The Science Of Life

[Jan]

[Martin]

Sheldrake's concept has little support in the mainstream scientific community. Members of the scientific community consider Sheldrake's concept to be currently unfalsifiable and therefore outside of the scope of scientific experiment. The morphic field concept is believed by many to fall into the realm of pseudoscience.  - Wikipedia

It's NOT Science, it's similar to the teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.

[Jan]

the teapot is actually in the constellation of Sagittarius 

I think that what Sheldrake is trying to show is that there is more to 'how life is the way it is' than from what is in DNA - which is worth exploring (IMO) - a link between science & the spiritual. It would seem a similar concept to  what is discussed in a book called 'the Field ~ by Lynne Mctaggart'

[Martin]

the teapot is actually in the constellation of Sagittarius 

No it isn't. It's between Mars and Jupiter.  Now prove me wrong!  See, Jan, that's the level of these (and, as a consequence, your) claims, and it's why others won't give them any time.  It's not because scientists are non-exploratory sorts people who dismiss these things out of hand.  On the contrary, scientists are far more the sorts of people who want to discover, whose rasion d'etre is to uncover new truths. They just use a reasoned methodology when doing so.

I think that what Sheldrake is trying to show is that there is more to 'how life is the way it is' than from what is in DNA

I know of no scientist who would disagree that there is more to how life is the way it is than what is in DNA.  But no good scientist, and no scientist that I know, would need (or wish) to propose an unfalsifiable hypothesis of 'morphic fields' and 'morphic resonance' to do so.  By doing this, Sheldrake demonstrates that his intention is to do far more than to simply draw attention to the limitations of genetics!   

[Lynne Mctaggart's book,] The Field has been characterized by Mark Henderson of The Times as pseudoscience, focusing on her personal understanding of quantum physics as a misconception. - wikipedia.

[Jan]

[Martin]

It is not closed minded to argue that, in all probability, there is no teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.  It is closed minded to argue that an unfalisifiable hypothesis has the same status as the theories that people like Logie Baird was using to build his television. You demonstrate your own closed mindedness, not mine.

If you were open minded, then you would be critical of your own side of the argument, but, time and again, you are prepared to accept things that support your faith position with little or no criticism, and you then attempt to criticise to those who use their critical faculties properly and without bias.

[Jan]

It is not closed minded to argue that, in all probability, there is no teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.

I agree - its probably not, as the likelihood is - well its unlikely but not impossible - so its probably better to state that we don't know for sure. There is however still a 'teapot' in the constellation of Sagittarius 

It is closed minded to argue that an unfalisifiable hypothesis has the same status as the theories that people like Logie Baird was using to build his television. You demonstrate your own closed mindedness, not mine.

well actually I was trying to use those as examples Martin - to show how so called scientists behave when their minds are closed. Even when something is actually happening in front of them, they still try to deny it and say it must be down to something else. Its quite funny in a sad sort of way really. It carries on though even today.

If you were open minded, then you would be critical of your own side of the argument, but, time and again, you are prepared to accept things that support your faith position with little or no criticism, and you then attempt to criticise to those who use their critical faculties properly and without bias.

Take the above, and look into the mirror.

You really do not know enough about me to make such an assumption - and that is what it is Martin - an assumption.

[Martin]

I agree - its probably not, as the likelihood is - well its unlikely but not impossible

No scientist would argue that it is impossible that there is a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter,, and nor would I.  But the fact is that there is no repeatable observation (like looking through a telescope and taking a photo of it) that should lead us tothe conclusion that there is a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.  Logie Baird, for example, did design his equipment because repeatable observation and experimentation had led him to design it.

well actually I was trying to use those as examples Martin - to show how so called scientists behave when their minds are closed. Even when something is actually happening in front of them, they still try to deny it and say it must be down to something else. Its quite funny in a sad sort of way really. It carries on though even today.

Again, your examples are drawn from a time when science, and scientific method, were in their infancy. Things don't tend to work that way these days. For example,only a few years ago there was the claim that cold fusion had been achieved in the laboratory.  It turned out to be an erroneous claim, but scientists around the world waited for a long time, until many other labs had attempted to repeat the experiment, before it was declared to be bogus.

Take the above, and look into the mirror.

But the fact is that I have been prepared to be critical of all sides of the argument.  Only you have not.  That isn't an assumption, it's a fact.  Provable, because we have thread after thread that shows you presenting stuff as evidence that clearly doesn't measure up to the standard it would have to, to be considered good evidence.

