The Movie Paranormal Activity

We aren't talking about what either of us can do, we're talking about what kind of evidence would be required to persuade us of the claims of the paranormal variety. I have no idea exactly what you are referring to with this comment so I can't say anything further. And this thread is not about what evidence there is for ghosts, it's about what evidence would be required to confirm the existence of ghosts. The evidence that they are paranormal is that paranormal is defined by the fact that it is unexplained, and contradictory to normal experience as backed by scientific methodology.Ghosts, should they be confirmed exist would be (at least initially) unexplainable to science and contradictory to the model of reality that science has so far built. This makes it paranormal. Paranormal is not some 'quality' a thing has, it is not some metaphysical voodoo something. It is quite literally a subset of the presently unexplained.'The paranormal' isn't something that exists or doesn't exist. It is a group of notions about reality that run contradictory to what we experience in a mundane normal routine. Clearly you are using the word in a way that is different than normal usage.Nevertheless, regardless of the semantic argument of whether we should label them paranormal - the OP is quite clearly referring to things such as ghosts and demons. He used the umbrella term presumably because he didn't realize that he'd find his thread dragged into a pointless semantic debate about personal definitions that differ from the norm.So, what evidence would you require to confirm that ghosts exist? No what evidence is there that ghosts exist. Just, what kind of circumstances would you require to occur before you'd accept that ghosts - as I've defined them - exist?

On the contrary. It isn't that 'paranormal' is a quality a thing has, it just means 'unexplained, and contradictory to normal expectations as buttressed by scientific methodology'. It is a specific brand of the unexplained and mysterious. Making whatever ghosts are (assuming they exist), paranormal more or less by definition. But this thread is about what kind of things would be reasons to think ghosts exist. That is: what evidence of the existence of ghosts is required for you to accept their existence? Ghosts are a paranormal entity. Unless you are saying ghosts are normal? If a ghost turned up, it would be abnormal, yes? It would contravene present day scientific understanding of consciousness, memory storage and so on. It would be: the paranormal. We aren't discussing the natural phenomena that you and I agree are the roots to ghost stories. We're talking about what kind of evidence would convince us that ghosts actually exist.How are you defining paranormal? It seems people are using definitions I've never encountered and that this is at the heart of the confusion. The OP is clearly talking about ghosts (actually the film sets up as a ghost story, but the ghosts turn out to be something worse (but also 'paranormal')).So let's say that relatives of the couple in the film say they have evidence of ghosts existing. What would that evidence have to look like to persuade you?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Describe to me a test that would confirm is something, anything is 'natural'. How about, the definition of paranormal? I had a whole post about it, but you replied with a cryptic comment about folders. If you are just trying to tell me that you have personally vetoed the term 'paranormal' then just say so. But paranormal has a relatively agreed upon meaning and ghosts are part of the phenomena that are thus labelled. So if a ghost was found, then we have a evidence of one paranormal phenomenon.Paranormal is just a word, not a folder. It means something. What does it mean to you?

If you like.But that doesn't matter. The label, if you choose to use it or not, exists. And it means something. But forget the word paranormal. Clearly it is a problem.Let's replace the word paranormal with 'ghosts and or demons'. I think ghosts are easier to obtain evidence in favour of them so I've chosen to discuss ghosts.You haven't really described what kind of evidence (other than it must be high level confidence evidence that demonstrates that they are natural, whatever that means) would persuade you that ghosts exist. So spill the beans. Forget that nasty word you disagree with on some metaphysical or linguistic principle and let's move on to the actual topic.To reword the OP:

quote:

---

I just saw this movie for the first time. For those who have seen the movie, and based on the hypothetical if it's real, that is if actual footage like this was actually found, would this constitute real and hard evidence of ghosts or demons? Or would this all be chalked up to camera glitches because it looks fake?
...
And would footage like that actually be objectively considered to be evidence of real ghost activity?

---

The answer is no, not really. So let's discuss what would be evidence of real ghosts. Its more interesting than a silly discussion about the meanings of words.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Ah well.

But we're not talking about those cases in this thread.What would you require evidentially speaking to confirm the existence of a being that has the memories and personalities of a dead human, but is not made of meat? That's the question basically being asked in this thread.Edited by Modulous, : sorry cross wires on which reply was to me...ahem edited out erroneous comment

I agree. Can you think of a hypothetical scenario which would change your mind? And what evidence might you require? That makes no sense. Paranormal is just a label for an extraordinary thing that defies what we thought we knew about the world through science. There's no credence to it. I am not saying that the bumps in the night we hear ARE paranormal. I'm saying that if we had evidence of a ghost. That would be evidence in favour of at least one concept that the word 'paranormal' was originally coined to cover.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I wouldn't say ghosts are all fiction. Some are artefacts of an imperfect perceptual/memory system Should actual immaterial dead humans turn up - I'd think they'd remain unexplained for a fairly long time.

Sure - but most of our knowledge is of this indirect kind. Including the evidence for evolution which relies on someone else (aka scientist) conducting experiments and transmitting this knowledge to us by proxy.That's basically why I picked that setup. We have proxy agents telling us the results of experiments to learn things about life before death. Surely proxy agents telling us the results of experiments to learn things about life after death should be equally good, right?

I'd have thought by now the answer to this is, 'no'. It seems to me jar is thinking of some metaphysical attribute a thing has and that since he doesn't know what this attribute actually consists of, he cannot think of any tests to determine whether something has it. He postulates that if he is dead, he would have more direct contact with this metaphysical quality something has and can then possibly determine it. I think he is conflating the supernatural with the paranormal in the direction of metaphysics rather than natural language.But Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster, if real, would be paranormal and natural.Jar hasn't even explained how someone can determine if something is natural while he is alive.Underlying all of this, there seems to be a undercurrent of thought that supernatural means inherently unverifiable and that anything that is verified is inherently not supernatural. But we have a word for unverifiable, unverifiable