Research suggests 'ghosts' could be all in the mind..

Ecthalion wrote:

Zenchi wrote: Stating the progress made in this field is negligible I think is really cutting short how far we have come to understanding ourselves. That's of course not to say there's nothing left to discover in the field of neuroscience, but negligible?[/color]

Yes we do understand a great deal more than we used to but there is a huge amount we do not know. It's like understanding a tyre and a boot compared to understanding a whole car - petrol tank, electronics, engine, suspension and all.

Yes, there's quite a bit we "don't know," but calling man's progress negligible? Again I ask the question, compared to what?

Psychology, psychiatry and brain surgery suggest we know how to do a little more than just change a tyre...

Zenchi wrote: Yes, there's quite a bit we "don't know," but calling man's progress negligible? Again I ask the question, compared to what?

Compared to the whole picture.

2tzb wrote: Psychology, psychiatry and brain surgery suggest we know how to do a little more than just change a tyre...

I disagree. We know so little in the grand scheme of things, but I will leave it there.

Ecthalion wrote:

Zenchi wrote: Yes, there's quite a bit we "don't know," but calling man's progress negligible? Again I ask the question, compared to what?

Compared to the whole picture.

That's very vague and generalized, and does not help to prove your point of view. Are you a psychologist, a neurosurgeon? If you have no significant experience in regards to specific fields of the human brain, then it is personal opinion, and you're entitled to it...

Zenchi wrote: That's very vague and generalized, and does not help to prove your point of view. Are you a psychologist, a neurosurgeon? If you have no significant experience in regards to specific fields of the human brain, then it is personal opinion, and you're entitled to it...

It may well be 'vague and generalised'. It is not intended to 'prove' my point of view. I am merely sharing my opinion. I am neither a psychologist nor a neurosurgeon but I do know that consciousness is a long way from being understood, as are dreams and NDEs.

Yes we know a lot, but there is much more that we do not. Of course this is only my opinion. Maybe we know 90% of all there is to know, but I doubt it.

is it a malfunction of the brain, or a function of the brain that we just don't have enough data on yet?

The movie "Lucy" was quite thought provoking!

Ecthalion wrote: Maybe we are here for some greater reason. Maybe we are aspects of the 'divine' and, so as not to totally forget our true nature, we are given 'clues', such as sunsets, rainbows, dreams and the like which arouse 'spiritual' feelings. These are the 'benefits' of which I speak.

I personally do not ascribe any divine purpose to the universe. I believe that things happen simply because that is the way things are. Does a tree need a "purpose" behind why it's leaves fall in autumn? Do waves need a "purpose" behind why they lap on shores?

Why are you focusing on the divine? One can ask the same question: "Maybe we are aspects of the 'manifest evil of the universe' and, so as not to totally forget our true nature, we are given 'clues', such as pain, terror, disease and the like which arouse 'spiritual' feelings'."

When one focuses on the positive one can just as easily focus on the negative:

Tao Te Ching 2 wrote: When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.

Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.

Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess, acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.

Akkarin wrote: Why are you focusing on the divine? One can ask the same question: "Maybe we are aspects of the 'manifest evil of the universe' and, so as not to totally forget our true nature, we are given 'clues', such as pain, terror, disease and the like which arouse 'spiritual' feelings'."

A good point. It's just a 'sense' I have. I see the physical nature of the universe as 'negative' but the spiritual as 'positive'. The two are necessary aspects of the same thing.

None of this is set in stone. It's all a mystery to me which I cannot understand (despite years of trying) and my views change often. I try to stay open minded (but often fail!).

In regards of the OP, as much as I would love to see a ghost, I've never experienced anything but my own imagination trying to scare dickens out of me... I acknowledge the theoretical possibility and potential energetic mechanisms, but beyond hyper-imagination, I've not seen anything to convince me...

In regards of Humanity progressing, we have not a shred of evidence that "man's humanity to man" is any better than in Plato's day or before...

We have some awesome Tech which hugely benefits a small percentage of the earth's population... But that doesn't mean humanity has progressed.

There is lots of evidence that our ancient forbears practiced brain surgery, that isn't a gauge I would use. Our medicines and vaccines do give us a leg up, but the way in which we distribute their benefits, still argues against improvements in our "Humanity"...

There clearly isn't much evolutionary benefit to "improving" humanity, so we'll just have to break the mold and boot-strap it ourselves...

One thousand years ago the Golden age of the Islamic civilization flamed out and bequeathed its spark to the European "Enlightenment" commencing some 400 years ago... We're still the same nasty brawling brats.

Just my 2 centavos.

