The Movie Paranormal Activity

OK. This is only supernatural in the sense that the witness has described it as a "ghost" and in doing so bestowed such powers and violations of natural laws on it.The same person concluding that it was probably a trick of the light or a shadow would not call the same phenomenon supernatural at all. They might say the cause was unknown. But they wouldn't say supernatural. The first is known to us as fiction. The second is only known to us as "supernatural" because people wish to express the belief that they have witnessed something spooky, mysterious and inexplicable.In either case supernaturality is derived from the "author" of the description. Not the event itself.But should we ever find verifiable evidence of conscious but immaterial beings which are able to somehow interract with the material world (e.g. emit light so as to be seen) at will - Then we will have evidence of ghosts. Until that happy day we only have examples of people ascribing "spooky" qualities to unverifiable experiences.

If "you" were the immaterial yet detectable entity with the personality of a deceased human would that still necessarily be classified as "unknown" or would that point to the supernatural?

You could say that about any unique and hypothetically enlightening experience couldn't you? Well if "you" have crossed from being natural to supernatural there must be some interraction between the two states must there not?Otherwise how did "you" get from one to the other?Some form of duality would seem to be inherent in your once-I-am-dead scenario whether you realise it or not.

Out of interest - If you were the ghost in question would you consider that to be evidence of the supernatural/paranormal?If you found yourself in some ghost like existence (ala Patrick Swayze) would that constitute evidence of the paranormal as far as you are concerned?Or would that be "unknown"....?

Wouldn't it be better to explain this relentlessly cited answer in more detail rather than simply repeat it in mantra like fashion? Can you explain why "after I am dead" in that sentence could not be replaced with all manner of potentially equally enlightening and equally hypothetical alternatives?For example: Maybe; if I receive divine revelation, I might be able to find a way to test whether something is paranormal or supernatural. But until then, I really have no idea.What is it about being dead exactly that inclines you to elevate that particular hypothetical experience above all others when considering the question posed in this thread? Likewise the various alternatives - No? If not then why not?

That is unlikely to help explain your answers is it? Divine revelation might hypothetically present you with a method of doing just that. In exactly the same way that your once-I-am-dead scenario might do. In this respect the two scenarios are equally unforthcoming until actually experienced. As you have already said you cannot imagine what the test might be in your own once-I-am-dead scenario either. In this respect the two scenarios are equally unimaginable. That is what divine revelation will reveal to you. Until you have had your divine revelation you won't know how. In exactly the same way that until you are dead you won't know how to test for supernaturality in your preferred hypothetical scenario.Jar - Seriously where is the difference between the two scenarios in their hypothetical ability to provide the knowledge you are insisting upon? Why does the death scenario have such an exclusive hold on your thinking here?

Why do you think that being dead might lead to this in a way that divine revelation (for example) cannot? Unless you can imagine how that could happen in one scenario but not the other I fail to see why you think this is important.Is what you can imagine the deciding factor here?

What does you (in)ability to imagine have to do with anything here? Have you ever experienced divine revelation that revealed to you a definitive method of emphatically distinguishing between natural and supernatural?"MIGHT" this hypothetical scenario occur in the same way that your own hypothetical scenario "MIGHT" occur?

I asked jar explicitly if experiencing a ghost like existence of the Patrick Swayze type would constitute evidence of the supernatural and he simply evaded the question by reciting his mantra at me yet again.If you died and found yourself existing in such a manner would you consider that evidence of the supernatural? Assuming you could resist doing nothing more constructive than stalking Demi Moore can you imagine how you might go about seeking to demonstrate the existence of this supernatural existence to scientists? What would you do to make such supernaturality known to mankind? I probably grant my own bizzarre deeply personal and wholly unverifiable experiences with less credence than I do the verifiable evidence I garner through what you call "proxy" sources. Don't you?Otherwise my dreams about the Gruffalo are as good an indicator of reality as any other are they not?

So "MIGHT" this hypothetical scenario occur in the same way that your own hypothetical scenario "MIGHT" occur? Do you think there is a reason to consider one scenario more likely than the other? As you would expect unless you had experienced the actuality of either scenario.

After divine revelation happens? Or death? Or either?

And the question posed in this thread is what exactly constitutes that "something". Well I am glad to see we have got past your morbid obsession with death.So short of divine revelation and death scenarios what other means of helping you definitively conclude the supernatural might there be?I asked before and you evaded - But if you found yourself in the Patrick Swayze type ghost situation (i.e. dead but conscious and able to materially interract via your will alone) would you consider that evidence for the supernatural or just something "unknown"...?Please don't tell me what you MIGHT know. Just tell me what you would conclude from that specific scenario.

Can you explain what you mean by 'paranormal' in this context?Because I think by most common definitions of the term a dead person whose immaterial conscious will can interract with the material world would defibnitely constitute evidence of the paranormal.

Why do you need to die to tell me what you mean by 'paranormal'...? You are taking your bizzarre reliance on the death scenario to unprecedented heights. Can you explain what you mean by 'paranormal' in this context?Because I think by most common definitions of the term a dead person whose immaterial conscious will can interract with the material world would defibnitely constitute evidence of the paranormal. Likewise if you were possessed by a demon, exorcised and in the process acquired knowledge of how to definitively distinguish between supernaturality and naturalness.The hypothetical "Ask me after it happens and I MIGHT be able to tell you" scenarios are near infinte aren't they?

Can you explain what you mean by 'paranormal' in this context?Because I think by most common definitions of the term a dead person whose immaterial conscious will can interract with the material world would defibnitely constitute evidence of the paranormal. Your once-I-am-dead scenario is just as hypothetical (and just as silly) as any other isn't it? Nor can you imagine how you would do this once dead.Do you agree that the whole idea of a once-I-am-dead version of "you" that is separate from your brain and the chemicals that affect it flies in the face of all the evidence? What would "you" be like in the absence of things like seratonin, testosterone etc...? Would you still be "you".....?Your much cited once-I-am-dead scenario falls foul of the mind body problem however you look at it.