Are believers deluded?

[Yahweh]

I'm sure most every skeptic has said this at one time or another: "I cant believe a person could be that completely deluded that they believe in..."

That is something that I dont like, I dont like the idea that people who believe in psychic powers/religion/paranormal are mentally ill. Its something that has always bugged me (its the reason why I've never liked nor used the word "woo-woo", except that time I did it 7 words ago).

I wouldnt consider the Aristotelian Europeans before Galileo's day to be mentally ill, ignorant, or even misinformed for believing everything revolved around the Earth. It was a mistake of seeking knowledge through Natural Philosophy rather than the use of scientific scruntiny (until the time of Copernicus - who proved over the period of years that it was impossible for the Earth to be the center of the universe, but he was afraid for his life to publish his findings until a friend convinced him to do so on his death bed - , no one could prove that the world wasnt the center of the universe). Edit to add: The Greeks deserve a special nod, they proposed the idea of a heliocentric system 1700 before Copernicus and Galileo. The Greeks also invented Geometry, which was really nice of them. ( :) )

I would say that I've known at least a few people with legitimately beliefs, but I would hardly consider a person's inner convictions to be the works of a deluted individual (wishful thinking and/or lack of outside reading at the most).

Thoughts?

[wayrad]

To say someone is "deluded" only means that they are deceived or misled. It does not necessarily imply that they are "delusional". I agree, the latter term would be rude and (in most cases) unjustified.

[wayrad]

Still, you're right in that "deluded" has a more negative connotation than "misinformed". I suppose I would consider someone "deluded" if they persist in an illogical belief against all evidence.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by wayrad
I suppose I would consider someone "deluded" if they persist in an illogical belief against all evidence.

doesn't that describe many (perhaps most) believers and most woo-woos?

[wayrad]

Originally posted by EdipisReks


doesn't that describe many (perhaps most) believers and most woo-woos? Yes :) . But if they've never been exposed to the evidence, or have never been taught how to think, maybe "misinformed" would be more accurate... Or "ignorant", but that has negative connotations of its own.

Interesting things, words...

edited to add: I wish I had a copy of the OED; doesn't that have information on connotations?

[Clancie]

Posted by Wayrad

I suppose I would consider someone "deluded" if they persist in an illogical belief against all evidence.
But isn't that why people here with religious beliefs rarely get much criticism? Isn't the argument that they admit they just "believe" and so are entitled to not be badgered or criticized about their religion?

There is no evidence for Christianity, for example, yet people who are Christians, deists, devout Jews, etc. are still welcomed as fellow skeptics.

It is only if someone has a less socially acceptable belief, in for example, the idea there might be something to mediumship (a position there is arguably more support for, though not laboratory testing-style evidence--than for the existence of God)

I haven't noticed believers here stating that the paranormal is a scientifically proven fact, any more than Christians here claim that God's existence has been scientifically proven.

Paranormal believers I'm familiar with pretty much say, "I believe this, and here's why." Not, "I believe this because there is incontrovertable scientific proof for it."

So...both are beliefs (as is the belief that the absence of scientific proof means its all therefore hogwash).

One kind of believer is not labelled "deluded" and the other is labelled that...and even much worse.

I think its a double standard.

[EdipisReks]

Originally posted by Clancie

One kind of believer is not labelled "deluded" and the other is labelled that...and even much worse.

I think its a double standard.

you must be deluded, because i label both types of believer as deluded.

[Tez]

Does a human exist who possesses a totally consistent set of beliefs, philosophies, convictions and ideologies? I suspect that under intensive enough interrogation we'd all fail a test on absolute rationality. The "deluded" ones are those whose inconsistencies are more obvious to us than others or our own....

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

doesn't that describe many (perhaps most) believers and most woo-woos? Gotta disagree here. The "against all evidence" excludes the majority of believers, whose experience with "evidence" (in quotes because it would not pass muster on this forum, yet it is their evidence) is supportive of their beliefs. Their social network lends support; often their personal experience, when interpreted in light of their belief communities, lends support. Many have experienced something they cannot explain; that experience is "evidence" to them.

In my opinion, the words with the negative connotations should be saved for the folks at the top of the pyramid who know better, and who take advantage of belief systems to fleece people. When you have folk like that actively promoting an interpretation of the "evidence", it is hard to blame the average believer for not hearing the skeptical voice over the din.

[wayrad]

Originally posted by Mercutio

In my opinion, the words with the negative connotations should be saved for the folks at the top of the pyramid who know better, and who take advantage of belief systems to fleece people. But aren't they the deluders rather than the deluded?

edited to add: What you said about people not hearing the skeptical voice over the din is what I was groping toward earlier as "misinformed". You put it much better.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Clancie

I think its a double standard.

Not at all. If someone professess to believe in a religion, but is willing to admit that they have no evidence and believe through faith, that's fine. Some may disagree with the validity of their belief, but that's out of the perview of skepticism and into philosophy.
Now, I have known some religious people to claim that they do have evidence, or have evidence against, say, evolution because it conflicts with their dogma. (In the case of young earth creationists, for example.) In that case, I can and do act skeptically towards them as well.

Paranormal believers I'm familiar with pretty much say, "I believe this, and here's why." Not, "I believe this because there is incontrovertable scientific proof for it."

Well, bully for you. The vast majority I've heard of make positive claims about evidence, but either never back it up with the actual evidence itself, or diverge into arguments about how mean skeptics are to them, again avoiding the subject of the evidence.

[renata]

As some people have mentioned already, I do not think it is fair to say believers are deluded, or (as discussed in another thread recently) can't accept they are capable of self deception.

Everyone is deluded to some extent on some issues, skeptics and believers alike. I do not think it is possible to have a perfectly rationalistic existance and worldview on all issues- it is possible to strive for it, but I think it is unrealistic, and perhaps undesirable. (Is this going to turn into Spock/Dr McCoy debate?:))

I have known rather brilliant people who were believers in one way or another. Some believed on faith, some thought they had evidence. I think it is faulty to ask whether the atheist of today think they are smarter than great thinkers of the past. We simply have access to information they did not, we are beneficiaries of the great people that came before us, and at some level that allows us more options and more freedom than it did them.

Where I personally find a problem is when believers try to force their belief in a religious system into a secular world- into a debate about evolution, abortion, prayer in school and things like that. That is a serious problem for me, because those people take their faith, and try to impose it as evidence on everyone.

As to believers in paranormal, I have stated many times, I think it is frequently self deception that fills a need. The real targets are should never be believers, but the frauds that take advantage of the people who for whatever reason- grief, gullibility, need- turn to these quacks. If a believer says- I do not know why I believe in X paranormal phenomena, I just do, I would not question them, particularly in real life. If a believer comes on this board, however, and chooses to defend a belief, or present some evidence, or present a mechanism, then I think this believer should be prepared for some questions. Sometimes it seems some believers come to their beliefs in irrational ways, and rationalized them afterwards. Then, when a particular rationalization is debunked, the belief is untouched, but a new rationalization forms. It is sad to watch, but like I said, it seems to me that in those cases, the belief protects something important, and if it is destroyed, something more important goes with it as well. Perhaps in the cases of mediumship it is a connection with a loved one they cannot let go.

Once again, my ire is at the quacks who know all this and take advantage of that tendency, and not at the believers themselves.

But there really are people who believe very very stupid things. I live in Los Angeles, I know. :D


BTW- Yahweh, Cleopatra will not be pleased with you for suggesting Galileo or Copernices were the first who suggested that Earth revolved around the Sun. Indeed Greeks were much more wily than they are given credit for- if I recall correctly from my college philosophy, and history of science courses it was Aristarchus who first proposed a heliocentric system based on his calculations, about 1700 years before those gentlemen. I believe he was correct in essence, but his calculations were rejected by his contemporaries.

[Blondin]

I completely agree, Renata. We all like to think of ourselves as intelligent, objective and knowledgeable to some extent. It's easy to scoff at others when they reveal a belief or misconception but we've probably all been subject to some level of "self-delusion" even if it's as simple as believing some silly urban myth the first time we heard it.

If someone claims to believe something based on their own experience they don't deserve to be ridiculed. It kind of annoys me to see sceptics demeaning or belittling "believers" just for stating their beliefs. I am more comfortable with the statement "No medium has ever been proven to possess paranormal powers" than the statement "All mediums are frauds". I suspect all mediums are frauds but I can't prove it and neither can anyone else.

What ticks me off is when people cast aspersions on the scientific process, itself; people who don't understand that science is not just another belief system but a collection of observations and deductions which support each other and are subject to change when they fail to do so. It really irks me when someone equates requesting corroborating evidence with having a closed mind.

And that's my little rant for today.

[tedly]

Lovely things words. I think the one you're looking for is nescient. As in "Ignorance is no excuse, but nescience is."


Originally posted by wayrad
Yes :) . But if they've never been exposed to the evidence, or have never been taught how to think, maybe "misinformed" would be more accurate... Or "ignorant", but that has negative connotations of its own.

Interesting things, words...

edited to add: I wish I had a copy of the OED; doesn't that have information on connotations?

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
I wouldnt consider the Aristotelian Europeans before Galileo's day to be mentally ill, ignorant, or even misinformed for believing everything revolved around the Earth. It was a mistake of seeking knowledge through Natural Philosophy rather than the use of scientific scruntiny (until the time of Copernicus - who proved over the period of years that it was impossible for the Earth to be the center of the universe, but he was afraid for his life to publish his findings until a friend convinced him to do so on his death bed - , no one could prove that the world wasnt the center of the universe). Edit to add: The Greeks deserve a special nod, they proposed the idea of a heliocentric system 1700 before Copernicus and Galileo. The Greeks also invented Geometry, which was really nice of them. ( :) )

Yes, philosophy (logic/reason) is the foundation of mathematics and science. Don't forget that. Indeed, science is really just the philosophy of material behaviour/order. Since material-behaviour alludes to a specific area of existence, it was apt to give such an enquiring-practise its own name: science.
Yet really, science is just the philosophy of material order.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes, philosophy (logic/reason) is the foundation of mathematics and science. Don't forget that. Indeed, science is really just the philosophy of material behaviour/order. Since material-behaviour alludes to a specific area of existence, it was apt to give such an enquiring-practise its own name: science.
Yet really, science is just the philosophy of material order.
Science had its origins in Natural Philosophy, but, as has already been pointed out by Yahweh, it broke with philosophy hundreds of years ago. In making the break, science has earned epistemological privilege. The conundrum that some philosophers still fail to understand is that the two basic types of logic have major flaws. Deduction is guaranteed to yield truth, if the premisses are true and the syllogism valid. But that truth was already contained within those premisses, and is therefore never new truth. Induction can give us new truth, but it is never guaranteed to hold up to further scrutiny. Scientists put down their pipes, got out of the comfy chairs and went into the field. They realized that reality therapy was needed, and developed the tools to test ideas against the universe.

There is no root philosophy here. There are no metaphysical assumptions. There is a small set of axioms that form the organon.

Cheers,

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
There is no evidence for Christianity, for example, yet people who are Christians, deists, devout Jews, etc. are still welcomed as fellow skeptics.

It is only if someone has a less socially acceptable belief, in for example, the idea there might be something to mediumship (a position there is arguably more support for, though not laboratory testing-style evidence--than for the existence of God)

I haven't noticed believers here stating that the paranormal is a scientifically proven fact, any more than Christians here claim that God's existence has been scientifically proven.

Paranormal believers I'm familiar with pretty much say, "I believe this, and here's why." Not, "I believe this because there is incontrovertable scientific proof for it."

So...both are beliefs (as is the belief that the absence of scientific proof means its all therefore hogwash).

One kind of believer is not labelled "deluded" and the other is labelled that...and even much worse.

I think its a double standard.
They make no claims about the universe, Clancie. They make no claims that God intervenes, or that spirits interact with us or talk to us. The moment one makes such a claim, one has crossed the line into talking about how our universe works. This is the domain of science.

If you wish to believe in gods, fairies or underwear elves or devils or whatever, go ahead, so long as they are all in some other universe and can't affect us. If you claim one has sabotaged your car, expect challenges. If you claim one just gave you a message, expect challenges.

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by EdipisReks

wayrad
I suppose I would consider someone "deluded" if they persist in an illogical belief against all evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

EdipisReks
doesn't that describe many (perhaps most) believers and most woo-woos?

That's interesting. What evidence is there that there is no life after death? No "God" of any definition? No anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation? Nothing to astrology or the I Ching? No substantial self which is not ontological dependent on the brain etc? Where is all the evidence against these beliefs and so many others?

I look forward in anticipation to your reply.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


Not at all. If someone professess to believe in a religion, but is willing to admit that they have no evidence and believe through faith, that's fine. Some may disagree with the validity of their belief, but that's out of the perview of skepticism and into philosophy.
Now, I have known some religious people to claim that they do have evidence, or have evidence against, say, evolution because it conflicts with their dogma. (In the case of young earth creationists, for example.) In that case, I can and do act skeptically towards them as well.



Well, bully for you. The vast majority I've heard of make positive claims about evidence, but either never back it up with the actual evidence itself, or diverge into arguments about how mean skeptics are to them, again avoiding the subject of the evidence. [/B]

Skeptics on here have been presented with a colossal number of references from peer reviewed journals which are suggestive of various anomalous phenomena appropriately labeled the paranormal. So give it a rest.

And no, I don't think this constitutes proof of the paranormal. Scientists, including parapsychologists, tend to get results which they expect. This is why scientific investigation is dodgy and why we really need a hypothesis in mind with which the experimental evidence can be consistent or inconsistent with. Parapsychologists on the whole do not have such hypotheses. Thus, in my opinion, admittedly with my limited knowledge of such research, it might be conceivable, albeit it very unlikely, that all positive results for psi can be laid at the door of various artifacts of a normal explanation.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Blondin



What ticks me off is when people cast aspersions on the scientific process, itself; people who don't understand that science is not just another belief system but a collection of observations and deductions which support each other and are subject to change when they fail to do so. It really irks me when someone equates requesting corroborating evidence with having a closed mind.

And that's my little rant for today. [/B]

Science is not a belief system. It is not a belief system because it merely describes reality. But most scientists and skeptics think that science is more than this. They confuse science with metaphysics. They in fact do treat it as a belief system; namely as constituting proof of the atheist/materialist metaphysic. This is how stupid they are.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Yes, philosophy (logic/reason) is the foundation of mathematics and science. Don't forget that. Indeed, science is really just the philosophy of material behaviour/order. Since material-behaviour alludes to a specific area of existence, it was apt to give such an enquiring-practise its own name: science.
Yet really, science is just the philosophy of material order.

No, science is not a philosophy. It's a means of investigation to describe reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]
Science had its origins in Natural Philosophy, but, as has already been pointed out by Yahweh, it broke with philosophy hundreds of years ago. In making the break, science has earned epistemological privilege. The conundrum that some philosophers still fail to understand is that the two basic types of logic have major flaws. Deduction is guaranteed to yield truth, if the premisses are true and the syllogism valid. But that truth was already contained within those premisses, and is therefore never new truth. Induction can give us new truth, but it is never guaranteed to hold up to further scrutiny. Scientists put down their pipes, got out of the comfy chairs and went into the field. They realized that reality therapy was needed, and developed the tools to test ideas against the universe.

There is no root philosophy here. There are no metaphysical assumptions. There is a small set of axioms that form the organon.



Induction itself is a metaphysical assumption.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
[B]
They make no claims about the universe, Clancie. They make no claims that God intervenes, or that spirits interact with us or talk to us.



Er . .at first I thought you were talking about scientists and skeptics, and I was just going to reply "or at least they ought not to". But then I read your following sentence! LOL



The moment one makes such a claim, one has crossed the line into talking about how our universe works. This is the domain of science.



Dear me! You really are totally clueless aren't you? :rolleyes: LOL

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Induction itself is a metaphysical assumption.



For science, it is simply an epistemological matter.

Cheers,

[deBergerac]

I started to write a reply and soon found that I had started a book and since I do not have time to write one right now I thought I better just give you some random notes on this topic.

Consider if there is not one sort of belief but rather four (I could have missed some though).
I) Belief in something for which there is no evidence.
II) Belief in something for which there should be evidence
III) Belief in something for which there exist contradicting evidence
IV) Belief in something for which there exist evidence
I suppose no one has a problem with the last but I would prefer to call this knowing instead of believing. (1)
The first one is rather simple; from a rational point of view it is condemnable. You should not believe something if there is no reason to believe it. In this category you find belief in God, angels, heaven and hell, assuming that you believe that they do not interfere with the proceedings of the ordinary world.
The second class includes phenomenon like talking to the dead, telekinesis etc. These are things you can choose to believe in but if they are real they should have a real effect. In fact if they work Randi will soon be short a million bucks.
Since it is always hard to prove a negative I cannot come up with a good example for the third category. But one could for example take creationism as contradicted by the evidence for evolution. Thus placing evolution in the fourth category.

In my personal universe the fourth category is the domain of science, the second and third is the battleground for sceptics and “believers” while the first is the realm of religion vs. rationalism.
As you might note for me scepticism is about what happens in the real world. It is therefore possible to believe in something like a God and still be a sceptic but it is not possible to say that there exists evidence for the existence of God and be a sceptic. (Unless one really has such evidence in which case God would fall under science, IV, instead of religion, I.)

To get to the question; are believers deluded (or misinformed if that is to be preferred)?
We are all formed of the world around us and come to perceive the world in different ways. In a way a religious person has been formed and have perhaps made a decision to look upon the world in a certain way. If the person is deluded or misinformed depends on if the chosen deity exists or not. If the deity falls under category one we do not know and it is impossible to say who is the deluded one. If the belief system falls under category three the answer should be yes, the person is not only deluded but also persistent in his/her delusion. The intermediate case (number two) can of course be determined by investigating the predicted effects of the belief placing it in category three or four.

The misinformation that most people suffer from is their understanding of what are real effects, how does the world work and what is evidence. The so-called believers are not the only one suffering from this. Most people have believes without thinking about the reasons for them. We only notice the strange believes and the ones contradicting what is known about the world. This general misinformation is the real problem.

(1) In my opinion knowing something is less stable than believing at least from a scientific point of view. Knowledge change since it depends on the information (evidence) that is gathered. If you ‘believe’ evidence is not important and the reality cannot contradict your point of view. Knowledge is what we get from science and it is a fickle thing although science is not.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Er . .at first I thought you were talking about scientists and skeptics, and I was just going to reply "or at least they ought not to". But then I read your following sentence! LOL



Dear me! You really are totally clueless aren't you? :rolleyes: LOL

Clancie was discussing a perceived double standard involving JREF responses to those who simply express faith and those who make claims. I was addressing that perception.

Cheers,

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Science had its origins in Natural Philosophy, but, as has already been pointed out by Yahweh, it broke with philosophy hundreds of years ago.

What "break" are you talking about?
The only one I can think of, is the one imposed upon science by materialism, whereby it is assumed that the existence of material-order can only be explained by material entities.
Of course, materialism is a philosophy unto itself. So such assumptions have not broken from philosophy since they are founded upon a specific philosophy.

[CFLarsen]

In my experience, it is quite correct to describe those who know better, but choose to believe anyway, as "self-deluded". Those who do not have the knowledge are "deluded". Are there negative connotations to these terms? Probably - but that does not mean we should stop using the words. If a word describes something, we should use it. Rewriting - or even redefining - words because somebody might be hurt is dangerous to a free-thinking society.

I agree that (most!) people who believe in the paranormal are not mentally ill. They simply choose - and this is the key word - to believe, despite there is no evidence in favor of their beliefs, and lots of evidence against them.

It is not altogether a voluntary choice: It is very hard for a person to accept the falsehood of his/her belief, when so much "emotional baggage" is attached to it. It is almost impossible, if a belief is fostered by a deep desire to e.g. contact dead relatives. How can a person who has lost a family member turn down an offer to "really" make contact?

The persons who exploit this are scum. They do not "fill a need", they do not "provide a service". They take deliberate advantage of people in grief. They keep the grief alive, they do not seek closure for their marks - all they are doing is keep the fire burning.

Are these persons self-deluded? When they start out, yes. It is very easy to believe that you can talk to dead people. All you need is for people to give you enough positive feedback. But when time goes by, it is impossible for them not to realize what they are doing. When we analyze e.g. a reading by John Edward, we find classic cold reading. We find cold reading techniques, used deliberately.

Comparing religious belief with belief in paranormal phenomena has absolutely nothing to do with less socially acceptable beliefs. Look at how many people believe in astrology, numerology, after-death communication, etc. Quite contrary, it is often very socially unacceptable to question those beliefs - just look at the treatment skeptics get, whenever they stand up and ask for evidence. Skeptics are, undoubtedly, a minority.

John Edward describes it very well himself: A person described in not-very-friendly terms is questioning him at a seminar. The audience boo her! Can we call that "badgering"? Yes, we can. We can also see how believers react when questioned: Some fly off in a rage, some spread false rumors, some ridicule, some lie and misrepresent, some even threaten with lawsuits and physical harm.

Religious beliefs (as is pointed out) do not generally base themselves on verifiable evidence, be it of scientific standard or not. Beliefs in paranormal phenomena most often base themselves on something we can check: Did an astrologer's prediction really happen? Did the crystal really send out rays to cure a person? Did a medium really talk to dead people?

So, we check it out. That's what skeptics do: We look at the arguments and the evidence and see if it holds up to scrutiny. We find explanations, based in reality, not in fantasy and wishful thinking. If the evidence does not hold up to scrutiny, the skeptics and believers part ways: Skeptics accept that the evidence is not valid, believers either hold on to their arguments or simply move on to the next, hoping that nobody notices.

And that is one of the reasons why these beliefs can continue to hinder real progress: If we do not remember that spirit communication was popular before, we do not realize the methods are nothing new. The tools may change, from dark rooms and ectoplasm, to brightly lit TV studios and performances, but the charade is the same.

The popularity of the various paranormal beliefs waxes and wanes. Astrology has been more or less popular over time, and the same will happen to John Edward and his fellow mediums: The ratings are already going down for John Edward's show, James van Praagh's show was quickly cancelled and Sylvia Browne is reduced to a morning talk show. We all know what happens next. The "Crossing Over" show will get axed, and the belief in John Edward will enter the realm of all the other beliefs, where only the most hardcore believers will continue to believe.

Or move on to the next belief.

(Edited for typos)

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, science is not a philosophy. It's a means of investigation to describe reality.
How do you propose to investigate universal-order without the faculty of reason?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer

What "break" are you talking about?
The only one I can think of, is the one imposed upon science by materialism, whereby it is assumed that the existence of material-order can only be explained by material entities.
Of course, materialism is a philosophy unto itself. So such assumptions have not broken from philosophy since they are founded upon a specific philosophy.
The "break" was a break from any such metaphysical underpinnings. No such assumptions are made by science. If it can't be tested, we're not interested. Period. If it pops onto our radar screens, whether it is material or not, we're keenly interested. If you wish to consider angels and devils, keebler elves, spirits, gods, goddesses and wood nymphs go ahead. Science doesn't care. If, however, you wish to claim such things affect anything here in the universe, then it will be put to a test.

Science does not make metaphysical assumptions. It pragmatically draws conclusions from testing.

Cheers,

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Science does not make metaphysical assumptions. It pragmatically draws conclusions from testing.

Would you say that it was theoretically possible to deduce the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent God, from the knowledge gleaned through science?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Would you say that it was theoretically possible to deduce the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent God, from the knowledge gleaned through science?

Of course it is. If such a God wanted to be known, that is.

Cheers,

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Of course it is. If such a God wanted to be known, that is.

Cheers,
The acceptance that science can (possibly) lead to God, via the use of reason upon scientific-knowledge, brings science back into the bosom of mother-philosophy. So where's this "break" you speak of?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer

The acceptance that science can (possibly) lead to God, via the use of reason upon scientific-knowledge, brings science back into the bosom of mother-philosophy. So where's this "break" you speak of?
You keep missing the essential component here: testing.

[hgc]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You keep missing the essential component here: testing. ... and that the burden is on god(s) to make themselves testable, ie., physical.

[Thanz]

I just would like to point out that the standards of evidence and proof will vary from person to person, and most will think that their standard of proof is the correct one.

For example, there is an ongoing dispute regarding the amount of weight that should be placed on anecdotal evidence, from those who dismiss it entirely to those who rely on it for their beliefs, and others in between the two extremes. Each of those people will think that they are correct in their weighting, and that if they believe (or disbelieve) something on the basis of anecdotes that they are being "rational".

So, I think that many believers do base their beliefs on some sort of evidence, whether it be anecdotal or otherwise. The difficulty is that others do not see the evidence as sufficient for the belief. Each person has their own threshold that will push them from non-belief to belief (or back again). I think that a lot of the bickering has to do with where to draw the line.

On a somewhat related note, I think that the strongest "evidence" for most believers is personal experience. It is hard to tell somebody that their wrist does not actually feel better because of the q-ray bracelet and that the medium did not really "know what only your dad knew" and he just made a good guess. We all learn through personal experience and therefore I think that the personal experiences that many beleivers have are close to impossible to dislodge.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

You keep missing the essential component here: testing.
I asked if it might be possible to deduce the existence of an omnipresent, omnipotent God, from the knowledge gleaned through science. You agreed that it might be possible (one day).
Therefore, you agreed that pre-existing knowledge might be the basis of discovering God.
Hence, you also agreed that pre-existing ~testing~ could be the basis for God's discovery.

So, I'm not missing anything. If you think that [the philosophy of] science could lead to God, you cannot state that science has broken from philosophy or from God. Period.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz
I just would like to point out that the standards of evidence and proof will vary from person to person, and most will think that their standard of proof is the correct one.

For example, there is an ongoing dispute regarding the amount of weight that should be placed on anecdotal evidence, from those who dismiss it entirely to those who rely on it for their beliefs, and others in between the two extremes. Each of those people will think that they are correct in their weighting, and that if they believe (or disbelieve) something on the basis of anecdotes that they are being "rational".

So, I think that many believers do base their beliefs on some sort of evidence, whether it be anecdotal or otherwise. The difficulty is that others do not see the evidence as sufficient for the belief. Each person has their own threshold that will push them from non-belief to belief (or back again). I think that a lot of the bickering has to do with where to draw the line.

On a somewhat related note, I think that the strongest "evidence" for most believers is personal experience. It is hard to tell somebody that their wrist does not actually feel better because of the q-ray bracelet and that the medium did not really "know what only your dad knew" and he just made a good guess. We all learn through personal experience and therefore I think that the personal experiences that many beleivers have are close to impossible to dislodge.

You've just defined "deluded" quite well.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
I just would like to point out that the standards of evidence and proof will vary from person to person, and most will think that their standard of proof is the correct one.