I won't convince you of course.  But that isn't because I'm closed minded, it's because you are.

[Jan]

No scientist would argue that it is impossible that there is a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter,, and nor would I.  But the fact is that there is no repeatable observation (like looking through a telescope and taking a photo of it) that should lead us tothe conclusion that there is a teapot orbiting between Mars and Jupiter.  Logie Baird, for example, did design his equipment because repeatable observation and experimentation had led him to design it.

but yet some scientists would not believe it possible. That still happens today Martin.

Again, your examples are drawn from a time when science, and scientific method, were in their infancy. Things don't tend to work that way these days. For example,only a few years ago there was the claim that cold fusion had been achieved in the laboratory.  It turned out to be an erroneous claim, but scientists around the world waited for a long time, until many other labs had attempted to repeat the experiment, before it was declared to be bogus.

My examples were meant to show human nature Martin - and even today, that could still be described as 'in its infancy' when dealing with some types of phenomenon.

But the fact is that I have been prepared to be critical of all sides of the argument.  Only you have not.  That isn't an assumption, it's a fact.  Provable, because we have thread after thread that shows you presenting stuff as evidence that clearly doesn't measure up to the standard it would have to, to be considered good evidence.

lol - I think the mirror broke didn't it Martin 

 I can understand that it can be difficult for some people to take on board that there is so much going on around them - yet probably through fear (certain phenomenon being out of their 'comfort zone') they are unwilling to actually believe any form of evidence even if it bashed them on the head! From what I have read of your responses over the years on the myriad of topics I add on a similar line to this one, you don't really come across as someone 'prepared to be critical of all sides of the argument' at all. You go straight into the 'oh you are talking a lot of nonsense again aren't you' mode. It has become quite predictable really (and doesn't need a psychic to predict it either - lol)

I won't convince you of course.  But that isn't because I'm closed minded, it's because you are.

lol - did you just pull my pigtails? OK then I will have to pull your ears (that means that this is rather like being in a school playground)

Crikey - if you could actually know how critical I can be (regarding mediums etc) lol .... but then you have assumed so much of me already - and without really knowing me too (without proper 'evidence' etc etc), I don't think your mindset would be able to change even on that.

Anyway - the OP was about 'the science of life' - how there is more to life, and how Dr Sheldrake was trying to illustrate that with his work - regardless of those who would call him a 'heretic'. He is more like a visionary or a pioneer (IMO) in the fact that he is willing to investigate this further and to hopefully ignore those who think what he is doing is rubbish. I hope we have more like him who are not afraid to dig deeper.

[Martin]

but yet some scientists would not believe it possible. That still happens today Martin.

Yes, scientists are human, and therefore a very few will disbelieve some things without testing the evidence.  But the world of science is built on testing evidence.  Experiments are repeated and checked before any verdict is arrived at, and it is extremely unusual for any scientist to step outside of that methodology and mock a properly conducted experiment.   Take for example the recent observation that some particles apparently travel faster than the speed of light.  The observation was advanced tentatively, because the scientists were aware how deeply this challenged the whole basis of modern physics, there wasn't a mass mocking of these claims by sceptical scientists, what has happened is that other scientists are attempting to repeat the experiment.  That's how science works.

My examples were meant to show human nature Martin - and even today, that could still be described as 'in its infancy' when dealing with some types of phenomenon.

But if you were conducting your analysis without bias towards your own unsupported beliefs, you would be forced to admit that scientists, in general, adopt a very rigorous attitude towards evidence, and that most scientists who have looked at claims of the paranormal have found them to be unsupported by verifiable evidence.  The fact that a few, in the past, have derided claims of discovery in the past, doesn't help your case, because so many discoveries are made that receive due scrutiny without being derided.

lol - I think the mirror broke didn't it Martin 

I stand by what I say.  I was a research scientist for a number of years, and I know about the application of good scientific practice.  I know how peer review works, and I know that, so far, you have not presented a single shred of repeatable evidence to support your cause.  If you could, if there was some really good evidence, then it would be all over the news channels.  The fact that you see all scientists as people who are closed minded, who are deliberately refusing to accept your evidence, speaks volumes  - it doesn't even whisper that the entire scientific community is closed minded, it screams that your assessment of the scientific community is deliberately and falsely tailored to keep your own faith position alive.

[Jan]

Yes, scientists are human, and therefore a very few will disbelieve some things without testing the evidence.  But the world of science is built on testing evidence.  Experiments are repeated and checked before any verdict is arrived at, and it is extremely unusual for any scientist to step outside of that methodology and mock a properly conducted experiment.   Take for example the recent observation that some particles apparently travel faster than the speed of light.  The observation was advanced tentatively, because the scientists were aware how deeply this challenged the whole basis of modern physics, there wasn't a mass mocking of these claims by sceptical scientists, what has happened is that other scientists are attempting to repeat the experiment.  That's how science works.


But if you were conducting your analysis without bias towards your own unsupported beliefs, you would be forced to admit that scientists, in general, adopt a very rigorous attitude towards evidence, and that most scientists who have looked at claims of the paranormal have found them to be unsupported by verifiable evidence.  The fact that a few, in the past, have derided claims of discovery in the past, doesn't help your case, because so many discoveries are made that receive due scrutiny without being derided.

I stand by what I say.  I was a research scientist for a number of years, and I know about the application of good scientific practice.  I know how peer review works, and I know that, so far, you have not presented a single shred of repeatable evidence to support your cause.  If you could, if there was some really good evidence, then it would be all over the news channels.  The fact that you see all scientists as people who are closed minded, who are deliberately refusing to accept your evidence, speaks volumes  - it doesn't even whisper that the entire scientific community is closed minded, it screams that your assessment of the scientific community is deliberately and falsely tailored to keep your own faith position alive.

lol - Martin - do you think its not on every channel because it is false?
Why do you think it (supernatural phenomenon)  still goes on and is around us (has been going on since the dawn of human existence) and is reported and documented by many people all over the world and through time?

I have had personal first hand experiences of what you might call 'strange' phenomenon - have you?
Both myself and my husband saw a ghost - at the same time. Have you ever seen a ghost?
I have predicted events which have later happened. Have you?
I have heard a voice speak to me (on more than one occasion) but not from any family members in the house. Have you?
I have investigated what happens at a Spiritualist Church - have you? (and I mean actually been to one or more churches on a number of occasions and seen various mediums at work, even been on a Church committee)
I have read countless accounts/info/experiences of others on NDE, seances, experiments, transcripts, recordings .... (and I could go on and on) - have you?

Until you actually have gone 'out there' and bothered to investigate for yourself, really you are a lacking in knowledge of this area - as you can only go off the skeptics sites you visit (as they would tend to fit closely to your mindset it seems). It is your choice if you want to pull your head out of the sand  or not. Nobody can force you!

Also I have given you science links to check out - previously.

Look up 'Windbridge Institute' - then actually take a proper good look at the site.

[Martin]

lol - Martin - do you think its not on every channel because it is false?
Why do you think it (supernatural phenomenon)  still goes on and is around us (has been going on since the dawn of human existence) and is reported and documented by many people all over the world and through time?

I have had personal first hand experiences of what you might call 'strange' phenomenon - have you?

There's probably no one single cause of  things that are reported as 'supernatural phenomena', but there are a few strong indications as to the cause of some of them.  Hoaxes rank highly - these have been exposed on many occasions.  Fears and imaginations are another.  Cold reading - people who are utterly convinced they have supernatural powers, who simply, and possibly, sometimes, unconsciously, feed off the reactions of their audiences.

Both myself and my husband saw a ghost - at the same time. Have you ever seen a ghost?

Not a ghost, but I have experienced what other people have reported as, 'strange phenomena', I've seen unexplained lights in the sky - which, now that they've become more common, and now that I've seen a few launched, were almost certainly chinese lanterns, off the North Wales coast. A friend of mine had a conversation about them on air on a local radio station, there will have been many corroborated sightings etc and, at the time it all seemed very mysterious. It isn't now. 

Your sighting of a ghost leaves me non-plussed. People are suggestible, you demonstrate that your critical analyisis is very lax when it comes to these things, so that might be the reason you think you've seen a ghost - what you aren't able to demonstrate is that ghosts actually exist.

I have predicted events which have later happened. Have you?

I predicted that you would not want to let the last thread rest - I was so right. There is nothing supernatural about such things.

I have heard a voice speak to me but not from any family members in the house. Have you?

I could introduce you to plenty of people who hear voices!  There's nothing supernatural about that though.

I have investigated what happens at a Spiritualist Church - have you? (and I mean actually been to one or more churches on a number of occasions and seen various mediums at work, even been on a Church committee)

No I haven't actually been to a spiritualist church.  But I have seen videos of people cold reading and noted their techniques.  They can appear very convincing to an uncritical eye - so can magicians.

