"information" ghosts

[brutus39]

This is my first time posting on this forum, or any for that matter, so I appologise in advance for any mistakes I may make. Also, as I only have an 8th grade education, I cannot describe my theory by use of equation or the like.

My theory is that when a person dies, they become a "ghost." I mean a ghost in both the traditional term and a non-traditional term. Traditional in that the ghost is the remains of a human left on earth. Non-traditional in that it is not a soul and does not exist in a spectral state. As a human grows and lives out life, their mind collects information. When a human dies, their mind cannot support the information any longer. However, information cannot be destroyed. I theororize that this information takes on an intangable form. Intangable because information does not have mass. This collection of information left over from a human's death would contain said human's thoughts, personality, memory, etc. This would cause the ghost to, in effect, be the human that the information came from. I have researched this to the best of my ability and have yet to find anything that disproves this theory. If anyone does find something that contradicts this, please tell me.

[iNow]

Hi brutus,

 

A few quick points.

 

How do you define "ghosts?"

What testable predictions does your theory offer?

If none, then really what you have is a conjecture.

 

 

I personally believe that ghosts are nonsense, archaic remants of our ancestors who were too uneducated to understand things but still needed explanations. I also think that once a person dies the ONLY place they live on is in the minds and memories of others who have not yet died. This idea of a white floaty thing moving through the house and making noises is a myth... a fairy tale. That is my opinion.

 

However, before you take my word on this, perhaps I would be convinced of your position after you've addressed my questions above.

 

Enjoy.

[YT2095]

the Ram in your PC is full of information (almost exactly in the same way that the brain stores it), what happens when you switch the PC off?

 

where does that "Information" go?

[brutus39]

1: I define a ghost as the remnants of a once living human that is seperate from the body. In my original post, I stated that this would, rather than "ectoplasm" or any other traditional material, I theororize that if they exist, they would be composed of information.

2: As mantioned before, I am only just out of middle school. I have no means by witch to test this. One way I believe this could be tested would be to develope an "omnisensor" of sorts that is able to collect information in any state.

3: When you turn off your computer, all of the information is stored in the hard drive and ROM.

[ydoaPs]

3: When you turn off your computer, all of the information is stored in the hard drive and ROM.

 

So, why wouldn't the information be stored in the brain?

 

Now, you body(brain included) decays after death. What happens to the stored information if you smash a hard drive?

[YT2095]

3: When you turn off your computer, all of the information is stored in the hard drive and ROM.

 

yeah right, tell that to the really important document that you`v worked on for 8 hours during a sudden power blackout!

[Edtharan]

3: When you turn off your computer, all of the information is stored in the hard drive and ROM.

No not all the information is stored on the hard drive (and by the way ROM stands for Read Only Memory - that is nothing can be written to it).

 

What happens to a document that you are writing and that you don't save and you have a black out. Can you get that document back? No. It was stored in RAM (random access memory - you can read and write to that one). However, the information stored in the RAM can only exist as long as electricity is supplied to it. If you turn off the electricity, the data (information) can no longer be retained.

 

However, information cannot be destroyed.

Information can be destroyed, it is the result of what is called Entropy. What you are getting confused with the that Matter/Energy can't be destroyed.

 

Actually, here is a really simple experiment that you can do to prove that Information can be destroyed:

 

1) Write down some information on a piece of paper.

 

2) Burn it...

 

3) Try and get that information back.

 

You can't!

 

The information was destroyed.

[Klaynos]

It's actually one of the limitations on modern computers, how to get rid of undeeded information, because it heats up the computer...

 

Your idea of the omniscope, how would it be able to tell the difference between other information/entropy?

 

I think what needs to be read up on here is the theory of Erasure.

[iNow]

Back to the OP,

 

I will restate my point. Once the being dies, the only place they "live on" is in the memories of those who knew them.. the memories of those who are themselves still living.

