The Movie Paranormal Activity

A skeptical approach is helpful, here.First of all, is what we're seeing easily faked? If it is, then we'd point out that the footage is useless. In science - we have to isolate the thing we're looking for by excluding all other reasonable hypothesese. If we see a chair moving - does it move in any way that can be achieved through deception?Then we consider the source. If Richard Dawkins, James Randi, Phil Plait and Urist McAtheist filmed the paranormal and released it along with a dose of humble pie, this would be more credible thana) A Hollywood movie studio,
b) A paranormal investigator out to make a name for themselves.We must also realize that a single persuasive piece of evidence is still insufficient because humans are notoriously easily fooled. Coverging lines of of evidence are what we should be demanding, not a single photograph or 30second video clip. This is the same as RAZD's pseudoskeptical argument, so you can certainly see this line of reasoning expanded and argued about elsewhere if you are interested.While asserting 'this is positively a fake' is a positive claim - you should also note that this is the default position in science. We design experiments to rule out as many of the common cognitive problmes humans have (for instance, double-blind experiments to avoid even unconscious manipulation of results) so that when they are presented nobody can say 'we can't have confidence in this result because you failed to account for {something known about that can cause these kinds of results}Faking, lying, deceipt, fraud, forgery, and even their unconsciously applied analogues are known about. So we have to rule them out.Most home videos don't do this.And in a surprisingly large number of cases, the method of the fakery can even be deduced with a little time and effort.So 'fake' until proven otherwise is a strong heuristic that prevents us from inadvertantly accepting ideas that are not true.And so yes, simply asserting 'fake' is perhaps over-applying the heuristic, but when asked to expand on it I think you'll find many that suggest a given video or what have you is fake - will have a more nuanced view. More of a 'I can't prove its not a ghost moving the chair, but I can explain how it could be a person thus giving us no reason to suppose it was a ghost in the first place'.We rule out the known before accepting the unknown. Denial: It isn't real. It can't be real. No, it's not real.Skepticism: Hmm, interesting. There are possible explanations for what I've just seen that are not paranormal and insufficient grounds to rule them out. Most 'ghost' videos that have been examined have either turned out to be camera artifacts or fakes (elaborate or simple) so that is the default position from which the evidence has drag us and the evidence presented here doesn't contribute much to pulling us away from that position. So, tentatively, pending further investigation, this appears to be one of the many fakes that turns up on a near daily basis.Naturally: A skeptic might look at some video footage and declare it is 'obviously fake' because of their experience of looking at claimed footage previously.Much like an antique dealer might assume the rare undiscovered Rembrandt is a fake until denying its authenticity becomes untenable. Hume famously wrote 'Of Miracles', which is oft quoted in these discussions, here is a less often quoted section

quote:

---

But suppose, that all the historians who treat of England, should agree, that, on the first of January, 1600, Queen Elizabeth died; that both before and after her death she was seen by her physicians and the whole court, as is usual with persons of her rank; that her successor was acknowledged and proclaimed by the parliament; and that, after being interred a month, she again appeared, resumed the throne, and governed England for three years: I must confess that I should be surprised at the concurrence of so many odd circumstances, but should not have the least inclination to believe so miraculous an event. I should not doubt of her pretended death, and of those other public circumstances that followed it: I should only assert it to have been pretended, and that it neither was, nor possibly could be real. You would in vain object to me the difficulty, and almost impossibility of deceiving the world in an affair of such consequence; the wisdom and solid judgment of that renowned queen; with the little or no advantage which she could reap from so poor an artifice: all this might astonish me; but I would still reply, that the knavery and folly of men are such common phenomena, that I should rather believe the most extraordinary events to arise from their concurrence, than admit of so signal a violation of the laws of nature.

---

We do have footage exactly like that and we consider it entertainment rather than evidence Seriously, to answer the unspoken 'what would it take, then?' question: Demonstrate that ghosts are as real as I consider horses to be. Or capybaras. Or maybe some animal I've never seen but still accept the existence of. I've never been to Africa, but I still accept it.But if you claim there is an island shaped like real human heart and on that island all the people that live there have no heart and that the island itself maintains their communal circulation....I'm going to need more than the word of you and some ancient authors or occasional people that knew an uncle that flew over the island. I'll need more than a photograph of a heart-shaped island.