For example, there is an ongoing dispute regarding the amount of weight that should be placed on anecdotal evidence, from those who dismiss it entirely to those who rely on it for their beliefs, and others in between the two extremes. Each of those people will think that they are correct in their weighting, and that if they believe (or disbelieve) something on the basis of anecdotes that they are being "rational".

So, I think that many believers do base their beliefs on some sort of evidence, whether it be anecdotal or otherwise. The difficulty is that others do not see the evidence as sufficient for the belief. Each person has their own threshold that will push them from non-belief to belief (or back again). I think that a lot of the bickering has to do with where to draw the line.

On a somewhat related note, I think that the strongest "evidence" for most believers is personal experience. It is hard to tell somebody that their wrist does not actually feel better because of the q-ray bracelet and that the medium did not really "know what only your dad knew" and he just made a good guess. We all learn through personal experience and therefore I think that the personal experiences that many beleivers have are close to impossible to dislodge.

I note that you completely avoid the issue of empirical evidence. Do you think there is any empirical evidence of any paranormal phenomenon at all?

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I note that you completely avoid the issue of empirical evidence. Do you think there is any empirical evidence of any paranormal phenomenon at all?
Well, that is a pretty broad question and I really don't know the answer. I know that I personally can't point you to any.

I also know that Mr. Grenard could probably post a lot of links to what he says comprises empirical evidence of the paranormal. Which is kind of my point - I don't think that it is quite as black and white as it is sometimes mde out to be. Mr. Grenard takes one view of the evidence, you take another.

For example, the oft-discussed Schwartz experiments. I realize that many people have pointed out flaws in his experiments that make them rather questionable as empirical evidence. Others view the flaws as minor, and that ignoring all of the experimental results would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So, which is it? Do we ignore all of the experiments, or do we simply weight them differently? There is one reading that is produced in its entirety in the book (I forget the guy's name, but he was the one who took some thinly veiled swipes at JE and JVP in his online commentary a short while back) that is quite impressive. How do we explain it? I am not sure that there is one simple explanation. No, I do not believe that he was talking to the dead. But I do believe that his extraordinary performance means that some proper experiments perhaps should be conducted.

[alfaniner]

Good old II. Why make one post when six consecutive ones will do?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


That's interesting. What evidence is there that there is no life after death? No "God" of any definition? No anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation? Nothing to astrology or the I Ching? No substantial self which is not ontological dependent on the brain etc? Where is all the evidence against these beliefs and so many others?

I look forward in anticipation to your reply.

What evidence is there that there is life after death? A"God" of any definition? Anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation? Astrology or the I Ching? A substantial self which is ontologically dependent on the brain etc? Where is all the evidence for these beliefs and so many others?

I look forward in anticipation to your reply.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Thanz

Well, that is a pretty broad question and I really don't know the answer. I know that I personally can't point you to any.

I also know that Mr. Grenard could probably post a lot of links to what he says comprises empirical evidence of the paranormal. Which is kind of my point - I don't think that it is quite as black and white as it is sometimes mde out to be. Mr. Grenard takes one view of the evidence, you take another.

For example, the oft-discussed Schwartz experiments. I realize that many people have pointed out flaws in his experiments that make them rather questionable as empirical evidence. Others view the flaws as minor, and that ignoring all of the experimental results would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So, which is it? Do we ignore all of the experiments, or do we simply weight them differently? There is one reading that is produced in its entirety in the book (I forget the guy's name, but he was the one who took some thinly veiled swipes at JE and JVP in his online commentary a short while back) that is quite impressive. How do we explain it? I am not sure that there is one simple explanation. No, I do not believe that he was talking to the dead. But I do believe that his extraordinary performance means that some proper experiments perhaps should be conducted.

Not all research results are equally weighted. In any field. About any research hypothesis or question.

Cheers,

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Thanz
Well, that is a pretty broad question and I really don't know the answer. I know that I personally can't point you to any.

Thank you.

Originally posted by Thanz
I also know that Mr. Grenard could probably post a lot of links to what he says comprises empirical evidence of the paranormal. Which is kind of my point - I don't think that it is quite as black and white as it is sometimes mde out to be. Mr. Grenard takes one view of the evidence, you take another.

For example, the oft-discussed Schwartz experiments. I realize that many people have pointed out flaws in his experiments that make them rather questionable as empirical evidence. Others view the flaws as minor, and that ignoring all of the experimental results would be like throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

So, which is it? Do we ignore all of the experiments, or do we simply weight them differently? There is one reading that is produced in its entirety in the book (I forget the guy's name, but he was the one who took some thinly veiled swipes at JE and JVP in his online commentary a short while back) that is quite impressive. How do we explain it? I am not sure that there is one simple explanation. No, I do not believe that he was talking to the dead. But I do believe that his extraordinary performance means that some proper experiments perhaps should be conducted.

Yes, there is actually a simple - and beautiful - explanation: Repeated testing, done by independent experimenters. That's why I can say with confidence how cold it is right now. You don't have to believe me, you don't have to form your own opinion, based on how you perceive cold. We can simply look at a thermometer.

Can we get the same kind of data in paranormal research? Sure, we can. That's what Roger Nelson's P.E.A.R. and Dean Radin's Global Consciousness Project tries to find. Schwartz tried, too. No success whatsoever.

It is most certainly not a question of opinion vs. opinion, or one view against another.

The person you are talking about is George Anderson. If memory does not serve you well, look it up. It helps when you are trying to make a point.

[lifegazer]

Are skeptics "believers"?
If not, they must be either:
(1) Dead skeptics.
(2) Skeptics that know.

Are there any skeptics in here who claim to know the secrets of existence?
I guess not. Therefore, given that none of the skeptics in here are dead, I propose that:
All skeptics are believers.

Now... are believers deluded?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Are skeptics "believers"?
If not, they must be either:
(1) Dead skeptics.
(2) Skeptics that know.

Are there any skeptics in here who claim to know the secrets of existence?
I guess not. Therefore, given that none of the skeptics in here are dead, I propose that:
All skeptics are believers.

Now... are believers deluded?

Please tell me you are joking.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Please tell me you are joking.
Deadly serious.
The question was asked whether "believers" are deluded. Ultimately, I think that human-beings can only function in relation to knowledge which is either factual or believed. Only dead men have no opinions or beliefs.

[showme2]

""""Science is not a belief system.
It is not a belief system because it merely describes reality. But most scientists and skeptics think that science is more than this. They confuse science with metaphysics. They in fact do treat it as a belief system; namely as constituting proof of the atheist/materialist metaphysic. This is how stupid they are."""""

THANK YOU, Interesting Ian !!!!

Science is just another "belief system" because it proclaims what is held to be verifiable and true AT THE TIME OF PRONOUNCEMENT.

The fact that those pronouncements are - by admission of the sceptics - under constant review and modification to correct errors of previous beliefs/pronouncements leaves this sceptic god "Science" as no less of a belief system than any other.
And one that is, by admission, continually wrong and in need of correction !!!

Woops ! Bang goes the entire pseudo scientific basis for scepticism.

So there's nothing to be learned here from these sceptic "woo-woos". They are as "deluded" as those they accuse of it, if not more so.
"I'll get my coat" !:cs:

[T'ai Chi]

Foremost, it depends on if believers are interpreting things literally or metaphorically. To say that I believe when I die I am going to ride a dragon to the clouds and be an immortal, and to take that literally, is quite different from taking that metaphorically. To say that God sent down someone can be interpreted literally or metaphorically as well.

Second, essentially, deluded means mistaken. Scientists, and all people in general, have been mistaken at one time or another. So in a sense, we are all deluded. :) For one to say that someone's entire universe-view is deluded, means that we know how the universe really is for certain. No one ever, as far as I know, has had that special insight.

One can certainly be deluded on certain things, but not on entire universe-views.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by lifegazer

Deadly serious.
The question was asked whether "believers" are deluded. Ultimately, I think that human-beings can only function in relation to knowledge which is either factual or believed. Only dead men have no opinions or beliefs.
Since when is "believer" the antonym to "absolute certainty?"

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Second, essentially, deluded means mistaken.

May I suggest a dictionary?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Second, essentially, deluded means mistaken.

No, it does not. It means:

1 : to mislead the mind or judgment of : DECEIVE, TRICK
2 obsolete a : FRUSTRATE, DISAPPOINT b : EVADE, ELUDE
synonym see DECEIVE
Source: Webster

There is intent in "deluded". Being merely mistaken is the opposite: No intent.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Scientists, and all people in general, have been mistaken at one time or another. So in a sense, we are all deluded. :) For one to say that someone's entire universe-view is deluded, means that we know how the universe really is for certain. No one ever, as far as I know, has had that special insight.

No "special insight" is needed, only sufficient knowledge. The reason scientists have been wrong was because of insufficient data and knowledge.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
One can certainly be deluded on certain things, but not on entire universe-views.

Prove it.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by showme2
""""Science is not a belief system.
It is not a belief system because it merely describes reality. But most scientists and skeptics think that science is more than this. They confuse science with metaphysics. They in fact do treat it as a belief system; namely as constituting proof of the atheist/materialist metaphysic. This is how stupid they are."""""

THANK YOU, Interesting Ian !!!!

Science is just another "belief system" because it proclaims what is held to be verifiable and true AT THE TIME OF PRONOUNCEMENT.

The fact that those pronouncements are - by admission of the sceptics - under constant review and modification to correct errors of previous beliefs/pronouncements leaves this sceptic god "Science" as no less of a belief system than any other.
And one that is, by admission, continually wrong and in need of correction !!!

Woops ! Bang goes the entire pseudo scientific basis for scepticism.

So there's nothing to be learned here from these sceptic "woo-woos". They are as "deluded" as those they accuse of it, if not more so.
"I'll get my coat" !:cs:

There is a distinction between "science" and "most scientists" and quite frankly I'm impressed that Ian knows so many of them that he can speak for the majority with such authority.

A small point you're overlooking is that theories (or "what is held to be verifiable and true") are not modified just because someone claims to have a better theory. They are modified when someone provides evidence that they are flawed. That evidence must be testable in reproduceable, controlled experiments.

Here's yer hat, what's yer hurry...

[Thanz]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


There is intent in "deluded". Being merely mistaken is the opposite: No intent.

So, what would you say about someone who had an intense personal experience of some kind that led them to start believing in some paranormal phenomenon? Are they "deluded" or merely "mistaken"?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by alfaniner
That's interesting. What evidence is there that there is no life after death? No "God" of any definition? No anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation? Nothing to astrology or the I Ching? No substantial self which is not ontological dependent on the brain etc? Where is all the evidence against these beliefs and so many others?

I look forward in anticipation to your reply.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



What evidence is there that there is life after death? A"God" of any definition? Anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation? Astrology or the I Ching? A substantial self which is ontologically dependent on the brain etc? Where is all the evidence for these beliefs and so many others?

I look forward in anticipation to your reply.

Well, plenty of evidence. But that is not being discussed. What is being discussed is the evidence that these things don't exist. I'm still eagerly awaiting a reply from someone on this issue.

[showme2]

___________"A small point you're overlooking is that theories (or "what is held to be verifiable and true") are not modified just because someone claims to have a better theory. They are modified when someone provides evidence that they are flawed. That evidence must be testable in reproduceable, controlled experiments.
Here's yer hat, what's yer hurry... _______________


Don't worry, I'm still here and looking for my coat. (One of those bloody sceptics must have nicked it in frustration !)

No, No, No, sorry - you don't get off the hook with bogus definitions !
Scientists do not modify "theories" at all. They tell us things that they hold out to be verifiable and true - i.e. FACTS - and later modify THEM when they decide they were wrong first time out.

A theory is not held out as something which is verifiable and true. A theory is a possibility, a proposition....
My car won't start. I have checked most other things. So I have a THEORY that it is dirty spark plugs. No scientist would tell me that was a fact, because he has no proof.
When I take the plugs out, I see they are indeed dirty, clean them, and reinstal them. The car starts. The THEORY has now changed to FACT. The scientist can now state the fact.

"Science" does not give us theories.
It asserts truths, facts.
Those facts are then changed later for another set when the original ones are discovered to be wrong.

If it were otherwise, the sceptics would have no business quoting "the laws of science" (physics in particular) as evidence that the claims of mediums must be false.
But now they have no business quoting such laws in support of their arguments anyway, because science is now clearly a Belief System with no superior claim to precedence in explaining the paranormal.

Come on now, which one of you bastards has nicked my coat ????

P.S. We could really do with the intellectual input of DeBunk or Thaiboxerken on this very interesting thread. But they both seem to have adopted a sudden low profile !

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

May I suggest a dictionary?

You may Believer Billy. You may also actually address my points instead of running away from them after sniping from the sidelines.

The idea is that nonbelievers use the word 'deluded' when the word 'mistaken' could probably be more appropriate to describe believers' truth claims. Calling a beliver deluded is simply a tactic, a jab to suggest they are delusional (look up delusional in your dictionary- the "state of being deluded"), psychotic, and obviosuly by default the nonbeliever is quite sane. Hey, we should believe the sane people! Fairly transparent stuff here.

However, as I've said, either word, deluded or mistaken, requires that the nonbeliever knows for certain the true state of affairs of whatever one is arguing about (or else how do they know the believer is mistaken and that they are not mistaken?) This is only possible in little things, little claims, not things on the scale of the true nature of the universe.

Unless, that is, you can prove how things really are? I know I can't.

[T'ai Chi]

The disagreement I have with the scientistic, is that how can something be the truth, only later on to be changed??? Changing it would imply that it was not the truth!

And saying you are only asserting the truth is identical to stating that you don't know. If you don't know, and I don't know, but we both think we know, and we both have our reasons, much of which could be seen as overlapping but explained in different language, then there we are. :)


P.S. We could really do with the intellectual input of DeBunk or Taiboxerken on this very interesting thread.


I can sum up TBK's stance succinctly I believe: 'all is material, the rest is delusional bunk. Anyone have a taco?'

Moving on...

[epepke]

Originally posted by Clancie

I think its a double standard.

Yes, it's a double standard. So what?

Why is there a double standard? Maybe there's just some expediency in making scientific skepticism agnostic toward religion and thus increasing the number of allies. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Martin Gardner, a Christian, was a pioneer.

But, ultimately, what of it?

[showme2]

QUOTE: """""""The idea is that nonbelievers use the word 'deluded' when the word 'mistaken' could probably be more appropriate to describe believers' truth claims. Calling a beliver deluded is simply a tactic, a jab to suggest they are delusional (look up delusional in your dictionary- the "state of being deluded"), psychotic, and obviosuly by default the nonbeliever is quite sane. Hey, we should believe the sane people! Fairly transparent stuff here."""""""""

Deluded? Mistaken ? Who cares?
As a "90% certain believer", it doesn't make much difference to me which word is used to accuse me, though I accept that "deluded" has deliberate supercilious implications.

But hey come on, let's compromise on "WRONG" shall we, and get back to the FAR more interesting proposition that the great god of the sceptics, Science, is simply just another Belief System and therefore deserves no more precedence in explaining "the paranormal" than any other Belief System.

Interesting Ian sent the thread in a MUCH more interesting direction because it undermines the cornerstone of the whole sceptic argument.

And, since this forum consists of 90%+ sceptics, I can therefore well understand why that debate has suddenly gone VERY quiet.

What's up, sceptics ? Don't like being accused of being "woo-woos" who trust in a mere Belief System under the guise of your infallible Science??? !!!

[thaiboxerken]

Are believers deluded?

Isn't that like asking "do criminals do crimes"?

Delusion is the belief in that which isn't factual or real.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by lifegazer
Are skeptics "believers"?
If not, they must be either:
(1) Dead skeptics.
(2) Skeptics that know.

Are there any skeptics in here who claim to know the secrets of existence?
I guess not. Therefore, given that none of the skeptics in here are dead, I propose that:
All skeptics are believers.

Now... are believers deluded?

When I wrote "Are believers deluded", I was wrote it under the assumption that "believers" would be defined as those who believe in supernatural or paranormal phenomena (simply because in the JREF messageboard, thats what "believer" is or can be defined as).

Yes, its true, everybody believes something... dont try to split the question in a semantical analysis.

[showme2]

No No NO, TBK !
Don't come here with a trite comment like that and then clear off because you're out of your depth.

Read the earlier posts on the page, starting with Interesting Ian, and then try to CONTRIBUTE something to the debate.

The proposition is that your beloved "science" - which has to be satisfied in order to establish the veracity of anything paranormal - is merely another Belief System in disguise. And that sceptics are therefore the "woo-woos" they delight in accusing others of being.

WELL ? We're waiting ........

[showme2]

TBK

""""Delusion is the belief in that which isn't factual or real.""""

Yes, we know that. (We all own a dictionary.)
Well, in fact, no - you're wrong. Delusion is more than that, because belief in something which isn't factual or real can be simply "mistaken". But we've dealt with all of that semantic nonsense already. (see above)

The proposition is that "science" - as just another Belief System - has no prior claim to pronouncing on what is factual and real and what is not.
Therefore sceptics who assert that science is the only arbiter are in fact the "woo-woos" they accuse others of being.

You follow that ? (You need to read THOROUGHLY the earlier posts starting with Interesting Ian's)

It will take you about 20 minutes, but we'll wait ......


__________________

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
That's interesting. What evidence is there that there is no life after death? No "God" of any definition?

- snipped the parts I couldnt understand -

Where is all the evidence against these beliefs and so many others?

I look forward in anticipation to your reply.

Well, I'll try to give an answer that you will accept...

It is impossible to present evidence that there is no life after death, the reason being is because that scenario is an unrestricted negative.

However, it is possible to defeat an unrestricted negative if you can demonstrate how it is logically incoherent (as you wont be finding any empirical evidence of this kind soon). For "evidence" of the nonexistance of an afterlife, I would say the reason it cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena and it exists outside the realm of science is why there is no afterlife.

If the materialistic reasoning doesnt satisfy, you might have difficulty finding anything which existance in reality is accepted but cannot be explained scientifically. Edit to add: I just thought of an example - things that continue moving with no force that is pushing or pulling them (roll a bowling ball slowly down a lane, and it continues to move on its own). This ignorance is called "inertia". Note: Inertia is not a force, it is a word used to describe the qualitive property of an objects tendency to remain in its state of movement or rest.

What about John Edward, how can we be sure that he is lying? Well, we cant dive inside his head, but I would say that the dead speaking to the living cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena, Mr. Edward's powers are non-existant.

A little additional information on the legitimacy of psychics...
If a psychic ever acted as a witness based on his psychic predictions, there would be no "reasonable doubt" to the validity of his sincerity, he would be charged for purgery.

There you go, evidence (in the form of scientific reasoning) that there is no afterlife.

[lifegazer]

Originally posted by Yahweh
When I wrote "Are believers deluded", I was wrote it under the assumption that "believers" would be defined as those who believe in supernatural or paranormal phenomena (simply because in the JREF messageboard, thats what "believer" is or can be defined as).

Yes, its true, everybody believes something... dont try to split the question in a semantical analysis.
That's interesting. I accept your response as semi-justifiable. But, as a [rational] theist, I get offended by the use of terms such as "woo woos" and, of course, "delusional believers", when it comes to skeptical analysis of theism or whatever.

Given my responses to this thread and the equivalent 'delusionalism' which can be associated with atheism/skepticism/materialism, I was hoping to tip the balance of respect back into more favourable and respectable treatment for we castigated [rational] theists, so that "we" might be able to start a thread, for a change, without being instantly deluged by moronic-skeptics who have forgotten how to rationalise or treat fellow human-beings politely... and who are not even interested in digesting what "we" might have to say.
Those sincere skeptics amongst you know exactly what I am talking about.
I feel that threads such as these just add to the general-farcity of the situation I am discussing... and as such, they need to be redressed. I'm curious to know whether this is a forum of actual rational-debate or of debasement, for moronic pleasures. Sometimes, it's difficult to say.

[showme2]

Lifegazer

"I was hoping to tip the balance of respect back into more favourable and respectable treatment for we castigated [rational] theists, so that "we" might be able to start a thread, for a change, without being instantly deluged by moronic-skeptics who have forgotten how to rationalise or treat fellow human-beings politely... and who are not even interested in digesting what "we" might have to say.
Those sincere skeptics amongst you know exactly what I am talking about.
I feel that threads such as these just add to the general-farcity of the situation I am discussing... and as such, they need to be redressed. I'm curious to know whether this is a forum of actual rational-debate or of debasement, for moronic pleasures. Sometimes, it's difficult to say."

I agree, but don't give up. This is now one of the most interesting threads I have seen on this forum, because the whole foundation of the sceptics' claimed high ground in the paranormal debate has been challenged, and challenged successfully in my view.

Unless they can counter the proposition successfully, they will henceforth have NO BASIS on which to claim that "science" is the final arbiter of all things paranormal.

We are currently awaiting Thaiboxerken's further input after allowing him to read the earlier posts since Interesting Ian's.

I said we would give him 20 minutes to catch up. (That was - erm - over 45 minutes ago. So I guess tomorrow will have to do.)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
[B]

Well, I'll try to give an answer that you will accept...

It is impossible to present evidence that there is no life after death, the reason being is because that scenario is an unrestricted negative.



I can't remember who, but someone said there was a load of evidence against everything "believers" believe in.



However, it is possible to defeat an unrestricted negative if you can demonstrate how it is logically incoherent (as you wont be finding any empirical evidence of this kind soon).


Ok, go ahead, show how something like, say, anomalous cognition is logically incoherent. If you can show that then it needn't be scientifically investigated, and we can ignore our own personal experiences since what we appear to experience cannot possibly be really happening :rolleyes:



For "evidence" of the nonexistance of an afterlife, I would say the reason it cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena and it exists outside the realm of science is why there is no afterlife.



An appallingly poor argument. If there is an afterlife then this implies materialism is false. Thus one could scarely expect it to be explained in terms of matter. You simply beg the question. And science as in physics is purely concerned with the physical.



If the materialistic reasoning doesnt satisfy, you might have difficulty finding anything which existance in reality is accepted but cannot be explained scientifically.


I can make no sense of this "sentence". It is incoherent. You'll need to elaborate on what you mean.



Edit to add: I just thought of an example - things that continue moving with no force that is pushing or pulling them (roll a bowling ball slowly down a lane, and it continues to move on its own). This ignorance is called "inertia". Note: Inertia is not a force, it is a word used to describe the qualitive property of an objects tendency to remain in its state of movement or rest.



Yeah, much like the concept of force.



What about John Edward, how can we be sure that he is lying? Well, we cant dive inside his head, but I would say that the dead speaking to the living cannot be explained in terms of matter or natural phenomena, Mr. Edward's powers are non-existant.



I would suspect so. Not from your reasoning though.

[Blondin]

Originally posted by showme2
Scientists do not modify "theories" at all. They tell us things that they hold out to be verifiable and true - i.e. FACTS - and later modify THEM when they decide they were wrong first time out.

A theory is not held out as something which is verifiable and true. A theory is a possibility, a proposition....
My car won't start. I have checked most other things. So I have a THEORY that it is dirty spark plugs. No scientist would tell me that was a fact, because he has no proof.
When I take the plugs out, I see they are indeed dirty, clean them, and reinstal them. The car starts. The THEORY has now changed to FACT. The scientist can now state the fact.

"Science" does not give us theories.
It asserts truths, facts.
Those facts are then changed later for another set when the original ones are discovered to be wrong.

If it were otherwise, the sceptics would have no business quoting "the laws of science" (physics in particular) as evidence that the claims of mediums must be false.
But now they have no business quoting such laws in support of their arguments anyway, because science is now clearly a Belief System with no superior claim to precedence in explaining the paranormal.


I strongly disagree with you on a number of points.

Scientists certainly do modify theories and theories never become facts. Some theories may seem so well supported by data and predictable observation that it is very tempting to accept them as proven fact but we are OBLIGED to modify the theory if truly verifiable contradictory data is presented.

To use your example:

Your car wouldn't start. You open the carb and verify that it's getting gas - that's one hypothosis eliminated. You pull off a spark plug wire and verify that it arcs to the chassis - that's another hypothosis eliminated. You pull out the spark plugs and clean them. When you get it back together the car starts. Your theory is that the plugs were dirty therefore you weren't getting enough spark to start the car. This isn't a fact, it's just a theory. So far it looks like a pretty good theory.

Next day the car doesn't start again. You pull out the plugs and they are still nice and clean. Now what? Is it possible that you have a totally different problem today? Is it possible that the dirty plugs were a red herring and something else you did in the process of removing and replacing them was responsible for getting the car started yesterday? Is it possible that it was going to start on the next attempt no matter what you did?

Would it make any kind of sense to stand there and insist that the car won't start today because the spark plugs were dirty yesterday or do you think maybe you should chuck that theory and start the troubleshooting process again?

Now suppose your neighbor comes over and suggests that your car probably won't start because of evil spirits but he can exorcise them for a small fee. If you can't find the problem yourself who would you rather trust, your regular mechanic or the witch doctor next door? Is his hypothosis as valid as the possibility that maybe you just have an intermittent electrical problem? If it turns out that the problem was a crack in the distributor cap do you believe any amount of spells and incantations could mend it? And, if it turned out his idea of an exorcism was to replace the distributor cap, are you going to accept the explanation of "evil spirits"?

I gotta run. Back later...

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Delusion is the belief in that which isn't factual or real.

And again, to make your statement stick, you'd have to know The Truth.

You don't, so your statement is fairly empty.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Yahweh

It is impossible to present evidence that there is no life after death, ....

There you go, evidence (in the form of scientific reasoning) that there is no afterlife.

I seem to have noted a contradiction there with a semantic shift. Anyone else see it?

[showme2]

Blondin said:
I strongly disagree with you on a number of points.

"Scientists certainly do modify theories and theories never become facts."

But of course they do! The splitting of the atom would cause an enormous chain reaction explosion - theory. It was tested, the test was repeated, and the theory held good. It became a fact.
You can't go back 60 years later and say "No, we got it wrong. If you split an atom you DON'T get a huge explosion, so Hiroshima and Nagasaki couldn't have been damaged that way; it must have been earthquakes".
Well, not if you want anyone to ever listen to you again, anyway.

I can't buy this "everything is a theory" scenario because it's a copout which leaves scientists totally unaccountable for constantly giving us information which is incorrect and therefore valueless until they finally get it right.
Meanwhile we don't ever know precisely WHEN they've got it right. So we know they may be wrong, but they may be right. And we are supposed to base judgments of important matters on THAT ???

When they present us with theories which they assert at the time are scientifically true, they are presenting us with "alleged" facts, otherwise why bother. But if the "facts" are flawed, they don't discover that until later, when they cancel the first facts and replace them with the second set. Meanwhile we have been treating the first lot as Gospel.

That sounds to me like an admission that science is almost always WRONG, and doesn't even know when it has finally got it right !