[YT2095]

Back to the OP,

 

I will restate my point. Once the being dies, the only place they "live on" is in the memories of those who knew them.. the memories of those who are themselves still living.

 

that cannot be stated with any certainty however.

[iNow]

I should have known to soften that. Of course, YT2095 is correct. I made a personal (and incredibly confident) assertion, but cannot prove it as absolute.

 

Further, I am able to negate my own point by suggesting that they become fertilizer and worm food after death.

[YT2095]

you forgot Plants!

[antimatter]

About the OP:

 

"There are no ghosts in your brain"

[iNow]

About the OP:

 

"There are no ghosts in your brain"

 

Quite right.

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8809660521227813170&q=ghosts+in+brain&ei=_8xBSNylKoSmrwKjtomjAw&hl=en

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1800447793352878072&q=ghosts%20in%20brain&hl=en

[antimatter]

Ah I was looking for those links!

[Ladeira]

it looks very philosophical, and makes quite sense.

but if it sounds real? i don't think so.

[Graviphoton]

Let me give you a few things to think about, when considering a soul/spirit, in reference to thermodynamical laws.

 

If consciousness has an energy, this energy will be in a ground state; the increase of knowledge is an increase of entropy, and this is show we either (come to remember an outcome), or if you like, (the gaining of knowledge from the outside) - and this all requires the presence of an energy, since energy and time are closely related... In fact, without either, the other would cease to exist. Since consciousness requires a physical coil to become independent in thought, and since matter is somehow the same thing as its diffused cousin (energy), it's not so difficult to understand that consciousness too requires energy.

 

An atom will radiate, dissipate or transfer energy - but energy cannot at any time disappear: This is because of the conservation law of matter-energy - the firs law of thermodynamics. The energy of consciousness shouldn't be any different to the energy of an atom; its electronic inhabitant.

 

The electromagnetic field may well intimately interact with the field of consciousness, as electromagnetic forces carry information and self around the body. Tracking the field of consciousness might be difficult however, because we are not sure what it consists of. It might be however, made up of electromagnetic waves, as found in Biofields within matter.

 

If 'life' creates this field of consciousness, then we should expect a change in death: The energy of consciousness must 'move out' of the physical coil it once inhabited, and it can only do this by either radiating, dissipating or by transferal. The energy source, or soul of a human being at death, cannot spontaneously flow into the body of another. This has simularistic overtones to the second law of thermodynamics, which states that heat cannot spontaneously flow from one body into a warmer body.

 

Even though this might be just another fancy way of describing consciousness, we cannot fail to see that if it has an energy, it must follow similar rules to thermodynamics, if it is a physical energy. For a while, i was could not make up my mind whether the energy of consciousness was a factor of a physical field, or a by-product of a virtual field. In any case, i now believe it is both, due to the connections between matter-energy and time-awareness. I am simply applying quantum rules in places not normally considered it can be applied.

 

If conscious energy radiates from the body at the point of death, we might be able to measure this energy, using resonance scanners. If it dissipates, we might be able to measure a weight of difference within the dead corpse - (in fact, this idea has already been used extensively by a Dr. David Jones concerning the physical soul) - and if the energy transfer’s, we would need to ask exactly where it is being transmitted. Some might opt. for the spiritual answer, by involving a process of rebirth - (the co-called afterlife existence).

 

If the energy of consciousness is not a physical force, it would be very difficult, if not, impossible to suggest thoughts on its nature after death. There would be absolutely no way to tell whether it would abide to the conventional laws of thermodynamics; though, the idea would in itself be consistent with quantum mechanical interpretations, since everything must follow quantum rules. However, not every cornerstone principle is necessarily ''kept'' by the presence of consciousness, such as David Z. Albert's discovery of 'secret knowledge', which states we can be aware of our own positions and paths simultaneously, defying the classical boundaries of the uncertainty principle - or also known as 'the principle of indeterminism.'

