Chaos Magic

[AkuManiMani]

Because our current theoretical framework does not explain the mechanisms for how an OBE, or "spirit" contact with a subject's mind could provide veridical information they otherwise would not have access to. If it did such phenomena would not be classified as "supernatural" claims.
Our current theoretical framework explains OBE's just fine. Artifacts of the mind.

Depending upon what the exact nature of the mind turns out to be, that can mean a lot or very little.

As for your own experience, I am not convinced that the mind is such a reliable entity that you can really be sure that you are not mistaken about this.

Thats a possibility but, judging from the same criteria I use for my "mundane" experiences, it seems a bit remote. My recollections of the events are clear and consistent; I see no reason to attribute greater doubt to them merely because their contents seem extraordinary.

[AkuManiMani]

Drop rocks from great height.

I guess we ought to revise all reference materials to define "falling rocks" as "meteor shower" :rolleyes:

[AkuManiMani]

You had your own experiences, and I'm not saying that you never did. But when it comes to other paranormal claims you seem downright credulous and uncritical.

I'm merely taking my own advice: suspending judgement and entertaining every possibility. I can only vouch for my own experiences with certainty. I don't have to believe every claim others make of their own experiences to tentatively accept them as true for hypothetical assessment.

[Robin]

Depending upon what the exact nature of the mind turns out to be, that can mean a lot or very little.
The point is that it needn't require an explanation that would contravene currently understood science any more than a dream does.
Thats a possibility but, judging from the same criteria I use for my "mundane" experiences, it seems a bit remote. My recollections of the events are clear and consistent; I see no reason to attribute greater doubt to them merely because their contents seem extraordinary.
Why not? I clearly recall a news report from the 1980's that the San Marco Bell Tower in Venice had collapsed overnight. I recall the colour footage of the rubble piled up in the piazza and the voice over - "One of the world's greatest architectural treasures - now just a pile of bricks".

There was nothing extraordinary about this news report except for the fact that the Bell Tower collapsed in 1902, was rebuilt in 1912 and has stayed up ever since.

From this I must conclude that I did not see a news report that it had collapsed overnight in the 1980's.

The truth of the matter - well I don't know. Maybe I fell asleep in front of the television and dreamed it. Maybe I am misremembering a documentary about the 1902 collapse.

Judging from the same criteria that I use for my "mundane" experiences - I definitely saw that news report.

Judging from the evidence - I didn't.

[Robin]

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?
Do you have a particular occurence in mind?.

[Pure Argent]

Because our current theoretical framework does not explain the mechanisms for how an OBE, or "spirit" contact with a subject's mind could provide veridical information they otherwise would not have access to. If it did such phenomena would not be classified as "supernatural" claims.

However, there is no concrete evidence that OBEs can provide someone with information that they would not have access to.

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?

Ask for details. Perform a double-blind study. Find others who have had OBEs and question them. Check their stories against the stories of the doctors and whatever film of the situation is on hand.

It's not impossible.

[PixyMisa]

In fact, it's been done. The results have been negative.

Funny, that.

[Hellbound]

Wait, wait. How does that contradict what I just said? Are you suggesting that multiple observations of a particular event or phenomena is not an example of independent verification?

*sigh*

Your anecdote is not evidence that your anecdote is true. A thousand anecdotes are not evidence that your anecdote is true. However, reviewing numerous eyewitness accounts, finding both common and differential elements, and putting that together with other evidence as well as with the understanding of how perception can fail and issues with how the human brain works can help to limit the possibility space.

First of all, the veracity of an account has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how impactful a single person, or persons the world over, feel it to be. Either it happened or it did not. It doesn't matter whether the event was tea sipping or receiving information from "spirits".

Yes. But for mundane claims, that will change nothing important whether true or false, there simply isn’t a rational justification for extensive research. Cost-benefit analysis. A claim of a common, mundane event, that is known to occur regularly, is pretty much acceptable based on someone’s word (I had coffee this morning). As stakes are raised, it makes sense to require more evidence (I had coffee this morning, so I could not have been at the murder scene).

Second of all, the accounts I've given aren't just a couple of anomalous events, but one of countless others that have been reported. It just so happens that they are a class of reported experience you [and some others] consider suspect precisely because they run counter to your expectations of what is plausible/possible. As soon as you hear of such reports you automatically begin the process of downplaying and/or reinterpreting them to conform to your preset expectations to the point where your criteria for "evidence" becomes so steep that virtually nothing will convince you that they are valid. In other words, you have a strong cognitive bias toward discounting such events regardless of the evidence presented.

Thank you for making part of the next point. Yes, your account is one of countless others. Let’s take a close look at that, shall we?

Of those countless others, the majority remain unexplained. Mostly because, like yours, they are historical events and little if any effort is made to produce anything that would be remotely evidential when a similar event repeats. Of the ones that have been explained, they have been due to causes other than “interaction with an external intelligence”. Therefore, the countless other stories you mention, which have either no explanation or a mundane explanation, don’t support your contention that some sort of external intelligence communicated with you. Yes, I approach your interpretation with a bias, because history and previous research has shown that in all of these cases that have been explained, spirits is not the explanation. The bias is based on evidence, and you must rightfully overcome that evidence, that bias, to have your claim accepted as fact.

As a side note, how many of these “countless stories” are actually compatible with your account? How many are compatible with each other? You can’t claim any story of spirits as proof, when the details are as variable as the tellers in most cases.

There are many, many other documented accounts and studies like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo. If you agree that such reports are evidence what do you think they're evidence of, if not what they're reporting?

Evidence can be weak or strong. They are evidence, and documentation can provide more details (especially comparing documentation of an event made soon afterwards with later recollections, and similar things). Accounts typically have very little evidentiary value, but can suggest additional avenues of research. Also, don’t confuse evidence with proof. They are two separate concepts.

You gave a list of examples with little to or relevance to the topic at hand. I asked you for more relevant examples and, instead of simply providing such examples, you accuse me of trying to make you look stupid. Who's the one being dishonest here?

No, you made as if my examples were attempting to be specific, when it was obvious they weren’t. You didn’t ask for more relevant examples, except indirectly. If you really could not grasp that concept from my response, I apologize.

My point is that the claims being made here do not voilate what you know, but what you believe. In any case, what alleged knowledge do my accounts contradict? Be specific.

Conservation laws are violated, for one, if you assume some sort of coherent spiritual energy after death. An additional fundamental force, as none of the current ones have the ability to do what’s claimed nor have they been detected in these situations (when they’ve been tested). Telepathy violates several physical principles that have been well tested, because required energy levels would kill brain cells en masse. There are additional problems, but that’s a start.

Thats interesting. My teachers don't seem to think so.

Vague argument from authority noted.
Again, not all scientific studies follow experimental protocols and real phenomena are not necessarily replicable under controlled conditions. In the social sciences in particular, much of the data collected involves recording individual accounts of subjects lives and their experiences may be unique to them. In the case of accounts like the ones I've just given, if we are in fact dealing with autonomous intelligences experimental replicability would be extremely problematic, to say the least.

Yes, and this is something I went into. Yet you seem to think this means that a single personal account of a single event is somehow just as meaningful as a physics experiment. Just because it’s harder to meet the level of scientific rigor required does not mean we should lower the standards.

Right. Unless I'm able to reenact an event to the tee it never happened

And this is a definite straw man. Not to mention, again, a deliberate mis-interpretation of my statements, unless you are more ignorant than I previously thought. My statement meant can you gives us the details? You seem very reluctant to say much of anything, other than deliberate, vague statements. So how could anyone even begin to compare your experience with others, or to attempt to replicate the conditions and possibly the results?

Are you suggesting that if I had such experiences more frequently they would be more real/valid? In any case, you still haven't addressed how -- via web forum -- one would provide non-anecdotal evidence for the types of experiences being discussed here.

I’m suggesting that being able to re-create an experience allows for the collection of more data. Just because it’s hard to do does not mean you are suddenly awarded the status of “truth” without the same level of rigor and examination expected in every other aspect of scientific study.

Okay. How can we experimentally test what I experienced on this web forum?

*sigh*

Again, you attempt to ask the stupid question. It’s a historical event, we can’t. We can, however, get as much detail as possible and attempt to recreate your experience. We can look at others who have attempted the same. We can look at studies that examine this statistically, or studies that look at it under controlled conditions.

I just gave an example on page 28 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6791082&postcount=1118). Heck, just read up on the history of science yourself. Do I have to list every historical example of scientists rejecting new theories/findings/ideas merely on the basis of established dogma?

Actually, your page 28 example is a poor one, and that’s the reason I asked.. Numerous scientists around the world were experimenting on heavier than air flight at the time, and the Wright Brothers were the first by a rather short amount of time. Also, the opinion that “heavier than air flight” was impossible was, very much so, a minority opinion. Some thought the current technology would not do it, but very, very few thought it impossible. In any case, none of this was theory…it was opinion. Science had NO theory claiming that flight, or heavier than air flight, was impossible. After all, any scientist could look outside the window and see birds doing it all day long. IT was opinion.

Do you have any example where something revolutionary was thought to be wrong, but was accepted? Or, more specifically, where any established scientific theory was fundamentally wrong?

I would suggest you study scientific history, as well. And if the ones who taught you scientific history are related to the teachers you mentioned above, I’d find a new place to learn.

That I never claimed that the majority of our scientific knowledge is wrong.

Not explicitly, but implicitly you have. The consequences of your account would disprove a large portion of current scientific theory and principles. That you don’t understand this is not my failure.

Wow, dude...Just...Wow. I hardly know where to begin. I'd definitely like to engage you in discussion but, being as how the above doesn't even begin to address the points I'm actually making I don't see how that is possible. Straw-maning, indeed...

If you’d like to engage me in discussion, then do so. The missing of obvious points and the continuous special pleading for your case (“but evidence is hard!”) get old, especially when you try so hard to promote the idea that you’re here to discuss.

An you’re correct, I wasn’t addressing your points, but rather the intellectual dishonesty you display. You aren’t here to discuss, you’re here to score points for your side.

Good idea. That was probably one of the most breathtaking pieces of irrational ranting I've ever seen on these boards. You definitely need a break from this discussion, dude.

And this is the reason I returned. Ranting, yes. Irrational? No, I believe the basic viewpoints, while they could have been stated better, are based on the evidence of your posts here.

[tsig]

I'm merely taking my own advice: suspending judgement and entertaining every possibility. I can only vouch for my own experiences with certainty. I don't have to believe every claim others make of their own experiences to tentatively accept them as true for hypothetical assessment.

No, you are not. You have completely ruled out and natural explanations.

[tsig]

I guess we ought to revise all reference materials to define "falling rocks" as "meteor shower" :rolleyes:


"Falling rocks" is the general category while meteors are a set of that category.

[Noztradamus]

Drop rocks from great height.

It's the only way to be sure.

[Resume]

No, you are not. You have completely ruled out and natural explanations.

This is one thing I never get. It's been my experience that paranormal believers, whether that belief is ghosts, psi, whatever, appear to almost never accept a natural explanation even when it's right there in front of them. They seem invested somehow in the paranormal explanation, yet accuse skeptics of being the close-minded ones.

Show me how it works, the evidence, and I'm helpless to believe. Making excuses puts me on guard.

[Zanders]

I'm merely taking my own advice: suspending judgement and entertaining every possibility. I can only vouch for my own experiences with certainty. I don't have to believe every claim others make of their own experiences to tentatively accept them as true for hypothetical assessment.

Just be careful. If you open your mind too much, your brain will fall out.

I used to have a habit of entertaining every single idea and concept. Every single claim out there, but you have to have a criteria.

This does not mean giving up on paranormal concepts, just giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. It clutters up your mind and eventually becomes chaotic. It clouds your judgment and leaves you open to completely false claims if you take everything at face value, even if it is for "hypothetical assessment". You can't beleive every anecdote you hear, that's just not how it works. It doesn't work in law enforcement, and it doesn't work in science. Heck, it doesn't work in anything.

In fact, you were speculating earlier about medical conditions based on little real evidence. I know it was hypothetical, but be careful not to go to far to either side where you assume anything.

This is one thing I never get. It's been my experience that paranormal believers, whether that belief is ghosts, psi, whatever, appear to almost never accept a natural explanation even when it's right there in front of them. They seem invested somehow in the paranormal explanation, yet accuse skeptics of being the close-minded ones.

Show me how it works, the evidence, and I'm helpless to believe. Making excuses puts me on guard.


But that would be boring.

[Hokulele]

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?


Easy.

"The Near Death Experience is something that seems to have happened to many people. How do people describe the experience? Are scientists investigating this? What are the results so far?"

There are a few core elements of the NDE, as researchers call it: floating up above yourself, whooshing down a tunnel, moving toward a light, seeing dead loved ones who often tell you “it’s not your time.” The experience is pretty universal, though there’s often a unique cultural overlay: for instance, a man in China was told “there’s been a clerical error,” rather than “it’s not your time.” A truck driver sped down “a tailpipe” rather than a tunnel.

A team of cardiologists and psychiatrists at the University of Virginia are taking a simple, rather elegant approach to trying to find out whether people who have these experiences are hallucinating or are actually leaving their bodies. They’ve got a laptop computer taped, flat open, on top of the highest cardiac monitor in an operating room, such that the only way you could see what’s on the screen would be if you were floating up by the ceiling. You can’t see the image (one of several rotating images, randomly chosen) from down below. Patients are interviewed after they leave the OR, to see if they report having seen anything. So far, none of the patients has had an NDE, but the project had only just begun when I was there.


http://calitreview.com/79

The book she was promoting for this interview is quite a bit of fun, looking back at the whole idea of a potential afterlife.

[dafydd]

This is one thing I never get. It's been my experience that paranormal believers, whether that belief is ghosts, psi, whatever, appear to almost never accept a natural explanation even when it's right there in front of them. They seem invested somehow in the paranormal explanation, yet accuse skeptics of being the close-minded ones.

Show me how it works, the evidence, and I'm helpless to believe. Making excuses puts me on guard.

Very well put.

[PixyMisa]

I guess we ought to revise all reference materials to define "falling rocks" as "meteor shower" :rolleyes:
AkuManiMani, what is it that you think meteors are?

[Zanders]

Its about cultures projecting their collective psyche into the unknown. The unknown then takes on the patterns and features of the psyche, and our psyche is reflected back at us. Including the archetypes and the psychic ability of the psyche.

As the frontiers of the known have grown, our projections have been gradually withdrawn.




Not proof, evidence. Proof is an elusive concept.

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2008/11/new-insights-into-links-between-esp-and.html


This post isn't really being discussed now, but I felt like posting what came to my mind when remembering it.

How would we prove that magnetic fields tamper with psi?

1. Find a psychic or person that can use objects for psychic abilities
2. Prepare two rooms, one with a heavy magnetic field and another without one. Do not tell the person which room is magnetic and which one is not
3. Have the person demonstrate their psychic abilities in each room
4. Record the difference in their performance in each room and see if their is an increase or decrease in effectiveness.
5. Repeat step 4 a couple of more times to see if the results are consistent.
6. Receive proof that magnetic fields tamper with psychic abilities.
7. ????
8. Profit.

[AkuManiMani]

Depending upon what the exact nature of the mind turns out to be, that can mean a lot or very little.
The point is that it needn't require an explanation that would contravene currently understood science any more than a dream does.

TBH, I'm not really proposing any contravening explanations. I am, however, proposing that sufficient explanations would require an expansion of our current scientific understanding.

Thats a possibility but, judging from the same criteria I use for my "mundane" experiences, it seems a bit remote. My recollections of the events are clear and consistent; I see no reason to attribute greater doubt to them merely because their contents seem extraordinary.
Why not? I clearly recall a news report from the 1980's that the San Marco Bell Tower in Venice had collapsed overnight. I recall the colour footage of the rubble piled up in the piazza and the voice over - "One of the world's greatest architectural treasures - now just a pile of bricks".

There was nothing extraordinary about this news report except for the fact that the Bell Tower collapsed in 1902, was rebuilt in 1912 and has stayed up ever since.

From this I must conclude that I did not see a news report that it had collapsed overnight in the 1980's.

The truth of the matter - well I don't know. Maybe I fell asleep in front of the television and dreamed it. Maybe I am misremembering a documentary about the 1902 collapse.

Judging from the same criteria that I use for my "mundane" experiences - I definitely saw that news report.

Judging from the evidence - I didn't.

However, you've reason to doubt your recollection because of an easily recognized discrepancy; your memory of the experience is relatively clear but inconsistent. Whats more, via your own faculties, you were easily able to discern for yourself the problems with those particular memories.

My memories of the experiences in question are clear, self consistent, and congruent with the recollections of other parties that were involved. The only reason I'd have to seriously doubt them would be because they seem "extraordinary" given certain metaphysical assumptions. I trust my firsthand experience over ideological considerations.

[AkuManiMani]

I'm merely taking my own advice: suspending judgement and entertaining every possibility. I can only vouch for my own experiences with certainty. I don't have to believe every claim others make of their own experiences to tentatively accept them as true for hypothetical assessment.

No, you are not. You have completely ruled out and natural explanations.

Just to be clear, I haven't ruled out explainations like the ones given earlier [e.g. hallucination, seizures, etc]. However, after years of consideration, I think that such explanations are not sufficient in themselves to account for all the features of the events I experienced. I've reached the conclusion that, even assuming the "natural" explanations given, there is more to them than meets the eye. In any case, I think the designations of "natural" and "supernatural" are superfluous anyway; either an event happens or it doesn't. Metaphysical designations are irrelevant.

[AkuManiMani]

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?


Easy.

"The Near Death Experience is something that seems to have happened to many people. How do people describe the experience? Are scientists investigating this? What are the results so far?"

There are a few core elements of the NDE, as researchers call it: floating up above yourself, whooshing down a tunnel, moving toward a light, seeing dead loved ones who often tell you “it’s not your time.” The experience is pretty universal, though there’s often a unique cultural overlay: for instance, a man in China was told “there’s been a clerical error,” rather than “it’s not your time.” A truck driver sped down “a tailpipe” rather than a tunnel.

A team of cardiologists and psychiatrists at the University of Virginia are taking a simple, rather elegant approach to trying to find out whether people who have these experiences are hallucinating or are actually leaving their bodies. They’ve got a laptop computer taped, flat open, on top of the highest cardiac monitor in an operating room, such that the only way you could see what’s on the screen would be if you were floating up by the ceiling. You can’t see the image (one of several rotating images, randomly chosen) from down below. Patients are interviewed after they leave the OR, to see if they report having seen anything. So far, none of the patients has had an NDE, but the project had only just begun when I was there.


http://calitreview.com/79

The book she was promoting for this interview is quite a bit of fun, looking back at the whole idea of a potential afterlife.

Good answer.

I'd recommend looking into reported cases where patients actually purport to have had OBE/NDEs with corroborating claims made my medical staff that were present. Such documented cases do exist and anyone who is genuinely curious can research on them at their leisure. Assuming even a fraction of them are accurate the implications are very interesting, to say the least :)

[AkuManiMani]

Because our current theoretical framework does not explain the mechanisms for how an OBE, or "spirit" contact with a subject's mind could provide veridical information they otherwise would not have access to. If it did such phenomena would not be classified as "supernatural" claims.

However, there is no concrete evidence that OBEs can provide someone with information that they would not have access to.

There are volumes of evidence for such events; anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but evidence none the less. In any case, the very nature of such reported experiences renders them only communicable via anecdote. The only "proof" one can have of such events would be to experience them firsthand.

Okay. A patient reports an OBE/NDE where they recall details of the operation they were supposedly not conscious to witness and medical staff present confirm details of their account. How would one go about testing it?

Ask for details. Perform a double-blind study. Find others who have had OBEs and question them. Check their stories against the stories of the doctors and whatever film of the situation is on hand.

It's not impossible.

From what I've read, its been done before and there have been some reported positive results. The real question comes down to whether one chooses to consider such reports trustworthy.

[carlitos]

However, you've reason to doubt your recollection because of an easily recognized discrepancy; your memory of the experience is relatively clear but inconsistent. Whats more, via your own faculties, you were easily able to discern for yourself the problems with those particular memories.

My memories of the experiences in question are clear, self consistent, and congruent with the recollections of other parties that were involved. The only reason I'd have to seriously doubt them would be because they seem "extraordinary" given certain metaphysical assumptions. I trust my firsthand experience over ideological considerations.

I think the above is as good of a textbook case of special pleading (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html) as you'll find anywhere.

[Zanders]

There are volumes of evidence for such events; anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but evidence none the less. In any case, the very nature of such reported experiences renders them only communicable via anecdote. The only "proof" one can have of such events would be to experience them firsthand.



From what I've read, its been done before and there have been some reported positive results. The real question comes down to whether one chooses to consider such reports trustworthy.

I'll suspend my judgment until they can properly be tested. I can't say they don't happen, but I'm pretty sure OBEs and NDEs can be tested. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have.

I think that both saying they have no value and assuming they are all true is a bad mistake to make at the current time.

[Ichneumonwasp]

TBH, I'm not really proposing any contravening explanations. I am, however, proposing that sufficient explanations would require an expansion of our current scientific understanding.







That is precisely where the bone of contention lies. "Expanding our current scientific understanding" is a call for a paradigm shift. Anecdotes do not rise to the level of extraordinary evidence to require or even suggest such a change because there are many potentially good explanations for anecdotes of subjective experiences.


ETA:

Carl Sagan, by the way, dealt with this issue very well in Contact. His main character has an experience that -- in the movie -- the audience shares. But other folks who could not have had the experience had no reason to believe that it occurred as reported -- except that there was corroborating evidence available. In the absence of strong corroborating evidence anecdotes simply will not do to support a fundamental paradigm shift.

[AkuManiMani]

[ETA: By the way, whats with you highlighting everything in black color font? Its pretty rendundant and makes replying to such a long post more tedious than necessary... -_- ]

Wait, wait. How does that contradict what I just said? Are you suggesting that multiple observations of a particular event or phenomena is not an example of independent verification?

*sigh*

Your anecdote is not evidence that your anecdote is true. A thousand anecdotes are not evidence that your anecdote is true. However, reviewing numerous eyewitness accounts, finding both common and differential elements, and putting that together with other evidence as well as with the understanding of how perception can fail and issues with how the human brain works can help to limit the possibility space.

Epistemologically speaking, what makes the assessment of a third party more valid than the experience of firsthand observers?

First of all, the veracity of an account has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on how impactful a single person, or persons the world over, feel it to be. Either it happened or it did not. It doesn't matter whether the event was tea sipping or receiving information from "spirits".

Yes. But for mundane claims, that will change nothing important whether true or false, there simply isn’t a rational justification for extensive research. Cost-benefit analysis. A claim of a common, mundane event, that is known to occur regularly, is pretty much acceptable based on someone’s word (I had coffee this morning). As stakes are raised, it makes sense to require more evidence (I had coffee this morning, so I could not have been at the murder scene).

So, to put it simply, its more an issue of credulity than veracity.

Second of all, the accounts I've given aren't just a couple of anomalous events, but one of countless others that have been reported. It just so happens that they are a class of reported experience you [and some others] consider suspect precisely because they run counter to your expectations of what is plausible/possible. As soon as you hear of such reports you automatically begin the process of downplaying and/or reinterpreting them to conform to your preset expectations to the point where your criteria for "evidence" becomes so steep that virtually nothing will convince you that they are valid. In other words, you have a strong cognitive bias toward discounting such events regardless of the evidence presented.

Thank you for making part of the next point. Yes, your account is one of countless others. Let’s take a close look at that, shall we?

Of those countless others, the majority remain unexplained. Mostly because, like yours, they are historical events and little if any effort is made to produce anything that would be remotely evidential when a similar event repeats. Of the ones that have been explained, they have been due to causes other than “interaction with an external intelligence”. Therefore, the countless other stories you mention, which have either no explanation or a mundane explanation, don’t support your contention that some sort of external intelligence communicated with you. Yes, I approach your interpretation with a bias, because history and previous research has shown that in all of these cases that have been explained, spirits is not the explanation. The bias is based on evidence, and you must rightfully overcome that evidence, that bias, to have your claim accepted as fact.

I never claimed the accounts of my experiences as proof of their reality. Whether a claim is accepted as fact is purely the personal prerogative of the third party hearing the claim, regardless of the value that party attributes to certain kinds of evidence. Without firsthand experience a claim [accepted or rejected, accurate or inaccurate] is not knowledge but a bare proposition that one may attribute a certain degree of trust or distrust.

As a side note, how many of these “countless stories” are actually compatible with your account? How many are compatible with each other? You can’t claim any story of spirits as proof, when the details are as variable as the tellers in most cases.

-Ofcourse- there will be variations between different observers' accounts of different events. Do you mean to suggest that such variation somehow nullifies the veracity of those experiences?

There are many, many other documented accounts and studies like the ones linked by Malerin and Limbo. If you agree that such reports are evidence what do you think they're evidence of, if not what they're reporting?

Evidence can be weak or strong. They are evidence, and documentation can provide more details (especially comparing documentation of an event made soon afterwards with later recollections, and similar things). Accounts typically have very little evidentiary value, but can suggest additional avenues of research. Also, don’t confuse evidence with proof. They are two separate concepts.

The 'strength' of any evidence is relative to the credulity a given party is willing to extend. Even if one is presented with 'proof' of an event it is still their choice of whether to accept it or not. In either case, the veracity of an account is not dependent upon the degree of evidence available or the credulity of those hearing it.

You gave a list of examples with little to or relevance to the topic at hand. I asked you for more relevant examples and, instead of simply providing such examples, you accuse me of trying to make you look stupid. Who's the one being dishonest here?

No, you made as if my examples were attempting to be specific, when it was obvious they weren’t. You didn’t ask for more relevant examples, except indirectly. If you really could not grasp that concept from my response, I apologize.

You gave examples. I asked for more relevant examples. You accused me of dishonesty in response to this request. Your underhanded conditional apology not withstanding, you were %100 at fault. Period.

My point is that the claims being made here do not voilate what you know, but what you believe. In any case, what alleged knowledge do my accounts contradict? Be specific.

Conservation laws are violated, for one, if you assume some sort of coherent spiritual energy after death. An additional fundamental force, as none of the current ones have the ability to do what’s claimed nor have they been detected in these situations (when they’ve been tested).

We've no clear model for how "coherent spiritual energy" should operate so its more than a little premature to speak of it's (im)plausibility.

Telepathy violates several physical principles that have been well tested, because required energy levels would kill brain cells en masse. There are additional problems, but that’s a start.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy) on that just yet.

Thats interesting. My teachers don't seem to think so.

Vague argument from authority noted.

Hey, if you're right about my 'incomprehension' of the scientific process I've fooled the system well enough to progress in my major. Thats gotta count for somethin', right? ;)

Again, not all scientific studies follow experimental protocols and real phenomena are not necessarily replicable under controlled conditions. In the social sciences in particular, much of the data collected involves recording individual accounts of subjects lives and their experiences may be unique to them. In the case of accounts like the ones I've just given, if we are in fact dealing with autonomous intelligences experimental replicability would be extremely problematic, to say the least.

Yes, and this is something I went into. Yet you seem to think this means that a single personal account of a single event is somehow just as meaningful as a physics experiment. Just because it’s harder to meet the level of scientific rigor required does not mean we should lower the standards.

I'm not recommending that standards should be lowered. What I am suggesting is that the methods may very well have to be modified to investigate certain phenomena. Even more "mundane" studies of consciousness require extensive "internal" introspective study as well as "external" observation. Whenever one is dealing with phenomena related to consciousness subjective factors must be taken into serious consideration.

Right. Unless I'm able to reenact an event to the tee it never happened :rolleyes:

And this is a definite straw man. Not to mention, again, a deliberate mis-interpretation of my statements, unless you are more ignorant than I previously thought. My statement meant can you gives us the details? You seem very reluctant to say much of anything, other than deliberate, vague statements. So how could anyone even begin to compare your experience with others, or to attempt to replicate the conditions and possibly the results?

If you haven't noticed I've already given pages of details regarding my personal experiences. The more I've given, the more I've been accused of "self-aggrandizement" and claims that I must be mistaken or making things up. I'm then given lectures about standards of evidence and insistence that all the details I've given are insufficient evidence anyway, precisely because they're anecdotal. Again, what it comes down to really isn't an issue of the quantity or quality of the information I've provided, but of the willful incredulity of the parties involved. The details I've provided are more than sufficient to make an honest assessment. How much credence you choose to lend my accounts is not my problem or my responsibility. I don't intend to waste my own time playing the "prove it" game.

Are you suggesting that if I had such experiences more frequently they would be more real/valid? In any case, you still haven't addressed how -- via web forum -- one would provide non-anecdotal evidence for the types of experiences being discussed here.

I’m suggesting that being able to re-create an experience allows for the collection of more data. Just because it’s hard to do does not mean you are suddenly awarded the status of “truth” without the same level of rigor and examination expected in every other aspect of scientific study.

Okay. How can we experimentally test what I experienced on this web forum?

*sigh*

Again, you attempt to ask the stupid question. It’s a historical event, we can’t. We can, however, get as much detail as possible and attempt to recreate your experience. We can look at others who have attempted the same. We can look at studies that examine this statistically, or studies that look at it under controlled conditions.

If you're that curious start doing your own investigations. Arguing with me about it over a web forum isn't going to accomplish a damn thing in the way of advancing your own knowledge or understanding of the topic. In any case, you can read up on actual studies done on the subject till you're blue in the face, but until you have your own fisthand experience of such phenomena you'll not have any real proof. Even then it is still your choice whether to accept or reject it.

I just gave an example on page 28 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6791082&postcount=1118). Heck, just read up on the history of science yourself. Do I have to list every historical example of scientists rejecting new theories/findings/ideas merely on the basis of established dogma?

Actually, your page 28 example is a poor one, and that’s the reason I asked.. Numerous scientists around the world were experimenting on heavier than air flight at the time, and the Wright Brothers were the first by a rather short amount of time. Also, the opinion that “heavier than air flight” was impossible was, very much so, a minority opinion. Some thought the current technology would not do it, but very, very few thought it impossible. In any case, none of this was theory…it was opinion. Science had NO theory claiming that flight, or heavier than air flight, was impossible. After all, any scientist could look outside the window and see birds doing it all day long. IT was opinion.

Do you have any example where something revolutionary was thought to be wrong, but was accepted? Or, more specifically, where any established scientific theory was fundamentally wrong?

Actually, the Wright brothers reference wasn't my example, but Katopale's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6799578&postcount=1226). The example that I actually brought up was that of the controversy surrounding Ludwig Boltzmann's atomic theory and the professional persecution he [and like minded colleagues] faced on account of it. Either way, all you have to do is read up on the history of science yourself. Its not always pretty and the individuals involved do not always behave rationally -- even in the face of contravening evidence. The main point one can draw from this is that science is only as good as the people conducting it.

