Posted: May 14, 2010 12:30 am
by Kenaz

I agree that the phenomena of what we as a collective have come to call "ghosts" is not "supernatural", but merely a phenomena we do not have sufficient empirical evidence and understanding of the circumstances that are involved in said phenomena. I agree with the notion (who's author and exact phrasing eludes me at the moment) can be paraphrased along the lines that the supernatural is merely the natural not known/understood yet. I don't think we should shrug off this encounter so many people obviously experience, but I don't think we should claim we know what is going on without sufficient evidence either, that's speculation. We have a lot of theories of what this phenomena is, but really, it's all assumption and speculation and lacking clear evidence still; at least to my knowledge. As always, I welcome this evidence, and my mind is always open to change where that evidence leads me.