I have read countless accounts/info/experiences of others on NDE, seances, experiments, transcripts, recordings .... (and I could go on and on) - have you?

There is no good reason to believe that near death experiences are evidence of anything other than the activity of the brain.  As the brain it nears death, it obviously undergoes biochemical changes which will result in an archetype experience. The fact than many people report a tunnel with a bright light  is no surprise to those who study the brain.  People also have out of body experiences, say, when they're on LSD, which, to them seem very convincing, but are no surprise to those who study the effects of such drugs on the synapse.

So yes - I've done some investigation.  But, more importantly many, many others have investigated and the massive verdict from people whose job it is to be critical and curious is that there isn't the evidence to support the claims.

Also I have given you science links to check out - previously.

Those that you gave, that I investigated, wouldn't and, more to the point, shouldn't convince anyone.  They were simply not science, just as the one you gave in OP of this thread is simply not science.






 

[Jan]

There's probably no one single cause of  things that are reported as 'supernatural phenomena', but there are a few strong indications as to the cause of some of them.  Hoaxes rank highly - these have been exposed on many occasions.  Fears and imaginations are another.  Cold reading - people who are utterly convinced they have supernatural powers, who simply, and possibly, sometimes, unconsciously, feed off the reactions of their audiences.

yes there are 'hoaxes', peoples imaginations running amok, cold reading etc ... but then there is more. Much more!

On experiencing what I have experienced, if I were to ignore it or pretend it hasn't happened or doesn't exist - then I could be accused of burying my head in the sand. That is not what I do though. I do investigate - I do want to know more. See your 'rebuking' type of argument about me being not 'critical' enough or 'closed minded' doesn't really have any weight.

Not a ghost, but I have experienced what other people have reported as, 'strange phenomena',

so you haven't really seen or experienced anything like I have for yourself - it has come from what others tell you they have experienced?

 

I've seen unexplained lights in the sky - which, now that they've become more common, and now that I've seen a few launched, were almost certainly chinese lanterns, off the North Wales coast.

yes I have seen those too and I believe a lot of the lights can be explained by earthly means.

There are though witness reports from reliable and educated sources which cannot be explained by earthly means. I saw a light in the sky moving oddly up in Scotland when I was a young lass. I kept asking my auntie to look round at it (we were stood at a neighbours doorstep at the time) and every time she looked around, it moved behind something - like it was playing peek-a-boo with us     

Your sighting of a ghost leaves me non-plussed. People are suggestible, you demonstrate that your critical analyisis is very lax when it comes to these things, so that might be the reason you think you've seen a ghost - what you aren't able to demonstrate is that ghosts actually exist.

lol - and you say that when you don't even know me (or my husband) properly? Ask yourself whose critical analysis is very lax Martin. Both of us saw the ghost - not just me! I have shared this info before. Many others over the centuries have also reported ghost sitings. Its nothing new. We were pleased to have seen a ghost. It was definitely a 'wow' for us anyway.

 

I predicted that you would not want to let the last thread rest - I was so right. There is nothing supernatural about such things.

Just because you say you are no longer going to contribute to a thread, that doesn't mean that nobody else can. Without knowing anything about how or what I predicted though really you can't take my comment any further. I asked you if you had ever predicted anything - the correct answer in your case would be 'no' - rather than making what you must believe to be a rather witty comment about the last thread.

I could introduce you to plenty of people who hear voices!  There's nothing supernatural about that though.

There might be Martin - how do you know for sure it isn't.  There might be other things going on with the people concerned to do with their condition. My mental health is fine  -  and no chemical imbalances in the brain apart from the odd migraine here and there. The voices are not there all the time (thankfully) - I think that would drive me insane.

No I haven't actually been to a spiritualist church.  But I have seen videos of people cold reading and noted their techniques.  They can appear very convincing to an uncritical eye - so can magicians.

I have been to a Spiritualist church many many times Martin and I know what to look out for when cold reading is taking place. You would have to go yourself - never mind viewing the videos of cold reading, actually go there and experience what goes on. If the medium does come to you and asks you things, do not give them any answers other than yes or no or not sure (don't give them any info that they can cold read from and watch your body language). If the medium is really seeing, hearing, sensing spirit,  then they should be able to give you enough information and validation that your loved ones on the other side are still alive in Spirit. Not all psychics are mediums, but all mediums are psychic (work that one out). Not all mediums work in the same way and some are just starting off (fledgelings) so their info may be a bit 'woolly' (patience is needed). There are some out there that will truly 'blow your mind' with the info they bring through. They will tell you stuff directly about your life and your loved ones rather than ask you questions.