"Some theories may seem so well supported by data and predictable observation that it is very tempting to accept them as proven fact but we are OBLIGED to modify the theory if truly verifiable contradictory data is presented."

Yes, of course the mistake has to be corrected. But it didn't stop them as being accepted as facts pro tem in the first place.

"Now suppose your neighbor comes over and suggests that your car probably won't start because of evil spirits but he can exorcise them for a small fee. If you can't find the problem yourself who would you rather trust, your regular mechanic or the witch doctor next door?"
Neither - ME. Because I'm in the shoes of the scientist in this example. And I made the first diagnosis that the fault was dirty plugs. And in the meantime since yesterday, I've been telling everyone: "I've cracked it. If your car won't start, it's dirty plugs. It started as a theory but I've proved it now - look at my engine running".
My neighbour - or neighbor if he is American ! - now tells me "You got it wrong yesterday. It looked as if it was a fact, but it wasn't. Try replacing the distributor cap". I try it and it fires.

But maybe I've been just lucky again. Maybe tomorrow it will prove to be damp in the electrics generally.
In the meantime, I have misled all the poor sods I told about (i) the plugs (ii) the distributor.

If science provides no facts, only theories, then it cannot be held up as any substantive basis for making judgments about things which are evidently paranormal.
Because tomorrow, the entire basis of the judgment might be proven to be flawed, AND WE KNOW IT. That is the assertion here.

Meanwhile, all these sceptics are holding up science as the only way to test events which are evidently paranormal ???

No, nice try, but no cigar I'm afraid.

[Blondin]

The fact that atomic or hydrogen bomb does what it does is not something any sane person would challenge. The fact that it works is observable data. The explanation for why it works could change tomorrow. Not to any great degree but we are still learning things about subatomic particles and the forces that affect them. The Manhattan Project didn't happen because a bunch of guys sat down and designed a bomb and built it and it worked. A whole lot of tests and experiments had to be done and a whole lot of things didn't work before they finally refined their theories and perfected a design that did work.

The car analogy can only go so far and I think it's run out of gas at this point. I doubt if any mechanic (or scientist for that matter) could tell you why your car won't start based on the info we've been tossing around here.

Maybe a better example would be something like the size of the universe. That has been amended a number of times over the years. You've probably heard of the great Shapley/Curtis debate of 1920.
The Great Debate (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/debate_1920.html)
No one would argue that the scale of the universe has actually changed since 1920 and it certainly doesn't look a lot different from our viewpoint than it has for a several thousand years.

However our current estimates of the distances of many celestial bodies are based on theories about intrinsic brightness and magnitude, and about what is actually going on inside pulsars and variable stars and whole bunch of other astromical data that's way over my head.

The point is that astronomers have been refining our understanding of the scale of our galaxy and the rest of the universe for many years.

I think we've highjacked this thread away from its original intention. I got the impression that what Yahweh was saying was that it's wrong to assume that just because someone believes something that seems obviously wrong to us doesn't make them mentally inferior. We have all been gullible or ignorant at some time about something.

I do find it fascinating that anyone would argue that a deduction based on observable, duplicatable experimentation is equal or less valid than a totally unsupported claim that defies common experience.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by showme2
I can't buy this "everything is a theory" scenario because it's a copout which leaves scientists totally unaccountable for constantly giving us information which is incorrect and therefore valueless until they finally get it right.

They are still accountable, they are just leaving the door open for someone to introduce new theories that describe reality better. It's not a copout, I like to think of it as noble humility in the face of this majestic, wondrously complex universe we live in.;)

Originally posted by Blondin
I do find it fascinating that anyone would argue that a deduction based on observable, duplicatable experimentation is equal or less valid than a totally unsupported claim that defies common experience.

I think Thanz nailed that point with:
Originally posted by Thanz
On a somewhat related note, I think that the strongest "evidence" for most believers is personal experience.

Personal experience owns.

I know of 2 UFO experiences and a ghost incident that are really hard to argue against without calling the people involved delusional. Note, not deluded, misguided or idiotic, they had to be flat out hallucinating or lying about what happend or there really are ghosts and flying saucers. 2 of those 3 people were actually skeptics before the incident took place.

Edit for glaring typo

[thaiboxerken]

Read the earlier posts on the page, starting with Interesting Ian, and then try to CONTRIBUTE something to the debate.

No, Ian's position is usually one of insanity. That reality is subjective. Sorry, Ian doesn't contribute anything but nonsense to a discussion.


The proposition is that your beloved "science" - which has to be satisfied in order to establish the veracity of anything paranormal - is merely another Belief System in disguise.

No, science is the seeking of knowledge. No belief involved there, it's all based on evidence.

And that sceptics are therefore the "woo-woos" they delight in accusing others of being.

Ian's and your position is a play on semantics. It's like the theists saying that I have faith in my chair being able to hold me up. No, my conclusions are based on evidence. There is a very, very low probability that my chair will collapse at any moment. The chair doesn't have any damage, though, so I'm willing to take the risk.

[thaiboxerken]

The proposition is that "science" - as just another Belief System - has no prior claim to pronouncing on what is factual and real and what is not.
Therefore sceptics who assert that science is the only arbiter are in fact the "woo-woos" they accuse others of being.

That's a bunch of BS. Science is prove to be the most reliable way in discovering knowledge and reality. If you doubt me, just look around you.. scientific method came up with your computer, your house, your car, your roads and much of everything else we take for granted in the modern world.


You follow that ? (You need to read THOROUGHLY the earlier posts starting with Interesting Ian's)

No.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


And again, to make your statement stick, you'd have to know The Truth.

You don't, so your statement is fairly empty.

I do know, and yes they are. If any believers want to prove me wrong, feel free to invite your spirits to visit me in the dark. If there is a god, let him strike me down as I type. You see, the skeptic position is the default one. Believers have the burden of evidence, yet they never EVER can come up with good-scientific evidence that can be supported by the scientific community.

Oh, and for you "science isn't everything" people out there, I have a question. If not using science, what other objective method can one use to determine facts? What are the objective criteria that you used to determine that there is an afterlife, Ian?

[showme2]

TBK
A little better, but still flawed ....


"No, Ian's position is usually one of insanity. That reality is subjective. Sorry, Ian doesn't contribute anything but nonsense to a discussion."
Your experience of Ian's posts is historical, subjective and, in my view, incorrect.
Just because you might usually have found it so, it does not mean that his current post follows any previous pattern. (Frankly, his posts are intellectually streets ahead of yours in my opinion.)

"No, science is the seeking of knowledge. No belief involved there, it's all based on evidence."
And on facts and conclusions which are changed when they are later proved wrong. So, at any one time, the pronouncements of science are no different from any other Belief System. Maybe right, maybe wrong. Therefore deserving of no special status in judging what appears to be paranormal.


"Ian's and your position is a play on semantics. It's like the theists saying that I have faith in my chair being able to hold me up. No, my conclusions are based on evidence. There is a very, very low probability that my chair will collapse at any moment. The chair doesn't have any damage, though, so I'm willing to take the risk."
Very poor analogy. We are not talking about assessment of risk. We are talking about people asserting that this that or the other is incontrovertible because "science" says so ... whilst acknowledging that errors in the conclusions of science are corrected on an ongoing basis.

I guess this is a bit "deep" for you, since you have entirely missed the point.

[showme2]

TBK

You follow that ? (You need to read THOROUGHLY the earlier posts starting with Interesting Ian's)

"No."

I predicted you wouldn't. I guess I must be psychic !

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


And again, to make your statement stick, you'd have to know The Truth.

You don't, so your statement is fairly empty.

Hardly. "The Truth" is your semantic shift, not his. He was speaking of truth, as in the provisional truth of science. I am perfectly comfortable with 98% certainty. I am over 99.9999% certain that I will come back to the planet each and every time I jump up. I have never experienced the fear of floating away to die in space. If I met a person who had such a fear, I would call him deluded, and rightly so. Similarly, the flat earth society is filled with deluded members. I say this because I have seen enormous contrary evidence.

I also would rightly call anybody who claims 100% certainty is needed before they call something a fact quite deluded. This is bifurcated thinking.

Cheers,

[thaiboxerken]

And on facts and conclusions which are changed when they are later proved wrong. So, at any one time, the pronouncements of science are no different from any other Belief System. Maybe right, maybe wrong. Therefore deserving of no special status in judging what appears to be paranormal.

Your ad-nauseum method of debate is... nauseating. Unlike belief systems, science will correct itself according to contradictory evidence and new evidence. Belief systems aren't like that, they take much more effort to change than science.


Very poor analogy. We are not talking about assessment of risk. We are talking about people asserting that this that or the other is incontrovertible because "science" says so ... whilst acknowledging that errors in the conclusions of science are corrected on an ongoing basis.

Tell me, what other objective measure of reality works better than science?

Oh, and I see the point. I don't agree with your point because it's rather silly. You simply want to "prove" to yourself that skeptics are really believers themselves. You are much like a theists that wants to prove that Atheists have "faith". It's nonsense, since skepticism is a position of doubt.

[thaiboxerken]

That's interesting. What evidence is there that there is no life after death? No "God" of any definition? No anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation? Nothing to astrology or the I Ching? No substantial self which is not ontological dependent on the brain etc? Where is all the evidence against these beliefs and so many others?

No need for evidence against those beliefs. The fact that those beliefs have no evidence associated with them make them delusional beliefs.

Why do you insist on shifting the burden of evidence to skeptics?

[showme2]

TBK

"Your ad-nauseum method of debate is... nauseating."

Yes, because you don't have any substantive answers and want to get yourself off the hook, and I'm not letting you !


"Unlike belief systems, science will correct itself according to contradictory evidence and new evidence. Belief systems aren't like that, they take much more effort to change than science"

You have just admitted that science can at any time have got it wrong.
Now, how do you know when WHEN it has got it wrong, and when it has got it right and we can rely on it for judgmental purposes.
Answer: You cannot.
So it is just another belief system.

[thaiboxerken]

You have just admitted that science can at any time have got it wrong.
Now, how do you know when WHEN it has got it wrong, and when it has got it right and we can rely on it for judgmental purposes.
Answer: You cannot.
So it is just another belief system.

First of all, science is never wrong. Science is just a method. Scientists, however, can be mistaken and wrong.

What other objective method would you use for determining and discovering facts would you use?

Oh, and I read Ian's posts.. Same insane arguments as ever. I suffered more of Ian's insanity just to to see if you were correct. You are wrong.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by showme2
"Unlike belief systems, science will correct itself according to contradictory evidence and new evidence. Belief systems aren't like that, they take much more effort to change than science"

You have just admitted that science can at any time have got it wrong.
Now, how do you know when WHEN it has got it wrong, and when it has got it right and we can rely on it for judgmental purposes.
Answer: You cannot.
So it is just another belief system.
Utterly fallacious reasoning: Argumentum ad ignorantium!

[showme2]

Bill

WHY ?

Where's the illogicality ?

I see no reductio ad absurdum, which would have been more specific an allegation than your generally abusive one.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by showme2
Bill

WHY ?

Where's the illogicality ?

I see no reductio ad absurdum, which would have been more specific an allegation than your generally abusive one.


I stated the fallacy. Please re-read my "abusive" post.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I can't remember who, but someone said there was a load of evidence against everything "believers" believe in.
I'm sure its been said before, I'm even more sure its parroted by those who are bit naive or have no outside reading.


Ok, go ahead, show how something like, say, anomalous cognition is logically incoherent. If you can show that then it needn't be scientifically investigated, and we can ignore our own personal experiences since what we appear to experience cannot possibly be really happening :rolleyes:

From this (http://skepdic.com/anomcog.html) Skepdic.com defintion:
Anomalous cognition is a term coined by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to refer to ESP, including telepathy, clairvoyance, precognition and remote viewing. SAIC also refers to psychokinesis as anomalous perturbation.

SAIC claims their terminology is neutral. It also sounds more scientific and looks better on grant applications.

From this (http://www.paranormality.com/anomalous_cognition.shtml) definition on Paranormality.com:
Anomalous Cognition
Anomalous Cognition n : a form of information transfer by an unknown means and without sensorial stimuli. Some individuals are able to gain access to this information, but the process is not yet understood. The term anomalous cognition is also known as remote viewing, clairvoyance, but more generally replaces the term of ESP.

I see ESP and clairvoyance as nothing more than a human's natural tendency to make associations (which do not exist) between unrelated and/or unremarkable events.

As for evidence against the evidence of ESP, I say the negative results in tests (see James Randi Educational Foundation, or set up your own double-blind procedure) demonstrates one of two things:
1. ESP is really hard to test for
2. There is no ESP, no positive results can be expected.

An appallingly poor argument. If there is an afterlife then this implies materialism is false. Thus one could scarely expect it to be explained in terms of matter. You simply beg the question. And science as in physics is purely concerned with the physical.

I use the arguement to explain why I dont believe in perpetual motion, the laws of motion (which apply to everything from galaxies, to bowling balls, to kittens) cannot be violated. Its the reason I think the Oregon vortex is nothing more spectacular than an optical illusion.

Your very own quote" if there is an afterlife" would not be accepted a valid scientific hypothesis. Prerequisite 1: A hypothesis needs to be falsifyable. Its why "there are forces in nature that occur but cannot be detected by scientific means" is not valid hypothesis (its actually a conditional statement based on assumed axioms), but "the moon is made of cheese" is a valid hypothesis.

I can make no sense of this "sentence". It is incoherent. You'll need to elaborate on what you mean.

Dont worry, many people I talk to mention that they sometimes have a hard time making sense of the things I say. I try to be extremely careful with my words, sometimes its just difficult to make a coherent statement.

I'll attempt to rephrase intelligibly:
We know stuff like electricity, kittens, and hydrogen bonds "exist" in the universe, there is no question about it.

There is debate to whether ESP, precognition, psi, and perpetual motion actually exist or occur. The reason is because tests for the existence of psychic phenomena do not turn up positive results, claims such as perpetual motion are always bogus as no perpetual motion has ever been produced and it is accepted that they cannot exist because it would violate the laws of thermodynamics.

However, I would imagine it would be difficult if not impossible to name an object or occurrence who's existence is definitely accepted, but it cant be explained without breaking the laws of science.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

I do know, ..


You do in fact claim to know The Truth? If so, God, that's great! Show us some of your supposedly vast knowledge then, please!
:)


If any believers want to prove me wrong, ...


Prove you wrong? We're still waiting for you to prove yourself right.


You see, the skeptic position is the default one.


That is the central skeptic dogma anyway. Considering belief is practiced by the majority of people and is central to every culture past and present, one could say that belief is the default position, eh?


Believers have the burden of evidence, ..


No. Anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you've made claims (you have), you have the burden of proof, skeptic or not.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Tell me, what other objective measure of reality works better than science?


Can you prove it is truly objective?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

First of all, science is never wrong. Science is just a method. Scientists, however, can be mistaken and wrong.


Well, what is incorrect about then saying:

Fine, then religion is never wrong. Religion is a method. Believers, however, can be mistaken and wrong.

[T'ai Chi]

Regarding anomalous mental phenomena, that is, anomalous perturbation and anomalous cognition:


It also sounds more scientific and looks better on grant applications.


Oh please! Yeah, now get on the back of anyone who gets a grant application.. :rolleyes: :D

One could say Ideomotor effect, Barnum & Forer effect, Occam's Razor, and other commonly adopted skeptical terms, sound more scientific than 'the person is moving', 'the person is agree iwth vague statements', and 'all things equal, go with the hypothesis with the least assumptions',and therefore, blah blah blah'. I will reveal an amazing truth: all fields of study have their own fancy smancy terms. :)

Saying 'anomalous' is neutral because it isn't hinting at any modes. In my opinion, it is also refreshing because of the common view, thanks to popular media mostly :), people have of the words Extra Sensory Perception (ESP) and Psychokinesis (PK).

[thaiboxerken]

No. Anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you've made claims (you have), you have the burden of proof, skeptic or not.

No, the skeptic position is one of doubt... the doubt of the believer's positive assertions. It is always the believers that have the burden of evidence, that is because they are the ones with the initial claim. I can not hold the position of doubting their claims if they have never made the claim. Stop trying to play the burden shifting game with me, as I will not fall for your idiotic ploy.

Fine, then religion is never wrong. Religion is a method. Believers, however, can be mistaken and wrong.

False analogy, religion is nothing like the sciences, as religion dictates what "the truth" is. Science, however, seeks to discover truths.

[showme2]

TBK

""""""False analogy, religion is nothing like the sciences, as religion dictates what "the truth" is. Science, however, seeks to discover truths.""""""

Shifted your ground AGAIN, have you?
Not long ago you were asserting that paranormal phenomena couldn't exist because they ran contrary to the "laws of physics".

Now suddenly there ARE no laws of physics, and the whole of science merely seeks to discover truths. (But, of course, its pronouncements can at any time be wrong and due for correction later when the REAL truth is discovered.)

Yeah, right .......

[thaiboxerken]

Shifted your ground AGAIN, have you?

Not at all.


Not long ago you were asserting that paranormal phenomena couldn't exist because they ran contrary to the "laws of physics".


And they do. That's why EVIDENCE is absolutely needed in order to take the claims seriously. There is no credible, scientific evidence.

Now suddenly there ARE no laws of physics, and the whole of science merely seeks to discover truths. (But, of course, its pronouncements can at any time be wrong and due for correction later when the REAL truth is discovered.)

False, I never made such an arguments. You can build strawmen, but I'll point them out and burn them down when you do. The laws of physics are an observation of how the universe works, they are not a dictation by science of "the truth". The laws of physics can, and have, been updated according to new discoveries and evidence. The laws of physics could be updated by the paranormalists IF they had evidence to support their claims. They do not, so they have not affected our observations of the reality of physics.

[Clancie]

Posted by thaiboxerken

No, the skeptic position is one of doubt... the doubt of the believer's positive assertions. It is always the believers that have the burden of evidence, that is because they are the ones with the initial claimWhat do you think of these quotes of yours, TBK?

Thaiboxerken from the "Please Stop citing CO as Evidence" thread

(TBK to neo) You're confused because you are stupid. I have in no way shown that I'm a cynic. There is no afterlife, JE is not a medium.. those are facts.
Or this one?
TBK from the "Question for Thaiboxerken" thread

My definition of a skeptic is one that doesn't believe in the paranormal.

[thaiboxerken]

What do you think of these quotes of yours, TBK?

Yea, what about them?

[showme2]

TBK
"""""""The laws of physics are an observation of how the universe works, they are not a dictation by science of "the truth". """""""

WRONG ! By definition, the laws of physics relate to how the physical universe works.
It has nothing to say about anything outside the physical universe.
And the paranormal is, in its entirety, ouitside the physical universe.

In any case, the sceptic god Science is just another Belief System, no more no less.

[thaiboxerken]

WRONG ! By definition, the laws of physics relate to how the physical universe works.

Is there anything outside physical universe? Evidence please.


It has nothing to say about anything outside the physical universe.

That's right, because science only deals with reality.


And the paranormal is, in its entirety, ouitside the physical universe.

And outside of reality.


In any case, the sceptic god Science is just another Belief System, no more no less.

False, a belief system consists of several beliefs. Science doesn't carry such beliefs. Belief systems don't need evidence to support their beliefs, Science requires evidence.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

No, the skeptic position is one of doubt... the doubt of the believer's positive assertions.


False. You would be correct if skeptics didn't make claims. Alas, they do, and therefore have some burden as well as believers who make claims.


, that is because they are the ones with the initial claim.


Semantic shift. Now you say "initial claim". Look, the claim can be made at any time. Evidence is still required, skeptic and believer alike.


I can not hold the position of doubting their claims if they have never made the claim.

That is correct, as long as skeptics don't make any claims. But since they do..

[showme2]

TBK

What ? You AGAIN ????
How many people have you got posting under your Username ?

To paraphrase Pilate:
"What is reality" he asked, and waited not for an answer"

[thaiboxerken]

False. You would be correct if skeptics didn't make claims. Alas, they do, and therefore have some burden as well as believers who make claims.

Not when it comes to the evidence of the paranormal. The skeptical position on the paranormal is entirely dependant upon the initial claims of the believers.

Semantic shift. Now you say "initial claim". Look, the claim can be made at any time. Evidence is still required, skeptic and believer alike.

False, because the skeptical claim could not exist unless the believers first made the positive, initial claim.


That is correct, as long as skeptics don't make any claims. But since they do..

Skeptics make claims, but when a skeptic says "there are no demons" it is a claim dependant upon the initial, positive claim that there are demons. Without the believers absurd claims, there would be no skeptic position on the paranormal.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
No. Anyone who makes a claim has the burden of proof. If you've made claims (you have), you have the burden of proof, skeptic or not.

Tr'oll,

Let's see now. I claim A. You claim NOT-A. How do we both have the burden of proof? Would you like to give this another go?

It has nothing to do with who somebody is, and has everything to do with what is being claimed.

Do you understand why, or do you wish to remain gored on the horns of your own burden-of-proof dilemma?

Cheers,

[showme2]

"The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support hisside of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own
position. In other words, you can't win by default.

The only person exempt from providing definite support is the
person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic
position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in
favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is
exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives
adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence).

However, if hewants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highlyunlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth,it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for hisposition. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his
opponent's position."

[RichardR]

Well, I just had a debate with someone who said that scientific knowledge was not based on testing, it was based on thought experiments. I don't know what you'd call that, but he sure confused me.

I think I remember reading somewhere that the new version of Michael Shermer's "Why people believe in weird things", he has added a chapter called "Why smart people believe in weird things". He has some interesting conclusions:

1. Smart people believe in weird things because they arrived at those weird beliefs for non-smart reasons.

2. Because they arrived at those beliefs for non-smart reasons, there is little point in trying to refute those beliefs with smart reasoning. (No rational data will change their view since they didn't use rational data to form their view in the first place.)

3. Because they are smart, they are very good at defending those weird beliefs.

(I may be quoting Shermer imperfectly here – this is just from memory. But it makes sense.)

At this point something called cognitive dissonance sets in. This basically means they feel so uncomfortable with something that challenges their point of view, that they ignore it. Hence, the ad-hoc reasoning and the changing of data to suit their beliefs. For a good example of this look no further than the creationists and IDiots.

I think it's useful to view the problem this way – not smart reasoning – rather than in just the "deluded" tag, because not smart reasoning may explain why believers get that way, and also shows that we are unlikely to change the views of many people by logic and data (although it is fun to try). Presumably they only change when they have a major experience of some kind that jolts them.

It is also fair to note that skeptics can also be prone to all of the above traits. Critical thinking requires us to examine our own beliefs critically. I recently caught myself looking only for evidence that supported my prior belief, over on the debate about GM food.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by RichardR
Well, I just had a debate with someone who said that scientific knowledge was not based on testing, it was based on thought experiments. I don't know what you'd call that, but he sure confused me.
Knowledge based on thought experiments would be Ontological Philosophy.

I would say Galileo's famous Inclined Plane expirements constitutes as scientific knowledge based on experimentation. Copernicus years of recording the position of the stars constitutes as empirical data. The large particle colliders you read about in Scientific American is based on testing and experimentation.

You can use thought experiments to formulate hypothesis, but without testing you can never verify the hypothesis.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by showme2
"The skeptic insists that he doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support hisside of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own
position. In other words, you can't win by default.

The only person exempt from providing definite support is the
person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic
position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in
favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is
exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives
adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence).

However, if hewants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highlyunlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth,it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for hisposition. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his
opponent's position."

showme2,

If you are quoting someone else, please provide proper attribution.

Regardless of whose words they are, they are specious. First, this is a straw man. Skeptics do not take the position that a negative claim is different from a positive claim. They take the position that any claim contrary to known information puts the burden of proof on the claimant. They take the further position that extraordinary claims must meet an extraordinary proof burden.

Second, this post also fails to address the point I just raised about the burden of proof. The burden is never equal; it is always on the one swimming against the tide of data. If you claim there are purple unicorns, marshall the evidence. If you claim there is no gravity, marshall the evidence. If you claim evolution didn't happen, marshall the evidence.

Cheers,

[Yahweh]

I hope its not too late to post his disclaimer:

I didnt start this thread as another arena to add to the big "believer's vs. skeptics" fighting.

Have a nice day :).

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by BillHoyt


Tr'oll,

Let's see now. I claim A. You claim NOT-A. How do we both have the burden of proof? Would you like to give this another go?

I wanna play. :)

You claim A. I say your evidence for A is weak, so not-A still exists as a possibility.

I never claim not-A, only that you haven't proven A.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Let's see now. I claim A. You claim NOT-A. How do we both have the burden of proof? Would you like to give this another go?


Hey Believer 'September Totle' Billy, Ken said:

"There is no afterlife, JE is not a medium.. those are facts."

Do you think that that is not a claim?

:rolleyes:

Get real.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Hey Believer 'September Totle' Billy, Ken said:

"There is no afterlife, JE is not a medium.. those are facts."

Do you think that that is not a claim?

:rolleyes:

Get real. [/B]

Sure isn't, it's a doubt of the claims of the believers. It is the rational position, one can positively and safely claim that there are no boogie men under the bed rationally.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Knowledge based on thought experiments would be Ontological Philosophy.

I would say Galileo's famous Inclined Plane expirements constitutes as scientific knowledge based on experimentation. Copernicus years of recording the position of the stars constitutes as empirical data. The large particle colliders you read about in Scientific American is based on testing and experimentation.

You can use thought experiments to formulate hypothesis, but without testing you can never verify the hypothesis. You'd think so, wouldn't you? In fact, Galileo's inclined plane experiment was the example I used. I forget what his reply was. His sentences started off making sense, but after about 7 or 8 words they drifted off into meaningless drivel. I honestly have never had a debate with anyone like him. Strange guy. I've got his email and I think I'll find it easier to pin him down in writing.

[showme2]

Bill
I did not attribute it because, frankly, I didn't know who to attribute it to. It came off some Web site or other, and I thought it was an apt statement.
(I did, however, put it in quotes to indicate clearly that the "words of wisdom" were not mine.)

It is nevertheless a valid argument.
Sceptics assert that they do not need to prove their rejection of any hypothesis. It is for believers to prove theirs.
That is a copout.
They are equally obliged to provide proof for any "negative" claim.

Or not, if they can't !

[showme2]

MemeHacker

As you can now see, your whole approach is flawed, and the claimed "default" position does not exist.
All claims, positive or negative, demand proof.

[SteveGrenard]

Default position. That's a new one. LOL. So let me get this straight, no explain which of the following is the default position and why? Is it A, non-A, possibly non-A or possibly A? Or not non-A? Or?


You claim A. I say your evidence for A is weak, so not-A still exists as a possibility.

