The Movie Paranormal Activity

I agree with you, I think.
I too have no paranormal or supernatural folder. I have an unexplained folder. If I had evidence of the paranormal or the supernatural I might add a folder. I am very skeptical of any evidence being presented. What most people probably have in there paranormal/supernatural folder is in my unexplained folder. The evidence must show it is supernatural, not that it might not be natural.I know there are fictional supernatural characters, but they are fiction so that leaves them out. I can imagine a supernatural character, but that does not put them in a paranormal or supernatural folder, that puts them in the fiction folder.I have no reason to think there could be anything supernatural or paranormal. Therefore, I have no use for a folder for them.FoldEdited by Theodoric, : subtitle

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

I don't care about your stationary, metaphorical or otherwise.Care to address what I said in plain English without retreating to terse cryptic responses? If you continue to do this I will be forced to conclude you really aren't interested in discussion.

Paranormal should be a subfolder within your unexplained folder. There are unexplained things which are not classed paranormal and unexplained things which are classed paranormal. Ghosts, should they exist, are unexplained and paranormal. If we can confirm ghosts exist we still haven't explained them. So they remain in the unexplained folder, but are still filed under 'paranormal'.If we did explain ghosts, in natural scientific terms, it would be 'normal' and be removed from the paranormal folder and the unexplained folder.The only time you should ever move something from a general 'unexplained' folder to the subfolder 'paranormal' is if the unexplained thing is described in further detail that gives it the appropriate attributes to be considered paranormal.

"Theres more gravy than the grave about you..."Scrooge Edited by 1.61803, : Add Scrooge

Since we are talking about what I can do, what YOU can do is really irrelevant as well as what you think I should have.First, there is no evidence that ghosts exist outside of fiction. Fiction happens to be a known thing.If we could confirm ghosts exist they would still just go in an unknown or unexplained folder. Assigning them to paranormal when we don't have any evidence or indication that paranormal exists is simply silly.

---

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

I disagree. There are many unexplained things, but there is no reason to think any of them are supernatural or paranormal.Ghosts are just an explanation people use to explain the unexplainable. There is no reason to think ghosts exist. Ghost are a fiction to explain the unexplainable.The popular opinion is that ghosts are a paranormal entity, but there is no reason to really think there are ghost. The phenomena attributed them are either explainable or unexplainable due to a lack of data.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

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.

I would require evidence at a very high level of confidence and repeatability that shows that ghosts are natural.I cannot imagine any evidence that would cause me to place them in a paranormal folder.

---

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

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?

It means that the person using the word feels better or more secure or safer because he can put a label on the unknown.

---

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

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.

I can't imagine evidence of real ghosts.

---

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

Ah well.

We may be talking past each other. I do not have any reason to think there is anything paranormal. Ghosts are fiction. Until there is some evidence of any sort they are fiction. Maybe that is paranormal.In my way of thinking giving them the label paranormal is giving some credence to the concept.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts