Scientists discover 'shadow person'

Scientists discover 'shadow person'

www.cosmosmagazine.com

SYDNEY: Ever feel as though you're being followed? As if someone is behind you, shadowing your every move? It might be your ‘shadow person', created by unusual activity in a specific brain region, a new study shows.

(visit the link for the full news article)

I'm sorry... I just noticed the date on this article...

Please move to a more appropriate forum...

[edit on 13-8-2008 by Tapped In]

First Bigfoot, now Shadow people...

Disclosure is coming soon!

www.cosmosmagazine.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by Tapped In


I'm not so sure Shadow people have anything to do with disclosure, but Bigfoot, maybe. Good article nonetheless.

What I don't like about articles like this is that they insinuate and/or suggest to the reader that they have found "the answer" to the phenomenon. The proposition that because an experience may be artificially induced through brain stimulation and thus wholely originating in the brain and having no external causal aspect is illogical. It would be somewhat like saying that because we can electrically stimulate someone to think they behold a ham sandwich that ham sandwiches have no external reality. Sometimes several people at once witness these strange occurrences and agree with one another just as well as they agree about the makeup of a ham sandwich.

Saying that none wholely originate in the brain would also be illogical. Ham sandwiches can be entirely hallucinated of course.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp
What I don't like about articles like this is that they insinuate and/or suggest to the reader that they have found "the answer" to the phenomenon. The proposition that because an experience may be artificially induced through brain stimulation and thus wholely originating in the brain and having no external causal aspect is illogical. It would be somewhat like saying that because we can electrically stimulate someone to think they behold a ham sandwich that ham sandwiches have no external reality. Sometimes several people at once witness these strange occurrences and agree with one another just as well as they agree about the makeup of a ham sandwich.

Saying that none wholely originate in the brain would also be illogical. Ham sandwiches can be entirely hallucinated of course.

Not really, considering ham sandwiches are know to be real and are encountered many times a day by many people who like to eat them. Shadow People aren't proven, are supernatural, and are in the same realm as spirits in regards to real science.

All the article did was say they can reproduce the feeling of a shadow person by stimulating a certain part of the brain. In my opinion, this shows us that feeling like someone is watching you is probably a genetic trait we used a long time ago - and still have, and is more strongly represented in some people - as a way to protect us from being ambushed by other creatures and competitors for resources.

The Bigfoot thing is an obvious hoax and this shadow person story has nothing to do with disclosure. They're just explaining - as a medical phenomenon - why people perceive "shadow people", who are therefore not really there. In this way this is similar to the somewhat popular theory that alien abduction victims aren't actually remembering an experience of being experimented on by extraterrestrials but actually recalling and misinterpreting memories of surgery performed on them at the hospital when they weren't properly anesthetized. Rather than provide disclosure of suppressed paranormal phenomena, they're giving us scientific evidence that would do more to disprove the conspiracies and fringe theories.

With all that said, if you really want to see shadow people I suggest using speed in order to stay up for a few days without sleep. They should pop up then.

Originally posted by FeedMeACat
With all that said, if you really want to see shadow people I suggest using speed in order to stay up for a few days without sleep. They should pop up then.

I like the suggestion. Sleep deprivation is an easy way to have hallucinations, auditory or visual. If you're with a friend you can have some pretty interesting conversations that make no sense. Be sure to write them down though, or at least the ideas. You'll laugh even hard when you read them after you catch up on your sleep.

I of course do not advocate the use of speed, but sleep deprivation is a weird experience, which in actuality probably shouldn't be recommended either.

[edit on 13-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Originally posted by OnionCloud

Not really, considering ham sandwiches are know to be real and are encountered many times a day by many people who like to eat them. Shadow People aren't proven, are supernatural, and are in the same realm as spirits in regards to real science.

All the article did was say they can reproduce the feeling of a shadow person by stimulating a certain part of the brain. In my opinion, this shows us that feeling like someone is watching you is probably a genetic trait we used a long time ago - and still have, and is more strongly represented in some people - as a way to protect us from being ambushed by other creatures and competitors for resources.

Since I anticipated a response like this I prepared my own ahead of time and will try to express it succinctly.

By that reasoning, phemomenal conciousness isn't known to be real. All evidence for it is anecdotal. No pictures, no video, little agreement on its nature, only fuzzy, objective, correlative measurements. Yet it seems very few even in scientific circles dispute its reality (of course some do dispute it), yet it is pure faith. It is lended credence simply because of the stunning number of "eye witness" reports that seem to pop up every day. At this point it is actually outside the field of scientific inquiry.

Since it lies at the extreme of the subjective scale, from my point of view, phemominal consciouness is absolutely the only thing I can know is real with any certainty whatsoever. I have never witnessed another person in the act of being conscious nor another's being as such. Witnessing behavior (awake vs. asleep or in a coma) does not equate to proof of the existence of phenominal consciousness.

To rephrase you above statement:
In short conciousness isn't proven, is supernatural, and is in the same realm as spirits in regards to real science.

Originally posted by EnlightenUp

Since I anticipated a response like this I prepared my own ahead of time and will try to express it succinctly.

By that reasoning, phemomenal conciousness isn't known to be real. All evidence for it is anecdotal. No pictures, no video, little agreement on its nature, only fuzzy, objective, correlative measurements. Yet it seems very few even in scientific circles dispute its reality (of course some do dispute it), yet it is pure faith. It is lended credence simply because of the stunning number of "eye witness" reports that seem to pop up every day. At this point it is actually outside the field of scientific inquiry.

Since it lies at the extreme of the subjective scale, from my point of view, phemominal consciouness is absolutely the only thing I can know is real with any certainty whatsoever. I have never witnessed another person in the act of being conscious nor another's being as such. Witnessing behavior (awake vs. asleep or in a coma) does not equate to proof of the existence of phenominal consciousness.

To rephrase you above statement:
In short conciousness isn't proven, is supernatural, and is in the same realm as spirits in regards to real science.

We know consciousness exists simply because of death. When we're alive, our brain is active. When we are dead, there is no activity. Consciousness therefor exists within the living brain.

We can alter our consciousness through many means. Psychoactive drugs, brain probes, diseases, sleep deprivation, etc. If consciousness weren't real, then we wouldn't be able to alter it in the physical world, and I wouldn't be able to claim I am conscious.

The fact that I can claim I am conscious doesn't rely on any faith, we know consciousness isn't going anywhere anytime soon. We've have it for millions of years in one form or another, it appears to be built in to our genes, just like every other critter in existence who exhibits similar traits (brain death/death being the simplest, in my opionion).

Within the confines of consciousness are of course levels of awareness. Some brains are much more simple than ours, and because of that have awareness of different things. Some animals are aware in a much higher capacity than us in certain things too, simply because of the physiology of the brain that has been changed by evolution. This is another strong indicator that consciousness is real, because if the construction of your brain differs (species to species, for example), then the things you are aware of differ as well. Humans aren't built to see the IR part of the electromagnetic spectrum, yet some insects like Bees can detect levels of IR light because of certain patterns displayed on flowering plants that only exist in the IR part of the spectrum because they have the proper tools.





All this is my opinion supporting my view, but your claim is pretty much unfalsifiable at this point in our technological evolution. That's the great thing about science, though. At one point we thought it was unfalsifiable that the sun rotated around the earth. We now know that is definitely not the case. The field of neuroscience is pushing forward, and we will find out what consciousness is exactly one day, and it will still be argued over from a religious point of view with the whole "ghost in the machine" thing.

It is almost always possible to argue against science with unfalsifiable claims, and that is the nature of supernatural beliefs.

Interesting audio/video featuring Steven Pinker on "Ghost in the Machine."

[edit on 14-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

[edit on 14-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

reply to post by OnionCloud


Reports and measurements don't say anything about the phenominal aspect, that is, the purely subjective part-- the qualia. The use of psychoactive substances or lack of sleep may change brain activity and may manifest in an objectively quantifiable way, it proves nothing of the existence of this inner world that can only be reported by a being that possesses speech (access consciousness)-- speaking of it doesn't prove its reality since it is merely a verbal report. Not being able to speak of it doesn't prove its absence (aphasia).

My claim isn't whether or not phenominal consciousness exists, but that its existence or nonexistence isn't falsifiable or verifiable on scientific grounds. You claimed the same as you seem to have interpreted my claim as being "phenominal consciousness doesn't exist".

What I find most interesting is depite that, it is nearly uniformly accepted as having reality.

In any case, I believe it exists and isn't the exclusive province of humans but rather is ubiquitous and intrinsic in being.