Apologies to Edan for continuing the derail of your OP... :dry:

Of course ghosts are all in our mind, everything is. Everything we know starts in our minds.

Edan wrote:
Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

What of cases where there is no illness, prior exertion, or extreme stress?

This outcome was used by having a specific set of variables. However, it does not explain the reason for sightings, etc, when you are in a perfectly emotional and sound mind. Also, if all of these ghosts, apparitions, etc were fake, then how does it explain reports of hauntings were you are actually physically harmed, coming out with bruises cuts and gashes? Before my first paranormal experience (which actually did end with having physical wounds), I was an extreme skeptic on this topic of paranormal phenomenon, and would have probably agreed wholeheartedly with the article.

Rickie The Grey wrote: Of course ghosts are all in our mind, everything is. Everything we know starts in our minds.

Touche!

Revan Falton wrote: This outcome was used by having a specific set of variables. However, it does not explain the reason for sightings, etc, when you are in a perfectly emotional and sound mind. Also, if all of these ghosts, apparitions, etc were fake, then how does it explain reports of hauntings were you are actually physically harmed, coming out with bruises cuts and gashes? Before my first paranormal experience (which actually did end with having physical wounds), I was an extreme skeptic on this topic of paranormal phenomenon, and would have probably agreed wholeheartedly with the article.

I grant you your experience, however, without seeing and knowing the variables and controls for the experiment, I will remain skeptical. With greatest respect, if humans weren't easily mislead, Penn & Teller et al would have no income...

When someone is awarded the JREF million dollar challenge for a ghost sighting under controlled setting, I'll take an interest in the results...

Kaverael wrote: is it a malfunction of the brain, or a function of the brain that we just don't have enough data on yet?

The movie "Lucy" was quite thought provoking!

The basis for Lucy though is not based on current research.. we use more than 10% of our brains.

Edan wrote: The basis for Lucy though is not based on current research.. we use more than 10% of our brains.

That depends on how you interpret the 10% myth.

If you subscribe to the popular assumption that it implies heavily-localized brain functions, and 10% of the area of the brain goes unused, then yes. It's entirely false.

If you subscribe to the more likely theory that, though we use all parts of our brain, we're only utilizing 10% of its potential, then it seems like something harder to prove false.

Edan wrote:

Kaverael wrote: is it a malfunction of the brain, or a function of the brain that we just don't have enough data on yet?

The movie "Lucy" was quite thought provoking!

The basis for Lucy though is not based on current research.. we use more than 10% of our brains.

My girlfriend practically convulses anytime someone says that we use only 10% or references that movie. She's a psychology major with an interest in neurobiology. LOL.

Edan wrote: If I get a chance later I will see if I can find the original study if anyone's interested in reading it.

article in Current Biology

steamboat28 wrote:

Edan wrote: The basis for Lucy though is not based on current research.. we use more than 10% of our brains.

That depends on how you interpret the 10% myth.

If you subscribe to the popular assumption that it implies heavily-localized brain functions, and 10% of the area of the brain goes unused, then yes. It's entirely false.

If you subscribe to the more likely theory that, though we use all parts of our brain, we're only utilizing 10% of its potential, then it seems like something harder to prove false.

Though wouldn't it also be harder to prove correct? In order to get a percentage then we'd have to be able to quantify the potential end result. Do we know what that is or even how to measure it?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I legitimately want to know. It'd be really cool if there were, in fact, untapped resources within the human brain that we could access and use to ends such as they did in Lucy, however unlikely that may be.

steamboat28 wrote:

Edan wrote: The basis for Lucy though is not based on current research.. we use more than 10% of our brains.

That depends on how you interpret the 10% myth.

If you subscribe to the popular assumption that it implies heavily-localized brain functions, and 10% of the area of the brain goes unused, then yes. It's entirely false.

If you subscribe to the more likely theory that, though we use all parts of our brain, we're only utilizing 10% of its potential, then it seems like something harder to prove false.

No. The idea that 90% of our brain (or its potential) goes unused and can be activated or something like that is ridiculous. There is almost no part of our brain that can take even minor damage without measurable consequences which means that every part of the brain has an active function. The brain typically requires anywhere from 15-20% of our bodies' energy at any given time. If we're only utilizing 10% of it or 10% of its potential, why would it require so much energy?

There have been studies at Johns Hopkins where peoples' brain functions were monitored all day and every part of the brain was used at some point or another. Obviously not every region is firing concurrently though. That would have a similar outcome to daisy chaining surge protectors.

We do, in fact, use 100% of our brains. Some people have greater intellectual potential than others but it's still 100% of that person's potential.