Are spirits a different life form?

[n0mad23]

Because it's logically. Death just means to become non-existent which is rather obvious after a life has gone. I would like to talk to my grandpa to say something I forgot to say him but he just does not exist anymore sadly. The opposite of non-existent is to be existent, and so to life, which obviously is the case for me at the moment

Please point to me that which no longer exists.

The cosmic principle seems to be nothing more than an economy. There is nothing anywhere that wasn't once upon a time something else. The current "Green" reuse/recycle sensibility seems so bloody obvious that it makes me wonder what took so long for us to figure it out? We truly are made of star-stuff.

Life is a physical phenomena. It's impossible without a basis in matter. Nothing comes from nothing, so it seems to me that 'death' cannot be nonexistence. If it gives you comfort to go that route, more power to you.

I personally don't believe in the afterlife as I've heard it variously explained. But it was the first law of thermodynamics that lead to my position of absolute uncertainty behind the topic. Life is bioelectricity. It can be converted, but not destroyed.

If we return to the material building blocks that we started from, it still isn't non-existence.

 

[ar81]

The difference is that science is self-correcting, whereas spiritualism is often not.

Religion talked about a beginning, while science used to believe that universe existed forever. At least that was the vision of Einstein. He believed universe existed forever. Was he a scientist?

Religion was distorted into a way of political domination that later became political ideology. Religion was distorted by ego too. It passed from "man made similar to God" to "Earth must be the center of universe since man made similar to God".

So both were wrong. Universe did not exist forever, and earth was not center of universe.

Biblic translation evolved from "single and young woman" to "virgin", prohpet evolved from "leader" to "the one who sees future"

Science evolved from philosophy and today it is kind of a religion. Today followers of science are in my opinion followers of another religion called "science". Many scientists believe things as true, instead of questioning their own beliefs. Science as another religion i specially visible in the controversy between intelligent design and science that is present in USA.

I see religion as a collection of dogmas, while spirituallity is a way to understand life, it is a state of awareness of reality.

 

[bujin]

Religion talked about a beginning, while science used to believe that universe existed forever. At least that was the vision of Einstein. He believed universe existed forever. Was he a scientist?

Yes, he was a scientist. A bloody brilliant scientist. But he was also a human, and was just as likely to be wrong as anyone else. Scientists who have come along since have shown that our particular universe appears to have had a beginning. Science has corrected itself.

Religion talked about a beginning, sure. Most religions do. That was a philosophical thing rather than a scientific thing though. They see that most complex things with the appearence of design have usually been designed - they don't just spring out of nowhere. They see that the universe has the appearence of design, and so rationalise that it must have been built by something.

Science evolved from philosophy and today it is kind of a religion. Today followers of science are in my opinion followers of another religion called "science". Many scientists believe things as true, instead of questioning their own beliefs. Science as another religion i specially visible in the controversy between intelligent design and science that is present in USA.

You may see it that way, but it's a rather incorrect view, if you don't mind me saying! Sure, a lot of scientists will hold on to ideas that they personally believe to be true, but science itself will correct, because not all scientists will hold that point of view.

Science is not a religion, because it does not have dogmas. It has theories which are backed up by evidence, but all (good) scientists will freely admit that their theory can be disproved at any time.

I don't see how the controversy between ID and science in the USA is evident that science is a religion. Could you explain?

 

[Moonwalker]

Please point to me that which no longer exists.

I obviously didn't exist before I was born. And this will be the case again one day. I won't no longer exist anymore in 100 years for example. Nobody of us here won't exist anymore in 100 years. There is no single sign of anything else beside just thesis.

Nothing comes from nothing, so it seems to me that 'death' cannot be nonexistence

I whish this would be the case which would enable me to talk and listen to death and so to non-existent persons I knew once.

Life is bioelectricity. It can be converted, but not destroyed.

When I look at 9/11 or to all the wars we had on the planet something tells me that life is rather easily destroyable...

 

[GregBurch]

One very prominent character seems conspicuous by his absence in that list.

From context, it seemed to me that the person to whom I was responding in all probability calls himself a Christian. I have found that one way to address these issues is to point out the obvious -- that believers only believe SOME of the hoodoo. Almost all of them reject some hoodoo as incredible. In other words, they're skeptical, but just not about the particular flavor of supernaturalism they embrace. So, it is often helpful to point out just how ridiculous the claims of many other purveyors of supernaturalism are when viewed "from the outside."