Bees are capable of detecting ultraviolet, not infrared (IR) and cannot detect the wavelength of light we report as red. Pit vipers for example detect infrared with their pit organs and so "see" the body heat of their prey.

I wish I could have thought of a better example than "ham sandwich" but I was really hungry at the time.

Since this is all somewhat digressive to the topic, I'll reiterate my original point; the artificial induction of an experience in a brain doesn't validate or falsify that the experience under normal conditions in some cases has or in all cases hasn't an external origin.

Reports and measurements don't say anything about the phenominal aspect, that is, the purely subjective part-- the qualia. The use of psychoactive substances or lack of sleep may change brain activity and may manifest in an objectively quantifiable way, it proves nothing of the existence of this inner world that can only be reported by a being that possesses speech (access consciousness)-- speaking of it doesn't prove its reality since it is merely a verbal report. Not being able to speak of it doesn't prove its absence (aphasia).

Perhaps your definition of phenomenal consciousness is different. It is defined as "...a state of consciousness, in which a person is constantly aware of himself as well as outside factors." It's the state of "being", or recognizing you are conscious and realizing you have surroundings. If you have a scientific report that says all test subjects can be manipulated to alter their consciousness in a specific way, or that all people who have X disease or Y part of their brain damaged/removed, then how is it subjective?

A feeling or emotion is simply certain parts of the brain being stimulated by something that they sense. The stimulus responsible could be completely fictional, like seeing a "shadow person", or perhaps the brain picks out a figure in the dark, much like a person can make shapes out of clouds in the sky.

There's also the fact that there are numerous studies on people who have lost functions of their brain from parts being removed or altered by accidents, and how it effects their consciousness. Some people who have certain diseases or chemical imbalances lose varying levels of their self awareness, or gain awareness of other selves within themselves, or have auditory and visual hallucinations as a regular part of their life, like schizophrenia, dementia, and cataplexy, to name a few. There are even some people with narcolepsy who have waking dreams, where they'll dream when they're completely awake and aware. These are not just verbal reports, as they are heavily studied with machines that allow us to see brain patterns to understand what exactly is happening.

I don't know if you're being purposefully vague by using terms like "the qualia"and "inner world", but that's what it is. You need to specifically say which parts you believe are subjective, otherwise this doesn't make any sense.

My claim isn't whether or not phenominal consciousness exists, but that its existence or nonexistence isn't falsifiable or verifiable on scientific grounds. You claimed the same as you seem to have interpreted my claim as being "phenominal consciousness doesn't exist".

I didn't misinterpret your claim. You believe that it exists, but think no one can prove it. I believe it exists and can be proven by the fact that we can easily alter our consciousness, and the what we know of diseases that effect our brain and how certain brain damage can effect our consciousness and level of awareness.

Bees are capable of detecting ultraviolet, not infrared (IR) and cannot detect the wavelength of light we report as red. Pit vipers for example detect infrared with their pit organs and so "see" the body heat of their prey.

Yeah, that was my mistake. Thanks for the correction.

I wish I could have thought of a better example than "ham sandwich" but I was really hungry at the time.

Yeah, I've done that a few times on other forums...

"Artificial Induction" is an excellent way to tell what is going on in the brain. The chances of real Shadow People existing are slim to none. In fact, I'll go with none. All of the evidence is verbal and anecdotal, and there is no solid proof. When a scientist finds out that they can exactly mimic the experience in people by stimulating an area of the brain, chances are that part of the brain is responsible for the experience.

What starts the experience doesn't have to be that complicated. Perhaps the person thinks they saw a shadow out of the corner of their eye. This could activate a process that stimulates the part of the brain in question, and makes the person be more aware of their surroundings, and give them reasons why they should be more aware. Humans see patterns in everything, which is easily shown by the amount of virgin mary's that have appeared on pieces of toast and in trees. These traits could have been useful (not for detecting holy figures back then, obviously. Pattern recognition in general) and inherited by successful generations of humans during evolution as a way to protect what is theirs (regarding seeing something in the shadows that isn't there and essentially becoming more aware because of the stimulus), as I said before. Some people could have those genes responsible for this experience strongly represented, while others don't.

Even though we both agree consciousness exists, we'll have to agree to disagree on the fact that it can or can't be proved.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Originally posted by OnionCloud

I wish I could have thought of a better example than "ham sandwich" but I was really hungry at the time.

Yeah, I've done that a few times on other forums...

