Nope. If I were to detect that this were nothing more than motion-going, I’d say so, just as I did in that unfortunate thread that the OP had abandoned, where you and I found ourselves about to co-write a Platonic dialog before we stopped and said, hey, we’ve got better things to do. Here, I believe that there is an important point to be made about the difference between dismissing an explanation because the evidence doesn’t suit us, and offering an explanation because of the evidence that we find. That’s why my opening comment in this thread supported the OP’s suggestion that the ghost event was likely something ordinary and natural that merely appeared to be a ghost event, but then followed that almost immediately by pointing out Cisco’s logical fallacy. It is a very important point that whatever we might offer in the way of explanation is no more logically valid than what the witness of the ghost offered. To me, it is probable that there was a natural explanation for what happened; however, it is probable that I won’t win the lottery, and yet I might. As your and my discussion progressed, I felt that two more no less important points emerged as well — namely, (1) that it makes no sense whatsoever to demand empirical evidence of a supernatural entity anymore than it makes sense to demand to see the corners of a circle, and (2) that all evidence for empirical events is either circumstantial or anecdotal. I’m not picking nits here. These are critical distinctions.
I agree. However, all the consequences that you describe are physical and therefore are necessarily explainable by physical causes. If there is some light, then it has to be the case that there were quantum level decays. If there is some sound, then it has to be the case that something vibrated. And so on. The point is that if ghosts are encountered only in this way, then they are not supernatural at all — they are natural. They are a part of the universe. As I explained before, merely being unable to find a flashlight or a violin when you saw your light or heard your sound does not constitute evidence of any supernatural entity. It can not. That’s because a supernatural entity, once again, is not detectable by empirical means. We must consider the definitions of our terms. Supernatural means outside of nature. Now, that said, we may see evidence of a supernatural event (as opposed to a supernatural entity), but that evidence is indistinguishable from evidence of a natural event. It really makes no metaphysical difference whether light is caused by random photon emissions or whether angels wrestle with electrons until their orbits collapse — either way, a light shines.
Sure they do, but so what? These ghost sightings always have detectable consequences as well, such as flames shooting out of fireplaces and wailing coming out of the walls. What you said was that if you were a ghost, you’d make certain to appear regularly like clockwork. What I said was that that would not prove you were a ghost since your appearances would be indistinguishable from ordinary natural phenomena that we simply do not yet understand.
They aren’t difficult to detect. People detect them all the time. But you have to be there when they occur or else find circumstantial evidence later. But either way, you cannot know, for example, whether the chair moved because of some natural cause or some supernatural cause since movement is itself evidence that is empirical. Every event in the universe always leaves empirical evidence. That’s why science chooses empiricism as the tool with which to examine the universe. But the evidence is of the events only, and says nothing about their metaphysical agency.
:o :eek: