Welcome to Gaia! ::

What the mind percieves can be very powerful. If you think about it everything we know and can use a word for is just that: a word. Somewhere along the line in history someone that couldn't explain something put a word on it and it was so. For example, how do we know the colors of the spectrum are really those colors? Or that the sky is really blue? Our minds perceive that they are because we say common sense... Common sense of what we were taught as babies and tots is the right thing to call them. Everything comes down to what you believe and perceive. I could sit here and argue that the sky is green because my mind perceives it that way, while in my argument everyone will tell me I am crazy and the sky is indeed blue because thats what they were taught to say. Using this logic you could say the same is true for what is or is not there, if you believe it is then it is, but if you don't then it isn't such as Christians do God and many do ghosts.

Hopefully that made sense it is very late and way past my bedtime.

I still think this way, sweatdrop but it does come down to the general census. I realize if I changed the color of the sky or tried to convince someone darkness was light and light darkness they would probably write me off as a little crazy, if the general populace see it this way and thats they way it has always been there really is no changing it. Its just kind of intriguing to think about and to think about just how powerful perception of the mind can be. I think that you are also correct with the faith part of it. The mind is a powerful playground for us and if we have a strong enough faith in it then it exists. Like those people who genuinely believe in power of the mind and faith and that if they think and act like they aren't sick then they aren't and oddly enough in cases like that where some patients ultimately get better even with death sentences from doctors like with cancer. When people tell you to think and act positive and in turn things truly do happen that are positive in nature, those that believe in ghosts who's faith is so strong that they see the unnatural happening around them the list goes on and on. In regards to this topic though I would assume that is how you prove something that is not there.

And that is a very true statement I think more along the lines of where I was going is often as a humans we are convinced of things because the faith of the person convincing us is so strong that it kind of overflows into us. For example the whole sky color scenario. We know that it is blue, when we were kids we drew blue skies in our pictures, our Moms / Dads / Teachers told us it was blue and everyone you knew would tell you it was blue. But blue is just a word. Somewhere along the lines in history someone was so powerfully convincing that it became so. When the term first came about in reference to the color or sky or whatever it was a word and the person that created the word had to convince everyone else that it was the right word to use... See where I am going?

It is not logical to think that we could easily walk over to the ED and post a topic *lets use ghosts here* about ghosts and expect to convince everyone there that they do indeed exist. There is no real proof that they do or do not. So one posting can try and post pictures taken, maybe personal encounters they or someone else has had, or all the literature that can be found on it. Even then you are not going to convince everyone there. While some may sway their beliefs it won't be everyone and I am not suggesting that this could possibly work and is more likely to work in a face to face encounter.

My overall theory on it was just kind of the realization that somewhere someone had the power to convince humans on a whole that the word they wanted used was the right word to use. If that makes sense, someone at some point made such a powerful argument to have the sky forever referred to as blue by all humans everywhere. If someone were to argue with us that it was purple we would find them to be off their rocker.

Mostly what we are able to prove we do through the power of being able to both intellectually and intelligently persuade someone to believe in what we are saying. There are tools we use rather it be facts that have been proven for us - this including history and everything else that can physically be pulled as evidence for that person, the ability to be able to read someone and counteract their comments, or just simply understanding how another's mind works and being able to use that to our advantage. In use of the mind you are then able to play off the persons own fears or desires as well, which in many cases can sway the persons decision such as a prosecutor / defense lawyer will do with the jury which ultimately grants you another tool to use in proving your point.

** I am up late again and tired so I hope that all makes sense if not my apologies **

Hmm...

To prove that something does not exists, you must be able to prove the factors that say it does not exist as existing. And to prove something exists is deceptive. It is not easy.

So to prove something does not exist, you must in sense prove existence.

I am of the opinion that the logical quandry you have brought up is the result of the scale you are thinking on. For instance, I can quite easily prove that there is not, at the moment (12:55 am, 7/6/2007), a cat sitting on my keyboard. Although first I would have to demonstrate what would indicate a cat's presence, and then subsequently show that those indications are not present, I can, never the less, prove the nonexistance of the cat at that particular point. However, what it appears you are trying to find a proof for is the theory that there never was, never will be, or never can be a cat on my keyboard, which is a monumentally daunting task.

Of course, even that pales in comparison to the mess faced by a person trying to prove the non-existance of the proof for an object's non-existance.