There is no good reason to believe that near death experiences are evidence of anything other than the activity of the brain.  As the brain it nears death, it obviously undergoes biochemical changes which will result in an archetype experience. The fact than many people report a tunnel with a bright light  is no surprise to those who study the brain.  People also have out of body experiences, say, when they're on LSD, which, to them seem very convincing, but are no surprise to those who study the effects of such drugs on the synapse.

remember I said that there was much more to it than that though Martin?  There is. Go and check out that NDE site link I gave earlier - which has many many studies on it and lots of info. Do more studying !!!

So yes - I've done some investigation.  But, more importantly many, many others have investigated and the massive verdict from people whose job it is to be critical and curious is that there isn't the evidence to support the claims.

I don't believe that you have investigated nearly enough yet - not when there is plenty of evidence out there and evidence you can get for yourself - if you wanted to that is. From what little you have told me in the past and on those questions I asked you, I would say there is still plenty you can do for yourself (nobody else) it is for yourself that you would want to investigate further - like others have done.

Those that you gave, that I investigated, wouldn't and, more to the point, shouldn't convince anyone.  They were simply not science, just as the one you gave in OP of this thread is simply not science.

The site explains what takes place, what they do, how the mediums are tested - that is what it is there for. Have a proper good look at the site. There is an email addy on the site so you can email them and tell them what they do is 'simply not science' - but you will most likely need to show them why you believe this to be so to have a valid argument Martin - given that there are scientists involved in the experiments.

This is just a taste of what is currently going on ...

Currently, mediumship and the survival of consciousness are the primary research interests at the Windbridge Institute. Even after a century of research in these fields, many questions remain unanswered making further investigation important for several reasons:

    The survival of consciousness is an issue of vital interest to the public.

    Knowledge gained about the mediumship process may aid in understanding how humans process non-local, non-sensory information.

    Survival and mediumship studies provide unique evidence for discovering the relationship between the mind/consciousness and the brain. That is, 1) does the brain act locally to transform consciousness which exists independently of the body and continues to survive even after death or 2) is consciousness a product of the brain's cells and synapses which dies with the brain?

    Understanding the accuracy and reliability of information reported by mediums may have important and practical social applications in a wide range of areas including grief therapy and psychological recovery from loss, the alleviation of anxiety surrounding transition (hospice care), assistance in finding missing persons and investigating crimes, and possibly the acquisition of knowledge benefiting scientific, technological, and social progress (for example, in ecology, medicine, spirituality, politics, engineering, astronomy, agriculture, physics, etc.).

At this time, mediumship data collectively support the conclusion that certain mediums can report specific and accurate information about a deceased person under blinded conditions, in the absence of any feedback, and without using fraud or deception (a phenomenon called anomalous information reception or AIR). The source of the information and the details of the mediumship process, however, are still not clear. For example, we still do not know:

    Do mediums get their information telepathically/psychically or are they actually communicating with the deceased?

    Is a medium's neurophysiology different than a non-medium's?

    Does participating in a mediumship reading help in the grief recovery process?

    Can mediumship be taught/learned?

    What is the afterlife like?

quoted from the Windbridge Institute site








 

[Martin]

I asked you if you had ever predicted anything - the correct answer in your case would be 'no' - rather than making what you must believe to be a rather witty comment about the last thread.

No. The correct answer would be that everyone predicts things. I did choose an answer showing a vague ammusement, but I wasn't taking the ****, my answer was serious one. We all have the power to predict things. You may be talking about predicitng something that you couldn't possibly have known. But when open-minded, critical people look at the great and famous predictors like say Nostradamus or Mother Shipton they find many predictions that haven't come to pass and others that are written in such non-specific terms that provide a sort of catch-all for events. Looked at statistically they aren't remarkable, though they can be made to seem so by those who wish to report them selectively. You report things selectively - you've demonstrated that here, so, at least in that sense, you fit the category of someone whose claims should be treated with suspicion.  I'm not trying to be nasty towards you.  I'm telling you the good reasons why an open-minded person should not put their trust in your claims.

There might be Martin - how do you know for sure it isn't?  There might be other things going on with the people concerned to do with their condition. My mental health is fine -  and no chemical imbalances in the brain apart from the odd migraine here and there. The voices are not there all the time (thankfully) - I think that would drive me insane.

Far more to the point, how do you know your observations are not to do with the chemistry of your brain?  How can you eliminate the obvious explanation and propose one with no detectable mechanism?  It's extremely common for people to hear voices, some have other psychiatric conditions, others don't.  Some people are more suggestible than others.  The point is, that, because we know that the brain influences such things, then, unless and until you can test these things properly, under controled conditions, and show that it cannot be a result of the brain, it is far more reasonable to expect that voices in the head are caused by the action of the brain rather than by some exterior personality.

If I wire up a light bulb and switch it on I can demonstrate that when the switch is pressed the light comes on because of the electric current flowing through it.  If I encounter another light bulb that's already on, but I don't have access to the switch, the wires or the fusebox, then it's reasonable for me to assume that a similar process is in operation. It's far less reasonable for me to assume that this light bulb is being lit by undetectable telepathic energy from a group of little green men on Mars! It's so much less reasonable to assume such a thing, that nobody with an ounce of balance would even propose it, let alone believe it. Anyone asking "how do you know for sure that it isn't lit by little green men in a sceance on Mars", is missing the obvious point.  In your case you're deliberately avoiding that point, though I make it again and again. That's one of the reasons why I say you are demonstrating a closed-minded selectivity in your claims. 

Put concisely, it's absurd to propose that an event is cause by an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable form of energy, for which, numerous attempts to prove its existence have proved fruitless, when there is a perfectly good sientifically demonstrable and detectable explanation for similar events elsewhere.

[Jan]

No. The correct answer would be that everyone predicts things.

do they really? lol - that is rather a sweeping statement Martin.

You may be talking about predicitng something that you couldn't possibly have known. But when open-minded, critical people look at the great and famous predictors like say Nostradamus or Mother Shipton they find many predictions that haven't come to pass and others that are written in such non-specific terms that provide a sort of catch-all for events.

yes I have predicted about things which I couldn't possibly have known about and they happened. Usually I see visions or 'flashes' of events and happenings. I don't know when or where I am going to experience the visions - but now I try to make notes of them or I mention them to my hubby. I am interested in the reason why people get these visions - their purpose. For me so far they just show that there is much more going on within us and around us.

I find Nostradamus's predictions interesting (I have read a book about them many yrs ago).

You report things selectively - you've demonstrated that here, so, at least in that sense, you fit the category of someone whose claims should be treated with suspicion. 

all I have told you is some basic stuff about my experiences Martin. Again you do not really know enough about me to make that assumption - but again you are giving it a go aren't you ... putting me into a little box of your 'categories' - lol

I'm not trying to be nasty towards you.  I'm telling you the good reasons why an open-minded person should not put their trust in your claims.

lol - of course you are not Martin. Not a nasty bone in your body is there?

 An open minded person does not need to put trust in my claims - they can take it at face value (believe or don't believe me - it doesn't affect me personally either way). My experiences are my own - just shared here to show that I actually have the experiences rather than someone who just visits skeptic sites to read what resinates with their own minds. An open minded person would be keen to investigate for himself/herself - with an open mind. They wouldn't be afraid to go to a Spiritualist church and see for themselves what goes on.

Far more to the point, how do you know your observations are not to do with the chemistry of your brain?

we don't really know enough about the brain as yet, but when more than one person sees a ghost at the same time, chances are it is not to do with the 'chemistry' in one  individuals brain. Checkout that Windbridge site if you want to see what is actually being investigated to do with human potential etc.

 

Put concisely, it's absurd to propose that an event is cause by an invisible, undetectable, unmeasurable form of energy, for which, numerous attempts to prove its existence have proved fruitless, when there is a perfectly good sientifically demonstrable and detectable explanation for similar events elsewhere.

but when an event still happens and thousands like it are happening all over the world and through time in various places and to various people - obviously the events exist, they are being witnessed and experienced. As for being undetectable - well no we can detect some energy by crude mechanical instruments - such as analog and digital video cameras with infrared night-vision capabilities and hand-held camcorders, 35-mm film still cameras and digital cameras. Also analog and digital audio recorders and amplified or parabolic surveillance microphones. Atmospheric environment monitors, motion detectors, Geiger counters, seismographs and a thermal-imaging cameras and EMF detectors. These devices can detect fluctuations in magnetic, electric and radio/microwave energy levels.

And we know don't we that the EM spectrum is energy vibrating at different frequencies - is there a beginning and an end to this EM spectrum or is it infinite at either end?.

The best instrument to use though happens to be a human one. A medium (as the scientists do at the Windbridge institute and as they do in the many Spiritualist churches and halls all over the world).