behold!... The magic of photo shop!!!
Why can't ghosts exist?
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
behold!... The magic of photo shop!!!
Dog! I love you guys! I feel so at home here now....almost as good as at the 'special house' with all of the doctors....
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
I'm certainly open to all possible natural explanations before resorting to the paranormal ones. RE: ghostlights, here's a good webpage about them and what they might be.
Earth Lights: Spooklights and Ghost Lights, etc.
http://inamidst.com/lights/earth
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
By "ghost" I am here referring to whatever the cause may be behind various "haunting" phenomena. From the overall evidence obtained from paranormal investigations around the world over the decades, certain common attributes accrue: they appear to be intelligent beings (when they're not residuals). They appear to be beings who have died. They often haunt old places with a turbulent history of death and/or intense human suffering. They seem to be trapped in some unnatural state of fixation on their former life. WHATever they are, these entities I call by the name of "ghost".
RE: Kant, he took space and time to be ways the mind represents reality to itself. Do you think this argues for a transtemporal and transpatial state for the noumena?
It doesn't seem like paranormal is a final solution to you, but more of a default solution UNLESS a rational reason is proposed. And even then...
C C touched on a big problem with any paranormal/supernatural conclusions. By definition these cannot be influenced nor influence the natural world. If we can see something, if we can record something, then it must be a natural phenomena, otherwise there would not have been anything to detect. Likewise, seeing something but not being able to record it, or visa versa, defies our understanding of how things work. There's nothing magical about a camera that can see visual things we cannot, but both cameras and our own optics do have limitations that can often alter what we see vs what was really there.
There is no contradiction it is possible i guess if you want to talk if's and but's but the truth is ghosts do not exist, when you die you don't float around in some kind of Limbo state freaking out the living.
Ghost's, daemons, dead spirits is all nonesense, Jinn on the other hand do exist and they are inhabitants of the earth just like we are except they have no "physical" earthly body like we do, Jinn are confused as ghosts of dead people and other strange things humans have decided to call them.
Jinn are real and exist but they are not dead humans.
Peace.
Evidence please.
Then like I said before, how does a non-physical thing influence the physical world without being physical? Can't have it both ways.
Magical Realist
Valued Senior Member
Well, I don't know how a naturalist defines "nature" anymore. Is technology nature? Is human culture nature? Are singularities as in black holes nature? Are virtual particles nature? OTOH, if we are talking "how can a non-physical entity influence the physical realm", the mind does this all the time. The mind, while expressing itself thru the physical, is not identifiable with the physical. As given it is something expressly and qualitatively different from the physical. The origins of it's agency--faculties like reason, freewill, intentionality, purpose--remain for us a relative mystery. Even a person, when you think about it, is not a physical thing like their body or a chair. They are more of a cumulative organism of subjective experiences extended in time but not in space. So the problem of how a non-physical being interacts with the physical world, while not understandable at this time, definitely seems to be going on somehow even in our everyday lives. Perhaps we are ALREADY the "ghosts" we fear so much to posit.
There would only be noumenon, since quantity was removed as well. Since so many others chatter about "monism" behind the appearance of many, I suppose Kant's own inconsistency often goes unnoticed there, despite Schopenhauer. If nothing becomes the case after death and the cessation of manifested content, then even in non-Kantian context the bill seems met: That kind of absence would also be non-fragmented, atemporal, aspatial, and so-forth. No meaning whatever.
Our critical deduction by no means excludes things of that
sort (noumena), but rather limits the principles of the Aesthetic
(the science of the sensibility) to this, that they shall not
extend to all things, as everything would then be turned into
mere appearance, but that they shall only hold good of objects of
possible experience. Hereby then objects of the understanding are
granted, but with the inculcation of this rule which admits of no
exception: "that we neither know nor can know anything at all
definite of these pure objects of the understanding, because our
pure concepts of the understanding as well as our pure intuitions
extend to nothing but objects of possible experience,
consequently to mere things of sense, and as soon as we leave
this sphere these concepts retain no meaning whatever."
Your face
Yeah. I think it's all due to aliens. There are no spirits of dead people, or anything silly like that. But aliens have powerful advanced technology. They can easily create holograms, and they can easily tap into something as simple as a digital camera to create all kinds of weird effects.
Not at all. The possibility that aliens with advanced technology exist does not breach any laws of physics that I know of. The idea that dead people can hang around as disembodied spirits in such a way that they can affect the physical world breaks all kinds of laws.
The simpler explanation is that the aliens are doing it!
Of course, simpler than that is the explanation that there are no ghosts or aliens. But that couldn't be right, could it?
