The problem is that by that logic, every unfalsifiable theory should be treated equally. That means that literally an infinite amount of other unfalsifiable explainations may be the real cause of somthing supernatural. In other words, this means that the chances of any of those are actually real are zero (or at least, a zero with an infinite amount of zeroes before an eventual theoretical 1).
The other problem is that Occam's Razor is a thing. In this case, more likely explainations for things mentioned in this thread are that people misremember dreams, people exaggerate, coincidence, hallucinations even, or people flat out lying. Think about how incredibly easy and common lying is. Add that all to the fact that there's a lot of proof on the opposite side of the argument (take for example the fact we know that our brain is who we are, and that there thus can exist no such thing as what people think of as ghosts)...
So while I agree that it can't be disproven, I don't think that should ever be used as an argument, and it is in fact a highly frowned upon fallacy when used in more serious discussions. Of course, this is just a random thread on a Pokémon forum, so it's not really important or anything (and don't think I'm sitting here with foaming mouth typing this), but still wanted to point it out.
But what you have to think about is, how likely is it that people are hallucinating, misremembering, or dreaming? It a lot of cases, especially when people are grieving, yeah, that makes sense. But it makes less sense when you're talking about people who have no history of hallucinations, aren't under any stress, and aren't expecting it.
Especially when we're talking about the inexplicable. Because when people misremember or imagine stuff, it's usually about things that fit with their day-to-day life, things they would expect. It's the brain filling in gaps. And if a memory is especially weird or inexplicable, they question it. And when even after that, they're convinced, and they have no history or extenuating circumstances... It's not proof, but... I just don't think it's likely that all cases are mistakes and distortions. What really gets me is the times when people describe the same experiences, in detail, with no knowledge that anyone else experienced anything at all.
Of course, it makes more sense with my beliefs about consciousness. And those are... Well, certainly, the brain makes us who we are, but the idea that brain activity creates consciousness is problematic. Sure, chemical reactions produce heat, changes in color, sound, etc. But that's how we
experience chemical reactions. If you try to describe it purely by what's actually there and what's happening, what do you get? What you have is particles rearranging themselves, energy being released and absorbed; you can't get more than you put in, and there's no change in the actual quality of the matter. That'd be multiplying 0 enough times to get 1, it's nonsense. Even the person who coined the term emergent phenomena (i.e. cases where the whole behaves different than the parts) admits this.
Some people believe that matter really is conscious on some level, but that creates new problems. Like... Well, if some matter is conscious, then it stands to reason that all matter is conscious, because it's all basically the same stuff in different patterns. So is light conscious? What about sound? Like, where does one consciouness begin and the other end? The chemicals in our brain are constantly changing, so how is stable consciousness even possible? Some say that who we are is constantly changing, too, but if that were the case... Wouldn't you end up with two or more consciousnesses in the same body, one fading and one fading away? And since memories would have to be copied, wouldn't the new consciousness have the old consciousness' memory of fading away? I suppose you could say that only certain elements of the brain are conscious... but which ones? The neurons? Which neurons? What part of the neuron? Why don't we have awareness of what each individual neuron is doing? How do many different small consciousnesses come to create one larger one? I suppose you could explain that with quantum physics... But then you come back to the question of, why is only part of us part of our consciousness, where does one begin and another end? Also, if matter and consciousness are one and the same, then the same has to be true of the abstract and the concrete, that is, concepts like truth and justice would have to be brain chemicals themselves, not the result of them.
What I believe is that consciousness is something immaterial that experiences the brain. Actually, my conclusion is that neither scenario is workable, and none of us should be here. But here we are. Although, I think that's why some people say that consciousness is an illusion. Which is just
completely illogical, because the concept of illusion is predicated upon the concept of perception i.e. consciousness. An illusion is something perceived that isn't there in objective reality. So to say that perception is an illusion is to say that perception is a thing perceived that isn't really there; it's nonsense.
