Summarizing For Interesting Ian

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by showme2
Or "poor quality" this side of the Atlantic.

But let's not degenerate into an argument based on mere semantics !
No true American is an antisemantic.
Or as the Prez said recently, "Amerika is the best County in the Nation!"

[showme2]

Yeah, but this is the guy who can't pronounce "nuclear" to save his life.
Nucular ???
Good thing you've got US to help you pronounce it properly before you whack 'em with it, eh?

[showme2]

Jeff

...... and then WE've got Blair and Prescott.
Perhaps we've got more in common than we think , hey ?

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Request denied until you admit that you are unambigiously wrong in what you said.

And further you can retract your defamatory claim that the quote, as originally written, is wrong.

NOW, Ian, immediately. Capitulate.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Unas, I've put you on ignore for a reason, and I don't want you to circumvent this by sending me insulting pm's.

Coward. Run way, run away!

[Dancing David]

Well thing about the optical illusions is that Ian is not a strict immaterialist, he is a psychogenic immaterialist, in that eh is a Berklian.

And he does have a point, if he states that perceptualy the little gray squares exist, in his psychogenic state then they do exist!

In Ian's system the perceptions are the reality.

Sorry Ian, I agree with you that the little grey square do exist. But I don't know that you would like the psychogenic interpretation.

[CFLarsen]

Ian,

Is the image really rotating or not? Yes or no?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Ian,

Is the image really rotating or not? Yes or no?

Obviously as soon as you provide a defintion of what you mean by rotating in this context, the sooner I will be able to answer.

When do you intend to tell me?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Obviously as soon as you provide a defintion of what you mean by rotating in this context, the sooner I will be able to answer.

When do you intend to tell me?

Ian, you know damn well what I mean. Playing these word games only shows how desperate you are. But, since I am such a nice guy, here's the definition:

Rotate:
to turn about an axis or a center : REVOLVE; especially : to move in such a way that all particles follow circles with a common angular velocity about a common axis
Source: Webster

Do you understand what "rotate" means, Ian?

Can I now get an answer? Your eyes tell you that the figures rotate. But do they really?

Yes or no.

No more stalling. No more excuses. No more asking for "definitions" of perfectly common words, understood by kindergarten kids.

Just yes or no.

[BillyJoe]

Ian,

Sorry, there was a reference to this on another thread
and Ceptimus dragged me here kicking and screaming. :)

Let's stick with the 2D image and let's forget about the word "rotating".
Do parts of the image move?

Or do we need a definition of "move"? :(

BillyJoe.
(BTW, who's the chick?)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Or do we need a definition of "move"? :(

Yes, I'm afraid so. This charade will go on and on. Ian cannot admit that perception is not reality. That what he sees is not what really is.

If he admits this, his beliefs are shattered. All his arguments are for naught.

He is cornered, and he knows it. Hence, these desperate attempts at stalling, redefining, trying to shift focus to something else...

It won't work.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rotate:
to turn about an axis or a center : REVOLVE; especially : to move in such a way that all particles follow circles with a common angular velocity about a common axis
Source: Webster



What does it mean for an image which doesn't stand for a 3D object to turn on a monitor? Do you mean that certain pixels representing said image change color to that of the background color which the image is displayed over, and that certain other pixels comprising the background color change color so that they are as same as the image, and these pixels are such so as to thereby give the appearance of a rotating object? Or do you mean that any observer with non-defective eyesight would see what they understand to be a 2D object rotating.

Answer me please, then I'll be able to answer you.

[BillyJoe]

Ian,

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What does it mean for an image which doesn't stand for a 3D object to turn on a monitor? Why would it make a difference if the 2D image did represent a 3D object?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you mean that certain pixels representing said image change color to that of the background color which the image is displayed over, and that certain other pixels comprising the background color change color so that they are as same as the image, and these pixels are such so as to thereby give the appearance of a rotating object? . No.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Or do you mean that any observer with non-defective eyesight would see what they understand to be a 2D object rotating. Yes.

BillyJoe
(sorry Claus)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What does it mean for an image which doesn't stand for a 3D object to turn on a monitor? Do you mean that certain pixels representing said image change color to that of the background color which the image is displayed over, and that certain other pixels comprising the background color change color so that they are as same as the image, and these pixels are such so as to thereby give the appearance of a rotating object? Or do you mean that any observer with non-defective eyesight would see what they understand to be a 2D object rotating.

Answer me please, then I'll be able to answer you.

Again, this has nothing to do with 3D vs. 2D. We are not talking about depth perception here, we are talking about whether or not the figures rotate - or move, if you prefer.

Stop these red herrings, and answer the question!

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


What does it mean for an image which doesn't stand for a 3D object to turn on a monitor? Do you mean that certain pixels representing said image change color to that of the background color which the image is displayed over, and that certain other pixels comprising the background color change color so that they are as same as the image, and these pixels are such so as to thereby give the appearance of a rotating object? Or do you mean that any observer with non-defective eyesight would see what they understand to be a 2D object rotating.

Answer me please, then I'll be able to answer you. That's a Red herring I'm afraid Ian. You can print the image out on a decent colour printer if you have one, or photograph it, or paint a copy of it yourself if you're in an artistic mood. It will still be a stationary 2D image, and it will still appear to move.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
What does it mean for an image which doesn't stand for a 3D object to turn on a monitor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why would it make a difference if the 2D image did represent a 3D object?



See my post on this in this thread from yesterday.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you mean that certain pixels representing said image change color to that of the background color which the image is displayed over, and that certain other pixels comprising the background color change color so that they are as same as the image, and these pixels are such so as to thereby give the appearance of a rotating object? .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.



No??? :eek:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Or do you mean that any observer with non-defective eyesight would see what they understand to be a 2D object rotating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes.


Right, so what's the argument over then? You would say the image is rotating, ok fine. Basically my response would be either the question is meaningless, or the answer is no if we consider rotation in the former sense I provided.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Again, this has nothing to do with 3D vs. 2D. We are not talking about depth perception here, we are talking about whether or not the figures rotate - or move, if you prefer.

Stop these red herrings, and answer the question!

See my post above where I answered the question.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
That's a Red herring I'm afraid Ian. You can print the image out on a decent colour printer if you have one, or photograph it, or paint a copy of it yourself if you're in an artistic mood. It will still be a stationary 2D image, and it will still appear to move.

Well yeah, so what?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
See my post above where I answered the question.

Answer my question, please.

Does the figure rotate/move?

Yes or no?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi


I'll see if he can explain his opinion. Personally, I have a hard time seeing how such a thing "destroys" a non- (notice, I don't believe "anti" is appropriate) materialist view.
[/B]

Well I don't think optical illusions could conceivably provide any reasons either against any non-materialist position or immaterialism. If anything it might be taken to provide some indirect reasons to subscribe to immaterialism.

You see what perceptual illusions illustrate very nicely is that everything we see is a result of an interpretation by the mind. Everything we see is, in other words, a result of low level theory. So what is reality like independent of the "perceptual lens" of the mind? Basically it's completely unknowable in its essence, all we have is our scientific model. But science doesn't imply any mind-independent reality, it just describes, utilizing theories, the patterns in our perceptual experiences or qualia.

Basically, if there exists a material world, we can never ever in principle know what it's like, nor do we have any reason to hypothesize such a reality.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Answer my question, please.

Does the figure rotate/move?

Yes or no?

I've already answered the question. It's either no or the question is meaningless, depending how you define rotation in this context. You're just too stupid to understand my point. {shrugs} Can't help that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I've already answered the question. It's either no or the question is meaningless, depending how you define rotation in this context. You're just too stupid to understand my point. {shrugs} Can't help that.

Back to the insults again, are we?

Very well, "no", then. The question is not "meaningless", because "rotation" does not need to be (re)defined.

Reality is not defined by perception, then. Thanks for calling, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Back to the insults again, are we?

Very well, "no", then. The question is not "meaningless", because "rotation" does not need to be (re)defined.

Reality is not defined by perception, then. Thanks for calling, Ian.

You can't reach that conclusion from my answer.

But as a matter of interest, what is reality defined by if not our perceptions? An abstract scientific model?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You can't reach that conclusion from my answer.

Of course I can. Logically, rotate does not need to be redefined. Therefore, your objection is invalid. What is left is your "no".

Reality is not defined by perception.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
But as a matter of interest, what is reality defined by if not our perceptions? An abstract scientific model?

Thanks for calling, Ian.

[asthmatic camel]

Is evidence of proof evidence ? Evidently not or otherwise, as the case may be. Philosophically speaking, proof may be evidence of evidence and evidence may, or may not, be evidence of proof. To prove that evidence is proof requires proof that evidence is actually evidence and that proof is not evidence. I have proof that evidence is not actually evidence and therefore wonder what evidence actually is; perhaps evidence is proof. I really don't know, but if anyone can provide proof that evidence is proof or if proof is evidence, I'd dearly like to be proven wrong.

Regards,

AC.

Edited for proof reading

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You're just too stupid to understand my point.
With Ian, it always comes down to an ad hominem attack. All he is really here to do is bolster his fantasy that his intellect is superior to everyone else's.

How pathetic...

[ceptimus]

Now that Ian's had his say, I can post this:

http://www.cbr600fs2.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rotanim.gif

I didn't want to confuse matters by posting it earlier. :)

[Unas]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Now that Ian's had his say, I can post this:
In Ian's world, that image does not rotate... however, Ian's head is spinning with the effort required to avoid giving an honest answer to a simple question. ;)

[Interesting Ian]

To Mr Larsen,

I see you've ignored my question. Allow me to repeat it:

What is reality defined by if not our perceptions? An abstract scientific model?

[michaellee]

Look at the black dot......move toward or away from the picture.

http://66.120.79.93/images/spingears.gif

The reality of this should not be lost on Ian. Rotate on this.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
Now that Ian's had his say, I can post this:

http://www.cbr600fs2.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/rotanim.gif

I didn't want to confuse matters by posting it earlier. :)

So is this image rotating? If, as I suspect, your answer is yes (and which I of course agree), what about if you had an image on each and every page of a notepad, with each image on each consecutive page differing ever so slightly from the preceding image, so that when you quickly flip through the pad you see the image apparently changing. It might be for example a crude picture of a man walking. Would the image actually be moving? Does this example differ in any significant way from your image above?

My answer incidentally would be that it does not differ in any significant way, and that the image would be moving.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by michaellee
Look at the black dot......move toward or away from the picture.

http://66.120.79.93/images/spingears.gif

The reality of this should not be lost on Ian. Rotate on this.

Don't you mean the significance of this (rather than the reality)? I think you're right if so. I feel though that its significance is lost on the vast majority of people :(

[ceptimus]

The difference with the image I posed above, is that you can click the 'stop' button on your browser (depends on which browser you use), and the image stops rotating, but still seems to rotate when you look away from it.

I don't think you gave me or Claus or BillyJoe a satisfactory answer, but I never expected that you would.

These optical illusions are interesting anyway, for their own sake.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
The difference with the image I posed above, is that you can click the 'stop' button on your browser (depends on which browser you use), and the image stops rotating, but still seems to rotate when you look away from it.



This is not remotely relevant I'm afraid. PLease tell me if the last image you posted is really rotating. Then please address the question of whether the image when flicking through a notepad is really moving.



I don't think you gave me or Claus or BillyJoe a satisfactory answer, but I never expected that you would.



I have given you a perfectly satisfactory answer. And I'm still working on making it more clear to you if you would be so good as to answer my questions.



These optical illusions are interesting anyway, for their own sake.

Indeed they are. They tend to suggest that it is the mind which creates reality.

