ghost theory

[Guest m0tvl]

If and when we see a psychic entity such as spirits, ghosts and other phenomena, we do not actually see them by the use of the eye. That is, light is not entering the eye from the phenomena but, the phenomenon is picked up directly by the optic and auditory nerves. Before this can happen, the mind under certain conditions drifts towards the upper and lower end of the visual electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, we may believe we see a ghost, but actually the phenomenon is projected into that part of the brain. People such as mediums can at will, can drift to that part of the spectrum when needed. The rest of us have to rely on ambient conditions for this to happen.

[Klaynos]

If and when we see a psychic entity such as spirits, ghosts and other phenomena, we do not actually see them by the use of the eye. That is, light is not entering the eye from the phenomena but, the phenomenon is picked up directly by the optic and auditory nerves. Before this can happen, the mind under certain conditions drifts towards the upper and lower end of the visual electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, we may believe we see a ghost, but actually the phenomenon is projected into that part of the brain. People such as mediums can at will, can drift to that part of the spectrum when needed. The rest of us have to rely on ambient conditions for this to happen.

 

In that case most digital cameras and certainly cheap ones should be able to take photos of them all the time. Which is not the case.

[iNow]

Curious why this thread is in General Physics.

[pioneer]

Visual hallucinations work the same way, with the image starting in the brain and triggering the visual areas of the brain, but without current come from the eyes or optic nerve. For example, if we saw a green elephant standing near our car, the image of the car could be flowing into the brain via an optic nerve current. The green elephant skips that eye-optic nerve step, and begins directly in the brain.

 

The output of the human imagination is not limited to cause and affect or probability. One can imagine flying in space without a space suit. This can not happen in reality, because the laws of nature are rational and statistical. This is how we tell it is imaginary. A digital camera follows the laws of nature and therefore may not be able to pick up phenomena that don't follow such laws. In other words, what laws would be required for consciousness to exist without matter? There are no know casual laws.

 

I am not saying ghosts are real. But I will play the devil's advocate. Most people say this is all in the imagination. The imagination part is true. But there is a flip side to this. If we wished to pick up a radio wave signal you don't design the tool for x-rays. A ghost signal may not be easy to pick up by rational tools because these are not designed to pick up signals that are not casual and not probabilistic. The only tool in nature that is tweaked this way is the human imagination.

 

I am not saying there are ghosts only any affect we are trying to observe needs instruments sensitive to the type of output the phenomena is suppose to generate. We can't see x-rays with optical telescopes. If optical was all we had, then the x-rays would not exist, even of they do exist. Ghosts are not exactly based on cause and affect or probability. Therefore, if they did exist, we would need a matrix or tool that is tuned to the properties we are trying to observe. All in the imagination tells us the matrix. Science has casual and statistical tools therefore phenomena that don't use these rules would not exist (be observable). One needs a tool like the imagination matrix.

[Sayonara]

m0tvl, can you think of a way in which this idea might be tested?

[elas]

Some events involve sound, such as the visions at Lourdes where some of the children saw nothing, but heard the voice.

In the one case that I have personal knowledge of, one person was present and one person, in an adjacent room; heard what was going on.

Few people would be prepared to go into detail (I would not) and those that do are usually ridiculed. One well reported case in the UK involved two policeman, both ended up losing their careers and living broken reclusive lives; but to their dying days neither would change their official reports of the incident.

Without a major scientific breakthrough there seems little hope of sorting the wheat from the chafe and I see no sign of such a breakthrough at present.

[Guest m0tvl]

additional information: another interesting question, are ghost intellegent. can the think, or do they just follow a set pattern they had in life?

 

additional information: Are ghost intelligent, or do they follow a set pattern when in the upper parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Can they answer back if communicated to?

[swansont]

I am not saying ghosts are real. But I will play the devil's advocate. Most people say this is all in the imagination. The imagination part is true. But there is a flip side to this. If we wished to pick up a radio wave signal you don't design the tool for x-rays. A ghost signal may not be easy to pick up by rational tools because these are not designed to pick up signals that are not casual and not probabilistic. The only tool in nature that is tweaked this way is the human imagination.

 

I am not saying there are ghosts only any affect we are trying to observe needs instruments sensitive to the type of output the phenomena is suppose to generate. We can't see x-rays with optical telescopes. If optical was all we had, then the x-rays would not exist, even of they do exist. Ghosts are not exactly based on cause and affect or probability. Therefore, if they did exist, we would need a matrix or tool that is tuned to the properties we are trying to observe. All in the imagination tells us the matrix. Science has casual and statistical tools therefore phenomena that don't use these rules would not exist (be observable). One needs a tool like the imagination matrix.