A very few will take the next step on their own and realize that they can't distinguish their brand of supernaturalism from the ones they can clearly see are nonsense.

 

[Coolhand]

Wha? I was talking about Santa Claus.

He's real, right?

Please tell me he's real...

 

[n0mad23]

I obviously didn't exist before I was born. And this will be the case again one day. I won't no longer exist anymore in 100 years for example. Nobody of us here won't exist anymore in 100 years. There is no single sign of anything else beside just thesis.

Does this mean you think your DNA just came from nowhere? I've got two children, and if that's not a part of recycling and semi-immortality, I don't know what is.

Looking for dead ancestors? Just open a vein.

 

[Linguofreak]

Science is not a religion, because it does not have dogmas. It has theories which are backed up by evidence, but all (good) scientists will freely admit that their theory can be disproved at any time.

I don't see how the controversy between ID and science in the USA is evident that science is a religion. Could you explain?

"Religion" is a term that needs to be defined carefully. As does "science," which can mean either "the process of finding things out through empirical investigation," or "the set of beliefs generally agreed to by those who believe that empiricism is the only way to find things out."

On the one hand "religion" can mean "worldview," and science (in the second sense of the word) does provide a worldview, and you don't even need the ID/Evolution debate to prove that.

On the other hand "religion" can mean what you were talking about, i.e. a belief system that includes dogmas. Many in the religious community would argue that science (again in the second sense of the word) does have dogma's, and that the way the scientific community behaves in the ID/Evo. debate shows that they hold evolution as a dogma.

On the third hand "religion" can mean "a set of beliefs that tells us about the nature of the supernatural," and in this third sense of the word "religion", science (in the second sense of "science") is not a religion since it denies the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Moonwalker]

Does this mean you think your DNA just came from nowhere? I've got two children, and if that's not a part of recycling and semi-immortality, I don't know what is.

Looking for dead ancestors? Just open a vein.

Well, my DNA doesn't came from me but from my parents. And If I get no children which seems to be the case, then that's it with my DNA when I'm gone one day.

 

[jedidia]

Please point to me that which no longer exists.

Well, of course Matter per se is indistructible, it just changes form. Still, everything is more than just crude matter. It's the composition of matter. A piece of bread is made up from the same protons and electrons that may once have been a lump of iron ore. Still, when you have a lump of iron ore and are hungry, you say "there is no bread", allthough all the pieces that would make up bread are present.

So, I think when the intricate composition of matter, that makes a man and his cnciousness, break up, it is correct to say "he doesn't exist anymore".

Looking a bit deeper, the composition of matter is much more important than the matter itself. I could exchange all the electrons and protons in my body with different ones, I wouldn't change... (at least from what we know currently) as long as they are put together the exactly same way. If you take the exactly same matter and compose it in a different way, I'd end up a completely different person, if a person at all. So describing death as non- existence is not incorrect at all. After all you wouldn't say "my grandpa lives on the graveyard, all his atoms should still be hanging around there somewhere"

Spirits are just feeling or sights brought by electro magentic feilds caused by metallic stuff like a stove or electric fan or even your own lop top

AAAAAHRG! DEMON LAPTOP!

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, of course Matter per se is indestructible, it just changes form.

Nobody knows if matter is indistructible. It is just an assumption like an atomic model still remains just a model.

But black holes show us that matter might be destructible very well.

 

[Bullethead]

Nobody knows if matter is indistructible. It is just an assumption like an atomic model still remains just a model.

But black holes show us that matter might be destructible very well.

That's a big can of worms there .

With all the parallel universes and/or 11 or so dimensions that serious quantum physicists and cosmologists honestly believe in these days, it's hard to tell anything about what is "real" and what is not. According to various theories, stuff can leave this universe and go into another, so it's "destroyed" here but still exists in the "multiverse", or whatever. OTOH, other theories say that if you flip a coin twice in succession, you've created more universes than God did in Genesis . This is real world science these days. Having a doctorate in these fields can make you come up with stuff as weird as the best magic mushrooms.