Well, I have said throughout my posts in this thread that I have no idea what might make it possible to test after I am dead, but if after I am dead I find that I am also still conscious and aware, then that itself might be sufficient to get me to reconsider my position. Certainly all possibilities except the first; I cannot imagine any way that I can communicate effectively with the dead. As I mentioned way, way, way back in this thread, asking me after I am dead may be difficult. No, you seem to be assuming that my beliefs in GOD is based on consistency, reason, rationality, logic and evidence. It's not.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

jar - it seems fitting you would be the recipient of my 5,000th refutation post. Then again, I guess the average reply on this forum is to you and Crash anyway abe: Also - exactly 6 years after I first registered! OK, so your life after death might be considered evidence to you of the paranormal.So presumably, someone else's life after death should also be 'potential evidence', right? It's easily imagined. If you can imagine being conscious after your brain is rotten, you can imagine manifesting to being visible to those with unrotten brains, surely. Just imagine them appearing in front of you and using either traditional sound waves or they directly stimulate the aural centres of the brain.So it's a simple test. You and a terminally ill friend create a two part encryption key and your friend swears on his family's life he will reveal the key to nobody while alive. Then he appears to you after death as a ghost, tells you the second part of the key. Hey presto - pretty good evidence of life after death. Not quite direct experience of being alive after dead, but witnessing someone else being alive after dead would constitute evidence for the paranormal wouldn't it?I can certainly attest that this would be overly sufficient for me but maybe I'm a credulous fool I never mentioned, nor assumed anything about your beliefs in God. I can assure you, if I was to assume anything, it would not be that you had based them on reason.What I was actually saying was that your objection: Is nullified if, as many supernaturalists believe, you are not part of this natural world. That the 'self' is a supernatural core to a natural body or somesuch notions of souls and the like. Assuming you are not part of this natural world but instead part of the supernatural world - could you now imagine positive evidence for the supernatural?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

HUH?Sorry but exactly how do I go about assuming I am not part of this natural world? Does that even have any meaning?I can't see any tests that might allow me to believe I am not part of this natural world as long as I am alive and part of this natural world.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Substance dualists would suggest that your soul is not part of the natural but is spirit from the spirit world (aka part of the supernatural realm). And further that this soul is the centre of your identity. Thus your body and your brain are part of the natural world. Your soul is not, it experiences the natural via the body.So all you have to do, is assume you have such a soul, a part of your being that experiences the supernatural and this should take care of your objection of not being able to imagine it. If you are merely part of the natural world then we can say for sure you aren't doing any tests when you die. You cease to exist and your former components will degrade and dissipate into the general ecosystem.There are of course, no tests to determine 100% which metaphysical system is true. There are tests that can be performed while alive to confirm that dead ancestors exist for example. And if life after death is a sufficient condition for you to possibly consider there to be evidence for the paranormal then you don't need to die to be in that position.If life after death is not sufficient - what did you have in mind for when you die and are conscious. What is special about your own survival of your death as opposed to a loved one's?

Again, everything you posted, even if true, is still totally irrelevant. It does not matter what "substance dualists" might suggest, the question is what do I see as possible.Second, if I find that I still exist after I am dead, then I would certainly have to reconsider my position.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Not really, in fact quite possibly the opposite. I don't think surviving your death is possible, I think it is 'paranormal' and all paranormal things are not real and therefore not possible. I can, however, describe what things might cause me to change my view. It is these things that are of importance not your personal views about what is possible. It is about what can change your personal views about what is possible.You suggested that being dead you might be in a position to acquire that evidence, and even having the capacity to find said evidence may be evidence enough.I suggested that evidence of others being dead but aware should also work.You haven't explained why this is not the case. You have just objected that you couldn't imagine a dead person who was still aware, conveying information to you. The limitations of your imagination are what is not relevant to this topic. Indeed - that is why I am asking that if you find others still exist after they have died - might that also cause you to reconsider?