[ceptimus]

OK. I'll play along for a while.

Science says that most of the 'moving images' we see, whether on TV, or at the cinema, or on a web page are not really moving. What we are shown is a succesion of still images, which differ slightly from each other. The brain combines these images together, giving the illusion of movement. Tests have shown that if the frame rate is more than about 25 frames per second, the illusion is very compelling, and we accept, in everyday language, that we are seeing movement.

When we see something moving in reality, rather than rendered on a screen, the movement is smooth and real. Some scientists would say that even this movement is granular, but the planck length and planck time are so tiny, that an unaided human could never hope to observe such granularity.

Optical illusions in general work, because the brain has evolved to generate an internal representative model of the real world around us. It is more important to survival that the brain does this fast, rather than doing it accurately. So the brain generates a somewhat sloppy model, in an acceptably short time, but, because of the sloppiness of the process, the brain is sometimes fooled into seeing things that aren't really there.

In some ways this sloppiness is actually useful to us (it enables us to go to the movies and enjoy them) and in other ways it is merely interesting (optical illusions). Occasionally it is dangerous e.g. when people perceive something wrongly, and crash their cars as a result, injuring or killing themselves and others.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
[B]OK. I'll play along for a while.



Not a game Ceptimus. Although to a casual onlooker this debate might seem like childish squabbling, I believe that such discussions can maybe lead to real insights, both for the people involved in the debate and for those following the conversation closely.

I shall respond later.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
To Mr Larsen,

I see you've ignored my question. Allow me to repeat it:

What is reality defined by if not our perceptions? An abstract scientific model?

I know that you want me to engage in a discussion with your about perceptions, reality, etc. I have no wish to do this, for several reasons:

* I do not wish to discuss with someone who on a regular basis throws insults at those he discusses with.
* I have no problems with reality.
* You have nothing to offer whatsoever.
* You have made your points about this many times, and you have been shown wrong.

When you have something to offer (and can keep a civil tongue), get back.

Until then, thanks for calling.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I know that you want me to engage in a discussion with your about perceptions, reality, etc. I have no wish to do this, for several reasons:

* I do not wish to discuss with someone who on a regular basis throws insults at those he discusses with.
* I have no problems with reality.
* You have nothing to offer whatsoever.
* You have made your points about this many times, and you have been shown wrong.

When you have something to offer (and can keep a civil tongue), get back.

Until then, thanks for calling.

If you refuse to answer my question then you are scarcely in a position to criticize my immaterialism now are you?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you refuse to answer my question then you are scarcely in a position to criticize my immaterialism now are you?

First, I do not "refuse" to answer your question. I have stated my reasons as to why I do not wish to engage in a discussion with you about this. Better yourself, and we'll see.

Second, I am very much in a position to criticize your "immaterialism". You have just been shown wrong in a very fundamental way.

Reality is not defined by perception, Ian.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If you refuse to answer my question then you are scarcely in a position to criticize my immaterialism now are you?
Ian, of course, refuses to answer questions all the time. His recent posts in this thread are a case in point.

Yet he constantly criticizes the views of others. Ian has one set of rules for himself, and another for the rest of the world...

[Clancie]

Lol, Unas.

You're one to talk! You couldn't even answer a -very simple- question...whether or not you'd even read the Jaroff article that you kept posting about yesterday!

It doesn't get much worse than that, Unas, (especially since Steve even linked it for you. Still....no indication you even bothered to look!....:rolleyes: )

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Clancie
Lol, Unas.

You're one to talk! You couldn't even answer a -very simple- question...whether or not you'd even read the Jaroff article that you kept posting about yesterday!

It doesn't get much worse than that, Unas, (especially since Steve even linked it for you. Still....no indication you even bothered to look!....:rolleyes: )

The point is not who has read what. The point is that Steve has made some (serious) accusations and allegations, and has not been able to show any evidence of any of it.

It doesn't get much worse than that, Clancie. You really need to sort out your priorities....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


First, I do not "refuse" to answer your question. I have stated my reasons as to why I do not wish to engage in a discussion with you about this. Better yourself, and we'll see.

Second, I am very much in a position to criticize your "immaterialism". You have just been shown wrong in a very fundamental way.

Reality is not defined by perception, Ian.

So you state, yet you refuse to discuss it :rolleyes:

I most certainly have not been shown to be wrong. I rather think the converse is true. But that discussion is ongoing.

I ask you the same question I asked Ceptimus. Do you believe that 2nd image that ceptimus posted is rotating? What about flicking through a pad of paper with images?

[Interesting Ian]

Hmmm, I wonder what unas has said. Probably still whining at me so I won't bother looking LOL

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So you state, yet you refuse to discuss it :rolleyes:

No, I do not "refuse" to discuss it. I said I have no interest, as long as you are rude and you have nothing to offer.

Stop misrepresenting my posts, Ian.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I most certainly have not been shown to be wrong. I rather think the converse is true. But that discussion is ongoing.

You are in serious denial. You have been shown wrong. Reality is not defined by perception, Ian.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I ask you the same question I asked Ceptimus. Do you believe that 2nd image that ceptimus posted is rotating? What about flicking through a pad of paper with images?

Thank you for calling, Ian.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Clancie
Still....no indication you even bothered to look!
You don't know whether I've read the article or not, is that correct, Clancie?

[Interesting Ian]

Larsen, you're just a joke. A word of advice. Stop embarrassing yourself on here. It's not doing your reputation any good.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Larsen, you're just a joke. A word of advice. Stop embarrassing yourself on here. It's not doing your reputation any good.

Thank you for calling, Ian.

Reality is not defined by perception.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by showme2
"It is a board for: "both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe."

Yep, that's a fact.
And who says so ?
James Randi, no less. Case proved. (Can't argue with HIM - he OWNS it !)

Sceptics may "claim" to own this forum.
In fact their status is no different to any other individual posting on it.
showme2,

This is a skeptic forum. It is owned and run by JREF. It is NOT here for you to get upon your weeny soapboxes and gather more woo-flies about the horsesh!t you like to fling. Randi has made it abundantly clear in the past that he expects the skeptics here to challenge nonsense vigorously. Expect it, deal with it or get the hello out of here. M'kay?

Now you and kaffee klatch klancie and all the other credophile cretins, listen up. Stop your whining. Cease and desist about how unfair it all is over here. And stop wasting bandwith with these metadiscussion deflections. I am not going to engage you on this pap anymore. I will beat the living crap out of your pap whenever you post nonsense. No gloves. No politeness. No safe haven. No more discussions of style. It is substance we will discuss, you freaks of irrationality. We will discuss the truth about the universe.

This is based on science. Period. Sorry you are all so immensely dense that you flunked out and can't do basic math, follow a logical argument or truly assess the evidence. Get real, you morons. Defend your assertions or get the hello out.

This is how it will work:

o You will be challenged on all whack-nut assertions
o You will provide evidence to support the assertion
o If you can't, you will say so
o If you won't, you will say so.
o If you whine, I will ignore it
o If you spout fallacies or deflections, I will call you on them, and otherwise will not go down the path with you.

You pathetic, whiny, mewing, puking infants, note Randi's words: "intelligent discussion". Not lies. Not pap. Not metadiscussions about oh how nasty skeptics are and how these evil techniques of insisting on evidence (oh my!) are driving away the credophiles. Excuse me while I go barf.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

showme2,

This is a skeptic forum. It is owned and run by JREF. It is NOT here for you to get upon your weeny soapboxes and gather more woo-flies about the horsesh!t you like to fling. Randi has made it abundantly clear in the past that he expects the skeptics here to challenge nonsense vigorously. Expect it, deal with it or get the hello out of here. M'kay?

Now you and kaffee klatch klancie and all the other credophile cretins, listen up. Stop your whining. Cease and desist about how unfair it all is over here. And stop wasting bandwith with these metadiscussion deflections. I am not going to engage you on this pap anymore. I will beat the living crap out of you whenever you post nonsense. No gloves. No politeness. No safe haven. No more discussions of style. It is substance we will discuss, you freaks of irrationality. We will discuss the truth about the universe.

This is based on science. Period. Sorry you are all so immensely dense that you flunked out and can't do basic math, follow a logical argument or truly assess the evidence. Get real, you morons. Defend your assertions or get the hello out.

This is how it will work:

o You will be challenged on all whack-nut assertions
o You will provide evidence to support the assertion
o If you can't, you will say so
o If you won't, you will say so.
o If you whine, I will ignore it
o If you spout fallacies or deflections, I will call you on them, and otherwise will not go down the path with you.

You pathetic, whiny, mewing, puking infants, note Randi's words: "intelligent discussion". Not lies. Not pap. Not metadiscussions about oh how nasty skeptics are and how these evil techniques of insisting on evidence (oh my!) are driving away the credophiles. Excuse me while I go barf.

Just had half a pint of shandy have you?

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Just had half a pint of shandy have you?
Do you have anything of substance to say about the optical illusions presented so far? Have you determined that the first one is or is not an animated gif? Have you printed it out to see if it still appears to move?

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

Now you and kaffee klatch klancie and all the other credophile cretins
Bill, your prose style brings back the alliterative glory days of Spiro Agnew and the "nattering nabobs of negativism"....
You pathetic, whiny, mewing, puking infants, note Randi's words: "intelligent discussion".
Um...do we really think this rant is what Randi had in mind when he used the phrase "intelligent discussion"?
:rolleyes:

But...maybe its out of your system now, Bill. (And, look on the bright side. This is certainly a better effort, stylistically speaking, than yesterday's playground taunt, "You're retarded!" I give it a "D").

[showme2]

asthmatic camel

What on earth are you prattling on about?
I trust you are winding us up ?

Can we forget all of this rotational nonsense and optical illusions and get back to a serious discussion ?

[Dancing David]

Whats the BFD? I have had many a hair pulling contest with II but we are all right. ian defines reality as being perception, we define reality as the relationship drawn between perceptions.

In a cognitive sense Ian is right, optical illusions are not illusions because they are the products of perception/existance.

In the other sense we can use non percieving tools to measure qualities of light, and the optical illusion is shown to be a product of perception.

Both views are equaly right and both are equaly wrong. Nither side can really come to any conclusions about the ontology of existance.

We can all agree that there is existance, i have had many a frustration with Ian, but those who seek to "prove' him wrong are in exactly the same arrogant position I an is in when he lays down insults.

I am amazed that Ian came to the point where he says that the image does not rotate, because he now knows that it is a product of perception and not 'really' rotating. So what the persistance of vision is a well studied phenomena.

We should all aknowledge that Ian has deffered to an objective view point in this one instance and perhaps try to understand where the agreement lies. Way to go Ian.

Do you mind the use of the word psychogenic?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Whats the BFD? I have had many a hair pulling contest with II but we are all right. ian defines reality as being perception, we define reality as the relationship drawn between perceptions.

In a cognitive sense Ian is right, optical illusions are not illusions because they are the products of perception/existance.

In the other sense we can use non percieving tools to measure qualities of light, and the optical illusion is shown to be a product of perception.

Both views are equaly right and both are equaly wrong. Nither side can really come to any conclusions about the ontology of existance.

We can all agree that there is existance, i have had many a frustration with Ian, but those who seek to "prove' him wrong are in exactly the same arrogant position I an is in when he lays down insults.

I am amazed that Ian came to the point where he says that the image does not rotate, because he now knows that it is a product of perception and not 'really' rotating. So what the persistance of vision is a well studied phenomena.

We should all aknowledge that Ian has deffered to an objective view point in this one instance and perhaps try to understand where the agreement lies. Way to go Ian.