I personally think that what most folks see as "ghosts" are momentary glimpses of perfectly normal living people living in adjacent parallel universes. I think this because of that famous experiment where they got interference patterns from light hitting 2 slits even though they only fired a single photon. The conclusion drawn from this was that the single photon in our universe was rubbing shoulders with photons in parallel universes, thus making the interference patterns. But if that interaction is possible, what would limit it to just photons in labs? Why wouldn't photons in normal life act the same way, and occasionally let us see what's on the side of the "brane".

I ain't ashamed to admit I've seen "ghosts" a few times. But I've only seen them in well-lighted situations, only for an instant, and they've looked just as surprised to see me as I was to see them. Of course, I do drink a fair amount, so who knows?

There was also an article in Science News a year or so ago where some physicist proposed that consciousness does in fact survive death. His idea was that consciousness somehow imprints itself into the fabric of the universe at a quantum level. And this background of quantum disturbances can impact the vibrations of living people in various ways. This scientist used this idea as a rational explanation of various paranormal phenomena, such as disembodied voices, kids who seem to have memories of other lives, etc. Haven't heard anything more about it since then, and I don't have much faith this theory. But it was a serious paper in a serious publication.

As to things like poltergeists and ESP, I will not venture to guess

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, I think real is everything people can realize and observe/discover by using their sense organs. And there is just one reality where 6.6 billions humans live in which is more than rather obvious. I don't know different realities, dimensions and parallel universes and I also can't find any single sign beside a lot of different fantasies out of human brains.

Physicists and cosmologists, if believed to be serious or not, can 'believe' anything they want. People don't even need to be scientists to do so

 

[Xantcha]

Er.. what is spirit? I mean how does it look, how it interferes with world, can it be used or harvested, is it dangerous?

No really, whats it? What the definition of spirit that is discussed here?

 

[Bullethead]

Well, I think real is everything people can realize and observe/discover by using their sense organs.

Do you trust your eyes? Try this experiment....

Close your left eye and stare at a small object about 10 feet away with your right eye. Keep your focus on that object. Now extend your right arm straight out in front of you and hold the tip of your 1st finger up so that it covers the object you're looking at. Now very slowly rotate your arm to the right at the shoulder while keeping the arm straight and the finger at the same level as before. Keep your focus on the distant object all the while. As your fingertip sweeps through about 20-25^ off-line with the distant object, you'll notice in your peripheral vision that the tip of your finger briefly disappears. When that happens, move your arm around until you can hold it at the precise angle where the fingertip remains invisible. Remember, this is with your peripheral vision--you're still focused on the distant object. Flick your gaze to your fingertip and it reappears. Flick back to the distant object and it's gone again.

Your fingertip disappears at that angle because it's then in line with the dead spot on your retina where the optic nerve attaches. There are no rods or cones there. That area, very close to being directly in front of you, is a blind spot. You've got another one just like it on the left side. But you don't perceive these blindspots in everyday life because you're brain "Photoshops" the image. It pastes a piece of the nearby background over the blindspots so you don't notice them unless you're looking for them with an experiment like this.

So, there's proof that every waking moment, what you perceive is at least partially a product of your own imagination. And your imagination is so good that you don't even realize you're not perceiving reality. So how can you trust any of your senses at any time?

And there is just one reality where 6.6 billions humans live in which is more than rather obvious. I don't know different realities, dimensions and parallel universes and I also can't find any single sign beside a lot of different fantasies out of human brains.

You sound like the guys who gave Gallileo such a hard time. It makes me wonder why you don't burn Orbiter as an heretical text .

Do you perceive any of Earth's motion through space? No, and neither does anybody else. Just relying on your senses, it's "rather obvious" that we live in a Ptolemaic universe, because the only motion we can perceive is that of the everything out there circling around Earth.

As everybody on this forum knows, that ain't how it works. However, there are still cultures on this planet that truly believe in the geocentric arrangement, and even that the Earth is flat. Such people have a different perception of reality than we do. So it's not "rather obvious" that we all have the same perception of the same reality.

In addition, Ptolemaists and Flat Earthers have a MUCH easier time supporting their position than we do. Everybody can agree that the senses back up their assertions. We have to prove our position via complex mathematics and observations made by fancy tools, which require further complex mathematics to interpret.