 

The problem with this critique is that one needs a mechanism by which the brain interacts but detection equipment does not. The optical vs. x-ray analogy fails because people have scanned with a wide spectrum of detectors; it's not a matter of looking in the wrong part of the spectrum. You need an entirely new interaction.

 

In a broader view, the reasoning behind this is backward. Scientists use equipment for detection rather than human senses because the latter are so easy to fool. The detection is nonlinear, and the interpreter (the brain) fills in gaps based on expectations or calibrations set by evolution for survival rather than scientific inquiry. If your eyes and/or ears say something is there, but the equipment continually says otherwise, it's probably not because of faulty equipment. All you are left with is an irrational, invalid conclusion.

[Mr Skeptic]

additional information: another interesting question, are ghost intellegent. can the think, or do they just follow a set pattern they had in life?

 

additional information: Are ghost intelligent, or do they follow a set pattern when in the upper parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Can they answer back if communicated to?

 

Yes, ghosts are generally considered to be intelligent. However, that is quite separate from the fact that they don't exist. Eg, a leprechaun is also intelligent.

[SkepticLance]

In certain situations I believe in applying the rule of Occam's Razer. Ghosts and UFO's fit squarely into that situation. Explaining ghost is easy. One of several solutions.

1. Genuine error. You see a flicker of light and mistake it.

2. Genuine insanity.

3. Genuine fraud.

 

Mediums and the like are simply frauds. Some are self deluded, and defraud themselves first. Most are con artists, and apply their disgusting trade to extract money from those who are vulnerable and in pain. Books have been written about the techniques mediums use to defraud. Cold reading. Preliminary research. Conjurer's tricks etc.

 

Harry Houdini was the first major investigator and revealed a wide range of tricks used. Today, James Randi (retired stage magician) is continuing that work. Randi had a prize for many years of one million US dollars for anyone who could prove any psychic ability, including talking to the dead. After 20 years of efforts, not one person could present such proof in the face of a judging panel of scientists and experienced conjurers.

http://skepdic.com/randi.html

[Ophiolite]

1. Genuine error. You see a flicker of light and mistake it.

2. Genuine insanity.

3. Genuine fraud.

Let us add genuine hallucination. You do not need to be insane to have a hallucination: exhaustion, suggestion, brain injury, drugs, etc can all induce the appearance of a ghost.

 

The existence of all these readily demonstrable causes for ghosts leads me to the conclusion that we do not require the hypothesis that they are the souls of the departed, or any other currently undescribed phenomenom.

[Guest m0tvl]

If and when we see a psychic entity such as spirits, ghosts and other phenomena, we do not actually see them by the use of the eye. That is, light is not entering the eye from the phenomena but, the phenomenon is picked up directly by the optic and auditory nerves. Before this can happen, the mind under certain conditions drifts towards the upper and lower end of the visual electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, we may believe we see a ghost, but actually the phenomenon is projected into that part of the brain. People such as mediums can at will, can drift to that part of the spectrum when needed. The rest of us have to rely on ambient conditions for this to happen.

[dirtyamerica]

Your theory covers the visual but how can a medium here them or communicate what the ghost is trying to say? just wonderin

[mooeypoo]

If and when we see a psychic entity such as spirits, ghosts and other phenomena, we do not actually see them by the use of the eye. That is, light is not entering the eye from the phenomena but, the phenomenon is picked up directly by the optic and auditory nerves. Before this can happen, the mind under certain conditions drifts towards the upper and lower end of the visual electromagnetic spectrum. Thus, we may believe we see a ghost, but actually the phenomenon is projected into that part of the brain. People such as mediums can at will, can drift to that part of the spectrum when needed. The rest of us have to rely on ambient conditions for this to happen.

... proof? substantiation? how 'bout results of experimentation? Shouldn't be hard to test this out at ALL, actually. Have you? results would be very interesting.

 

So will some information about what you mean with your 'certain conditions' and some substantiations about your claim that the optic nerve can intercept any sort of non-optical input.

 

And if the optic nerve can intercept these, why can't any of our other instruments? Or can they - if so, which, how, when, and why.

 

This is a science forum, we require substantiation. If your theory is right (and it might be, sure, why not), you need to have proof. Or at the very least, a reason (SUBSTANTIATED reason, not just arbitrary subjective reason) for us to look into this any further.