Windows are made of glass.
Sure. Suppose the window was slanted slightly - possibly upwards and backwards, and possibly at an angle to the camera. The girls are closer to the window than the figure standing behind them, so the figure behind may not have been illuminated as much or reflected in the right way to be captured in the photo.
However, looking at the photo again, I can see flaws in my reflection explanation. It seems that the girls are standing on a path or road, and it would be unlikely for a window to be located where it would need to be to produce the effect. So, here's another idea:
The photo was taken at night. The exposure time would have necessarily been quite long. Look at the brightness of the lights in the photo! They appear not as well-defined lights but as big blurry bright blobs. Once again, the whole photo is blurry, suggesting that the camera probably moved slightly during the exposure.
Now, there's the idea: the figure in the photo probably moved rapidly while the photo was being taken, while the two girls essentially stood still. That is, their boyfriend (or whoever it is) either started holding the girl's arm then moved away ("Hey, how about we get a photo of just the two girls?"), or he started out of shot and moved in radidly. Over the time of the exposure, his lower body was not moving as rapidly as his upper body and arm, which resulted in the lower body being captured reasonably clearly, but the head and upper body being "smeared out" over the frame of the photo.
This theory is actually supported by the very blurry nature of the figure's shoulder/head area. Basically, the further towards the head you go the more blurred the image becomes. In fact, you can see a more or less double image around the shoulder area.
Oh no, wait. I'm wrong. It must be aliens.
I don't think it's faked. It may be, but more likely is some kind of explanation like the ones I've given above.
There you go, Magical Realist. We're both wrong! It's not ghosts, and it's not aliens. It's Jinn!
It must be Jinn, right?
Your face is an insult? I wasn't aware you were that ugly.
You know i don't have evidence so don't expect aa serious answer, if i had a penny for everytime I was asked for religious evidence id have enough to buy you cosmetic surgery for your offensive face.
See I am not a complete woowoo, I debunk magical nonesense with more magical nonesense, in a scientific way ofcourse.
Peace.
Sure, just like using Russell's Teapot or the Invisible Pink Unicorn to show how silly it all is.
*sigh!* unfriggingbelievable.
have you noticed you don't feel in your skull?? have you noticed your sense of self is not felt or experienced in your skull??
because the 'soul' being referred to is not taking place in the mind. the result is in the heart area. whether it is living or not or if it can be classified as such is undeterminable but it might possibly be.
birch:
Have you noticed that when you burn your finger, you don't experience the pain in your skull, but in your finger? But you know what? When you burn your finger while you're in a brain-scanner areas of your brain associated with pain light up. What can we conclude? Well, we know that nerves connect your brain to your finger. And we know where the pain centres are in the brain from those scanners. The obvious conclusion seems to be that the perception of pain happens in the brain, even if it doesn't seem that way to you.
Now, consider the possibility that your "sense of self" just might take place in your brain. Possible or not?
Also, if your sense of self does not take place in your brain, where do you think it takes place? And by what mechanism? Another problem is that if your "self" is completely separate from your body, then how can it have physical effects on your body? In other words, when you will your finger to wiggle, how is that message transferred from your disembodied "soul" to the finger? What's the process, exactly? How does the non-physical interact with the physical world?
What makes you think the "soul" resides in the heart, exactly? Do you know what the heart actually does? It's a pump. It pumps blood around the body.
Have you noticed that when you burn your finger, you don't experience the pain in your skull, but in your finger? But you know what? When you burn your finger while you're in a brain-scanner areas of your brain associated with pain light up. What can we conclude? Well, we know that nerves connect your brain to your finger. And we know where the pain centres are in the brain from those scanners. The obvious conclusion seems to be that the perception of pain happens in the brain, even if it doesn't seem that way to you.
Now, consider the possibility that your "sense of self" just might take place in your brain. Possible or not?
Also, if your sense of self does not take place in your brain, where do you think it takes place? And by what mechanism? Another problem is that if your "self" is completely separate from your body, then how can it have physical effects on your body? In other words, when you will your finger to wiggle, how is that message transferred from your disembodied "soul" to the finger? What's the process, exactly? How does the non-physical interact with the physical world?
What makes you think the "soul" resides in the heart, exactly? Do you know what the heart actually does? It's a pump. It pumps blood around the body.
oh really, i didn't know the heart pumped blood and was an organ. that's really not the issue we're discussing.
the pain in the finger is also going to affect your feelings in the heart area, now tell me why?
tell me why we have a sense of self in the heart area continuously? you can't.
what makes you think that our sense of self which is not directly physical (like the body) can't be classified as being a living state?