^From what I've read and heard from people who believe in ghosts... They're (allegedly) not haunting particular people, but places -- often the places where they died -- because they're not able or willing to move on to whatever it is that comes after death.
Assuming that ghosts are real, maybe certain people are more sensitive to that phenomena than others? Personally, I'm on the fence regarding that subject. I've never seen anything, but maybe there's something to it. I certainly believe in God and an afterlife.
Has anyone had the area scanned for higher than normal electromagnetic fields? It would be interesting to set up a temporary shelter nearby and run power and internet cabling to it. See if the equipment proves to be more reliable.
Okay then, let's explore that. For the sake of argument, let's say that we have determined according to our scientific theories that for the indisputable phenomenon X, there are three mutually exclusive possible explanations, A, B, and C, each equally likely. So, the likelihood of each of A, B, and C is 1/3. Therefore, if you were asked the question of whether C were so, you would have to answer probably not, unless the theories don't hold up. My point, then, is why favor one explanation over another? The scientific method really demands further probing in order to pick a favorite.
What? C'mon now. I might not have bad breath, but rose scented, or breath that activates a rose scent? Something like this should be easy to repeat if it's easy to occur in this manner. I since dealt with plenty of roses since then via girls and Valentines day and surprises, and I've yet to be in a place where suddenly, the flowers I had in the car beside me left a scent on my shirt that jumped up into my nose when I took a breath. Apparently not. Aren't you the one who suggested that the better my sense of smell is, the more likely I'd hallucinate a smell? I gave examples which point out how much I rely on that particular sense, so if it's now irrelevant, then so is your initial claim which the example addresses Scientific facts can definitely be disputed, or even refuted, for example what we've seen with aspects of dinosaur anatomy in just the past 30 years. I'm not saying "take my word for it - the science theory is bunk - THE END" but the implication that a science book is definitely the beginning and ending of the discussion here is something I'm not buyin'. And I DO want a scientific explanation - one that makes sense according to the situation and circumstance. My friend was sitting in a chair and the pic flew off the wall into her lap. She actually yelled out when it happened. I was looking at her right when the incident occurred, and the 3rd person was sitting near her. The path of the fall was "circular." Your right, I misread who that response was directed at. [/quote]Then learn about the science. Find a rational explanation, and open your mind to the possibility that you might have imagined it.[/QUOTE] You seem to be working under the assumption I'm unfamiliar with science, and that's just not the case. Now if it were a visual discrepancy, I would be 90% open to the hallucination theory. 30% if it was auditory - I have pretty good hearing, but I've "heard" noises which I can dismiss as imaginary. Olfactory hallucination? 5% open to the possibility because despite my arguemnts to the contrary, I did at least consider it. But I just don't think such a thing could happen in this circumstance the way it did, and not the way it's been explained away.
The incident doesn't make sense. The explanations for the incident don't add up with regards to the situation and what did/could occur within the confines of that experience. It's as simple as that.
I meant air was getting in and out of the house, not in and out of you. I said that if anything, being more attuned to the sense of smell might make you more likely, not less, to fool yourself. These are two different things. In the former I'm talking about the brain function of smelling, in the latter I'm talking about the nose function. While almost always they work together, they can work separately, hence hallucination. The implication is that you don't know much about how the brain works. I agree that scientific facts are always being disputed, but I'm talking here about very basic neurology with decades of solid and reproducible evidence to back it up, not some fringe or untested theory. I'm not assuming that you are unfamiliar with all sciences. I am judging, based on the evidence in this thread, that you are unfamiliar with the specific brain science involved. What drives you to choose these arbitrary percentages of probability? Do you have some data that shows that 30% of most hallucinations are auditory...or that 30% of sounds are hallucinations, while 5% of smells are olfactory hallucinations? These numbers are completely arbitrary to the reality of the situation, describing only how likely you are to agree with an explanation, not how likely an explanation is to be true. I thought about replying to the picture story, but I have a feeling it would just be more of the same. You claim to not want to believe in ghosts, and that you've considered other viewpoints. But you're still treating this experience as a sacred cow. There are multiple rational explanations, and you haven't yet provided any good reason for dismissing any of them, only that you don't think they're good enough.
If such things existed, then they would have to be either natural or artificial, logically-speaking... Supernatural is a pretty useless word, really!
Stone tape theory...? (i.e. the theory that "ghosts" are essentially recordings. Lovely idea from a great TV play...)