I would suggest you study scientific history, as well. And if the ones who taught you scientific history are related to the teachers you mentioned above, I’d find a new place to learn.

I'm motivated enough to do my own reading on the subject and to form my own conclusions. From what I've read of history individual scientists [and communities of scientists] have behaved dogmatically and irrationally, scientific methodology not withstanding. Hindsight just makes the follies of the past more apparent, and we would be wise to learn from them.

That I never claimed that the majority of our scientific knowledge is wrong.

Not explicitly, but implicitly you have. The consequences of your account would disprove a large portion of current scientific theory and principles. That you don’t understand this is not my failure.

Theories and principles are not knowledge. That you don’t understand this is not my failure ;)

Wow, dude...Just...[I]Wow. I hardly know where to begin. I'd definitely like to engage you in discussion but, being as how the above doesn't even begin to address the points I'm actually making I don't see how that is possible. Straw-maning, indeed...

If you’d like to engage me in discussion, then do so. The missing of obvious points and the continuous special pleading for your case (“but evidence is hard!”) get old, especially when you try so hard to promote the idea that you’re here to discuss.

And you’re correct, I wasn’t addressing your points, but rather the intellectual dishonesty you display. You aren’t here to discuss, you’re here to score points for your side.

Good idea. That was probably one of the most breathtaking pieces of irrational ranting I've ever seen on these boards. You definitely need a break from this discussion, dude.

And this is the reason I returned. Ranting, yes. Irrational? No, I believe the basic viewpoints, while they could have been stated better, are based on the evidence of your posts here.

The only intellectual dishonesty you see is your own projection, dude. If anything, you're the one associating yourself with a cohort of group-thinking reactionaries looking to defend an established world-view. I've no "side" to score points for; I've my own views, unique to my own perspective, which are liable to be at odds with the opinions of just about everyone else -- "woo-woo" and "skeptic" alike. If you wanna make this some kind of ego shoving match I'll be more than willing to just aggravate the hell out of you. If you want a rational exchange with me quit getting your knickers inna bunch everytime I ask a question or make a point you don't feel comfortable with. Otherwise, we can just drop the issue and you can kill time in a manner you feel is less challenging. Its really your call.

[AkuManiMani]

TBH, I'm not really proposing any contravening explanations. I am, however, proposing that sufficient explanations would require an expansion of our current scientific understanding.



That is precisely where the bone of contention lies. "Expanding our current scientific understanding" is a call for a paradigm shift. Anecdotes do not rise to the level of extraordinary evidence to require or even suggest such a change because there are many potentially good explanations for anecdotes of subjective experiences.


ETA:

Carl Sagan, by the way, dealt with this issue very well in Contact. His main character has an experience that -- in the movie -- the audience shares. But other folks who could not have had the experience had no reason to believe that it occurred as reported -- except that there was corroborating evidence available. In the absence of strong corroborating evidence anecdotes simply will not do to support a fundamental paradigm shift.

In other words, people have to have such experiences for themselves; especially if they've strong biases toward discounting their possibility. Even then, paradigm shifts tend to be based upon institutional politics and public opinion as much as actual evidence -- if not more so. In any case, there are many other accounts even more anomalous than my own. If even a small fraction of them are accurate then they are, at the very least, highly suggestive that the paradigm in common currency now needs to be updated. Like I said before, I've never harbored any illusions that merely discussing my experiences here was evidence enough to 'prove' their veracity. However, I do think that such accounts open the door to a discussion on epistemology and metaphysical speculation which are both, IMO, fun pastimes :)

[AkuManiMani]

AkuManiMani, what is it that you think meteors are?

"a solid object moving in interplanetary space, of a size considerably smaller than an asteroid and considerably larger than an atom"

[AkuManiMani]

I'll suspend my judgment until they can properly be tested. I can't say they don't happen, but I'm pretty sure OBEs and NDEs can be tested. In fact, I'm pretty sure they have.

I think that both saying they have no value and assuming they are all true is a bad mistake to make at the current time.

Only one of them has to be true to disprove the null hypothesis. Theres a lot of bullets to dodge... >:}

[Robin]

My memories of the experiences in question are clear, self consistent, and congruent with the recollections of other parties that were involved.
Who else was involved with the actual experience? I understood that the only other person in the room was asleep.

What you have said is that you were given information by that voice and that you independently verified the information and that you could not have known that information at the time of the experience.

That key part of the evidence is of course unavailable to us since it is of a personal nature.

But my point is that memory is not always reliable. You say that you did not have the information at the time - how can you be sure? Are you sure you are remembering the events correctly?

I spent a large part of my life taking it for granted that the San Marco Bell Tower had collapsed in the mid 80's.

So from where I am sitting there appear two ways I could interpret your description of your experience.

1. Intelligent supernatural communicating with you
2. Hallucination or dream coupled with imperfect recollection.

Since the second is a well attested phenomenon and there has never been any reliable evidence for the first I would naturally look at the second as being the more reasonable interpretation of the events.

And I don't rule out, as I never do, that I could be wrong.

[Ichneumonwasp]

In other words, people have to have such experiences for themselves; especially if they've strong biases toward discounting their possibility. Even then, paradigm shifts tend to be based upon institutional politics and public opinion as much as actual evidence -- if not more so. In any case, there are many other accounts even more anomalous than my own. If even a small fraction of them are accurate then they are, at the very least, highly suggestive that the paradigm in common currency now needs to be updated. Like I said before, I've never harbored any illusions that merely discussing my experiences here was evidence enough to 'prove' their veracity. However, I do think that such accounts open the door to a discussion on epistemology and metaphysical speculation which are both, IMO, fun pastimes :)


It's fine to speculate, but speculations should be labelled as such, especially when they tend toward the 'wild side'.

This is not an issue of other people experiencing the same thing. All of our subjective experiences are prone to misinterpretation in certain situations, so we must be on guard.

The character 'Ellie' in Contact needed to have that experience within the story frame to bring her closer to her religious friend/paramour. The whole point of staging that scenario was to show a semi-religious subjective experience from a scientific perspective, not to argue that what we all need is to have similar subjective experiences in order to prove another reality. The viewer/reader is still left with a central problem -- did it happen? The only way to resolve the issue is with the strong corroboration -- a physical change that is best explained by Ellie having experienced something for a certain period of time.

If you think that other people just need to experience the same thing, then I am afraid that you are missing the point.

[Pure Argent]

There are volumes of evidence for such events; anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but evidence none the less.

Anecdotes are not evidence. We've been over this.

In any case, the very nature of such reported experiences renders them only communicable via anecdote. The only "proof" one can have of such events would be to experience them firsthand.

Hardly. It's entirely possible to have a verifiable record of the fact that the person could not have known something (e.g., that there was a laptop on top of the shelf) prior to the OBE and did know it afterward.

I understand that you believe that there is evidence of OBEs, but saying that it can't be scientifically tested is silly. It very much can be - and has been.

From what I've read, its been done before and there have been some reported positive results. The real question comes down to whether one chooses to consider such reports trustworthy.

And we don't.

This isn't a matter of anti-psi bias, either. This is a matter of demonstrably flawed methodology, cherry-picking, and other unscientific practices. These studies have been exposed multiple times by multiple people as being flawed.

[Hokulele]

Good answer.


Do you agree that this sort of thing can be examined in a scientifically rigorous manner?

I'd recommend looking into reported cases where patients actually purport to have had OBE/NDEs with corroborating claims made my medical staff that were present. Such documented cases do exist and anyone who is genuinely curious can research on them at their leisure. Assuming even a fraction of them are accurate the implications are very interesting, to say the least :)


No, this doesn't work very well, for reasons that have been noted earlier. In many of the cases where claims match up, the descriptions tend to be vague enough that the medical staff, or the interviewer through leading questions, will often force matches where they may not be warranted. The case that many people like to bring up (the tennis shoe one), there turns out to be no corroborating evidence that the experience happened as described by most people who promote this as a match. The plasticity of memory and the human tendency to want to find answers that "work" will skew results. That is why a properly designed test, such as the one mentioned in the interview I linked, are far more pursuasive than any number of stories told after the fact.

Granted, there are commonalities of experience when it comes to NDEs and OBEs, but at this point in time, there just isn't enough evidence to rule out the possibility that these are simply caused by commonalities in the architecture of the human brain. Ichneumonwasp would know far more about the current state of the field as it relates to this than I would.

[Zanders]

We've been over this again and again. OBEs can be tested, and have been tested. You keep making excuses for the lack of evidence for their authenticity by claiming that they either can't be tested, or that everyone is afraid to. You seriously need to stop doing that.

Now, I'm not talking about spontaneous cases like what you claimed happened to you. That is a much more tricky situation.

[carlitos]

Substantive replies to AkuManiMani are pointless. If you must reply, just list the logical fallacies and move on.

[Zanders]

I just want to throw something out there.

There were tons of anecdotes about werewolves. Many people, even groups claimed that they had seen werewolves. Many people claimed that they were werewolves. Heck, there are anecdotes about werewolves today.

Do werewolves exists? By your logic they do.

[PixyMisa]

Exactly. AkuManiMani wants us to accept his story at face value, but by rights we would then need to accept everyone else's stories at face value.

I can't see that working too well.

[Zanders]

Well, he also appears to be telling us to take every OBE and NDE at face value.

I'm not even saying it's impossible, I'm just saying it would take more evidence and is testable.

[PixyMisa]

That too. The fact that when we test these things, they don't happen, does not mean that we can't test them. It means they don't happen.

[Zanders]

I know people like to jump to the conclusion that it is just because mainstream science finds it "taboo", or doesn't want to believe it. But think about this for a moment, most people honestly do beleive or want to believe in a life after death, and there are a ton of scientists that want to as well. It's not like all scientist are forced to be completely materialistic. Unless you are saying that the scientists that carry out such studies are silenced due to it being too controversial.

But like we have said over and over again, tests and experiments have already been done and are still being done.

[Sledge]

Now there you make a good point, Zanders. I've always found the "you just don't WANT it to be true" argument to be baffling. I don't want to know that there's something wonderful after death? I don't want to be able to move objects with my mind? I don't want to find there's a good reason for all the bad stuff that happens? Please.

[punshhh]

There may be an impasse here due to a lack of corroborative evidence.

Might I describe an experience I had where there was clear evidence that something perhaps a premonition occurred.

You know the kobe earthquake in Japan, well I had a premonition in a dream approximately a week before the earthquake happened.

In my dream I was in a tourist party in Japan being shown around a cave by a local tourist guide. Suddenly there was a a loud noise and a big commotion, parts of the roof of the caved in and I found my self squeezing into a confined space with the guide, who was trying to show me where I would be safe. I woke up suddenly with feelings of claustraphobia.

This was such a striking dream that I told numerous people about it.

A week later the earthquake happened, I was amazed and told the people I had told about the dream, remember that dream I had last week? of three people two remembered and agreed that it was some kind of premonition. The third denied I had said anything, even though I remember telling them.

Now I haven't tried to explain what happened, I let the facts speak for themselves.

Has anyone got any suggestions of what happened here.

[Zanders]

Now there you make a good point, Zanders. I've always found the "you just don't WANT it to be true" argument to be baffling. I don't want to know that there's something wonderful after death? I don't want to be able to move objects with my mind? I don't want to find there's a good reason for all the bad stuff that happens? Please.



The only excuse for that would be a conspiracy to hide it's existence from the general public. Now, finding proof of such a thing is another story. But a lot of believers in the paranormal like to use it.

There may be an impasse here due to a lack of corroborative evidence.

Might I describe an experience I had where there was clear evidence that something perhaps a premonition occurred.

You know the kobe earthquake in Japan, well I had a premonition in a dream approximately a week before the earthquake happened.

In my dream I was in a tourist party in Japan being shown around a cave by a local tourist guide. Suddenly there was a a loud noise and a big commotion, parts of the roof of the caved in and I found my self squeezing into a confined space with the guide, who was trying to show me where I would be safe. I woke up suddenly with feelings of claustraphobia.

This was such a striking dream that I told numerous people about it.

A week later the earthquake happened, I was amazed and told the people I had told about the dream, remember that dream I had last week? of three people two remembered and agreed that it was some kind of premonition. The third denied I had said anything, even though I remember telling them.

Now I haven't tried to explain what happened, I let the facts speak for themselves.

Has anyone got any suggestions of what happened here.

I'm not exactly sure what purpose the premonition served, since it helped nobody out. I've heard a lot of stories like this, and can't really come to any conclusions about them. Your dream didn't specifically have an earthquake, so it could very well have been a coincidence. Think about all of the dreams you have, and a coincidental one is bound to happen some time to somebody.

If the earthquake happened the very same time that you had the dream, or on the very next day it would be much more impressive. But also keep in mind, a cave collapsing is not an earthquake.

[PixyMisa]

There may be an impasse here due to a lack of corroborative evidence.

Might I describe an experience I had where there was clear evidence that something perhaps a premonition occurred.

You know the kobe earthquake in Japan, well I had a premonition in a dream approximately a week before the earthquake happened.

In my dream I was in a tourist party in Japan being shown around a cave by a local tourist guide. Suddenly there was a a loud noise and a big commotion, parts of the roof of the caved in and I found my self squeezing into a confined space with the guide, who was trying to show me where I would be safe. I woke up suddenly with feelings of claustraphobia.

This was such a striking dream that I told numerous people about it.

A week later the earthquake happened, I was amazed and told the people I had told about the dream, remember that dream I had last week? of three people two remembered and agreed that it was some kind of premonition. The third denied I had said anything, even though I remember telling them.

Now I haven't tried to explain what happened, I let the facts speak for themselves.
They do.

Has anyone got any suggestions of what happened here.
Sure.

You had a dream. It didn't actually predict anything.

A week later the earthquake happened, and you decided that it matched your dream, even though it doesn't.

If you dream the exact date, time, epicentre and magnitude of an earthquake, and publish the results ahead of time - and you're right - then you'll have something.

Right now you have nothing at all.

[punshhh]

They do.


Sure.

You had a dream. It didn't actually predict anything.

A week later the earthquake happened, and you decided that it matched your dream, even though it doesn't.

If you dream the exact date, time, epicentre and magnitude of an earthquake, and publish the results ahead of time - and you're right - then you'll have something.

Right now you have nothing at all.

Ahh

Now I know what I would need to attempt the million dollar challenge.

Another dream,

The night before 9/11, I had two dreams where I was in my local airport Heathrow in London.
For some reason I was intensely interested in watching the planes landing and taking off. Both dreams where the same, I very rarely have consecutive dreams the same.

One of the planes a Jumbo Jet came towards me too low. I was somehow fixed on watching this plane, it was getting lower and lower, I was terrified.
The dream became very intense and resulted in a feeling of claustraphobia like in the Kobe dream. I felt I could not escape the crash, when suddenly I was safe it had passed. But continued to to get closer to the ground, I could hear a frightening grinding sound as the pilot was straining at the controls to pull up from the ground. I woke up shaken, with a strange feeling like just after having a close call in a motor accident.

It stayed with me most of the morning and I was continually drawn back to the image of that plane almost scraping the ground.

A few hours later I heard the dreadful events of 9/11 unfolding live on the radio.

I have not before or since had such an intense dream about airplanes.

[Filippo Lippi]

More anecdotes, exactly what this thread needs:rolleyes:

[AkuManiMani]

My memories of the experiences in question are clear, self consistent, and congruent with the recollections of other parties that were involved.
Who else was involved with the actual experience? I understood that the only other person in the room was asleep.

There were two events I recounted; one was the "voice" contact that occurred late last year, and the other was the sleep paralysis/lucid nightmare which occurred a few years ago. In the case of the former account the sleeping friend later corroborated the information given to me by the "voice". The latter story involved my immediate family who, over the phone, were being told details of what I was dreaming.

What you have said is that you were given information by that voice and that you independently verified the information and that you could not have known that information at the time of the experience.

That key part of the evidence is of course unavailable to us since it is of a personal nature.

But my point is that memory is not always reliable. You say that you did not have the information at the time - how can you be sure? Are you sure you are remembering the events correctly?

I spent a large part of my life taking it for granted that the San Marco Bell Tower had collapsed in the mid 80's.

So from where I am sitting there appear two ways I could interpret your description of your experience.

1. Intelligent supernatural communicating with you
2. Hallucination or dream coupled with imperfect recollection.

Since the second is a well attested phenomenon and there has never been any reliable evidence for the first I would naturally look at the second as being the more reasonable interpretation of the events.

And I don't rule out, as I never do, that I could be wrong.

Even assuming that my memory of the information given to me was mistaken the fact that the contents of the memory turned out to be accurate is still anomalous and requires better explanation than simply random factors. I suppose I could seriously try to entertain the possibility that my memory of the event is mistaken but, when ever I do, I find that consideration highly unlikely. I have about as much reason to doubt my recollection of the event in question as I would to doubt my memory of what I wore just yesterday -- perhaps even less so, especially considering the extraordinary and emotionally impactful nature of the latter.

[AkuManiMani]

In other words, people have to have such experiences for themselves; especially if they've strong biases toward discounting their possibility. Even then, paradigm shifts tend to be based upon institutional politics and public opinion as much as actual evidence -- if not more so. In any case, there are many other accounts even more anomalous than my own. If even a small fraction of them are accurate then they are, at the very least, highly suggestive that the paradigm in common currency now needs to be updated. Like I said before, I've never harbored any illusions that merely discussing my experiences here was evidence enough to 'prove' their veracity. However, I do think that such accounts open the door to a discussion on epistemology and metaphysical speculation which are both, IMO, fun pastimes :)


It's fine to speculate, but speculations should be labelled as such, especially when they tend toward the 'wild side'.

This is not an issue of other people experiencing the same thing. All of our subjective experiences are prone to misinterpretation in certain situations, so we must be on guard.

The character 'Ellie' in Contact needed to have that experience within the story frame to bring her closer to her religious friend/paramour. The whole point of staging that scenario was to show a semi-religious subjective experience from a scientific perspective, not to argue that what we all need is to have similar subjective experiences in order to prove another reality. The viewer/reader is still left with a central problem -- did it happen? The only way to resolve the issue is with the strong corroboration -- a physical change that is best explained by Ellie having experienced something for a certain period of time.

If you think that other people just need to experience the same thing, then I am afraid that you are missing the point.


I'm saying that the most compelling evidence a person can have of such experiences is to undergo them themselves. Independent corroboration of information with other parties is part of what makes such phenomena so extraordinary to begin with. The only persons for whom the truth/accuracy of such reports is seriously doubtful would be uninvolved third parties.

[ETA: Coincidentally, a friend of mine who just finished film school was discussing the movie Contact with me very recently. He complained that he was a bit annoyed with how contrived the scenario was in that Jodie Foster's character was stuck with a situation that circumstantially made it appear that her experience was imaginary. His rant was pretty funny :p ]

[carlitos]

Cool Story!

[AkuManiMani]

More anecdotes, exactly what this thread needs:rolleyes:

Clearly "anecdote" is a euphemism for "fabricated unreliable yarn of bull"; anyone giving such an account is obviously crazy/lying ;)

[carlitos]

Next up, "euphemist" and transubstantiation.

[AkuManiMani]

There are volumes of evidence for such events; anecdotal evidence, to be sure, but evidence none the less.

Anecdotes are not evidence. We've been over this.

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes. Even if you are told that the findings are replicated the claim itself is "anecdotal" until you actually make the same observations firsthand.

In any case, the very nature of such reported experiences renders them only communicable via anecdote. The only "proof" one can have of such events would be to experience them firsthand.

Hardly. It's entirely possible to have a verifiable record of the fact that the person could not have known something (e.g., that there was a laptop on top of the shelf) prior to the OBE and did know it afterward.

I understand that you believe that there is evidence of OBEs, but saying that it can't be scientifically tested is silly. It very much can be - and has been.

I'm saying that even reports of scientific testing are "anecdotal" unless you participate in one yourself. You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken. Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable? I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.

From what I've read, its been done before and there have been some reported positive results. The real question comes down to whether one chooses to consider such reports trustworthy.

And we don't.

This isn't a matter of anti-psi bias, either. This is a matter of demonstrably flawed methodology, cherry-picking, and other unscientific practices. These studies have been exposed multiple times by multiple people as being flawed.

Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word? Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

[AkuManiMani]

Next up, "euphemist" and transubstantiation.

Troll harder please :p

[AkuManiMani]

The only excuse for that would be a conspiracy to hide it's existence from the general public. Now, finding proof of such a thing is another story. But a lot of believers in the paranormal like to use it.

All the information about the alleged phenomena are publicly available to anyone who is genuinely interested. Even so, theres a segment of the population that has strong personal biases towards discounting all such reports, regardless of the source. People lend credence to what they want -- what need is there to invoke a "conspiracy"?

[AkuManiMani]

There may be an impasse here due to a lack of corroborative evidence.

Might I describe an experience I had where there was clear evidence that something perhaps a premonition occurred.

You know the kobe earthquake in Japan, well I had a premonition in a dream approximately a week before the earthquake happened.

In my dream I was in a tourist party in Japan being shown around a cave by a local tourist guide. Suddenly there was a a loud noise and a big commotion, parts of the roof of the caved in and I found my self squeezing into a confined space with the guide, who was trying to show me where I would be safe. I woke up suddenly with feelings of claustraphobia.

This was such a striking dream that I told numerous people about it.

A week later the earthquake happened, I was amazed and told the people I had told about the dream, remember that dream I had last week? of three people two remembered and agreed that it was some kind of premonition. The third denied I had said anything, even though I remember telling them.

Now I haven't tried to explain what happened, I let the facts speak for themselves.

Has anyone got any suggestions of what happened here.

Ahh

Now I know what I would need to attempt the million dollar challenge.

Another dream,

The night before 9/11, I had two dreams where I was in my local airport Heathrow in London.
For some reason I was intensely interested in watching the planes landing and taking off. Both dreams where the same, I very rarely have consecutive dreams the same.

One of the planes a Jumbo Jet came towards me too low. I was somehow fixed on watching this plane, it was getting lower and lower, I was terrified.
The dream became very intense and resulted in a feeling of claustraphobia like in the Kobe dream. I felt I could not escape the crash, when suddenly I was safe it had passed. But continued to to get closer to the ground, I could hear a frightening grinding sound as the pilot was straining at the controls to pull up from the ground. I woke up shaken, with a strange feeling like just after having a close call in a motor accident.

It stayed with me most of the morning and I was continually drawn back to the image of that plane almost scraping the ground.

A few hours later I heard the dreadful events of 9/11 unfolding live on the radio.

I have not before or since had such an intense dream about airplanes.

The only logical conclusion is that you're deluded/lying :rolleyes:

[PixyMisa]

Ahh

Now I know what I would need to attempt the million dollar challenge.

Another dream,

The night before 9/11, I had two dreams where I was in my local airport Heathrow in London.
Nothing happened in Heathrow on September 11 2001.

For some reason I was intensely interested in watching the planes landing and taking off. Both dreams where the same, I very rarely have consecutive dreams the same.
Or you don't remember them.

One of the planes a Jumbo Jet came towards me too low. I was somehow fixed on watching this plane, it was getting lower and lower, I was terrified.
None of the planes in the 9/11 attacks were 747s. Two were 757s, two were 767s. They look very different from the distinctive 747 Jumbo Jet.

The dream became very intense and resulted in a feeling of claustraphobia like in the Kobe dream. I felt I could not escape the crash, when suddenly I was safe it had passed. But continued to to get closer to the ground, I could hear a frightening grinding sound as the pilot was straining at the controls to pull up from the ground. I woke up shaken, with a strange feeling like just after having a close call in a motor accident.
It's unlikely that any of the pilots were trying to pull up; three of the crashes were entirely deliberate.

A few hours later I heard the dreadful events of 9/11 unfolding live on the radio.

I have not before or since had such an intense dream about airplanes.
So, we have another dream that doesn't match the events in any way.

What's your point here?

[AkuManiMani]

Pixy, you ever gonna get around to sharing what the contents of your auditory hallucinations were? At this point you haven't even declined so I'm inclined to assume that you're being deliberately evasive. You're not afraid are you? :)

[PixyMisa]

I'm saying that the most compelling evidence a person can have of such experiences is to undergo them themselves.
That's just an excuse for not having any evidence. And it's not a very clever or interesting excuse.

Independent corroboration of information with other parties is part of what makes such phenomena so extraordinary to begin with. The only persons for whom the veracity of the events is seriously doubtful would be uninvolved third parties.
Correct. That would be because these things do not happen.

That is, you had an experience, but it's perfectly normal and easily explained. The only unusual aspects are those you assign to it yourself, and those are just your interpretation.

If there were anything actually unusual going on, there would be evidence that could convince a third party. If not in your case, then somewhere in the millions of reported cases. If not a single incontrovertible example, then at least something distinct and statistically significant when taken as a whole.

Instead, there is nothing. Nothing, AkuManiMani. Nothing at all.

[PixyMisa]

Pixy, you ever gonna get around to sharing what the contents of your auditory hallucinations were? At this point you haven't even declined so I'm inclined to assume that you're being deliberately evasive. You're not afraid are you? :)
Are you ever going to get around to understanding that your memory is unreliable and malleable, and that being convinced that your memory is correct actually contraindicates that being true?

Because that is the only thing you have to talk about.

[PixyMisa]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes. Even if you are told that the findings are replicated the claim itself is "anecdotal" until you actually make the same observations firsthand.
In case you missed it, AkuManiMani, we walked on the Moon.

That thing, in the sky? Been there.

What have your magic elves done for you lately?

[AkuManiMani]

PM: "It's not true!"

AMM: "How do you know this?"

PM: "Because it isn't. Theres no evidence."

AMM: "But there are countless reports of such events even from scientists who've endeavored to experimentally test them."

PM: "They're all lying fools! I know this because I can consult with 'The Entirety of Science'. It is infallible and always corroborates my bald assertions"

AMM: "Um, thats quite a feat, to know what un-met strangers have experienced. Can you give us information as to your own experiences?"

PM: "Of course. My knowledge is absolute. Ask away."

AMM: "What are you feeling right now?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Erm, okaaay...You mentioned experiencing some peculiar auditory hallucinations during periods of great 'stress'. Care to share with us the contents of those hallucinations?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Uhm...PM, are you going to answer the questions?"

PM: "YOUR MEMORY IS FALLIBLE! YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP!"

AMM: ".............."

[PixyMisa]

PM: "It's not true!"
A more accurate quote would be "Evidence?"

AMM: "How do you know this?"All mystical nonsense suffers from the same two problems as I noted originally with regard to homeopathy:

(a) It's impossible.
(b) It doesn't happen.

PM: "Because it isn't. Theres no evidence."
And there isn't.

AMM: "But there are countless reports of such events even from scientists who've endeavored to experimentally test them"Reports? Who cares about reports?

Where's the evidence, AkuManiMani? You're giving us vague hand-wavey incomplete half-remembered stories. The researchers you dote on give us only an inverse correlation between experimental rigour and statistical significance.

Still waiting for any evidence at all.

[AkuManiMani]

Reports? Who cares about reports?

You reported having hallucinations. What were their contents? Is your recollection of them completely confabulated? What evidence do you have that you experienced any hallucinations at all? Perhaps you're lying or simply mistaken?

[carlitos]

PM: "It's not true!"

AMM: "How do you know this?"

PM: "Because it isn't. Theres no evidence."

AMM: "But there are countless reports of such events even from scientists who've endeavored to experimentally test them."

PM: "They're all lying fools! I know this because I can consult with 'The Entirety of Science'. It is infallible and always corroborates my bald assertions"

AMM: "Um, thats quite a feat, to know what un-met strangers have experienced. Can you give us information as to your own experiences?"

PM: "Of course. My knowledge is absolute. Ask away."

AMM: "What are you feeling right now?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Erm, okaaay...You mentioned experiencing some peculiar auditory hallucinations during periods of great 'stress'. Care to share with us the contents of those hallucinations?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Uhm...PM, are you going to answer the questions?"

PM: "YOUR MEMORY IS FALLIBLE! YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP!"

AMM: ".............."

Most strawman arguments are implicit. Congrats for making yours explicitly.

[AkuManiMani]

Most strawman arguments are implicit. Congrats for making yours explicitly.

So all of your parody dialogues are straw-men? Interesting... ;)

[carlitos]

:D

[Hellbound]

[ETA: By the way, whats with you highlighting everything in black color font? Its pretty rendundant and makes replying to such a long post more tedious than necessary... -_- ]
I typed the reply in Word then transferred, most likely an artifact of that process.

Epistemologically speaking, what makes the assessment of a third party more valid than the experience of firsthand observers?

What I stated was that the combination and examination of multiple first hand accounts can lead to a better udnerstanding of the event than that given by any individual first hand account. You want to know why I get upset? Because of your statements like this, that simply apply an apparently random meaning to what I actually say.

So, to put it simply, its more an issue of credulity than veracity.

No, it's a matter of resources. If there is no need to investigate something, then don't. However, when we are looking into whether or not something is true...when it actually matters, then it warrants a more careful look.

Not to mention that no event occurs in a vacuum. We know people make coffee, we know people drink coffee, so there is no need to prove that coffeee exists, that it was available in the area, that it can be ingested by people, etc, etc, etc. Compare that to a case where we're positing a whole new category of energy, entirely new entities that do not mesh with what is currently known. THe coffee exampel does not have to overcome any previous evidence. A claim for psi powers, spirits, or similar has to overcome a host of past experiements that show failed results, as well as have a valid way to overcome the problems that would develop in fitting it with current knowledge.

I never claimed the accounts of my experiences as proof of their reality. Whether a claim is accepted as fact is purely the personal prerogative of the third party hearing the claim, regardless of the value that party attributes to certain kinds of evidence. Without firsthand experience a claim [accepted or rejected, accurate or inaccurate] is not knowledge but a bare proposition that one may attribute a certain degree of trust or distrust.

So you argue for solipsism.

-Ofcourse- there will be variations between different observers' accounts of different events. Do you mean to suggest that such variation somehow nullifies the veracity of those experiences?

I mean to argue that differences between the accounts of the same experience can help one determien which parts are true, and which are not. It can help determine which aspects of the accounts are more likely to be true (i.e.-more consistent), and which are more the result of failed perception, faulty memory, or simple lying. If ten people witness a robbery, and 9 say they say a white man and one says they saw a black man, in the absence of other information what is the likely color of the robber? This is not a complicated concept.

