn't die, but metamorphoses (or separates) into a non-physical state' that is said to the real person all along !! (That's the religious-belief system's ante-premise-clause...that the physical is the temporal, and the real is the spiritual that is eternal...and that has been very clearly shown to be nonsense!) 窶｡@

I'll take one point here, from the several, then, that I'd like to present. By going through these carefully and honestly, we can reason on this matter that otherwise, has been said to lack evidence for proof.

What do you remember about your physical condition during your alpha sleep stage last night? I remember nor was aware of anything, until I came out of it and into the upper region of REM sleep...and that's when the parts of the brain that lay down memory were 'turned on.' That fact, that part of the living brain is shut down, is why Jan Luedecke was accquitted of charges of sexual assault in 2005. The girl who he had had sex with woke up with him on top of her doing it, and he woke up standing in front of the mirrow in the bathroom with a condom on.

Of course those who stood as witnesses to this condition, both professionals and those who suffer sexsomnia, provided the clear evidence...even pointing out that people can drive a car in their sleep...that the person--the brain--is not in full operation, thus while there is no memory of the act, there is no deciding to act process through the prefrontal or limbric systems either.

Those of the 'ghost in the machine' camp are then left to explain why the 'ghost' is on vacation is such cases--which are, it has fairly been shown, hereditary in nature, actually, just like bi-polarism. They will fail to do so though, because the science is clearly precise enough to show that the reason a person is unconsious is simply and only because parts of the nerual equipment is shut down--which a partial similation of what happens with the death of the full volume of cells in those regions as well.

Then, next post, for clearness of readability.




窶｡@ Please do keep in mind that all along I have not been arguing against a spiritual realm, but have been doing so for the spiritual and the physical realms as being two separate and non-exchangable realms, perhaps only crossed at times by some point of intersection in a certain dimension.

 

[MadamePapillon]

@ Mars Man

The thing about discussing ghosts, the afterlife, death, all of that, it's very hard to prove anything.
There are so many stories about people seeing ghosts, recording voices when there was nobody in the room, having objects move by themselves ect, all are linked to the idea of life after death. Many people seem to have accepted the idea that spirits of the dead are among us, maybe on a different plane, or a seperate frequency than our own, but it's all but impossible to prove this in a scientific way.

To have a truly solid case for this one would have to prove the existence of a soul. But how do you prove that a soul exists and that when you die it continues to live on, or maybe move on? It could be that ghosts are leftover energy from a living person. Or that we simply move on to a seperate plane of existance when we die, our flesh is left behind and our essence lives on in a different wavelength.

I find the second idea to be the most likely in a scientific way. It's just like lightwaves, under normal circumstances we can't see infrared or ultraviolet but they are still there, right beside the lightwaves we can see. Or you could compare it to the Northen Lights, normally magnetic waves are invisible to us but under certian circumstances they can become visible, it could be the same for ghosts. This could explain why they always seem to appear as gray/white and slightly transparent (yet apparently solid in their own plane), and why most sightings seem to take place in the night, when it's easier to see these sort of things.

I don't know how to explain it any better than that, I hope you get what I was trying to say. But, as I said before, it's almost impossible to prove this without first proving the existance of a soul.

EDIT: You may also want to check this out. I think it supports the idea of 'existing on a different frequency' Electronic voice phenomenon - Wikipedia

 

[Mars Man]

Then, we should consider the case of people like Tito Mukhopadhyay, a severly autistic young man who cannot stay still without losing track of himself. He became the focus of a number of studies, some of which are on-going, because, most fortunately, his mother force-taught him to write and read and understand. In order for him to 'see' himself, to keep self awarness in action, he must flap his hands.

The condition has been shown to primarily be error in building cell links for incoming information and formation abnormalities in the prefrontal cortex, temporal lobes, amygdala, and hippocampus.

The 'ghost in the machine' camp will have to show why, since this is usually a from-birth and hereditary thing that is somewhat more common in males, the ghost would not be just like this. So when the person were to die, and someone were to see his 'ghost,' it would have to not be walking upright, acting and speaking as most common humans, but would have to be sitting there or walking in such broken gate, and flapping, gazing, and moving just as he is in real life.

The 'ghost in the machine' camp will have to show how it is that brain damage can drastically change the major portion of a person's pre-damage personality and character. That's because the premise upon which that camp is based is that it is the 'spirit' or 'soul' or 'ghost' (after death) that is the person and not the physical, genetical, chemical, and thus cellular substance which is the brain (and then body). They will have to explain how a person who cannot walk due to neural damage can suddenly walk at death.