Do you mind the use of the word psychogenic?

I said the 2nd image that Ceptimus posted rotates. With the first set of circles, it is really in a sense meaningless to ask such a question.

I also submit that materialists will find it difficult to argue that even the second image is rotating if they at the same time submit that the moving image seen when flicking through a pad of paper, is an illusion.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I said the 2nd image that Ceptimus posted rotates. With the first set of circles, it is really in a sense meaningless to ask such a question.

No, it is not. Your senses tell you that it does. It does not, in reality. The reason you deem it "meaningless" is because it shows that reality is NOT defined by perception.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I also submit that materialists will find it difficult to argue that even the second image is rotating if they at the same time submit that the moving image seen when flicking through a pad of paper, is an illusion.

Of course not. The second image IS rotating, but the first only seems to rotate.

I notice that you did not provide or ask for a redefinition of "rotate" just now - seems that when you use it, it doesn't need it. One set of rules for you, another for everyone else.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by BillHoyt
Now you and kaffee klatch klancie and all the other credophile cretins, listen up. Stop your whining. Cease and desist about how unfair it all is over here. And stop wasting bandwith with these metadiscussion deflections. I am not going to engage you on this pap anymore. I will beat the living crap out of you whenever you post nonsense. No gloves. No politeness. No safe haven. No more discussions of style. It is substance we will discuss, you freaks of irrationality. We will discuss the truth about the universe.
BillHoyt's post has been reported. While it is intense, I don't think it is either a literal or credible threat of violence. That said, it might be wise for people to make it clear that they are not threatening literal violence when they resort to such rhetorical devices as "I will beat the living crap out of you whenever you post nonsense." I am taking no action other than this post.

Appeals can be made to the administrators, as usual.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Pyrrho

BillHoyt's post has been reported. While it is intense, I don't think it is either a literal or credible threat of violence. That said, it might be wise for people to make it clear that they are not threatening literal violence when they resort to such rhetorical devices as "I will beat the living crap out of you whenever you post nonsense." I am taking no action other than this post.

Appeals can be made to the administrators, as usual.

You don't consider his post breaks the civility rule? Or has this rule been abandoned? Or do different rules apply according to whether one is a skeptic or non-skeptic?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You don't consider his post breaks the civility rule? Or has this rule been abandoned? Or do different rules apply according to whether one is a skeptic or non-skeptic?

No, that is not my....dare I say it?....perception. Quite the opposite. I see far more bile, attacks and ridicule from believers than from skeptics.

In fact, you should be darn grateful that the civility rule is interpreted so lax. Your frequent insults should qualify for immediate action, yet I don't see you being censored in any way.

You invoking the civility rule is the biggest joke I have heard in a long time. You want people to act civil? Start with yourself.

You may, of course, dispute my "perception" of things. That would leave you with the paradox of arguing that perception is not reality.

I don't think you want to go there, Ian.

But then again, that is only my perception.....

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You don't consider his post breaks the civility rule?

No.

Or has this rule been abandoned?

No.

Or do different rules apply according to whether one is a skeptic or non-skeptic?
No.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I also submit that materialists will find it difficult to argue that even the second image is rotating if they at the same time submit that the moving image seen when flicking through a pad of paper, is an illusion.
I don't. The phi phenomenon has been known for over a century. We know the parameters that best produce the illusion of movement.
These parameters were established by hard-nosed, empirical, materialist scientists, not some toffee-nosed, nitpicking philosophes sitting in their comfy chairs, picking their spotty behinds and wondering at the shadows on the wall of the cave.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
You don't consider his post breaks the civility rule?Ian observes the civility rule thusly:
You're just too stupid to understand my point.

How stupid can you get?

This is how stupid they are.

Are you seriously stupid or what??

I guess it's not such a surprise since you both appear to be equally stupid.

If you think that this essay is "decent" then you're even more breathtakingly stupid than I had previously thought.

The author is a complete dunce who clearly understands absolutely nothing whatsoever about the issues.

Have you finished frothing at the lips and ranting?

Sorry, but you're being seriously stupid.

Hey, were you born without a brain, or are you just pretending to be stupid in order to elicit a response?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I don't. The phi phenomenon has been known for over a century. We know the parameters that best produce the illusion of movement.
These parameters were established by hard-nosed, empirical, materialist scientists, not some toffee-nosed, nitpicking philosophes sitting in their comfy chairs, picking their spotty behinds and wondering at the shadows on the wall of the cave.

Key word being "illusion".

I wholeheartedly agree. The only real progress we have ever seen is from science. Hard-core, no-nonsense, empirical, concrete-balled scientists made this happen.

A hundred years ago, the average lifespan in Denmark was 47 years. Today it is in the late 70's. People died from diseases no modern man has heard of today. Is this due to woowoos, immaterialists or philosophers?

F*ck, no. It is due to hard, "cold-hearted" science. Sorry to be so straight-forward, but that's the way it is.

If philosophers ruled, I would only have less than 10 years to live, to enjoy good dinners, movies, books, music, art, love.

Because of science, I am only halfway there.

The choice is not a choice at all.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

This is a skeptic forum.


"both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe"


I am not going to engage you on this pap anymore.


Promise? :D


I will beat the living crap out of you whenever you post nonsense.


I guess that is how some people handle things.


Sorry you are all so immensely dense that you flunked out and can't do basic math, ... (snip)


I got some statistics and mathematics questions for you Bill. Let me know if you want to try and tackle them, or beat the living crap out of them, or however you want to handle it. Really, just say "yes, I want to answer them", or "no, I don't want to answer them". Only one of those responses is necessary. Any other responses from you will be counted as equivalent to the answer "no, I don't want to answer them".


You pathetic, whiny, mewing, puking infants, note Randi's words: "intelligent discussion".


:rolleyes:

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The only real progress we have ever seen is from science.


Interesting belief.

Certainly a lot of progress has come from science, but that isn't the only area.

Some non-science areas that come to mind: some types of Anthropology, Business, American Studies, Art, Civil Rights, Dance, English, some types of Environmental Studies, Ethnic Studies, Foreign Languages, Humanities, Law, Literature, History, Mathematics (if you don't count it as a strict science), Music, Philosophy, Sociology, and Women Studies, to name a few.


A hundred years ago, the average lifespan in Denmark was 47 years. Today it is in the late 70's. People died from diseases no modern man has heard of today. Is this due to woowoos, immaterialists or philosophers?

F*ck, no. It is due to hard, "cold-hearted" science.


Well, sure. Although, without "cold-hearted" science, neither would there be weapons of mass destruction, capable of wiping out hundreds of thousands of people with one press of the button, and then wipe out more with radiation and blocking sunlight. That, I fully admit, is not due to philosophers. You can keep that accomplishment!!

Progress means a little more to me than an increase in life expectancy. I'm hoping for some increase in 'moral life expectancy'.

The 'getting rid of' entire tribes and native peoples in places like Brazil and Africa. Is that due to "cold-hearted science", "philosophers", or something else?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Interesting belief.

Wrong. It is not a belief, it is knowledge. Look up the difference.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Certainly a lot of progress has come from science, but that isn't the only area. Some non-science areas that come to mind: some types of Anthropology

Due to scientific progress, yes.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Business

Which is a political decision, yes.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
American Studies

Huh?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Art

Culturally decided.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Dance,

Culturally decided.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
English

Not the only language in the world. Much to your surprise, no doubt.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Ethnic Studies

Progress through knowledge.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Foreign Languages

Yes, well...English is a "foreign language".

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Literature

Humaniora.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
History

Which can only progress through the rigorous collating of data.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Mathematics (if you don't count it as a strict science)

I do. You consider mathematics a cultural science? I'd love to hear your arguments that 2+2=5, based on culture.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Music

Is Bach "better" than an aboriginee's music?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Philosophy

What has philosophy done to improve humankind? Examples, please.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Sociology

Humaniora.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Women Studies.

Humaniora. You don't mention the belief that blacks were believed to be inferior to whites? Why not?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Well, sure. Although, without "cold-hearted" science, neither would there be weapons of mass destruction, capable of wiping out hundreds of thousands of people with one press of the button, and then wipe out more with radiation and blocking sunlight. That, I fully admit, is not due to philosophers. You can keep that accomplishment!!

Please point to a method that will give us only "good" knowledge.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Progress means a little more to me than an increase in life expectancy. I'm also hoping for an increase in moral expectancy.

Fine. Where is it? What is it?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
The 'getting rid of' entire tribes and native peoples in places like Brazil and Africa. Is that due to "cold-hearted science", "philosophers", or something else?

Nobody is saying that it is not without side-effects. Would you rather prefer to live in the middle ages? No knowledge of how the world really works?

No soap?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe"

Engaging in intelligent discussion, on a skeptical board, yes. Do you really expect to post here, and not have your claims challenged?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I got some statistics and mathematics questions for you Bill. Let me know if you want to try and tackle them, or beat the living crap out of them, or however you want to handle it. Really, just say "yes, I want to answer them", or "no, I don't want to answer them". Only one of those responses is necessary. Any other responses from you will be counted as equivalent to the answer "no, I don't want to answer them".[/B]

Let us see those statistics and those mathematics questions, then.

[hal bidlack]

This post has been reported for a threat of violence. I do find that this post violates the rules of the forum, and I must insist that the post be edited. A PM has also been sent.
hal

Originally posted by BillHoyt

showme2,

This is a skeptic forum. It is owned and run by JREF. ....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Engaging in intelligent discussion, on a skeptical board, yes. Do you really expect to post here, and not have your claims challenged?


Are we allowed to challenge your claims such as there being no life after death, no God, no paranormal phenomena etc. Can you remotely justify any of these beliefs?

[hammegk]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

showme2,

This is a skeptic forum. It is owned and run by JREF. It is NOT here for you to get upon your weeny soapboxes and gather more woo-flies about the horsesh!t you like to fling. Randi has made it abundantly clear in the past that he expects the skeptics here to challenge nonsense vigorously. Expect it, deal with it or get the hello out of here. M'kay?

Now you and kaffee klatch klancie and all the other credophile cretins, listen up. Stop your whining. Cease and desist about how unfair it all is over here. And stop wasting bandwith with these metadiscussion deflections. I am not going to engage you on this pap anymore. I will beat the living crap out of you whenever you post nonsense. No gloves. No politeness. No safe haven. No more discussions of style. It is substance we will discuss, you freaks of irrationality. We will discuss the truth about the universe.

This is based on science. Period. Sorry you are all so immensely dense that you flunked out and can't do basic math, follow a logical argument or truly assess the evidence. Get real, you morons. Defend your assertions or get the hello out.

This is how it will work:

o You will be challenged on all whack-nut assertions
o You will provide evidence to support the assertion
o If you can't, you will say so
o If you won't, you will say so.
o If you whine, I will ignore it
o If you spout fallacies or deflections, I will call you on them, and otherwise will not go down the path with you.

You pathetic, whiny, mewing, puking infants, note Randi's words: "intelligent discussion". Not lies. Not pap. Not metadiscussions about oh how nasty skeptics are and how these evil techniques of insisting on evidence (oh my!) are driving away the credophiles. Excuse me while I go barf.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

showme2,

This is a skeptic forum. It is owned and run by JREF.

[Naughty Parts Edited Out]

We will discuss the truth about the universe.

This is based on science. [Naughty Parts Edited Out]logical argument or truly assess the evidence.[Naughty Parts Edited Out]

[The Rest Of Post Edited Out For Content]

I was extremely unhappy with this particular post.

Did somebody break BillHoyt? :(

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Yahweh


I was extremely unhappy with this particular post.

