It *doesn’t “come from” anywher. It is constructed from existing materials. I don’t know how many times I can say it.
It only exists as “art” because we say it does. It’s real existence is just the sum of its materials.
I was quoting you. You keep asking where art “comes fropm?” It doesn’t “come from” anything. The question makes no sense. “Art” is the craft of arranging already existing materials to create an aesthetic effect.
they’ve located memory very precisely.
Huh? How does it do that? The word exists as a word, but that’s ALL it is. What’s the confusion?
You have to define your terms first. What the hell does “disembodied essence” mean? Where does this “essence” reside in the body and what is it made of?
We know that consciousness cannot continue to exist when the brain is dead because we know for a fact (as certainly as we know aerodynamics) that consciousness is caused be the brain and is dependent on it and is part of it.
From a complex combination of external input, analysis and emotion. It’s still all brain chemistry.
Artistic ideas don’t really spring full form, by the way. They are worked out in the medium. Trial and error is involved.
What does “higher level” mean? Why isn’t synapses good enough? What can’t they do that requires magic as an explanation?
I’m quite familiar with this stuff, and I assure you, the “watcher” goes away. The “watcher” is still the brain. I have a lot of experience with Zen mediation and I am familiar with the phenomemon of the “ego” seeming to drop away and the sensation of an impassive “observer” lying above the ego. It’s still just the brain. All it means is that the “ego” part of the brain does not comprise the whole of coinsciousness. When the brain dies, the “watcher” dies with it.
That is exactly the way debunking is defined in the dictionary. If you disprove the alleged “supernatural” part, you have debunked it. If you can posit any way at all, no matter how seemingly unlikely, that something can be explained by natural process, then you have debunked the supernatural.
Like I said in the other thread, I have real problems with the idea of ghosts despite my experiences. But is “coincidence” any more scientific or provable than ghosts in cases like the one related? The daughter probably saw Grandfather with plenty of things; possibly more often than the cat.
I am not saying you are wrong but how could you possibly prove yourself any more than someone who attributes it to the supernatural?
It’s simple. The difference is that one thing is physically possible and the other is not. The flatly impossible is never a legitimate hypothesis for anything.
I’m still curious about what Marley has to say but I like getting your read on this all as well.
Prove “coincidence” to my satisfaction; and be warned I may decide to use the same standards you do with the supernatural. Also be warned that I haven’t personally experienced this thing you call “coincidence:” and consider it flatly impossible. So your standard of proof is going to have to be fairly high.
I’ve come across voluminous evidence for the existence of ghosts.
I. Friend: [In a bar] "I don’t know MFM, there’s some pretty weird shit in the world.
Me: “Well, you have a point (hic).”
II. I once sat next to a folklorist who specialized in ghosts. Apparently ghost reports in ancient times consisted of animated bones, while in the 19th century amorphous sheets were the preferred spooking mechanism. In the late 20th century, ghosts preferred the “Strangely cold spot in the room” treatment. Explain that smart guy!
III. Over at about.com, they’ve collected 26 images of ghosts. Now I’ll concede that some of them are fakes and some naive interpretations. But what are the odds that all 26 are something other than ghosts? I can’t discuss all of them, but here are some highlights:
The Brown Lady, taken in 1936, “…is arguably the most famous and well-regarded ghost photograph ever taken.” It’s a double-exposure.
Lord Combermere (1891). Looks like another double exposure. But it was taken during the good Lord’s funeral! It’s uncanny! Sorry Brown Lady, but I’m afraid that you are soundly defeated by this exercise in poor taste.
Freddy Jackson: This appears to have been constructed in the darkroom. "The photo is a group portrait of Goddard’s squadron, which had served in World War I at the HMS Daedalus training facility. An extra ghostly face appears in the photo… Members of the squadron easily recognized the face as Jackson’s. It has been suggested that Jackson, unaware of his death, decided to show up for the group photo. "
Ok, this one was just lame.
#5 appears to be a pretty cool shot of a reflection on glass.
Well, if those won’t persuade you nothing will. Seriously though, these shots are way more diverting than the UFO photos I’ve viewed.
I thought I was pretty clear. I am close to asking for the impossible - just as those who ask for irrefutable proof of the supernatural are.
On a certain level, you can debunk a ghost with “coincidence” and someone else can come back and debunk a coincidence with something like “ghosts”. How can either of you prove, to a neutral third party, that you and only you are right?
You said:
To me “coincidence” is flatly (and physically maybe?) impossible. I know the textbook definition but I’ve never experienced it (to the best of my knowledge) or explained anything by it. I don’t know that it has ever been replicated or duplicated in a scientific setting; it seems all the evidence is anecdotal. So how can it be, to me, a legitimate explanation of anything? It is just as impossible as ghosts. Unless you can prove otherwise, right?
…but more likely it was inserted in the darkroom. The back window should be visible behind Mr. Chinnery, but instead there is the ghost wearing shades.
What law of physics proves or permits a particular coincidence over and above “ghosts”? What’s the exact math on that?
Lame, like beauty, if often in the eye of the beholder and judging by the textbooks I see offered at the Pitt Bookstore (no comment as towards their quality of that University) I’m betting I could find a definition of “ghost” without too much effort.
Dude, if you knew how much I miss that you wouldn’t even bring the subject up. Damn these random tests at work!
Don’t get me wrong, I have no problem with debunking. James Randi was and is a personal hero of mine. But if your goal is debunking, even in the constraints of a message board, I don’t see where “coincidence” is all that great of an explanation. The answer usually supplied is either “because I say so” or “isn’t it obvious”. Well, I don’t know that it is all that obvious.
The question is what PREVENTS it. You are the one with the burden to prove that physical laws would PREVENT it. That’s how it works. The definition of “coincidence” is two things happening at the same time. Please explain what physical law or laws prevents two things from happening at the same time. You have the burden here, not me. I can prove ghosts are impossible. You not only can’t prove coincidences are impossible, I can point to examples of them happening. We are posting on this board at the same time. What a coincidence!
No you can’t – not a scientific or “textbook” definition. Not really even a good popular definition. The word is empirically meaningless. There isn’t any “textbook” about them.
Maybe this would help vis a vis coincidence: saying something is a coincidence does not explain how it occurred. It’s a way of saying there is no relationship between two events, like a man dying and his cat dying of unrelated causes on the same day. They didn’t happen at the same time for any reason. People and cats die every day. It only appears meaningful to us because of how the way our own psychology works. When the options for ‘explaining’ how a man and his cat can drop dead the same day, it’s worth pointing out that coincidence is more plausible than positing a spiritual connection.
And we come back full circle - debunking the impossible with the impossible. Unless you do indeed have that math handy? I guess I’m more a skeptic than a cynic but - Ah, the joy of Great Debates.