They will have to explain how, for example, a person who cannot see in one eye simply because when in early infancy an eye bandage had been placed over that eye due to a small infection, during which the lack of need for those nerve endings and neurons had caused them to redirect themselves into another system, can fully see in both eyes at death yet while that person never will have been able to see with that eye during his life.

In short, they will have to explain why the 'spirit' or 'soul[/i' is said to be non-physical, and eternal, and the very person or animal (although many protestant groups will deny that animals have souls) yet can be materially altered by physical damage in the living being, OR show how such spirit or soul is a reality but does not affect nor effect the living organism as long as it is living.

Also, as far as human beings go, those that think the 'spirit' or 'soul' or 'ghost' is the real person, the very being him or herself, will have to explain why clothing is a part of the spiritual world or the being him or herself. They will have to provide for a 'ghost' for clothing items...even including eye glasses and pipes for smoking. They will have to provide a model for a non-physical being, being able to make use of physical things, create waves that produce light and sound.

All these things in the present two posts must be met, and my charge is that they can not be met. The evidences we have through the studies of genetics, neurology, evolutionary psychology and biology, religious belief-systems, anthropology, and a few more have put far more than enough evidence out on the table to clinch the understanding that we are exactly, just what we are physically, and that the after-all-cells-have-died state is exactly as the before-conception state.

And in one word on NDEs here, there are also cases where people have been in the same state, and yet have no recollection of any experiences. And there have been cases like mine--which got me interested in this field anyway. At the age of 19 I did a pretty good job at buckling out the windshield of the car I had been driving with my head--of course, the Chevy pickup I met head on helped too, I guess, with the momentum. The dream that that day became...and I remember the before portion of that day clearly...is just as solid as seeing a phantasma, and being able to understand that far more likely than not, it is only a replica of an individual or animal that is being force-formulated in the perceiver's neurological systems.

 

[Mars Man]

But how do you prove that a soul exists and that when you die it continues to live on, or maybe move on? . . .
But, as I said before, it's almost impossible to prove this without first proving the existance of a soul.

Thanks for that input there MadamePapillon san. I do hope you carefully, not only read over my arguments, but carefully conceptualized, then studied their bearings within the presentation and the present theme.

The answer to your challenge above has been given already. To prove that a soul exists, one must first define just what that is (done by religious-belief systems already), then rebut, in valid argumentation, the evidence that a soul does not exist; thus showing it to be incorrect.

I so often find so much contradiction in the elements of urban legend. A wavelength is without a doubt a physical reality. To assert that a cell, for example, has a wavelength involved with it is nothing new at all...of course it does, just as rock, a molecule of water vapor, or even that so extremely hard to find neutrino particle. This argument is effectually leading in circles.

Even in the theory of multi-universes, as Mr. Everett had put forth (which was basically in opposition to the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics) two superpositioned universes are distinct, separate realities...not things that collide and interesect. (at least as of his original thesis)

So, yes, while understanding the points you have made, I would encourage you to carefully weigh the matter of valid methodology. Having taken the definition provided by the earlier religious-belief systems of 'spirit' (as applied towards living humans) and 'soul' [both as opposed to and distinguished from plant and microbe forms which are just as much alive as a human is] and laying that down beside the definition of what all life forms are, in as far a reality as can be done, we can see that there is no match.

In that case, therefore, we can conclude that while the early Jewish religious-belief system is surprizingly more correct, others are not. We can show beyond a doubt with the evidence that we have, that our physical make-up is only that. To adequately show that to be inaccurate, one could provide a solid case for there being a continuation of the consciously active and aware, knowing and remembering human being after the cells which make up the entirety of that human being have died, and the atomic structures have all gone on into the conglomerate of atomic structure of the earth.

Again, to recap. . .to show (a much better word than 'prove,' actually) that a ghost (as it is defined herein) [or spirit to that same definition] exists within and beyond the life mechanism needed for cell existence and bondings, a person will have to show that what is known by the sciences at present, are incorrect. That is my challenge. Show that the sciences are incorrect.

ps--after checking out the links, I'll report on them.

 

[MadamePapillon]

The answer to your challenge above has been given already. To prove that a soul exists, one must first defined just what that is (done by religious-belief systems already), then rebut in valid argumentation the evidence that a soul does not exists is incorrect.