I never claim not-A, only that you haven't proven A.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

Sure isn't, it's a doubt of the claims of the believers. It is the rational position, one can positively and safely claim that there are no boogie men under the bed rationally.

HAHHAHAAHH AHAHHA HAHAHAH AHHAH AHH!!! :D :D :D :D

"There is no afterlife,"

IS NOT A CLAIM???????????????

Wait, first you say it isn't a claim. Then in the next sentence you say one can 'safely claim', etc. This is entirely contradictory!

Whoah... seriously dude, burn your logic books.

A doubt is expressed as 'I doubt there is an afterlife', or 'I have not seen any good evidence of an afterlife', or 'the people who believe in the afterlife have the burden of proof', etc.

Saying there is not an afterlife is a claim. -especially after you followed your claim by stating it was a fact!

:rolleyes:

I got a Totle nomination fer ya here Billy.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by showme2
MemeHacker

As you can now see, your whole approach is flawed, and the claimed "default" position does not exist.

1)My statements refuted Billhoyt's that I qouted above them. I'm unclear on why you think my whole approach is flawed but I suspect you have misinterpreted my approach, or at least misuderstood the context.
2)I never claimed a "default position" that I can recall. I'm not opposed to the term but I think you might have me confused with somebody else.
3)Though I'm wary of "default position" becoming a liguistic boobytrap I think it could be defined as, "I don't know. "
4)Since I'm wary of creating confusion were you think you are arguing a point universal to skeptics I feel I should point out that you are arguing with a statement that was made by a person arguing with a skeptic that you were arguing with yourself. (see #1)
Originally posted by showme2
All claims, positive or negative, demand proof.
Are you considering, "I don't know" a claim that requires proof?

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Default position. That's a new one. LOL. So let me get this straight, no explain which of the following is the default position and why? Is it A, non-A, possibly non-A or possibly A? Or not non-A? Or?

Egads, I knew it was a trap, these believers are crafty. ;) (see #2)

Give me a specific definition for what the "default position" is and I'll answer.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard
Default position. That's a new one. LOL.


Hehe, I agree.

I wonder if any atheist or skeptic can explain where the 'default position' doctrine came from in hostory. Who made it up? Can we find the first usage of this 'default position' idea in a book or something?

My guess is that it was invented by some atheists or skeptics, and that it isn't a coincidence that the 'default position' happens to coincide with their own. -That probably makes it easier to argue things away...

I could be wrong though.

[SteveGrenard]

MemeHacker et al:

I did not attribute the default position statement to you. It was first enunciated by TBK. I merely asked if your example regarding A and non-A etc etc involved a default position. Sorry if you misunderstood.

Perhaps somebody did misattribute it to you but if one scrolls back one will see this was an in-context term invented by TBK

I am also waiting for a definition of the term in this context.


Thank you.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


Hehe, I agree.

I wonder if any atheist or skeptic can explain where the 'default position' doctrine came from in hostory. Who made it up? Can we find the first usage of this 'default position' idea in a book or something?

My guess is that it was invented by some atheists or skeptics, and that it isn't a coincidence that the 'default position' happens to coincide with their own. -That probably makes it easier to argue things away...

I could be wrong though. [/B]

This default position issue is quite an interesting one. Skeptics hold a certain philosophical position about the world. A position which they believe is strongly implied by science. That is to say they hold the view that science teaches us that reality is of a certain nature and operates in certain ways. Important in this context is the idea that the self is either a physical thing ie the brain, or is an epiphenomenon of the brain (like a shadow is to an object casting that shadow). Thus we operate according to physical laws just like any other thing in the Universe. In the case of anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation, there is not only no physical mechanism which could account for this ability, but it seems to positively contradict the image that skeptics have of human beings that we are essentially machines. Thus paranormal claims are extraordinary, and extraordinary evidence is needed to convince the skeptic. And of course the hypothesis that we survive our bodies is even more ludicrous since we literally are our bodies.

One should not underestimate the influence of ones underlying philosophical presumptions.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Hehe, I agree.

I wonder if any atheist or skeptic can explain where the 'default position' doctrine came from in hostory. Who made it up? Can we find the first usage of this 'default position' idea in a book or something?

My guess is that it was invented by some atheists or skeptics, and that it isn't a coincidence that the 'default position' happens to coincide with their own. -That probably makes it easier to argue things away...

I could be wrong though.

It was always my understanding that a person who makes a claim is under the burden of proof.

"There is no afterlife" is in fact a claim.
The denial of the affirmative would be "I dont believe there is any evidence of the afterlife", which is not a claim (but can be proven wrong... its funny the way the system works).

I dont usually like the "prove it/no you prove" type quibbling.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
This default position issue is quite an interesting one. Skeptics hold a certain philosophical position about the world. A position which they believe is strongly implied by science. That is to say they hold the view that science teaches us that reality is of a certain nature and operates in certain ways. Important in this context is the idea that the self is either a physical thing ie the brain, or is an epiphenomenon of the brain (like a shadow is to an object casting that shadow). Thus we operate according to physical laws just like any other thing in the Universe.

Well, you've got to remember to keep your Physical Science seperated from your Congnitive Science, neither one is appropriate to describe the other.

As far as "self", I dont know what your understanding of "self" is, but my understanding tells me "'self' is the reason I'm me, and not something else" (its all about Identity).

I really dont think there are too many skeptics or non-skeptics who think in terms of epiphenomenalism.

In the case of anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation, there is not only no physical mechanism which could account for this ability, but it seems to positively contradict the image that skeptics have of human beings that we are essentially machines.

I dont think humans are essentially machines (me and my car arent the same)...

And in the case of ESP, the positive evidence for it is really lacking... there doesnt appear to be any at all. But if there were, it would definitely contradict what a lot of skeptics thing about science... or another route could be taken to describe how ESP is really something scientific, and no more remarkable than a Olympic athelete who runs much faster than humans are generally thought to run (what I just described is an unrestricted negative conditional statement, in general "debate" or "arguement", it wouldnt be a valid way to reason belief in ESP)...

Thus paranormal claims are extraordinary, and extraordinary evidence is needed to convince the skeptic. And of course the hypothesis that we survive our bodies is even more ludicrous since we literally are our bodies.

"we literally are out bodies", I'm not so sure, it depends on how you justify identity. If a person leaves a room, comes back a minute later, is he the same person? Yes. If a patient recieves a lung from a doner, is he the same person? I would say yes. If a person developes a (hypothetical) brain disease that wipes out their memories and changes their personality, are they the same person? The basic objective identity of the person is the same, but the subjective "self" identity is no longer the same, in my opinion.

[joyrex]

Originally posted by renata
Everyone is deluded to some extent on some issues, skeptics and believers alike.Ditto

[thaiboxerken]

HAHHAHAAHH AHAHHA HAHAHAH AHHAH AHH!!! :D :D :D :D

"There is no afterlife,"

IS NOT A CLAIM???????????????

[/QUOTE]

It's not a positive claim that goes against all known sciences. It is a disbelief of the claim "there is an afterlife". The burden of evidence still lies on the initial claim "there is an afterlife". I would not ever come up with the statement "there is no afterlife" if no one ever claimed that there is.

This default position issue is quite an interesting one. Skeptics hold a certain philosophical position about the world. A position which they believe is strongly implied by science. That is to say they hold the view that science teaches us that reality is of a certain nature and operates in certain ways.

False, science merely seeks to discover what reality is.. to categorize observations and evaluate evidence in an objective matter. Science does not dictate the nature of reality, it is just a method for us to use to learn the nature of reality in an objective fashion.

Important in this context is the idea that the self is either a physical thing ie the brain, or is an epiphenomenon of the brain (like a shadow is to an object casting that shadow). Thus we operate according to physical laws just like any other thing in the Universe.

The evidence only supports the notion that consciousness is a product of the brain. If you ever run into a brainless, conscious being, let me know.

In the case of anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation, there is not only no physical mechanism which could account for this ability, but it seems to positively contradict the image that skeptics have of human beings that we are essentially machines.

This is an appeal to ignorance. Just because we haven't figured out all the mechanisms of the brain, it does not mean that a "soul" exists. It's a huge jump to conclude that.

Thus paranormal claims are extraordinary, and extraordinary evidence is needed to convince the skeptic. And of course the hypothesis that we survive our bodies is even more ludicrous since we literally are our bodies.

This is true.

One should not underestimate the influence of ones underlying philosophical presumptions.

These "philosophical" presumptions are based on evidence, something that the believers don't have.

Yet another one of Ian's arguments refuted.

"There is no afterlife" is in fact a claim.

Yes, but it's a claim that could not exist without the initial claim "there is an afterlife". The "there is an afterlife" claim goes against science and thus demands evidence. The "there is no afterlife" statement violates no sciences and it is a negative assertion of the absurd claim of the believers.

The burden of evidence is on the believers.

There are no boogie-men in the closet.

[Yahweh]

Perhaps a better way to put it is "'There is no afterlife' negates a claim".

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

It's not a positive claim that goes against all known sciences. It is a disbelief of the claim "there is an afterlife". The burden of evidence still lies on the initial claim "there is an afterlife".


You didn't state it in terms of your disbelief. What you did was make a claim. You didn't say 'I don't believe the afterlife exists', you said 'the afterlife doesn't exist (and that is a fact)'. That is a claim, not a belief statement. Your qualifier 'doesn't go against all known sciences' doesn't take away the fact that it is still a claim.

First you say it isn't a claim. Now it is not a positive claim. Ok, so it's a negative claim now. Negating a claim by a making a claim is still making a claim.-Especially when one follows it up with saying it is a fact. The burded of proof is on the person making the claim. You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Claims ain't only things that skeptics say believers make...

You seem to believe that it matters when one makes a claim, first or second. It doesn't, of course. The burden of proof is on any claimant who makes a claim at anytime.

To recap in summarized form:

Example of a hypothetical Believer's Statement: 'there is an afterlife'.
Status: Claim.
Therefore: Burden of proof is on the Believer to provide evidence.

TBK's Statement: 'there is no afterlife (and that is a fact)'.
Status: Claim!
Therefore: Burden of proof is on TBK to provide evidence.

For you to try and persuade us that what you said doesn't put the burden of proof on you is stretching things so far out there, you're making my wildest statements look tame by comparison. :)

If you want to stretch things further, I'd suggest a yoga class instead.

QED

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Yahweh

"There is no afterlife" is in fact a claim.


:) :) :)

Thank you! very much

:) :) :)

And wouldn't you agree then Yahweh, and maybe I'm out on a limb here, with my lil' no formal education deluded believer woo-woo religionist mind, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


:) :) :)

Thank you! very much

:) :) :)

And wouldn't you agree then Yahweh, and maybe I'm out on a limb here, with my lil' no formal education deluded believer woo-woo religionist mind, that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim?


*Sigh*

You can't prove a negative. What evidence would disprove an afterlife? What evidence would disprove Santa Claus? Same thing.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

II
This default position issue is quite an interesting one. Skeptics hold a certain philosophical position about the world. A position which they believe is strongly implied by science. That is to say they hold the view that science teaches us that reality is of a certain nature and operates in certain ways. Important in this context is the idea that the self is either a physical thing ie the brain, or is an epiphenomenon of the brain (like a shadow is to an object casting that shadow). Thus we operate according to physical laws just like any other thing in the Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Yahwah
Well, you've got to remember to keep your Physical Science seperated from your Congnitive Science, neither one is appropriate to describe the other.



I do not have to remember this at all. This has no relevance whatsoever. If physicalism/materialism is correct then the self is physical. This is so by definition.



As far as "self", I dont know what your understanding of "self" is, but my understanding tells me "'self' is the reason I'm me, and not something else" (its all about Identity).



It doesn't matter what my idea of the self is since I am addressing the idea of the self which the skeptic has.



I really dont think there are too many skeptics or non-skeptics who think in terms of epiphenomenalism.



You think differently from me then.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the case of anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation, there is not only no physical mechanism which could account for this ability, but it seems to positively contradict the image that skeptics have of human beings that we are essentially machines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I dont think humans are essentially machines (me and my car arent the same)...



Then you cannot be a materialist. When I say you are essentially a machine I do not mean that you are a car. What I mean is that your behaviour is entirely due to the physical laws of nature (just like a car) and that your self is just your body, or the physical processes within the body. You are nothing other than physical processes, just like a car or robot etc, it's just that you are a very complex machine.



And in the case of ESP, the positive evidence for it is really lacking... there doesnt appear to be any at all.



Completely irrelevant to my post, and from everything I have read up on this subject, you are seriously misinformed. Alternatively you are just sticking your head in the sand.


But if there were, it would definitely contradict what a lot of skeptics thing about science... or another route could be taken to describe how ESP is really something scientific, and no more remarkable than a Olympic athelete who runs much faster than humans are generally thought to run (what I just described is an unrestricted negative conditional statement, in general "debate" or "arguement", it wouldnt be a valid way to reason belief in ESP)...


I told you, there is no conceivable physical mechanism which could account for ESP. Doesn't matter how well they are shielded, and the effect certainly doesn't appear to obey the inverse square rule like all other physical processes do.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus paranormal claims are extraordinary, and extraordinary evidence is needed to convince the skeptic. And of course the hypothesis that we survive our bodies is even more ludicrous since we literally are our bodies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"we literally are our bodies", I'm not so sure, it depends on how you justify identity.



The vast majority of skeptics are either materialists or epiphenomenalists. If you're not, then fine. What are you then? An interactive dualist?



If a person leaves a room, comes back a minute later, is he the same person? Yes. If a patient recieves a lung from a doner, is he the same person? I would say yes.


Memories and bodily continuity define the same self for materialists and epiphenomenalists.



If a person developes a (hypothetical) brain disease that wipes out their memories and changes their personality, are they the same person? The basic objective identity of the person is the same, but the subjective "self" identity is no longer the same, in my opinion.



The basic objective identity is the same because it is the same body. The actual self has literally changed. Yes that is the materialist position.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

II
This default position issue is quite an interesting one. Skeptics hold a certain philosophical position about the world. A position which they believe is strongly implied by science. That is to say they hold the view that science teaches us that reality is of a certain nature and operates in certain ways.

TBK
False, science merely seeks to discover what reality is



Certainly a lot of skeptics would claim that. My statement was more of a minimalist position they adopt. BTW the word "merely" is inappropriate in this context! :eek:



.. to categorize observations and evaluate evidence in an objective matter. Science does not dictate the nature of reality, it is just a method for us to use to learn the nature of reality in an objective fashion.


{sighs}

This does not at all contradict my adumbration of what skeptics believe.



II
Important in this context is the idea that the self is either a physical thing ie the brain, or is an epiphenomenon of the brain (like a shadow is to an object casting that shadow). Thus we operate according to physical laws just like any other thing in the Universe.

TBK
The evidence only supports the notion that consciousness is a product of the brain. If you ever run into a brainless, conscious being, let me know.



{sighs}

This does not at all contradict my adumbration of what skeptics believe.



II
In the case of anomalous cognition or anomalous perturbation, there is not only no physical mechanism which could account for this ability, but it seems to positively contradict the image that skeptics have of human beings that we are essentially machines.

TBK
This is an appeal to ignorance. Just because we haven't figured out all the mechanisms of the brain, it does not mean that a "soul" exists. It's a huge jump to conclude that.



Non-sequitur. I have stated what skeptics believe. I did not in my post criticize this view.



II
Thus paranormal claims are extraordinary, and extraordinary evidence is needed to convince the skeptic. And of course the hypothesis that we survive our bodies is even more ludicrous since we literally are our bodies.

TBK
This is true.



Yes, I know you and the vast majority of skeptics think this. This is why I said this is what skeptics think! :hit:



II
One should not underestimate the influence of ones underlying philosophical presumptions.

TBK
These "philosophical" presumptions are based on evidence, something that the believers don't have.



As I made abundantly clear in my post, I know you and the vast majority of skeptics think this.



Yet another one of Ian's arguments refuted.



This is the 2nd time in 2 days you have claimed to refute an argument of mine. In fact, neither today, or yesterday, have I made any arguments, never mind the idea you have refuted these non-existent arguments! :eek: In my post I was merely adumbrating the skeptical position for the benefit of the non-skeptics on here. Are you seriously stupid or what??

[showme2]

Ian
Yes, of COURSE TBK is seriously stupid.

Anyone who could say that a negative "claim" is not a "claim" has to be a few bricks short of a load.

His argument consists of constantly repeating a fallacy in the hope that its endless repetition will lead to acceptance despite its utter illogicality.

And the point is to excuse him from having to support his claims.

His "you said it first" argument is pathetic.

[showme2]

From an article by D. Owens "Stupid Skeptics Tricks":

The skeptic insists that he
doesn't have to provide evidence and arguments to support his
side of the argument because he isn't asserting a claim, he is
merely denying or doubting yours. His mistake consists of
assuming that a negative claim (asserting that something doesn't
exist) is fundamentally different from a positive claim. It
isn't. Any definite claim, positive or negative, requires
definite support. Merely refuting or arguing against an
opponent's position is not enough to establish one's own
position.. In other words, you can't win by default.

As arch-skeptic Carl Sagan himself said, absence of evidence is
not evidence of absence. If someone wants to rule out vistations
by extra-terrestrial aliens, it would not be enough to point out
that all the evidence presented so far is either seriously flawed
or not very strong. It would be necessary to state definite
reasons which would make ET visitations either impossible or
highly unlikely. (He might, for example, point out that our best
understanding of physics pretty much rules out any kind of
effective faster-than-light drive.)

The only person exempt from providing definite support is the
person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic
position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in
favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is
exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives
adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he
wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly
unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth,
it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his
position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his
opponent's position.


HOW ANYONE CAN DISPUTE Owen's rationale is quite beyond me, unless their intent is merely mischievous.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by showme2
Bill
I did not attribute it because, frankly, I didn't know who to attribute it to. It came off some Web site or other, and I thought it was an apt statement.
(I did, however, put it in quotes to indicate clearly that the "words of wisdom" were not mine.)

It is nevertheless a valid argument.
Sceptics assert that they do not need to prove their rejection of any hypothesis. It is for believers to prove theirs.
That is a copout.
They are equally obliged to provide proof for any "negative" claim.

Or not, if they can't !

Give it proper attribution. That doesn't mean simply put it into quotes. It means give an author's name or the website or both.

It is certainly not a valid argument. Which part of "straw man" don't you understand?

[showme2]

Which part don't I understand ?

Let's start with "Straw" and "Man", shall we ?

[showme2]

Bill

I have now attributed it in accordance with your request.

What is your response ?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by showme2
From an article by D. Owens "Stupid Skeptics Tricks":
The only person exempt from providing definite support is the
person who takes a strict "I don't know" position or the agnostic
position. If someone takes the position that the evidence in
favor of ET visitations is inadequate but goes no farther, he is
exempt from further argument (provided, of course, he gives
adequate reasons for rejecting the evidence). However, if he
wants to go farther and insist that it is impossible or highly
unlikely that ET's are visiting or have ever visited the Earth,
it becomes necessary for him to provide definite reasons for his
position. He is no longer entitled merely to argue against his
opponent's position.

AFAIK, most skeptical statements are to that effect. The evidence for alien visitation is inadequate, it's not impossible, just that the evidence isn't there.
Psi isn't impossible, just that the evidence isn't adequate.
Etc, etc, etc...

Some may go a step further and say that Psi is so unlikely in light of our current understanding of the universe that it can be ruled out, just as you might be attacked by pink elephant ninja cyborgs if you leave the house today, but the chance of that happening isn't very likely.

Some hard core skeptics might go so far as to say that alien visitation is impossible or that psi definitley doesn't exist. But even then, I believe they are refering to the likelyhood of it.

And some people do just like to get a rise out of others. On both sides. Making generalizations using those few is very unfair.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf


*Sigh*

You can't prove a negative. What evidence would disprove an afterlife? What evidence would disprove Santa Claus? Same thing.

Evidence and/or reasons which show that materialism or epiphenomenalism, or any metaphysic which stipulates that consciouness is generated by the brain, is overwhelmingly likely to be correct.

[thaiboxerken]

You didn't state it in terms of your disbelief. What you did was make a claim. You didn't say 'I don't believe the afterlife exists', you said 'the afterlife doesn't exist (and that is a fact)'. That is a claim, not a belief statement. Your qualifier 'doesn't go against all known sciences' doesn't take away the fact that it is still a claim.

That statement could not exist without the claim "there is an afterlife". The burden is still on the believers.


Negating a claim by a making a claim is still making a claim.

Yes, but it carries no burden of evidence.

-Especially when one follows it up with saying it is a fact.

This is your silly opinion, but there is nothing in the rules of logic that shifts the burden of evidence to me.

The burded of proof is on the person making the claim.

Wrong, it's on the person that makes a claim that is contrary to all known science and fact.

You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Claims ain't only things that skeptics say believers make...

All you've done is argue ad-nauseum that the burden is on me. You haven't demonstrated why I should provide evidence for my negative claim. What ill happens from my saying that there are no ghosts?

You seem to believe that it matters when one makes a claim, first or second. It doesn't, of course. The burden of proof is on any claimant who makes a claim at anytime.

This is not true, the burden lies on the initial claim.. if another claim is dependant on that initial claim, the initial claim still carries the burden.


Example of a hypothetical Believer's Statement: 'there is an afterlife'.
Status: Claim.
Therefore: Burden of proof is on the Believer to provide evidence.

True.


TBK's Statement: 'there is no afterlife (and that is a fact)'.
Status: Claim!
Therefore: Burden of proof is on TBK to provide evidence.

False, my claim would never exist without the believers claim.

For you to try and persuade us that what you said doesn't put the burden of proof on you is stretching things so far out there, you're making my wildest statements look tame by comparison. :)

Only to idiots like you.

If you want to stretch things further, I'd suggest a yoga class instead.

A woo-woo class is your suggestion, it doesn't surprise me, Chi-boy.

[thaiboxerken]

In my post I was merely adumbrating the skeptical position for the benefit of the non-skeptics on here.

You are building strawmen of what "the skeptics" believe so you can shoot them down. This is a form of fallcious argument, I have shot it down. I will burn your strawmen when I actually take the time to read your nonsensical posts.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Evidence and/or reasons ... is overwhelmingly likely to be correct.
Shouldn't that be "are"?

[thaiboxerken]

Some may go a step further and say that Psi is so unlikely in light of our current understanding of the universe that it can be ruled out, just as you might be attacked by pink elephant ninja cyborgs if you leave the house today, but the chance of that happening isn't very likely.

Some hard core skeptics might go so far as to say that alien visitation is impossible or that psi definitley doesn't exist. But even then, I believe they are refering to the likelyhood of it.

This is exactly correct. The believers are so desperate that they want to use any tactic to shift the burden of evidence to the skeptics. If a skeptic says "there are no boogie men", they want us to prove that there aren't. If a skeptic says "i don't believe in boogie men", they will say "but you acknowledge the possibility of boogie men, so why are you treading upon by beliefs". It's all a dishonest tactic used by believers because they have NO evidence for their irrational beliefs, nor do they have a logical and valid reason for believing.


I've asked the question many times, and still haven't recieved an answer What objective criteria do you use to determine what is real, if not science?

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Evidence and/or reasons which show that materialism or epiphenomenalism, or any metaphysic which stipulates that consciouness is generated by the brain, is overwhelmingly likely to be correct.

Interesting Ian, there is plenty of evidence to support the materialistic view. Ingesting certain substances alters brain chemistry and perception. Trauma to the brain often produces changes in personality. Degenerative brain disease such as Alzheimers eventually removes almost all consciousness. Stroke victims lose their ability to accomplish many tasks, varying according to which part of the brain has been damaged. Alcoholics gradually damage the brain and consequently damage their ability to function.

How much evidence do you require ? Tablets of stone from Mount Sinai ?

Regards,

AC

[thaiboxerken]

How much evidence do you require ? Tablets of stone from Mount Sinai ?

Now, now.. you should already know that physical evidence doesn't outweight the anecdotes that Ian chooses to believe. Ian has TBS, no amount of evidence that contradicts his beliefs will change instill doubt upon this beliefs.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
How much evidence do you require ? Tablets of stone from Mount Sinai ?

Now, now.. you should already know that physical evidence doesn't outweight the anecdotes that Ian chooses to believe. Ian has TBS, no amount of evidence that contradicts his beliefs will change instill doubt upon this beliefs.

Pssst... I think an edit is required here TBK ;)

[showme2]

TBK says in response to perfectly rational (statements):-

(You didn't state it in terms of your disbelief. What you did was make a claim. You didn't say 'I don't believe the afterlife exists', you said 'the afterlife doesn't exist ,and that is a fact'. That is a claim, not a belief statement. Your qualifier 'doesn't go against all known sciences' doesn't take away the fact that it is still a claim.)

That statement could not exist without the claim "there is an afterlife". The burden is still on the believers. - ********


(Negating a claim by a making a claim is still making a claim.)

Yes, but it carries no burden of evidence. - ********

(-Especially when one follows it up with saying it is a fact.)

This is your silly opinion, but there is nothing in the rules of logic that shifts the burden of evidence to me. - ********

(The burded of proof is on the person making the claim. )

Wrong, it's on the person that makes a claim that is contrary to all known science and fact. - ********

(You made the claim so the burden of proof is on you. Claims ain't only things that skeptics say believers make...)

All you've done is argue ad-nauseum that the burden is on me. You haven't demonstrated why I should provide evidence for my negative claim. What will happens from my saying that there are no ghosts?

(You seem to believe that it matters when one makes a claim, first or second. It doesn't, of course. The burden of proof is on any claimant who makes a claim at anytime.)

This is not true, the burden lies on the initial claim.. if another claim is dependant on that initial claim, the initial claim still carries the burden. - ********

(Example of a hypothetical Believer's Statement: 'there is an afterlife'.
Status: Claim.
Therefore: Burden of proof is on the Believer to provide evidence.)

True.

(TBK's Statement: 'there is no afterlife (and that is a fact)'.
Status: Claim!
Therefore: Burden of proof is on TBK to provide evidence.)

False, my claim would never exist without the believers claim.

(For you to try and persuade us that what you said doesn't put the burden of proof on you is stretching things so far out there, you're making my wildest statements look tame by comparison.)

Only to idiots like you.
.......................................

With regret, these totally irrational responses from TBK convince me that we are dealing with a total twat here.
And, furthermore, with a total twat whose motivations are patently mischievous and disruptive of serious debate with the 6- 8 people on this forum who it is worth debating these serious issues with.

To simplify TBK's irrationality:-
Claim : "Black is black"
TBK response "No, black is not black"
Claimant : Of course it plainly is. Prove it's not black.
TBK response: No, I don't have to. It is for the claimant to prove that black is black. I can utter any unadulterated drivel in response and there is no burden of proof on me at all.