"Artificial Induction" is an excellent way to tell what is going on in the brain. The chances of real Shadow People existing are slim to none. In fact, I'll go with none. All of the evidence is verbal and anecdotal, and there is no solid proof. When a scientist finds out that they can exactly mimic the experience in people by stimulating an area of the brain, chances are that part of the brain is responsible for the experience.

What starts the experience doesn't have to be that complicated. Perhaps the person thinks they saw a shadow out of the corner of their eye. This could activate a process that stimulates the part of the brain in question, and makes the person be more aware of their surroundings, and give them reasons why they should be more aware. Humans see patterns in everything, which is easily shown by the amount of virgin mary's that have appeared on pieces of toast and in trees. These traits could have been useful (not for detecting holy figures back then, obviously. Pattern recognition in general) and inherited by successful generations of humans during evolution as a way to protect what is theirs (regarding seeing something in the shadows that isn't there and essentially becoming more aware because of the stimulus), as I said before. Some people could have those genes responsible for this experience strongly represented, while others don't.

Even though we both agree consciousness exists, we'll have to agree to disagree on the fact that it can or can't be proved.

[edit on 14-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

I think we're disagreeing on the meaning of consciousness or to which aspect is being referred.

Prove to me beyond a verbal report that you see have the inner experience of the "redness" of an object of which I may experience the "redness". Heck, assuming phenominal consciousness exists, scientifically prove or disprove that the experience is the same or different or any degree in between for that matter. Perhaps you're red-green colorblind but then it moves into evaluating a difference in hardware, not inner experience. The problem transcends a simple inability to measure something such as what orbits what in the solar system. Even if I could somehow directly experience the subjective consciousness of another person, this still wouldn't be an objective proof of anything regarding the existence of subjective consciousness-- still just verbal and anecdotal evidence just like for shadow people.

Artificial induction of an experience will also certainly correspond to the brain areas involved in that experience were it "real". That is also true of inducing experiences where their only reality is within the brain itself.

In my own experience with "shadow people", they were quite independent of my own body of movements. Some literally were shadows on the wall as clear to the eye as a persons shadow in the sun. Some were dark areas in the middle of a room that move and walk. The phenomena didn't require any effort at interpretation of something ordinary such as seeing the Virgin Mary in toast. If they're hallucinations, they're darn good ones with as much stability and clarity as a ham sandwich before me. There was no sleep deprivation involved nor mind-altering substances. I make no claims as to the reality or unreality of "shadow people" or the true nature thereof but I find the experiences are fascinating.

Being able to tell what a color is doesn't relate to consciousness, it relates to pattern recognition. We are all the same species, and only a hereditary disease prevents us from seeing the whole visible spectrum because we lack certain physical aspects of our sight sense that prevents us from seeing that part of the spectrum. Because of that, it is likely that we experience colours very similarly. There is no 'absolute' colour, but that has little impact on life.

We also know that other species can see in colour, but are obviously not on the same level of awareness that humans are because in their evolution they haven't mutated in the same way we have as far as level of awareness goes. If by chance one of the animals did, it obviously didn't benefit them because their species isn't on the same level of awareness of humans. There are some interesting species out there, particularly the octopus (there's a thread on this forum about it already). I think they're very intelligent, more so than a lot of other animals out there. Dolphins are up there too.

The power to interpret something personally is an evolved function of the brain, and definitely a more modern/evolved one. In earlier stages of evolution, all humans did was make spears, migrate where to food and water went, and just existed. Eventually something amazing happened, about 50 to 70 thousand years ago, and we began to assign meaning to things. We began to bury people completely dressed and with rituals. We began painting, inventing, bartering, etc. There was a time when we didn't have that level of complexity, then we attained it because our brain evolved to be complex enough to do it, and it's definitely a trait that has helped us, so it stayed in the gene pool. What matters is that we attained it, not the fact that what I may think is red is blue for you. To me, that interpretation is just another function of pattern recognition. We see the colour red as a pattern that is created by a very specific part of the visual spectrum. One human mind may interpret it different than another, but we both call it red because someone decided long before us that that's what that pattern is called.

Evidence for personal pattern recognition is as easy as looking at the cloudy sky with a friend and seeing two different animals in the same cloud, similar to my example earlier.

Artificial induction of an experience will also certainly correspond to the brain areas involved in that experience were it "real". That is also true of inducing experiences where their only reality is within the brain itself.