 

Remember the burden of proof is on you as the person who suggests this new theory, not on us. There should be no problem for you to explain my questions (and supply substantiations and references) if your theory is true and tested.

 

~moo

[swansont]

Mod note: Duplicate thread has been merged with this one.

[TrueHeart]

Believe in witchcraft at your own risk and peril

 

1. homicides are being solved with the aid of psychics

2. by definition, anyone who receives a telepathic message is mentally ill

3. also by definition, those who are once deemed mentally ill are forever so

4. all the holy books rail vehemently against 'sorceries'

5. once you accept the validity of any occulted thing, you're driving blind

 

Conclusions: every conceivable variance from sweet normalcy is possible within the limits of some Planck constant function or somethin' -- but as a human being it is your highest calling to NOT DIGNIFY such things. Instead, make your modest contribution to vanilla mundanity and then get the hell out of stinkin' Eternity for freakin EVER and ever and ever and ever.

[mooeypoo]

Believe in witchcraft at your own risk and peril

 

1. homicides are being solved with the aid of psychics

Where? Name one.

 

2. by definition, anyone who receives a telepathic message is mentally ill

No, not at all. If you can *PROVE* someone is receiving telepathic messages, he's - by definition - a telepath. So far, however, the only claimed cases were debunked, so for now, no telepaths were found.

3. also by definition, those who are once deemed mentally ill are forever so

No, no, nono. By WHAT definition?

4. all the holy books rail vehemently against 'sorceries'

Voodoo praises it. If I did a search, I'd probably find more.

5. once you accept the validity of any occulted thing, you're driving blind

If you accept *any* claim without proof you're driving blind.

Not because of the claim itself, but because of the fact it has no proof.

 

Conclusions: every conceivable variance from sweet normalcy is possible within the limits of some Planck constant function or somethin' -- but as a human being it is your highest calling to NOT DIGNIFY such things. Instead, make your modest contribution to vanilla mundanity and then get the hell out of stinkin' Eternity for freakin EVER and ever and ever and ever.

?? Wordsalad.

 

This does not follow at all from your claims. What does anything have to do with planck's constant?? (what is planck's constant function?).

 

The rest is just word babble.

 

What's the point, again?

[Sayonara]

1. homicides are being solved with the aid of psychics

Sometimes homicide investigators have a bit of a rational wobble and accept the advice of "psychics", but like Mooeypoo I think you would find it difficult to cite any case which has been solved purely on the basis of such a person's input.

 

2. by definition, anyone who receives a telepathic message is mentally ill

The word telepath does not mean mentally ill, so your statement is factually incorrect. We do not use phrases such as 'by definition' because they sound good; they have a specified meaning.

 

3. also by definition, those who are once deemed mentally ill are forever so

This statement makes no sense.

 

5. once you accept the validity of any occulted thing, you're driving blind

While I agree on some levels with this proposal, I don't see how steps 1-3 lead to it, and I do not see what step 4 has to do with anything else you said.

[john5746]

Thus, we may believe we see a ghost, but actually the phenomenon is projected into that part of the brain.

 

It's called an hallucination until proven otherwise. Maybe LSD or peyote helps to see ghosts?

[Flashman]

Yer average "psychic" tends to be skilled at psychiatric tricks, much as a stage "mentalist" is. In other words, they could quite well pick up cues that homicide investigators give unwittingly about their hunches, and could quite well have the capacity to "profile" a killer much like a legitimate psychiatrist would. Hence, even a fraud may have some use in some investigations. I have heard that there's psychics out there trying to make a name for themselves that along with a few hundred other crackpots, phone in a prediction for every murder that appears in the media, they only have to get "close" every so often in well publicised cases to be able to say "Look how good I am".

 

There are known to be phenomena, radio waves and magnetic fields that stimulate the visual cortex directly, causing perceived flashes of light etc. I have heard of them being measured at "high strangeness" sites. The brain could quite well play tricks on you here, it has a tendency to fill in the blanks. This can result in false perceptions. I have noticed this in dim light when very tired, an unexpected object whose form is difficult to make out initially, like say a purse sitting in the middle of the floor at night, might rapidly resolve in the brain as a cat, then a shoe, then a pile of VCR tapes, as the brain tries to make sense of it, before latching onto what it actually is. Since the brain tries to make a face or figure out of virtually anything, then any strange visuals, whether from radio waves directly stimulating the visual cortex, strange earthglows from piezoelectric stress, marsh gas, light falling on dusty air, are quite likely to be interpreted as a figure. Now if you go somewhere where local conditions predispose towards creating a strange visual in some manner, and there is a reputation for ghost activity there, then even more people than normal will tend to see ghosts, because the brain is even more predisposed to mistranslating inputs because of what it is expecting. So the brain can be a highly imperfect instrument due to high susceptibility to suggestion.

