Ghosts aren't real, but this is cool.

[selfinflikted]

I thought this was kinda neat.

"Scientists in Switzerland have shown that ghosts are probably just an illusion created by the mind when it momentarily loses track of the body's location."

Ghosts created by scientists in 'disturbing' lab experiment - Telegraph

 

[florida2]

I saw this as well. Very interesting research.

The human brain is an amazing thing, but when things go even just a little wrong very strange things can happen - particularly things that can be perceived as 'real'

 

[selfinflikted]

Yea, it's very interesting, indeed. I find research like this and the "god helmet" to be extremely intriguing.

 

[Resha Caner]

Yea, it's very interesting, indeed. I find research like this and the "god helmet" to be extremely intriguing.

Yes, but when does induction become unfounded speculation?

 

[selfinflikted]

Yes, but when does induction become unfounded speculation?

I wouldn't consider this research, nor the god helmet to be "unfounded."

 

[Cute Tink]

Where am I when they are looking for volunteers for things like this??

 

[Resha Caner]

I wouldn't consider this research, nor the god helmet to be "unfounded."

You misinterpret me. I was referring to whatever inductive conclusions might follow. IOW, why do people find this test interesting? Would it be interesting if only one person ever experienced interhemispheric intrusions and it applied to no one else? Or if interhemispheric intrusions only occurred while wearing the helmet and under no other conditions?

 

[selfinflikted]

You misinterpret me. I was referring to whatever inductive conclusions might follow. IOW, why do people find this test interesting? Would it be interesting if only one person ever experienced interhemispheric intrusions and it applied to no one else? Or if interhemispheric intrusions only occurred while wearing the helmet and under no other conditions?

Ah, I see. Well, IIRC they've tested it on multiple subjects. So, "if only one person ever experienced [it]" won't fly. And we know what the helmet does and how it does it, so circumstances that the helmet duplicates would apply.

But I know what you're getting at. And no, it won't conclusively disprove god (nor ghosts, or anything else). But what it will do, is validate the hypothesis that these kinds of experiences can be caused by non-supernatural phenomena.

 

[Resha Caner]

But I know what you're getting at. And no, it won't conclusively disprove god (nor ghosts, or anything else).

Of course science leaves the last part unspoken. That way no one can be accused of wishing that's what it would prove. But if that's not what they're trying to prove, what's the point of the experiment?

But what it will do, is validate the hypothesis that these kinds of experiences can be caused by non-supernatural phenomena.

Na. I realize as much as you how many people poorly express their theology, but this is basically irrelevant to me. I've never denied a material aspect to spiritual experience, nor have I claimed those material aspects to be beyond discovery. Finally, I've never claimed that such things would never go awry. So, again, I don't see the point beyond those who wish to think they have an explanation for my experiences with God.

 

[quatona]

Of course science leaves the last part unspoken.

Of course?

But if that's not what they're trying to prove, what's the point of the experiment?

Seems to me they are trying to find out how the human mind works.

So, again, I don't see the point beyond those who wish to think they have an explanation for my experiences with God.

Well, I guess that finding out how such phenomena can be caused by natural manipulations might be the first step towards distinguishing these from "really supernatural phenomena" (should such exist).
Just like knowing how a magic trick works makes it easier to distinguish a miracle from a magic trick.
Now, of course (! ), some people might not be interested in having that opportunity.

 

[selfinflikted]

Of course science leaves the last part unspoken. That way no one can be accused of wishing that's what it would prove. But if that's not what they're trying to prove, what's the point of the experiment?

That the "experiences" can be caused by non-supernatural means. Just like I said.

Na.

Ya. And they have done just that, it seems.

I realize as much as you how many people poorly express their theology, but this is basically irrelevant to me. I've never denied a material aspect to spiritual experience, nor have I claimed those material aspects to be beyond discovery. Finally, I've never claimed that such things would never go awry. So, again, I don't see the point beyond those who wish to think they have an explanation for my experiences with God.

Well, that is kinda the point.

Experiencer: I've had a supernatural experience! I felt the presence of god!

Science: Maybe, but probably not. I can give you the same experience with this helmet.

 

[selfinflikted]

Where am I when they are looking for volunteers for things like this??

Seriously, right? I'd love to wear the helmet.

I'm not sure how this ghost thread ended up being more about the god helmet, but meh. Whatevs

 

[Resha Caner]

Ya. And they have done just that, it seems.

They haven't. Rather they (and you) have applied an exclusion principle that is faulty. IOW, you have to define what a spiritual experience is before you can claim it hasn't happened.

 

[Cute Tink]

Of course science leaves the last part unspoken. That way no one can be accused of wishing that's what it would prove. But if that's not what they're trying to prove, what's the point of the experiment?

They aren't necessarily trying to prove that there is no supernatural explanation for a particular person's experience. They aren't trying to prove that nobody has ever had a supernatural experience.

They are trying to find out if there is a non-supernatural phenomenon potentially responsible for these situations.

The point of the experiment would be to learn more about the human brain.

 

[Resha Caner]

The point of the experiment would be to learn more about the human brain.

For what purpose?

They are trying to find out if there is a non-supernatural phenomenon potentially responsible for these situations.

Uh huh. A fallacious exclusion principle as I said earlier. In order to make that determination, one must define what a spiritual experience is.

Suppose I were to posit the following question: Can water boil without juxwalla? I then conduct an experiment demonstrating that water boils at 100 C at sea level by adding heat to the water. My conclusion, then, is that water can boil without juxwalla. I just proved it, right?

 

[Cute Tink]

For what purpose?

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not enough?

Uh huh. A fallacious exclusion principle as I said earlier. In order to make that determination, one must define what a spiritual experience is.

Specifically, this experiment was about ghost-based experiences.

Suddenly the volunteers felt as if they were being watched, and touched, by one or more ghostly presences.

Defined.

 

[Resha Caner]

Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is not enough?

As long as the experiment didn't involve my tax money, they can seek all the knowledge they want.

Specifically, this experiment was about ghost-based experiences.

Actually, selfinflikted and I had diverted into talking about the god helmet, but that's OK. Since the OP started with ghosts, we can go with that ... even though I don't accept ghosts as real.

Defined.

Ha! Really? So the study established how a ghostly presence affects the brain such that they know this isn't how it affects the brain?

 

[Cute Tink]

Actually, selfinflikted and I had diverted into talking about the god helmet, but that's OK. Since the OP started with ghosts, we can go with that ... even though I don't accept ghosts as real.

I have no info on the god helmet, so it would be out of my realm of knowledge.

Ha! Really? So the study established how a ghostly presence affects the brain such that they know this isn't how it affects the brain?

More like how certain stimuli can cause a person to experience things that they associate with a ghostly presence.

 

[Resha Caner]

More like how certain stimuli can cause a person to experience things that they associate with a ghostly presence.

Yes, and how do they know it's not associated with a ghostly presence? Or juxwalla? Or whatever word I choose to throw in there?

 

[Cute Tink]

Yes, and how do they know it's not associated with a ghostly presence? Or juxwalla? Or whatever word I choose to throw in there?

Because it would seem far too coincidental for a spirit to act only when they apply the stimulus meant to trigger it.

I assume that they take the participant's word for what they experience.