[tony6789 (OP)]

y doesn't people believe in this stuff? ghosts r real we just have 2 face the facts. i mean look at all the evidence there is! we have them on camera and pics! they r real! [:0]

NEVER! underestimate youth

[another_someone]

The first problem is with the very nature of the thread title.

There is a general assumption that all that is real is natural, and thus for something to be supernatural, it is no longer natural, and thus unreal.

Once you assume something to be real, you have to ask what is it.  Simply giving it a name does not, in any tangible sense, make it real.

When you talk about ghosts, what is it you are talking about?

In some ways there is the same problem as with UFO's.  Clearly, UFO's exist, insofar as we do have unidentified flying objects, but the fact that they are unidentified does not make them one thing or another, it simply makes them unidentified.

In the same way, it is easy to say that one has an unexplained phenomenon, but there is a huge gap between something being unexplained and presuming some explanation for it.

George

[harryneild]

Hmm i havent seen any pics that are really really convincing. Is there any scientific evidence for ghosts? Could you post some of the evidence because i am not a believer until it is proved to me!



"Knowledge has to be improved, challenged, and increased constantly, or it vanishes." Peter F. Drucker

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by harryneild
Hmm i havent seen any pics that are really really convincing. Is there any scientific evidence for ghosts? Could you post some of the evidence because i am not a believer until it is proved to me!

It seems that any photos or evidence that is seen can be logically explained and discarded as nothing extra-ordinary.

I'd settle for a clear definition, one that is capable of disproof (or proof).

What is a ghost?

If one is simply talking about objects that move without explanation, then does that prove a ghost, or simply that some objects move for an unknown reason?

If one is talking about an image of a dead person, would a movie do the trick?  OK, this may be over-trivialising, but what I am trying to say is that a visual image is not sufficient to prove physical existence, or at least, that all you can prove to physically exist is the image itself.

George

[gecko]

A) what is a "ghost"? some people say a door opening by itself is a ghost, instead of a draft. others claim to see black and white blobs moving. my friend once showed me a photograph with some optic disturbance around his leg and told me that was a ghost.

B) what is the "proof"? is it that people, even you, have seen them? you are trusting you and other senses far too much. our senses and methods in our brain to process them are far from perfect. weve all seen something hard to explain. it just means we dont know how to explain it.

[tony6789 (OP)]

Originally posted by another_someone

The first problem is with the very nature of the thread title.

There is a general assumption that all that is real is natural, and thus for something to be supernatural, it is no longer natural, and thus unreal.

that is what i  mean

NEVER! underestimate youth

[tony6789 (OP)]

the exact definition is: a ghost is a belived imprint of the soul in witch the soul haz not "crossed over" as it's yearnings for or to do something are stong

NEVER! underestimate youth

[tony6789 (OP)]

if you want proof please take the timew to go to this site:ontarioghosthunters.bravehost.com/myPictures/Ghost2-640_1_.jpg

NEVER! underestimate youth

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by tony6789
the exact definition is: a ghost is a belived imprint of the soul in witch the soul haz not "crossed over" as it's yearnings for or to do something are stong

OK, to put it in more tangible form – if I were to die, and become a ghost, what would be the relationship between that ghost and the me that exists today?

The ghost clearly does not have my body, since my body is dead.  It clearly does not have my DNA, as it, I assume, has no DNA at all.

If it does not have my body, then what is it that you would see of me?  Could that which you see even exist outside of your own mind, since the physical me is dead?

That information contained in me may live on, we could certainly look at meme inheritance (a la Richard Dawkins), but that has nothing to do with the physical me.

Ofcourse, you could also argue that the physical body that you see is dead, but you can see back through time to a time when the body was alive.  Unlikely though this may be, it is still different to presuming that the body remains alive beyond the time of death.

George

[tony6789 (OP)]

the physical body of u would be decayed or decaying. The "ghost" that u would c is merael a former image of u. like a shadow. does that make any sense??

NEVER! underestimate youth

[another_someone]

quote:Originally posted by tony6789
the physical body of u would be decayed or decaying. The "ghost" that u would c is merael a former image of u. like a shadow. does that make any sense??

But why one former image rather than another, or why an image at all.

A shadow is created, and is effected by, the contemporary physical object associated with it.  For a ghost, there is no contemporary physical object, so what is this shadow of.  Which moment of time does this shadow reflect.

Death itself is a complex process, where different parts of the body die at different times, until the last part is dead.  Is the image that of the body at the moment at which the last part has died, and thus of a very ill person who is already partly dead?

Do we all project shadows (or ghosts) into the future from the very moment we are born?

It also leads to the question of what is the function of the human brain during life, if the same intelligence (and sub-intelligent behaviour) that we assume to be caused by the functioning of the human brain continues to function in a ghost that lacks this brain (because the brain was a feature of the body that died, and so as the body is dead, so the brain must be dead)?

George