Well, I'm terribly sorry, but I am no longer prepared to humour such an irrational, conceited, arrogant, and ignorant moron.
He argues like an old woman - like my brain-dead Mother in Law in fact. ("My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts or with rational argument". Mind you, she finally did the honourable thing and died. Regrettably TBK carries on breathing.)

Henceforth, like DeBunk (a similar moron) TBK is on my IGNORE list, and I will not respond to ANYTHING he says.

'Bye TBK. I would like to say it has been a pleasure, but it really hasn't. You are a silly man - or boy, more likely.
It has been a test of patience, and you have finally failed the test.

(And P.S. - You drive a girl's car as well !)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Interesting Ian, there is plenty of evidence to support the materialistic view. Ingesting certain substances alters brain chemistry and perception. Trauma to the brain often produces changes in personality. Degenerative brain disease such as Alzheimers eventually removes almost all consciousness. Stroke victims lose their ability to accomplish many tasks, varying according to which part of the brain has been damaged. Alcoholics gradually damage the brain and consequently damage their ability to function.

How much evidence do you require ? Tablets of stone from Mount Sinai ?

Regards,

AC

We are all aware of the correlations between brain states and mental states. Our personality can change, but does the self change? You would say yes, and that the correlations alone prove this. But by saying the self changes you are identifying the self with the physical. By doing so you are presuppoing materialism together with the attendant problem of supposing the self and its experiences are themselves physical.

The correlations between brain states and mental states are compatible with materialism, and indeed is what materialism would expect. But they do not prove materialism. It does not address the philosophical difficulties of materialism, nor does it address the tremendous amount of evidence suggestive that we survive the death of our bodies.

As for correlations proving that consciousness is generated by the brain, I've written many times on this before, and will simply content with pasting in what I have written before:

From http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870063521&highlight=television#post1870063521

"The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

Now even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes".

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We are all aware of the correlations between brain states and mental states. Our personality can change, but does the self change? You would say yes, and that the correlations alone prove this. But by saying the self changes you are identifying the self with the physical. By doing so you are presuppoing materialism together with the attendant problem of supposing the self and its experiences are themselves physical.

What is your definition of self ? I watched a relative ( a highly intelligent classics graduate ) degenerate as a result of Alzheimer's disease, and noticed a marked change in personality and reasoning ability over time. Are you saying that some independant self or mind was unaffected by this process ? Perhaps, to use your television set analogy, I should have simply struck this person on the side of the head until the picture improved.

The correlations between brain states and mental states are compatible with materialism, and indeed is what materialism would expect. But they do not prove materialism. It does not address the philosophical difficulties of materialism, nor does it address the tremendous amount of evidence suggestive that we survive the death of our bodies.

Correct, materialism is not proven by these correlations but they are highly suggestive. There is certainly no conclusive evidence that shows the alternative view to be any more than wishful thinking.

As for correlations proving that consciousness is generated by the brain, I've written many times on this before, and will simply content with pasting in what I have written before:

From http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...#post1870063521

"The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

Now even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes".

*Sigh* I have read this before and still consider it to be no more than speculation. Eloquent and fascinating speculation, granted.

Regards,
AC.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes".
That analogy doesn't make sense. What station is broadcasting our consciousness to our brain? Is it Pay Per View or PBS? Or Fox Five?
And do we receive it through cable or that set of rabbit ears sprouting from the tinfoil beanie?
Just curious.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That analogy doesn't make sense. What station is broadcasting our consciousness to our brain? Is it Pay Per View or PBS? Or Fox Five?
And do we receive it through cable or that set of rabbit ears sprouting from the tinfoil beanie?
Just curious.

I don't know if describing it as an analogy would strictly be correct. But even if you did there is such a thing as taking an analogy to far. Thay are supposed to aid the understanding, not be wholly representative of the thing being explained.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by Ratman_tf

*Sigh*
You can't prove a negative. What evidence would disprove an afterlife? What evidence would disprove Santa Claus? Same thing.

*Sigh* right back at you. First of all, there are many negatives one can prove. There is no normal elephant in my shoe, for example. There are no triangles in Euclidean geometry who'se angles add up to more than 180 degrees. There are no people with the last name of 'Zyger' in my phonebook. etc.

TBK's Statement: 'there is no afterlife (and that is a fact)', is a claim. Period.

What evidence would prove that? Ask the person who made the claim! It isn't up to others to find evidence for his claim.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
What is your definition of self ? I watched a relative ( a highly intelligent classics graduate ) degenerate as a result of Alzheimer's disease, and noticed a marked change in personality and reasoning ability over time. Are you saying that some independant self or mind was unaffected by this process ? Perhaps, to use your television set analogy, I should have simply struck this person on the side of the head until the picture improved.


The self is what you are. That which makes you you whether you are 5 years old, your sober adult self, drunk, suffering from Alzheimer's, or whatever. To me, but apparently not to the materialists, it is obviously the self doesn't equate to any particular states of the mind. Rather states of mind are aspects that the self has at any particular given moment.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The correlations between brain states and mental states are compatible with materialism, and indeed is what materialism would expect. But they do not prove materialism. It does not address the philosophical difficulties of materialism, nor does it address the tremendous amount of evidence suggestive that we survive the death of our bodies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Correct, materialism is not proven by these correlations but they are highly suggestive.



No, you cannot have any highly suggestive evidence for a position which is simply logically impossible.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for correlations proving that consciousness is generated by the brain, I've written many times on this before, and will simply content with pasting in what I have written before:

From http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...#post1870063521

"The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

Now even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



*Sigh* I have read this before and still consider it to be no more than speculation. Eloquent and fascinating speculation, granted.



Imagine 2 people from the 17th century traveling to the 21st century and encountering a TV set showing some movie or other. After being suitably amazed, and after tinkering around with its internal components, you can imagine one of them claiming that not just the picture, but the storyline of the movie must be wholly generated by these internal components since tinkering with them affects the picture. He might claim there is overwhelming evidence that this must be so. The other person however will rightly point out that although he grants that the picture itself is generated by these internal components, it cannot be the case that the actual contents of the movie, the actual storyline with its depiction of various emotions etc can be generated by just these internal components. This is because there is nothing about the physical processes within the TV set which could conceivably lead to the generation of a storyline.

That is you and me arguing, except in the case of the brain generating consciousness it is even more implausible.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

That statement could not exist without the claim "there is an afterlife". The burden is still on the believers.


Then the burden is on you.

The fact that the your 'statement could not exist without theirs' is simply posturing. It doesn't take away from the fact that you made a claim. You seem to believe that the order in which claims are made determines which claim entails the burden of proof. Wrong! All claims entail burden of proof.


Yes, but it carries no burden of evidence.


That is the central dogma anyway. Here are some claims:

There is no 19th hole on my local golf course (besides the cute name for the clubhouse). How to prove that? Get a map of the course. Go and take pictures. Play the course, etc.

There is no way to beat the house odds in gambling in, say, craps. How to prove that? Go through and calculate all the probabilities and player expectations, and find that the expectations are all negative (ie. a loss).

There is no normal elephant in my shoe. How to prove it? Examine my shoe.

There is no planet between Venus and Earth. How to prove it? Observation. Calculations, etc.

You stated there is no afterlife and that that is a fact. You need to provide evidence to have your claim be taken seriously. How do you assert that it is a fact?

(bolded by me)
As its says in a non-woo-woo book, "Atheism : The Case Against God", "If one presents a positive belief (i.e. an assertion which one claims to be true), one has the obligation to present evidence in its favor. The burden of proof lies with the person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If the evidence is not forthcoming, if there are not sufficient grounds for accepting the proposition, it should not be believed".

So people should probably not believe you on the basis of you just saying there is no afterlife, for example.


The burded of proof is on the person making the claim.

Wrong, it's on the person that makes a claim that is contrary to all known science and fact.


Science has nothing to do with it. A claim is a claim is a claim. Show me in a logic book where it says anything about that science part you just threw in.


What ill happens from my saying that there are no ghosts?


Well, if you are claiming that as a fact, then the burden of proof is on you.


This is not true, the burden lies on the initial claim.. if another claim is dependant on that initial claim, the initial claim still carries the burden.


I am an armchair skeptic who is really falling out of my armchair here. Ok, so hypothetically if the initial claim is the only one that has the burden...

Person A: There is a god, that is a fact.
Person B: There are two gods, that is a fact.

So person B has no burden?

Person A: There is a god, that is a fact.
Person B: There is no god, that is a fact.

Person B has no burden?

Show me in a logic book where it says that one only has to prove initial claims.


For you to try and persuade us that what you said doesn't put the burden of proof on you is stretching things so far out there, you're making my wildest statements look tame by comparison. :)

Only to idiots like you.


That rational skeptic discourse that we know and love. :)


A woo-woo class is your suggestion, it doesn't surprise me, Chi-boy.

Someone never dated a yoga chick!

[showme2]

T'ai Chi

Yes, your argument is entirely correct.

All of this stuff about the first person making a claim is required to prove it, whilst those making a counterclaim have to prove nothing is a load of illogical CRAP !

Anyone making a claim, positive or negative, may reasonably be expected to substantiate it if they want others to take it seriously.

If you replace "claim" with "assertion" it may make it easier for the sceptics to comprehend.

This so-called "default position" simply does not exist.

[Blondin]

This is getting to be a really silly exercise in semantics.

I for one am willing to admit that "There is no afterlife" IS a claim. I don't believe there is an afterlife because I have yet to hear of irrefutable evidence to that effect but I, personally, would never make the claim that there is no afterlife.

The "you can't prove a negative" statement has no place in discussions of this sort. There are some negatives that can be proven (I am not an aardvark) and some that can never be proven (I have never been to Russia).

The existance of an afterlife would appear to be a lot more likely if channellers would actually accept a challenge to prove that they really can do what they claim in a controlled environment. They would have to come up with something a lot more convincing than a sibling/cousin/in-law/close friend, named Butch/Buster/Bob, forgives me for something that happened 8/15/20/30 years ago.

I really like watching a good magic act and a bit of mentalist shtick is fine as long as it's just part of the act. I don't think anybody could make a whole career out of the mentalist thing, though, unless a large portion of his audience really believed that it was not "just an act". No number of people believing a thing (or not believing it) make it true (or false).

[showme2]

Blondin

YES - "no contest" as I believe you say in the States. I agree with you.

But when people start arguing that they can make a negative claim (assertion) but it does not require substantiation merely BECAUSE it is a negative claim, that needs to be challenged.

They are simply asserting that they can make the most ridiculous negative claim and it is for someone else to prove it wrong. ******** !

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't know if describing it as an analogy would strictly be correct. But even if you did there is such a thing as taking an analogy to far. Thay are supposed to aid the understanding, not be wholly representative of the thing being explained.
Well, call it what you will, but it surely didn't aid my understanding of whatever point you were trying to make.

[thaiboxerken]

To simplify TBK's irrationality:-
Claim : "Black is black"
TBK response "No, black is not black"
Claimant : Of course it plainly is. Prove it's not black.
TBK response: No, I don't have to. It is for the claimant to prove that black is black. I can utter any unadulterated drivel in response and there is no burden of proof on me at all.

False analogy. What is happening here is more like this:

Believer: There is an afterlife.
TBK: No there isn't.
Believer: Prove there isn't.

This is a classic example of an appeal to ignorance. The believer is the one that has the burden of proof. Let's try this a different way.

Accuser: You are guilty.
Defendant: No I'm not.
Accuser: Prove that you are not guilty.

I'm certainly glad that I don't live in a place where one has to prove innocence everytime they are accused of a crime.

Well, I'm terribly sorry, but I am no longer prepared to humour such an irrational, conceited, arrogant, and ignorant moron.
He argues like an old woman - like my brain-dead Mother in Law in fact. ("My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts or with rational argument". Mind you, she finally did the honourable thing and died. Regrettably TBK carries on breathing.)

It seems you are the one confused here. I have just shown you, several times, why the burden is always upon the paranormal claim.

Henceforth, like DeBunk (a similar moron) TBK is on my IGNORE list, and I will not respond to ANYTHING he says.

Good.

'Bye TBK. I would like to say it has been a pleasure, but it really hasn't. You are a silly man - or boy, more likely.
It has been a test of patience, and you have finally failed the test.


It seems to me that I have won victory because you really can't stand the rules of logic.

[thaiboxerken]

But when people start arguing that they can make a negative claim (assertion) but it does not require substantiation merely BECAUSE it is a negative claim, that needs to be challenged.

This is false, and I have illustrated why. You claim Colin Fry has superpowers, I say "no he doesn't". Now, you want me to prove that Colin Fry doesn't have superpowers? THAT defies all logic and sense. The burden is upon the initial claim.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The correlations between brain states and mental states are compatible with materialism, and indeed is what materialism would expect. But they do not prove materialism. It does not address the philosophical difficulties of materialism, nor does it address the tremendous amount of evidence suggestive that we survive the death of our bodies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct, materialism is not proven by these correlations but they are highly suggestive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you cannot have any highly suggestive evidence for a position which is simply logically impossible.

Here is the rub; who decides what is logically impossible ? Many would argue that it is quite logically possible for consciousness to be a function of the brain. Once again, we reach an impasse.

There is reliable, well documented evidence to support the position that mind/self resides in a physical brain. There is no such evidence to support the concept of disembodied consciousness.

Regards,

AC

[SteveGrenard]

AC: There is reliable, well documented evidence to support the position that mind/self resides in a physical brain. There is no such evidence to support the concept of disembodied consciousness.



Under the TBK rule, you know I can ask you for this evidence but I won't. Instead I will refer you to the following sites where you will find that the problem of definining and localizing consciousness is not as simple as you make it out to be.


http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/

[Jeff Corey]

Gentlemen, gentlemen. No fighting in the War Room.
Sorry.
Back to watchind Dr. Strangelove.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Believer: There is an afterlife.
TBK: No there isn't.
Believer: Prove there isn't.

Wanna'believer: I'm wondering if there is an afterlife?
TBK: No there isn't.
Wanna'believer: OK, how do you know?
TBK: . . . ?

[Darat]

Originally posted by MemeHacker

Wanna'believer: I'm wondering if there is an afterlife?
TBK: No there isn't.
Wanna'believer: OK, how do you know?
TBK: . . . ?

Although I don't always agree with TBK, his point here about the burden of proof is correct. If you make a claim you should be able to support it not try to shift the burden to someone else.

Refuting someone’s claim is not the same as making the initial claim, as the “refutation” requires the existence of the original claim to make any sense.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by showme2
Which part don't I understand ?

Let's start with "Straw" and "Man", shall we ?

There are many sites on the web that give a good description of the straw man fallacy. A straw man is exactly what Owens has built here. Skeptics do NOT assert negative claims, and they do not claim credophiles have the burden of proof because they make positive claims. They refute claims, whether postive or negative, on several grounds. Typically, lack of evidence. Sometimes lack of evidence coupled with an abundance of contrary evidence or a violation of known laws of the universe.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by SteveGrenard




Under the TBK rule, you know I can ask you for this evidence but I won't. Instead I will refer you to the following sites where you will find that the problem of definining and localizing consciousness is not as simple as you make it out to be.


http://www.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/

http://www.consciousness.arizona.edu/hameroff/

More links to yet more speculation. Any evidence for a disembodied soul/mind/self here ? No, none whatsoever.

It remains a demonstrable fact that damage to the brain, ingestion of certain chemicals, illness etc. can cause changes in personality and perception. I don't need to post links in support of this position, it's easily tested at home; drink half a bottle of scotch and ask yourself and others whether your observable "self" alters.

Regards,

AC.

[showme2]

Darat
quote :"Although I don't always agree with TBK, his point here about the burden of proof is correct. If you make a claim you should be able to support it not try to shift the burden to someone else.

Refuting someone’s claim is not the same as making the initial claim, as the “refutation” requires the existence of the original claim to make any sense"

So what?
Sorry, but a claim is a claim is a claim - positive or negative.

By your account, anyone could make any claim without justifying it at all ... provided someone else made one first.

e.g.
"All mediums are frauds"
"No they're not. Fry is not a fraud"
"Prove it"
"No I don't have to, I am not making a claim, merely rejecting your claim that all mediums are frauds !

ALL claims require justification.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat
[B]

Wanna'believer: I'm wondering if there is an afterlife?
TBK: No there isn't.
Wanna'believer: OK, how do you know?
TBK: . . . ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Although I don't always agree with TBK, his point here about the burden of proof is correct. If you make a claim you should be able to support it not try to shift the burden to someone else.



Exactly, and we're still waiting for TBK to do so.

Refuting someone’s claim is not the same as making the initial claim, as the “refutation” requires the existence of the original claim to make any sense.

I cannot recall any believer in this thread declaring that it is a fact there is a life after death.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


More links to yet more speculation. Any evidence for a disembodied soul/mind/self here ? No, none whatsoever.

It remains a demonstrable fact that damage to the brain, ingestion of certain chemicals, illness etc. can cause changes in personality and perception. I don't need to post links in support of this position, it's easily tested at home; drink half a bottle of scotch and ask yourself and others whether your observable "self" alters.


I have already responded to this. Why haven't you addressed it? I shall copy and paste.

The fact that states of "A" may be correlated with "particular states of "B", means neither that "A" and "B" are one and the same thing, nor does it entail that "B" originates from "A", or indeed "A" from "B". It could be that both "A" and "B" both independently are generated by "C". Or it could be the case that although states of "B" are modified by states of "A", "B" ultimately originates from "C".

Now even if we were to describe the mind as being caused by the brain (although I believe the use of "cause" here is technically inappropriate), this needn't have any implications that the mind has its origin in the brain. The picture on a television set is caused by its internal components. This of course doesn't mean to say that the origin of the storylines of the tv programmes being shown have their origin in the tv sets internal components! Indeed it would be preposterous to suppose they do! I believe a partial analogy can be drawn here in that it is equally ludicrous, if not more so, that the richness of our mental lives is somehow mysterious created ex nihilo by physical processes.

Imagine 2 people from the 17th century traveling to the 21st century and encountering a TV set showing some movie or other. After being suitably amazed, and after tinkering around with its internal components, you can imagine one of them claiming that not just the picture, but the storyline of the movie must be wholly generated by these internal components since tinkering with them affects the picture. He might claim there is overwhelming evidence that this must be so. The other person however will rightly point out that although he grants that the picture itself is generated by these internal components, it cannot be the case that the actual contents of the movie, the actual storyline with its depiction of various emotions etc can be generated by just these internal components. This is because there is nothing about the physical processes within the TV set which could conceivably lead to the generation of a storyline.

That is you and me arguing, except in the case of the brain generating consciousness it is even more implausible.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by showme2
ALL claims require justification.
No they don't. For example, this one doesn't.

"Good evening, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to Stake Your Claim. Tonight we have with us Mr. Norman Voles Gravesend who says he wrote all Shakespeare's works. "

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The correlations between brain states and mental states are compatible with materialism, and indeed is what materialism would expect. But they do not prove materialism. It does not address the philosophical difficulties of materialism, nor does it address the tremendous amount of evidence suggestive that we survive the death of our bodies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Correct, materialism is not proven by these correlations but they are highly suggestive.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, you cannot have any highly suggestive evidence for a position which is simply logically impossible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Here is the rub; who decides what is logically impossible ?



If materialism is logically possible you must be able to argue for this. Otherwise why should anyone believe you if you cannot justify it yourself?



Many would argue that it is quite logically possible for consciousness to be a function of the brain. Once again, we reach an impasse.



Well let's hear their arguments then because I've never heard any. Do you know what function means? It's just a kind of behaviour. But why and how could behaviour possibly connote consciousness? Or do you not mean "function".



There is reliable, well documented evidence to support the position that mind/self resides in a physical brain.



Under materialism there is no mind or self. There are only experiences. But how can anger have a location? You really don't know what you're talking about. Go study some philosophy.

[ceptimus]

Ian: Well let's hear their arguments then because I've never heard any.

That's a claim. Prove that you never heard any. There are plenty of posters here who believe they have posted endless arguments on this topic.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Go study some philosophy.
Only if you study some neuropsychology. Try it sometime.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by Darat

Although I don't always agree with TBK, his point here about the burden of proof is correct. If you make a claim you should be able to support it not try to shift the burden to someone else.

Refuting someone�s claim is not the same as making the initial claim, as the �refutation� requires the existence of the original claim to make any sense.
Any skeptic who thinks, "There is no afterlife" is not a claim is deluded. It's a great example of the weirdness that people will goto in order to rationalize their beliefs. So what if it's a claim, hell, I'm open minded about the afterlife but can still think of two different ways one could attempt to justify the validity of that claim. But I can't think of any reasonable way to justify insisting, "there is no afterlife" isn't a claim.

If you really want to argue the point with me consider that I have never said,"there is an afterlife" so the lame ass justification that the belivers-said-it-first-so-I-it's-not-really-a-claim won't work with me (strawman).

I'm not just trying to be punk in a logic debate though. The hypothetical dialogue I presented with a person wondering "if there is an afterlife" was inteded to spin the debate back to the original thread question.

Are belivers deluded?

Imagine this dialogue:

Undecided: I'm wondering if there is an afterlife?
Believer:I think there is.
Skeptic:No there isn't.
Undecided: Ok, why do you both think that.
Believer: I know there has been some research into past lives and near death experiences but I will admit nothing I know of meets the standards for scientific proof. Perhaps more than anything else, it is a personal feeling that makes me belive in an afterlife. In the end it is really a matter of faith with me.
Skeptic: See no proof. there is no afterlife.
Undecided: No, the belivers lack of evidence means there [b]might[b] not be an afterlife. What is your proof that there is no afterlife?
Skeptic:I don't have to prove it, I was only refuting the Believers claim.
Undecided: It sure sounded like you were making your own claim to me.
Skeptic: No I wasn't.
Undecided: How is what you said not a claim?
Skeptic: I was refuting what the Believer said.
Undecided: OK, well can you prove what you said regardless of wether it was a claim or a, err, refutement.
Skeptic: I don't need to since the believer admits he couldn't prove his point my position is correct.
Undecided: ??? (Thinks to himself)Well, I'm still undecided about wether or not there is an afterlife but it's clear to me from this conversation that some believers have beliefs they can't prove and that some skeptics are unreasonable and irrational.

[showme2]

Memehacker

Nice post ! And absolutely rational

It's odd that this requirement to support claims only applies if one isn't a skeptic ! It's a copout.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by MemeHacker

Wanna'believer: I'm wondering if there is an afterlife?
TBK: No there isn't.
Wanna'believer: OK, how do you know?
TBK: . . . ?

That is the same thing, it's an appeal to ignorance. The first question is a bait.

[thaiboxerken]

Exactly, and we're still waiting for TBK to do so.

No need to, the burden is not mine.


I cannot recall any believer in this thread declaring that it is a fact there is a life after death.

Everytime they claim a medium is real, they are claiming that there is an afterlife.

[thaiboxerken]

Any skeptic who thinks, "There is no afterlife" is not a claim is deluded.

It's not a claim that carries a burden of evidence.

So what if it's a claim, hell, I'm open minded about the afterlife but can still think of two different ways one could attempt to justify the validity of that claim. But I can't think of any reasonable way to justify insisting, "there is no afterlife" isn't a claim.

The fact that the "there is no afterlife" statement could not be made without the initial claim "there is an afterlife" is justification. Let me illustrate again.

Accuser: You are guilty of murder.
Defendant: No I'm not.
Accuser: Prove that you are not guilty.

I am sure glad that the founders of our legal system understood where the burden of evidence should lay. If they didn't, we have a "guilty until proven innocent" system of justice.

If you really want to argue the point with me consider that I have never said,"there is an afterlife" so the lame ass justification that the belivers-said-it-first-so-I-it's-not-really-a-claim won't work with me (strawman).

The fact that you have never said it doesn't change the rules of logic.

I'm not just trying to be punk in a logic debate though. The hypothetical dialogue I presented with a person wondering "if there is an afterlife" was inteded to spin the debate back to the original thread question.

The hypothetical is a classic appeal to ignorance that is often done by believers.

Are belivers deluded?

Yes.

It also seems like your "undecided" person is ignorant in the way of critical thinking in your script. Mr Undecided should realize that the burden is on the person that makes the claims that contradict what it known and what has been scientifically observed.

Try this example:

Undecided: I wonder if anyone is can shoot lasers out of their eyes, like Cyclops of the XMEN.
Believer: I know of a person that can.
Nonbeliever: No you don't, prove it.

Now, the believer has has the burden to provide the evidence of a bulletproof person. The nonbeliever's statement carries no burden because the nonbeliever is not rewriting the laws of physics with his statement. The believer is.

[showme2]

..... and now everyone can see clearly why I decided that I will simply not debate in future with TBK.

He has developed irrational thinking and flawed logic into an art form !

"He who knows not, and knows he knows not, is teachable.
But he who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool".

(P.S. NODODY can truly be that stupid. He must be just winding everyone up.)

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Skeptics do NOT assert negative claims,


September Totle,

Bravo! I agree 100% with you here!!! :) :) :)
(alert the media!)

And on that note... time for me to exit the thread. I've clearly shown what was obvious about that whole claim and burden of proof thingy can apply to anyone, at anytime, for a variety of claims, and have had some people in this thread agree, including an excerpt from a book on atheism.

SUMMARY: the burden of proof is on anyone presenting a positive belief (ie. an assertion which one claims to be true). The burden of proof lies with the person, any person who asserts the truth of a proposition. If that evidence is not presented, they should not rationally be believed.

Believers will dogmatically say otherwise. Expect it!

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by showme2
..... and now everyone can see clearly why I decided that I will simply not debate in future with TBK.

Just because you don't agree with the rules of logic doesn't mean that you are any more logical because of it. The burden of evidence always rests on the positions that will rewrite the known sciences.

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Any skeptic who thinks, "There is no afterlife" is not a claim is deluded.

It's not a claim that carries a burden of evidence.

So you admit you were wrong in saying it's not a claim.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

So what if it's a claim, hell, I'm open minded about the afterlife but can still think of two different ways one could attempt to justify the validity of that claim. But I can't think of any reasonable way to justify insisting, "there is no afterlife" isn't a claim.

The fact that the "there is no afterlife" statement could not be made without the initial claim "there is an afterlife" is justification. Let me illustrate again.

Accuser: You are guilty of murder.
Defendant: No I'm not.
Accuser: Prove that you are not guilty.

I am sure glad that the founders of our legal system understood where the burden of evidence should lay. If they didn't, we have a "guilty until proven innocent" system of justice.