The 'strength' of any evidence is relative to the credulity a given party is willing to extend. Even if one is presented with 'proof' of an event it is still their choice of whether to accept it or not. In either case, the veracity of an account is not dependent upon the degree of evidence available or the credulity of those hearing it.

I agree, something is either true or not, regardless of Belief. But the argument here is how one can best arrive at truth, by what method(s). The metaphysical argument you keep trying to turn this into is unanswerable and essentially meaningless.

You gave examples. I asked for more relevant examples. You accused me of dishonesty in response to this request. Your underhanded conditional apology not withstanding, you were %100 at fault. Period.

Well, since my own experience is the only real knowledge, you are wrong.

We've no clear model for how "coherent spiritual energy" should operate so its more than a little premature to speak of it's (im)plausibility.

No, it isn't. There are certain properties it must have to act in ways as reported. Many of these properties are incompatible with current understanding. This makes them, at the least, very implausible.

I wouldn't jump to conclusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy) on that just yet.

I was waiting for you to bring up quantum. Are you familiar with actual research in quantum mechanics? Do you have any understanding of what it means when it talks about entangled states? Do you undertsand why it uses the modifier "pseudo-" in front of telepathy? That you believe this supports the existence of telepathy as reported simply confirms your limited understanding.

Hey, if you're right about my 'incomprehension' of the scientific process I've fooled the system well enough to progress in my major. Thats gotta count for somethin', right? ;)

Not really.

I'm not recommending that standards should be lowered. What I am suggesting is that the methods may very well have to be modified to investigate certain phenomena. Even more "mundane" studies of consciousness require extensive "internal" introspective study as well as "external" observation. Whenever one is dealing with phenomena related to consciousness subjective factors must be taken into serious consideration.

But science already has methods to do this. Social science do look at personal perspectives and introspective study, but with the understanding that these can often be flawed. That's the part you've been arguing against. Your claim seems to be that your own personal experience trumps everything else (the generic you here, as in any individual). Yet, assuming this simply leads to solipsism. It's a form of special pleading, especially when there is ample evidence that the personal perceptions of people are often incorrect. The only way to form this into something coherent is to assume that only your own perspective counts.

If you haven't noticed I've already given pages of details regarding my personal experiences. The more I've given, the more I've been accused of "self-aggrandizement" and claims that I must be mistaken or making things up. I'm then given lectures about standards of evidence and insistence that all the details I've given are insufficient evidence anyway, precisely because they're anecdotal. Again, what it comes down to really isn't an issue of the quantity or quality of the information I've provided, but of the willful incredulity of the parties involved. The details I've provided are more than sufficient to make an honest assessment. How much credence you choose to lend my accounts is not my problem or my responsibility. I don't intend to waste my own time playing the "prove it" game.

Then why bring it up to begin with if you don't plan to prove it? And I'd argue about details...you've been vague. You typed a lot of words, but said little. Technically, you gave enough details for an honest assessment, that assessment being that you have not sufficiently ruled out mundane reasons for your experience.

If you're that curious start doing your own investigations. Arguing with me about it over a web forum isn't going to accomplish a damn thing in the way of advancing your own knowledge or understanding of the topic. In any case, you can read up on actual studies done on the subject [including those with positive and negative reports] till you're blue in the face, but until you have your own fisthand experience of such phenomena you'll not have any real proof. Even then it is still your choice whether to accept or reject it.

Did you understand what I actually said there? Because, from your response, I don't think you did.

The whole point is that you haven't given enough information for anyone to even attempt to recreate your experience. And replication matters.

And yes, there are studies and such on this, and other accounts. But you know what? They aren't consistent. Studies with good controls are invariably negative. Accounts with successes range as far as the imagination in methods to achieve them, including some of the same methods that failed when tested more rigorously.

Actually, the Wright brothers reference wasn't my example, but Katopale's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6799578&postcount=1226). The example that I actually brought up was that of the controversy surrounding Ludwig Boltzmann's atomic theory and the professional persecution he [and like minded colleagues] faced on account of it. Either way, all you have to do is read up on the history of science yourself. Its not always pretty and the individuals involved do not always behave rationally -- even in the face of contravening evidence. The main point one can draw from this is that science is only as good as the people conducting it.

Actually, I never made the claim that science could not be dogmatic, or that individuals always behave rationally. That's your straw man. I asked for examples of where a well-tested theory was overturned. Where is the contravening evidence? In cases where it existed, it has been accepted...not immediately, not without growing pains, and not without haeartache on both sides. But even then, I'm still waiting for an example where a fundamental, well-tested theory was shown to be wrong.

I'm motivated enough to do my own reading on the subject and to form my own conclusions. From what I've read of history individual scientists [and communities of scientists] have behaved dogmatically and irrationally, scientific methodology not withstanding. Hindsight just makes the follies of the past more apparent, and we would be wise to learn from them.

I agree. And this is where our disagreement lies. These scientists relied on their own, personal experience instead of looking at and accepting the evidence beign presented. And on the flip side of this coin are the numerous examples of scientists who based conclusions on personal experience, and very little evidence. Pauling and vitamin C, for example, or Newton and Alchemy. Hoyle and the Steady State theory.

Theories and principles are not knowledge. That you don’t understand this is not my failure ;)

Just out of curiosity, what are they if not knowledge? Are do you simply equate knowledge with your own personal experience? Let me ask you point blank...are you a solipsist?

The only intellectual dishonesty you see is your own projection, dude. If anything, you're the one associating yourself with a cohort of group-thinking reactionaries looking to defend an established world-view. I've no "side" to score points for; I've my own views, unique to my own perspective, which are liable to be at odds with the opinions of just about everyone else -- "woo-woo" and "skeptic" alike. If you wanna make this some kind of ego shoving match I'll be more than willing to just aggravate the hell out of you. If you want a rational exchange with me quit getting your knickers inna bunch everytime I ask a question or make a point you don't feel comfortable with. Otherwise, we can just drop the issue and you can kill time in a manner you feel is less challenging. Its really your call.

If I want a rational exchange, I'll most liekly have to go elsewhere. My "knickers get in a twist" because I have to keep explaining what should be simple, obvious concepts (such as more matching eyewitness accounts means the event in question is more likely to have occurred as reported). It's not that you make a point that I don't feel comfortable with, it's that you continually and, unless you are truly ignorant, intenitonally misunderstand straightforward statements. It's that you claim knowledge of subjects (quantum telepathy, for example) that you are proveably ignorant of. It has nothing to do with an "ego shoving match"...I'm not the one claiming my own personal experience as the sole arbiter of reality. I'm not the one making "pronouncements from the mountain" on what is really real, or on what is true "knowledge". But I agree, if you want to drop the insults, condescention, and "I have a secret window to reality" attitude, and actually respond to my arguments instead of what you think I'm arguing (or what you might prefer someone were arguing), I'm more than happy to. Besides, it takes two to argue, you're in this just as much as I am. So it's really your call, too, "dude".

[PixyMisa]

You reported having hallucinations. What were their contents? Is your recollection of them completely confabulated? What evidence do you have that you experienced any hallucinations at all? Perhaps you're lying or simply mistaken?
You seem confused.

Try again. Do you understand that your memory is unreliable and malleable? A simple yes or no will do. A request for information is fine. Anything apropos.

[annnnoid]

You seem confused.

Try again. Do you understand that your memory is unreliable and malleable? A simple yes or no will do. A request for information is fine. Anything apropos.

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all memories?
…all the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

[Hellbound]

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all memories?
…all the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

This is funny. So much more so in that humor wasn't intended.

[tsig]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes. Even if you are told that the findings are replicated the claim itself is "anecdotal" until you actually make the same observations firsthand.



I'm saying that even reports of scientific testing are "anecdotal" unless you participate in one yourself. You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken. Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable? I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.



Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word? Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

Actually that's what you do in physics classes. They're called experiments.

Here's some you can do yourself.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsexperiments/Physics_Experiments.htm

[AkuManiMani]

Epistemologically speaking, what makes the assessment of a third party more valid than the experience of firsthand observers?

What I stated was that the combination and examination of multiple first hand accounts can lead to a better udnerstanding of the event than that given by any individual first hand account. You want to know why I get upset? Because of your statements like this, that simply apply an apparently random meaning to what I actually say.

The original point was that multiple corroborating 1st-hand accounts are a form of independent verification. Your pointing out that they "help narrow the range of possibilities" is redundant.

So, to put it simply, its more an issue of credulity than veracity.

No, it's a matter of resources. If there is no need to investigate something, then don't. However, when we are looking into whether or not something is true...when it actually matters, then it warrants a more careful look.

Again, the determination of whether a claim "actually matters" is completely relative to the credulity of the party(s) hearing it. One's criteria for "evidence" tends to be considerably steeper when views they're deeply accustomed to are on the line.

Not to mention that no event occurs in a vacuum. We know people make coffee, we know people drink coffee, so there is no need to prove that coffeee exists, that it was available in the area, that it can be ingested by people, etc, etc, etc. Compare that to a case where we're positing a whole new category of energy, entirely new entities that do not mesh with what is currently known. THe coffee exampel does not have to overcome any previous evidence. A claim for psi powers, spirits, or similar has to overcome a host of past experiements that show failed results, as well as have a valid way to overcome the problems that would develop in fitting it with current knowledge.

There have been numerous experiments with positive results. By your own admission, you're simply more inclined to lend credence to negative reports, as they mesh better with the worldview you ascribe to.

I never claimed the accounts of my experiences as proof of their reality. Whether a claim is accepted as fact is purely the personal prerogative of the third party hearing the claim, regardless of the value that party attributes to certain kinds of evidence. Without firsthand experience a claim [accepted or rejected, accurate or inaccurate] is not knowledge but a bare proposition that one may attribute a certain degree of trust or distrust.

So you argue for solipsism.

No. I'm arguing that all knowledge is inherently firsthand; all else are propositions that one may take on varying degrees of faith, bad faith, or simply suspend judgement.

-Ofcourse- there will be variations between different observers' accounts of different events. Do you mean to suggest that such variation somehow nullifies the veracity of those experiences?

I mean to argue that differences between the accounts of the same experience can help one determien which parts are true, and which are not. It can help determine which aspects of the accounts are more likely to be true (i.e.-more consistent), and which are more the result of failed perception, faulty memory, or simple lying. If ten people witness a robbery, and 9 say they say a white man and one says they saw a black man, in the absence of other information what is the likely color of the robber? This is not a complicated concept.

There are many documented accounts with numerous features common between them. However, if you're disqualifying all of them off-hand, assessing the common features is a pointless exercise anyway -- unless of course, it's done purely for the purpose of trying to confirm the null hypothesis.

The 'strength' of any evidence is relative to the credulity a given party is willing to extend. Even if one is presented with 'proof' of an event it is still their choice of whether to accept it or not. In either case, the veracity of an account is not dependent upon the degree of evidence available or the credulity of those hearing it.

I agree, something is either true or not, regardless of Belief. But the argument here is how one can best arrive at truth, by what method(s). The metaphysical argument you keep trying to turn this into is unanswerable and essentially meaningless.

The above statement is primarily epistemological, not metaphysical. The fact still remains that, by your own admission, you've cognitive biases against accepting any of the claims in question. The reason for this is that you have a strong, internally coherent, world-view with a large consensus of opinion backing it up. Accounts like the ones being discussed in this thread appear to be inherently at odds with this world-view so you are highly inclined toward discounting any positive evidence regarding them. The bald truth of the matter is that this is not skepticism or critical thinking, but criticality in the service of dogmatism.

You gave examples. I asked for more relevant examples. You accused me of dishonesty in response to this request. Your underhanded conditional apology not withstanding, you were %100 at fault. Period.

Well, since my own experience is the only real knowledge, you are wrong.

So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

We've no clear model for how "coherent spiritual energy" should operate so its more than a little premature to speak of it's (im)plausibility.

No, it isn't. There are certain properties it must have to act in ways as reported. Many of these properties are incompatible with current understanding. This makes them, at the least, very implausible.

Just to be clear, what do you mean when you speak of "coherent spiritual energy"?

I wouldn't jump to conclusions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy) on that just yet.

I was waiting for you to bring up quantum. Are you familiar with actual research in quantum mechanics?

Yes.

Do you have any understanding of what it means when it talks about entangled states?

Yes.

Do you undertsand why it uses the modifier "pseudo-" in front of telepathy?

Yes.

That you believe this supports the existence of telepathy as reported simply confirms your limited understanding.

My understanding is limited but not yours is not?

I'm not recommending that standards should be lowered. What I am suggesting is that the methods may very well have to be modified to investigate certain phenomena. Even more "mundane" studies of consciousness require extensive "internal" introspective study as well as "external" observation. Whenever one is dealing with phenomena related to consciousness subjective factors must be taken into serious consideration.

But science already has methods to do this. Social science do look at personal perspectives and introspective study, but with the understanding that these can often be flawed. That's the part you've been arguing against. Your claim seems to be that your own personal experience trumps everything else (the generic you here, as in any individual). Yet, assuming this simply leads to solipsism. It's a form of special pleading, especially when there is ample evidence that the personal perceptions of people are often incorrect. The only way to form this into something coherent is to assume that only your own perspective counts.

The special pleading comes in when fallibility of personal experience is invoked as the only possibility when it is at odds with theoretical expectation. Such criteria put theory ahead of empirical observation in the assessment of truth which is inherently inimical to the epistemology of the scientific method. If a subject reports seeing red when the theoretical expectation is that they should be seeing purple then it is the theory that requires the greater measure of critical scrutiny. The same applies if multiple subjects report the same class of experiences which happen to be at odds with certain theoretical expectations -- especially when those experiences have corroborating details and commonalities.

If you haven't noticed I've already given pages of details regarding my personal experiences. The more I've given, the more I've been accused of "self-aggrandizement" and claims that I must be mistaken or making things up. I'm then given lectures about standards of evidence and insistence that all the details I've given are insufficient evidence anyway, precisely because they're anecdotal. Again, what it comes down to really isn't an issue of the quantity or quality of the information I've provided, but of the willful incredulity of the parties involved. The details I've provided are more than sufficient to make an honest assessment. How much credence you choose to lend my accounts is not my problem or my responsibility. I don't intend to waste my own time playing the "prove it" game.

Then why bring it up to begin with if you don't plan to prove it? And I'd argue about details...you've been vague. You typed a lot of words, but said little. Technically, you gave enough details for an honest assessment, that assessment being that you have not sufficiently ruled out mundane reasons for your experience.

I never claimed that "mundane" explanations were wrong. I did, however, state that the explanations, as given, were not sufficient in themselves to account for all the features of the events in question. In anycase, if any account I give of my experiences are purely "anecdotal" and inherently unreliable, what difference does it make how much detail is shared? If the default position is that my recollection of the events is mistaken and "confabulated" why the insistence that I recall more? The truth is, I've given all the relevant details of the story, and then some extra. The fact that none of them aid you in fishing for an "easy out" explanation doesn't change this fact.

If you're that curious start doing your own investigations. Arguing with me about it over a web forum isn't going to accomplish a damn thing in the way of advancing your own knowledge or understanding of the topic. In any case, you can read up on actual studies done on the subject [including those with positive and negative reports] till you're blue in the face, but until you have your own fisthand experience of such phenomena you'll not have any real proof. Even then it is still your choice whether to accept or reject it.

Did you understand what I actually said there? Because, from your response, I don't think you did.

The whole point is that you haven't given enough information for anyone to even attempt to recreate your experience. And replication matters.

And yes, there are studies and such on this, and other accounts. But you know what? They aren't consistent. Studies with good controls are invariably negative. Accounts with successes range as far as the imagination in methods to achieve them, including some of the same methods that failed when tested more rigorously.

Speaking of special pleading, it seems that the only studies you count as reliable, rigorous and accurate are the ones that report negative results which confirm your own stated biases. Do you consider it impossible that even a small portion of documented positive cases/studies are true and accurate? If thats the case then your assessment is not honest.

Actually, the Wright brothers reference wasn't my example, but Katopale's (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6799578&postcount=1226). The example that I actually brought up was that of the controversy surrounding Ludwig Boltzmann's atomic theory and the professional persecution he [and like minded colleagues] faced on account of it. Either way, all you have to do is read up on the history of science yourself. Its not always pretty and the individuals involved do not always behave rationally -- even in the face of contravening evidence. The main point one can draw from this is that science is only as good as the people conducting it.

Actually, I never made the claim that science could not be dogmatic, or that individuals always behave rationally. That's your straw man.

You're not the only participant in this discussion nor do all of my posts and arguments revolve around you and your responses. The above was a valid point addressed specifically to another poster and it just so happens to be one that should be taken into consideration by anyone discussing a topic like this. Quite frankly, I getting sick and tired of being wrongfully accused of the very same logical fallacies being committed by my accusers.

I asked for examples of where a well-tested theory was overturned. Where is the contravening evidence? In cases where it existed, it has been accepted...not immediately, not without growing pains, and not without haeartache on both sides. But even then, I'm still waiting for an example where a fundamental, well-tested theory was shown to be wrong.

The Newtonian model of physics was for centuries, and still is, a very well tested theory. However it was formulated upon many theoretical assumptions which turned out to be inaccurate or flatly false. It was eventually superseded by two other physical theories: General/Special Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Even so, it's still a useful tool and is applicable in a limited range of problem scenarios. That is what all theories are; conceptual tools. Nothing more. Nothing less.

As it so happens, the topic of contention in -this- discussion isn't so much a scientific conflict as it is a clash of metaphysical views. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that we scientifically -know- which logically precludes the reality of the of kind experiences I, and many others, have reported. What does preclude them are strongly held metaphysical/ideological assumptions masquerading as scientific fact.

I'm motivated enough to do my own reading on the subject and to form my own conclusions. From what I've read of history individual scientists [and communities of scientists] have behaved dogmatically and irrationally, scientific methodology not withstanding. Hindsight just makes the follies of the past more apparent, and we would be wise to learn from them.

I agree. And this is where our disagreement lies. These scientists relied on their own, personal experience instead of looking at and accepting the evidence beign presented. And on the flip side of this coin are the numerous examples of scientists who based conclusions on personal experience, and very little evidence. Pauling and vitamin C, for example, or Newton and Alchemy. Hoyle and the Steady State theory.

I think you're conflating ideological assumption with personal experience. If Newton genuinely observed the efficacy of alchemical practice then it would be solid evidence for it's validity.

Theories and principles are not knowledge. That you don’t understand this is not my failure ;)

Just out of curiosity, what are they if not knowledge? Are do you simply equate knowledge with your own personal experience? Let me ask you point blank...are you a solipsist?

The basis of all knowledge is direct experience. All things beyond one's direct experience are, relative to the subject(s) in question, propositionals with varying degrees of accuracy and approximation to the truth. This includes all scientific theories -- which is precisely why they are inherently tentative and open to revision.

The only intellectual dishonesty you see is your own projection, dude. If anything, you're the one associating yourself with a cohort of group-thinking reactionaries looking to defend an established world-view. I've no "side" to score points for; I've my own views, unique to my own perspective, which are liable to be at odds with the opinions of just about everyone else -- "woo-woo" and "skeptic" alike. If you wanna make this some kind of ego shoving match I'll be more than willing to just aggravate the hell out of you. If you want a rational exchange with me quit getting your knickers inna bunch everytime I ask a question or make a point you don't feel comfortable with. Otherwise, we can just drop the issue and you can kill time in a manner you feel is less challenging. Its really your call.

If I want a rational exchange, I'll most liekly have to go elsewhere. My "knickers get in a twist" because I have to keep explaining what should be simple, obvious concepts (such as more matching eyewitness accounts means the event in question is more likely to have occurred as reported). It's not that you make a point that I don't feel comfortable with, it's that you continually and, unless you are truly ignorant, intenitonally misunderstand straightforward statements. It's that you claim knowledge of subjects (quantum telepathy, for example) that you are proveably ignorant of. It has nothing to do with an "ego shoving match"...I'm not the one claiming my own personal experience as the sole arbiter of reality. I'm not the one making "pronouncements from the mountain" on what is really real, or on what is true "knowledge". But I agree, if you want to drop the insults, condescention, and "I have a secret window to reality" attitude, and actually respond to my arguments instead of what you think I'm arguing (or what you might prefer someone were arguing), I'm more than happy to. Besides, it takes two to argue, you're in this just as much as I am. So it's really your call, too, "dude".

As I've pointed out, there are numerous documented witness accounts and scientific studies which corroborate the kinds of experiences being discussed. The contention revolves around your explicit bias towards discounting any and all accounts that to not mesh with your accepted world-view. I'm not claiming the special "privilege" of my own personal experience, but of firsthand experience in general. An individual's personal experience is not the only criteria of reality but it -is- the only definitive connection that any individual can have to it. Experience is the fundamental basis for all knowledge, all understanding, and all belief.

[tsig]

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all some memories?
…all some of the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

Inserted gray areas for you.

[AkuManiMani]

Actually that's what you do in physics classes. They're called experiments.

Here's some you can do yourself.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsexperiments/Physics_Experiments.htm

"whoosh"....

:rolleyes:

[Pure Argent]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes.

Essentially, yes. We've been over this before.

Scientific reports are formalized anecdotes, but they are formalized anecdotes which can be verified to be correct. They keep records. The raw data is still available. And so on.

You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken.

Correct.

Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable?

Where did I say that I did?

I don't doubt that these people are actually experiencing what they believe to be OBEs. Scientists study this regularly - in fact, there's a large study on the subject going on right now. But merely reporting that someone believes that they had an OBE is not proof that it was actually an OBE.

You are trying to use reports of people saying they had OBEs with reports of people verifying that they had OBEs. There are plenty of the former, but, oddly, none of the latter.

I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.

You conclude incorrectly. There simply isn't any evidence of OBEs. If there were, I would believe in them. That's rather the point of skepticism.

Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word?

We've been over this. I am taking their word - both the word of the people who did the original study and of those who presented rebuttals. Both the methodology of the original studies and the criticisms of that methodology are available online.

Or did you think that I was just looking for any site that said "this study's methodology was flawed" without saying how? No. I don't do that. That's not how skepticism works. You don't just take someone's word for something, even if they are nominally on your side.

The criticisms are out there, and are available in detail for a moment's Googling. You can go look them up yourself, if you want.

Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

Not really. Oh, undoubtedly some of them are, but they aren't the ones I'm talking about; that some people have made invalid criticisms does not mean that all of the criticisms are invalid.

It's a simple matter of comparing the objections to the methodology and seeing if they match up. For example, if someone says that the sample size in the study was too small to even begin to alleviate the chance of... well, chance, then you can look at the study itself and see how large their sample size was. If it was ten, then the criticism is valid. If it was five thousand, it probably isn't.

[AkuManiMani]

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all memories?
…all the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

PixyMisa cannot recall the contents of his hallucinations or even report what hes feeling at this moment because his memories are hopelessly "confabulated" and his introspection inherently "unreliable". He considers this especially true for any recollections or experiences that contradict his bald assertions.

[tsig]

"whoosh"....

:rolleyes:

Is that the sound a point makes when it escapes?

[annnnoid]

This is funny. So much more so in that humor wasn't intended.

Glad to bring some levity into the cosmos. Perhaps you might like to elaborate.

[Pure Argent]

Allow me:

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
…all memories?
…all the time?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically? Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?

Some memories, some of the time.

The point isn't that any given memory is guaranteed to be faulty. It is that it can be faulty, and that, without evidence supporting it, we can't know if it is or not. Because we can't know if the memory is actually reliable, it can't be used as evidence on its own. It must have something to back it up.

[AkuManiMani]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes.

Essentially, yes. We've been over this before.

Scientific reports are formalized anecdotes, but they are formalized anecdotes which can be verified to be correct. They keep records. The raw data is still available. And so on.

However, the very same thing can be said of many of the accounts in question. The problem is that they are explicitly being held to a standard that more "mundane" findings are not.

You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken.

Correct.

Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable?

Where did I say that I did?

I don't doubt that these people are actually experiencing what they believe to be OBEs. Scientists study this regularly - in fact, there's a large study on the subject going on right now. But merely reporting that someone believes that they had an OBE is not proof that it was actually an OBE.

You are trying to use reports of people saying they had OBEs with reports of people verifying that they had OBEs. There are plenty of the former, but, oddly, none of the latter.

The highlighted statement is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of others who know, or were acquainted with, the claimants and who report corroborating information. Unless one wants to suggest conspiracy in every case, it seems very unlikely that none of the reports are true.

I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.

You conclude incorrectly. There simply isn't any evidence of OBEs. If there were, I would believe in them. That's rather the point of skepticism.

Once again, I'd amend that to say there isn't any evidence you consider reliable or admissible.

Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word?

We've been over this. I am taking their word - both the word of the people who did the original study and of those who presented rebuttals. Both the methodology of the original studies and the criticisms of that methodology are available online.

Or did you think that I was just looking for any site that said "this study's methodology was flawed" without saying how? No. I don't do that. That's not how skepticism works. You don't just take someone's word for something, even if they are nominally on your side.

The criticisms are out there, and are available in detail for a moment's Googling. You can go look them up yourself, if you want.

I've spent a great deal of time reading up on both sides of the debate -- both "pro" (http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html) and "con" (http://www.skeptiko.com/near-death-experience-skeptics-running-out-of-excuses/). Judging from what I've read and my own experiences, I do not find the null hypothesis to be as convincing as you do, to say the least.

Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

Not really. Oh, undoubtedly some of them are, but they aren't the ones I'm talking about; that some people have made invalid criticisms does not mean that all of the criticisms are invalid.

It's a simple matter of comparing the objections to the methodology and seeing if they match up. For example, if someone says that the sample size in the study was too small to even begin to alleviate the chance of... well, chance, then you can look at the study itself and see how large their sample size was. If it was ten, then the criticism is valid. If it was five thousand, it probably isn't.

There are quite a number of legitimate studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience#Studies_of_OBEs) done, with considerable sample sizes, and they aren't all as unanimously conclusive of the null hypothesis as you seem to think. You may not consider any of the "positive" evidence very convincing, but it is there. If held by the same standards as the "negative" findings, at the very least, they indicate a need to radically expand our scientific understanding of consciousness.

[AkuManiMani]

"whoosh"....

:rolleyes:

Is that the sound a point makes when it escapes?

Indeed, it is. Let me know when you recognize mine :p

[The Norseman]

I've spent a great deal of time reading up on both sides of the debate -- both "pro" (http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html) and "con" (http://www.skeptiko.com/near-death-experience-skeptics-running-out-of-excuses/). Judging from what I've read and my own experiences, I do not find the null hypothesis to be as convincing as you do, to say the least.




So where is the "con" link again?

[Pure Argent]

However, the very same thing can be said of many of the accounts in question.

Such as?

The highlighted statement is demonstrably untrue. There are plenty of others who know, or were acquainted with, the claimants and who report corroborating information.

And yet they were unable to come up with support for their contentions.

Bare assertion doesn't stop being bare assertion just because more people do it. It's just bare assertion by proxy rather than regular bare assertion.

Once again, I'd amend that to say there isn't any evidence you consider reliable or admissible.

Fair enough. You would technically be correct to say that, of course. But it is also true that the vast majority of scientists and researchers in this area agree with me.

I've spent a great deal of time reading up on both sides of the debate -- both "pro" (http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html) and "con" (http://www.skeptiko.com/near-death-experience-skeptics-running-out-of-excuses/). Judging from what I've read and my own experiences, I do not find the null hypothesis to be as convincing as you do, to say the least.

That's as may be, but it's irrelevant unless you can come up with verifiable evidence against it.

There are quite a number of legitimate studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-body_experience#Studies_of_OBEs) done, with considerable sample sizes

The sample size bit was just an example.

and they aren't all as unanimously conclusive of the null hypothesis as you seem to think.

Your link doesn't support you.

Celia Green wasn't looking to prove the existence of OBEs. She was collecting information on what people who claimed to have experienced OBEs said about them. Bozzanno and Crookall were doing the same thing. Ditto Alegretti and Trivellato.

And so on and so on. Out of all the studies listed in that article, only one - van Lommel's - claims to have found any proof of OBEs. And Wikipedia is, as it is so frequently, wrong.

Van Lommel's study was not intended to provide proof of NDEs (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(01)07100-8/abstract). It was, like all the others, merely a study of what people who reported NDEs said they were like. Van Lommel and others offered their unconfirmed opinions on whether or not the stories they had heard from the subjects constituted proof of genuine OBEs.

You may not consider any of the "positive" evidence very convincing, but it is there.

You haven't presented any. And I suspect that many of the things which you would consider "evidence", I would not, as they are either unconfirmed or refuted.

[Hellbound]

You know, most of this comes down to you insisiting that there are positive studies that we are ignoring.

I'm not aware of any positive studies that were done with good controls, that adequately removed the possibility of more mundane options. And none that were replicated.

I don't discount these because they "clash with my worldview", per se. I discount these because of past history: there are no definitive studies done. The OBE and NDE accounts are a perfect example, there is very weak evidence for these events, usually after-the-fact, without controls. No way to verify that the data supposedly gained in the OBE was actually gained during the time that a person was clinically dead, none (that I am aware of) where brain activity was known to be stopped, in short none that rule out other explanations.

That history is what must be overcome. Thathistory forms my worldview. I don't discount the possibility, but I do expect a high level of evidence...because it has to be higher than the evidence against.

I'm going to address a few specific points, because again you are placing words in my mouth and missing the obvious. But I believe it would be best to limit the discussion to a single class/category of paranormals experiences, so that specific studies and evidence can be examined. If you're game, why not point us to a study you think offers good support fo OBE/NDE?

To specifics:
So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

No, I don't, therefore I don't beleive you hacve them. All knowledge is first-hand, and since I have no first-hand experience of your motivations and intentions, I don't believe you have any. I'm simply applying your own logic...because my own experience is the only knowledge.

Just to be clear, what do you mean when you speak of "coherent spiritual energy"?

The typical idea of a non-corporeal intelligence that survives a physical body, or exists independent of any detectable physical structure.

My understanding is limited but not yours is not?

First, this is another perfect example of you creating a straw man. Not what I said, stated, or implied.

I did, however, state, imply, and intend to convey the idea that my understanding is not as limited, because I understand what that article was stating as to actual possibilities, and it does not support, even remotely, the idea of telepathy being a possibility. That you would post it as a possibility simply tells me you did a quick search for something that, at a first glance, might give one pause, but either did not bother to actually read it or did not understand it.

The special pleading comes in when fallibility of personal experience is invoked as the only possibility when it is at odds with theoretical expectation. Such criteria put theory ahead of empirical observation in the assessment of truth which is inherently inimical to the epistemology of the scientific method. If a subject reports seeing red when the theoretical expectation is that they should be seeing purple then it is the theory that requires the greater measure of critical scrutiny. The same applies if multiple subjects report the same class of experiences which happen to be at odds with certain theoretical expectations -- especially when those experiences have corroborating details and commonalities.

