My first and last experience of using the “Spirit of the Glass” aka “Ouija Board” was about 50 years ago. One of my two companions asked to stop it because she might suffer a heart attack. Why? Because the glass was moving fast even without us touching the glass. It only shows that there was a spirit in it. Whether the spirit was a good spirit or an evil spirit, I do not know.
The
ideomotor effect is especially easy to achieve with multiple people involved. No one is consciously pushing the planchette around, but a simple test is to see how much it moves if no one is touching it. If the spirits were moving the planchette, there should be no need for your hands to be on it.
Also communal reienforcement. (I'm sure you've already read the link I gave you earlier to an article on communal reienforcement, and I'm sure you will stop and read up on the ideomotor effect. It would be dishonest of you to continue making this argument from ignorance without taking the chance to remove such ignorance.)
Oh yeah--argument from ignorance (also called "the god of gaps") is a logical fallacy you've been exhibiting. You're basically saying that because you can't explain something any other way, your otherwise unsubstantiated explanation (a spirit did it) is somehow supported. It's problematical on two fronts: 1) we can explain everything you've observed, and 2)even if we couldn't, it doesn't support your hypothesis because ignorance is just ignorance and not evidence.
[ETA: Actually on three fronts. I explicate number 3 below: your "explanation" that a spirit did it is no explanation at all.]
I chose the example of lightning in my previous post for a reason. There was a time when humans didn't understand lightning. We were ignorant of its causes. We have minds that are hard wired to perceive agency and intention, so we said Zeus (or some other spirit) did it. Now, we know the causes of lightning, and people like you no longer point to it as evidence of the existence of spirits.
Nope. There's still no evidence whatsoever to support the illogical notion that an entity with no physical extension can be the cause of physical effects.
It's obvious to me that you refuse to consider the possibility that spirits don't exist despite the evidence.
If you deny the existence of spirit, how can you explain the difference between a living person and a dead person?
That's easy. A living person has functions that arise at multiple levels of the organizations of the physical matter it is composed of, which come from emergent properties at each level of organization. The top most levels (organ systems) of a living person keep all sort of homeostasis (pH level of the blood, body temperature, etc.) A dead person has lost the functionality of the organ systems, and will begin reaching entropy wrt pH level, body temperature, etc.
In fact, the explanation that a spirit is the difference is no explanation at all. How does the spirit (an entity with no matter, no physical energy--no material extension at all) affect a physical thing?
Saying a spirit is what makes a body alive is no different than saying you are ignorant of what makes a body alive.