Did somebody break Billhoyt? :(
Not at all, Yahweh. This forum is overrun with whiny pipsqueaks who are playing games and utterly thwarting the forum's purpose. Oh, boo-hoo! The skeptics won't let me lie! Oh, boo-hoo! They keep talking science and logic and won't let me be free to be woo-whacky me!

Have you taken a moment to look at the ratio of metadiscussion to discussion here? Oh, those bad moderators! What, we have to follow copyright rules? Censorship! Censorship! Oh, you are so mean and rude! Why don't you play nice like the other koffee klatchers and pretend I'm making sense.

I'm not spending any more time on this schoolyard crap. JREF is a skeptical organization. This is a skeptic's forum. The JREF home page speaks of "intelligent discussion". This is intelligent? My clod, man, its whine whine whine. You're so rude. What makes you think you're so smart? Boo-hoo, he's talking science again! I wanna talk about the planet Charon my astrologer told me about! Woo-woo!

That post was me throwing down the sledgehammer. I'm done with the nutcases. (And this is my last post on meta-discussing metadiscourse.) I will only post on matters of substance, and I will follow the rules laid down by Randi some moons ago. No safe quarter for pap. None for nonsense. No kid gloves.

Intelligent discussion my derriere, which I will keep pointed at the mewing puking likes of the friggin sock puppets and whiny little posters with little more intellect than suits TVTalkShows and the ironically-named survival forum.

Gloves off, kiddies. Not following the distractions, pukes. No more deflections, dunderheads. Start thinking, twits.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Are we allowed to challenge your claims such as there being no life after death, no God, no paranormal phenomena etc. Can you remotely justify any of these beliefs?
Sorry to continue this circus of sadistic, necrophiliac beastiality, but this equine needs flogging.
You have all these claims with no solid evidence. You state your claim. Then when we ask for evidence, all we get is' " Can you justfy your beliefs?"
Face it, we don't believe in those things because we are skeptics.
You have any proof? We'll look at it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

Sorry to continue this circus of sadistic, necrophiliac beastiality, but this equine needs flogging.
You have all these claims with no solid evidence. You state your claim. Then when we ask for evidence, all we get is' " Can you justfy your beliefs?"
Face it, we don't believe in those things because we are skeptics.
You have any proof? We'll look at it.

I don't make any claims. I have arguments. Where are the arguments justifying the skeptical stance on all these issues?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where are the arguments justifying the skeptical stance on all these issues?

Occam's Razor?

[Clancie]

Posted by Bill Hoyt

I will only post on matters of substance
Well, that will be a refreshing change, Bill.

So...like TBK, you are now promising us substantive comments instead of your usual pointless baiting, mocking, insulting posts that make no contributions to "intelligent discussion" whatsoever? (See this thread for examples, if you need them...)

Personally, I can hardly wait...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Where are the arguments justifying the skeptical stance on all these issues?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Occam's Razor?

No. It's simply not applicable to these type of questions as I've explained a thousand times before. Besides, you don't actually have any theories which explains consciousness and phenomenal experiences, nevermind claiming that such (non-existent) theories are simpler than my ideas on reality.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No. It's simply not applicable to these type of questions as I've explained a thousand times before. Besides, you don't actually have any theories which explains consciousness and phenomenal experiences, nevermind claiming that such (non-existent) theories are simpler than my ideas on reality.

Ian, just like lifegazer, you can "state" or "claim" or "explain" or "assert" as much as you want, and it means nothing beyond the reasonably well established fact that you've stated/claimed/explained/asserted something.

You can 'explain' all you want, but until some evidence to support your claims comes rolling in, all you're doing is blowing smoke.

Now, Occam's Razor is really partially a philosophical question, true, rather than an examination of any kind of absolute or provisional "truth", but even there, your "explaination" is accepted only by you, so referring to it is purely circular.

Remove the misleading quote from your signature, and admit that there was no mistake in the original statement you abbreviated.

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I don't make any claims. I have arguments. Where are the arguments justifying the skeptical stance on all these issues?

You have arguments, I have experiments and experimental results.

Ciao!

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't make any claims.Ian's lying again:
I should be clear that when I say the material does not exist, I am denying the existence of matter.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Engaging in intelligent discussion, on a skeptical board, yes.


"both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe"

[/b]
Let us see those statistics and those mathematics questions, then. [/B]

Aww, :). You are answering for Bill. I'll await his answer, since I asked him the question.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Wrong. It is not a belief, ...


"The only real progress we have ever seen is from science."

is an opinion.

What is "real progress" as distinct from "progress"??


Due to scientific progress, yes.


So progress in all these areas is due to science???

Anthropology, Business, American Studies, Art, Civil Rights, Dance, English, some types of Environmental Studies, Ethnic Studies, Foreign Languages, Humanities, Law, Literature, History, Mathematics (if you don't count it as a strict science), Music, Philosophy, Sociology, and Women Studies, to name a few.


Not the only language in the world. Much to your surprise, no doubt.


Strawman # 1. (I never had that opinion)


I'd love to hear your arguments that 2+2=5, based on culture.


Strawman # 2. (I never had that opinion)


What has philosophy done to improve humankind? Examples, please.


In many cultures, philosophy isn't just ideas- they are ways to live life. For one, it has led to asking questions and offering possible answers. You can reflect on the foundations of subjects which can provide you with a more complete understanding of those subjects.

How about the philosophy of skepticism, humanism, naturalism, and pragmatism, Claus? If you believe that philosophy hasn't done anything to improve mankind, you are saying that these philosophies haven't.

Do you think Bertrand Russell or Martin Gardner did anything to improve humankind?

Personally, I have used my philosophical make-up to give food to charity the other day.


You don't mention the belief that blacks were believed to be inferior to whites? Why not?


I didn't mention a lot of beliefs. So what?


Would you rather prefer to live in the middle ages?


It depends where geographically and culturally, and in what position in society I would be, of course. Personally, I'm used to this period of time. I enjoy it because of science (obviously!) and technology, humanities, literature, and ideas of the time, travel, as well as a lot of hobbies that weren't around at that time.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
No. It's simply not applicable to these type of questions as I've explained a thousand times before. Besides, you don't actually have any theories which explains consciousness and phenomenal experiences, nevermind claiming that such (non-existent) theories are simpler than my ideas on reality.

Ian, how many times have I said "consciousness can be descirbed by cognitive neuroscience".

Here is a paper that describes consciousness, without presupposing (i.e. applies Occam's Razor) dualism: A Nagelian Neurology of Consciousness? (http://www.sci-con.org/theory/20030401.html)

This article is the same description, but written for those without the technical knowhow of neurology (or those who dont want to read content as lenghty as the above link): A NEURAL THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS (http://www.neurologyreviews.com/oct02/nr_oct02_consciousness.html)

Now, while your Philosophy is perfectly sound, when applied pragmatically, it demonstrates the incoherency of justifying belief with Philosophy.

My Philosophy is perfectly sound, I've got science and stuff to support it as well.

In the instance that you wont accept the referenced articles on consciousness, I'll leave you this: If we dont know how or why something occurs, we shouldnt make incoherent assumptions to help us fill in the gaps. If doing so makes you feel secure, thats completely fine, but dont expect much in the way of accurate assessment when doing so.

[Aussie Thinker]

Nicely Put Yahweh…

It seems to be frustrating a lot of us that Ian just doesn’t seem to get the point.

Normal = Natural = Supported by science and evidence
Not Normal = Supernatural = Supported by anecdote and guessing

We cannot see why anyone would choose the “Not Normal” path !

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No. It's simply not applicable to these type of questions as I've explained a thousand times before. Besides, you don't actually have any theories which explains consciousness and phenomenal experiences, nevermind claiming that such (non-existent) theories are simpler than my ideas on reality. um...I think you admitted that I understood your position on the "primary and secondary..." thread. This statement of yours suggests that you did not understand mine. Now, I always claimed that our differences were very few, although very very basic--please, admit that you have seen theories which explain consciousness here...even if you do not agree with them. I can understand you not agreeing with my position; I will be sorely dismayed if you ignore it completely.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are we allowed to challenge your claims such as there being no life after death, no God, no paranormal phenomena etc. Can you remotely justify any of these beliefs?

Get your facts straight.

I point to the complete lack of evidence of life after death, God (of any kind), paranormal phenomena etc. If you want to "challenge" that "belief", go ahead. Let's see some evidence.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I don't make any claims. I have arguments. Where are the arguments justifying the skeptical stance on all these issues?

Skeptics argue from evidence. Skeptics do not argue from arguments.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...nevermind claiming that such (non-existent) theories are simpler than my ideas on reality.

It's very simple, Ian: Your ideas on reality are wrong. E.g. reality is not defined by perception.



Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe"

Nobody is denying this. Are you denying that this is a skeptics board?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Aww, :). You are answering for Bill. I'll await his answer, since I asked him the question.

Sure. Perhaps you'd better stop asking other people's questions, too.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
"The only real progress we have ever seen is from science."

is an opinion.

What is "real progress" as distinct from "progress"??


What progress have we gotten from religion? Are we closer to god today than 2000 years ago? Do we understand god better?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So progress in all these areas is due to science???

Anthropology, Business, American Studies, Art, Civil Rights, Dance, English, some types of Environmental Studies, Ethnic Studies, Foreign Languages, Humanities, Law, Literature, History, Mathematics (if you don't count it as a strict science), Music, Philosophy, Sociology, and Women Studies, to name a few.

Why are you repeating this?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Strawman # 1. (I never had that opinion)


Then, what progress has the English language brought us? Explain yourself.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Strawman # 2. (I never had that opinion)


Then, explain why mathematics is not a strict science.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
In many cultures, philosophy isn't just ideas- they are ways to live life. For one, it has led to asking questions and offering possible answers. You can reflect on the foundations of subjects which can provide you with a more complete understanding of those subjects.


But where is the progress? That is the issue, not that philosophy exists. What good has Heidegger done to humankind?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
How about the philosophy of skepticism, humanism, naturalism, and pragmatism, Claus? If you believe that philosophy hasn't done anything to improve mankind, you are saying that these philosophies haven't.


We have not gotten to humanism (to pick an example) based on philosophy alone. When we discovered that we were very close to chimps, genetically and evolutionarywise, our attitude - philosophy, if you like - changed.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Do you think Bertrand Russell or Martin Gardner did anything to improve humankind?


Yes, but what did they base their ideas on? Pure philosophy?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Personally, I have used my philosophical make-up to give food to charity the other day.


My hero. So?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I didn't mention a lot of beliefs. So what?


Ah, but you have to take that one into account, too. You cannot just select your data.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It depends where geographically and culturally, and in what position in society I would be, of course. Personally, I'm used to this period of time. I enjoy it because of science (obviously!) and technology, humanities, literature, and ideas of the time, travel, as well as a lot of hobbies that weren't around at that time.


Read your history, T'ai Chi. No soap, no fresh food in the winter, diseases, low life expectancy, no hygiene, no knowledge of the universe, living under religious dogma... I don't think you would like it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh


Ian, how many times have I said "consciousness can be descirbed by cognitive neuroscience".



Many many times. And how many times have I told you that science cannot in principle explain consciousness? Nor can it "describe" consciousness, although the word describe is a bit peculiar in this context. One could only conceivably describe consciousness through introspection.



Here is a paper that describes consciousness, without presupposing (i.e. applies Occam's Razor) dualism: A Nagelian Neurology of Consciousness? (http://www.sci-con.org/theory/20030401.html)

This article is the same description, but written for those without the technical knowhow of neurology (or those who dont want to read content as lenghty as the above link): A NEURAL THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS (http://www.neurologyreviews.com/oct02/nr_oct02_consciousness.html)



I have absolutely no interest in your links, and I won't be clicking on them. You cannot scientifically account for consciousness. It is logically impossible. What all such articles do is simply presuppose materialism. Why don't you and others get it through your tiny little minds that I do not subscribe to materialism? Indeed I believe it is logically impossible for it to be true. When these articles specifically predict that a conscious being will arise from certain physical processes in the brain, rather than a p-zombie, then I will sit up and take notice. But they won't and they can't. Necessarily they only concern themselves with function and behaviour, not the actual raw phenomenological feel of consciousness itself.



Now, while your Philosophy is perfectly sound, when applied pragmatically, it demonstrates the incoherency of justifying belief with Philosophy.



Even if this is so, what about all the evidence for my view? All the evidence for survival (life after death) and for various anomalous phenomena which suggest extraordinary abilities of the mind?



My Philosophy is perfectly sound, I've got science and stuff to support it as well.



What philosophy do you have and how does science support it? I'll be continuing to ask this question until you supply an answer.



In the instance that you wont accept the referenced articles on consciousness, I'll leave you this: If we dont know how or why something occurs, we shouldnt make incoherent assumptions to help us fill in the gaps.



Obviously not :rolleyes: When you or anyone else, have pointed out any incoherency in my ideas, I'll sit up and take notice. But this will never happen.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
[B]Nicely Put Yahweh…

It seems to be frustrating a lot of us that Ian just doesn’t seem to get the point.



Yup, I know you are too stupid to understand anything as you have made abundantly clear in that other thread :rolleyes: . So I am not at all surprised that you don't understand the complete irrelevance of science to this question. Yahwah doesn't either, but he has an excuse, he's only 16 so could not really be expected to.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Mercutio
[B]um...I think you admitted that I understood your position on the "primary and secondary..." thread. This statement of yours suggests that you did not understand mine.



There's nothing to understand. It is in principle impossible to scientifically explain consciousness. I have always maintained this. Nothing you have said, and nothing you could conceivably say, will alter my mind one iota.



Now, I always claimed that our differences were very few, although very very basic--please, admit that you have seen theories which explain consciousness here.



No not ever. It is utterly impossible from the perspective of materialism to explain consciousness.

[Darat]

Originally By Intersting Ian
...snip...

I have absolutely no interest in your links, and I won't be clicking on them. You cannot scientifically account for consciousness. It is logically impossible. What all such articles do is simply presuppose materialism. Why don't you and others get it through your tiny little minds that I do not subscribe to materialism? Indeed I believe it is logically impossible for it to be true. When these articles specifically predict that a conscious being will arise from certain physical processes in the brain, rather than a p-zombie, then I will sit up and take notice. But they won't and they can't. Necessarily they only concern themselves with function and behaviour, not the actual raw phenomenological feel of consciousness itself.

...snip...


Ian can you please show your logic here?

Feel free to use what ever formal logic notation you want - I'm quite happy to have to do some work to understand it if it falls outside my current understanding.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Are we allowed to challenge your claims such as there being no life after death, no God, no paranormal phenomena etc. Can you remotely justify any of these beliefs?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Get your facts straight.

I point to the complete lack of evidence of life after death, God (of any kind), paranormal phenomena etc. If you want to "challenge" that "belief", go ahead. Let's see some evidence.



As I keep mentioning, there is a colossal amount of evidence for survival and anomalous cognition. And the evidence for a God consists in the fact that there exist "physical laws" which describe reality. Moreover such descriptions are written in the language of mathematics.

So when are you going to justify your beliefs? :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen




Then, explain why mathematics is not a strict science.




Mathematics is not a science at all, never mind a strict one. I consider it really to be a branch of philosophy.

But it doesn't surprise me at all that you don't realise this.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


As I keep mentioning, there is a colossal amount of evidence for survival and anomalous cognition. And the evidence for a God consists in the fact that there exist "physical laws" which describe reality. Moreover such descriptions are written in the language of mathematics.

So when are you going to justify your beliefs? :rolleyes:

Ian,

You know full well the meaning of "evidence" when you are here at JREF. You also know full well that neither the evidence for survival nor that for anomolous cognition meets the basic criteria. And what pretzel logic draws a god inference from the existence of physical laws?

I object, once again, to the equivocation on "belief." That I believe in something upon reviewing cogent evidence is quite another thing from believing in something despite a dearth of corroborating evidence or despite clear and cogent evidence to the contrary.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
As I keep mentioning, there is a colossal amount of evidence for survival and anomalous cognition.

Let's see that "colossal amount of evidence", then! Please!!

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And the evidence for a God consists in the fact that there exist "physical laws" which describe reality. Moreover such descriptions are written in the language of mathematics.

Huh? God is proven because there are physical laws, and that he is decribed by math?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
So when are you going to justify your beliefs? :rolleyes:

This is a prime example of your denial: I have just explained to you, yet you go on claiming that I have not.

And please stop calling people stupid, Ian. At least not while you are clamoring for more civility on this board.

[RonSceptic]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
And the evidence for a God consists in the fact that there exist "physical laws" which describe reality. Moreover such descriptions are written in the language of mathematics.


Mmm.

BillHoyt

Is it time to relaunch the monthly logic award?


Ian,

Care to expand on this one?

[Jeff Corey]

I have an enormous amount of evidence for my belief that Insipid Ian is a computer procram. An AS prototype.

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I have absolutely no interest in your links, and I won't be clicking on them. You cannot scientifically account for consciousness. It is logically impossible. What all such articles do is simply presuppose materialism. Why don't you and others get it through your tiny little minds that I do not subscribe to materialism? Indeed I believe it is logically impossible for it to be true. When these articles specifically predict that a conscious being will arise from certain physical processes in the brain, rather than a p-zombie, then I will sit up and take notice. But they won't and they can't. Necessarily they only concern themselves with function and behaviour, not the actual raw phenomenological feel of consciousness itself.


How dare you. You who claim to know, not even looking at a link so that you could at least refute it, if it's possible. You who only show how very ignorant and intolerant you are, by not looking at other people's work, no matter how silly or trite it might be to you. "Know your enemy, know yourself" seems to be an alien (pun intended) idea for you, Ian.

And hiding behind the fact that Yahweh is 16, so that you can dismiss him, is also sheer immaturity on your part. He is as welcome here as any person who is interested in decent discussion.

Ian, you even give Believers a bad name.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Suezoled
[B]

How dare you.



I dare through my philosophical understanding, which you and the vast majority of skeptics are clueless about.



You who claim to know, not even looking at a link so that you could at least refute it, if it's possible.



I have provided countless arguments in the past on this topic. The discoveries and theories in neurology just ain't relevant. I suggest you deal with it.



And hiding behind the fact that Yahweh is 16, so that you can dismiss him, is also sheer immaturity on your part. He is as welcome here as any person who is interested in decent discussion.



Indeed he is. And on a personal note I like him. Remember, I was actually defending him. I wouldn't have had a clue what I am talking about when I was 16.



Ian, you even give Believers a bad name.

I doubt this.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I dare through my philosophical understanding, which you and the vast majority of skeptics are clueless about.

Oh, no, Ian. We know more than enough. We also know that you are incredibly rude.

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I have provided countless arguments in the past on this topic. The discoveries and theories in neurology just ain't relevant. I suggest you deal with it.

May I suggest you deal with how those "countless arguments" were refuted?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Indeed he is. And on a personal note I like him. Remember, I was actually defending him. I wouldn't have had a clue what I am talking about when I was 16.

Has the situation improved?

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I doubt this.

What, no philosophical explanation?

[hammegk]

What Ian does is tire of repeating the obvious.

Materialists of every stripe accept as the prime axiom; I am -- that is the objective physical world exists, and what I think of as "I" is a result solely of physical processes.

Non-materialists accept as the prime axiom -- I (or at least something) "thinks"; Perception follows.

If you accept the dictum "If it effects/affects "matter" it is also physical, dualism is impossible.

[juninho]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Why don't you and others get it through your tiny little minds that I do not subscribe to materialism? Indeed I believe it is logically impossible for it to be true.


OK, Ian, please state why is it impossible for materialism to be untrue. A question, I may add, that you seem to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid. It is not sufficient to answer that those who ask are too stupid to understand.


Even if this is so, what about all the evidence for my view? All the evidence for survival (life after death) and for various anomalous phenomena which suggest extraordinary abilities of the mind?


Evidence? Ian, you have been asked repeatedly through many, many threads to provide "evidence" for your view, now perhaps I'm missing something but all I see is philosophical mumbo-jumbo coming back. Please indicate this evidence that you have provided. Or again, am I too stupid to understand the "evidence" you supply?


Obviously not :rolleyes: When you or anyone else, have pointed out any incoherency in my ideas, I'll sit up and take notice. But this will never happen.


Ian, I'm assuming you actually mean inconsistencies in your ideas but that is a moot point as you're frequently incoherent. Anyway, they have been pointed out on may occasions. Evidence Ian, evidence.

Edited to correct spelling

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by juninho


OK, Ian, please state why is it impossible for materialism to be untrue. A question, I may add, that you seem to go to extraordinary lengths to avoid. It is not sufficient to answer that those who ask are too stupid to understand.
[/B]

Evidence? Ian, you have been asked repeatedly through many, many threads to provide "evidence" for your view, now perhaps I'm missing something but all I see is philosophical mumbo-jumbo coming back. Please indicate this evidence that you have provided. Or again, am I too stupid to understand the "evidence" you supply?


Ian, I'm assuming you actually mean inconsistencies in your ideas but that is a moot point as you're frequently incoherent. Anyway, they have been pointed out on may occasions. Evidence Ian, evidence.

Edited to correct spelling [/B]

Right, that's it! I've definitely decided to put up a website and put all my arguments on it. It will save me time searching through the archives trying to find the relevant posts! Hmmm . . is dreamweaver easy to use?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Right, that's it! I've definitely decided to put up a website and put all my arguments on it. It will save me time searching through the archives trying to find the relevant posts! Hmmm . . is dreamweaver easy to use?

I suspect this will take most of your time, then. When you get back, we can look at your evidence.

We can also look at the other points you have yet to address.

Let us know when you return!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


I suspect this will take most of your time, then. When you get back, we can look at your evidence.

We can also look at the other points you have yet to address.

Let us know when you return!

OK, could you help me with designing my web site?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
OK, could you help me with designing my web site?

Of course. $150 an hour. Usually it takes from 5-10 hours.

OK?

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Are you denying that this is a skeptics board?


It is a board owned by JREF, but it is a board for discussion between "both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe".


Perhaps you'd better stop asking other people's questions, too.


Perhaps I can do what I want, but thanks for your suggestion.


What progress have we gotten from religion?


Practical good works, caring for the sick and for the poor, helping the dying to die with their dignity intact, scholarly study and teaching, helping people who are committed to one religion understand their beliefs better through intellectual understanding, explaining to the uncommitted the logical foundations of belief.

Yeah yeah, 'in spite of' religion is the usual comeback. :rolleyes:


Are we closer to god today than 2000 years ago?


What do you mean by 'closer' and 'god'?


Why are you repeating this?


I repeated it because I wanted to repeat it.


Then, what progress has the English language brought us? Explain yourself.


What you said is still a strawman.

Cultures can learn and use it to learn more about other cultures and to better understand their own. English might also be the majority language in the world in the future.


Then, explain why mathematics is not a strict science.


What you said is still a strawman.