I've seen a very similar thing myself - a shrink-wrapped pizza that flew off the shelf in our local supermarket. About six or eight feet horizontally, not just falling, from a shelf with a wall behind, so nobody threw it. I don't think ghosts did it though. (I'd guess either some physical vibration throwing it off, or a gas pressure buildup from something decaying inside popping through the vacuum-wrap for a slight reaction-thrust. This is was about 10 or 12 years ago though, and we all know how made-up-on-the-fly the memory is...)
In reality that is true, but people use the supernatural to put something beyond the need for a logical explanation. It gives them an excuse to make up an explanation that they can assume to be true as long as it doesn't contradict the facts. So in that sense it is a very useful word, as it allows for unlimited intellectual laziness.
^ Yes, that science as it is presently established is incapable of explaining a given phenomenon. Sometimes it is a matter of science being insufficiently advanced to offer an explanation, which might be rectified at a later time, or the lack of sufficient data means it's not possible to offer a scientific explanation. Meaningful data is essential.
^But often there are two problems with believers; they confuse the unexplained with the unexplainable, and they invent unnecessary supernatural theories to cope with both.
Doesn't Barnes & Noble Bookstore have a category for the unexplained? It's called Speculation. It includes subcategories such as Wizardry/Witchcraft/Magical Studies; Tarot (or other fortune-telling devices); UFOs; Ghosts/Paranormal. Astrology/New Age usually has a category on its own because of the wide variety of subjects and titles. Now I think "speculation" is a great word to describe what we consider as the supernatural or paranormal. It's all about metaphysical phenomena that cannot be quantified or explained by science. Or can't they? We speculate that the bizarre disc we see in the night sky is an alien vessel, just as we speculate it's a weather balloon.
I based those percentages on how I judge my own perception, and openness to what you and others have said, and past experience. I'm not claiming it's based on any data other than my own experience and how much I allow for alternate explanations based on how I confident I am on my perceptions. Example: My hearing is pretty good, but I've had experiences where I "heard something" but know it wasn't a "real" sound as recent as 5 days ago as I was trying to fall asleep. Was able to confirm it was not "real" as my dog didn't react to the loud sound I thought I heard. So most of the time I'm confident that what I hear is real sound, but due to some past experiences on "non-real" sounds, I'm totally open to the opinion I could image a sound. And with regards to what "science" you're (now specifically) saying I'm not well versed in, yeah, I don't own any neuroscience books. My experience with it is limited to dogs and cats experiencing neurological problems and CT scans. With that said, I don't have to read up on human neuroscience to be confident about what I do or do not experience via my senses, just as a paleontologist doesn't have to see a living dinosaur to give you his or her opinion on them, but whatevah. The reason being they don't add up in the situation or the circumstance - hello? Just like everyone else, I've had countless experiences throughout my life, and the VAST majority don't require a second thought as to why they occurred or the science behind them. The 2 instances which I wrote about just don't add up with anything else. They are unique to me, hence my questioning WHY they were different from past events which, although may be fantastic, are certainly not unexplainable on any level. The way I see it, "soul" is just a religious word to explain that living things may be driven to live via some inner, natural energy that keeps us going while we're physical. But when we die, would that (hypothetical) energy just disappear? IF anything like "ghosts" are real occurrences, my theory is they are energy echos of what they were in life, and not truly conscious or self aware of what they're doing. Energy echos with Turrets syndrome, I guess...
You do realize that this has no objective or scientific merit though, right? It is therefore not a good measure at all of reality. But you're absolutely and completely wrong about this. That's what I'm trying to get across. The mind makes it seem as if the senses are perfect recorders of reality, but they are not. The brain works under this rule: Get it Mostly Right Most of the Time. Never get it all right all of the time. For example, did you know that you are blind for about 40 minutes each day? I bet you didn't, because your brain is very good at fooling you into thinking you're not. That's it's job. But you're still operating on the false assumption that your perceptions of reality are accurate. They are not. No one's are. Here's an interesting blog post, and another, by Yale Neurologist and President of the New England Skeptic's Society, Dr. Steven Novella, touching on the subject. You don't have to take it from me, take it from him. But there is no evidence that there is any sort of inner, natural energy. Here is an interesting article which touches upon how brain function fools us into thinking we have a soul.
I just call it Brain Farts. I'm sure that's an oversimplification, but I lump it in with "putting something down and not being able to find it five seconds later".