But I have never found others that still exist after they have died, and cannot even imagine how I might test that if it did happen.It really is that simple.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Correct, that's why we skeptics are persuaded they don't.The point is that should the 'never' be changed to 'sometimes' at least some of us skeptics would change our views. This thread is about what evidence that we are not presently aware of would subsequently change our views about what we believed with regards to the paranormal. Obviously if we only imagine evidence as it currently is - we won't ever change our minds since we already have an opinion on that evidence and what it implies. So we need to imagine a change in evidential conditions: eg., something that has not happened previously, happening (eg of the eg: Ghosts of your dead family visiting you).I would agree that life after death would satisfy this condition for me, I just don't understand why you think it needs to be you personally. Just because so far nobody has come back, if they did would that persuade you that there was at least some life after some deaths and possibly cause you to reconsider your views with regards to the paranormal?It seems childishly simple to postulate a world in which nothing is different from this world and suggesting that you would have the same beliefs as you do now. What we are doing here is postulating a change in evidential content of the world that would cause us to change our minds regarding the paranormal. You have a dead body.
But a living person.If you lack the capacity to think up experiments to test this I already provided you with one: Information that only the dead brain had access to. And clever scientists can come up with others I'm sure. Can you not even imagine someone else being able to imagine what to do with a dead body and a ghost to confirm that there is life after death? It is as simple as trying to think of situations where what you believed was true, is false. What you believed false, true. What you weren't sure about confirmed one way or another. Apparently you lack that capacity.

Perhaps, but again perhaps you have not bothered reading what I have written.I have repeatedly said that if someone provided a test that could actually identify something as supernatural I would gladly reconsider my position.So far no one has done so.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

And perhaps you have not bothered reading what I wrote. Having read what you wrote I know this. Which is why I described such a test. Not to identify something as 'supernatural' since that is just a label, but to identify things often labelled supernatural as actually existing. And so far you've not told me why the test I described could not demonstrate the existence of life after death - a thing you seemed to have implied would be regarded as suitably paranormal. So who is not bothering to read who?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Run the test. What are the results?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Supply me with the equipment and I will. I will need 1 ghost of one confirmed dead person.I may have mentioned this is about the hypothetical evidence that could come forward in some hypothetical future that would be sufficient to persuade us of the paranormal.So hypothetically I have ran that test and have confirmed that the ghost has the memories/personality of the dead person and I am content to change my views on the paranormal and life after death.I don't know what your views exactly are - but would this alter any of them? Including your view that you'd have to be dead to confirm life after death paranormality.

Won't change my views until you actually do run the tests and I can verify and replicate the results.And there in lies the problem.I cannot imagine any way to get a ghost and if I found what purported to be a ghost I cannot imagine any test to actually verify that it was really a ghost.I cannot imagine and equipment that would do the trick.It's all well and good if you want to pretend you have such stuff, the question and topic though is "What evidence might support the paranormal or supernatural" and my answer is "Off hand I cannot imagine any evidence that would support the paranormal or supernatural, but if someone actually does so up with a way to do so, bring it, let's test it and if it works and can be replicated, then I will reconsider my position."It really is that simple.AbE: seems I need to address this yet again and again and again... That is NOT my view.I will try yet again.MAYBE, after I am dead, I might be able to answer the question of whether or not something is supernatural or paranormal. Since I have not yet been dead, I cannot answer that question one way or the other. However, if I find after I am dead that there is some after life, then I will almost certainly need to reconsider my position.Edited by jar, : AbE:

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Well of course, not! That's the whole point. We are thinking of things that might persuade us of paranormal phenomena, not things that have already persuaded us of paranormal phenomena.Are you content now that being dead is not a special circumstance and that it is possible to imagine acquiring information of the afterlife without first dying?As a help, allow me to help your imagination deficiency. Does it possess the memories and personality of a dead human?That's a relatively easy thing to test. A computer for my previously described experiment would be good.
Or for a more general one, with less careful aforeplanning relatives/loved ones of the deceased identifying those key personality traits should be sufficient.And rest assured, jar, I didn't misunderstand you. As I said in a previous post

quote:

---

You suggested that being dead you might be in a position to acquire that evidence, and even having the capacity to find said evidence may be evidence enough.

​

I suggested that evidence of others being dead but aware should also work.

---

You see? I'm aware that it's a MAYBE, not a DEFINITE. As I said then, I'm just helping you think of a way it could happen while being alive - it's that simple Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.