1)Tying in "guilty untill proven innocent "to a logic debate is an odd move.
2)The burden of evidence in U.S. criminal trials consciously favors a system where we let criminals off because it is considered better to let a 100 guilty men go free rather convict one inncoent man.Therefore:
3)Your using a False Analogy. This is not a good comparison to the standards logicians/scientists use. The moral implications of your example also seem a little underhanded to me.
4)Strawman. Since rather than using an anology to elucidate an abstract point you are using this analogy to avoid the clear point I am making in my example. You are just changing the subject to an arguement were you seem more resaonable because you can't come off reasonable in the fair context I provided.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
If you really want to argue the point with me consider that I have never said,"there is an afterlife" so the lame ass justification that the belivers-said-it-first-so-I-it's-not-really-a-claim won't work with me (strawman).

The fact that you have never said it doesn't change the rules of logic.

I was being generous in wording an example where you get to respond with your claim yet you still can't figure out a way to make it reasonable. I understand logic better than you TBK. You might want to consider why Billhoyt said skeptics never make negative assertions or why why multiple skeptics have disagreed with you about wether or not your statement was even a claim.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
I'm not just trying to be punk in a logic debate though. The hypothetical dialogue I presented with a person wondering "if there is an afterlife" was inteded to spin the debate back to the original thread question.

The hypothetical is a classic appeal to ignorance that is often done by believers.

Appeal to ignorance is:
There is no evidence for A.
Therefore, not-A.

That's actually your position, not mine. My hypothetical person isn't even asserting A is true or false. They are only wondering. It's bizzare to me that you picked out the correct fallacy but inverted who was guilty of it.
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Are belivers deluded?

Yes.

lol
another claim . . .

TBK:Believers are delusional.
Memehacker: Prove it.
TBK:???

Are you gonna argue from the innocent till proven guilty perspective or the guilty till proven innocent perspective? ;)
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It also seems like your "undecided" person is ignorant in the way of critical thinking in your script. Mr Undecided should realize that the burden is on the person that makes the claims that contradict what it known and what has been scientifically observed.
This is called begging the question. If Mr Undecided already accepted that "what is known" is that there is no aftrelife than he would have been previously presented with a solid arguement against the afterlife and wouldn't be Mr. Undecided. A person who hadn't been exposed all the scientific evidence could still be a flawless critical thinker and legitmately wonder about an afterlife. Your unwillingness to see from that persons perspective and insisting that you are not required to present a convincing arguement for them is why you appear to be employing a blatant double standard in regards to skeptics vs believers.

To put it slightly differently, in my example there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for why the skeptic couldn't just rationally present the evidence against an afterlife. Yet, the way I present the skeptic is very, very close to how you have argued in this thread. Anyone who simply believes there is no afterlife because someone tells than science says so is committing an appeal to authority fallacy. Science offers evidence for all it's conclusions, it should always be easy for you to prove your points if you are being scientific. IF you can't readily offer evidence for your beliefs you aren't being skeptical.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
Try this example:

Undecided: I wonder if anyone is can shoot lasers out of their eyes, like Cyclops of the XMEN.
Believer: I know of a person that can.
Nonbeliever: No you don't, prove it.

Now, the believer has has the burden to provide the evidence of a bulletproof person. The nonbeliever's statement carries no burden because the nonbeliever is not rewriting the laws of physics with his statement. The believer is.
Pathetic strawman and false analogy, again. My example closely follows the actual arguements in this thread, why not argue with me rather than some imaginary woohoo?

[ceptimus]

MemeHacker,

You are missing the essential asymmetry that applies to existstence claims.

Whenever someone claims that something exists, they have only to show one instance of that something and their claim is proved. However, when someone claims that something doesn't exist, it is theoretically impossible, given a finite time, to prove that claim. Such a claim can be disproved however, by a single counterexample.

So the burden of proof necessarily must fall on the person who claims that something exists.

[Darat]

Originally posted by MemeHacker

Any skeptic who thinks, "There is no afterlife" is not a claim is deluded. It's a great example of the weirdness that people will goto in order to rationalize their beliefs. So what if it's a claim, hell, I'm open minded about the afterlife but can still think of two different ways one could attempt to justify the validity of that claim. But I can't think of any reasonable way to justify insisting, "there is no afterlife" isn't a claim.


I agree with you here.

What I was trying to point out that in a debate if you start with a claim you should try to provide evidence for that claim. For instance in the simplest form I can think of,

Speaker 1: "There is an afterlife."
Speaker 2: "No there isn't".

It is not up to Speaker 2 to provide proof that Speaker 1 is wrong but up to Speaker 1 to provide proof she or he is right, otherwise you aren't really engaging in a debate. We’d end up with an exchange that would just be:

Speaker 1: “I’m right”
Speaker 2: “No your not”
Speaker 1: “Yes I am, you’re wrong.”

Which isn’t a debate – but looks suspiciously like a lot of posts and counter-posts in this forum! ;)

Originally posted by MemeHacker


If you really want to argue the point with me consider that I have never said,"there is an afterlife" so the lame ass justification that the belivers-said-it-first-so-I-it's-not-really-a-claim won't work with me (strawman).



Wasn’t trying to argue about any particular claim in my post, no idea if you believe in anything or nothing, I still feel my opinion about who has the “burden of support” is correct i.e. the initial claimant in a debate, whatever the matter under debate happens to be.

Originally posted by MemeHacker


I'm not just trying to be punk in a logic debate though. The hypothetical dialogue I presented with a person wondering "if there is an afterlife" was inteded to spin the debate back to the original thread question.

Are belivers deluded?

Imagine this dialogue:
…snip….

Undecided: ??? (Thinks to himself)Well, I'm still undecided about wether or not there is an afterlife but it's clear to me from this conversation that some believers have beliefs they can't prove and that some skeptics are unreasonable and irrational.

Well you seem to be creating a position that may be true for some people who use the label “sceptic”, but isn’t true for all of them, it’s just a generalisation. And I don’t like generalisations either “for” or “against”. I’d also suggest you have changed this from a “debate” to a lecture. I think your dialogue is not what would happen in that circumstance. Let me rewrite it how I would like to think this dialogue would happen.


Undecided: I'm wondering if there is an afterlife?

Believer:I think there is.

Skeptic: Well, depends what you mean by “afterlife” doesn’t it? If you are talking about the idea that your personality along with memories etc. remain intact after the cessation of “physical” life then I’d have to say that there doesn’t really seem to be any reliable evidence that supports that view. :) So I’d say it doesn’t exist.

Undecided: Ok, why do you both think that?

Believer: I know there has been some research into past lives and near death experiences but I will admit nothing I know of meets the standards for scientific proof. Perhaps more than anything else, it is a personal feeling that makes me believe in an afterlife. In the end it is really a matter of faith with me.

Skeptic: As you can see this person agrees that there isn’t any foundation of reliable evidence on which to conclude something as amazing as an afterlife exists. It’s a reasonable position therefore to assume until such evidence is produced that the afterlife doesn’t exist. After all we can all think of many, many things that we don’t have 100% proof that they aren’t true but we don’t act on them or state that we have faith that they are true despite a lack of evidence.

Undecided: No, the belivers lack of evidence means there [b]might[b] not be an afterlife. What is your proof that there is no afterlife?

Skeptic: Well perhaps I did use some conversational shorthand let me explain why I made such a bald assertion. I try to make sense of the world I live in and the only tool that seems to work (to date) is the scientific method of explaining the world. This method can make some pretty accurate predictions of what (and is even beginning to answer “how”) will happen next. So I’d say the scientific method is the only one that seems to give good, reliable results. I’d go further and say it gives better results then any other system yet thought up by humans that - I know about. So when I make an assertion or claim like “the afterlife doesn’t exist”, what I am saying is that using the best tools I have to hand, (that give reliable results in other circumstances) there is no reason to believe there is such a thing as an afterlife, therefore I assume a default position of “not true”. I could say to you “I have faith that there is a colony of pixies living on the moon right now” and when you make a claim of “There are no pixies on the moon” I could just say “Well until you can prove that such a colony doesn’t exist then it reasonable for me to believe in the colony of pixies on the moon”.

But if we reverse the claims and know it is you who made the claim of the pixies on the moon I can use the tools that give reliable, repeatable success, i.e. the “scientific method” to examine your claim, and if there wasn’t anything from that toolset that lent some reason for thinking your claim may be true then I feel confident in saying “there is not a colony of pixies on the moon”. I can’t provide 100% proof that they don’t exist but I can infer from what we have reliable evidence for that it is very, very, very unlikely and that is why I say “the afterlife does not exist”.

Undecided: It sure sounded like you were making your own claim to me.

Skeptic: Well we all seem to have to make assumptions and best guesses to cope with the world we find ourselves in. I could go round demanding proof for many, many things that are extremely unlikely given what we seem to know of how the world works but why? For me there is no reason to invoke an “afterlife” to explain any data that a more “mundane” explanation doesn’t already explain. Therefore I consign “afterlife” to a category in my mind of “likelihood is so insignificant it may as well not exist”, just like pixies on the moon or Superman. But of course if evidence comes along I can always re-categorise it. So as conversational shorthand I will say “the afterlife doesn’t exist”, because otherwise I’d get invited to even less parties then I do now :)

Undecided: ??? (Thinks to himself) Well, I'm still undecided about whether or not there is an afterlife but it's clear to me from this conversation that some believers have beliefs they can't prove whilst at least one person claims there are tools in the world that can help one come to a reasonable conclusion even if the conclusion is provisional. They’ve given me something I can go and investigate; they certainly didn’t have a closed mind.

[thaiboxerken]

So you admit you were wrong in saying it's not a claim.

It is not a positive claim.


2)The burden of evidence in U.S. criminal trials consciously favors a system where we let criminals off because it is considered better to let a 100 guilty men go free rather convict one inncoent man.

Not at all, the US criminal system does not want to be one where all it takes is an accusation to be convicted. The burden of evidence is placed on the accuser because of this. It is very hard to prove oneself innocent of a crime because you have to convince a jury where you were and that you could not possibly have performed the crime. You also have to convince the jury that you are honest. So, if you were all alone during the day in question and you had no one to verify where you were.. you'd be guilty in the "prove you are innocent" scenario. The default position is that people don't generally perform crimes, that's why we have an "innocent until proven guilty" position.

Therefore:
3)Your using a False Analogy.

It's not a false analogy, and you have not demonstrated it as such.

This is not a good comparison to the standards logicians/scientists use. The moral implications of your example also seem a little underhanded to me.

No, scientists have a default position. That is where facts are established, those claims that contradict those facts carry the burden of evidence. Where existence is concerned, those claims about such things that we don't know to exist carry the burden of evidence.

4)Strawman. Since rather than using an anology to elucidate an abstract point you are using this analogy to avoid the clear point I am making in my example. You are just changing the subject to an arguement were you seem more resaonable because you can't come off reasonable in the fair context I provided.

The analogy is not a strawman, as I have not assigned you an argument. I am not steering clear of your point, I am showing you that your point is wrong. The context you provided is fallicious and illogical.

I was being generous in wording an example where you get to respond with your claim yet you still can't figure out a way to make it reasonable. I understand logic better than you TBK. You might want to consider why Billhoyt said skeptics never make negative assertions or why why multiple skeptics have disagreed with you about wether or not your statement was even a claim.

This is just an ad-hominem attack. You can attack me all you want, but I won't let you rewrite the rules of logic to suit you. Billhoyt is wrong if he says that skeptics never make negative assertions.

Appeal to ignorance is:
There is no evidence for A.
Therefore, not-A.

That's only one example of an appeal to ignorance, and it's totally dependant on the burden of evidence. There is no evidence for pink unicorns on earth, therefore there are no pink unicorns. Nothing in my statement contradicts known facts, so my statement carries no burden of evidence.

Here is another example of an appeal to ignorance:

Mediums exists, you have no evidence against Mediums existing, therefore Mediums exists.

Here, we are talking about Mediums which are not established as being real at all. Mediumship would require the rewriting of the laws of physics and carries many, many other claims with it. Therefore, the burden of evidence lies upon the person that claims Mediums exist.


That's actually your position, not mine. My hypothetical person isn't even asserting A is true or false. They are only wondering. It's bizzare to me that you picked out the correct fallacy but inverted who was guilty of it.

Your undecided person is guilty of not understanding the rules of logic.


TBK:Believers are delusional.
Memehacker: Prove it.
TBK:???

They believe in that which isn't real, they are delusional.

Are you gonna argue from the innocent till proven guilty perspective or the guilty till proven innocent perspective? ;)

They are guilty by definition, in this case.


This is called begging the question. If Mr Undecided already accepted that "what is known" is that there is no aftrelife than he would have been previously presented with a solid arguement against the afterlife and wouldn't be Mr. Undecided.

Mr Undecided is clearly retarded.

A person who hadn't been exposed all the scientific evidence could still be a flawless critical thinker and legitmately wonder about an afterlife.

All Mr Undecided needs to know that there is no scientific evidence to support "afterlife" and he should then default to the position "there is no afterlife".

Your unwillingness to see from that persons perspective and insisting that you are not required to present a convincing arguement for them is why you appear to be employing a blatant double standard in regards to skeptics vs believers.

They have the claims that require the evidence. I could not disbelieve their claim if they never made it.

To put it slightly differently, in my example there was absolutely no reason whatsoever for why the skeptic couldn't just rationally present the evidence against an afterlife.

The evidence against afterlife is the lack of evidence for afterlife.


Yet, the way I present the skeptic is very, very close to how you have argued in this thread. Anyone who simply believes there is no afterlife because someone tells than science says so is committing an appeal to authority fallacy.

Appeal to authority is only a fallacy if it's a FALSE authority.

Science offers evidence for all it's conclusions, it should always be easy for you to prove your points if you are being scientific. IF you can't readily offer evidence for your beliefs you aren't being skeptical.

There is no scientific evidence for "afterlife", therefore it doesn't exist.


Pathetic strawman and false analogy, again. My example closely follows the actual arguements in this thread, why not argue with me rather than some imaginary woohoo?

It's not a strawman, it's an analogy that simply replaces one sort of superpower (laser eyes) with the superpower in question (mediumship). The logic still applies in both examples. You obviously see how ridiculous the eye-laser argument is. It's just as ridiculous for mediumship or the notion of an afterlife.

[RichardR]

My thoughts, fwiw:

Statement 1

"I have seen no evidence of the afterlife (despite looking), therefore I have no reason to believe there is an afterlife. Until such time as some evidence presents itself, I am a non-believer in the afterlife."

Statement 2

"The afterlife does not exist."

Statement 1 is not a claim; it is simply stating that it is ludicrous to believe in something for which there is no evidence. Implicit in the statement, though, is that I could be wrong.

Statement 2 is a claim. Unfortunately, it is one that is probably impossible to back up. Which is why we should try to avoid making such claims.

Carry on.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Darat

Undecided: I'm wondering if there is an afterlife?

Believer:I think there is.

Skeptic: Well, depends what you mean by “afterlife” doesn’t it? If you are talking about the idea that your personality along with memories etc. remain intact after the cessation of “physical” life then I’d have to say that there doesn’t really seem to be any reliable evidence that supports that view. :) So I’d say it doesn’t exist.



"Reliable evidence"? What does that mean?? Seems you're saying that because one cannot prove the survival hypothesis is correct, that therefore we cease to exist when we die. Appalling reasoning.



Undecided: Ok, why do you both think that?

Believer: I know there has been some research into past lives and near death experiences but I will admit nothing I know of meets the standards for scientific proof. Perhaps more than anything else, it is a personal feeling that makes me believe in an afterlife. In the end it is really a matter of faith with me.



Why is it a matter of faith to believe in survival but not a matter of faith to believe in extinction of the self at death??



Skeptic: As you can see this person agrees that there isn’t any foundation of reliable evidence on which to conclude something as amazing as an afterlife exists.



Why is it "amazing"? Are you implying by this that it is unlikely? If so what is your reasoning?



It’s a reasonable position therefore to assume until such evidence is produced that the afterlife doesn’t exist.



evidence meaning "reliable evidence" meaning proof. So what you're saying is that since X cannot be proved then not X must be the case. Appalling reasoning.



After all we can all think of many, many things that we don’t have 100% proof that they aren’t true but we don’t act on them or state that we have faith that they are true despite a lack of evidence.



What??? :eek: If you think that it is very likely that we are terminated at death Darat, then please supply your reasons.



Undecided: No, the belivers lack of evidence means there might not be an afterlife. What is your proof that there is no afterlife?

Skeptic: Well perhaps I did use some conversational shorthand let me explain why I made such a bald assertion. I try to make sense of the world I live in



And with complete failure so it would seem.



and the only tool that seems to work (to date) is the scientific method of explaining the world. This method can make some pretty accurate predictions of what (and is even beginning to answer “how”) will happen next. So I’d say the scientific method is the only one that seems to give good, reliable results. I’d go further and say it gives better results then any other system yet thought up by humans that - I know about. So when I make an assertion or claim like “the afterlife doesn’t exist”, what I am saying is that using the best tools I have to hand, (that give reliable results in other circumstances) there is no reason to believe there is such a thing as an afterlife,



There are plenty of reasons. Both through philosophical considerations and through all the evidence.

But leaving that aside, let's suppose you are right ie we have no reasons to believe in survival. Do we have any reasons to believe in extinction? If not then why prefer the extinction hypothesis?



therefore I assume a default position of “not true”. I could say to you “I have faith that there is a colony of pixies living on the moon right now” and when you make a claim of “There are no pixies on the moon” I could just say “Well until you can prove that such a colony doesn’t exist then it reasonable for me to believe in the colony of pixies on the moon”.



This has got nothing to do with the survival hypothesis. WE know through science the likely course of our sensory experiences. We do not know through science what consciousness is (nor could we ever in principle). Therefore the point about pixies is wholly irrelevant.



Skeptic: Well we all seem to have to make assumptions and best guesses to cope with the world we find ourselves in. I could go round demanding proof for many, many things that are extremely unlikely given what we seem to know of how the world works but why? For me there is no reason to invoke an “afterlife” to explain any data that a more “mundane” explanation doesn’t already explain.



{sighs heavily}

Darat, the survival hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis. It is a metaphysical hypothesis just as much as materialism is. The hypothesis is not concerned with explaining the world :rolleyes:


Therefore I consign “afterlife” to a category in my mind of “likelihood is so insignificant it may as well not exist”, just like pixies on the moon or Superman.



And your "reasoning" is hopelessly flawed.

[TLN]

Ian, either prove your pet theory or shut up. Everyone's tired of this chip on your shoulder.

You've proven nothing. Stop carrying on like you've defeated everyone.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by RichardR
it is simply stating that it is ludicrous to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

Belief is not wholly determined by evidence or lack of evidence. There is a thing called reason as well. And even if it were, it might still not be ludicrous to believe if the contrary position has no evidence for it either.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
Ian, either prove your pet theory or shut up. Everyone's tired of this chip on your shoulder.


I haven't heard anyone else say they're tired of my 'chip on my shoulder'.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Belief is not wholly determined by evidence or lack of evidence. There is a thing called reason as well. And even if it were, it might still not be ludicrous to believe if the contrary position has no evidence for it either. Well, without evidence there is no reason to believe. If you want to believe in things although there is no reason to believe in them, go ahead, I couldn't care less. But you're not applying critical thinking.

Anyway, the point of my post was not to debate whether or not there is life after death. The point was to demonstrate what is and what is not a claim. Please pay attention.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I haven't heard anyone else say they're tired of my 'chip on my shoulder'. Oh come on. Even you must be getting bored making the same point over and over again. :D

[thaiboxerken]

My thoughts, fwiw:

Statement 1

"I have seen no evidence of the afterlife (despite looking), therefore I have no reason to believe there is an afterlife. Until such time as some evidence presents itself, I am a non-believer in the afterlife."

Statement 2

"The afterlife does not exist."



Both statements are the synonymous. Statement 2 takes less space.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


If materialism is logically possible you must be able to argue for this. Otherwise why should anyone believe you if you cannot justify it yourself?



Well let's hear their arguments then because I've never heard any. Do you know what function means? It's just a kind of behaviour. But why and how could behaviour possibly connote consciousness? Or do you not mean "function".



Under materialism there is no mind or self. There are only experiences. But how can anger have a location? You really don't know what you're talking about. Go study some philosophy.

Excuse me if have used terminology inappropriately. We are not all philosophers.

Here is my request, as plain and simple as I am able to make it.

Please supply evidence that any kind of consciousness exists independently of a physical brain.

I do not require links, I do not require speculation; I require evidence.

I suspect I shall have a long wait before such is forthcoming.

Regards,

AC.

[Clancie]

Posted by asthmatic camel

Please supply evidence that any kind of consciousness exists independently of a physical brain.
Asthmatic Camel,

What do you make of the numerous and well documented "Near Death Experiences" (NDEs)? Any sense from them that our physical body and our consciousness may not be exactly one and the same?

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Clancie

Asthmatic Camel,

What do you make of the numerous and well documented "Near Death Experiences" (NDEs)? Any sense from them that our physical body and our consciousness may not be exactly one and the same?

Clancie, I find these accounts interesting but of no scientific value, they are purely anecdotal. I might add that I have actually been pronounced clinically dead and experienced no such thing. (No jokes about the brain still being in that condition thanks, it's far too obvious)

Regards,

AC.

[thaiboxerken]

What do you make of the numerous and well documented "Near Death Experiences" (NDEs)?

These hallucinations and delusions that result from a lack of oxygen to the brain.

Any sense from them that our physical body and our consciousness may not be exactly one and the same?

Nothing supports this statement.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
My thoughts, fwiw:

Statement 1

"I have seen no evidence of the afterlife (despite looking), therefore I have no reason to believe there is an afterlife. Until such time as some evidence presents itself, I am a non-believer in the afterlife."

Statement 2

"The afterlife does not exist."



Both statements are the synonymous. Statement 2 takes less space. No, they are different. #1 allows for doubt; #2 does not and is certainly a claim.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Clancie

Asthmatic Camel,

What do you make of the numerous and well documented "Near Death Experiences" (NDEs)?

I just want to make a quick response...

Near-Death-Experiences are well documented, the process of Near-Death-Experiences are also well documented.

NDEs are described pretty much completely and accurately by the "Low-oxygen" theory.

The product where the supernatural aspect of NDEs is purely Psychological. They can definitely be a powerful emotional experience. Humans have a natural tendecy to apply "higher meaning" to perfectly natural (or even mundane) or unrelated phenomena, usually when they dont know the mechanics of why the phenomena occurs (example: "Where does thunder come from... Thor?", or the belief that comets were signs of impending misfortune to come).

As far as Out of Body Experiences, they dont have any more significance of paranormal phenomena than dreaming that you are flying or coma fantasies. If anything, its just optimistic wishful thinking.

Some of the weird things about out of body experiences, some people report to meet dead relatives. During the process of NDE, the parts of the brain associated with memory (all the parts of the brain may store memory, but the hippocampus, amgydala, thalamus, and hypothalamus are responsible for storing and recalling long-term memory) begin (to avoid use of extraneous technical detail) firing all at once. Its where the notion of "your whole life passes before you eyes" is based somewhat in fact.

Some people report seeing members of their family that they never knew existed... this has about the same significance as saying "Does the name 'John' mean anything to anyone?". In fact, 99% of those family members that the NDE patient never knew existed really never existed. The rest are to be expected as fairly unremarkable when enough people report an NDE (its the same phenomena where if 6 billion people on the planet have a dream, you would think one of them might have a dream that might appear to be a vision of the future).

Note (in case its relevant): Most psychologists doubt the idea of "repressed memory" (an abused child wont "forget" he was abused), however False Memory Syndrome is very real.

Any sense from them that our physical body and our consciousness may not be exactly one and the same?

Consciousness cannot exist outside of matter (of course, that wont stop some Immaterialists from disagreeing with me).

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Belief is not wholly determined by evidence or lack of evidence. There is a thing called reason as well. And even if it were, it might still not be ludicrous to believe if the contrary position has no evidence for it either.

(Just for the purposes of this post, I'm taking the Actualist position...)

Well, then is it possible to doubt the existence of anything, or even to say something cannot/does not exist?

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I haven't heard anyone else say they're tired of my 'chip on my shoulder'.

Put me in the 'tired' category.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Well let's hear their arguments then because I've never heard any. Do you know what function means? It's just a kind of behaviour. But why and how could behaviour possibly connote consciousness? Or do you not mean "function".

Lets try leave the semantics of the word "function" aside...

Ok, I'll posit an argumente ad logicatum (I dont know if those translate into actual meaningful words, I'm just humoring the question):
Is there anything that exists which is conscious, but has no nervous system (might as well throw in the "computer's may one day be sentient" wildcard in there while we're at it), and if so, could you show me one?

(Casual note: Jellyfish do happen to have non-cephalization of ganglion tissue but no cognitive ability.)


Under materialism there is no mind or self. There are only experiences.

It depends on how you define mind and self. For instance, I define mind as being the word to describe "human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination" (mind is also related to Philosophical Identity).

I not the type who thinks in terms of "there are only experiences", that sounds a bit too epiphenomenalism (or to suggest that I'm not responsible for my deliberate actions). If I wasnt responsible for my own deliberate actions, I would have no explanations to what that big frontal lobe (the part of the brain where planning, decision-making, and deliberate actions begin) of my cerebrum is doing there.

But how can anger have a location? You really don't know what you're talking about.

Anger is conceptual, as is "evil", "good", "morals", "numbers", etc, it does not exist objectively (that is why it doesnt have a location)...

However...
In the brain is the 4 lobes of the cerebrum:
In the forehead region is the Frontal Lobe: Reason, planning, controlling emotions, coordinates movement and balance
On the sides is the Temporal Lobe: Hearing, interpreting language and music
On the top of the head is the Parietal Lobe: Recieves and processes data from the senses, produces speech
And in the back is the Occipital Lobe: Processes visual information

Emotions such as anger and other functions (I'm not misusing terminology deliberately! :D ) are the combined effort of all parts of the brain (hell, there are 3 lobes that are responsible for making speech). I can describe what happens when the two hemispheres of the cerebrum are seperated if you want...

Your frontal lobe is responsible for making sense of concepts. If you really felt unhappy that anger doesnt have a location, you can go ahead and reasonably suggest that it exists as a concept to be understood in the mind, but originates from the Frontal Lobe.

Go study some philosophy.

*Smiles*

How about we talk neurology :p?

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by Darat

Well you seem to be creating a position that may be true for some people who use the label “sceptic”, but isn’t true for all of them, it’s just a generalisation. And I don’t like generalisations either “for” or “against”. I’d also suggest you have changed this from a “debate” to a lecture. I think your dialogue is not what would happen in that circumstance. Let me rewrite it how I would like to think this dialogue would happen.