And here is where you simply run off the rails entirely.

The theory is supported by an enormous amount of obersvational evidence. If 9,475 people are shown a box and asked what color it is, and 9,450 claim "It's red", 25 claim "it's green". First, what color is the box? We know that red-green color blindness exists. We can objectively measure the precise wavelengths of light reflected form the box. We can establish, very soundly, the theory that the box is red.

Now, if another person comes along and says "Hey, that's a nice green box there", you are stating that it would be unscientific to then say "No, the box is red. Sorry, but you're wrong." Of course, in this situation no one else can look at the box, so a better analogy is someone statign they looked at the box before it was destroyed, and the box was green. The data does not support that. They may well have seen it as green...but there's no reason to believe it was green. And the observer themselves, if they are actually being skeptical, should consider the possibility that they are mistaken somehow.

Do you consider it impossible that even a small portion of documented positive cases/studies are true and accurate? If thats the case then your assessment is not honest.

IMpossible? NOt to a 100% level, no. However I consider it very highly unlikely, to the point that I treat it as an impossibility in my day-to-day decisions. In other words, I don't design computer security with a thought to preventing clairvoyant spying, or OBE snoops. I don't try to use ESP to see where I'm driving when in a car. I don't waste money for a psychic to tell me what to expect in the future. And even in general, I regard it as unproven and false, as I've yet to see evidence otherwise.

And how can you claim that is not honest? After all, aren't you the one saying that first-hand experience is our only knowledge? I've yet to see any well-controlled studies to support most of these notions. I've seen a lot more studies that show no effect, and even more studies that show how much of the supposed paranormal can be expalined by perceptual and cognitive issues (which can be proven to exist). I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but that's exactly what it will take: evidence.


You're not the only participant in this discussion nor do all of my posts and arguments revolve around you and your responses. The above was a valid point addressed specifically to another poster and it just so happens to be one that should be taken into consideration by anyone discussing a topic like this. Quite frankly, I getting sick and tired of being wrongfully accused of the very same logical fallacies being committed by my accusers.

Okay, first off, I am not anyone else on this board. Their arguments are not mien unless I specifically claim them. I suppose I should change that from a straw man fallacy you commited to a hasty generalization. And the specific issue wasn't about dogma, it was about a point I'm going to make below.

The Newtonian model of physics was for centuries, and still is, a very well tested theory. However it was formulated upon many theoretical assumptions which turned out to be inaccurate or flatly false. It was eventually superseded by two other physical theories: General/Special Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Even so, it's still a useful tool and is applicable in limited range of problem scenarios. That is what all theories are; conceptual tools. Nothing more. Nothing less.

First, do you mean Newtonian mechanics or Newtonian Gravity? OR both? I'm going to assume Newton's 3 laws of motion and the law of gravity.

In either case, what Newton developed were Laws, not Theories. That's a point that actually works against your argument, and if you don't understand the difference between a Law and a Theory I can explain it to you.

Second, Newton's laws are highly accurate...they were not wrong so much as they were of limited scope or incomplete. Relativity simply expanded Newton's Gravity to make it applicable to a much larger domain. Likewise for newtonian mechanics. For the vast majority of things these are perfectly adequate. For almost everything that can be directly experienced they are accurate.

As to Quantum Mechanics replacing something, can you be a bit more explicit there? Because I don't see that QM has anything to do with Newton's mechanics (unelss you're simply referring to the change from a deterministic view of the universe to a less-deterministic one).

In any case, both of these still work against you. First, in none of these cases were the existing theories overturned, so much as expanded into new domains (GR extended Newton's gravity to work at high speeds and high masses, QM expanded into the micro-level..but that level came after Newton).

And yes, theories are tools based upon the combined observations of large groups who study and observe phenomena in controlled ways. On the one hand, you want to elevate first-hand experience to the level of being unquestionable, yet on the other hand you discount theories which are based on the accumilation of these first-hand expereinces. I'm having trouble seeing how your viewpoint is logically consistent.

As it so happens, the topic of contention in -this- discussion isn't so much a scientific conflict as it is a clash of metaphysical views. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that we scientifically -know- which logically precludes the reality of the of kind experiences I, and many others, have reported. What does preclude them are strongly held metaphysical/ideological assumptions masquerading as scientific fact.

Actually, there are several things we know that contradict many things. Your experience in particular could not be explained by any of the current forces, and a new force would mean that several of the physical equations we currently use (very, very successfully) are incorrect. It would also mean that the abundant evidence of consicousness arising from the brain is wrong, fundamentally. And it really depends on the specific experiences...spirits in particualr cause issues with thermodynamics, for one. It does contradict the current understanding and evidence...it's not a nmetaphysical objection no matter how much you wish to believe so. And the level of evidence required to accept these would need to be at least equal to that required to accept, to use your examples above, General relativity. Present the theory, make a quantifiable prediciton that can be tested. Has not been done to date. And spirits, and mysticism in general, has had a lot longer to do so than GR took.

As I've pointed out, there are numerous documented witness accounts and scientific studies which corroborate the kinds of experiences being discussed. The contention revolves your explicit bias towards discounting any and all accounts that to not mesh with your accepted world-view. I'm not claiming the special "privilege" of my own personal experience, but of firsthand experience in general. An individual's personal experience is not the only criteria of reality but it -is- the only definitive connection that any individual can have to it. Experience is the fundamental basis for all knowledge, all understanding, and all belief.

Show me a positive study, with good controls, that had a statistically significant sample size and that can be repeated.

There aren't any. The best of the lot in the parapsychology field rely on data-mining expeditions that show positive effects orders of magnitude below that reported byt eh everyday experience of supposed psychics and msytics. You keep talking about these positive studies...show me one. I don't reject them due to some metaphysical difference, I reject them due to a lack of sufficient rigor and a lack of evidence. To borrow a quote form you:
So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

[PixyMisa]

Slippery as a greased willy aren’t you Pixy.

At least be specific. You’re being an awfully sloppy skeptic.

Are you suggesting that everyone’s memory is unreliable and malleable?
No. I am stating that everyone's memory is unreliable and malleable.

…all memories?
…all the time?
What is that even supposed to mean?

Or are there gray areas, and what are they…specifically?
What does that mean?

Upon what definitive evidence do you base any of these conclusions?
This is universally recognised in neurology and psychology and all related sciences. Everyone knows about this. It's so well-understood that I'm surprised you'd question it at all.

Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error
And once you've got your feet wet, jump in here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases
And swim for your life.

[PixyMisa]

And when you're finished with that list, go on to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases

And you wonder why we keep asking for evidence?

[Zanders]

PM: "It's not true!"

AMM: "How do you know this?"

PM: "Because it isn't. Theres no evidence."

AMM: "But there are countless reports of such events even from scientists who've endeavored to experimentally test them."

PM: "They're all lying fools! I know this because I can consult with 'The Entirety of Science'. It is infallible and always corroborates my bald assertions"

AMM: "Um, thats quite a feat, to know what un-met strangers have experienced. Can you give us information as to your own experiences?"

PM: "Of course. My knowledge is absolute. Ask away."

AMM: "What are you feeling right now?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Erm, okaaay...You mentioned experiencing some peculiar auditory hallucinations during periods of great 'stress'. Care to share with us the contents of those hallucinations?"

PM: ".............."

AMM: "Uhm...PM, are you going to answer the questions?"

PM: "YOUR MEMORY IS FALLIBLE! YOU'RE MAKING THINGS UP!"

AMM: ".............."


Your posts are really starting to get embarrassing, bro. You keep saying the same things over and over with the same logical fallacies. We can't say all anecdotes are false for sure, but until we get evidence they have no scientific value.

Would you like address my werewolf comment? Plenty of anecdotes about them in the past.

You can't prove anything extraordinary like this with anecdotes, deal with it. Do you know how many kids claim they see monsters under their beds or in their closets? Oh wait, maybe there really are monsters and demons in their closets and under their beds.

And where are the tests the proved positive for OBEs? Where is your proof that science is trying to undermine these legitimate and well executed experiments? Like I said earlier, not all scientists are complete and total materialists, that's an assumption to explain the lack of solid scientific evidence. What do scientists have to be afraid of if you can exit your body and view stuff while unconscious? There would be quite a reward for proving that. Prove to me that there is a collective refusal to even test such things (even though it has been done and scientists are still doing it)

Why are even still posting here? All you can do is tell me that a lot of people have extraordinary experiences, and then tell me you know because so-in-so said so. What good is that? Maybe they do have these experiences, but present more than stories. You haven't presented anything more than anecdotes.

Where are the scientific studies that we are ignoring? Provide one that is actually an experiment and not an anecdote like "I was at the hospital, then my soul left and looked at the doctors. they were impressed" Or "I compiled a lot of cased and they are similar"

Stop telling us stories. I know you are just going to reply to this saying that an abundance of stories makes it true, but if you are going to come back please bring actual experimental or testable evidence. Do you know why we need that? Because these things are testable. I'm not saying they don't happen. In fact, I've read a lot about this sort of thing and find it fascinating. But I don't know how many times we can stress this, more than anecdotes are needed for stories so extraordinary, especially when it is something that could be tested easily.

Anyway...



Cool story, bro.

[PixyMisa]

And where are the tests the proved positive for OBEs? Where is your proof that science is trying to undermine these legitimate and well executed experiments? Like I said earlier, not all scientists are complete and total materialists, that's an assumption to explain the lack of solid scientific evidence. What do scientists have to be afraid of if you can exit your body and view stuff while unconscious? There would be quite a reward for proving that. Prove to me that there is a collective refusal to even test such things (even though it has been done and scientists are still doing it)
If someone were to actually establish one of these nonsensical claims as true, they'd have done humanity such a service that they'd be awarded one of each Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, and the Victoria Cross just on general principle. They'd be showered with grant money from every research organisation on the planet. They'd be treated like they were Einstein, The Beatles, Winston Churchill and a young Diana Rigg rolled into one.

And what do we have?

Nothing.

[tsig]

Until you personally investigate for yourself, scientific reports are just formalized anecdotes. Even if you are told that the findings are replicated the claim itself is "anecdotal" until you actually make the same observations firsthand.



I'm saying that even reports of scientific testing are "anecdotal" unless you participate in one yourself. You stated some pages back that you accept the findings of the scientific community on faith [albeit, not a large leap of faith] that they aren't all lying/mistaken. Why then, when there is a sizable population of people -- including scientists -- who are reporting these particular phenomena do you automatically assume that the reports are untrue or otherwise unreliable? I can't help but to conclude that your criteria for "evidence" is steeply lopsided and biased towards maintaining a strongly held world view.



Have you made the effort to personally verify them for yourself or are you simply taking their word? Do you consider it possible that the critics themselves are mistaken/dishonest? Why/why not?

Actually that's what you do in physics classes. They're called experiments.

Here's some you can do yourself.

http://physics.about.com/od/physicsexperiments/Physics_Experiments.htm

"whoosh"....

:rolleyes:

Indeed, it is. Let me know when you recognize mine :p

Your point seemed to be "the claim itself is "anecdotal" until you actually make the same observations firsthand" I pointed out that in physics class the students do make the observations first hand.

Further all science is built on replication so that anyone can replicate any result so no one has to accept any anecdotes.

If there is some other point flying around then please explicate it.

[tsig]

If someone were to actually establish one of these nonsensical claims as true, they'd have done humanity such a service that they'd be awarded one of each Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, and the Victoria Cross just on general principle. They'd be showered with grant money from every research organisation on the planet. They'd be treated like they were Einstein, The Beatles, Winston Churchill and a young Diana Rigg rolled into one.

And what do we have?

Nothing.

That's a bit unfair, we do have a lot of nice campfire stories. I always like the song better.:D

[Zanders]

If someone were to actually establish one of these nonsensical claims as true, they'd have done humanity such a service that they'd be awarded one of each Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, and the Victoria Cross just on general principle. They'd be showered with grant money from every research organisation on the planet. They'd be treated like they were Einstein, The Beatles, Winston Churchill and a young Diana Rigg rolled into one.

And what do we have?

Nothing.

That is why I said there would have to be some sort of conspiracy to undermine it for nefarious reasons.

[Zanders]

Ahh

Now I know what I would need to attempt the million dollar challenge.

Another dream,

The night before 9/11, I had two dreams where I was in my local airport Heathrow in London.
For some reason I was intensely interested in watching the planes landing and taking off. Both dreams where the same, I very rarely have consecutive dreams the same.

One of the planes a Jumbo Jet came towards me too low. I was somehow fixed on watching this plane, it was getting lower and lower, I was terrified.
The dream became very intense and resulted in a feeling of claustraphobia like in the Kobe dream. I felt I could not escape the crash, when suddenly I was safe it had passed. But continued to to get closer to the ground, I could hear a frightening grinding sound as the pilot was straining at the controls to pull up from the ground. I woke up shaken, with a strange feeling like just after having a close call in a motor accident.

It stayed with me most of the morning and I was continually drawn back to the image of that plane almost scraping the ground.

A few hours later I heard the dreadful events of 9/11 unfolding live on the radio.

I have not before or since had such an intense dream about airplanes.


Did you notice that your dream didn't have a plane being flown in to the World Trade Center? Actually, it didn't even have a plane crashing in to a building.

What purpose do you think this very loosely related dream would have other than being an odd coincidence?

[Robin]

I have about as much reason to doubt my recollection of the event in question as I would to doubt my memory of what I wore just yesterday -- perhaps even less so, especially considering the extraordinary and emotionally impactful nature of the latter.
You sound as though you expect an inaccurate memory to be different somehow from an accurate memory.

[The Norseman]

You sound as though you expect an inaccurate memory to be different somehow from an accurate memory.


I follow most of these similar-threads and have read stuff about memory reliability and so on, but this is the first time that that thought occurred to me.

How would one know that a memory is not accurate? Probably by comparing it to similar memories or stories or, you know, seeking evidence that the memory is accurate.

[Robin]

Can anybody cite a study that gives any evidence at all that NDE's are anything more than dreams or hallucinations that occur either just before the brain death or just after?

Can anybody cite a study that gives any evidence that these experiences include any information that the patient could not have had before the onset of unconsciousness?

[Lord Emsworth]

In my dream ...
This was such a striking dream that I told numerous people about it.

...

Now I haven't tried to explain what happened, I let the facts speak for themselves.

Another dream,

...

It stayed with me most of the morning and I was continually drawn back ...

I have not before or since had such ...

And I often can not tell whether I've had a dream last night, or several months ago. I can't tell if I remember correctly, if I am conflating several dreams, or if whatever.

And that is just at the moment when I "remember" the dream ... God only knows how accurate a memory of a moment when I "remembered" a dream is. ;)

[Pure Argent]

I follow most of these similar-threads and have read stuff about memory reliability and so on, but this is the first time that that thought occurred to me.

How would one know that a memory is not accurate? Probably by comparing it to similar memories or stories or, you know, seeking evidence that the memory is accurate.

Exactly.

You can't know if your memory is accurate simply by examining the memory. You have to compare it to other things. You have to support it with other evidence.

[dafydd]

What all this has to do with this imaginary chaos magic escapes me.

[punshhh]

Pixy
Quote;

"So, we have another dream that doesn't match the events in any way.

What's your point here?"


Just a random coincidence, (not even that I guess).

There can be no possible point then.

[Zanders]

Pixy
Quote;

"So, we have another dream that doesn't match the events in any way.

What's your point here?"


Just a random coincidence, (not even that I guess).

There can be no possible point then.


It can be considered a coincidence, but statistically it really doesn't strike me as anything that impressive. It certainly is an interesting story, but I wouldn't take it to mean anything more.

You might find PixyMisa's posts a little rude, but I hope you understand what him and I are getting at with our responses.

[punshhh]

It can be considered a coincidence, but statistically it really doesn't strike me as anything that impressive. It certainly is an interesting story, but I wouldn't take it to mean anything more.

You might find PixyMisa's posts a little rude, but I hope you understand what him and I are getting at with our responses.

Thanks, I can understand how Pixy has hardened his position as a result of all the 'heated discussion' which has gone on in this thread.

My point is it may be hindering any exploration of what the OP is about.

The OP is asking 'Skeptics' to withhold their disbelief in order to explore some ideas related to altered states of consciousness etc.
The presumption being that such experiences should be allowed a little breathing space rather than being shot down like a turkey shoot.

I would like to discuss such experiences.

[punshhh]

If someone were to actually establish one of these nonsensical claims as true, they'd have done humanity such a service that they'd be awarded one of each Nobel Prize, the Fields Medal, and the Victoria Cross just on general principle. They'd be showered with grant money from every research organisation on the planet. They'd be treated like they were Einstein, The Beatles, Winston Churchill and a young Diana Rigg rolled into one.

And what do we have?

Nothing.

Have you ever read 'Madam Blavatsky's baboon'? an excellent real life account of a Turkey shoot.

[Filippo Lippi]

Thanks, I can understand how Pixy has hardened his position as a result of all the 'heated discussion' which has gone on in this thread.

My point is it may be hindering any exploration of what the OP is about.

The OP is asking 'Skeptics' to withhold their disbelief in order to explore some ideas related to altered states of consciousness etc.
The presumption being that such experiences should be allowed a little breathing space rather than being shot down like a turkey shoot.

I would like to discuss such experiences.

The experiences were discussed, evidence was asked for, sulking ensued.

There hundreds, perhaps thousands of fora across the internet where you will be able to trot out anecdotes and not be challenged over the conclusions that you draw from them. This isn't one of them.

[tsig]

The experiences were discussed, evidence was asked for, sulking ensued.

There hundreds, perhaps thousands of fora across the internet where you will be able to trot out anecdotes and not be challenged over the conclusions that you draw from them. This isn't one of them.

One side effect of the mystical/god/spiritual experience is that it makes one incapable of writing a simple declarative sentence.:)

[punshhh]

The experiences were discussed, evidence was asked for, sulking ensued.

There hundreds, perhaps thousands of fora across the internet where you will be able to trot out anecdotes and not be challenged over the conclusions that you draw from them. This isn't one of them.

Fair point about this forum. However my point was, is this thread not asking us to suspend disbelief for a moment?
I don't draw any conclusions from my experiences. However I can tell sometimes when there is something happening which I cannot fully explain through my understanding of science and common sense.

My opinion is that the paranormal is that which has not yet been explored and demonstrated scientifically.Magic and even God likewise.

Have we reached the plateau of scientific discovery, where all things can now be explained and 'hocus pocus' can be exposed for the delusion it is?

The tooth fairy and big foot can now be consigned to the Hageographies?

Even the big bang, just a blip?

[Hellbound]

Fair point about this forum. However my point was, is this thread not asking us to suspend disbelief for a moment?

Actually, no. The OP suggested that unless we had an experience ourselves, we should basically STFU because we had no basis to form an opinion or make a decision.

I don't draw any conclusions from my experiences. However I can tell sometimes when there is something happening which I cannot fully explain through my understanding of science and common sense.

I can believe this. But the leap from "I can't explain it" to "It's unexplainable" is a logical fallacy known as an Argument from Ignorance. It's even worse form is the leap from "I can't expalin it" to "God/Aliens/Spirits did it".

My opinion is that the paranormal is that which has not yet been explored and demonstrated scientifically.Magic and even God likewise.

That excludes quite a bit, though. Most of us aren't talking about things that haven't been explored, but things that have been explored since the beginnings of scientific investigation and are still found lacking. There is a "bias" against accepting paranormal, and that's because of the long history of negative resutls in paranormal research (not to mention numerous cases of known fraud and hoaxing).

Have we reached the plateau of scientific discovery, where all things can now be explained and 'hocus pocus' can be exposed for the delusion it is?

No, but we have reached a point where there are some things we know cannot be true, if the universe operates according to understandable rules. Because if they were, the other things we know to be true (to a high degree of confidence) would be wrong.

The tooth fairy and big foot can now be consigned to the Hageographies?

What? If you mean can be be fairly certain these are myths, then yes. With a very high degree of confidence.

Even the big bang, just a blip?

No idea what you mean by this. If you're asking what caused it, the only rational answer that anyone can make at this time is "we don't know". The difference (and not just with our origins, but in general) is that science can accept that answer, and keep looking into to see if we can learn more. Religion (and the paranormal explnations in general) simply declare "<Insert favorite diety/creature/ghost here> did it!" and stifles further investigation into the actuality.

[PixyMisa]

Thanks, I can understand how Pixy has hardened his position as a result of all the 'heated discussion' which has gone on in this thread.
Check my join date and post count. I haven't hardened my position at all. If've been waiting for evidence here for eight years, and I've requested it several thousand times.

So far.... Nothing.

My point is it may be hindering any exploration of what the OP is about.
My point is that no.

We are exploring what the OP is about, by asking for (a) a clear and coherent statement of fact, and (b) evidence. Neither one has been forthcoming.

The OP is asking 'Skeptics' to withhold their disbelief in order to explore some ideas related to altered states of consciousness etc.
In other words, he can't convince anyone who actually thinks about what he's proposing, so he wants people to stop thinking.

No. Thanks, but no.

The presumption being that such experiences should be allowed a little breathing space rather than being shot down like a turkey shoot.
Why? They're turkeys; let's shoot them.

I would like to discuss such experiences.
Sure.

Take your two dreams for example. It's entirely possible that you had dreams like that on those occasions. One of the things that's striking and makes your account plausible is that the dreams don't match the later events very well at all.

The Heathrow dream would be a better fit for the Flight 125 incident, where a 747 (hit!) had to make an emergency landing (hit!) at Heathrow (major hit!) after cabin pressure failed.

Except that happened in 1987.

[PixyMisa]

Fair point about this forum. However my point was, is this thread not asking us to suspend disbelief for a moment?
It's actually asking us to suspend critical thinking.

What we've replied is that once evidence has been presented and evaluated, if it is convincing, we will (tentatively) believe the claim.

I don't draw any conclusions from my experiences. However I can tell sometimes when there is something happening which I cannot fully explain through my understanding of science and common sense.
Well, sure. Our answer to that is to study the phenomenon in more detail, rather than to assert that because we don't understand it immediately, it requires some huge scientific paradigm change.

My opinion is that the paranormal is that which has not yet been explored and demonstrated scientifically.Magic and even God likewise.
It's been explored; it just hasn't been demonstrated. We conclude, therefore, that - pending contradictory evidence - it doesn't exist.

That's why we always ask for evidence.

The research has been done; the evidence is in; there's nothing there.

But, if new evidence came in that contradicted all the old evidence, if this new evidence could be confirmed and replicated, then the old evidence would be wrong (or at least incomplete).

That's why we always ask for evidence.

But we never get any.

Have we reached the plateau of scientific discovery, where all things can now be explained and 'hocus pocus' can be exposed for the delusion it is?
Well, certainly hocus pocus can be exposed for the delusion it is. That was true a century ago as well.

Even the big bang, just a blip?
All the galaxies in the Universe are flying apart from one another. Trace that motion backwards in time, and 13.6 billion years ago they were all scrunched up in the same place. The Big Bang happened. What caused it, or even if it had a cause, is another question.

[AkuManiMani]

You know, most of this comes down to you insisiting that there are positive studies that we are ignoring.

I'm not aware of any positive studies that were done with good controls, that adequately removed the possibility of more mundane options. And none that were replicated.

I don't discount these because they "clash with my worldview", per se. I discount these because of past history: there are no definitive studies done. The OBE and NDE accounts are a perfect example, there is very weak evidence for these events, usually after-the-fact, without controls. No way to verify that the data supposedly gained in the OBE was actually gained during the time that a person was clinically dead, none (that I am aware of) where brain activity was known to be stopped, in short none that rule out other explanations.

That history is what must be overcome. Thathistory forms my worldview. I don't discount the possibility, but I do expect a high level of evidence...because it has to be higher than the evidence against.

I'm going to address a few specific points, because again you are placing words in my mouth and missing the obvious. But I believe it would be best to limit the discussion to a single class/category of paranormals experiences, so that specific studies and evidence can be examined. If you're game, why not point us to a study you think offers good support fo OBE/NDE?

Fair enough. Lets start with the links I provided in my reply (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6809902#post6809902) to Pure Argent.

So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

No, I don't, therefore I don't beleive you hacve them. All knowledge is first-hand, and since I have no first-hand experience of your motivations and intentions, I don't believe you have any. I'm simply applying your own logic...because my own experience is the only knowledge.

Actually, the above statement demonstrates that you either A) do not understand my actual argument or B) you're deliberately straw-maning as, once again, you're confusing belief with experiential knowledge. You have direct access to your motivations and intentions. Your direct knowledge of your internal subjective states epistemologically trumps a third party's beliefs concerning them --unless they somehow have a direct mental link to your consciousness. Of course, you could be lying about your actual motivations but, without direct access, an external third party can only make inferences and decide whether to invest a certain degree of faith in them; the third' party's relation to said knowledge is one of inherent uncertainty.

In the same vein, I directly experience my intentions and motivations -- I know them with complete certainty. This direct knowledge allows me to know that your earlier accusation of dishonesty was completely false, as well as unfounded. Being as how I directly -know- what my intentions were, and you responded to a strait-forward request for more relevant examples with charges of dishonesty, I'm inclined to suspect that you're projecting.

[BTW, I tested out your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6809255&postcount=1316) that your earlier color/font mishap was an artifact of "transferring" text from Word. I conducted an experiment of my own which produced negative results. Should I conclude that you're full of it?]

Just to be clear, what do you mean when you speak of "coherent spiritual energy"?

The typical idea of a non-corporeal intelligence that survives a physical body, or exists independent of any detectable physical structure.

In principle, such an entity should not be undetectable by physical structures, as it must be able to operate in tandem with the physical structures we refer to as organic bodies. If they exist they have physical consequences and are thus congruent with known physics, even if they are not, as of yet, included in current physical models.

My understanding is limited but not yours is not?

First, this is another perfect example of you creating a straw man. Not what I said, stated, or implied.

I did, however, state, imply, and intend to convey the idea that my understanding is not as limited, because I understand what that article was stating as to actual possibilities, and it does not support, even remotely, the idea of telepathy being a possibility. That you would post it as a possibility simply tells me you did a quick search for something that, at a first glance, might give one pause, but either did not bother to actually read it or did not understand it.

Actually, I specifically searched for a short wiki article on the subject as I'd already read much about that specific topic, non-locality, and entanglement phenomena in general. The point was to demonstrate that, even within the confines of known physical theory, non-local distal influence akin to telepathy is considered possible. Its a bit silly and disparaging for you to automatically assume that disagreement with you on this topic implies incomprehension.

The special pleading comes in when fallibility of personal experience is invoked as the only possibility when it is at odds with theoretical expectation. Such criteria put theory ahead of empirical observation in the assessment of truth which is inherently inimical to the epistemology of the scientific method. If a subject reports seeing red when the theoretical expectation is that they should be seeing purple then it is the theory that requires the greater measure of critical scrutiny. The same applies if multiple subjects report the same class of experiences which happen to be at odds with certain theoretical expectations -- especially when those experiences have corroborating details and commonalities.

And here is where you simply run off the rails entirely.

Correction: Here is where you, once again, completely miss the point of my argument and, once again, chalk it up to a failing on my part...

The theory is supported by an enormous amount of obersvational evidence. If 9,475 people are shown a box and asked what color it is, and 9,450 claim "It's red", 25 claim "it's green". First, what color is the box? We know that red-green color blindness exists. We can objectively measure the precise wavelengths of light reflected form the box. We can establish, very soundly, the theory that the box is red.

Now, if another person comes along and says "Hey, that's a nice green box there", you are stating that it would be unscientific to then say "No, the box is red. Sorry, but you're wrong." Of course, in this situation no one else can look at the box, so a better analogy is someone statign they looked at the box before it was destroyed, and the box was green. The data does not support that. They may well have seen it as green...but there's no reason to believe it was green. And the observer themselves, if they are actually being skeptical, should consider the possibility that they are mistaken somehow.

Okay, consider this:

I personally know a synesthete who experiences sounds visually. In his awareness, each human voice is a dynamic and unique array of shapes and colors. One person's voice is experienced as warm, pulsating orange ovals, another as purple circles, and mine he experiences as "red spinnie squares". There are many other synesthetes who have different subjective experiences of the world which can vary widely, yet they receive veridical information from their senses none the less -- some of which, their "normal" peers may not have access to.

Do you consider the senses of synesthetes faulty? If so, would you submit that they are not qualified to make valid scientific observations? If a given synesthete [with his/her own unique subjective makeup] has a perception that differs from what a well established scientific theory predicts they should is their perception "false", or is it indicative of a limitation in the theory?

This ties into a much broader point: The current paucity of scientific understanding with regard to consciousness and the subjective in general.

Do you consider it impossible that even a small portion of documented positive cases/studies are true and accurate? If thats the case then your assessment is not honest.

IMpossible? NOt to a 100% level, no. However I consider it very highly unlikely, to the point that I treat it as an impossibility in my day-to-day decisions. In other words, I don't design computer security with a thought to preventing clairvoyant spying, or OBE snoops. I don't try to use ESP to see where I'm driving when in a car. I don't waste money for a psychic to tell me what to expect in the future. And even in general, I regard it as unproven and false, as I've yet to see evidence otherwise.

And how can you claim that is not honest? After all, aren't you the one saying that first-hand experience is our only knowledge?

And with that in mind, any conclusions you draw concerning things beyond your direct experiential knowledge [even if they're drawn from a source you trust] is based upon faith. This includes your beliefs concerning the possibility of OBEs or ESP.

I've yet to see any well-controlled studies to support most of these notions. I've seen a lot more studies that show no effect, and even more studies that show how much of the supposed paranormal can be expalined by perceptual and cognitive issues (which can be proven to exist). I'm open to evidence to the contrary, but that's exactly what it will take: evidence.

Hold the phone. On what basis are you designating which studies were "well controlled"? Is this based upon reports you've received concerning the studies in question or did you actually participate in them yourself? How do you know that your conclusion isn't an artifact of your admitted bias?

You're not the only participant in this discussion nor do all of my posts and arguments revolve around you and your responses. The above was a valid point addressed specifically to another poster and it just so happens to be one that should be taken into consideration by anyone discussing a topic like this. Quite frankly, I getting sick and tired of being wrongfully accused of the very same logical fallacies being committed by my accusers.

Okay, first off, I am not anyone else on this board. Their arguments are not mien unless I specifically claim them. I suppose I should change that from a straw man fallacy you commited to a hasty generalization. And the specific issue wasn't about dogma, it was about a point I'm going to make below.

You interjected in a point you knew I was making to another individual and requested that I elaborate on it. When I did so you claimed that the point it was addressing wasn't your argument and accused me of making a straw-man. I'm seeing a trend here...

The Newtonian model of physics was for centuries, and still is, a very well tested theory. However it was formulated upon many theoretical assumptions which turned out to be inaccurate or flatly false. It was eventually superseded by two other physical theories: General/Special Relativity, and Quantum Mechanics. Even so, it's still a useful tool and is applicable in limited range of problem scenarios. That is what all theories are; conceptual tools. Nothing more. Nothing less.

First, do you mean Newtonian mechanics or Newtonian Gravity? OR both? I'm going to assume Newton's 3 laws of motion and the law of gravity.

In either case, what Newton developed were Laws, not Theories. That's a point that actually works against your argument, and if you don't understand the difference between a Law and a Theory I can explain it to you.

Second, Newton's laws are highly accurate...they were not wrong so much as they were of limited scope or incomplete. Relativity simply expanded Newton's Gravity to make it applicable to a much larger domain. Likewise for newtonian mechanics. For the vast majority of things these are perfectly adequate. For almost everything that can be directly experienced they are accurate.

Okay, this is genuinely getting sad -- you're actually trying to make a weasel argument by technicality. Are you really trying to argue that Issac Newton [as in the father of classical physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics)] didn't formulate any physical theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation) -- none whatsoever?

"Well you see, Newton only formulated physical laws. I specifically asked you for a well established theory that had been over turned in science."

What was that you were saying earlier about dishonesty, Hellbound? :sulk:

As to Quantum Mechanics replacing something, can you be a bit more explicit there? Because I don't see that QM has anything to do with Newton's mechanics (unelss you're simply referring to the change from a deterministic view of the universe to a less-deterministic one).

I specifically stated that the two modern physical theories superseded Newton's, ya fork-tongued sophist :mad:

In any case, both of these still work against you.

Imagine that...

First, in none of these cases were the existing theories overturned, so much as expanded into new domains (GR extended Newton's gravity to work at high speeds and high masses, QM expanded into the micro-level..but that level came after Newton).

Couldja tap dance a little more...? :rolleyes:

And yes, theories are tools based upon the combined observations of large groups who study and observe phenomena in controlled ways. On the one hand, you want to elevate first-hand experience to the level of being unquestionable, yet on the other hand you discount theories which are based on the accumilation of these first-hand expereinces. I'm having trouble seeing how your viewpoint is logically consistent.

Ding-ding-ding! I think hes got it! Yes, theories are conceptual tools that are inferred from firsthand observations. Your inability to see how this logically ties into my point is... [how shall I put this?] ...not my failure.

As it so happens, the topic of contention in [I]-this- discussion isn't so much a scientific conflict as it is a clash of metaphysical views. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing that we scientifically -know- which logically precludes the reality of the of kind experiences I, and many others, have reported. What does preclude them are strongly held metaphysical/ideological assumptions masquerading as scientific fact.

Actually, there are several things we know that contradict many things. Your experience in particular could not be explained by any of the current forces, and a new force would mean that several of the physical equations we currently use (very, very successfully) are incorrect. It would also mean that the abundant evidence of consicousness arising from the brain is wrong, fundamentally.

Oh, heavens forbid such a thing! Tell me, would you consider the wildly successful Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) of particle physics to be an infallible and complete model of reality? Would introducing entities not included in said model [like say -- I don't know -- maybe financial instruments, or pain] require "extraordinary" evidence? Even better -- Lets expand that little example to include all scientific models, theories, and principles. Would entities existing outside of said models render all of them null and void? Would science as a whole be invalidated? :rolleyes:

[BTW, what was that you were saying earlier about me making you look stupid? If you ask me you're doing that just fine on your own...]

And it really depends on the specific experiences...spirits in particualr cause issues with thermodynamics, for one. It does contradict the current understanding and evidence...it's not a nmetaphysical objection no matter how much you wish to believe so. And the level of evidence required to accept these would need to be at least equal to that required to accept, to use your examples above, General relativity. Present the theory, make a quantifiable prediciton that can be tested. Has not been done to date. And spirits, and mysticism in general, has had a lot longer to do so than GR took.

HB: "Formulate a theory I'm willing to accept or its not real."

AMM: "Roger, that."

As I've pointed out, there are numerous documented witness accounts and scientific studies which corroborate the kinds of experiences being discussed. The contention revolves your explicit bias towards discounting any and all accounts that to not mesh with your accepted world-view. I'm not claiming the special "privilege" of my own personal experience, but of firsthand experience in general. An individual's personal experience is not the only criteria of reality but it -is- the only definitive connection that any individual can have to it. Experience is the fundamental basis for all knowledge, all understanding, and all belief.

Show me a positive study, with good controls, that had a statistically significant sample size and that can be repeated.

Okay, I'll get right on it...

There aren't any.

...Oh-ho! You really had me going there. I almost thought you were open to honest investigation. Had me fooled for a sec ;)

The best of the lot in the parapsychology field rely on data-mining expeditions that show positive effects orders of magnitude below that reported byt eh everyday experience of supposed psychics and msytics. You keep talking about these positive studies...show me one. I don't reject them due to some metaphysical difference, I reject them due to a lack of sufficient rigor and a lack of evidence. To borrow a quote form you:
So you directly experience my motivations and intentions? Fascinating.

Yea, yea. I get it, I get it. You have all the answers and there is absolutely no evidence for me to present to the contrary because you just KNOW there isn't any. I'll leave ya to it then.

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'm saying that the most compelling evidence a person can have of such experiences is to undergo them themselves.


And I would disagree with that statement. Many may find it compelling, but it would certainly not be the most compelling evidence a person can have. Much more compelling evidence would be independent confirmation that the experience represents something in the real world. We have had too many experiences with subjective experiences that do not correlate with real world occurrences for the experience itself to count as anything but a subjective experience.



Independent corroboration of information with other parties is part of what makes such phenomena so extraordinary to begin with. The only persons for whom the truth/accuracy of such reports is seriously doubtful would be uninvolved third parties.




Independent corroboration is what makes the evidence of subjective experiences useful. Without independent corroboration, all we have are anecdotes; and subjective experiences -- anecdotes -- are not sufficient to promote a paradigm shift. It is that simple.

You can say -- hey, this is interesting, let's examine it. But that is as far as anyone should take such experiences. Suggesting the need for a major change in thought -- barring any independent corroboration -- is not warranted.

[Hellbound]

[BTW, I tested out your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6809255&postcount=1316) that your earlier color/font mishap was an artifact of "transferring" text from Word. I conducted an experiment of my own which produced negative results. Should I conclude that you're full of it?]

You can conclude whatever you want. I have no idea whay it appeared different to you. It looks normal on my browser. The transferrence was the only thing I did differently in that post...if that wasn't the case, then I have no idea.

Actually, I specifically seached for a short wiki article on the subject as I'd already read much about that specific topic, non-locality, and entanglement phenomena in general. The point was to demonstrate that, even within the confines of known physical theory, non-local distal influence akin to telepathy is considered possible. Its a bit silly and disparaging for you to automatically assume that disagreement with you on this topic implies incomprehension.

But it is NOT silly to understand that believing entanglement is a possibility to expalin telepathy on a macro-level is non-sensical and shows a lack of understanding of what entanglement is, or how difficult it is to create and/or maintain. Let's put it this way: while not technically impossible for two individuals to be entangled to some degree that allows communication, the odds of this happening are similar to the odds of a person quantum tunneling through a solid wall. You'd have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for a single instance to occur.

Okay, consider this:

I personally know a synesthete who experiences sounds visually. In his awareness, each human voice is a dynamic and unique array of shapes and colors. One person's voice is experienced as warm, pulsating orange ovals, another as purple circles, and mine he experiences as "red spinnie squares". There are many other synesthetes who have different subjective experiences of the world which can vary widely, yet they receive veridical information from their senses none the less -- some of which, their "normal" peers may not have access to.

Do you consider the senses of synesthetes faulty?

Yes. They are mis-routings of sense data. Sounds do NOT have color. If they tell me my voice is green, that is not correct. I would agree that they experience it as green, based on their say-so (we know synesthasia exists, and "seeing" sounds is not an unusual form).
If so, would you submit that they are not qualified to make valid scientific observations?

No, but I would say that their observations are only valid by understanding the limitations of their senses. Because they see a voice as a purple oval doesn't give the voice a shape or color. Personal perception is only valid to the individual.

If a given synesthete [with his/her own unique subjective makeup] has a perception that differs from what a well established scientific theory predicts they should is their perception "false", or is it indicative of a limitation in the theory?

It's an indication that their perception is altered. It would depend on the specific example. If a person detects bass notes as green, for example, then when they "see" a "green" sound I'd believe it was a bass note. I would not believe there was actually a green sound. And this is exactly the point we've been attempting to make. You're simply brushing aside the documented and solid evidence of the falliability of memory as if it doesn't apply. In any case, even by your own argument, your evidence only applies to you, andwe should not, in any way shape or form, accept it based on your word (as you stated, we have no direct experience of your consciousness).

Hold the phone. On what basis are you designating which studies were "well controlled"? Is this based upon reports you've received concerning the studies in question or did you actually participate in them yourself? How do you know that your conclusion isn't an artifact of your admitted bias?

Because scientific studies detail the experimental controls used and the methodology. You can examine this to find where opportunities for problems appeared. In various stories (as opposed to controlled conditions) and such, there simply isn't enough information available to know if there was no chance for non-paranormal inforation exchange or other possibilities. I'm not saying they are all false. I'm saying the studies have yet to provide positive proof and eliminate all non-paranormal explanations, and therefore can't be accepted as evidence of the paranormal. Disbelief is the default position; it's not on us to disprove the paranormal or experiences like yours (whether you want to call it paranormal or not). There should be positive evidence for it...yet that hasn't appeared.

You interjected in a point you knew I was making to another individual and requested that I elaborate on it. When I did so you claimed that the point it was addressing wasn't your argument and accused me of making a straw-man. I'm seeing a trend here...

I'll review and see if this is the case, and if so, I apologize. With days between posts and the speed of the thread, I do lose track.

Okay, this is genuinely getting sad -- you're actually trying to make a weasel argument by technicality. Are you really trying to argue that Issac Newton [as in the father of classical physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics)] didn't formulate any physical theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation), none whatsoever?

I'm saying that, as far as I am aware, Newton had no Theory of Gravity (using theory in the scientific sense). Wiki is, well, wrong. What Newton had was a Law of Gravity. And understanding the difference between teh two will tell you why it does not support your arguments.

"Well you see, Newton only formulated physical laws. I specifically asked you for a well established theory that had been over turned in science."

What was that you were saying earlier about dishonesty, Hellbound? :sulk:

And Newton wasn't overturned, just found not to be complete. In other words, GR did NOT suddenly invalidate the results of Newton's laws, except in the case of high speeds or large masses.

Ding-ding-ding! I think hes got it! Yes, theories are conceptual tools that are inferred from firsthand observations. Your inability to see how this logically ties into my point is... [how shall I put this?] ...not my failure.

Well, this is actually going pretty well for me. Your claim is that, essentially, personal observation is the ultimate authority for that individual. That if you personally experience something then that trumps whatever theories or studies are out there.

In science a theory is a description of and explanation for phenomena. It gives both a way to model an interaction and an explanation for how that occurs. GR, for example, explains gravitational force as a curvature of space and time, and makes specifc predictions based on this (such as gravitational lensing).

In science a Law (such as Newton's Gravity or his Laws of Motion) is a description of phenomena based on observation. It simply states "if you do this, that will happen".

Newton never offerred a theory of gravity. Newton's Law of Gravity, which you have said was found to be wrong, was based on his personal, direct experience. It's a good example to show why an individual's experience, even your own, is not to be taken as truth if it can't be examined.

Oh, heavens forbid such a thing! Tell me, would you considered the widly successful Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) of particle physics as an infallible and complete model of reality?

No, we know it isn't complete. Science tells us that.

Would introducing entities not included in said model [like say -- I don't know -- maybe financial instruments, or pain] require "extraordinary" evidence?

It depends on iof they contradict what's already there and known to be true. There ARE known limitations to what can be added to the Standard Model, and for it to still give us the correct results that it does.

Even better -- Lets expand that little example to include all scientific models, theories, and principles. Would entities existing outside of said models render all of them null and void? Would science as a whole be invalidated? :rolleyes:

If the current theories predict that nothing should be there, and having something there would change the results calculated using those theories, the results that have been experimentally verified, then yes.

HB: "Formulate a theory I'm willing to accept or its not real."

AMM: "Roger, that."

How about just formulate a theory? So far, that hasn't been done to any meaningful degree in paranormal research. But that isn't precisely what my comemnt stated. To have a theory accepted, it should have more evidence for it than the theory (or theories) it will be invalidating.

...Oh-ho! You really had me going there. I almost thought you were open to honest investigation. Had me fooled for a sec ;)

I am open to honest investigation. There are no studies that I am aware of that meat the criteria I listed. That was a challenge to you to put your money where your mouth is. The studies you posted to Pure Argent, which you mentioned earlier, have already been adddressed by him. These are simply retellings, collections of stories, and there were no controls in place to eliminate more normal explanations.

Yea, yea. I get it, I get it. You have all the answers and there is absolutely no evidence for me to present to the contrary because you just KNOW there isn't any. I'll leave ya to it then.

Where did I say anythign remotely like what you are implying? I've mentioned several times that there are none I'm aware of. You've yet to present any, I've yet to be made aware of any. I know I don't have all the answers, which is why I am so passionate about science. I believ it to be the best way to find the answers without getting dragged into a bunch of nonsense. It's not perfect, I think everyone here will admit that, but so far we've found nothing better.

How about this; instead of details, let's focus on something that might actually get somewhere, and clarify arguments on both sides (because I stil fail to see how solipsism is not the logical end-point of your views, as expressed here).

You calim that science needs to include the subjective. What specific changes should be made to do this? What do you mean by this? What should be accepted as evidence (and evidence for what) under your method as opposed to what is done now? You've spent a lot of time arguing about how scienc is missing out on something, yet then seem to change your argument to scientists being biased and ignoring proof that is already there. Can you calrify this a bit? Are you arguing that scientists are biased, or that the method needs to be changed?

[tsig]

You can conclude whatever you want. I have no idea whay it appeared different to you. It looks normal on my browser. The transferrence was the only thing I did differently in that post...if that wasn't the case, then I have no idea.



But it is NOT silly to understand that believing entanglement is a possibility to expalin telepathy on a macro-level is non-sensical and shows a lack of understanding of what entanglement is, or how difficult it is to create and/or maintain. Let's put it this way: while not technically impossible for two individuals to be entangled to some degree that allows communication, the odds of this happening are similar to the odds of a person quantum tunneling through a solid wall. You'd have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for a single instance to occur.



Yes. They are mis-routings of sense data. Sounds do NOT have color. If they tell me my voice is green, that is not correct. I would agree that they experience it as green, based on their say-so (we know synesthasia exists, and "seeing" sounds is not an unusual form).


No, but I would say that their observations are only valid by understanding the limitations of their senses. Because they see a voice as a purple oval doesn't give the voice a shape or color. Personal perception is only valid to the individual.



It's an indication that their perception is altered. It would depend on the specific example. If a person detects bass notes as green, for example, then when they "see" a "green" sound I'd believe it was a bass note. I would not believe there was actually a green sound. And this is exactly the point we've been attempting to make. You're simply brushing aside the documented and solid evidence of the falliability of memory as if it doesn't apply. In any case, even by your own argument, your evidence only applies to you, andwe should not, in any way shape or form, accept it based on your word (as you stated, we have no direct experience of your consciousness).



Because scientific studies detail the experimental controls used and the methodology. You can examine this to find where opportunities for problems appeared. In various stories (as opposed to controlled conditions) and such, there simply isn't enough information available to know if there was no chance for non-paranormal inforation exchange or other possibilities. I'm not saying they are all false. I'm saying the studies have yet to provide positive proof and eliminate all non-paranormal explanations, and therefore can't be accepted as evidence of the paranormal. Disbelief is the default position; it's not on us to disprove the paranormal or experiences like yours (whether you want to call it paranormal or not). There should be positive evidence for it...yet that hasn't appeared.



I'll review and see if this is the case, and if so, I apologize. With days between posts and the speed of the thread, I do lose track.



I'm saying that, as far as I am aware, Newton had no Theory of Gravity (using theory in the scientific sense). Wiki is, well, wrong. What Newton had was a Law of Gravity. And understanding the difference between teh two will tell you why it does not support your arguments.



And Newton wasn't overturned, just found not to be complete. In other words, GR did NOT suddenly invalidate the results of Newton's laws, [I]except in the case of high speeds or large masses.



Well, this is actually going pretty well for me. Your claim is that, essentially, personal observation is the ultimate authority for that individual. That if you personally experience something then that trumps whatever theories or studies are out there.

In science a theory is a description of and explanation for phenomena. It gives both a way to model an interaction and an explanation for how that occurs. GR, for example, explains gravitational force as a curvature of space and time, and makes specifc predictions based on this (such as gravitational lensing).

In science a Law (such as Newton's Gravity or his Laws of Motion) is a description of phenomena based on observation. It simply states "if you do this, that will happen".

Newton never offerred a theory of gravity. Newton's Law of Gravity, which you have said was found to be wrong, was based on his personal, direct experience. It's a good example to show why an individual's experience, even your own, is not to be taken as truth if it can't be examined.



No, we know it isn't complete. Science tells us that.



It depends on iof they contradict what's already there and known to be true. There ARE known limitations to what can be added to the Standard Model, and for it to still give us the correct results that it does.



If the current theories predict that nothing should be there, and having something there would change the results calculated using those theories, the results that have been experimentally verified, then yes.



How about just formulate a theory? So far, that hasn't been done to any meaningful degree in paranormal research. But that isn't precisely what my comemnt stated. To have a theory accepted, it should have more evidence for it than the theory (or theories) it will be invalidating.



I am open to honest investigation. There are no studies that I am aware of that meat the criteria I listed. That was a challenge to you to put your money where your mouth is. The studies you posted to Pure Argent, which you mentioned earlier, have already been adddressed by him. These are simply retellings, collections of stories, and there were no controls in place to eliminate more normal explanations.



Where did I say anythign remotely like what you are implying? I've mentioned several times that there are none I'm aware of. You've yet to present any, I've yet to be made aware of any. I know I don't have all the answers, which is why I am so passionate about science. I believ it to be the best way to find the answers without getting dragged into a bunch of nonsense. It's not perfect, I think everyone here will admit that, but so far we've found nothing better.

How about this; instead of details, let's focus on something that might actually get somewhere, and clarify arguments on both sides (because I stil fail to see how solipsism is not the logical end-point of your views, as expressed here).

You calim that science needs to include the subjective. What specific changes should be made to do this? What do you mean by this? What should be accepted as evidence (and evidence for what) under your method as opposed to what is done now? You've spent a lot of time arguing about how scienc is missing out on something, yet then seem to change your argument to scientists being biased and ignoring proof that is already there. Can you calrify this a bit? Are you arguing that scientists are biased, or that the method needs to be changed?

AMM isn't arguing with what you've said, he's arguing with what he thinks you've said.

[Hellbound]

AMM isn't arguing with what you've said, he's arguing with what he thinks you've said.

I know. The discussion is stalled because it's bouncing around in circles. In places where I've (according to him) misunderstood his point, he refuses to elaborate, and in other places he seems to respond to things completely seperate from what I've stated.

But there is still, technically, the possibility that it is a legitimate misunderstanding, instead of intentional obfuscation. Which is why at the end of that post I've made the call for specifics...if we can narrow this down to specific things then there's a better chance for meaningful discussion.

[Zanders]

I'm sorry if it seemed like I got insulting. I actually don't completely disagree and am still fascinated by these experiences people often mention having, although where I was disagreeing and getting rather harsh was at the fact that you keep stating the same thing and expecting a different reaction.

We have established that these stories are not good enough to convince people, try to understand. Nobody can say for sure that what happened to you didn't happen, you should just agree to disagree and let it be. And when it comes to talking about other people's experiences, you will also have to understand why somebody who has never seen or witnessed any evidence of such a thing would be highly doubtful.

What is important is that if such a thing exists we need to try very hard to find a way to test it and get good solid evidence. I am pretty sure that people actually are doing so, and maybe they will get good results soon.

[punshhh]

Actually, no. The OP suggested that unless we had an experience ourselves, we should basically STFU because we had no basis to form an opinion or make a decision.



I can believe this. But the leap from "I can't explain it" to "It's unexplainable" is a logical fallacy known as an Argument from Ignorance. It's even worse form is the leap from "I can't expalin it" to "God/Aliens/Spirits did it".



That excludes quite a bit, though. Most of us aren't talking about things that haven't been explored, but things that have been explored since the beginnings of scientific investigation and are still found lacking. There is a "bias" against accepting paranormal, and that's because of the long history of negative resutls in paranormal research (not to mention numerous cases of known fraud and hoaxing).



No, but we have reached a point where there are some things we know cannot be true, if the universe operates according to understandable rules. Because if they were, the other things we know to be true (to a high degree of confidence) would be wrong.



What? If you mean can be be fairly certain these are myths, then yes. With a very high degree of confidence.



No idea what you mean by this. If you're asking what caused it, the only rational answer that anyone can make at this time is "we don't know". The difference (and not just with our origins, but in general) is that science can accept that answer, and keep looking into to see if we can learn more. Religion (and the paranormal explnations in general) simply declare "<Insert favorite diety/creature/ghost here> did it!" and stifles further investigation into the actuality.

Thankyou Hellbound for your level headed and informative reply.

I have little to disagree with what you have said and look forward to discussions with you on this and other subjects.

However I feel that this thread is not the right place as there seems to be a rather heavy atmosphere.

I am really on the forum to discuss theology/philosophy and the Omnipotence thread is hotting up a bit right now.

Regards Punshhh.

P.s. the tooth fairy etc was tongue in cheek.

[punshhh]

It's actually asking us to suspend critical thinking.

What we've replied is that once evidence has been presented and evaluated, if it is convincing, we will (tentatively) believe the claim.


Well, sure. Our answer to that is to study the phenomenon in more detail, rather than to assert that because we don't understand it immediately, it requires some huge scientific paradigm change.


It's been explored; it just hasn't been demonstrated. We conclude, therefore, that - pending contradictory evidence - it doesn't exist.

That's why we always ask for evidence.

The research has been done; the evidence is in; there's nothing there.

But, if new evidence came in that contradicted all the old evidence, if this new evidence could be confirmed and replicated, then the old evidence would be wrong (or at least incomplete).

That's why we always ask for evidence.

But we never get any.


Well, certainly hocus pocus can be exposed for the delusion it is. That was true a century ago as well.


All the galaxies in the Universe are flying apart from one another. Trace that motion backwards in time, and 13.6 billion years ago they were all scrunched up in the same place. The Big Bang happened. What caused it, or even if it had a cause, is another question.

Pixy I've got news for you.

Your not going to get the evidence you are asking for even if you wait a hundred and eight years.

You set the bar too high and the phenomena are by their very nature elusive, ephemeral and transitory.

I have many such anecdotes and know of many more.
However from you perspective I predict they are all just meaningless self delusion.

This is not going to get us anywhere.

I'm no Turkey so won't enter the debate here.

[Resume]

You set the bar too high and the phenomena are by their very nature elusive, ephemeral and transitory.


Not this again.

[dafydd]

Have you ever read 'Madam Blavatsky's baboon'? an excellent real life account of a Turkey shoot.

I have a copy on my shelves and it is a very good history of woo in the USA. Nothing to do with a turkey shoot,although that arch charlatan Blavatsky is an easy target.

[PixyMisa]

Pixy I've got news for you.

Your not going to get the evidence you are asking for even if you wait a hundred and eight years.
Yes, I know.

You set the bar too high and the phenomena are by their very nature elusive, ephemeral and transitory.
If by that you mean they don't happen, then I agree.

If you mean that science can't detect them because they're hard to see, then you are talking the most astounding rubbish.

Let me tell you about elusive. Neutrinos can pass through a light year of lead unimpeded. And yet we know a lot about neutrinos; we build neutrino detectors, and they work. There is no question at all about whether neutrinos are real.

Let me tell you about ephemeral and transitory. Water forms complex intramolecular structures, but these only last for a matter of femtoseconds - a millionth of a billionth of a second. And yet, we know they exist.

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

And if you are claiming that, well, I'll have to ask you how you know this.

I have many such anecdotes and know of many more.
You can find anecdotes about anything at all. Anything.

Which is why we don't accept anecdotes as evidence.


However from you perspective I predict they are all just meaningless self delusion.
Pretty much.

This is not going to get us anywhere.
Right.

If you have no evidence, why do you think these things are real?

[Pure Argent]

You set the bar too high

"Too high"? Too high for what? To let you say "it's scientifically proven to be true"? Well, duh.

If you want to be able to say that, you have to actually - meaning scientifically - prove it to be true. You can't just spout off anecdotes.

Don't blame us because you can't produce any evidence. We haven't done anything to make this task impossible for you. Psi believers' failings rest on their shoulders alone, no one else's.

[Zanders]

Pixy I've got news for you.

Your not going to get the evidence you are asking for even if you wait a hundred and eight years.

You set the bar too high and the phenomena are by their very nature elusive, ephemeral and transitory.

I have many such anecdotes and know of many more.
However from you perspective I predict they are all just meaningless self delusion.

This is not going to get us anywhere.

I'm no Turkey so won't enter the debate here.


Like you seeing "Faries" in a tree in your photograph?

I'm sorry, but you are the dangerous polar opposite of what you are describing. You set the bar too low, everything is paranormal. You want everything to be paranormal. From some other user I would be fine with your post, but I seriously would have a hard time taking your account of such things seriously.

I'm sorry if this seems like an attack, but just go read through your "Faries in my photograph" thread and hopefully you will realize that you are basically struggling to make things more than they are.

[annnnoid]

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

You can find anecdotes about anything at all. Anything.

Which is why we don't accept anecdotes as evidence.

If you have no evidence, why do you think these things are real?

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.

Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy, delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation, satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria, Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration, Contentment, pleasure, Pride, triumph, Eagerness, hope, optimism, Enthrallment, rapture, relief, Amazement, surprise, astonishment, Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness, crosspatch, Exasperation, frustration, Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate, scorn, spite, vengefullness, dislike, resentment, Disgust, revulsion, contempt, loathing, Envy, jealousy, torment, agony, suffering, hurt, anguish, Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness, unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy, Dismay, disappointment, displeasure, Guilt, shame, regret, remorse, Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness, defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult, Pity, sympathy, Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification, Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, dread.

What is the only reason anyone thinks any of these things are real? Because we experience them as being so.

We have no scientific understanding of what these things are.
We have no scientific understanding of how these things happen.
(…don’t bother disputing these conclusions….for every Dennet or Pinker I can produce an equally reputable counter opinion…so at the very least the issue is unresolved)
We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them….except, of course, the 'scientific instrument' that is those who experience them.
All we have are the anecdotal accounts of people who insist that they do happen.

….but we don’t accept anecdotes as evidence …

except, of course, in every single decision every single person makes every single second of every single minute of every single hour of every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year of their lives. So basically, anecdotal evidence is good enough to make a choice about a life partner, or whether to become president of the United States, or whether to bring another child into the world, or whether to order a big mac or a salad, but when it comes to a claim of an experience that skeptics just can’t stomach, it’s pure fraud.

…whaddya call that, confirmation bias or something?

[carlitos]

annnnoid, I'm pretty sure that most of the stuff you listed can be measured empirically though body chemistry and neurology. When people are happy, they release endorphins. You really didn't know this?

ETA - You really don't think that arousal can be measured by a scientific instrument? Are you an adult? Do you own a ruler? My God.

[annnnoid]

annnnoid, I'm pretty sure that most of the stuff you listed can be measured empirically though body chemistry and neurology. When people are happy, they release endorphins. You really didn't know this?

ETA - You really don't think that arousal can be measured by a scientific instrument? Are you an adult? Do you own a ruler? My God.

We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them

...you did pass grade two did you not? It is best to actually read a post before responding.

[tsig]

We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them

...you did pass grade two did you not? It is best to actually read a post before responding.

I see the problem. Once you pass the age of puberty you'll find that arousal has certain physical signs that can be measured.

[carlitos]

annnnoid, I read it and now re-read it. If you're saying that a ruler can't experience an emotion, I agree.

[tsig]

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.

Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy, delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation, satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria, Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration, Contentment, pleasure, Pride, triumph, Eagerness, hope, optimism, Enthrallment, rapture, relief, Amazement, surprise, astonishment, Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness, crosspatch, Exasperation, frustration, Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate, scorn, spite, vengefullness, dislike, resentment, Disgust, revulsion, contempt, loathing, Envy, jealousy, torment, agony, suffering, hurt, anguish, Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness, unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy, Dismay, disappointment, displeasure, Guilt, shame, regret, remorse, Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness, defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult, Pity, sympathy, Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification, Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, dread.

What is the only reason anyone thinks any of these things are real? Because we experience them as being so.

We have no scientific understanding of what these things are.
We have no scientific understanding of how these things happen.
(…don’t bother disputing these conclusions….for every Dennet or Pinker I can produce an equally reputable counter opinion…so at the very least the issue is unresolved)
We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them….except, of course, the 'scientific instrument' that is those who experience them.
All we have are the anecdotal accounts of people who insist that they do happen.

….but we don’t accept anecdotes as evidence …

except, of course, in every single decision every single person makes every single second of every single minute of every single hour of every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year of their lives. So basically, anecdotal evidence is good enough to make a choice about a life partner, or whether to become president of the United States, or whether to bring another child into the world, or whether to order a big mac or a salad, but when it comes to a claim of an experience that skeptics just can’t stomach, it’s pure fraud.

…whaddya call that, confirmation bias or something?

Exaggeration.

[Resume]

…whaddya call that, confirmation bias or something?
Bare assertions.

[annnnoid]

Bare assertions.
Exaggeration.

....no, an exaggeration and/or bare assertion is suggesting, as Pixy just did, that there is nothing that can occur that cannot be detected by some variety of existing scientific instrument.

Being skeptics, it is perfectly understandable that you missed that one. I mean, suggesting that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything that occurs is plausible....to a skeptic I suppose.

Quite obviously though, Pixy....and I suppose some others, are ignorant of a few basic facts of life.

[Resume]

....no, an exaggeration and/or bare assertion is suggesting, as Pixy just did, that there is nothing that can occur that cannot be detected by some variety of existing scientific instrument.

Being skeptics, it is perfectly understandable that you missed that one. I mean, suggesting that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything that occurs is plausible....to a skeptic I suppose.

Quite obviously though, Pixy....and I suppose some others, are ignorant of a few basic facts of life.

No, you've made a number of bare assertions. I suppose that is understandable, being credulous and all.

[PixyMisa]

Exaggeration.
"Wrong" works.

[PixyMisa]

We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them
Except that you said:

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.
And then gave a list of emotions, which are mental states, i.e. neurological processes, well understood and readily detectable and identifiable.

We have no scientific understanding of what these things are.
They're neurological processes.

We have no scientific understanding of how these things happen.
They're neurological processes.

(…don’t bother disputing these conclusions….for every Dennet or Pinker I can produce an equally reputable counter opinion…so at the very least the issue is unresolved)
You don't get to dictate what we dispute; no you can't; and no, the issue is not unresolved. This is established scientific fact, and you're dead wrong.

We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them….except, of course, the 'scientific instrument' that is those who experience them.
That's special pleading.

We have no scientific instrument that can measure an inch the way my ruler measures an inch - simply because anything else is not my ruler.

It's simply irrelevant.

All we have are the anecdotal accounts of people who insist that they do happen.
Nope. We have tons of physical evidence showing that these emotions happen, what is happening in the brain and the body when these emotions are experienced, and what causes these emotions.

….but we don’t accept anecdotes as evidence …

except, of course, in every single decision every single person makes every single second of every single minute of every single hour of every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year of their lives. So basically, anecdotal evidence is good enough to make a choice about a life partner, or whether to become president of the United States, or whether to bring another child into the world, or whether to order a big mac or a salad
Of course, none of this is true. None of these decisions are ever based purely on anecdotal evidence.

but when it comes to a claim of an experience that skeptics just can’t stomach, it’s pure fraud.
Ad hominem and strawman.

[annnnoid]

No, you've made a number of bare assertions. I suppose that is understandable, being credulous and all.

How’s this for a bare assertion:

If it exists, we should be able to detect it (simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many wonderful and elusive things that our scientific instruments can detect). Since we cannot detect it, we must conclude that it does not exist. Science at it’s most profound (personally, if I were a betting man, I’d say your odds of handling any kind of Nobel prize with this level of scientific reasoning has just plummeted to somewhere below absolute zero).

Tell me Resume, do you subscribe to this variety of scientific methodology? So who's the credulous one?

What was it Wolfgang Pauli said?...not even wrong.

…a similar argument:

Quite obviously since we have no scientific instrument that can detect anything that Pixy would recognize as Pixy, we must conclude that Pixy does not exist.

….or do you wake up in the morning and count synaptic functions while brushing your teeth?...hell, maybe you do. That would explain a lot.

[PixyMisa]

....no, an exaggeration and/or bare assertion is suggesting, as Pixy just did, that there is nothing that can occur that cannot be detected by some variety of existing scientific instrument.
Wrong.

Every one of those things in your list? We can detect them. Objectively. Scientifically.

As soon as you were challenged on this, you resorted to special pleading.

Being skeptics, it is perfectly understandable that you missed that one. I mean, suggesting that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything that occurs is plausible....to a skeptic I suppose.Name something that exists that can't be detected by scientific instruments, then.

[PixyMisa]

How’s this for a bare assertion:

If it exists, we should be able to detect it
That's not a bare assertion, that's definitive.

(simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many wonderful and elusive things that our scientific instruments can detect).Well, no.

Since we cannot detect it, we must conclude that it does not exist.Correct.

[Resume]

How’s this for a bare assertion

You're quite adept at them, granted, but can you stop?

[Resume]

[QUOTE=annnnoid;6819439] So who's the credulous one?
QUOTE]
Look up while brushing your teeth.

[Limbo]

Actually, no. The OP suggested that unless we had an experience ourselves, we should basically STFU because we had no basis to form an opinion or make a decision.


I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

[The Norseman]

Name something that exists that can't be detected by scientific instruments, then.



Well, God, of course.

[The Norseman]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.


I would say, if you can't or won't 'use the scientific method' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a rational decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of mystics like Swedenborg.

[Zanders]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'use the scientific method' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a rational decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of mystics like Swedenborg.

So, did you happen to mention Swedenborg because of me?

[Resume]

So, did you happen to mention Swedenborg because of me?

Yes Zanders it's all about you, well, and Swedenborg.

[carlitos]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

Why haven't we been reading a fascinating dialogue between you and the guy who said that he did build his own signal and cast spells?

[Hellbound]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

Heh.

Of course, if I did "build my own telescope" (in the regard you mean), the first thing I'd do is show all my friends exactly how it works, and let them look through it as well. Something that proponents of nonsense like Chaos Magic and spirits continually fail at. For some reason your telescope only works for you, and no one else can look through it...or see it...or detect it in any way except by taking your word for it that it's there.

In what way is an invisible, intangible, undetectable telescope different from no telescope?

Have any proof that you have a telescope at all, or even know what one is?

[dafydd]

This thread is degenerating into farce. I find the phrase "chaos magic" very chuckleworthy.

[annnnoid]

They're neurological processes.


…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Except, of course, when it comes to Pixy. Pixy has the answer, it’s just that nobody believes him. What a shame, the world would be so much simpler if we all just took Pixy’s word for everything. We’d likely all be dead, but wouldn’t that be simpler?


You don't get to dictate what we dispute; no you can't; and no, the issue is not unresolved. This is established scientific fact, and you're dead wrong.


Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy. Why don’t we ask….Resume. Care to venture an opinion Resume?


We have no scientific instrument that can measure an inch the way my ruler measures an inch - simply because anything else is not my ruler.

It's simply irrelevant.


…what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it? I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.


Nope. We have tons of physical evidence showing that these emotions happen, what is happening in the brain and the body when these emotions are experienced, and what causes these emotions.


What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being (specifically, the human being in question) to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.


Of course, none of this is true. None of these decisions are ever based purely on anecdotal evidence.


Really….don’t know about you Pixy but everyone I know lives entirely within their own subjective consciousness. I know you’re a little out there Pixy, but that sounds almost, well, supernatural.

Wrong.
Every one of those things in your list? We can detect them. Objectively. Scientifically.

As soon as you were challenged on this, you resorted to special pleading.


Missed that did you Pixy. I quite obviously did not resort to anything. I had quite clearly stated exactly what my points were in the first post. Carlitos just as obviously failed to read them. I simply pointed out that obvious fact. Get your timing straight there Pixy.




Name something that exists that can't be detected by scientific instruments, then.

“I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+”

Find me the scientific instrument that can definitively spit out that exact condition (upon being 'plugged into' the human being experiencing it) and I will hand you next years Nobel Prize. IOW…said scientific instrument must conclude: “subject is experiencing …”I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” . You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not and it can easily be argued that “I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” or one of it’s infinite permutations and combination's is but one of those things that indisputably exist as a real experience for a human being. It exists. Detect it. Prove it.

Oh, but that’s not fair, that’s not a normal human experience. Oh…boo hoo!!!!!

…..yeah, and since when has existence been normal?

While you’re at it, I’ve got a few trillion more (the list actually goes on forever, and it’s different for every single human being). Care to have a go?

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

Why don’t we start a new thread: All resident skeptics can vote if they approve or disapprove of Pixy’s new theory. Anyone want to make any bets what the outcome will be? I know where I’ll put my money.

[Resume]

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Except, of course, when it comes to Pixy. Pixy has the answer, it’s just that nobody believes him. What a shame, the world would be so much simpler if we all just took Pixy’s word for everything. We’d likely all be dead, but wouldn’t that be simpler?



Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy. Why don’t we ask….Resume. Care to venture an opinion Resume?



…what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it? I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.



What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.



Really….don’t know about you Pixy but everyone I know lives entirely within their own subjective consciousness. I know you’re a little out there Pixy, but that sounds almost, well, supernatural.



Missed that did you Pixy. I quite obviously did not resort to anything. I had quite clearly stated exactly what my points were in the first post. Carlitos just as obviously failed to read them. I simply pointed out that obvious fact. Get your timing straight there Pixy.





“I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+”

Find me the scientific instrument that can definitively spit out that exact condition (upon being 'plugged into' the human being experiencing it) and I will hand you next years Nobel Prize. IOW…said scientific instrument must conclude: “subject is experiencing …”I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” . You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not and it can easily be argued that “I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” or one of it’s infinite permutations and combination's is but one of those things that indisputably exist as a real experience for a human being. It exists. Detect it. Prove it.

Oh, but that’s not fair, that’s not a normal human experience. Oh…boo hoo!!!!!

…..yeah, and since when has existence been normal?

While you’re at it, I’ve got a few trillion more (the list actually goes on forever, and it’s different for every single human being). Care to have a go?

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

Why don’t we start a new thread: All resident skeptics can vote if they approve or disapprove of Pixy’s new theory. Anyone want to make any bets what the outcome will be? I know where I’ll put my money.

There's a kegger on the quad and I hear freshmen are invited, well, tolerated. You seem to have abandoned your 101 in Philosophy anyway.

[annnnoid]

There's a kegger on the quad and I hear freshmen are invited, well, tolerated. You seem to have abandoned your 101 in Philosophy anyway.

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

I'll take that as 'I approve' then.

[Resume]

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

I'll take that as 'I approve' then.

Clean up the straw and get you to the kegger. You're not very good at this; maybe you'd be better at acting goofy for the co-eds.

[Zanders]

Yes Zanders it's all about you, well, and Swedenborg.

I was just wondering if he specifically mentioned his name because of my ranting about him in a thread of mine.

[Resume]

I was just wondering if he specifically mentioned his name because of my ranting about him in a thread of mine.

I was joking guy.

[PixyMisa]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision.
Of course we have a basis to form an opinion: We examine the evidence.

There isn't any.

Therefore your "Chaos Magic" doesn't exist.

[dafydd]

Of course we have a basis to form an opinion: We examine the evidence.

There isn't any.

Therefore your "Chaos Magic" doesn't exist.

We have already discovered that.

[Zanders]

I made a thread where people shared their mystical and spiritual backgrounds and why they gave up on them. Not everyone who has "built their own telescope" has seen anything with it.

I've linked to it numerous times earlier in this thread, so I don't feel the need to do it again.

[PixyMisa]

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus.
Wrong.

Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
Chomsky's a linguist.

….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy.
Actually, Chomsky's Universal Grammar is widely regarded as pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar#Criticism) that has set the field of linguistics back thirty years.

Be that as it may, all you have done is pick an irrelevant quote from a famous - or infamous - name in an irrelevant field. This does not in any way refute the past fifty years of neuroscience.

what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it?
To whether we can detect emotions or not, yes.

We can.

I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.
Name one who would disagree with the statement in context.

What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening.
Yep. There you go. Argument over. But at least you admitted that you were wrong.

[Resume]

Chomsky's a linguist.


Yes, but a cunning linguist.

Sorry.

[PixyMisa]

We have already discovered that.
I think he might have missed the thousand or so previous posts pointing that out.

[Zanders]

I've never heard anyone refer to "neurological" as a big word. I find that rather funny.

[PixyMisa]

The red herring catch is short this season, he has to work with what he can get.

[Hokulele]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.


This from the person who wanted to lecture us about comparative religion when he hadn't even read the Tao de Ching?

Priceless.

[Zanders]

This from the person who wanted to lecture us about comparative religion when he hadn't even read the Tao de Ching?

Priceless.


He told me that he has not read the Quran either, but he's read some books on the subject of comparative religion. I know for a fact he has mentioned Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung many times.

I would think that reading the original source materiel and seeing for yourself if the interpretations work is a good thing, instead of being told what they say.

[The Norseman]

So, did you happen to mention Swedenborg because of me?


Sorry, no; I wasn't taking a crack at you or anything. I did a quick Google search for "mystic famous woo" or something similar, came across a Wiki page with him, Blavatsky, and one or two other big names. His was the first name, so I chose it.

Limbo's original post didn't have anyone's name in it; as I hit "respond", I had to look closely again and noticed he added Randi's name at the end, so since I was doing a near verbatim copy of his post, I had to now go and find some mystic's name.

[AkuManiMani]

[BTW, I tested out your claim (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6809255&postcount=1316) that your earlier color/font mishap was an artifact of "transferring" text from Word. I conducted an experiment of my own which produced negative results. Should I conclude that you're full of it?]

You can conclude whatever you want. I have no idea whay it appeared different to you. It looks normal on my browser. The transferrence was the only thing I did differently in that post...if that wasn't the case, then I have no idea.

So does the negative result of my experiment render your claim untrue or necessarily implausible?

Actually, I specifically seached for a short wiki article on the subject as I'd already read much about that specific topic, non-locality, and entanglement phenomena in general. The point was to demonstrate that, even within the confines of known physical theory, non-local distal influence akin to telepathy is considered possible. Its a bit silly and disparaging for you to automatically assume that disagreement with you on this topic implies incomprehension.

But it is NOT silly to understand that believing entanglement is a possibility to expalin telepathy on a macro-level is non-sensical and shows a lack of understanding of what entanglement is, or how difficult it is to create and/or maintain. Let's put it this way: while not technically impossible for two individuals to be entangled to some degree that allows communication, the odds of this happening are similar to the odds of a person quantum tunneling through a solid wall. You'd have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for a single instance to occur.

A number of studies have demonstrated not only macroscale (http://news.softpedia.com/news/Quantum-Entanglement-Proved-at-the-Macroscale-122923.shtml) entanglement, but also entanglement being utilized in biological systems (http://www.kurzweilai.net/quantum-entanglement-in-a-real-biological-system-found). Again, the assessment of "its not possible" is more than a little premature, to say the least.

Okay, consider this:

I personally know a synesthete who experiences sounds visually. In his awareness, each human voice is a dynamic and unique array of shapes and colors. One person's voice is experienced as warm, pulsating orange ovals, another as purple circles, and mine he experiences as "red spinnie squares". There are many other synesthetes who have different subjective experiences of the world which can vary widely, yet they receive veridical information from their senses none the less -- some of which, their "normal" peers may not have access to.

Do you consider the senses of synesthetes faulty?

Yes. They are mis-routings of sense data. Sounds do NOT have color. If they tell me my voice is green, that is not correct. I would agree that they experience it as green, based on their say-so (we know synesthasia exists, and "seeing" sounds is not an unusual form).

Light does NOT have color either. Color is a subjective interpretation most humans presumably have of light. Sound itself is also a subjective interpretation. Sounds, tastes, colors, and the like, are not external physical attributes but internal subjective states that may be evoked in a conscious being by certain stimuli. How physical stimuli are ultimately coupled with particular perceptions/qualia may ultimately turn out to be as arbitrary as the semiotic link between symbol and meaning.

If so, would you submit that they are not qualified to make valid scientific observations?

No, but I would say that their observations are only valid by understanding the limitations of their senses. Because they see a voice as a purple oval doesn't give the voice a shape or color. Personal perception is only valid to the individual.

What makes you think that the perceptions of a non-synesthete more valid than those of a synesthete?

If a given synesthete [with his/her own unique subjective makeup] has a perception that differs from what a well established scientific theory predicts they should is their perception "false", or is it indicative of a limitation in the theory?

It's an indication that their perception is altered. It would depend on the specific example. If a person detects bass notes as green, for example, then when they "see" a "green" sound I'd believe it was a bass note. I would not believe there was actually a green sound. And this is exactly the point we've been attempting to make. You're simply brushing aside the documented and solid evidence of the falliability of memory as if it doesn't apply. In any case, even by your own argument, your evidence only applies to you, andwe should not, in any way shape or form, accept it based on your word (as you stated, we have no direct experience of your consciousness).

There is no "green", there is no "sound" -- there is no perception of anything as anything beyond the awareness of conscious subjects. Metaphorically speaking, consciousness is the singularity at which epistemology and metaphysics ultimately converge. As of now, science has only the barest superficial understanding of consciousness, and none with regard to how the subjective figures in to physics as we know it.

Hold the phone. On what basis are you designating which studies were "well controlled"? Is this based upon reports you've received concerning the studies in question or did you actually participate in them yourself? How do you know that your conclusion isn't an artifact of your admitted bias?

Because scientific studies detail the experimental controls used and the methodology. You can examine this to find where opportunities for problems appeared. In various stories (as opposed to controlled conditions) and such, there simply isn't enough information available to know if there was no chance for non-paranormal inforation exchange or other possibilities. I'm not saying they are all false. I'm saying the studies have yet to provide positive proof and eliminate all non-paranormal explanations, and therefore can't be accepted as evidence of the paranormal. Disbelief is the default position; it's not on us to disprove the paranormal or experiences like yours (whether you want to call it paranormal or not). There should be positive evidence for it...yet that hasn't appeared.

Answer me this:

Assuming we were living 120 years ago would you consider the results like those of the double-slit experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-slit_experiment) [and other phenomena which violate the assumptions of classical physics] to be "paranormal" or "mundane", and would your willingness to accept the validity of such reported findings be affected by designations?

You interjected in a point you knew I was making to another individual and requested that I elaborate on it. When I did so you claimed that the point it was addressing wasn't your argument and accused me of making a straw-man. I'm seeing a trend here...

I'll review and see if this is the case, and if so, I apologize. With days between posts and the speed of the thread, I do lose track.

Alright, I'll try giving you the benefit of the doubt on this.

Okay, this is genuinely getting sad -- you're actually trying to make a weasel argument by technicality. Are you really trying to argue that Issac Newton [as in the father of classical physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_physics)] didn't formulate any physical theory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation#Newton.27s_theory_of_gravitation), none whatsoever?

I'm saying that, as far as I am aware, Newton had no Theory of Gravity (using theory in the scientific sense). Wiki is, well, wrong. What Newton had was a Law of Gravity. And understanding the difference between teh two will tell you why it does not support your arguments.

"Well you see, Newton only formulated physical laws. I specifically asked you for a well established theory that had been over turned in science."

What was that you were saying earlier about dishonesty, Hellbound? :sulk:

And Newton wasn't overturned, just found not to be complete. In other words, GR did NOT suddenly invalidate the results of Newton's laws, except in the case of high speeds or large masses.

Like I said before, modern findings eventually demonstrated that there are inaccuracies and limitations to Newtonian mechanics; a physical model which had been the bedrock of western physics for centuries. The theories of Relativity and Quantum mechanics eventually superseded Newton's physical model. Any and all theories that can be formulated are inherently incomplete and tentative because our knowledge and understanding are inherently limited. At no point did I argue that our current scientific understanding is wrong; I've only ever argued that it must be expanded to accommodate anomalous phenomena described in accounts like mine. In any case, the known is a bounded subset of the unbounded unknown -- not vis versa.

Ding-ding-ding! I think hes got it! Yes, theories are conceptual tools that are inferred from firsthand observations. Your inability to see how this logically ties into my point is... [how shall I put this?] ...not my failure.

Well, this is actually going pretty well for me. Your claim is that, essentially, personal observation is the ultimate authority for that individual. That if you personally experience something then that trumps whatever theories or studies are out there.

In science a theory is a description of and explanation for phenomena. It gives both a way to model an interaction and an explanation for how that occurs. GR, for example, explains gravitational force as a curvature of space and time, and makes specifc predictions based on this (such as gravitational lensing).

In science a Law (such as Newton's Gravity or his Laws of Motion) is a description of phenomena based on observation. It simply states "if you do this, that will happen".

Newton never offerred a theory of gravity. Newton's Law of Gravity, which you have said was found to be wrong, was based on his personal, direct experience. It's a good example to show why an individual's experience, even your own, is not to be taken as truth if it can't be examined.

NASA's own website refers to Newton's Theory (http://www-istp.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/Sgravity.htm) of gravitation as well as numerous other sources. Semantic hair-splitting aside, your designating the physical model he laid down as "laws" rather than "theory" doesn't change the fact that it is, like all other scientific models, inherently incomplete. This necessarily implies that no theory we devise is fundamental or inviolable.

Oh, heavens forbid such a thing! Tell me, would you considered the widly successful Standard Model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model) of particle physics as an infallible and complete model of reality?

No, we know it isn't complete. Science tells us that.

Correction: logic tells us that.

Would introducing entities not included in said model [like say -- I don't know -- maybe financial instruments, or pain] require "extraordinary" evidence?

It depends on iof they contradict what's already there and known to be true. There ARE known limitations to what can be added to the Standard Model, and for it to still give us the correct results that it does.

Even better -- Lets expand that little example to include all scientific models, theories, and principles. Would entities existing outside of said models render all of them null and void? Would science as a whole be invalidated? :rolleyes:

If the current theories predict that nothing should be there, and having something there would change the results calculated using those theories, the results that have been experimentally verified, then yes.

There are numerous known entities that are not described or accounted for by any of our physical models and the vast majority of them have to do directly with consciousness. The only thing we scientifically understand about consciousness is that our own conscious experiences are correlated with living nervous systems. The physical 'whys' and 'hows' of this correlation are not understood, let alone integrated into -any- of our current physical models. To claim knowledge of what is and is not physically possible with regard to consciousness is grossly premature and scientifically unfounded.

[B]HB: "Formulate a theory I'm willing to accept or its not real."

AMM: "Roger, that."

How about just formulate a theory? So far, that hasn't been done to any meaningful degree in paranormal research. But that isn't precisely what my comemnt stated. To have a theory accepted, it should have more evidence for it than the theory (or theories) it will be invalidating.

The necessary requisite for such a theory would be a workable [meta]physical theory that fully integrates consciousness with it's explanatory frame.

...Oh-ho! You really had me going there. I almost thought you were open to honest investigation. Had me fooled for a sec ;)

I am open to honest investigation.

If thats true, you've succeeded in fooling me otherwise.

There are no studies that I am aware of that meat the criteria I listed. That was a challenge to you to put your money where your mouth is. The studies you posted to Pure Argent, which you mentioned earlier, have already been adddressed by him. These are simply retellings, collections of stories, and there were no controls in place to eliminate more normal explanations.

There's simply a lack of sufficient explanations for the phenomena in question -- "normal", "paranormal", or otherwise; the designations and qualifiers are irrelevant. With regard to consciousness [and, by extension, alleged 'psi' phenomena] we're possibly as much out of our theoretical depth as bronze age humans with regard to electromagnetism.

Yea, yea. I get it, I get it. You have all the answers and there is absolutely no evidence for me to present to the contrary because you just KNOW there isn't any. I'll leave ya to it then.

Where did I say anythign remotely like what you are implying?

The moment you flatly stated that there is no evidence. Such a statement demonstrates to me that you are not genuinely open to the possibility that your beliefs concerning this subject are mistaken. It also indicates that that, despite your apparently modest calls for "evidence", what you're really doing is challenging me to provide definitive proof and compel you to believe what I'm claiming. Me engaging you in such a silly exercise would be a waste of both our time.

I've mentioned several times that there are none I'm aware of. You've yet to present any, I've yet to be made aware of any. I know I don't have all the answers, which is why I am so passionate about science. I believ it to be the best way to find the answers without getting dragged into a bunch of nonsense. It's not perfect, I think everyone here will admit that, but so far we've found nothing better.

If you're that passionate about ascertaining the truth of the matter you should take the initiative to investigate for yourself without me doing all your legwork. All you've shown me is that you're content to only seek out and lend credence to sources which confirm your biases while demanding that others overcome those biases for you. As I've said multiple times, thats not not my prerogative. All I can do [ especially within the scope of a forum discussion] is provide arguments highlighting some of the faults in your assumptions and belief system. In the end, no one can compel you to believe or convince you of anything but yourself.

How about this; instead of details, let's focus on something that might actually get somewhere, and clarify arguments on both sides (because I stil fail to see how solipsism is not the logical end-point of your views, as expressed here).

Solipsism isn't part of, nor does it necessarily follow from, my position. However, if what I'm suggesting is true [at least with regard to the nature of consciousness] then it should be possible for distinct conscious entities to have direct mental contact -- i.e. some form of telepathy. Without a possible mechanism for such connection(s) ascertaining the reality of consciousness beyond one's own mental confines would, in principle, only be tentatively inferable; thus, implying epistemological solipsism.

Now that I think about it, there is some overlap between solipsism and my thesis in that it places consciousness at the ontological root of knowledge. Solipsism would be akin to a "geocentric" version of what I'm proposing in that one's own person is the privileged frame of reference. However, in the view I'm putting forward, there definitely are autonomous conscious entities beyond one's individual person. Each autonomous conscious unit [i.e. being] is a different subjective frame of reference in the manifold we call reality. I guess you could call my philosophical position Simulipsism [yes, I made up a word! :D ]

You calim that science needs to include the subjective. What specific changes should be made to do this? What do you mean by this? What should be accepted as evidence (and evidence for what) under your method as opposed to what is done now? You've spent a lot of time arguing about how scienc is missing out on something, yet then seem to change your argument to scientists being biased and ignoring proof that is already there. Can you calrify this a bit? Are you arguing that scientists are biased, or that the method needs to be changed?

To clarify, I don't think that all scientists are biased on this issue. There are actually a number of scientists who appear to be investigating phenomena like the ones we've been discussing with skeptical and open minds. However, the problem lies in the fact that we currently lack a metaphysical framework sufficient to coherently integrate consciousness [i.e. the 'internal' subjective/phenomenal aspect of existence] with our understanding of what we call physics. Physical theory has a gaping hole where we, the observing subjects, should be. Whenever consciousness is even addressed at all within our scientific framework, it's gracelessly shoe-horned in as a hand-waving supposition. Figuratively speaking, we're continually constructing a general working model for the rules of The Game but with no real understanding of what the players/users are or how they figure into the picture, exactly.

Ironically enough, consciousness is the sine qua non of science, yet our current body of scientific knowledge has scarcely anything to tell us about it and provides virtually nothing in the way of explaining it. To date, the thrust of western scientific pursuit has been "outward" into the world, as presented to our "external" senses. In order to begin gaining a meaningful understanding of consciousness, scientific inquiry must also expand "inward" and integrate knowledge from both aspects of our reality into one coherent framework [deep introspective observation would be an indispensable part of such an endeavor]. Such a paradigm would essentially subsume into the scientific framework what has hitherto been considered the sole domain of mysticism and the occult. It would be a powerful and unholy perversion of Science as we know it -- MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

</*ahem*>

... I mean it would be the most fundamental paradigm shift in human culture since the Enlightenment [and it would also be full of epic win :cool: ]

[dlorde]

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Except, of course, when it comes to Pixy. Pixy has the answer, it’s just that nobody believes him. What a shame, the world would be so much simpler if we all just took Pixy’s word for everything. We’d likely all be dead, but wouldn’t that be simpler?

Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy. Why don’t we ask….Resume. Care to venture an opinion Resume?

…what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it? I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.

What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being (specifically, the human being in question) to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.

Really….don’t know about you Pixy but everyone I know lives entirely within their own subjective consciousness. I know you’re a little out there Pixy, but that sounds almost, well, supernatural.

Missed that did you Pixy. I quite obviously did not resort to anything. I had quite clearly stated exactly what my points were in the first post. Carlitos just as obviously failed to read them. I simply pointed out that obvious fact. Get your timing straight there Pixy.

“I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+”

Find me the scientific instrument that can definitively spit out that exact condition (upon being 'plugged into' the human being experiencing it) and I will hand you next years Nobel Prize. IOW…said scientific instrument must conclude: “subject is experiencing …”I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” . You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not and it can easily be argued that “I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” or one of it’s infinite permutations and combination's is but one of those things that indisputably exist as a real experience for a human being. It exists. Detect it. Prove it.

Oh, but that’s not fair, that’s not a normal human experience. Oh…boo hoo!!!!!

…..yeah, and since when has existence been normal?

While you’re at it, I’ve got a few trillion more (the list actually goes on forever, and it’s different for every single human being). Care to have a go?

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

Why don’t we start a new thread: All resident skeptics can vote if they approve or disapprove of Pixy’s new theory. Anyone want to make any bets what the outcome will be? I know where I’ll put my money.

Is this a novel debating technique - when faced with confidence, descend into incoherence?

"since when has existence been normal?" - what does that even mean?

[tsig]

Is this a novel debating technique - when faced with confidence, descend into incoherence?

"since when has existence been normal?" - what does that even mean?

I think it's call the "throwing multiple toys out of the pram" technique. The idea is that if you make a big enough mess no one will notice you had no point at all.

[Limbo]

He told me that he has not read the Quran either, but he's read some books on the subject of comparative religion. I know for a fact he has mentioned Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung many times.


I've read much of it actually, just not all of it cover to cover. Its hard for me to stomach so much anger as is found in it. So I skip around it but I am easily disgusted with it. On a related note I am easily disgusted with JREF.

I would think that reading the original source materiel and seeing for yourself if the interpretations work is a good thing, instead of being told what they say.


Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Part of that is many original source materials. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison. Until then, STFU. Sir. :mad:

[Filippo Lippi]

How to "build your own telescope"

1. Take lots of drugs
2. Deny that the drugs are responsible for your experience whilst under their influence

Do I have that right?

[PixyMisa]

Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison.
So, no actual evidence then?

Until then, STFU. Sir. :mad:
Shan't.

[tsig]

I've read much of it actually, just not all of it cover to cover. Its hard for me to stomach so much anger as is found in it. So I skip around it but I am easily disgusted with it. On a related note I am easily disgusted with JREF.




Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Part of that is many original source materials. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison. Until then, STFU. Sir. :mad:

Several years? I'm 66 years old an I entered a Catholic minor seminary at the age of 15 and a Trappist Abbey at 18. (didn't last long). I've studied religions all my life and have experienced a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal events.

And it was all a vanity of vanities, a tale told by a madman full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

We are now, the past exists only in memory and the future is speculation.

[AkuManiMani]

So, no actual evidence then?


Shan't.

Pixy, sometimes I wonder if you have any friends IRL other than the voices in your head... :sulk:

[AkuManiMani]

Several years? I'm 66 years old an I entered a Catholic minor seminary at the age of 15 and a Trappist Abbey at 18. (didn't last long). I've studied religions all my life and have experienced a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal events.

And it was all a vanity of vanities, a tale told by a madman full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

We are now, the past exists only in memory and the future is speculation.

This is one of the few posts I've seen you make with any interesting and substantive content. Keep this up and I might be motivated to bother replying to you more often, pops :)

[annnnoid]

Is this a novel debating technique - when faced with confidence, descend into incoherence?

"since when has existence been normal?" - what does that even mean?

...why do you even ask if you have no interest in an answer? Oh, I get it now, you are trying to emphasize how incoherent I am.

So why don’t we ask the question since you seem so concerned about the answer: How normal is it to be a creature that did not create itself, does not create itself, does not understand it’s own existence, yet at the very same time is fundamentally defined by a phenomenon known as ‘understanding', seems to function within a reality known as a universe that nobody really understands the true nature of, and for the most part has the ability to behave as if none of this is even relevant. I guess, dlorde, that some things are just not apparent to the naked eye.