I don't believe that's entirely true or accurate. As of the present, there is no concrete proof or evidence to where a person could go before a room of educated people and prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a soul exists.

If you believe a soul is simply neural connections and the conscious awareness we have of ourselves and the world around us, than yes, you have proven the existence of a soul. However, in the context we are speaking in, to define a soul as something that can live on beyond the flesh, perhaps on another frequency or wavelength, as a separate and still fully conscious being...no test have yet been invented to prove this to be true or not.

The best we have is what religion says is so (and that is often suspect) and speculation. Nobody can prove with any credibility as of now that there is infact a piece of yourself that can trancend the flesh and continue living beyond our sight.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks for the response. I seemed to have erred in my writing (as per quote quote given there) so will have to go back and correct that.

Your very last sentence is the key there. That was very well put, and that is perhaps the one major player here. It has been shown, you see, that no piece of yourself can transcend itself as it is in that very arrangement of atomic structure...for the most part. (in the extremely micro, this may happen as some bondings of atomic structures in the form of 'information particles' may keep their adherence.

Those of the 'ghost in the machine' then, will have to go into the room before the representitives in the fields, and adequately show their (those in the fields) work to be incorrect in the first place. It's like, they have to firstly demolish the presently standing building before being able to build a new one.

It's not a matter of trying to find evidence for their beliefs (ghost in the machine's camp) but rather a matter of presenting enough data and evidence against the findings which are now known. That is what I am saying cannot be done. And, it is for that reason, that such a belief in consciousness outside the brain is hardly a sound idea or faith at all. It is for that reason, that I am arguing against the generally-accepted-without-careful-investigation notion of 'ghosts.' (as defined in this thead)

 

[MadamePapillon]

It is for that reason, that I am arguing against the generally-accepted-without-careful-investigation notion of 'ghosts.' (as defined in this thead)

Well, it's pretty hard to disbelieve something you see with your own eyes. I wish you luck in seeing a ghost one day. Whether or not it's simply an echo of the past or a truely seperate, living being, it's a pretty crazy, scary experience.

Maybe there should be some investigation as to why, even when some people seem to see these specters on a regular occurance, is there still a feeling of automatic, unquestionable panic. Whether it's hiding under your covers or running from a graveyard, almost everyone seems to have a 'flee' approach to these 'ghosts'.

 

[Mars Man]

I think MadamePapillon san, if you were to recall your opening lines of your #38 on page 2, that if you were to go over the whole flow of my presentation so far, you would understand one point that appears to not have been properly caught.

I am not arguing that there are not occasions where people experience 'phantasma.' I am arguing that 'phantasma' are not the actual individual that they appear to be, because that's not how nature works.

People do see things. . . they can see a lot of things.

Well, it's pretty hard to disbelieve something you see with your own eyes.

However, not all things seen are necessarily through the optic nerves...a good example of that is dreams. Another good example is from experiments done by putting people in a nearly suspended automation situation (extremely little flesh nerve endings exposed to pressure--such as sitting, or laying does--no light at all (100% darkness) and no sound) where after some time they too, begin to see all kinds of things...even though there is no light...and it becomes a dream world.

I do not doubt, for example, that you, Goldiegirl, Chi65, justin, or my sister 'saw' something, yet I do know that the method of seeing is unknown, and even if it were through the regular visual means, that would mean something physical had been seen or effected (meaning that something like a halogram had been produced).

It would not mean that what the brain had interpreted or assembled was an actual, mentally active yet non-physical person, in the whole, who had physically died. It would not mean that because it is has substantially been validated that the death of the brain, is the absence of consciousness, thought, perception and memory.

This is why and how we can determine that the usually assigned definition for the English word 'ghost,' is incorrect--and here's the follow through:

If it is true that ONE) the absence of a neural nucleus, lobe, or segment that activates and controls a certain function of mental acuteness and activity results in the absence of that very acuteness and activity, and that TWO) the aggregate brain consists only of these physical nuclei, lobes, and segments, then it is true that the total absence of the aggregate of the nuclei, lobes, and segments, results in the total absence of mental acuteness and function.​

 

[Goldiegirl]

maybe we are just arguing over the definition of "ghost". I think that perhaps, the definition isn't clear because it can't be. No one can prove or disprove what I saw. Be it a halogram, space aliens entering my brain, a gap in the time space continuum, whether my optic nerve transferred the image to my brain or not...it all is irrelevant. I saw and experienced something that is not explainable or definable. At least not with our technology today. Ghosts, spirits, fairies etc, have been a part of all human societies. Well at least from the standpoint of when written language was used. But even before that, I am sure that our ancient hunters felt that the animals they killed had spirits, and so did there dead relatives. So ghost or whatever, the definition really isn't what we're looking for here.

