There’s nothing to disprove ghosts because there’s no real definition of what a ghost is.
If someone gives me a real unambiguous agreed upon definition of what a ghost is, I’ll explain why we know they don’t exist.
Comment on Can a reasonable person genuinely believe in ghosts?
givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 day ago
The more you know the less stuff you’re comfortable ruling out.
There’s nothing that disproves ghosts, but there’s nothing that proves them either.
You could have said “souls” instead, because that’s just another word for consciousness. But it doesn’t work for ghosts
Steve@communick.news 1 day ago
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 1 day ago
You could have said “souls” instead, because that’s just another word for consciousness.
I’d refine that a bit. By “soul” most people are referring to a perceived “center” of consciousness where the experiencer is located. Things happen in consciousness, but the “soul” or “self” is what we think those things are happening to.
Steve@communick.news 17 hours ago
That’s called the brain
SaveTheTuaHawk@lemmy.ca 12 hours ago
and reality is just a set of biochemical signals you can radically change with some mushroom compounds.
Steve@communick.news 12 hours ago
That’s perception.
Reality is just a big question mark.
Iconoclast@feddit.uk 17 hours ago
That’s why I said perceived center of consciousness. I don’t think self exists either.
FuglyDuck@lemmy.world 1 day ago
absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
not proof, no. but it is evidence.