I think it's call the "throwing multiple toys out of the pram" technique. The idea is that if you make a big enough mess no one will notice you had no point at all.

....typical I suppose. Pixy presents this absurd new scientific methodology (…because we can measure some things, we must be able to measure all things, therefore if we can’t measure it, we may justifiably conclude it does not exist)…and nobody makes a peep. Pixy suggests that we have instruments that can determine the definitive conscious state of any human being anywhere anytime…and nobody makes a peep. I point out these blatant absurdities (…which, come to think of it, bears a remarkable resemblance to something called a ‘point’…but not, understandably, to those who…in over twelve thousand posts…have yet to achieve a single coherent point of their own), and am accused of incoherence. Fine, if nonsense (or as you so obsequiously refer to it: 'confidence') is the metric by which we adjudicate the value of a statement, I’d suggest you gravitate to Pixy’s ravings. Somehow methinks the proverbial shoe is on the wrong proverbial foot.


Wrong.


Really. Perhaps you could provide a coherent explanation as to why the debate rages unabated? Oh yeah, I forgot…the belligerents have simply failed to acknowledge your profound wisdom…as, apparently, have the Nobel committee. You’ve already got the whole thing figured out. End of discussion.


Chomsky's a linguist.


Which obviously hasn’t the slightest thing to do with cognition, neurology, human identity, or subjective consciousness.


Actually, Chomsky's Universal Grammar is widely regarded as pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_grammar#Criticism) that has set the field of linguistics back thirty years.

Be that as it may, all you have done is pick an irrelevant quote from a famous - or infamous - name in an irrelevant field. This does not in any way refute the past fifty years of neuroscience.


How to avoid having to face an inconvenient truth: slander and libel


…what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it?


To whether we can detect emotions or not, yes.


…and they accuse me of incoherence????


Name one who would disagree with the statement in context.


Don’t know if you’ve noticed Pixy, but it’s subjective consciousness that we’re studying here (that is the context), not all the little machines we use to study it with (which you seem to be so gleefully fixated upon).


Yep. There you go. Argument over. But at least you admitted that you were wrong.

…argument over? How is it over. Slippery as a greased willy Pixy. What was the whole point of that post. It was your wonderful new theory and the assertion that there is nothing hidden from us.

I await your presentation of the instrument that can definitively determine the condition of the subjective consciousness of any human being anywhere anytime…to any reasonable degree actually, let alone explicitly as that specific human being is experiencing it them-self.

That was your claim, prove it.

Your claim, specifically, was that we have scientific instruments capable of detecting anything (because…just look at all the stuff we can already detect)…remember your new theory…so produce the instrument capable of detecting every single thing a human being experiences. Otherwise, I guess we’ll just have to conclude that you’re the one who is wrong (which, I’m sure, is as plain as day to all the other resident skeptics…they’re just typically spineless about criticizing one of their own…except for Resume, who I note, in the true skeptic tradition, actually makes decisions for himself).

[AkuManiMani]

....typical I suppose. Pixy presents this absurd new scientific methodology (…because we can measure some things, we must be able to measure all things, therefore if we can’t measure it, we may justifiably conclude it does not exist)…and nobody makes a peep. Pixy suggests that we have instruments that can determine the definitive conscious state of any human being anywhere anytime…and nobody makes a peep. I point out these blatant absurdities (…which, come to think of it, bears a remarkable resemblance to something called a ‘point’…but not, understandably, to those who…in over twelve thousand posts…have yet to achieve a single coherent point of their own), and am accused of incoherence. Fine, if nonsense (or as you so obsequiously refer to it: 'confidence') is the metric by which we adjudicate the value of a statement, I’d suggest you gravitate to Pixy’s ravings. Somehow methinks the proverbial shoe is on the wrong proverbial foot.

The implicit message is that as long as you tow the party line, no one will call you on your bull. They'll even cover your sorry behind if a designated "outsider" actually does call you out.

Don’t know if you’ve noticed Pixy, but it’s subjective consciousness that we’re studying here (that is the context), not all the little machines we use to study it with (which you seem to be so gleefully fixated upon).

Presumably, they're surrogates to help make up for an inability to maintain healthy human relationships.

[tsig]

This is one of the few posts I've seen you make with any interesting and substantive content. Keep this up and I might be motivated to bother replying to you more often, pops :)


Thanks for the interesting and substantive reply. Keep this up and I might be motivated to bother replying to you more often. Not.

[AkuManiMani]

Thanks for the interesting and substantive reply. Keep this up and I might be motivated to bother replying to you more often. Not.

Wow, just when I was beginning to let myself think that age actually brought maturity and wisdom. Wouldn't be the first time I've been disappointed by someone I -should- be able to look up to...

[tsig]

The implicit message is that as long as you tow the party line, no one will call you on your bull. TheyI'll even cover your sorry behind if a designated "outsider" actually does call you out.



Presumably, they're surrogates to help make up for an inability to maintain healthy human relationships.


ftfy

[tsig]

Pixy, sometimes I wonder if you have any friends IRL other than the voices in your head... :sulk:

He just got one more.

[AkuManiMani]

ftfy

Gramps holds grudges, it seems :covereyes

[AkuManiMani]

Pixy, sometimes I wonder if you have any friends IRL other than the voices in your head... :sulk:

He just got one more.

Good. 'Cause from the looks of things, he really needs some :-/

[tsig]

Wow, just when I was beginning to think that age actually brought maturity and wisdom. Wouldn't be the first time I've been disappointed by someone I -should- be able to look up to...

Stand on your own two feet, find your own truths, heroes are obstacles in your way. Look up to no man, god or entity for it's your life to live and your death to die and nobody will do it for you.

There's no secrets to learn nor enlightened beings to teach them. Begging help from invisible agents only points out your own weaknesses and your own insecurities.

[AkuManiMani]

Stand on your own two feet, find your own truths, heroes are obstacles in your way. Look up to no man, god or entity for it's your life to live and your death to die and nobody will do it for you.

There's no secrets to learn nor enlightened beings to teach them. Begging help from invisible agents only points out your own weaknesses and your own insecurities.

I don't beg for help. Never have. Never will. I just expect my elders to have something to offer other than platitudes, condescension, and another blow to my faith in humanity.

[Filippo Lippi]

Sadly, I expect people making claims to offer hand waving and ad homs when the paucity of their evidence is exposed. It saves me from disappointment.

[annnnoid]

Sadly, I expect people making claims to offer hand waving and ad homs when the paucity of their evidence is exposed. It saves me from disappointment.

…sadly, I expect the typical skeptic to offer cheap excuses for their wholesale ignorance of the issues. Saves me from disappointment.

[Filippo Lippi]

Show us the evidence

[Hokulele]

I've read much of it actually, just not all of it cover to cover. Its hard for me to stomach so much anger as is found in it. So I skip around it but I am easily disgusted with it. On a related note I am easily disgusted with JREF.


So, studying deeply means only reading until you are sick of it and then simply giving up?


Hmmmm...

[annnnoid]

Show us the evidence

The Jack and Jill philosophy of life: I am incapable of coming to a conclusion lest it be first approved through scientifically verifiable means.

“….this morning I must tie my shoes…”…
”….but hang on, how can I prove that I know that I know how to do so?...”
“…I could just do it, but I might be deceiving myself if I thought I did do it and then my shoes might just fall off….oh what shall I do…?”
“…I know, I’ll call up god Richard Dawkins…he will certainly be able to tell me whether a creature as evolutionarily advanced as me is, based on all available evidence, capable of tying it’s own shoelaces…”
…ring ring ring ring
“…Hallo…who’s this…?”
“…sorry Rich…your highness…I was just wondering, do I know how to tie my shoelaces…?”
“….**** off idiot…”

Edited to mask profanity. Do not attempt to evade the autocensor.

[carlitos]

Or we could, you know, just measure the number of people with tied shoelaces on their shoes.

[tsig]

I don't beg for help. Never have. Never will. I just expect my elders to have something to offer other than platitudes, condescension, and another blow to my faith in humanity.

If anything I have said has weakened your faith then my aim has been achieved.

Thanks for the encouragement!

[tsig]

The Jack and Jill philosophy of life: I am incapable of coming to a conclusion lest it be first approved through scientifically verifiable means.

“….this morning I must tie my shoes…”…
”….but hang on, how can I prove that I know that I know how to do so?...”
“…I could just do it, but I might be deceiving myself if I thought I did do it and then my shoes might just fall off….oh what shall I do…?”
“…I know, I’ll call up god Richard Dawkins…he will certainly be able to tell me whether a creature as evolutionarily advanced as me is, based on all available evidence, capable of tying it’s own shoelaces…”
…ring ring ring ring
“…Hallo…who’s this…?”
“…sorry Rich…your highness…I was just wondering, do I know how to tie my shoelaces…?”
“….**** off idiot…”

Learning how to tie your shoes must have been a really traumatic experience for you such early trauma could explain a lot.

[AkuManiMani]

I don't beg for help. Never have. Never will. I just expect my elders to have something to offer other than platitudes, condescension, and another blow to my faith in humanity.
If anything I have said has weakened your faith then my aim has been achieved.

Thanks for the encouragement!

So I shouldn't respect or trust any other humans, and assume that every person I meet is an arrogant fool who is totally full of crap? Is this your sage advice?

[carlitos]

Did you get a strawman construction set for Christmas?

[tsig]

So I shouldn't respect or trust any other humans, and assume that every person I meet is an arrogant fool who is totally full of crap? Is this your sage advice?

That's better than listening to the voices in your head.

Figuring out who's full of crap and who isn't is the beginning of wisdom.

[Resume]

Did you get a strawman construction set for Christmas?
It seems to be a popular gift.

[tsig]

Did you get a strawman construction set for Christmas?

The straw men are fun esp when he soaks them in the oil of ad hominim and sets them ablaze.:D

[Zanders]

I've read much of it actually, just not all of it cover to cover. Its hard for me to stomach so much anger as is found in it. So I skip around it but I am easily disgusted with it. On a related note I am easily disgusted with JREF.




Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Part of that is many original source materials. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison. Until then, STFU. Sir. :mad:


I actually understand where you are coming from. Because one does not exactly always have to read the source materiel if the interpretations made in many comparative books match up with what you have experienced for yourself. Although I myself don't beleive that the Quran was meant to have an inner mystical meaning based on all of the details I know about it's creation and the behavior of the writer. I believe that whatever it is interpreted to mean has much less value than what came from the creator's own mouth. It's sort of like when a novel is said to have subtext that the author never intended, like the Horton Hears a Who pro-life comparison I made earlier.

By the way, I don't think I have told you to "STFU". And if I did in the past, I was very rude and apologize.

[Pure Argent]

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.

Your ignorance is staggering.

….but we don’t accept anecdotes as evidence …

except, of course, in every single decision every single person makes every single second of every single minute of every single hour of every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year of their lives. So basically, anecdotal evidence is good enough to make a choice about a life partner, or whether to become president of the United States, or whether to bring another child into the world, or whether to order a big mac or a salad, but when it comes to a claim of an experience that skeptics just can’t stomach, it’s pure fraud.

…whaddya call that, confirmation bias or something?

No. I call it false.

We don't accept the anecdotes as evidence on their face. We accept them as evidence because the supporting evidence is readily available.

You may want to read through the thread so far before you say things like this. This topic has already been covered.

How’s this for a bare assertion:

If it exists, we should be able to detect it (simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many wonderful and elusive things that our scientific instruments can detect). Since we cannot detect it, we must conclude that it does not exist. Science at it’s most profound (personally, if I were a betting man, I’d say your odds of handling any kind of Nobel prize with this level of scientific reasoning has just plummeted to somewhere below absolute zero).

That's a rather obvious straw man. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to realize this, as you lack the ability to understand the argument being made.

Everything that exists has some effect on the universe. This effect can range from massive - Earth's gravity well, for example - to miniscule. The smallest of the small have effects so tiny that it's almost impossible to detect them - but they can be detected in theory. They exist. They have an effect. This means that the effect can, theoretically, be detected.

So the things which exist have an effect on the universe. That's not arguable. That's the definition of existence. Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.

This means that, theoretically, we can detect everything that exists in one way or another. We may not yet possess the instruments necessary to actually do it, but there is nothing actively preventing us from doing so.

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus.

Not only is this a straw man of many JREFers' positions, it's simply irrelevant. There are thousands of people who think that homeopathy works. Is this evidence that it does? Of course not.

Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy.

Does it matter? Chomsky may be incredibly intelligent. This does not mean that he is infallible.

You're not making an argument here, annnnoid. You're just committing the bare assertion fallacy by proxy.

What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being (specifically, the human being in question) to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.

He doesn't. You still don't understand the arguments being made.

We can detect emotions. We can register when someone is feeling roughly a certain way. We simply lack a total map of the brain which would allow us to determine in real time exactly which chemicals in which area trigger which emotion.

This in no way alters the fact that we know that emotions are neurological processes.

You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not

He did not. That you don't understand this is hardly surprising, but it is rather funny.

So why don’t we ask the question since you seem so concerned about the answer: How normal is it to be a creature that did not create itself, does not create itself, does not understand it’s own existence, yet at the very same time is fundamentally defined by a phenomenon known as ‘understanding', seems to function within a reality known as a universe that nobody really understands the true nature of, and for the most part has the ability to behave as if none of this is even relevant. I guess, dlorde, that some things are just not apparent to the naked eye.

Seems pretty normal to me, even if everything you listed is true. "Normal" is defined by consensus.

Really. Perhaps you could provide a coherent explanation as to why the debate rages unabated? Oh yeah, I forgot…the belligerents have simply failed to acknowledge your profound wisdom…as, apparently, have the Nobel committee. You’ve already got the whole thing figured out. End of discussion.

No one has claimed that they have complete, total, perfect knowledge of every mechanism in the brain. We do know, though, the general methods by which it works, and we do know that there is nothing paranormal about it. Or, if you want to be pedantic, we know enough to say that there is no need and no evidence of anything paranormal about it.

I await your presentation of the instrument that can definitively determine the condition of the subjective consciousness of any human being anywhere anytime…to any reasonable degree actually, let alone explicitly as that specific human being is experiencing it them-self.

That was your claim, prove it.

No, it wasn't.

Your claim, specifically, was that we have scientific instruments capable of detecting anything

No, it wasn't.

Try to read for comprehension rather than spouting straw men and nonsense.

[annnnoid]

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.


Of course there’s no need to actually support massive generalizations with anything as inconvenient as evidence. You’re a skeptic….only woo woo’s actually have to provide evidence to support their claims. Skeptics are omnipotent and thus exempt from their own rules.

So basically Argent, you are quite specifically stating that if an individual claiming to be experiencing a subjective state that they would describe using the words “I scintillate” (which is one of the words I presented….or any one of the billions of possible variations unique to every single human being) were given an MRI or a CT scan or some other variety of neurological test (care to name one) the MRI or CT scan or whatever would, after completing the test, produce the result…”this specific individual is experiencing the specific condition described by these words: “I scintillate”.

….because if that is what you are claiming, then the services of the half million or so psychologists in the US will no longer be needed. Because all we will have to do to get an accurate picture of the subjective condition of a particular patient is plug them into this magical device that Pixy (or you) has yet to produce.

202-336-5500….that’s the number for the American Psychological Association. Doubtless they’ll want to hear about this breakthrough.

In fact, it should make our legal system a hell of a lot simpler as well. Plug in potential suspects and it should be easily possible to determine who is lying….or is that not one of the things we are currently capable of accurately detecting? Hang on…come to think of it, it isn’t. According to all available evidence, there does not even exist an accurate neurological test to adjudicate one of the most basic of human conditions: honesty …except under very rigorously controlled conditions (and why should your magical machine require rigorously controlled conditions…I don’t encounter most of the words on that list under rigorously controlled conditions and neither does anyone else [except maybe you and Pixy]), and even then there is a great deal of controversy about the results…which is why lie detector results are not admissible in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions anywhere in the world (and even when they are they are only admissible under the aforementioned rigorously controlled conditions).

I mean, how much more fundamental can you get than that? We have all these supposedly magical neurological tests that can determine everything that can possibly be known about a human being (according to Pixy…and now you) and yet we cannot even determine that most basic of human conditions: when is someone lying. Y’know what Argent…

..you…are…full…of…**** (as usual)….check your facts before you post something.

Or how about I quote you:


Your ignorance is staggering.





No. I call it false.

We don't accept the anecdotes as evidence on their face. We accept them as evidence because the supporting evidence is readily available.

You may want to read through the thread so far before you say things like this. This topic has already been covered.


Did you read what I wrote? Obviously you don’t understand it (can your magical machine detect the condition known as ‘understanding’…maybe you ought to go plug yourself in and learn something).


That's a rather obvious straw man. Of course, I wouldn't expect you to realize this, as you lack the ability to understand the argument being made.

Everything that exists has some effect on the universe. This effect can range from massive - Earth's gravity well, for example - to miniscule. The smallest of the small have effects so tiny that it's almost impossible to detect them - but they can be detected in theory. They exist. They have an effect. This means that the effect can, theoretically, be detected.

So the things which exist have an effect on the universe. That's not arguable. That's the definition of existence. Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.


This is just too hilarious. “Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.” You’re kidding right! I mean, who woulda thunk it!


This means that, theoretically, we can detect everything that exists in one way or another. We may not yet possess the instruments necessary to actually do it, but there is nothing actively preventing us from doing so.


So let me get this straight (because this is getting really complicated). What you’re saying is that if something exists, we should be able to theoretically detect it (when?...tomorrow, in five hundred years?)? Really Sherlock….and how many decades of college did it take them to teach you that pearl of insight? …and things might exist that we don’t have the instruments to detect but just because we don’t have the instruments to detect them does not mean that they don’t exist. Dude…truly profound!!! Should I point out that this flatly contradicts Pixy’s position. But that would be to quibble I’m sure.


Not only is this a straw man of many JREFers' positions, it's simply irrelevant. There are thousands of people who think that homeopathy works. Is this evidence that it does? Of course not.


So what you’re saying with your unique Argent-analogy type thing is that just because there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums, that does not actually mean there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums. Is this what you’re saying…or are you saying that it’s somehow irrelevant to point out that there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness (at JREF or anywhere else)…when it is quite specifically consciousness that we are discussing? Ok then. I hope you don’t work in any kind of management position Argent.


Does it matter? Chomsky may be incredibly intelligent. This does not mean that he is infallible.


Hang on, did I suggest Chomsky is infallible? …let me have a look. Nope. And usually when someone is described as ‘incredibly intelligent’ it implies that what they have to say carries substantial weight (like when they say there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness for example)….more so than people who have not earned that distinction.


You're not making an argument here, annnnoid. You're just committing the bare assertion fallacy by proxy.


Of course. Chomsky has a lifetime of experience as a highly respected cognitive scientist yet somehow his conclusion is nothing more than ‘bare assertion’. Personally, I would be more likely to apply that description to your statement than his. IOW, I’d take Chomsky’s bare assertions over your voluble nonsense any day.


He doesn't. You still don't understand the arguments being made.

We can detect emotions. We can register when someone is feeling roughly a certain way. We simply lack a total map of the brain which would allow us to determine in real time exactly which chemicals in which area trigger which emotion.


…oh it’s ‘roughly’ now is it? You quite explicitly stated at the beginning “Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.”…but now there are qualifications and conditions are there Argent? Care to actually clearly state what your position is, or do you even know?


This in no way alters the fact that we know that emotions are neurological processes.


We ‘KNOW’ this do we? This is simply a vast generalization of all but no value.


He did not. That you don't understand this is hardly surprising, but it is rather funny.


Pixy did not say anything about ‘theoretically’ (did you read it?). That you don’t understand this is, I suppose, hardly surprising….and you’re not even worth laughing at.

This is exactly what Pixy said:

If you mean that science can't detect them because they're hard to see, then you are talking the most astounding rubbish.

…and then he went on to explicitly and implicitly describe the apparently limitless range of phenomenon that we are able to detect.

…and then Pixy said the following:

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

So Pixy is quite clearly implying that we have the ability to measure just about everything (in that all-but-limitless range of things that are detectable) and since we don’t measure anything when we try to measure for psi it must mean that there is nothing to measure for (I’m sure if I trolled though the thousands of Pixy’s posts I could find numerous examples of him either saying exactly that or something pretty close to it).

When you want to rage and sputter and accuse someone of introducing strawmen at least get your facts straight Argent.


Seems pretty normal to me, even if everything you listed is true. "Normal" is defined by consensus.


You know what you should do Argent, you should go and find that link I made to Scott Atrans talk about the atheist disease of rationality and read it from beginning to end. You just might learn something about how absurd your response is.


No one has claimed that they have complete, total, perfect knowledge of every mechanism in the brain. We do know, though, the general methods by which it works, and we do know that there is nothing paranormal about it. Or, if you want to be pedantic, we know enough to say that there is no need and no evidence of anything paranormal about it.


…not even wrong…and if you can’t recognize the gaping holes in this argument by now it would be an utter waste of time for me to once again list them all.

And I guess I'll leave you with a piece of your own advice:


Try to read for comprehension rather than spouting straw men and nonsense.

Edited to mask profanity. Do not evade the autocensor.

[tsig]

Of course there’s no need to actually support massive generalizations with anything as inconvenient as evidence. You’re a skeptic….only woo woo’s actually have to provide evidence to support their claims. Skeptics are omnipotent and thus exempt from their own rules.

So basically Argent, you are quite specifically stating that if an individual claiming to be experiencing a subjective state that they would describe using the words “I scintillate” (which is one of the words I presented….or any one of the billions of possible variations unique to every single human being) were given an MRI or a CT scan or some other variety of neurological test (care to name one) the MRI or CT scan or whatever would, after completing the test, produce the result…”this specific individual is experiencing the specific condition described by these words: “I scintillate”.

….because if that is what you are claiming, then the services of the half million or so psychologists in the US will no longer be needed. Because all we will have to do to get an accurate picture of the subjective condition of a particular patient is plug them into this magical device that Pixy (or you) has yet to produce.

202-336-5500….that’s the number for the American Psychological Association. Doubtless they’ll want to hear about this breakthrough.

In fact, it should make our legal system a hell of a lot simpler as well. Plug in potential suspects and it should be easily possible to determine who is lying….or is that not one of the things we are currently capable of accurately detecting? Hang on…come to think of it, it isn’t. According to all available evidence, there does not even exist an accurate neurological test to adjudicate one of the most basic of human conditions: honesty …except under very rigorously controlled conditions (and why should your magical machine require rigorously controlled conditions…I don’t encounter most of the words on that list under rigorously controlled conditions and neither does anyone else [except maybe you and Pixy]), and even then there is a great deal of controversy about the results…which is why lie detector results are not admissible in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions anywhere in the world (and even when they are they are only admissible under the aforementioned rigorously controlled conditions).

I mean, how much more fundamental can you get than that? We have all these supposedly magical neurological tests that can determine everything that can possibly be known about a human being (according to Pixy…and now you) and yet we cannot even determine that most basic of human conditions: when is someone lying. Y’know what Argent…

..you…are…full…of…**** (as usual)….check your facts before you post something.

Or how about I quote you:







Did you read what I wrote? Obviously you don’t understand it (can your magical machine detect the condition known as ‘understanding’…maybe you ought to go plug yourself in and learn something).



This is just too hilarious. “Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.” You’re kidding right! I mean, who woulda thunk it!



So let me get this straight (because this is getting really complicated). What you’re saying is that if something exists, we should be able to theoretically detect it (when?...tomorrow, in five hundred years?)? Really Sherlock….and how many decades of college did it take them to teach you that pearl of insight? …and things might exist that we don’t have the instruments to detect but just because we don’t have the instruments to detect them does not mean that they don’t exist. Dude…truly profound!!! Should I point out that this flatly contradicts Pixy’s position. But that would be to quibble I’m sure.



So what you’re saying with your unique Argent-analogy type thing is that just because there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums, that does not actually mean there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums. Is this what you’re saying…or are you saying that it’s somehow irrelevant to point out that there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness (at JREF or anywhere else)…when it is quite specifically consciousness that we are discussing? Ok then. I hope you don’t work in any kind of management position Argent.



Hang on, did I suggest Chomsky is infallible? …let me have a look. Nope. And usually when someone is described as ‘incredibly intelligent’ it implies that what they have to say carries substantial weight (like when they say there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness for example)….more so than people who have not earned that distinction.



Of course. Chomsky has a lifetime of experience as a highly respected cognitive scientist yet somehow his conclusion is nothing more than ‘bare assertion’. Personally, I would be more likely to apply that description to your statement than his. IOW, I’d take Chomsky’s bare assertions over your voluble nonsense any day.



…oh it’s ‘roughly’ now is it? You quite explicitly stated at the beginning “Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.”…but now there are qualifications and conditions are there Argent? Care to actually clearly state what your position is, or do you even know?



We ‘KNOW’ this do we? This is simply a vast generalization of all but no value.



Pixy did not say anything about ‘theoretically’ (did you read it?). That you don’t understand this is, I suppose, hardly surprising….and you’re not even worth laughing at.

This is exactly what Pixy said:

If you mean that science can't detect them because they're hard to see, then you are talking the most astounding rubbish.

…and then he went on to explicitly and implicitly describe the apparently limitless range of phenomenon that we are able to detect.

…and then Pixy said the following:

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

So Pixy is quite clearly implying that we have the ability to measure just about everything (in that all-but-limitless range of things that are detectable) and since we don’t measure anything when we try to measure for psi it must mean that there is nothing to measure for (I’m sure if I trolled though the thousands of Pixy’s posts I could find numerous examples of him either saying exactly that or something pretty close to it).

When you want to rage and sputter and accuse someone of introducing strawmen at least get your facts straight Argent.



You know what you should do Argent, you should go and find that link I made to Scott Atrans talk about the atheist disease of rationality and read it from beginning to end. You just might learn something about how absurd your response is.



…not even wrong…and if you can’t recognize the gaping holes in this argument by now it would be an utter waste of time for me to once again list them all.

And I guess I'll leave you with a piece of your own advice:

Yet you did it.

[carlitos]

annnnoid, the ultimate end of your argument seems headed towards solipsism. Of course, we can't experience exactly what others are experiencing. But we can measure data, compare to other data, and learn things. A blood pressure machine doesn't experience my blood pressure from my perspective or whatever. It measures it.

[annnnoid]

Yet you did it.

Did someone say something? Y’know tsig, you’re not even worth the effort to put you on ‘ignore’.

[carlitos]

Yet you hit the quote button and typed a reply.

I'd call that number you posted earlier.

[annnnoid]

annnnoid, the ultimate end of your argument seems headed towards solipsism. Of course, we can't experience exactly what others are experiencing. But we can measure data, compare to other data, and learn things. A blood pressure machine doesn't experience my blood pressure from my perspective or whatever. It measures it.

No…the ultimate end of my argument is that we’re demonstrably a long way from the ultimate end of this argument and it is ignorant in the extreme to dismiss the mountains of evidence that implicate the area’s of understanding that are gradually being illuminated or have yet to be sufficiently so.

[Zanders]

You know, believers (or people that like to use "skeptic" as a buzzword) are the only people I have seen butthurt (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt) enough to actually put people on ignore. They seem to like to shut stuff out a lot.

I don't ever hear about people putting users like annnoid or Limbo on their ignore list. Heck, I don't even think I've seen them use it once. Tell me who seems more reasonable.

[annnnoid]

Yet you hit the quote button and typed a reply.

I'd call that number you posted earlier.

Maybe tsig will eventually understand that being a waste of time is not something to actually aspire to. It’s the least I can do.

[carlitos]

No…the ultimate end of my argument is that we’re demonstrably a long way from the ultimate end of this argument and it is ignorant in the extreme to dismiss the mountains of evidence that implicate the area’s of understanding that are gradually being illuminated or have yet to be sufficiently so.

OK, you speak of mountains of evidence. I could go to google scholar and post a kajillion studies that measure brain activity during things like love, arousal, anger, confusion, etc.

I am afraid that I really don't understand your point. What areas of understanding are gradually being illuminated? This website has a million dollar reward for evidence of the paranormal, and they haven't paid out yet.

Just as a reminder, the OP encouraged us to construct a sigil, and learn chaos magick for ourselves. Have you done this?

[annnnoid]

You know, believers (or people that like to use "skeptic" as a buzzword) are the only people I have seen butthurt (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ButtHurt) enough to actually put people on ignore. They seem to like to shut stuff out a lot.

I don't ever hear about people putting users like annnoid or Limbo on their ignore list. Heck, I don't even think I've seen them use it once. Tell me who seems more reasonable.

Well gosh, I’d hate to jeopardize your esteemed opinion of me. How about a little insight Zanders. There are countless really irritating skeptics who actually contribute something (Pixy, for example). Tsig seems to have decided that it is his singular raison-d’etre to spend all his time at JREF spitting out one or two line posts that quite predictably say absolutely nothing. IOW… some people seem to want the attention that being put on ignore (or deserving to be) gives them. A bit paradoxical perhaps, but such is life.

[Zanders]

Well gosh, I’d hate to jeopardize your esteemed opinion of me. How about a little insight Zanders. There are countless really irritating skeptics who actually contribute something (Pixy, for example). Tsig seems to have decided that it is his singular raison-d’etre to spend all his time at JREF spitting out one or two line posts that quite predictably say absolutely nothing. IOW… some people seem to want the attention that being put on ignore (or deserving to be) gives them. A bit paradoxical perhaps, but such is life.


But I don't understand why it bothers you so much. There are users that I don't really enjoy reading the posts of, but I can just shrug them off and move on without having to throw them on my ignore list. You never know, some day you might want to see one of their posts. But I think threatening people with your ignore list or making a big deal about it is a little bit silly.

You also referred to skeptics as if they were all annoying, which is a very revealing. I don't think that all believers are annoying, but my opinion is slipping with every post like this I run in to.

[Resume]

No…the ultimate end of my argument is that we’re demonstrably a long way from the ultimate end of this argument and it is ignorant in the extreme to dismiss the mountains of evidence that implicate the area’s of understanding that are gradually being illuminated or have yet to be sufficiently so.

Clearly the professor didn't think much of your final paper last semester and it isn't faring much better here. I'll help you out a bit though. In your Philosophy of Science class, refrain from insisting one can prove a negative; in your Creative Writing prep workshop, don't end a short story with "and then I woke up."

There are people who actually know more about stuff than you, as hard as that is to accept.

[annnnoid]

But I don't understand why it bothers you so much. There are users that I don't really enjoy reading the posts of, but I can just shrug them off and move on without having to throw them on my ignore list. You never know, some day you might want to see one of their posts. But I think threatening people with your ignore list or making a big deal about it is a little bit silly.