 

[Kinsao]

I must admit I haven't read all the long posts. But I am pretty sure that there are things that can stimulate the visual receptors in the brain which are not 'visually perceptible' in themselves through the eyes - thus causing people to 'see' things which other people in the same place at the same time cannot see.

In addition, I am sure there is more to the physical world than we can actually perceive usually through our senses - and that it might sometimes be possible to perceive other things (what we would normally call 'supernatural' or perhaps 'spiritual') physically that ordinarily would be imperceptible to us. Not supernatural in the traditional sense of the world, but a perfectly natural, physical occurrence impinging on the world we are able to perceive with our limited senses. (And our senses are limited, I am certain of it; for a very simple example, we cannot see even ultra-violet or infra-red, wavelengths which surely exist...)

I also believe that time is not linear, and although our brain generally 'organises' time into something that best suits our perceptions, this 'organisation' can sometimes go a bit awry, and can cause certain limited perceptions of past and future. (I personally have perceived the future at times, although most certainly not in any kind of 'crystal ball seeing' way!)

 

[MadamePapillon]

I think MadamePapillon san, if you were to recall your opening lines of your #38 on page 2, that if you were to go over the whole flow of my presentation so far, you would understand one point that appears to not have been properly caught.

I do apologize but I came into the convo a bit later and that's a LOT of reading to catch up on. I had trouble reading some of your posts because, I'll be honest, I didn't get a lot of what was being said. A great scientific mind I am not.

But even before that, I am sure that our ancient hunters felt that the animals they killed had spirits, and so did there dead relatives. So ghost or whatever, the definition really isn't what we're looking for here.

Well if you look at it this way: every single culture on earth tells tales of ghosts and spirits, during every single time period people have seen them, it has gone on for (probably) as long as the human race. And let's not forget that even animals appear to see them at times, even when we cannot.

So that's really all the evidence anyone needs. Though it can't be proven scientifically, it has spanned cultures (even those who have never been in contact with one another), generations, races, even species at times. So, though we don't have a definition for what a ghost truly is we're all in agreement that there is some form of 'life' going on after death.

 

[Goldiegirl]

It may be more than life after death as well. Maybe it is a little warp in time and we are seeing events of the past or the future. I think the word ghost is just a 'generic" term.

 

[MadamePapillon]

It's almost impossible not to be generic. A person could (and have) study this their whole life and not come to any definite answer.
But the only reason why I would say it's probably not that is just because if there's a warp in time going backwards than why is there no warp in time going foreward? If we're seeing the past as it happens than why don't people see ghostly futuristic images?
Also I've noticed that these 'ghosts' always seem to have lived no more than the last 300 odd years ago. Maybe there's a time limit or something otherwise why don't we see cavemen ghosts and whatnot.

 

[Sarapva]

I think a lot of the problem is the way we (especially in western cultures) see things in "black and white" and, as Kinsao mentioned, see time as being linear. I think it's like looking at a hologram, the pictures with squiggly lines that you have to focus differently to see.

This might be why it's hard to take a scientific approach to proving that life continues in a non-physical realm. There are different parameters to go by, not necessarily the physical ones we go by now.

 

[Goldiegirl]

People do claim to have grey aliens visit them at night, perhaps that is the future and not aliens current to our time. As for not seeing cavemen, people have hallucinations and see all sorts of stuff, so you never know. There are people who claim that the Loch Ness Monster is a dinosaur, the same with Champ from Lake Champlain, maybe these are "ghosts" of a dinosaur. It's a stretch, but what the heck.

 

[Chi65]

. . . But I am pretty sure that there are things that can stimulate the visual receptors in the brain which are not 'visually perceptible' in themselves through the eyes - thus causing people to 'see' things which other people in the same place at the same time cannot see.
In addition, I am sure there is more to the physical world than we can actually perceive usually through our senses - and that it might sometimes be possible to perceive other things (what we would normally call 'supernatural' or perhaps 'spiritual') physically that ordinarily would be imperceptible to us. Not supernatural in the traditional sense of the world, but a perfectly natural, physical occurrence impinging on the world we are able to perceive with our limited senses. (And our senses are limited, I am certain of it; for a very simple example, we cannot see even ultra-violet or infra-red, wavelengths which surely exist...)
I also believe that time is not linear, and although our brain generally 'organises' time into something that best suits our perceptions, this 'organisation' can sometimes go a bit awry, and can cause certain limited perceptions of past and future. (I personally have perceived the future at times, although most certainly not in any kind of 'crystal ball seeing' way!)

Agree completely, also because I myself had several future "visions", via paintings, as described before, and pointing towards that time model story, it is as much conscious for me for long, that time is in fact not linear, we only make it so, according to our limited perception. I had enough western friends, that told me to stop, because the simple idea made them dizzy, thus they were unable to cope with it (in contrary to eastern ones!), when I tried to explain even a curved view, as should be known since Einstein.

Also the holographic view is very helpfull, I once wanted to learn it. They had some offers in London, and some artists very successfully use it nowadays, also for theatre, and basically to show the existence of these ghosts/spirits, plus there part in normal life! Showing things, that usually others cannot see, is often enough the work of artists, for long, and everywhere. Also called "the in between", by the way, invisible relations, "vibes" etc. Many things later have been proved even scientifically (or are picked up even with pleasure by them!) on the other hand, if not directly stimulated another path to find it (even Einstein related strongly to his "dreams"). . .. And this goes on and on. . .

Different people use different tools, thats all. And some fly over it and some dig into it. And some do both.

 

[Chi65]

Here is are very simple examples of what holography can do:
http://www.displayhologram.co.uk/archiveabstract.html

Illuminating the Invisible
Date: 1999
Product type : Multicolour Reflection Hologram Interferogram, 2 colour black and white with blue fringes
Description: This hologram shows temperature variations generated from a heat source, in this case a light bulb filament. Only holography can show this effect, normally invisible to the naked eye, by capturing microscopic differences in the density of air. An example of Holographic Interferometry.
Size: 8ﾂ"x10

Or see an interactive hologramm project:
welcome to hololab
(and click on interactive hologramm there)
and see this:
http://www.cirquedusoleil.com/CirqueDuSoleil/fr/showstickets/delirium/about/about_creators.htm
especially the galerie de photos and the video
Michel Lemieux is worth watching, by the way, he was in Berlin some time ago with a three person holographic theatre, brilliant and innovative!
"ghosts" at its purest plus according messages. . .

 

[Mars Man]

But girls, all this talk about life continuing is based on mere ingnorance, and that, it can hardly be denied, is a fact. I am very much aware, as I have read Jung enough, that this 'myth' that the human seems to not be able to build certain elements of social bonds without, is and has been shown to be an evolving thing...as we can see with Superman, Batman, and Wonderwoman...not to mention Jack, in 24 hours.

As you so well started off into, Goldiegirl, I have been arguing against the definition of ghost as it has come down to us today through the millennium based on and stemming from pure ignorance.

MadamePapillon, with all due respect, of course--and I fully grant that each is fully entitled to an opinion, be it accurate or not--I wish to point out that your logic is flawed. This is especially evident in your #68 post above, but I will not push that, alone.

Ladies, I would strongly suggest, if you wish to further assert that there is substantially valid evidence, evidence by which a neutral third party would surely be moved to acknowledge and accept, that the evidence that the brain, and all its meaning held in its neuronic mass as conscious self being and memory and knowledge, no longer exists after full loss of celluar activity, is false and inaccurate, that you present that evidence here, and be willing to argue against the counter-evidence to pseudoscientific information that one can also find...especially on the internet.

Yes, Goldie, the definition is important. It is important because so much of humanity has been living in a fairly tale about this long enough. The definition is important because as you and others have pointed out, something is there to study, test, and attempt to explain, and we cannot progress in our knowledge as a spieces by stubbornly refusing to advance with knowledge that has been gained through great effort and length of time simply because we are 'fond' of the old days and the old ways. As a spieces we need to move on now. We need to grow. This is very much a matter of education to our offspring and even if the connection cannot be seen, a much needed break from the chains of manmade religious belief-systems which yet, most unfortunately, bind us to ignorance and fallacy.

This is a direct and immediate challenge to challenge what the masses blindly hold on to.