Mathematics itself does not investigate the physical universe.


But where is the progress?


Asking questions and exploring (on a mental landscape) is the progress.

Do you think humanism, skepticism, agnosticism, atheism, naturalism, for example, have not led to progress? Hello?


Yes, but what did they base their ideas on? Pure philosophy?


I doubt anyone makes decisions entirely in a vacumn, devoid of interactions with other disciplines and other modes of thought.

Russell's entire life was as a logician and philosopher, and Gardner is highly interested in it, has written upon it extensively, and has a degree in it. Ideas matter, especially because they lead to actions based upon them.

They have educated and informed generations of people. There is a link between education and progress.


My hero. So?


So, it is an example of good being done directly because of philosophy. Now, that is just one person, but one can easily extend that to a much grander scale.


No soap, no fresh food in the winter, diseases, low life expectancy, no hygiene, no knowledge of the universe, living under religious dogma... I don't think you would like it.

Yes, I know all of those things, and as I've stated:

It depends where geographically and culturally, and in what position in society I would be, of course. Personally, I'm used to this period of time. I enjoy it because of science (obviously!) and technology, humanities, literature, and ideas of the time, travel, as well as a lot of hobbies that weren't around at that time.

You're obviously only focusing on the bad aspects. Moreover, you make those things seem worse by comparing things of that time to things we have/know today - something which people back then didn't have the luxury of doing.

There would be good food, art, music, exciting inventions, exploring, interesting buildings, marketplace environments, and no TV. There would also be no missles, tanks, oil spills, rampant deforestation, and atom bombs.

BTW, there is no soap, no fresh food, diseases, low life expectancy, no hygiene, no knowledge, living under dogma, etc., in this time too. -it all depends on where you are living, and in what class.

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I shall respond later.

Well?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


Of course. $150 an hour. Usually it takes from 5-10 hours.

OK?

Is there no limit to your kindness, good nature, and generosity?

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


There's nothing to understand. It is in principle impossible to scientifically explain consciousness. I have always maintained this. Nothing you have said, and nothing you could conceivably say, will alter my mind one iota.


Empty words, Ian, you can say this all you want, and just like any other religious person who keeps repeating a dogmatic statement over and over, all that happens is that you waste energy.

In short, as Hotspur might point out, they don't come when you call. That's all to say, Ian.


No not ever. It is utterly impossible from the perspective of materialism to explain consciousness.

Your ridiculous assumptions, your illogical arguments, and all of your blatant assertions, like the above, provide no proof whatsoever.

You're back to the same position you're always in when you start an argument, you haven't any ammunition, so you insult people and lie about their positions.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus


Well?

Strictly speaking you believe they are both illusions right? It's just that they are differing types of illusion. So basically, if we're talking about whether an 2 dimensional image is rotating or not, and it is not a representation of a 3D object, we must specify what we mean by rotation, ok? I mean its no good taking the Larsen approach and demanding is it rotating or not per se, because we first of all need to agree what this exactly means in this context. Now if we agree that rotation of a 2D image simply means certain pixels changing colour in such a characteristic way, that we perceive rotation, then we can agree that your first image is not rotating, and the 2nd one is.

It's just a question of definitions. And this is exactly what my immaterialism demands, even for 3D rotating objects.

So what precisely is your disagreement with me?

[ceptimus]

In the past, concerning the chequerboard image, you said that if a square looks a different colour then it is.

You appear to have a different standard with apparently rotating images. You agreed that the static images do appear to move, but you are not prepared to say that they therefore are moving.

I think the mumbo jumbo you posted about defining 'what rotation means', is you just trying to create a smoke screen to hide you obvious discomfort concerning this issue. I think we all know what 'rotation' means, and as BillyJoe pointed out, 'move' will do if 'rotation' is too complex a concept for us to understand.

I wish you luck with your website. I look forward to examining it. I can do web design work, and at a lower hourly rate than CFL (£50 / hour). My work is likely to be of a lower standard than his though.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
It is a board owned by JREF, but it is a board for discussion between "both skeptics and non-skeptics from around the globe".

And what is the purpose of JREF?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Perhaps I can do what I want, but thanks for your suggestion.

Perhaps, by not doing that, you could come across as a little more credible?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Practical good works, caring for the sick and for the poor, helping the dying to die with their dignity intact, scholarly study and teaching, helping people who are committed to one religion understand their beliefs better through intellectual understanding, explaining to the uncommitted the logical foundations of belief.

All which can be found in Ancient Greece as well, where the foundations of scientific thought were laid. Caring for the sick and the poor is not a trait that derives from a religious faith. You might want to read up on the many religious disputes over the centuries - they were not as much about understanding beliefs better as to who would gain power.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yeah yeah, 'in spite of' religion is the usual comeback. :rolleyes:

Yes, in spite of is the usual comeback. That doesn't make it false.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What do you mean by 'closer' and 'god'?

E.g. do we understand the nature of the christian god more? Why god does things to us?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I repeated it because I wanted to repeat it.

I see. It might help your case if you had a reason to post something, instead of just posting it.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What you said is still a strawman.

Why? Please point to the logic that shows this.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Cultures can learn and use it to learn more about other cultures and to better understand their own. English might also be the majority language in the world in the future.

Actually, that would be Mandarin, followed by English. However, as a home language, Spanish is the second most spoken language in the world. Throughout history, English has only been one of many languages. Spanish, Portuguese, Mandarin, Cantonese. German and French have also been very important. Don't forget Latin, either.

Try again: What progress has English brought us?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
What you said is still a strawman.

Why? Please point to the logic that shows this.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Mathematics itself does not investigate the physical universe.

Science determines what is true by reproducible results. So does mathematics.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Asking questions and exploring (on a mental landscape) is the progress.

Do you think humanism, skepticism, agnosticism, atheism, naturalism, for example, have not led to progress? Hello?

Of course it has. However, asking questions and exploring on a mental landscape is not something that is unique to philosophy.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
I doubt anyone makes decisions entirely in a vacumn, devoid of interactions with other disciplines and other modes of thought.

I doubt that too. However, you pointed to philosophy. If you now want to change your stance, fine with me.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Russell's entire life was as a logician and philosopher, and Gardner is highly interested in it, has written upon it extensively, and has a degree in it. Ideas matter, especially because they lead to actions based upon them.

As in Bertrand Russell? Try again, Russell wrote Principles of Mathematics (1903), and, together with Whitehead, published Principia mathematica. Why did you leave out that he was one of the great mathematicians? Because it wouldn't agree with your point?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
They have educated and informed generations of people. There is a link between education and progress.

Absolutely. However, since Russell (whom you brought up) was not only a philosopher, but also a mathematician, that weakens your point considerably.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
So, it is an example of good being done directly because of philosophy. Now, that is just one person, but one can easily extend that to a much grander scale.

I'm sure.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Yes, I know all of those things, and as I've stated:

It depends where geographically and culturally, and in what position in society I would be, of course. Personally, I'm used to this period of time. I enjoy it because of science (obviously!) and technology, humanities, literature, and ideas of the time, travel, as well as a lot of hobbies that weren't around at that time.

When would you live, if possible? And why?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
You're obviously only focusing on the bad aspects. Moreover, you make those things seem worse by comparing things of that time to things we have/know today - something which people back then didn't have the luxury of doing.

And why do we have them? Because of philosophy?

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
There would be good food, art, music, exciting inventions, exploring, interesting buildings, marketplace environments, and no TV. There would also be no missles, tanks, oil spills, rampant deforestation, and atom bombs.

There would also be diseases, lack of hygiene, devastating, never-ending wars, suppression of people, no legal system, the rich and powerful could f*ck the poor anytime.

Neither good food, art, music, or exciting inventions would be accessible to that many people. You see the past through rosy-glasses, you don't know what it was like. Read some history. The good life was for the very few.

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
BTW, there is no soap, no fresh food, diseases, low life expectancy, no hygiene, no knowledge, living under dogma, etc., in this time too. -it all depends on where you are living, and in what class.

Sure - however, there is the possibility of having it, and that's the big difference. That our economical systems are not geared towards a better distribution can hardly be science's fault.

T'ai Chi, you are not doing a very good job here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Is there no limit to your kindness, good nature, and generosity?

It's what I do for a living. I gotta eat, too.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
In the past, concerning the chequerboard image, you said that if a square looks a different colour then it is.

You appear to have a different standard with apparently rotating images. You agreed that the static images do appear to move, but you are not prepared to say that they therefore are moving.

I think the mumbo jumbo you posted about defining 'what rotation means', is you just trying to create a smoke screen to hide you obvious discomfort concerning this issue. I think we all know what 'rotation' means, and as BillyJoe pointed out, 'move' will do if 'rotation' is too complex a concept for us to understand.

I wish you luck with your website. I look forward to examining it. I can do web design work, and at a lower hourly rate than CFL (£50 / hour). My work is likely to be of a lower standard than his though.

Ceptimus, you don't understand, but I think you're a reasonable guy, and you're not stupid, so I will do my best to explain tomorrow. In all honesty this perceptual illusion poses no difficulty whatsoever for my immaterialism. Or do you doubt my intellectual integrity? There are difficulties with immaterialism, but this isn't one of them. As I say, I will try to make it clear tomorrow.

Is it difficult to do a website incidentally? Do you think I should be able to do it myself fairly easily, with loads of fancy features, using Dreamweaver, without any prior knowledge whatsoever?

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

I can see you are still jerking and twitching around on that rope we keep handing you.

Aren’t you sick of looking like such a fool.

I thought you were masochistic at first as no one could hold your ridiculous beliefs and still maintain the ability to type on a keyboard but.. I realise in spite of all normal human logic you hold these beliefs to be true ! Sadly you even admit that you REFUSE to look at information which may help you understand reality.

Asylums are full of people like you who have self deluded themselves into oblivion.. I hope you can find help.

BTW I had to add if Yahweh is 16 he is way more well informed and intelligent than YOU.

I note you mentioned at 16 you knew nothing… I don’t think anything has changed !

[ceptimus]

OK. I'm happy to wait.

Re websites: Like most things, designing websites is fairly easy to do, but difficult to do really well.

Common traps for beginners are too many colours and fonts, and over-use of animated stuff and sound. People get carried away playing with the design tool, rather than thinking of the message they really want to get across.

Best advice I gan give (for free) is to design what you want on paper, or lay it out in a word processor or paint package you are already familiar with. Pick websites you admire and copy ideas from them. Don't play too much with the HTML editing tool till you know what you are trying to achieve. I prefer to do a lot of the HTML editing by hand. I distrust fancy WYSIWYG design tools - it is all-too-easy to create a bloated, slow-to-load webpage. Remember the KISS principle.

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

About the Website…

It is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Here is one I designed for my father..

www.motornetnews.com.au

I use Word 2000 only.. any graphics etc required are readily available on the web.

[Yahweh]

First, Ian, you should know that I have absolutely no problem with you on a personal level, that's why I'm willing to open myself up to this...

Ian, if you ask me nicely, I'll see if I can set you up a nice "blog" for you for absolutely no cost (it might take a few days depending on how much time I have and I honestly cant say with 100% certainty that I will be able to pull through). The site design may be "amateurish", but it can be revised at any time.

I can write all the ASP code, do all the technical programming, the minimum knowledge you need to have is the ability to type words and operate a submit button (you seem to have that down pat). I can design the font formatting to work just like the formatting on JREF.