I certainly didn't mean to slight all skeptics with what I was saying and was only trying address very specific points in this thread. Amoung some of my friends I'm the skeptic;). I was driving home thinking of what I had written earlier and it occured to me a much better way of presenting my position would be to make another dialogue (or lecture?) with what I thought a more reasonable skeptical attitude would be. So I was quite pleased to see your post since you not only saved me the trouble of wriiting it you did a much better job than I would have.:)

[MemeHacker]

Originally posted by ceptimus
MemeHacker,

You are missing the essential asymmetry that applies to existstence claims.

Whenever someone claims that something exists, they have only to show one instance of that something and their claim is proved. However, when someone claims that something doesn't exist, it is theoretically impossible, given a finite time, to prove that claim. Such a claim can be disproved however, by a single counterexample.

So the burden of proof necessarily must fall on the person who claims that something exists.
I do agree there is "asymmetry" in existence claims but I don't agree that the burden of proof lies completely with the person making the claim. I am not trying to flaunt an irrefutable existence claim in order to annoy skeptics. Just in many instances both sides should be able to support there case with some evidence and in reasonable debate would be willing to do so.

I can make very, very strong arguement for why Santa Claus doesn't exist (in the classic sense). It doesn't matter that it's an existence claim, in this case I could prove his non-existence.

Consider Democritus who 2400 years had some great insights into atomic theory. It was quite a while before anyone proved that atoms existed (and Demo wasn't quite right about atoms of course) but up untill the point atoms were proven to exist was Democritus wrong? I would think his ideas were simply unproven.

OK, Santa and Democritus are kind of unfair examples with a decidely unmodern ring to them. So how about Higgs Boson particles. Haven't top scientists been searching for these for a while now. The fact that they are (were?) searching for something that they haven't proven the existence of really should drive this point home. Untill they are found it is absolutely fair to question there existence. But saying that they don't exist yet becasue they haven't been found is a guess, not a fact.

Or how about blackholes. They were speculated to exists for quite a while but were only completely proven recently.

Consider how many times scientists have made claims about things that weren't known to be true, only to be proven to be true later. That's the scientific method. The burden of proof is for what gets accepted as proven theory. It's a different matter entirely when people are called delusional for having views that are unsupported by the science of their day, perhaps they are just going off hunches that will lead to a new breakthrough or maybe it will never lead to anything but there failed research will still keep others from going down a deadend.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

That's actually your position, not mine. My hypothetical person isn't even asserting A is true or false. They are only wondering. It's bizzare to me that you picked out the correct fallacy but inverted who was guilty of it.

Your undecided person is guilty of not understanding the rules of logic.

What logic rule are they violating by "wondering"?

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
This is called begging the question. If Mr Undecided already accepted that "what is known" is that there is no aftrelife than he would have been previously presented with a solid arguement against the afterlife and wouldn't be Mr. Undecided.

Mr Undecided is clearly retarded.

A person who hadn't been exposed all the scientific evidence could still be a flawless critical thinker and legitmately wonder about an afterlife.

All Mr Undecided needs to know that there is no scientific evidence to support "afterlife" and he should then default to the position "there is no afterlife".

What do you think about someone like Martin Gardner who has stated he believes in life after death?

[Darat]

Originally posted by Clancie

Asthmatic Camel,

What do you make of the numerous and well documented "Near Death Experiences" (NDEs)? Any sense from them that our physical body and our consciousness may not be exactly one and the same?

Hope you don't mind me putting my two penneth in.


It might sound a bit obvious but we should always remind ourselves that all the NDE's we know about are from living people whose bodies were in a state of stress. (The stress I am referring to is because the body is near-to-death.) We can see that in many other ways bodies under such stress do not work as normal.

I can't see how an "NDE" provides any evidence that requires an “afterlife” to explain. (Please note I am using afterlife in a limited sense here to mean"I", that is my personality traits, memories, how I react to stimuli and so on survive beyond the end of body's ability to "live".)

[ceptimus]

MemeHacker,

The examples you posted - the predictions of Black holes, and Higgs bosons and the like - are fundamentally different to the philosophical and religious beliefs. The scientific claims came about as a way of testing existing scientific theories, and they were testable claims.

So a scientist says something like:

This general relativity theory seems very useful and accurate. If it is true model of how the universe really works, it would predict the existence of black holes. We ought to search for them. If we find any, it adds strength to our theory; conversely, if we don't find as many as the theory predicts, maybe there is something wrong with the theory, and we might need to modify it, or come up with a better theory.

The same is true of the Higgs boson. You bang small pieces of matter into each other at high speed, and you get a shower of exotic particles coming out. This is really difficult to explain, but eventually, some genius comes up with an idea, and says, 'I have a (relatively) simple theory that explains what we see, and it also predicts that we should see these Higgs boson things too.'

Now contrast this with what philosophical and religious people do. They come up with a theory that 'explains' some things: 'Why are we here?', 'Why do we think?' But it creates a new set of questions, just as difficult, 'Where did God or consciousness come from?', 'why, if we are so important, is the earth so out of proportion with the rest of the universe?', and so on. A worse problem than these new questions is that the theory makes hardly any testable claims. Even when it does make an apparently testable claim, say 'God loves us so he wouldn't let us suffer', these tests always fail miserably. But then the proponents of the theory just sidestep, and say, "We're too stupid to fully understand this", but notice they never admit they are so stupid that they might be wrong.

I recommend being doubtful about everything. Try to keep in a corner of your mind the possibility that you may be wrong. People who do this sometimes find themselves slipping down from the tower of beliefs they have built up. And when they do, it's kinda cool.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Clancie, I find these accounts interesting but of no scientific value, they are purely anecdotal. I might add that I have actually been pronounced clinically dead and experienced no such thing. (No jokes about the brain still being in that condition thanks, it's far too obvious)

Regards,

AC.

It is very possible that you did have an experience but simply forgot. We know this happens incidentally.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by asthmatic camel


Here is my request, as plain and simple as I am able to make it.

Please supply evidence that any kind of consciousness exists independently of a physical brain.

I do not require links, I do not require speculation; I require evidence.



This makes it very difficult for me. You are not interested in my philosophical thoughts on this matter, but only require evidence. Yet you do not wish me to provide any links :eek:. So do you wish me to provide references not available on the net? I can't imagine you making the effort to check them out. You're simply not interested.

The main evidence for survival consists in:


near-death experiences
reincarnation memories
crisis apparitions
deathbed visions
out-of-body experiences
Apparitions of the dead
Varieties of mediumship


No single one of these types of evidence proves survival. The evidence is formidable but extremely complex and confusing. Nevertheless, unless we are as certain as we can be in our prior metaphysical commitment that consciousness is generated by the brain, then we are compelled to accept that survival most likely accounts for all this data.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


I just want to make a quick response...

Near-Death-Experiences are well documented, the process of Near-Death-Experiences are also well documented.

NDEs are described pretty much completely and accurately by the "Low-oxygen" theory.



Not at all. I'm afraid you've been misinformed.



Some of the weird things about out of body experiences, some people report to meet dead relatives. During the process of NDE, the parts of the brain associated with memory (all the parts of the brain may store memory, but the hippocampus, amgydala, thalamus, and hypothalamus are responsible for storing and recalling long-term memory) begin (to avoid use of extraneous technical detail) firing all at once. Its where the notion of "your whole life passes before you eyes" is based somewhat in fact.


The phenomenon of the whole life passing through your eyes is not the same as the life review. They are absolutely different. First of all the life review is somewhat uncommon. And from anecdotes it's more than simply remembering everything you have ever done. You experience how you have hurt other people, or made them happy, and you experience it as being those very people. You are also made aware of the consequences of what you might consider the most trivial and inconsequential of your actions. These consequences have indirect influences extending far and wide affecting people across the world.



Some people report seeing members of their family that they never knew existed... this has about the same significance as saying "Does the name 'John' mean anything to anyone?".



Scarcely. You're so way off it is clear that you haven't actually read anything up on the subject save for a garbled version made by some skeptic.



In fact, 99% of those family members that the NDE patient never knew existed really never existed.



Over the past 25 years or so (since I was a kid) I have read extensively everything that I have been able to get my hands on regarding NDE's, both from those resources sympathetic to NDE's and from a few skeptical resources. I have never ever come across someone encountering an alleged relative during an NDE which didn't turn out so. Not ever and I have done a lot of reading. What have you read that I haven't?


The rest are to be expected as fairly unremarkable when enough people report an NDE (its the same phenomena where if 6 billion people on the planet have a dream, you would think one of them might have a dream that might appear to be a vision of the future).


You really are utterly clueless at what you're talking about. Once you've read up on absolutely everything you can get your hands on regarding this subject over a period of 25 years, then we might have something to talk about. It is quite clear at the moment though that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Don't waste my time.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

II
Under materialism there is no mind or self. There are only experiences.


Yah
It depends on how you define mind and self. For instance, I define mind as being the word to describe "human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination" (mind is also related to Philosophical Identity).



As a reality in itself. The materialist either simply denies the existence of a mind (and even consciousness for the eliminitivists), or says the mind is just a collection of experiences, not something which has experiences. The mind is those very experiences. Just like there is no University over and above the buildings comprising that University.

[showme2]

Yahweh's dismissive "low oxygen" theory to explain NDEs is - tyically of the sceptical argument - both casually dismissive and entirely speculative, since he has clearly not studied all of these cases. (Whatever happened to "scientific inquiry" ? !)

In many, if not the majority, of NDE cases, the subject is actually receiving pure oxygen as part of treatment for a critical condition.
So the subject is on pure oxygen, and the explanation is oxygen starvation .... yeah right.

Ian said :
"You really are utterly clueless at what you're talking about. Once you've read up on absolutely everything you can get your hands on regarding this subject over a period of 25 years, then we might have something to talk about. It is quite clear at the moment though that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Don't waste my time."

I'm afraid there are a lot of time-wasters on this forum - people who claim to know everything about the subjects under discussion, but in fact know jack sh*t.

I begin to wonder whether it is not a total waste of time debating with those who do not want to be confused by the facts. I came to this forum in the hope of learning something from those presenting both sides of the argument. So far as the sceptical camp is concerned, it has been a very disappointing experience.

Interesting Ian, you clearly know so much more about this subject than those who are seeking to dismiss your statements that you really should consider writing a book about it.
And put my name down for a copy when you've done it !

[Suezoled]

Ian speculates more and reasons less than Yahweh, Cleopatra, and/or Pyrrho. He is as rude as you are, Showme2, you who advocates the personal rule that one must be kind to you in order to receive a reply. (Yes, you do demand kindness, whether or not you realize it.) If this is a waste of time, to quote TLN: why are you still here? Go to to a place where the spirits can speak to you and no one can say "fraud," where quantity counts over quality (as when Ian tells Yahweh he has to study 25 years worth of material, and talks down to him for reasons that appear because he is 16 years old, and not that his assertion is invalid for reason of lack of relevent material).

Showme2, I hardly think you came here for an argument. You came for the automatic gainsaying of anything anyone says because your statements are subjective and based on personal experience only. That is irresponsible and only makes you more irrelevent with time.

Why did TBK, De-Bunk and everyone else leave off from your "argument?" Because you are every believer who has come through without any intent of looking at things rationally.

Oh woe is Showme2.

Oh, and one other thing: I'm a woman, but Cleopatra, can I have your children? :D

[showme2]

Suezoled

Quote:
"Why are you still here ?"

Because I have been able to LEARN something of value from Ian, Jallenecs, and the few others on this forum who talk sense.

Regrettably they are, however, very much in a numerical minority, and your question therefore encourages me to ask myself - "Yes, indeed, why the hell am I bothering with all these others?"

And it is a rhetorical question so ......

- "Goodbye !"

[Clancie]

ShowMe2,

I've been asked the same question (repetitively) by TLN. I find the question kind of strange, frankly, since it seems to presume that its better for a board that promotes critical thinking to have a uniformity of ideas and opinions expressed, rather than a diversity of them.

Of course, TLN thinks of this as a "skeptics" board (and around here that translates as "you don't have any paranormal ideas", although some -paranormal religious beliefs- are well-tolerated), rather than a board to promote "critical thinking" (which I see it as). So perhaps therein lies the difference....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled
Ian speculates more and reasons less than Yahweh, Cleopatra, and/or Pyrrho.



Oh yes? Care to back this up? Where on this thread have I speculated on anything? I always back up my arguments with reasoning unless I explicitly state I feel this is so.



He is as rude as you are, Showme2,



I am certainly very rude to certain people in my everyday life. I don't like putting on a false front. Can't recall being rude on this thread though.


where quantity counts over quality (as when Ian tells Yahweh he has to study 25 years worth of material,


Not at all. I have concentrated on a large quantity of what appears to be the best quality resources. For instance I generally tend to avoid reading up on modern day anecdotes of NDE's (ie those since 1975) simply because, since the publication of Moody's "Life after Life", NDE's have entered the popular consciousness and people may have the propensity to alter their stories so as to be more consonant with the stereotypical NDE. And I certainly avoid reading books where people recount their personal NDE experiences (Brinkley etc). I don't trust their accounts for many reasons eg publishers applying pressure on the authors to mold their anecdotes so as to have more appeal to the general public, the financial award aspect and so on.


and talks down to him for reasons that appear because he is 16 years old, and not that his assertion is invalid for reason of lack of relevant material).
[

I had no idea he was 16. I'm sure he said before he was a philosophy lecturer! :eek: BTW Yahwah, I take back my disparaging comments about your philosophical ability if this is so. Your philosophical ability is as good as can be expected at your age.

And Suezoled, I'm afraid that everything that Yahwah said about NDEs is either a complete fabrication on his part, or he's is simply repeating a complete fabrication made by someone else. You know you should take a lesson out of my book and not just simply trust what someone says about something. Skeptics are no more to be trusted than believers. Indeed, if anything my, experience suggests they should be trusted even less so.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Oh yes? Care to back this up? Where on this thread have I speculated on anything? I always back up my arguments with reasoning unless I explicitly state I feel this is so.

Who says I was just talking about this thread? Reading your posts for months... your sources are consistently shot down, your assertions rendered to pieces, your claims unsupported.



Not at all. I have concentrated on a large quantity of what appears to be the best quality resources. For instance I generally tend to avoid reading up on modern day anecdotes of NDE's (ie those since 1975) simply because, since the publication of Moody's "Life after Life", NDE's have entered the popular consciousness and people may have the propensity to alter their stories so as to be more consonant with the stereotypical NDE. And I certainly avoid reading books where people recount their personal NDE experiences (Brinkley etc). I don't trust their accounts for many reasons eg publishers applying pressure on the authors to mold their anecdotes so as to have more appeal to the general public, the financial award aspect and so on.
So you admit you're selective about the sources you even look at.


And Suezoled, I'm afraid that everything that Yahwah said about NDEs is either a complete fabrication on his part, or he's is simply repeating a complete fabrication made by someone else. You know you should take a lesson out of my book and not just simply trust what someone says about something. Skeptics are no more to be trusted than believers. Indeed, if anything my, experience suggests they should be trusted even less so.

Who said I was trusting Yahweh? And now you're saying I should trust you by taking a page out of your book and not trust anyone? Who are you to give advice?

[Darat]

Originally posted by MemeHacker

...snip...
So I was quite pleased to see your post since you not only saved me the trouble of wriiting it you did a much better job than I would have.:)

Thanks for the kind words.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by showme2
Suezoled

Quote:
"Why are you still here ?"

Because I have been able to LEARN something of value from Ian, Jallenecs, and the few others on this forum who talk sense.

Regrettably they are, however, very much in a numerical minority, and your question therefore encourages me to ask myself - "Yes, indeed, why the hell am I bothering with all these others?"

And it is a rhetorical question so ......

- "Goodbye !"

Okay. Outspoken, plainspoken, even rude people can teach you nothing. But people who surrendor to your demand that people be nice to you, seem to have some sort of wisdom. Okay.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled

II
Oh yes? Care to back this up? Where on this thread have I speculated on anything? I always back up my arguments with reasoning unless I explicitly state I feel this is so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Sue
Who says I was just talking about this thread? Reading your posts for months... your sources are consistently shot down, your assertions rendered to pieces, your claims unsupported.



Right you can't name anywhere on this thread. Give me any reference where my arguments or sources (not that I scarcely ever post any) have been refuted. TBK and Xouper both said the same, neither of them were able to do so. I somewhat doubt that you will succeed where they failed. And you know why? Because these alleged instances where my arguments have been refuted don't exist, that's why. But if you think you can point to anywhere, then go ahead.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all. I have concentrated on a large quantity of what appears to be the best quality resources. For instance I generally tend to avoid reading up on modern day anecdotes of NDE's (ie those since 1975) simply because, since the publication of Moody's "Life after Life", NDE's have entered the popular consciousness and people may have the propensity to alter their stories so as to be more consonant with the stereotypical NDE. And I certainly avoid reading books where people recount their personal NDE experiences (Brinkley etc). I don't trust their accounts for many reasons eg publishers applying pressure on the authors to mold their anecdotes so as to have more appeal to the general public, the financial award aspect and so on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you admit you're selective about the sources you even look at.



Yes, I would tend on the whole to avoid highly unreliable sources.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And Suezoled, I'm afraid that everything that Yahwah said about NDEs is either a complete fabrication on his part, or he's is simply repeating a complete fabrication made by someone else. You know you should take a lesson out of my book and not just simply trust what someone says about something. Skeptics are no more to be trusted than believers. Indeed, if anything my, experience suggests they should be trusted even less so.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Who said I was trusting Yahweh? And now you're saying I should trust you by taking a page out of your book and not trust anyone? Who are you to give advice?



I don't think you should just trust me. In order to establish whether it is me or Yahwah who is telling the truth you need to read up on the subject. And if you have little interest in doing so and are content in remaining ignorant about the subject, then I don't think you're in a position to say that NDE's are not suggestive to a certain extent of survival.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Right you can't name anywhere on this thread. Give me any reference where my arguments or sources (not that I scarcely ever post any) have been refuted. TBK and Xouper both said the same, neither of them were able to do so. I somewhat doubt that you will succeed where they failed. And you know why? Because these alleged instances where my arguments have been refuted don't exist, that's why. But if you think you can point to anywhere, then go ahead.




Yes, I would tend on the whole to avoid highly unreliable sources.




I don't think you should just trust me. In order to establish whether it is me or Yahwah who is telling the truth you need to read up on the subject. And if you have little interest in doing so and are content in remaining ignorant about the subject, then I don't think you're in a position to say that NDE's are not suggestive to a certain extent of survival.

Your capacity to misunderstand/avoid/slant the situation totally dumbfounds me.
1.) I did say "who says I am just talking about this thread?" IAN jumps all over the idea that THIS thread has nothing in it that is not, relevant or well documented. Right. Okay.
2.) you don't even look at the sources, you just decide arbitrarily what is a good source and what is not. Okay
3.) I was not making a comment about NDE. I am making a comment about your credibility in general.

I can honestly see why so many people throw their hands up at you. It's not because you're a great skeptic or your sources are devastating/ , either. You're as stubborn as those you accuse others of being, and for less reason, too.

[asthmatic camel]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


This makes it very difficult for me. You are not interested in my philosophical thoughts on this matter, but only require evidence. Yet you do not wish me to provide any links :eek:. So do you wish me to provide references not available on the net? I can't imagine you making the effort to check them out. You're simply not interested.

The main evidence for survival consists in:


near-death experiences
reincarnation memories
crisis apparitions
deathbed visions
out-of-body experiences
Apparitions of the dead
Varieties of mediumship


No single one of these types of evidence proves survival. The evidence is formidable but extremely complex and confusing. Nevertheless, unless we are as certain as we can be in our prior metaphysical commitment that consciousness is generated by the brain, then we are compelled to accept that survival most likely accounts for all this data.

Firstly, I am interested in your philosophical thoughts on the matter, the difference is that I take your view as one amongst many, not an ultimate truth.

I don't require links from you or Steve Grenard as I am perfectly capable of performing a Google search myself.

I too have read widely on the subject of the paranormal over the past twenty five years or so. From Gurdjieff, Ouspensky, Watson, Wilson, Muldoon, SPR articles etc. to Blackmore, Gardner, Shermer and Randi. In addition I have visited many a psychic fair, spiritualist meeting etc. out of curiosity.

To date, I have neither seen nor read anything that I could consider incontrovertible evidence for the existence of mind independant of matter.

Randi's million bucks is still available after all.

Regards,

AC.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Not at all. I'm afraid you've been misinformed.

One of the things I like when people tell me I'm wrong is to first, state that I am wrong (you've done that much already), then show me why I am wrong, then show me why they are right. I try to stick to that scheme as much as I can...

The "low-oxygen" theory is one of the possible theories, if I've been misinformed, would you describe which theory it is that I'm looking for (the internet keeps turning up crap like "what the scientists dont want you to know - we have a soul").

The phenomenon of the whole life passing through your eyes is not the same as the life review. They are absolutely different. First of all the life review is somewhat uncommon. And from anecdotes it's more than simply remembering everything you have ever done. You experience how you have hurt other people, or made them happy, and you experience it as being those very people. You are also made aware of the consequences of what you might consider the most trivial and inconsequential of your actions. These consequences have indirect influences extending far and wide affecting people across the world.

I said "'the whole life flashing before your eyes' is based somewhat in fact", I didnt imply that it is a known phenomena that definitely occurs, I merely referenced something (what you called "life review") with something familiar to prevent me from speaking over the head's of anyone who read the post (speaking over someone's head isnt a good way to get a point across).

Scarcely. You're so way off it is clear that you haven't actually read anything up on the subject save for a garbled version made by some skeptic.

While writing the post, I had a book in my lap as called "101 Questions Your Brain Has Asked About Itself, But Couldnt Answer... Until Now" written by Faith Hickman Byrnie (I have the book in my lap right now). I used the book as a reference source (it helped me remember how to spell "occipital lobe" in another post), the book is a completely valid source. Pages 153 to 164 is a bibliography that links various information to a source (there are a lot of sources).

I've done plenty of reading on the subject in my free time (I used to be really into all the paranormal stuff and conspiracy theory).

Over the past 25 years or so (since I was a kid) I have read extensively everything that I have been able to get my hands on regarding NDE's, both from those resources sympathetic to NDE's and from a few skeptical resources. I have never ever come across someone encountering an alleged relative during an NDE which didn't turn out so. Not ever and I have done a lot of reading. What have you read that I haven't?

I was referencing a common myth about NDEs that has been popularized on programs that are typically featured on the SciFi channel.

There are a lot of medical myths that people willing believe without question (for instance, everything from the old "we only use 10% of our brains" nonsense to "the counterclockwise spin in the toilet (http://www.snopes.com/science/coriolis.htm)").

I've read small bits and pieces here and there, usually Scientific American's and books called "The Science Behind Near Death Experience" (Jeebus Christos I'm a boring person!).

Here is an example of the many things that make me think to myself "I'll have myself a glass of Sunny Delight!"...

From Untitled Document recounting an NDE experience (http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/Towers/3472/nde.html):
it is the most emotional thing that has ever happened to me in my life and i have had some very intense supernatural events in my life that cannot be explained any other way but devine intervention..

At the beginning, he says "it was very emotional" which is to be expected, then he says "it can only be explained by devine intervention"... I said to myself outloud "He was almost making sense, so close, so close, but then he lost it".

Its an interesting little webpage, everything is typed without any capitalization.


--------------------------------------------------
The rest are to be expected as fairly unremarkable when enough people report an NDE (its the same phenomena where if 6 billion people on the planet have a dream, you would think one of them might have a dream that might appear to be a vision of the future).
--------------------------------------------------

You really are utterly clueless at what you're talking about.

Ouch, but you didnt attack what I said.

Once you've read up on absolutely everything you can get your hands on regarding this subject over a period of 25 years, then we might have something to talk about.

I choose the read the scientific description of the process of NDEs, I'm not much interested in investing my time in "chakra talk" or descriptions that involve the existence of God. The neurology is much more interesting (of course I'm pretty well entertained by the stories that come attached...)

It is quite clear at the moment though that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Don't waste my time.

Naughty naughty, Ian. BAD! No need to for the "hostility".


In the mean time, I'll be responding to the other posts in a minute, I'm going to pick up some things from the store.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by showme2
Yahweh's dismissive "low oxygen" theory to explain NDEs is - tyically of the sceptical argument - both casually dismissive and entirely speculative, since he has clearly not studied all of these cases. (Whatever happened to "scientific inquiry" ? !)

In many, if not the majority, of NDE cases, the subject is actually receiving pure oxygen as part of treatment for a critical condition.
So the subject is on pure oxygen, and the explanation is oxygen starvation .... yeah right.

Even if the patient is receiving pure oxygen, hypoxia can still be caused by any of a number of factors. Delivery of pure oxygen is not necessarily a guarantee that hypoxia will not occur.

http://www.hucmlrc.howard.edu/Pharmacology/handouts/Therapeutic%20Gases%20-%20Oxygen.ppt

Prepulmonary Hypoxia. Hypoxia can be caused by inadequate delivery of oxygen to the lung.

results from inadequate ventilation brought about by airway obstruction (laryngospasm, bronchospasm), muscular weakness (disease or neuromuscular-blocking drugs), or impaired respiratory drive [central nervous system (CNS) disease, opioids, anesthetics].

Pulmonary hypoxia...
mismatch between ventilation and perfusion- (e.g., adult respiratory distress syndrome, asthma, emphysema).

thickened barrier to diffusion and intrapulmonary shunting of venous blood (fibrosis, pulmonary edema).

Postpulmonary hypoxia:
Postpulmonary Hypoxia –

inadequate delivery of oxygen to tissues may be the result of low cardiac output (shock), maldistribution of cardiac output (sepsis, vascular occlusion)

an inadequate concentration of oxygen in arterial blood (anemia, hemoglobinopathies, carbon monoxide poisoning).


Another reference:

http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u12/u1211_03.htm

http://www.nda.ox.ac.uk/wfsa/html/u10/u1003_02.htm#12

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by RichardR
No, they are different. #1 allows for doubt; #2 does not and is certainly a claim.

No, they are the same. #2 is just shorter. Both leave room for "doubt". All it takes is for the initial claimants to provide evidence of their particular flavor of paranormal BS.

Both statements would not be made without the initial claim "there is an afterlife". The burden lies on the initial claim.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I had no idea he was 16. I'm sure he said before he was a philosophy lecturer! :eek:


Wow, where's the rock you've been hiding under for the last month (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28087) (it was an amusing conspiracy), even after I posted a bunch of pictures in the JREF picture poster's thread. I suggest you take a dive into the Community Forum, its good fun.

BTW Yahwah, I take back my disparaging comments about your philosophical ability if this is so.
Thank you kindly.

Your philosophical ability is as good as can be expected at your age.

EXPECTED?!?!?!!!!

The average teenage American's Philosophical ability only extends to "I think therefore I am"... I'm a little better than that.

And Suezoled, I'm afraid that everything that Yahwah said about NDEs is either a complete fabrication on his part, or he's is simply repeating a complete fabrication made by someone else.