Physicists and cosmologists, if believed to be serious or not, can 'believe' anything they want. People don't even need to be scientists to do so

It's not a question of belief. I can believe in the Church of the Subgenius if I want to, but that doesn't make it real.

You really should read up on quantum physics and cosmology. If you accept that Kepler and Newton were improved upon by Einstein, then you should accept that more recent workers have improved upon Einstein. They're the 1st to admit they don't know all the answers yet. Why do you think they just built that Large Hadron Collider over in your part of the world?

The balance of things at present is that there is far more to the universe than meets the eye. There's all that dark matter (or maybe MoND) and dark energy, for 2 things. But beyond that, the universe seem to require either parallel universes or extra dimensions, or both, for things to work out as they have. Nobody yet knows, but we will someday. You can choose to believe in this or not, but you're pretty much the same as a Ptolemaist these days if you don't.

 

[Moonwalker]

Do you trust your eyes?

Yes. Healthy people usually do so. And pilots, astronauts, driver and so on even have to rely on.

So, there's proof that every waking moment, what you perceive is at least partially a product of your own imagination.

The dead spot and other phenomena, which are very well known, don't prevent being able to see the world around you like it is.

So how can you trust any of your senses at any time?

Because it prevents from jumping off a tower or a bridge or cross the street when there is heavy traffic or running straight forward into a tornado...

You sound like the guys who gave Gallileo such a hard time. It makes me wonder why you don't burn Orbiter as an heretical text

Galileo was an observer and not a believer. To observe and to believe is a difference. To believe is something you can do in the church

Do you perceive any of Earth's motion through space? No, and neither does anybody else. Just relying on your senses, it's "rather obvious" that we live in a Ptolemaic universe, because the only motion we can perceive is that of the everything out there circling around Earth.

By using my telescope (910mm Celestron reflecting telescope) I'm able to observe that the Earth and other things rotate very well.

...there are still cultures on this planet that truly believe in the geocentric arrangement, and even that the Earth is flat. Such people have a different perception of reality than we do. So it's not "rather obvious" that we all have the same perception of the same reality.

That's what I meant when I wrote already that there are a lot of different fantasies out of human brains. But it doesn't change the fact the we all live in just one world/reality which depends on special laws no matter what different people 'believe'. Just look what Ron Hubbard believed in. But he nevertheless lived in the world we all live in.

It's not a question of belief. I can believe in the Church of the Subgenius if I want to, but that doesn't make it real.

Same for people and scientists who believe in different paralel universes and 11 dimensions. Just because they only believe in doesn't make it real. Like for religios beliefs I also don't have to believe in scientific beliefs blindly. Einstein, Hawkins and so on just are humans too. Not everything they say, calculate and believe is proven and uncontroversial all the time.

 

[eveningsky339]

In keeping with the OP, spirits are energy- not lifeforms. Most paranormal investigators carry along EMF detectors to check for spikes without a source (though those readings are always iffy, EMF is all around us.)

The Atlantic Paranormal Society has a large helping of good articles relating to this subject.

Click Me

 

[bujin]

Most paranormal investigators carry along EMF detectors to check for spikes without a source

Unfortunately, most of the paranormal investigators I've been in contact with wouldn't even be able to tell you what "EMF" stands for, let alone what it is, and so you see far too often a bunch of people running around screaming whenever their EMF meter beeps, claiming that they've found a ghost without even considering any other source.

That's part of the reason I am no longer involved!

 

[GregBurch]

Real, rigorous and reproducible evidence of "paranormal" or "spiritual" phenomena would be one of the most important scientific discoveries of all time. Whoever did the work to produce such evidence would join the ranks of Galileo, Newton, Darwin and Einstein as among the giants of science.

So it would seem that a simple question to ask is why the so-called "scientific paranormal investigation" has produced no such figure.

 

[bujin]

So it would seem that a simple question to ask is why the so-called "scientific paranormal investigation" has produced no such figure.

It's obvious innit?

Cos there's a massive conspiracy within the scientific community to keep it all hush-hush, just like they're trying to keep ID quiet because they don't want people to stop believing in evolution.

Ghosts exist, as do psychics, dowsing abilities, ESP, leprichauns and unicorns. But the people at the top don't want you to know that.