I'm not sure of your point here. That's what's called reproductability, and is one of the tenets of the scientific method. It shows that we can reproduce the results on different subjects with different administrators. We see something happen in the brain when a person has a "real life" experience, we then activate the same area of the brain and the patient gets the same feeling. That's pretty reliable, but not definite because there could be other unseen factors that are effecting the final outcome, but that's why we have science, so we can be rigorous and find out the answer the best we can.

What you experience and what is true are often not the same thing, and I'm speaking for humans in general. Truth and Belief are very important concepts in the scientific method. The phenomena did require interpretation because you had to identify it. If you had previously not heard about "Shadow People", you might have identified it of something completely different.

Just to show you some other scientific reasons for the existence of shadow people, read this.

[edit on 14-8-2

[edit on 14-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

As a side note, I am really enjoying this discussion. I have definitely learned things about terms like qualia, which I didn't know before, and had no idea there was such a philosophical debate behind it.

It's pretty interesting that you use the example of colour too, because I remember the first time that question was raised in my own mind. When I was... probably 7 or so, myself and two friends were walking down a hill, throwing rocks around. I said something about the particular colouration of the rock in my hand (I think there was a bright red/brown streak in it), but both of my other friends said it was something different, albeit similar. At that point we all kind of realized the fact that my red/brown might be someone elses orange. A slight difference, but definitely a difference in pattern recognition.

Originally posted by OnionCloud
As a side note, I am really enjoying this discussion. I have definitely learned things about terms like qualia, which I didn't know before, and had no idea there was such a philosophical debate behind it.

It's pretty interesting that you use the example of colour too, because I remember the first time that question was raised in my own mind. When I was... probably 7 or so, myself and two friends were walking down a hill, throwing rocks around. I said something about the particular colouration of the rock in my hand (I think there was a bright red/brown streak in it), but both of my other friends said it was something different, albeit similar. At that point we all kind of realized the fact that my red/brown might be someone elses orange. A slight difference, but definitely a difference in pattern recognition.

Saying the color is slightly different could be a difference in labeling whereas the actual experience may be nearly identical.

I those questions at a very early age myself and as far back as I can remember I felt the subject of consciousness to be "peculiar" in a way. At this point my thoughts actually seem to transcend my ability to use language to convey them-- I can only turn to mental images. This does no good in trying to present even the questions to another person even though it's quite likely they could think them as well. Telepathy would be so much easier!

While it seems quite a number early in life ponder the subject in some way, finding any really deep answers is still perplexing to the best minds.

Edit:
There's a good thread in the Research Forum.

Consciousness Research

[edit on 8/14/2008 by EnlightenUp]

reply to post by Tapped In


If you read the full account, it clearly states that the shadow person occurred after the patient's brain was stimulated with electricity. I've noticed many people siting this article to explain away shadow people that have been discussing in the paranormal boards. However, I don't recall reading any shadow people accounts in which the witness was hooked up to some electrical devise that would act to stimulate the brain, similar to that identified in this article. Not to mention that fact that there are accounts of shadow people in which the witness was not sleeping just prior to their experience.....this article cannot be used to explain away the shadow people accounts that are all over the net; it just simple indicates that hallucinations can be INDUCED by APPLYING ELECTRICAL CURRENTS to the brain; meaning the hallucinations were artifically induced, and well, scientists have been doing that for sometime under experimental conditions.

hey guys- my 2 cents - my mother is epileptic. whenever she gets sick, she sees "shadow people" on the wall, which usually scare the hell out of her. this has been going on since I was a kid. only recently did i learn that the prescription she was taking for epilepsy, "dilantin", acts like a methamphetamine, and when her dosage was off, these shadow people appear. she always believed they were ghosts. but now after reading this, and knowing about the dilantin, i no longer agree with her.

hey guys- my 2 cents - my mother is epileptic. whenever she gets sick, she sees "shadow people" on the wall, which usually scare the hell out of her. this has been going on since I was a kid. only recently did i learn that the prescription she was taking for epilepsy, "dilantin", acts like a methamphetamine, and when her dosage was off, these shadow people appear. she always believed they were ghosts. but now after reading this, and knowing about the dilantin, i no longer agree with her.


arrrgh, sorry for the double post. i hate that.

[edit on 24-10-2008 by governmentsecrets]

reply to post by EnlightenUp


Here here! Proving one cause is true, doesn't necessarily disprove any other cause. Now for that ham sandwich....