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

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.