Is there any scientific basis for the existence of ghosts, and

>>8766278
>but necessitates the non-existence of a human soul
>more specifically
>the non-existence of any human knowledge that was not extrapolated from natural observations

what?
these two things aren't related at all
how are you considering the second thing a subset of the first thing?

>>8766278
>Can I take that for granted or is there a reason not to?
Dreams, unless they fall into a category of natural observations.

Looked at alot of data about how certain kids can remeber past lives with moderate detail then forget all details while they grow up. Made me start think about conciousness as a entity. Then looked into the theory thats the opposite of i am , so i think but instead the other way of i think therefor i am. What im saying here is , brains are only a medium for a conciousness to experiance the world.

Wrote on phone, go look up somethings about conciousness as a other entity shits cools

>>8766315
Why are the dumbest posts always made from phones?

File: 142.jpg (99KB, 720x602px) Image search: [Google]

99KB, 720x602px

>>8766278
Daily reminder that metaphysics is not a science, and is in fact antithetical to science.

Purge the heretics!

>>8766282
I'm defining the "soul" as a force that works on human beings that cannot be perceived. Call it free will, or God, or anything else.

I don't think that there's anything that humans do that can't be explained by observable phenomenon. Ghosts are an unobserved phenomenon that are supposedly caused by a "soul," eg. an energy that exists in human beings that lingers after they die. Is there any reason to believe ghosts exist or can it be safely explained as wishful thinking and imperfect perception?

File: 20140814.png (613KB, 684x3471px) Image search: [Google]

613KB, 684x3471px

>>8766278
If there was a scientific basis for the existence of ghosts and shit they would be part of nature and supposedly derived all their knowledge from natural observations anyway.

>>8766278
>more specifically the non-existence of any human knowledge that was not extrapolated from natural observations.

Instinctual behaviors occur without the subject having observed anything. Baby deer can recognize and run from predators within hours of birth - and even use tactics like running for places the predator can't reach.

An instinct that doesn't manifest at birth can be hard to distinguish from something learned by observation. But nevertheless it is knowledge that was not extrapolated from natural observations.

>>8766631
I was about to respond pedantly that instinctual and reflexive behaviors have nothing to do with actual knowledge but it seems like something OP should be considering instead of ghosts in any case.

>>8766278
Should have been
>Is there any scientific basis for the existence of skeletons, and by extension ghosts?

>>8766278
>>8766278
tbqhwy we dont know anything about that