 

So, if you're gonna "ghostbust" you need to ask yourself are you looking for the thing that stimulates visual misinterpretations or are you looking for the misinterpretation itself. The former, you might find, the latter is in someone's head and nowhere else. You can completely miss the former, if you're too busy looking for the latter.

 

 

However, although 99% of paranormal phenomena may be explained by misdirection or mis-perception, there's that pesky 1%. It's pesky because of all the crap you have to sift through to end up with it. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack, when someone has dumped a gross of pins in there, by the time you're picking out the 80th pin or so, you begin to doubt the existence of a needle. Science should be all about that last fraction of a percent. Why did Einstein bother if Newton's laws were good 99% of the time? Why did Rutherford care that 1 in 8000 alpha particles bounced back? Rolling a ball backwards and forwards a few hundred times and not having to invoke special relativity to explain it's motion is no evidence that Einstein was wrong. Neither is shooting 5000 alpha particles at a gold film and getting no ricochets a disproof of Rutherford's work. These however are reputable science because they make predictions testable in certain circumstances, or because they are repeatable under the same conditions. We also may be facing a complete failure of current technology in gaining evidence about these phenomena, let alone a lack of suitable testable hypotheses and controlled environments in which they might be tested. It's like early 19th century men of science hearing about the concept of television broadcasts and trying to detect them.

[SkepticLance]

For those who are nutty enough to believe in psychics, telepathy, solving murders by psychic activity or other generalised nuttiness, bear in mind that there has been a US$ 1.1 million prize for over 10 years for anyone able to prove such abilities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Randi

 

Despite many attempts, in the face of scrutineers who are a mixture of scientists and professional magicians, no-one has been able to claim the prize. Everyone who turns up is revealed as either self deluded or a fraud. people who can con the public find out they cannot con the experts.

 

James Randi is now actively chasing high profile mediums and psychics and chasing them into going for his prize. So far, each and every one of them has refused or made lame excuses. This shows they are frauds.

 

Quite simply, if someone had a psychic power that was genuine, they woud have gone for, and won the million dollar prize. No-one has, and that is pretty close to proof positive that such abilities do not exist.

[Mr Skeptic]

Quite simply, if someone had a psychic power that was genuine, they woud have gone for, and won the million dollar prize. No-one has, and that is pretty close to proof positive that such abilities do not exist.

 

This I disagree with. People who offer such tests and rewards generally design them to be impossible -- for example, a requirement that successfully passing the test is at the discretion of the person offering the prize. In addition, many psychics claim abilities that are not completely under their own control, or that the tests wouldn't test for. Basically, this kind of test is more of a weapon than a test.

 

However, people who believe in mediums need to get hit with a giant cluebat.

[swansont]

This I disagree with. People who offer such tests and rewards generally design them to be impossible -- for example, a requirement that successfully passing the test is at the discretion of the person offering the prize. In addition, many psychics claim abilities that are not completely under their own control, or that the tests wouldn't test for. Basically, this kind of test is more of a weapon than a test.

 

Randi's prize is pretty well-defined and objective. What he requires is rigor, and generally excludes tests that can have ambiguous (i.e easily derived from fakery) results. So he's just setting conditions whereby the results would have to be from supernatural means, unlike some prizes where the offerer is saying "you must prove to my satisfaction" — those are the dishonest ones.

[SkepticLance]

To Mr Skeptic

 

Re James Randi's test.

To give an example : Uri Geller claims to be able to bend spoons using the power of his mind alone. Randi has urged him to take the test for the million dollar prize. When Geller learned that he would not be able to use his own, pre-prepared spoons for the bending, he declined.

 

Of course, Randi utterly annoyed Geller several decades back by adding Geller's tricks to his stage magician's act, and showing that a stage magician, through trickery, could do everything Geller claimed to do with psychic abilities.

[Mr Skeptic]

To give an example : Uri Geller claims to be able to bend spoons using the power of his mind alone. Randi has urged him to take the test for the million dollar prize. When Geller learned that he would not be able to use his own, pre-prepared spoons for the bending, he declined.

 

Ah. That is different. I thought he had a pre-prepared test, but if he makes a test specifically for what the "psychic" claims he can do, than that guy has no excuse.