was this a ghost ?

Tropez

keystone wrote: »

Agreed but I was wide awake, I had not been to bed. When you do watchkeeping or shiftwork you plan your sleep programme according to your schedule to ensure that you are wide awake and functioning correctly when you need to be.

But I do work shifts myself. Sometimes I'll be up until 4 or 5am, sometimes not.

The thing to remember is that humans are not designed to be nocturnal. The body takes biological cues from the light and while we can be taught to function at night, we'll never actually be functioning in optimum condition because our biological makeup is for a light-waking, night-sleeping creature. Studies have linked night-shift workers with a whole host of negatives, including heart, lung and mental health issues.

Working in private security, the amount of stories that go around about our guards having seen this, that and the other on a night shift is almost funny - but that's the point, the staff working in the same buildings during the day haven't seen a thing.

keystone

Welshwoofs wrote: »

You saw an image of something that wasn't there. There are all sorts of reasons behind people believing they've seen an apparition and a really common one is you catching a glimpse of something from the corner of your eye, or having your eyelid twitch and your brain filling in the blanks with a mental image drawn on the spur from memory. Other reasons can range from coffee intake, tiredness, pre-sleep/pre-waking or hallucinations etc.

or that I did actually see something. No it wasn't out of the corner of my eye. She was right in front of me on the corner of the staircase no more than ten feet away. Never ever seen the like of it again although I have experienced different effects in prewaking, presleep, caffeine etc that you have described anbd recognise them as such but like Derren Brown I don't use plants in case anyone is wondering.

She was in a hospice so from that we can deduce she wasn't in the best of health and you would naturally be worried. I'd bet my backside that on many occasions during those 3 weeks you worried about her....most people would. It just so happened that she died in or around one of the occasions you were worrying.

Yes I see what you mean and it would be contributory as I said on another post.

In fact it probably didn't happen at exactly the same time at all because, as you say, you were told later and unless you wrote down the exact time you thought your Mother had died, you really couldn't be accurate about it.

I appreciate your analysis but the fact it did and thats why I am being so dogmatic about it. I had the thought. It was just before 20.15 by my watch and when I got in exactly 15 mins later the 'phone was ringing to confirm that she died at 20.14 by the nurses watch.

Cheers

Person_one

DevilsAdvocate1 wrote: »

I read the above in a science magazine a while back and it said that there is still no theory as to what happens to the energy when someone dies. As the energy does not die - where does it go?

It is either cremated and turns to heat or buried and decomposes to form organic matter.

atrixblue.-MFR-.

i got to laugh, welshwoofs i was told by my science proffessor at school, there would be no science without thought or experience, studies are there to be debated no matter how controlled the study or experimant and finally there would be no study unless reports of the same thing unexplained happened, replacating with human intervention doesnt explain why they happen without human intervention. mentioning helucination and mental imaging is a scientific theory, again open to debate.

my professor always told me, everything in science is debatable, whether its a study, condition or theory, chemical, neurological, biological, or physics.

every scientist is out to debunk another, so trying to debunk an experience with scientific study i meaningless if their trying to disprove eachother in thier findings.

you could put the same study to 3 different groups of scientists who carryout the same tests in order and time scale and all three can come up with a different answer wich one would you believe when their all written down. because conclusions to all studys are based on opinion of the indevidual in interprating his experiments and study.

i believe what is infront of me i know when im awake when im sleeping and what i hear im not going to belive otherwise because a scientists opinion states otherwise.

Person_one

There are a multitude of prizes up for grabs for the first person who can provide scientifically sound evidence for the existence of the paranormal, none have ever been claimed:

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

Person_one

Sounds like an imaginary friend to me.

keystone

Person_one wrote: »

There are a multitude of prizes up for grabs for the first person who can provide scientifically sound evidence for the existence of the paranormal, none have ever been claimed:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now where have I heard that before?

Cheers

Person_one

keystone wrote: »

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Now where have I heard that before?

Cheers

Will you be having a go then? Over 1000 people have attempted to claim the million dollar prize, no winners so far...

keystone

Person_one wrote: »

Will you be having a go then? Over 1000 people have attempted to claim the million dollar prize, no winners so far...

Nope but then I have no reason to want to. There is no scientifically compelling evidence that such things don't or can't exist either.

Cheers.

esuhl

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

you could put the same study to 3 different groups of scientists who carryout the same tests in order and time scale and all three can come up with a different answer wich one would you believe when their all written down. because conclusions to all studys are based on opinion of the indevidual in interprating his experiments and study.

I think you misunderstand science. If three scientists carried out the same tests and had different results, none of the scientists would trust the results and would probably be eager to examine each others' work to work out who when wrong and why. If the scientists had the same results but drew different conclusions, you should trust no single interpretation and either draw your own conclusions from the raw data (if you can) or simply be of the opinion that you don't know.

A particular scientist may want to become famous by discovery or formulating new concepts, but they would not use sophistry to debunk their peers; if they did, their theories would soon end up being proved wrong, and the lasting damage to their credibility would far outweigh any benefits.

But, of course, human beings can be tragically fallible and scientists are no exception.

atrixblue.-MFR-. wrote: »

i believe what is infront of me i know when im awake when im sleeping and what i hear im not going to belive otherwise because a scientists opinion states otherwise.

I have a pragmatic "faith" in what's in front of me because I believe that, given the consistency and coherency of mental stimuli, it is rational to believe in a corporeal reality based on sheer probability and a lack of any other suitable explanation. But there's the possibility that I'm wrong.

I'd be interested to know what you make of the "brain in the vat" thought experiment (link below). Regardless of what scientists think, do you agree that it's possible that "what's in front of you" is an illusion?

http://www.iep.utm.edu/brainvat/