[Solitaire]

The Noetic Journal (http://www.mindspring.com/~noeticj/)
Edited by Richard L. Amoroso
--
Summary: The Noetic Journal provides a forum for studying the nature
of human consciousness through a deeper ontology not limited by the
scientific method. The current featured author this month is George L.
Hammond.
--
There.
I played nice with the believers, but I got a rotten headache reading
just the first few opening lines of this stuff. What was that comment
about asylums?

P.S. Ann Coulter, Fawn Hall, Tammy Faye Bakker...
Not one is Interesting Ians avatar. Keep on trying...

[Unas]

Originally posted by ceptimus
In the past, concerning the chequerboard image, you said that if a square looks a different colour then it is.
Ian's claim is false, of course -- and it's easy to provide empirical proof that he is wrong.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Unas

Ian's claim is false, of course -- and it's easy to provide empirical proof that he is wrong.

Well Unas, so I thought at first, and as a nihilist I thought he was foolish for saying so,
but not from his perspective,
it rests on one thing and one thing solely.
What is perception,
to a materialist, perception is a reflection of reality,
But to a Berklian perception is reality.
So in that very limited sense, ian says that perception is reality and therefore since the squares are percieved as the same color value, they are the same color value. To a Berklian there is no reality aside from perception.


I only explain this to make it easier to understand, I do not defend Ian, but from a behavioral science view he is also correct, the brain engages in a behavior called perception, this behavior judges the squares to be the same color, so behavioraly they are the same color.

Now of course if you put a mask on the image you will percieve the squares as two different colors. But you have changesd the perception by doing so.

As a nihilist I say that they are both the same and both different. :)

As far as the lady in the avatar i seem to recall her from an issue of playboy.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by ceptimus
OK. I'm happy to wait.

Re websites: Like most things, designing websites is fairly easy to do, but difficult to do really well.

Common traps for beginners are too many colours and fonts, and over-use of animated stuff and sound. People get carried away playing with the design tool, rather than thinking of the message they really want to get across.



Ummm . .can't imagine myself making this mistake.



Best advice I gan give (for free) is to design what you want on paper, or lay it out in a word processor or paint package you are already familiar with.


LOL No I'm afraid I'm not familiar with any paint packages. I got my computer 3.5 years ago. About 6 months before that momentous event I went on a course to learn how to use the Internet. After the first class which was supposed to teach people how to send e-mail I just gave up. I was absolutely clueless!. Everyone else knew what they were doing. I couldn't even double click. Well first of all I was clicking the right mouse button, then even when the tutor pointed out to me the existence of the left mouse button . .I . .er . .could not double click! God knows why I couldn't. It's bizarre looking back at it :confused: I've learnt a lot in the past 3 years, but I have no idea what a paint package is I'm afraid. Hey! I learnt a few weeks ago that I can paste hyperlinks directly into word! :eek: Amazing! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Ian,

About the Website…

It is the easiest thing in the world to do.

Here is one I designed for my father..

www.motornetnews.com.au

I use Word 2000 only.. any graphics etc required are readily available on the web.

If I need any help could I contact you? I'm going to try to use Dreamweaver.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Yahweh
First, Ian, you should know that I have absolutely no problem with you on a personal level, that's why I'm willing to open myself up to this...

Ian, if you ask me nicely, I'll see if I can set you up a nice "blog" for you for absolutely no cost (it might take a few days depending on how much time I have and I honestly cant say with 100% certainty that I will be able to pull through). The site design may be "amateurish", but it can be revised at any time.

I can write all the ASP code, do all the technical programming, the minimum knowledge you need to have is the ability to type words and operate a submit button (you seem to have that down pat). I can design the font formatting to work just like the formatting on JREF.

Emmm . .blog? . .asp? I've heard of asp though although I have no idea what it means. OK thanks Yahwah. I might ask you for some help. Thanks :)

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

If I need any help could I contact you? I'm going to try to use Dreamweaver.

Sure thing…

My email is listed here anyway stephen.ryan@doi.vic.gov.au

Just do a page .. send it and I will “fix” it up and send it back.. (NB you have to send all the graphics also)

You know all the rules about having an Index page etc ?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Aussie Thinker
Ian,



Sure thing…

My email is listed here anyway stephen.ryan@doi.vic.gov.au

Just do a page .. send it and I will “fix” it up and send it back.. (NB you have to send all the graphics also)

You know all the rules about having an Index page etc ?

No, I know no rules whatsoever :(

[jj]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


No, I know no rules whatsoever :(

You know, Ian, if I were willing to bend my ethics as much as you are, that would make a stunningly good signature quote.

As it were, I'll simply cackle quietly and bite my tongue, so to speak.

OW
OW
OW

[Aussie Thinker]

Ian,

Rules…

That is it really .. you must make a page called index.html on your site.

This will automatically open as the “home page”

All other info etc is linked to that page.

The only other rules are the general navigation rules to make the site easy to get around on.. they don’t matter too much as browsers have a “back” and “forward” button.

[T'ai Chi]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

And what is the purpose of JREF?


We were talking about the JREF board. You just switched the topic to the JREF itself. But, in any case, the purpose of the JREF is:

(bold mine)
"The James Randi Educational Foundation is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1996. Its aim is to promote critical thinking by reaching out to the public and media with reliable information about paranormal and supernatural ideas so widespread in our society today.


Perhaps, by not doing that, you could come across as a little more credible?


Perhaps you realize that I am not concerned with a few people believing that I am not credible?


Caring for the sick and the poor is not a trait that derives from a religious faith.


I never said that it can be derived solely from religion. -but that doesn't take away the fact that these are examples of progress from religion.


E.g. do we understand the nature of the christian god more? Why god does things to us?


There are many definitions of 'god', ranging from a being, to nature, to a force, to just about anything. I'd believe that there is more information out there, gleaned from progress in the humanities and science that has shed much light on the issues involved with 'god'.


I see. It might help your case if you had a reason to post something, instead of just posting it.


I can repeat something for emphasis, for example.


Why? Please point to the logic that shows this.


You must show that it is relevant first. As it stands, you implied I held an opinion which I didn't hold.


Actually, that would be Mandarin, followed by English.


I said "might", considering English speaking countries seem to have the best economies and are militarily the most powerful.


Try again: What progress has English brought us?


Bzzz. I'll repeat for you again:

Cultures can learn and use it to learn more about other cultures and to better understand their own.

If you don't like an answer, just say so.


Why? Please point to the logic that shows this.


You must show that it is relevant first. As it stands, you implied I held an opinion which I didn't hold.


Science determines what is true by reproducible results. So does mathematics.


Many things have reproducible results. I can read a Bible over and over; that doesn't make it a science. I haven't heard of any science that does not investigate the physical universe.


Of course it has.


So you admit that philosophy (at least humanism, skepticism, agnosticism, atheism, and naturalism, for example) have led to progress. Super.


As in Bertrand Russell? Try again, Russell wrote Principles of Mathematics (1903), and, together with Whitehead, published Principia mathematica. Why did you leave out that he was one of the great mathematicians? Because it wouldn't agree with your point?


I didn't leave it out, Claus. What do you think "logician" means? A logician is someone who studies formal logic, especially involved with mathematics. Yes, he was involved with mathematics... which he thought could be reducible to logic. He was also into analytical philosophy, protesting wars and nuclear arms, and many other philsophical areas. He was a logician, exploring the foundations of mathematics, among other things. You can read more about his philosophical work here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/.


Absolutely. However, since Russell (whom you brought up) was not only a philosopher, but also a mathematician, that weakens your point considerably.


No, it doesn't one bit. Russell did many things because of philosophy.


I'm sure.


Me too!

It is amazing what philosophy, a collection of ideas, can do. (good or bad)


When would you live, if possible? And why?


A while back, not sure how many years, in China somewhere. I just like that culture.


And why do we have them? Because of philosophy?


Because of many things, one of which includes ideas that cause people to think, and then act, a certain way.


There would also be diseases, lack of hygiene, devastating, never-ending wars, suppression of people, no legal system, the rich and powerful could f*ck the poor anytime.


I agree, that stuff is very real.


You see the past through rosy-glasses, ...


Really? I thought I already admitted that those things existed and do exist?


T'ai Chi, you are not doing a very good job here.

Interesting belief.

[RonSceptic]

Ian has posted that...

"the evidence for a God consists in the fact that there exist "physical laws" which describe reality."

and has also stated that.....

I do not subscribe to materialism? Indeed I believe it is logically impossible for it to be true.

So if materialism can't be true, what does that say about the sanctity of so called 'physical laws'? Surely perception overrides any so called physical laws?

So I guess Ian is telling us he is really an atheist? ;)

[BillyJoe]

David,

Originally posted by Dancing David
.....ian says that perception is reality and therefore since the squares are percieved as the same color value, they are the same color value. To a Berklian there is no reality aside from perception.I think you have this ass about. ;)

It is the Materialists who say the squares (parallelograms) have the same colour value and, therefore that they are the same colour (although we perceive them to be different because of the imperfect way our brains process sensory inputs).

Ian says they are different colours because.....well, just look at them (you idiot :D )!

Originally posted by Dancing David
.....from a behavioral science view he is also correct, the brain engages in a behavior called perception, this behavior judges the squares to be the same color, so behavioraly they are the same color. ....meaning they have the same (mis)representation in the brain.

Originally posted by Dancing David
Now of course if you put a mask on the image you will percieve the squares as two different colors. But you have changesd the perception by doing so.Again ass about I think.

It is the Materialists who say "put a mask on" to prove to yourself that the colours are the same. This removes the differently coloured surrounding squares which are the cause of the false perception.

Ian says they are now the same because our perception has changed by adding the mask.

The only thing is, if our perceptions are reality then how come altering reality changes the perception? (YOU IDIOT! - self directed comment ;) )

Originally posted by Dancing David
As a nihilist I say that they are both the same and both different. :)I would say they are perceived to be different because their representations in the brain are different but that they are actually the same as can be verified by using the mask, cutting out and overlaying, measuring the wavelengths of light etc etc. and the explanation is that our brains process our sensory inputs imperfectly (because, from an evolutionary point of view, accuracy had to be balanced against speed)

Originally posted by Dancing David
As far as the lady in the avatar i seem to recall her from an issue of playboy. I am glad that Ian finally took my advice about his old avatar. :)

BillyJoe

[Wudang]

Ian, I note you're in the UK. Before you splash out on books and software try the cheap approach - the "junk" bookshops around the UK like "bargain books" "county bookstores" etc often have shelves full of last years/versions edition of good books.
I learned web design by looking at simple web pages and clicking "view source" or using the Edit button. Then I bought a simple book. There are also pretty decent free web page design tools of various stripes, again in the UK you'll often find top flight software on the front covers of magazines like "PC format" etc. Version 2.1 for free in the hope you'll then upgrade to the current expensive version 3.1. Have a mooch around WH Smiths etc. Or do it in Word and select:
File - Save as HTML.

[ceptimus]

You can also download the latest, currently expensive, software from places like kazaar, for free. Of course, this is theft, so I couldn't possibly condone such an action.

(I even paid for WinZip by sending off the registration fee.)

[BillyJoe]

Ian,

How about.....HTML for Idiots! :D

BillyJoe
(I have a copy. :D :D )

[BillyJoe]

Are we all finished?

Are we all through?

Going once.....going twice.....going three times......

Clang, he's dead!

[ceptimus]

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Are we all finished?

Are we all through?

Going once.....going twice.....going three times......

Clang, he's dead! No! Not yet BillyJoe! Remember Ian said:
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
...so I will do my best to explain tomorrow. In all honesty this perceptual illusion poses no difficulty whatsoever for my immaterialism. Or do you doubt my intellectual integrity? There are difficulties with immaterialism, but this isn't one of them. As I say, I will try to make it clear tomorrow.OK, it's taken Ian longer than that, but we know he's busy working on his new website...

