Paranormal experiances/Do you believe in the afterlife?

[Beldin]

well cameras and sound recorders dont hullucinate.. and ive seen shit about ghosts in pictures, videos, and the sounds of em on recordings.

shot down.

Hah. No, they don't hallucinate, but they lie. I'm no professional at faking photos/videos/etc but I can still fake a ghost/spirit/visitation/whatever pretty well in Photoshop. Those who are professionals can do it a hundred times better than me. Don't believe in something just because someone caught it on tape. If *actual* proof was able to be obtained, then a hell of a lot more people would be believing in ghosts.

[God]

yeah. i'm not gonna believe in ghosts COMPLETELY, until i see one. and i really hope i never see one. i am a REALLY sensitive person to scary movies/scary stuff.. i can't handle it without someone around. so if i did see something, i would FLIP the FUCK OUT. i don't even know what i would do. but it wouldn't be cool. not at all.

[Zen]

"Why *would* our bodies produce a chemical that made us hallucinate?"

Possibly mental trauma, which is causing a defect in the chemical outputs/composition; or a subconcious realization that you need to have a revelation in the way you're leading your life/getting along with someone ie. family, boy/girlfriend; or maybe it's a birth defect/mutation, since it seems only certain people are able to see ghosts or communicate with them; maybe it's produced naturally just some people have developed an immunity to it so it has stopped being produced.

I don't really know, but w/e, it's just a theory.

peace

[Beldin]

See, again you are just listing why it COULD happen.

Everything everyone has been listing, its all well and good, but there is no reason for them. A reason is something like:
"Our bodies would produce a chemical that makes us hallucinate to entertain us."

Of course, entertainment through natural hallucination obviously isn't a regular past-time, and so that reason is pretty shot to hell. Nevertheless, it is a reason. Everything else posted has simply been a means by which it could happen, not a REASON for it to happen.

[Zen]

could and would are very similar in this instance.... If the brain suffered trauma in a certain area it's possible that it WOULD be producing these chemicals etc.

peace

[Beldin]

Could and would are always "similar" - but its still not a reason for evolution (/God/whatever you believe) to guide our bodies to produce said chemical. They are merely freak accidents that COULD happen.

[Zen]

exactly! Could, would, whatever. You see, if it could happen, than something had to have happened so that it would happen. Anyways, this thread has gotten into semantics, and sorta strayed from the main debate. I'm gonna leave my opinion with this post.

peace