Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 46 (9143 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: vansdad
Post Volume: Total: 912,353 Year: 9,234/14,231 Month: 72/268 Week: 36/102 Day: 6/12 Hour: 0/1

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Supernatural and undiscovered means of detection
Member (Idle past 3490 days)
Posts: 48
From: Minnesota
Joined: 03-03-2010

Message 46 of 47 (610419)
03-29-2011 6:41 PM

Does "ghost" have a definitive definition?
If a ghost is defined as a person's soul or spirit I think it would have to be considered supernatural.
If a ghost is weird crap happening that has no valid explination it could be considered natural even if you don't see a natural reason for whats happening. What I mean by this is maybe the common sets of circumstanes contributed to ghosts (cold spots, E.V.P., manifestations, disembodied voices, ect.) could be caused by a wholly natural reason that isn't understood. Lightning used to be thought of as pissed off gods until we figured out what it really was.

Posts: 8729
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.8

Message 47 of 47 (730284)
06-26-2014 2:24 PM

Latest from my ghosthunter friend
He posted this link on my Facebook page.
A Physicist’s Explanation of Why the Soul May Exist
Henry P. Stapp is a theoretical physicist at the University of California—Berkeley who worked with some of the founding fathers of quantum mechanics. He does not seek to prove that the soul exists, but he does say that the existence of the soul fits within the laws of physics.
It is not true to say belief in the soul is unscientific, according to Stapp. Here the word soul refers to a personality independent of the brain or the rest of the human body that can survive beyond death. In his paper, Compatibility of Contemporary Physical Theory With Personality Survival, he wrote: Strong doubts about personality survival based solely on the belief that postmortem survival is incompatible with the laws of physics are unfounded.
I haven't read the original paper. Probably over my head anyway. I see no evidence it was ever published in any journal. Here is a link to it.
What little I have read so far and criticism of him, it seems he uses a lot of assertions and little or no evidence. I haven't been able to find any other scientists that support his idea.
Seems to be just more woo.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2023