No, I dont believe I was fabricating my information. I dont believe I was blindly parroting (as I've done my outside reading) fabrications that others have said.

(I have no idea as to how my thread became this derailed...)

You know you should take a lesson out of my book and not just simply trust what someone says about something.

Whenever I can, I try not to simply "accept" things as being true. Everything I've know about science is demonstratably true (and described in detail until as to how and why the science "is the way it is" using mathematical reasoning, etc.).

But I do have a few biases, I'm willing to accept science that I cant test if the scientific reasoning is sound, the claim has been repeatedly tested, yadda yadda yadda. Sometimes really smart people (like Hawking, Einstein, or a reputable group of people) say something that I am unable to test its validity, I'll accept it as the truth.

Skeptics are no more to be trusted than believers. Indeed, if anything my, experience suggests they should be trusted even less so.
Well, I'll tell you what...
Trusting a person has nothing to do with what they believe or what they call themselves, you ought to know that.

[Yahweh]

And Ian, your new avatar is scary... I like the old one better...

[/RandomInterjectionOfUnrelatedInfo]

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Clancie
ShowMe2,

I've been asked the same question (repetitively) by TLN. I find the question kind of strange, frankly, since it seems to presume that its better for a board that promotes critical thinking to have a uniformity of ideas and opinions expressed, rather than a diversity of them.

Of course, TLN thinks of this as a "skeptics" board (and around here that translates as "you don't have any paranormal ideas", although some -paranormal religious beliefs- are well-tolerated), rather than a board to promote "critical thinking" (which I see it as). So perhaps therein lies the difference....
Perhaps I can help you here, Clancie?

1. Yes, this is a skeptics board.

2. No, that doesn't mean "you don't have any paranormal ideas," but rest assured that that doesn't mean this is a kaffee klatch. Paranormal pap is expected to be challenged. Calls for evidence will be made, and answers expected from the claimants.

3. You continue to confuse "ideas and opinions" with "claims and assertions." "I don't like fuschia" is an opinion. "I wish gravity didn't pull so hard and make me fall" is an opinion. "You should see somebody about that facial tic" is an opinion. "Fuschia is the color worn by wood nymphs" is an assertion. "There is no gravity" is an assertion. "Facial tics are caused by a lack of Vitamin Y" is an assertion.

4. This board takes no position regarding the existence of God, heaven, hell, souls or spirits. This board does take a position when one claims that this God or these spirits muck with the universe. This board takes no position if someone comes here and says they are Christian, Muslim, Hindu or whatever. This board does take a position if someone comes here and says the Virgin Mary just performed another miracle by making this statue cry blood. The essential difference is this: if your posited entity enters the universe in any way, shape, or form, it enters the domain of science, and scientific rules of evidence now apply.

5. This board does promote critical thinking. Before you leave, I hope you will at least understand what that is.

Cheers,

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled


Your capacity to misunderstand/avoid/slant the situation totally dumbfounds me.



Please explain how I have done this.



1.) I did say "who says I am just talking about this thread?" IAN jumps all over the idea that THIS thread has nothing in it that is not, relevant or well documented. Right. Okay.



So some of my arguments have been refuted in this thread? OK, be so good as to provide references please.



2.) you don't even look at the sources, you just decide arbitrarily what is a good source and what is not. Okay



Did you not read my previous post? I explained that it most certainly is not arbitrary. Allow me to paste in what I said before:

"I have concentrated on a large quantity of what appears to be the best quality resources. For instance I generally tend to avoid reading up on modern day anecdotes of NDE's (ie those since 1975) simply because, since the publication of Moody's "Life after Life", NDE's have entered the popular consciousness and people may have the propensity to alter their stories so as to be more consonant with the stereotypical NDE. And I certainly avoid reading books where people recount their personal NDE experiences (Brinkley etc). I don't trust their accounts for many reasons eg publishers applying pressure on the authors to mold their anecdotes so as to have more appeal to the general public, the financial award aspect and so on. "



3.) I was not making a comment about NDE. I am making a comment about your credibility in general.



That is absolutely fine. Point to anywhere on this board where my paranormal or philosophical arguments have been refuted.


How long do I have to wait??

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Point to anywhere on this board where my arguments paranormal or philosophical arguments have been refuted.

He only has two hands.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
Not at all. I'm afraid you've been misinformed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One of the things I like when people tell me I'm wrong is to first, state that I am wrong (you've done that much already), then show me why I am wrong, then show me why they are right. I try to stick to that scheme as much as I can...

The "low-oxygen" theory is one of the possible theories, if I've been misinformed, would you describe which theory it is that I'm looking for (the internet keeps turning up crap like "what the scientists dont want you to know - we have a soul").



Informed skeptics acknowledge that low oxygen does not precipitate the NDE but argue that it accounts for some features of the NDE.




II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phenomenon of the whole life passing through your eyes is not the same as the life review. They are absolutely different. First of all the life review is somewhat uncommon. And from anecdotes it's more than simply remembering everything you have ever done. You experience how you have hurt other people, or made them happy, and you experience it as being those very people. You are also made aware of the consequences of what you might consider the most trivial and inconsequential of your actions. These consequences have indirect influences extending far and wide affecting people across the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I said "'the whole life flashing before your eyes' is based somewhat in fact", I didnt imply that it is a known phenomena that definitely occurs,



Both "life flashing before your eyes" and the "life review" definitely occur. It is most implausible to suggest everyone is simply lying.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarcely. You're so way off it is clear that you haven't actually read anything up on the subject save for a garbled version made by some skeptic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



While writing the post, I had a book in my lap as called "101 Questions Your Brain Has Asked About Itself, But Couldnt Answer... Until Now" written by Faith Hickman Byrnie (I have the book in my lap right now). I used the book as a reference source (it helped me remember how to spell "occipital lobe" in another post), the book is a completely valid source. Pages 153 to 164 is a bibliography that links various information to a source (there are a lot of sources).



You said

{quote}
Some people report seeing members of their family that they never knew existed... this has about the same significance as saying "Does the name 'John' mean anything to anyone?".
{/quote}

So you're saying that this other person said this and you're simply repeating her? Well, I'm afraid it doesn't make your statement any the more correct :rolleyes: You and she are wrong. If you are not wrong then you must argue your case.



II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 25 years or so (since I was a kid) I have read extensively everything that I have been able to get my hands on regarding NDE's, both from those resources sympathetic to NDE's and from a few skeptical resources. I have never ever come across someone encountering an alleged relative during an NDE which didn't turn out so. Not ever and I have done a lot of reading. What have you read that I haven't?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I was referencing a common myth about NDEs that has been popularized on programs that are typically featured on the SciFi channel.



I'm sorry, what myth? That people don't encounter beings who they don't recognise, who claim they are relatives, and then who transpire to be an actual relative? I'm afraid it's very well documented.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
The rest are to be expected as fairly unremarkable when enough people report an NDE (its the same phenomena where if 6 billion people on the planet have a dream, you would think one of them might have a dream that might appear to be a vision of the future).
--------------------------------------------------

You really are utterly clueless at what you're talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ouch, but you didnt attack what I said.



I have. What you said is an outright lie. Namely where you state:

{quote}
Some people report seeing members of their family that they never knew existed... this has about the same significance as saying "Does the name 'John' mean anything to anyone?". In fact, 99% of those family members that the NDE patient never knew existed really never existed.
{/quote}

In 25 years of reading on this subject I have never encountered a single case of an NDE'er encountering a being claiming to be their relative which transpires not in fact to have been a relative. Yet you say 99% of all cases are thus. Where do you get this information from?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once you've read up on absolutely everything you can get your hands on regarding this subject over a period of 25 years, then we might have something to talk about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I choose the read the scientific description of the process of NDEs, I'm not much interested in investing my time in "chakra talk" or descriptions that involve the existence of God.



Good, neither am I.



The neurology is much more interesting (of course I'm pretty well entertained by the stories that come attached...)



I agree it's interesting.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is quite clear at the moment though that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Don't waste my time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Naughty naughty, Ian. BAD! No need to for the "hostility".


In the mean time, I'll be responding to the other posts in a minute, I'm going to pick up some things from the store.


I won't be replying to you until you do demonstrate some knowledge.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

No, I dont believe I was fabricating my information. I dont believe I was blindly parroting (as I've done my outside reading) fabrications that others have said.



Before you said



Some people report seeing members of their family that they never knew existed... this has about the same significance as saying "Does the name 'John' mean anything to anyone?". In fact, 99% of those family members that the NDE patient never knew existed really never existed.



Right. let's have your references backing up this 99% figure.

[thaiboxerken]

I'm sorry, what myth? That people don't encounter beings who they don't recognise, who claim they are relatives, and then who transpire to be an actual relative? I'm afraid it's very well documented.

Documented, but has is been verified to be true? I think you are just spreading myths here.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
And Ian, your new avatar is scary... I like the old one better...

[/RandomInterjectionOfUnrelatedInfo]

{shrugs}

Well, she's somewhat better looking than me. In fact she's the best looking woman out of thousands of women I've seen on the Internet. But as I said to someone yesterday, my taste in women is different from other peoples'. I don't expect you want me to email you the full size pic then? ;)

[thaiboxerken]

What does the fact that NDE's can be stimulated by scientists onto patients that aren't near death mean to the whole NDE= soul assertion? By spinning people at high velocities, NDE's have been reported by subjects.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
What does the fact that NDE's can be stimulated by scientists onto patients that aren't near death mean to the whole NDE= soul assertion?

Nothing

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nothing

NDE's are being experienced by people that aren't near-death. That has to mean something. Oh.. it's evidence that doesn't support your belief in afterlife and souls, so it's no good eh?

[Suezoled]

Please explain how I have done this.



So some of my arguments have been refuted in this thread? OK, be so good as to provide references please.

****This way, Ian. You liberally mix science with pseudo science with your philosophy. If something doesn't fit your perceptions, it's ruled out by you; if it doesn't fit your scientific ("scientific") papers, it's only someone's opinion or not applicable to the sitation. If it doesn't fit with your philosophy, it's wrong and peevishly so. If there is some science backing up your assertion, it's great. If it doesn't, well, it doesn't mean your point of view is wrong, either. If it's a scientifically sound paper, peer reviewed, accepted, well, then, it's obvious the researcher never understood that metaphysics which are immeasureable to the situation at hand. Heads Ian wins, tales Ian wins. ****
[/QUOTE]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Yahweh
Not at all. I'm afraid you've been misinformed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



One of the things I like when people tell me I'm wrong is to first, state that I am wrong (you've done that much already), then show me why I am wrong, then show me why they are right. I try to stick to that scheme as much as I can...

The "low-oxygen" theory is one of the possible theories, if I've been misinformed, would you describe which theory it is that I'm looking for (the internet keeps turning up crap like "what the scientists dont want you to know - we have a soul").


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Informed skeptics acknowledge that low oxygen does not precipitate the NDE but argue that it accounts for some features of the NDE.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The phenomenon of the whole life passing through your eyes is not the same as the life review. They are absolutely different. First of all the life review is somewhat uncommon. And from anecdotes it's more than simply remembering everything you have ever done. You experience how you have hurt other people, or made them happy, and you experience it as being those very people. You are also made aware of the consequences of what you might consider the most trivial and inconsequential of your actions. These consequences have indirect influences extending far and wide affecting people across the world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I said "'the whole life flashing before your eyes' is based somewhat in fact", I didnt imply that it is a known phenomena that definitely occurs,


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Both "life flashing before your eyes" and the "life review" definitely occur. It is most implausible to suggest everyone is simply lying.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scarcely. You're so way off it is clear that you haven't actually read anything up on the subject save for a garbled version made by some skeptic.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



While writing the post, I had a book in my lap as called "101 Questions Your Brain Has Asked About Itself, But Couldnt Answer... Until Now" written by Faith Hickman Byrnie (I have the book in my lap right now). I used the book as a reference source (it helped me remember how to spell "occipital lobe" in another post), the book is a completely valid source. Pages 153 to 164 is a bibliography that links various information to a source (there are a lot of sources).


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



You said

{quote}
Some people report seeing members of their family that they never knew existed... this has about the same significance as saying "Does the name 'John' mean anything to anyone?".
{/quote}

So you're saying that this other person said this and you're simply repeating her? Well, I'm afraid it doesn't make your statement any the more correct You and she are wrong. If you are not wrong then you must argue your case.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over the past 25 years or so (since I was a kid) I have read extensively everything that I have been able to get my hands on regarding NDE's, both from those resources sympathetic to NDE's and from a few skeptical resources. I have never ever come across someone encountering an alleged relative during an NDE which didn't turn out so. Not ever and I have done a lot of reading. What have you read that I haven't?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I was referencing a common myth about NDEs that has been popularized on programs that are typically featured on the SciFi channel.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I'm sorry, what myth? That people don't encounter beings who they don't recognise, who claim they are relatives, and then who transpire to be an actual relative? I'm afraid it's very well documented.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------
The rest are to be expected as fairly unremarkable when enough people report an NDE (its the same phenomena where if 6 billion people on the planet have a dream, you would think one of them might have a dream that might appear to be a vision of the future).
--------------------------------------------------

You really are utterly clueless at what you're talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Ouch, but you didnt attack what I said.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I have. What you said is an outright lie. Namely where you state:

{quote}
Some people report seeing members of their family that they never knew existed... this has about the same significance as saying "Does the name 'John' mean anything to anyone?". In fact, 99% of those family members that the NDE patient never knew existed really never existed.
{/quote}

In 25 years of reading on this subject I have never encountered a single case of an NDE'er encountering a being claiming to be their relative which transpires not in fact to have been a relative. Yet you say 99% of all cases are thus. Where do you get this information from?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Once you've read up on absolutely everything you can get your hands on regarding this subject over a period of 25 years, then we might have something to talk about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I choose the read the scientific description of the process of NDEs, I'm not much interested in investing my time in "chakra talk" or descriptions that involve the existence of God.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Good, neither am I.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The neurology is much more interesting (of course I'm pretty well entertained by the stories that come attached...)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I agree it's interesting.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is quite clear at the moment though that you know absolutely nothing about the subject. Don't waste my time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Naughty naughty, Ian. BAD! No need to for the "hostility".


In the mean time, I'll be responding to the other posts in a minute, I'm going to pick up some things from the store.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I won't be replying to you until you do demonstrate some knowledge. [/QUOTE]


This makes it very difficult for me. You are not interested in my philosophical thoughts on this matter, but only require evidence. Yet you do not wish me to provide any links . So do you wish me to provide references not available on the net? I can't imagine you making the effort to check them out. You're simply not interested.

The main evidence for survival consists in:




near-death experiences

reincarnation memories

crisis apparitions

deathbed visions

out-of-body experiences

Apparitions of the dead

Varieties of mediumship



No single one of these types of evidence proves survival. The evidence is formidable but extremely complex and confusing. Nevertheless, unless we are as certain as we can be in our prior metaphysical commitment that consciousness is generated by the brain, then we are compelled to accept that survival most likely accounts for all this data.


****Of course I don't care about your philosophy.

Your argument for metaphysical existence regularly receives the smackdown. It's not that it doesn't exist, your arguments just simply don't provide any conclusive evidence it occurs. ****




Did you not read my previous post? I explained that it most certainly is not arbitrary. Allow me to paste in what I said before:

"I have concentrated on a large quantity of what appears to be the best quality resources. For instance I generally tend to avoid reading up on modern day anecdotes of NDE's (ie those since 1975) simply because, since the publication of Moody's "Life after Life", NDE's have entered the popular consciousness and people may have the propensity to alter their stories so as to be more consonant with the stereotypical NDE. And I certainly avoid reading books where people recount their personal NDE experiences (Brinkley etc). I don't trust their accounts for many reasons eg publishers applying pressure on the authors to mold their anecdotes so as to have more appeal to the general public, the financial award aspect and so on. "

****Yes, you avoid things without looking at them. Good job. way to be selective about your material. FYI Ian: you're being selective about what you're looking at. You have to look at it to decide what to use. If you just skip over it, you haven't decided not to utilize it, you've skipped over it. ****



That is absolutely fine. Point to anywhere on this board where my paranormal or philosophical arguments have been refuted.

****Done. Not to Ian's satisfaction, but done.****


How long do I have to wait?? [/QUOTE]

****Quit shouting. It's not that people can't hear you, or you're irrefutable.****

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
NDE's are being experienced by people that aren't near-death. That has to mean something. Oh.. it's evidence that doesn't support your belief in afterlife and souls, so it's no good eh? [/B]

Why shouldn't people experience some elements of NDEs while they are not near death? In our normal day to day existence, because of the architectural constraints of the brain, we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. But by stimulating the brain in an appropriate manner, ones mental processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It may then have access to other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
No, they are the same. #2 is just shorter. Both leave room for "doubt". All it takes is for the initial claimants to provide evidence of their particular flavor of paranormal BS.

Both statements would not be made without the initial claim "there is an afterlife". The burden lies on the initial claim. Saying that "there is no afterlife" is not a claim because there must be an initial claim "there is an afterlife", makes no sense. It's a claim, irrespective of any other claim anyone else makes. It does not cease to be a claim just because someone else made an opposing claim first.

Additionally, "there is no afterlife" leaves no room for doubt. However, "there is no evidence for an afterlife so I see no reason to believe in one", does leave room for doubt.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Why shouldn't people experience some elements of NDEs while they are not near death? In our normal day to day existence, because of the architectural constraints of the brain, we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. But by stimulating the brain in an appropriate manner, ones mental processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It may then have access to other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions.

Key word is "may", yes. However, if we can experience NDE-like elements while not being remotely close to dying, why should it mean that people who are close to dying, and who experience them have real NDEs? That would nullify the "Near Death"-part, and merely reduce the phenomenon to hallucinations.

If we can have these experiences any time, then there's not much "near death" about it.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But by stimulating the brain in an appropriate manner, ones mental processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It may then have access to other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions.
This assumes that there are processing units outside the "primitive" ones in the brain.
Just where might these be located? In the aether?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please explain how I have done this.



So some of my arguments have been refuted in this thread? OK, be so good as to provide references please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



****This way, Ian. You liberally mix science with pseudo science with your philosophy.



What pseudo science?



If something doesn't fit your perceptions, it's ruled out by you; if it doesn't fit your scientific ("scientific") papers, it's only someone's opinion or not applicable to the sitation. If it doesn't fit with your philosophy, it's wrong and peevishly so. If there is some science backing up your assertion, it's great. If it doesn't, well, it doesn't mean your point of view is wrong, either. If it's a scientifically sound paper, peer reviewed, accepted, well, then, it's obvious the researcher never understood that metaphysics which are immeasureable to the situation at hand. Heads Ian wins, tales Ian wins. ****


Huh?? Your description does not in the remotest sense describe anything about me. If you do not have anything sensible to say to me, then please don't waste my time by saying it.


And what is the purpose of quoting large chunks of my conversation with people on this thread.? I asked you where my arguments have been refuted. Simply quoting exchanges I've had with people certainly doesn't achieve this :rolleyes:

I take it you're unable to comply with my request?

Well well, I'm truly shocked! LMAO

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I asked you where my arguments have been refuted.

Right here... (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30148)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why shouldn't people experience some elements of NDEs while they are not near death? In our normal day to day existence, because of the architectural constraints of the brain, we only have access to those perceptions that follow the familiar and regular patterns that we associate with the physical world. But by stimulating the brain in an appropriate manner, ones mental processing is released from the constraining influence of the arrays of primitive processing units (essentially the brain). It may then have access to other perceptions apart from our everyday perceptions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Key word is "may", yes. However, if we can experience NDE-like elements while not being remotely close to dying, why should it mean that people who are close to dying, and who experience them have real NDEs? That would nullify the "Near Death"-part, and merely reduce the phenomenon to hallucinations.

If we can have these experiences any time, then there's not much "near death" about it.

How you deduce that the experience is an hallucination is beyond me. One of the more cogent arguments for extinction is the notion that, as we approach death, our conscious awareness steadily diminishes until at the moment of death it reaches zero. Such an argument can no longer be upheld as people have reported that during the NDE state they are more conscious than they have ever been in their life. This despite the fact that in some cases no activity can be detected in their brains.

The NDE very powerfully suggests that consciousness doesn't originate from processes in the brain.

[Ed]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Key word is "may", yes. However, if we can experience NDE-like elements while not being remotely close to dying, why should it mean that people who are close to dying, and who experience them have real NDEs? That would nullify the "Near Death"-part, and merely reduce the phenomenon to hallucinations.

If we can have these experiences any time, then there's not much "near death" about it.


When one says "near death" what exactly is meant? Is it temporal or physiological?

[thaiboxerken]

Saying that "there is no afterlife" is not a claim because there must be an initial claim "there is an afterlife", makes no sense. It's a claim, irrespective of any other claim anyone else makes. It does not cease to be a claim just because someone else made an opposing claim first.

It's a claim that carries no burden of evidence, it is simply saying that the claim "there is an afterlife" is false. The burden never shifts from the initial claim of "there is an afterlife."

Additionally, "there is no afterlife" leaves no room for doubt.

It leaves room to be proven wrong. All it takes is evidence from the believers.

However, "there is no evidence for an afterlife so I see no reason to believe in one", does leave room for doubt.

Same difference. One is just more "PC" than the other. I have no need to be "PC" just to appease the agnostics and believers.

[thaiboxerken]

How you deduce that the experience is an hallucination is beyond me.

It's because people are seeing things that aren't really happening.

One of the more cogent arguments for extinction is the notion that, as we approach death, our conscious awareness steadily diminishes until at the moment of death it reaches zero.

Strawman here, who has made this argument, I don't know. Consciousness doesn't exist without a brain, that's what we know, that's what the evidence supports.

Such an argument can no longer be upheld as people have reported that during the NDE state they are more conscious than they have ever been in their life.

That is their own delusion and hallucinations. There is nothing to support that they actually are any more or less conscious during an NDE. These are just anecdotes and not evidence.

This despite the fact that in some cases no activity can be detected in their brains.

Detected is the keyword here. Also, memories and perceptions are fallible. They could've, and most-likely did, have their "NDE" just before or after flatlining. There is no way to measure that they were actually conscious during flatline braindeath.


The NDE very powerfully suggests that consciousness doesn't originate from processes in the brain.

It only does this to believers. To the objective scientist, it doesn't suggest anything of the sort.


Yet more refutations to Ian's arguments, for your entertainment.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

II
One of the more cogent arguments for extinction is the notion that, as we approach death, our conscious awareness steadily diminishes until at the moment of death it reaches zero.

TBK
Strawman here, who has made this argument, I don't know. Consciousness doesn't exist without a brain, that's what we know, that's what the evidence supports.



I believe Kant made it.



Such an argument can no longer be upheld as people have reported that during the NDE state they are more conscious than they have ever been in their life.

That is their own delusion and hallucinations. There is nothing to support that they actually are any more or less conscious during an NDE. These are just anecdotes and not evidence.



They report that they are, and also that they can see better and hear better. Are you saying that they are lying? Or misremembering? Or deluded? Which one of the 3?


This despite the fact that in some cases no activity can be detected in their brains.

Detected is the keyword here.



It doesn't matter. That one is more conscious than one has ever felt in their life, when the amount of brain activity is so small as to be undetectable, is at tension with the idea that consciousness is identical to brain activity.



Also, memories and perceptions are fallible. They could've, and most-likely did, have their "NDE" just before or after flatlining. There is no way to measure that they were actually conscious during flatline braindeath.



You would maintain then that it is impossible for people to have these experiences while flatlining? That if they did, this would constitute proof that your worldview is wrong?



Yet more refutations to Ian's arguments, for your entertainment.

Yeah, a magnificent refutation! ;) {yawns}

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian



They report that they are, and also that they can see better and hear better. Are you saying that they are lying? Or misremembering? Or deluded? Which one of the 3?






I have come into contact with people on drugs or drunk who report and act as if they are very clever, very creative, well coordinated, etc. They are impaired is why (they are none of those things, BTW). Why does this explination not suffice for a person in extremis?

[ceptimus]

Yes it was a magnificent refutation.

I suppose when you (Ian) wake up, you are able to say, "This dream occurred at 2:55am, and this other one at 4:10am" ?

Preposterous.

You expect us to believe that people near to death can remember what are dreams, what are hallucinations and what are "real" events. And remember exactly when each occurred?

That claim needs a lot of supporting evidence.

[thaiboxerken]

They report that they are, and also that they can see better and hear better. Are you saying that they are lying? Or misremembering? Or deluded? Which one of the 3?

It's 1 of the 3 or a combination of them.


It doesn't matter. That one is more conscious than one has ever felt in their life, when the amount of brain activity is so small as to be undetectable, is at tension with the idea that consciousness is identical to brain activity.

It does matter, people in that state are not in a normal state of mind. That means that what they hear, feel, taste, smell and touch are all in question and unreliable. When people sleep, they dream weird things but that doesn't mean the weird things are real. Why do you insist that dreams that occur in "NDE" experiences are?


You would maintain then that it is impossible for people to have these experiences while flatlining? That if they did, this would constitute proof that your worldview is wrong?

I'm saying that it cannot be known WHEN they are experiencing such things, only that NDE's happen when oxygen is not getting to the brain.


Yeah, a magnificent refutation!

Thank you, it was.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Yes it was a magnificent refutation.



{sighs}

Is there really any point to this if you and others insist on making facile remarks?



I suppose when you (Ian) wake up, you are able to say, "This dream occurred at 2:55am, and this other one at 4:10am" ?

Preposterous.



This is what Sam Parnia, one of the 2 doctors in charge of the Southhampton study into NDE's, has to say on this issue.

{quote}

....An alternative explanation is that NDEs reported from cardiac arrests, may actually be arising at a time when consciousness is either being lost, or regained, rather than from the actual cardiac arrest period itself. However, any cerebral insult leads to a period of both anterograde and retrograde amnesia [31,32]. In fact memory is a very sensitive indicator of brain injury and the length of amnesia before and after unconsciousness is a way of determining the severity of the injury[33], therefore events that
occur just prior to loss of consciousness would not be expected to be recalled and recovery following a cerebral insult is confusional [31,32].
The many anecdotal reports of patients being able to 'see' and recall detailed events that had occurred during the actual cardiac arrest, such as specific details relating to the resuscitation period also point away from this. Experiments during simple fainting episodes have shown that, experiences arising during loss of consciousness occur in conjunction with ongoing mental experiences at the beginning of the episode [34], which is not classically seen in NDEs. EEG data during fainting show a gradual slowing of the cerebral rhythms with the appearance of delta activity before finally, in a minority of cases, the EEG becomes flat [35]. In the case of cardiac arrest, the process is accelerated, with the EEG showing changes within a few seconds [36].
{/quote}