[Dancing David]

Billy J,
OOOPS, which way does the illusion work?

I were bass ackwards.


(Egad, mouse stay away from me ass)

Oh well, I should have known better...

But the point is.. Fir ian perception is the only reality, the squares change color when you use the mask.

And forgive me Mecrutio, isn't that what a behaviorist would say. the perception is a behavior, and the colors change when the mask is applied, becaus the behavior changes.

[Jeff Corey]

Originally posted by Dancing David
And forgive me Mecrutio, isn't that what a behaviorist would say. the perception is a behavior, and the colors change when the mask is applied, becaus the behavior changes.
This behaviorist would say that the judgement of the brightness of the stimulus is modified by the background.
Then I would be curious about the mechanism that caused that and look it up. I'd find about 60 years worth of work in biopsychology that looked into lateral inhibition at various levels of the visual system.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey

This behaviorist would say that the judgement of the brightness of the stimulus is modified by the background.
Then I would be curious about the mechanism that caused that and look it up. I'd find about 60 years worth of work in biopsychology that looked into lateral inhibition at various levels of the visual system.

Why bother with all that work? Just imagine what you want it to be and I'm sure it will be - much easier then doing any work. ;)

[jj]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
I'd find about 60 years worth of work in biopsychology that looked into lateral inhibition at various levels of the visual system.

Not to mention the very slick pigment-depletion system of adaptation in the rods and (somewhat) cones (especially rods) to start with...

[TLN]

I'm bumping this thread as an excellent example of how Ian ignores that which he cannot address. I particularly like pages 2-4 where Ian responds to everyone but me, manufactures victories where none exist, and wantonly ignores that which he cannot address. Trolling at it's best.

Bill, we need a Troll Hall of Fame so we can simply say "oh, we don't deal with Ian anymore. Here's why:"

[Ed]

I pretty much started disregarding anything Ian posted some time ago where he refused/avoided/sidesteped/disregarded any evidence from physiological psychology that threatened his worldview. His posts began to take on the image, to me, of an uninformed litany much like you get from creationist true believers.

Anyhoo....

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Ed
I pretty much started disregarding anything Ian posted some time ago where he refused/avoided/sidesteped/disregarded any evidence from physiological psychology that threatened his worldview. His posts began to take on the image, to me, of an uninformed litany much like you get from creationist true believers.

Anyhoo....

Mr Thicko himself. Still haven't got a clue have you, despite all my patient explanations. :rolleyes:

How many times does one have to say it before it gets through to your concrete head?? Why don't you actually start to think about things, study some philosophy, especially the philosophy of psychology (mind/body problem), and the philosophy of science? Your contributions in common with so many other peoples contributions in this forum are absolutely worthless because you simply and comprehensively fail to understand anything.

Oh I give up. Go away and enjoy your delusions that you understand anything about such topics. You're a waste of space.

[Ed]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Mr Thicko himself. Still haven't got a clue have you, despite all my patient explanations. :rolleyes:

How many times does one have to say it before it gets through to your concrete head?? Why don't you actually start to think about things, study some philosophy, especially the philosophy of psychology (mind/body problem), and the philosophy of science? Your contributions in common with so many other peoples contributions in this forum are absolutely worthless because you simply and comprehensively fail to understand anything.

Oh I give up. Go away and enjoy your delusions that you understand anything about such topics. You're a waste of space.

Better Mr. Thicko than Mr. Softee......

Ian, your ignorance is boundless, seemingly.

[Unas]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Mr Thicko himself.
Mr. Ad Hominem himself. Throwing gratuitous insults in an effort to make oneself seem superior is hardly a convincing argument, Ian.

Still haven't got a clue have you, despite all my patient explanations.
Explanations are only useful if they explain something, Ian. Since your central philosphy seems to be that nothing exists, what could you possibly 'explain'?

For that matter, why should anyone care about you or your explanations? By your own philosophy, you are a figment of someone else's imagination. You're nothing. Your claims are nothing.

Gee, isn't 'subjective idealism' or whatever you're calling it this week fun?

How many times does one have to say it before it gets through to your concrete head??
Same old same old...

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Unas

Mr. Ad Hominem himself. Throwing gratuitous insults in an effort to make oneself seem superior is hardly a convincing argument, Ian.


Explanations are only useful if they explain something, Ian. Since your central philosphy seems to be that nothing exists, what could you possibly 'explain'?

For that matter, why should anyone care about you or your explanations? By your own philosophy, you are a figment of someone else's imagination. You're nothing. Your claims are nothing.

Gee, isn't 'subjective idealism' or whatever you're calling it this week fun?


Same old same old...

*****, you're not on ignore anymore with my new account. Ah well, soon fix that.

[Interesting Ian]

WHOOO HOOOO!! That's better :)

[Interesting Ian]

The only person I have on my ignore list :)

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

The primary source of the fallacy witnessed in non-skeptical views lies within chemical deformities of the material mind itself, which has been shown to be one of natural selections greatest f*ckups!

[Unas]

How amusing. Ian is so desperate to demonstrate the depth of his intellectual cowardice that he posts three replies to my single post in the space of five minutes. He apparently has a problem understanding the meaning of the word 'ignore'...

[scribble]

Originally posted by Unas
How amusing. Ian is so desperate to demonstrate the depth of his intellectual cowardice that he posts three replies to my single post in the space of five minutes. He apparently has a problem understanding the meaning of the word 'ignore'...

Much like a wife who "is leaving you this time, really," anyone who has to tell you they're putting you on IGNORE isn't saying it for anyone's benefit but their own. It's got all the pathetic undertones of, "Stop or, or I'll leave you this time, I really, really will!"

On the contrary, when a woman is strong, self-willed and is really is going to leave you, you come home one day and she and all of her crap is just gone. She doesn't feel any need to explain to you, because for her, it's over.

Ian saying, "I've put you on ignore" is his way of shouting, "Please love me! OR ELSE!" Just like a beaten wife.

[hammegk]

Speaking from personal experience? That would explain some of your posts.

[scribble]

Originally posted by hammegk
Speaking from personal experience? That would explain some of your posts.

I'm not sure I follow. What posts are you referring to and what type of personal experience are you inquiring about? I can be sure to give you an accurate answer once I know that. Otherwise I'm just guessing at what you're asking for.

[hammegk]

As soon as I decode your remarks for content ( diplomacy, sarcasm, denseness, and/or whatever ) I'll get back to ya on that. ;)

[Loki]

Unas,

Explanations are only useful if they explain something, Ian.
But Ian does explain. Take his explanation of 'free will', for example. It rests on the concept of the will (the self) being capable of "self-causation". So we have :

'Free Will is when the Self performs self-causation'.

We can then define "self-causation" as :

'Self Causation is the means by which the Self implements Free Will'.

Further, we can add :

'Self Causation is neither determined, nor random.'

(So we know what it isn't. It also isn't an elephant eating a biscuit, apparently, as Ian once kindly pointed out).

This is a clear example of Ian's preferred method of examining the world - the use of 'reason' rather than any dodgy old 'scientist' methodology to gather and examine data.

Free Will explained - what more could you ask of him!

[hammegk]

As most of us are aware (to a greater or lesser extent) the mechanism for, indeed concept of, free-will is ungraspable under any ontology: yet I think I have it, and I suspect most think they have it.

At least Ian takes a shot at defining the undefinable, so materialists have something else to throw mud-pies at. Some of us hope for some actual thought about the matter; new perspectives are often appreciated. ;)

[Loki]

hammegk,

...the mechanism for, indeed concept of, free-will is ungraspable under any ontology:
For the record, I feel compelled to (once again) point out that compatibilism defines free will, explains it's limits and operation, and can be extended to detail the mechanism. I suspect you're unhappiness with this definition/explanation is that it feels too 'weak'?

yet I think I have it, and I suspect most think they have it.
You have it, and I have it.

At least Ian takes a shot at defining the undefinable, so materialists have something else to throw mud-pies at
What would you want me to do? If you were to define "Free Will" as "a type of plastic" then I should just let that go as "well, at least he tried"? Ian's "definition" is a pure circular definition that he clings to so that he can convince himself that he's being 'reasonable' by 'answering the big questions'. I throw mud pies at it becuase it's a self-serving circular definition - and a target so large it's virtually impossible to miss, even taking into account the poor aero-dynamics of mud pies when thrown.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
hammegk,


For the record, I feel compelled to (once again) point out that compatibilism defines free will, explains it's limits and operation, and can be extended to detail the mechanism. I suspect you're unhappiness with this definition/explanation is that it feels too 'weak'?


You have it, and I have it.


What would you want me to do? If you were to define "Free Will" as "a type of plastic" then I should just let that go as "well, at least he tried"? Ian's "definition" is a pure circular definition that he clings to so that he can convince himself that he's being 'reasonable' by 'answering the big questions'. I throw mud pies at it becuase it's a self-serving circular definition - and a target so large it's virtually impossible to miss, even taking into account the poor aero-dynamics of mud pies when thrown.

How is it circular? I've said that free will is mental causality. Neither physically determined nor random.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki

For the record, I feel compelled to (once again) point out that compatibilism defines free will, explains it's limits and operation, and can be extended to detail the mechanism. I suspect you're unhappiness with this definition/explanation is that it feels too 'weak'?
Inane rather than weak. Have you compared it to Incompatibilism? Both were ideas discussed by the pre 20th century clockwork-world determinists, and/or indeterminists, to obscure the problem that people should be morally accountable for their actions, but why hold an automaton accountable.



You have it, and I have it.
Seems so doesn't it? I suggest another basic problem ignored by compatibilism is that our actions should be constrained by all that occurred before, and not limited solely by current external coercion.


What would you want me to do?
Er, as you will? ;)

[Loki]

hammegk,

I suggest another basic problem ignored by compatibilism is that our actions should be constrained by all that occurred before, and not limited solely by current external coercion.
But this is what compatibilism is - an explanation of why the above statement is false.

[hammegk]

Originally posted by Loki


But this is what compatibilism is - an explanation of why the above statement is false.

Gee, why do I see it as a feeble -- but best to date now going on over 3 centuries-- attempt to rationalize the irrational challenges of being human, and a convenient waystation where materialists seek shelter from any need for additional thought on "the matter" (so to speak). ;)

[Loki]

hammegk,

Gee, why do I see it as a feeble ... attempt to rationalize the irrational challenges of being human,...
Don't know why you see it as feeble. You seem to understand the argument, but you reject it. Most people who reject it do so because they don't feel the distinction between 'physical causation' and 'external causation' is clear enough. A semantic device, rather than a real difference. You're one of them?

... and a convenient waystation where materialists seek shelter from any need for additional thought on "the matter".
Yes, it is convenient, isn't it. Being able to reconcile Free Will with naturalism is nice isn't it. What "additional thought" would you suggest is needed?

[hammegk]

Please define naturalism. Does it imply an ontology?

Compatibilism solves the problem of the choice of axiom "objective physical reality exists" rather than "objective reality exists", and the pretense that science can verify correctness of the choice.

[TLN]

By the way Ian, I'm still available on PalTalk when you're ready for me to familiarize you with those refutations that "don't exist." Of course, you're on my ignore list, so someone will have to quote your acceptance.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN
By the way Ian, I'm still available on PalTalk when you're ready for me to familiarize you with those refutations that "don't exist." Of course, you're on my ignore list, so someone will have to quote your acceptance.

Rather talk to some nice woman on there.

I might go on tomorrow night. What room are you in?