 

Perhaps one day we might be able to detect the presence of a physical force leaving the body at death > otherwise, then consciousness exist soley a non-physical force, and is bound by the matter in inhabits. Something quite sad and depressing arises from this chain of thought; after all, the idea we continue after death is comforting and reassuring...

[Kyrisch]

Information cannot be destroyed. This is a commonly accepted tenet. What the problem is here is that the definition of information has not been standardised in this thread. Of course if you write something down on the piece of paper, and then you burn the piece of paper, you can't get back what was on the paper without the proper equipment.

 

But WITH the proper equipment, you could. Information is less words and sentences and more so everything in the universe that is not mass or charge or something physical. For instance, placement (think x,y,z,t coordinates) is information. And with the proper tools, one could actually retrace the movement of the matter, knowing the variables and the laws of physics, and figure out what was written on that piece of paper in the same way (though in a much more complicated manner) that someone can tell someone has been someplace because of footprints.

 

In specific, the 'information' contained in your brain is manifest in, quite simply, its physical structure. When you die, nothing changes; there is no loss of information, there is no violation of physical law.

[Graviphoton]

Well, you can standardize, under the understanding, that everything you observe, is in fact just forms of information. The matter, energy, are all types of information. Beyond this, is an imaginal realm of phantom energy, which obviously constitutes thoughts, emotions and even improbable speeds... ironically... something i am debating right now.

 

And information inside the head, is partly material, by the way.

[Kyrisch]

Beyond this, is an imaginal realm of phantom energy, which obviously constitutes thoughts, emotions and even improbable speeds...

 

Obviously.

 

Thoughts are electrical, emotions are chemical, and improbable speeds are, well, improbable. Please.

[Graviphoton]

Thoughts are improbable, whilst speeds are of the by-product of the improbable, whilst energy exists as something which requires the two. This as i am sure you will know as the Observer Effect.

 

In other words, the thoughts we have exist niether in real space, or imaginary time, when in reference to observing a system, displaying improbable actions which are evidently, probable. The electrochemical activity, is just a conduit for this information.

[iNow]

Thoughts are improbable, whilst speeds are of the by-product of the improbable, whilst energy exists as something which requires the two. This as i am sure you will know as the Observer Effect.

 

In other words, the thoughts we have exist niether in real space, or imaginary time, when in reference to observing a system, displaying improbable actions which are evidently, probable. The electrochemical activity, is just a conduit for this information.

 

Cite?

[Graviphoton]

Just physics for you.

 

An observation made on the external world, can only be made in real time.

 

If the very notion of our beings are improbable, such as the statistical improbable nature of life occuring in these statistical averages in the state vector of the universe, then in reference, the thoughts we conjure up about the outside world, remains totally improbable as well. Just logic here.

 

As for thoughts and emotions not existing in spacetime, read Goswami's book, ''How Consciousness Creates Reality.''

 

And you will also find reference to this in

 

Mind into Matter, Dr Wolf

[iNow]

Chapter and page?

[mooeypoo]

Thoughts are improbable, whilst speeds are of the by-product of the improbable, whilst energy exists as something which requires the two. This as i am sure you will know as the Observer Effect.

 

In other words, the thoughts we have exist niether in real space, or imaginary time, when in reference to observing a system, displaying improbable actions which are evidently, probable. The electrochemical activity, is just a conduit for this information.

 

Proof?

 

as far as I'm concerned, thoughts are the product of electrical currents through our brains. That means that their 'objectiveness' isn't as much physical (hence, the 'observer effect') but rather objective in the interpretational sense - hence, your brain interprets the signals objectively.

 

The current science supports my hypothesis (you see these differences in a plain CT, through different "stimuli") Thoughts seem to be a physical-biological response.

 

 

How does it support yours?

 

 

 

Your hypothesis seems to require that thoughts are external to the brain, hence that something exists EXTERNAL to our physiology. So to speak. I don't see that being proven in observation or any other way, specifically not in this thread.

 

So. Proof?