You also referred to skeptics as if they were all annoying, which is a very revealing. I don't think that all believers are annoying, but my opinion is slipping with every post like this I run in to.

Zanders….I really shouldn’t have to point this out and I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to fatigue or something but when I say there are “countless skeptics I find annoying” it does not mean the same thing as “all skeptics are annoying”. Get it?

…as for ever expecting to encounter a post from tsig that would be worth reading…I would have to believe in miracles then wouldn’t I. And please don’t put words in my mouth, I’ve never said I am a believer of anything and whether I am or not (or what I do or do not believe in) is not something I will ever be discussing here.

[tsig]

Did someone say something? Y’know tsig, you’re not even worth the effort to put you on ‘ignore’.

Too lazy even for that.

[annnnoid]

Clearly the professor didn't think much of your final paper last semester and it isn't faring much better here. I'll help you out a bit though. In your Philosophy of Science class, refrain from insisting one can prove a negative; in your Creative Writing prep workshop, don't end a short story with "and then I woke up."

There are people who actually know more about stuff than you, as hard as that is to accept.

You’re becoming incomprehensible Resume…and are risking my generally favorable assessment of your abilities (obviously I won’t pretend that matters). If you really want me to understand your points, then make them understandable (does that matter?). For now I’ll take your light-hearted admonishment as a light-hearted admonishment. Further infractions will, though, be met with the full fury of a force five rebuttal, or, at the very least, egg on your face….or someone’s face (perhaps mine).

[tsig]

Well gosh, I’d hate to jeopardize your esteemed opinion of me. How about a little insight Zanders. There are countless really irritating skeptics who actually contribute something (Pixy, for example). Tsig seems to have decided that it is his singular raison-d’etre to spend all his time at JREF spitting out one or two line posts that quite predictably say absolutely nothing. IOW… some people seem to want the attention that being put on ignore (or deserving to be) gives them. A bit paradoxical perhaps, but such is life.

Yet you respond to posts that you say say absolutely nothing.

[Resume]

You’re becoming incomprehensible Resume…and are risking my generally favorable assessment of your abilities (obviously I won’t pretend that matters). If you really want me to understand your points, then make them understandable (does that matter?). For now I’ll take your light-hearted admonishment as a light-hearted admonishment. Further infractions will, though, be met with the full fury of a force five rebuttal, or, at the very least, egg on your face….or someone’s face (perhaps mine).

The topic of this thread is chaos magic, or something like that. Do you have evidence, or an argument that might advance our understanding of this phenomenon or are you going to just continue with "there's junk we don't know" ad infinitum?

[dafydd]

Just as a reminder, the OP encouraged us to construct a sigil, and learn chaos magick for ourselves. Have you done this?

You can draw a sigil,but that's the end of the story. It doesn't do anything.

[dlorde]

...why do you even ask if you have no interest in an answer? Oh, I get it now, you are trying to emphasize how incoherent I am.
That was just the most memorable incoherency. I apologise if that post embarrassed or upset you, it wasn't done with malice - it was more a rhetorical exclamation that I posted without thought. My bad.

So why don’t we ask the question since you seem so concerned about the answer: How normal is it to be a creature that did not create itself, does not create itself, does not understand it’s own existence, yet at the very same time is fundamentally defined by a phenomenon known as ‘understanding', seems to function within a reality known as a universe that nobody really understands the true nature of, and for the most part has the ability to behave as if none of this is even relevant. I guess, dlorde, that some things are just not apparent to the naked eye.
Many things are not apparent to the naked eye, and many things that are apparent are not as they seem. I don't follow what you're trying to say about normality - existence seems to me quite normal - I grew up with it, as did everyone who ever lived. The fact that we don't understand all of it (though I think we understand more than you give us credit for) doesn't make it abnormal or unusual - it just means there is still plenty to discover.

... Pixy presents this absurd new scientific methodology (…because we can measure some things, we must be able to measure all things, therefore if we can’t measure it, we may justifiably conclude it does not exist)…and nobody makes a peep. Pixy suggests that we have instruments that can determine the definitive conscious state of any human being anywhere anytime…and nobody makes a peep. I point out these blatant absurdities (…which, come to think of it, bears a remarkable resemblance to something called a ‘point’…but not, understandably, to those who…in over twelve thousand posts…have yet to achieve a single coherent point of their own), and am accused of incoherence. Fine, if nonsense (or as you so obsequiously refer to it: 'confidence') is the metric by which we adjudicate the value of a statement, I’d suggest you gravitate to Pixy’s ravings. Somehow methinks the proverbial shoe is on the wrong proverbial foot.
If that was all you wanted to say, it was a rambling and incoherent way to say it. If you think Pixy's statements are absurd or nonsensical, why not simply explain why you think that - if they really are absurd or nonsensical, they should be easy enough to demolish briefly and concisely.

Having said that, I don't think your paraphrasing of his statements is accurate, so you may end up demolishing straw men. Probably best to clarify with Pixy first.

[annnnoid]

Yet you respond to posts that you say say absolutely nothing.

Doubtless it has escaped your attention tsig but whether those here agree with what I say or not I invariably will make some effort to take a stand, present a position, point, or opinion in every post I make (why I make this effort is another matter). You typically say nothing other than to seemingly defend your right to say nothing. 12,000 posts of nothing. If I were an acquaintance I would suggest you get a life, but I’m not and I wouldn’t presume to suggest such a thing.

[tsig]

Zanders….I really shouldn’t have to point this out and I guess I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to fatigue or something but when I say there are “countless skeptics I find annoying” it does not mean the same thing as “all skeptics are annoying”. Get it?

…as for ever expecting to encounter a post from tsig that would be worth reading…I would have to believe in miracles then wouldn’t I. And please don’t put words in my mouth, I’ve never said I am a believer of anything and whether I am or not (or what I do or do not believe in) is not something I will ever be discussing here.

So you came to a site that says it's a place for discussion and you refuse to discuss?

[tsig]

The topic of this thread is chaos magic, or something like that. Do you have evidence, or an argument that might advance our understanding of this phenomenon or are you going to just continue with "there's junk we don't know" ad infinitum?

Chaos magig looks reallly chaotic.

[Zanders]

Woops, I need to apologize for calling you a believer. I just thought that you were based on a quick glance at your thread history being "the case for God" and then a quick look at your post history. While you will cot confirm whether you are or not, I will not assume. I kind of based it on how hostile you were towards "skeptics".

[Resume]

Chaos magig looks reallly chaotic.

Haphazard even.

[Pure Argent]

Of course there’s no need to actually support massive generalizations with anything as inconvenient as evidence. You’re a skeptic….only woo woo’s actually have to provide evidence to support their claims. Skeptics are omnipotent and thus exempt from their own rules.

You're seriously asking for evidence that we can measure emotional activity in the brain?

Pathetic. Do your own homework.

So basically Argent, you are quite specifically stating that if an individual claiming to be experiencing a subjective state that they would describe using the words “I scintillate” (which is one of the words I presented….or any one of the billions of possible variations unique to every single human being) were given an MRI or a CT scan or some other variety of neurological test (care to name one) the MRI or CT scan or whatever would, after completing the test, produce the result…”this specific individual is experiencing the specific condition described by these words: “I scintillate”.No, and if you had actually bothered to read my post (rather than responding to what you imagine I said) you would know that. Or maybe you wouldn't. I'm starting to have serious doubts about your ability to comprehend what is said to you.

I am saying that it is possible for such a machine to exist. Do we have such a machine right now? No. We don't yet have a complete map of the brain or a complete list of what neurons and chemicals combine in which area to produce which emotion. But that we can't yet state specifically what an individual is feeling doesn't mean that we can't tell that they are feeling anything. In many cases, we actually can narrow it down to a certain type of emotion, due to the reaction's location in the brain.

And no, I am not going to present you anything to present this. You might as well ask me to provide you with links showing that the sky is blue. If you want evidence for something so staggeringly simple and widely-known, you can spend your own time on Google. I don't feel like wasting my time "helping" you.

202-336-5500….that’s the number for the American Psychological Association. Doubtless they’ll want to hear about this breakthrough.

In fact, it should make our legal system a hell of a lot simpler as well. Plug in potential suspects and it should be easily possible to determine who is lying….or is that not one of the things we are currently capable of accurately detecting? Hang on…come to think of it, it isn’t. According to all available evidence, there does not even exist an accurate neurological test to adjudicate one of the most basic of human conditions: honesty …except under very rigorously controlled conditions (and why should your magical machine require rigorously controlled conditions…I don’t encounter most of the words on that list under rigorously controlled conditions and neither does anyone else [except maybe you and Pixy]), and even then there is a great deal of controversy about the results…which is why lie detector results are not admissible in the vast majority of legal jurisdictions anywhere in the world (and even when they are they are only admissible under the aforementioned rigorously controlled conditions).

I mean, how much more fundamental can you get than that? We have all these supposedly magical neurological tests that can determine everything that can possibly be known about a human being (according to Pixy…and now you) and yet we cannot even determine that most basic of human conditions: when is someone lying. Y’know what Argent…

..you…are…full…of…**** (as usual)….check your facts before you post something.Oh, do shut up, won't you? You have no idea what you're talking about. Come to that, you have no idea what I am talking about, and until you do, your posts serve only to make yourself look like even more of a colossal buffoon.

In other words, you are full of ****. As usual. Read what you are responding to before you post something.

This is just too hilarious. “Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.” You’re kidding right! I mean, who woulda thunk it!No, I am not kidding. Attempted ridicule does not constitute a rebuttal. It only serves to make you look childish.

So let me get this straight (because this is getting really complicated). What you’re saying is that if something exists, we should be able to theoretically detect itYes.

when?...tomorrow, in five hundred years?Dunno. It's not important.

Really Sherlock….and how many decades of college did it take them to teach you that pearl of insight?None, actually. How long did it take you? Oh, wait. You still don't seem to understand it. Never mind.

…and things might exist that we don’t have the instruments to detect but just because we don’t have the instruments to detect them does not mean that they don’t exist.I didn't say otherwise.

Should I point out that this flatly contradicts Pixy’s position.It doesn't. You don't understand Pixy's position.

So what you’re saying with your unique Argent-analogy type thing is that just because there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums, that does not actually mean there is no consensus after a billion pages of JREF consciousness forums.No. Again, try actually reading what I have said before you post a response.

Is this what you’re saying…or are you saying that it’s somehow irrelevant to point out that there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness (at JREF or anywhere else)…when it is quite specifically consciousness that we are discussing? Ok then. I hope you don’t work in any kind of management position Argent.And I hope that you don't work in anything where any type of reading is required.

I am saying that it is irrelevant to point out that there are people who don't think that there is an adequate explanation of consciousness. That is the appeal to popularity fallacy. Just because there are people - even a lot of people - who support an idea does not mean that the idea is true. There are still people who believe that the Earth is flat, but we certainly don't take that as evidence that the Earth is flat.

Or do you actually think that it is?

Hang on, did I suggest Chomsky is infallible? …let me have a look. Nope.Hang on, did I suggest that you suggested that? Let me have a look. Nope.

And usually when someone is described as ‘incredibly intelligent’ it implies that what they have to say carries substantial weight (like when they say there is no consensus on the understanding of consciousness for example)….more so than people who have not earned that distinction.No. It means that what they have to say carries substantial weight when it is backed by evidence. Newton was incredibly intelligent. He believed in alchemy. Do you believe in alchemy?

Of course. Chomsky has a lifetime of experience as a highly respected cognitive scientist yet somehow his conclusion is nothing more than ‘bare assertion’. Personally, I would be more likely to apply that description to your statement than his. IOW, I’d take Chomsky’s bare assertions over your voluble nonsense any day.Yes, it is bare assertion, because there is absolutely no evidence backing it.

Chomsky is undoubtedly very intelligent. However, he is not always correct. Not even in his own field.

…oh it’s ‘roughly’ now is it? You quite explicitly stated at the beginning “Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.”…but now there are qualifications and conditions are there Argent? Care to actually clearly state what your position is, or do you even know?I know exactly what it is, and it has been presented to you. Quite clearly, in fact.

Go back and read my post, then go and read some articles on neurology. Come back when you understand what's being discussed here.

We ‘KNOW’ this do we?Yep.

This is simply a vast generalization of all but no value.Nup.

Pixy did not say anything about ‘theoretically’ (did you read it?). That you don’t understand this is, I suppose, hardly surprising….and you’re not even worth laughing at.Pixy said nothing about "theoretically" because Pixy is (understandably) not one of the people who finds it necessary to spend their time explaining their position to people like you.

Of course, you could prove me wrong rather easily. All you have to do is ask Pixy.

But you won't.

This is exactly what Pixy said:

If you mean that science can't detect them because they're hard to see, then you are talking the most astounding rubbish.

…and then he went on to explicitly and implicitly describe the apparently limitless range of phenomenon that we are able to detect.

…and then Pixy said the following:

Unless you are claiming that your phenomena can pass through far more than a light year of lead unaffected and last far less than a femtosecond, they are quite readily detectable by scientific instruments.

So Pixy is quite clearly implying that we have the ability to measure just about everything (in that all-but-limitless range of things that are detectable) and since we don’t measure anything when we try to measure for psi it must mean that there is nothing to measure for (I’m sure if I trolled though the thousands of Pixy’s posts I could find numerous examples of him either saying exactly that or something pretty close to it).So you see that Pixy said that we can detect things which can pass through a light-year of lead in a femtosecond and you take that as confirmation that Pixy thinks that we can detect everything?

You really are talking complete and utter bull. Here's a hint: don't put words in people's mouths.

When you want to rage and sputter and accuse someone of introducing strawmen at least get your facts straight Argent.You might want to do the same.

You know what you should do Argent, you should go and find that link I made to Scott Atrans talk about the atheist disease of rationality and read it from beginning to end. You just might learn something about how absurd your response is.Well, I would, except that I seem to be having difficulty mustering the slightest amount of care.

Maybe if you showed that you were capable of formulating a coherent argument without attacking straw men I would be able to. Until then, though, I really don't see why I should give the slightest crap about any links you might bring up.

So, to sum up.

Stop strawmanning, go read about neurology, and try to respond to what has actually been said rather than what you want to hear. Maybe then people will stop regarding you as such a buffoon.

[PixyMisa]

Having said that, I don't think your paraphrasing of his statements is accurate, so you may end up demolishing straw men. Probably best to clarify with Pixy first.

Pure Argent got it exactly right:

Everything that exists has some effect on the universe. This effect can range from massive - Earth's gravity well, for example - to miniscule. The smallest of the small have effects so tiny that it's almost impossible to detect them - but they can be detected in theory. They exist. They have an effect. This means that the effect can, theoretically, be detected.

So the things which exist have an effect on the universe. That's not arguable. That's the definition of existence. Things which have no effect on the universe do not exist.

This means that, theoretically, we can detect everything that exists in one way or another. We may not yet possess the instruments necessary to actually do it, but there is nothing actively preventing us from doing so.

But we can go further than that. The precision and accuracy and range of our present instruments puts specific and well-defined limits on what we are unable to detect. We can't detect, for example, the gravitational effects of small objects at significant distances, because gravity is such a very, very weak force. This makes it difficult to test the predictions of string theory.

But if telepathy were actually happening - to pick one example - we would know. It would be blindingly obvious. It would be an engineering problem. There is not the slightest possibility that we could miss it.

The flip side of this is that if these effects are so subtle that modern science, with its vast array of incredibly sensitive instruments, cannot begin to detect them.... How do they know this? It means that by definition they have no evidence. Which means that by definition we dismiss their claims. Which means that this thread is just going to run in circles forever - unfortunately, requiring a constant input of energy to do so.

[Bad vibe]

I'm no expert in anything paranormal but my take so far on this discussion would be:
A. mumbo jumbo + take drugs = hallucination
B. take drugs= hallucination
B would seem to suggest mumbo jumbo is irrelevent, from numerous snips I've read and documentories isn't this the same thing Shamen do? perfectly mundane cause (take drug) effect (get high) dress it up with ritual so people think its special and beyond mere mortals purely as a job protection measure.

[annnnoid]

Pure Argent got it exactly right:



But we can go further than that. The precision and accuracy and range of our present instruments puts specific and well-defined limits on what we are unable to detect. We can't detect, for example, the gravitational effects of small objects at significant distances, because gravity is such a very, very weak force. This makes it difficult to test the predictions of string theory.

But if telepathy were actually happening - to pick one example - we would know. It would be blindingly obvious. It would be an engineering problem. There is not the slightest possibility that we could miss it.

The flip side of this is that if these effects are so subtle that modern science, with its vast array of incredibly sensitive instruments, cannot begin to detect them.... How do they know this? It means that by definition they have no evidence. Which means that by definition we dismiss their claims. Which means that this thread is just going to run in circles forever - unfortunately, requiring a constant input of energy to do so.

So here we have Pixy quite clearly stating that if psi were happening, we would be able to detect it….because, purportedly, our instruments are capable of detecting every such variety of phenomenon (a blatant contradiction since, given the paucity of understanding relating to these phenomenon [not to mention the origins and nature of consciousness itself] it is the height of ignorance to claim that we know what it is we are even testing for….). Pixy’s logic essentially says that we can already test for every such phenomenon (even though we don’t know what these phenomenon even are) and since we cannot detect them, there must be nothing going on. Argent, on the other hand, suggests that there may be phenomenon that we have yet to detect because we have yet to develop instruments capable of detecting them. As I said, Argent and Pixy do not agree.

Pixy also would like to believe that our neurological instruments have the precision to fathom subjective consciousness sufficiently to detect the occurrence of any such phenomena. I merely point out the indisputable fact that we cannot even accurately adjudicate the most basic of human conditions with the current state of technology …when is someone lying, so we can hardly expect to reliably detect a range of phenomenon that we are not even certain of the existence of, let alone in any way clear about the signature of.

IOW….we are very far from having the ability to detect what it is that is occurring within the subjective consciousness of another human being (as is quite obvious from our complete inability to accurately determine when someone is encountering even that most basic of human experiences…a lie). Thus, the conclusion that there is a vast range of phenomenon that exist completely outside of our ability to detect them is unavoidable. Many many many people report the experience of psi phenomenon. Given the dimensions of phenomenon that conclusively exist outside of our ability to detect them, it is not at all unreasonable to consider that psi phenomenon occur within THIS range, and not the measurable range of which Pixy is so confident. The evidence speaks. Period.

[Pure Argent]

So here we have Pixy quite clearly stating that if psi were happening, we would be able to detect it….because, purportedly, our instruments are capable of detecting every such variety of phenomenon (a blatant contradiction since, given the paucity of understanding relating to these phenomenon [not to mention the origins and nature of consciousness itself] it is the height of ignorance to claim that we know what it is we are even testing for….). Pixy’s logic essentially says that we can already test for every such phenomenon (even though we don’t know what these phenomenon even are) and since we cannot detect them, there must be nothing going on. Argent, on the other hand, suggests that there may be phenomenon that we have yet to detect because we have yet to develop instruments capable of detecting them. As I said, Argent and Pixy do not agree.

Pardon me for indulging in a bit of levity, but there really isn't any response as appropriate as the following.

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_le7e96dwMx1qfcj8to1_500.jpg

Pixy and I have been saying the same thing.

Yes, there are phenomena which we cannot detect. But the kind of effects described by psi believers are not among them. The nature of psi, as described, would make its effects painfully obvious if it were studied under controlled conditions. Since it has been, and they aren't, we dismiss it.

Of course, this does leave the possibility open for other, subtler psi effects, but they would have to be very, very subtle indeed.

Your entire argument rests on the assumption that we don't know what psi is, so we can't test for it. That is patent nonsense. Each psi believer has given us their own definition of what psi is. While this does mean that there is no consensus definition, it doesn't keep us from testing the claims placed before us.

Pixy also would like to believe that our neurological instruments have the precision to fathom subjective consciousness sufficiently to detect the occurrence of any such phenomena.

Another straw man.

Psi should be detectable, but not necessarily so with EEGs and other neurological instruments. However, we would be able to detect its effects through other means.

For example, AkuManiMani's claim of psi giving us knowledge that we couldn't have otherwise should be easily testable. Ditto those who claim telekinesis or telepathy. But none of these tests would require the use of neurological instruments.

Many many many people report the experience of psi phenomenon. Given the dimensions of phenomenon that conclusively exist outside of our ability to detect them, it is not at all unreasonable to consider that psi phenomenon occur within THIS range, and not the measurable range of which Pixy is so confident. The evidence speaks. Period.

No, it doesn't. Period.

All you're doing is using a god-of-the-gaps argument to try and support bare assertion. That doesn't work.

Try again.

[annnnoid]

As for you Argent, shall I quote you:

“ Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments”

What you seem to completely fail to appreciate with any degree of insight what-so-ever is just how much of a leap of understanding there is between ‘the test says this’ to ‘this is who I am’.

As for what you’re talking about…when you know, feel free to post it.

…but I just couldn’t pass up this little jewel:
"Just because lot’s of folks don’t think we have figured out consciousness, doesn’t actually mean we haven’t figured out consciousness."
So what are you actually saying their genius….it’s been figured out, it hasn’t been figured? What is it?

…and yet, we can’t even accomplish that most basic adjudication: determining whether someone is lying or telling the truth. Don’t know what world you live in Argent, but that tells me there’s an awful lot we don’t know about this thing that creates lies (and everything else that exists as ‘who I am’).

As for all the psi-related stuff. Your argument is a crock of B.S. and I've no intention of wasting any more time on it.

[annnnoid]

That was just the most memorable incoherency. I apologise if that post embarrassed or upset you, it wasn't done with malice - it was more a rhetorical exclamation that I posted without thought. My bad.


Many things are not apparent to the naked eye, and many things that are apparent are not as they seem. I don't follow what you're trying to say about normality - existence seems to me quite normal - I grew up with it, as did everyone who ever lived. The fact that we don't understand all of it (though I think we understand more than you give us credit for) doesn't make it abnormal or unusual - it just means there is still plenty to discover.


If that was all you wanted to say, it was a rambling and incoherent way to say it. If you think Pixy's statements are absurd or nonsensical, why not simply explain why you think that - if they really are absurd or nonsensical, they should be easy enough to demolish briefly and concisely.

Having said that, I don't think your paraphrasing of his statements is accurate, so you may end up demolishing straw men. Probably best to clarify with Pixy first.

….your bad…happens. Apology acknowledged.

Fact is, we take an awful lot for granted. Life is a vast mystery, the true dimensions of which are rarely illuminated for anyone, let alone everyone. Yet ‘normative’ is typically adjudicated based on the experience of the masses (by definition of course) but truth is another matter entirely. Is there human truth? What actually is a ‘normal’ human perspective? Whatever you may or may not believe about NDE’s one thing is certain, there are few human events that transform the perspective of those experiencing them to a greater degree…almost invariably for the better. IOW…a radically different perspective on life is achieved (‘how’ is not really relevant in this case, ‘what’ is what matters). So what actually is ‘normal’? If your ‘understanding’ could actually experience an accurate perspective of this condition so many take so much for granted (‘normal’), how would that perspective be characterized? I suggest it would have much more in common with those who enjoy the post-NDE perspective than the mass of men from whom the definition of ‘normative’ is typically derived. I was simply trying to point out (with my metaphor) the dimensions of what it is we live in relation to.

As for Pixy, Pixy is a special case. I’m sure Pixy knows this. You either play hardball with Pixy, or you don’t play at all (Pixy plays hardball with everyone else, we just return the favor). Pixy is prone to saying nutty things at times, maybe intentionally, maybe not, but they’re still nutty. IMO he has far more faith in science than it deserves. I’d say you do as well, though your position appears more balanced. Don't get me wrong, I have a ton of respect for this thing we call science, there's just way more to life and science far too often gets turned into dogma. Religion, IOW.

[Pure Argent]

As for you Argent, shall I quote you:

“ Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments”

Yep. And I shall quote you:

Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, Amusement, bliss, cheerfulness, gaiety, glee, jolliness, joviality, joy, delight, enjoyment, gladness, happiness, jubilation, elation, satisfaction, ecstasy, euphoria, Enthusiasm, zeal, zest, excitement, thrill, exhilaration, Contentment, pleasure, Pride, triumph, Eagerness, hope, optimism, Enthrallment, rapture, relief, Amazement, surprise, astonishment, Aggravation, irritation, agitation, annoyance, grouchiness, grumpiness, crosspatch, Exasperation, frustration, Anger, rage, outrage, fury, wrath, hostility, ferocity, bitterness, hate, scorn, spite, vengefullness, dislike, resentment, Disgust, revulsion, contempt, loathing, Envy, jealousy, torment, agony, suffering, hurt, anguish, Depression, despair, hopelessness, gloom, glumness, sadness, unhappiness, grief, sorrow, woe, misery, melancholy, Dismay, disappointment, displeasure, Guilt, shame, regret, remorse, Alienation, isolation, neglect, loneliness, rejection, homesickness, defeat, dejection, insecurity, embarrassment, humiliation, insult, Pity, sympathy, Alarm, shock, fear, fright, horror, terror, panic, hysteria, mortification, Anxiety, nervousness, tenseness, uneasiness, apprehension, worry, distress, dread.

All of these can be and have been detected by scientific instruments.

What you seem to completely fail to appreciate with any degree of insight what-so-ever is just how much of a leap of understanding there is between ‘the test says this’ to ‘this is who I am’.

And now you're just going off on a tangent. This has nothing to do with the opening of your post.

But whatever. I never said that the tests had anything to do with who I am - or who you are. Or who anyone else is.

Stop strawmanning. It's obvious, it's underhanded, and it's pathetic.

As for what you’re talking about…when you know, feel free to post it.

Same to you, buddy. Let me know when you come up with a post that actually manages to follow one line of thought for longer than a sentence.

…but I just couldn’t pass up this little jewel:
"Just because lot’s of folks don’t think we have figured out consciousness, doesn’t actually mean we haven’t figured out consciousness."
So what are you actually saying their genius….it’s been figured out, it hasn’t been figured? What is it?

Neither one. That sentence is simply a statement of fact: the opinion of the masses has no impact on fact.

However, I am of the opinion that we understand consciousness perfectly well. Do we understand every chemical and every section of the brain? No. Do we understand what every single neurological disorder is? No. But we understand perfectly well what consciousness itself is.

It's like a computer. We know exactly what a computer is and how it works. The fact that we can't always point to the exact switches which are simulating an if-then statement, or find the exact part of the registry which contains the virus, doesn't change the fact that we know what a computer is and how it works.

As for all the psi-related stuff. Your argument is a crock of B.S. and I've no intention of wasting any more time on it.

Ah, brave Sir Robin, how gallant you are.

[annnnoid]

So you came to a site that says it's a place for discussion and you refuse to discuss?

Of course tsig…I present posts thousands of words long and you respond with something like this? Are you terminally anal or just trying to hard?

[carlitos]

annnnoid, just a suggestion. If you think that someone is worth ignoring, ignore them. Otherwise, it looks like ...

[Zanders]

As for you Argent, shall I quote you:

“ Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments”

What you seem to completely fail to appreciate with any degree of insight what-so-ever is just how much of a leap of understanding there is between ‘the test says this’ to ‘this is who I am’.

As for what you’re talking about…when you know, feel free to post it.

…but I just couldn’t pass up this little jewel:
"Just because lot’s of folks don’t think we haven't figured out consciousness, doesn’t actually mean we haven’t figured out consciousness."
So what are you actually saying their genius….it’s been figured out, it hasn’t been figured? What is it?

…and yet, we can’t even accomplish that most basic adjudication: determining whether someone is lying or telling the truth. Don’t know what world you live in Argent, but that tells me there’s an awful lot we don’t know about this thing that creates lies (and everything else that exists as ‘who I am’).

As for all the psi-related stuff. Your argument is a crock of B.S. and I've no intention of wasting any more time on it.


Funny, you keep wasting your time talking to us about how much you are wasting your time talking to us. This doesn't seem very constructive does it? I think you need to calm down or just quit wasting your time already. It's like ranting at somebody about how you are ignoring them.

I await your next time consuming reply.

[annnnoid]

Yep. And I shall quote you:

All of these can be and have been detected by scientific instruments.

And now you're just going off on a tangent. This has nothing to do with the opening of your post.

But whatever. I never said that the tests had anything to do with who I am - or who you are. Or who anyone else is.

Stop strawmanning. It's obvious, it's underhanded, and it's pathetic.

Same to you, buddy. Let me know when you come up with a post that actually manages to follow one line of thought for longer than a sentence.

Neither one. That sentence is simply a statement of fact: the opinion of the masses has no impact on fact.

However, I am of the opinion that we understand consciousness perfectly well. Do we understand every chemical and every section of the brain? No. Do we understand what every single neurological disorder is? No. But we understand perfectly well what consciousness itself is.

It's like a computer. We know exactly what a computer is and how it works. The fact that we can't always point to the exact switches which are simulating an if-then statement, or find the exact part of the registry which contains the virus, doesn't change the fact that we know what a computer is and how it works.

Ah, brave Sir Robin, how gallant you are.

Of course, we can’t even adjudicate the existence of one of the most basic human conditions but according to you we understand consciousness perfectly well. I (and, apparently, Chomsky…among others) beg to differ.

As for your ridiculous contention that every human condition (that is what that list represents, as I clearly pointed out) has been somehow detected by some variety of neurological instrument…you do realize don’t you that that, very specifically, is the holy grail of the psychological profession. The last thing they want to have to do is rely on unreliable patients to tell them what is going on. If they could only have some way of accurately determining the subjective state of their patients it would make their jobs infinitely easier…and you are claiming this has already been done. Pray do present us with a link so we may share in this joyous development (and so I can pass it on to the Nobel committee cause that’s where the next prize is going).

…but then you make this puzzling claim that the tests have nothing to do with ‘who I am’ or ‘who you are’ or ‘who anyone is’. What the hell do they have anything to do with then Argent? Tiddlywinks!!!!! I quite explicitly stated that Pixy was suggesting that our neurological instruments are capable of detecting these very things…to that very degree of precision. It may have escaped your feeble notice, but those words do not describe cockroaches…they describe human beings.

H..u..m..a..n B..e..i..n..g..s. Not electrical impulses or computer readouts or electro-bio-chemical functions. Human beings. Every one of those words describes a very specific and explicit human condition (there are billions of them) and the simple fact is that there are no instruments that are in any way remotely capable of detecting any of them in the explicit way I described.

So perhaps it might be appropriate if you stopped pretending that there are.

[PixyMisa]

Pixy also would like to believe that our neurological instruments have the precision to fathom subjective consciousness sufficiently to detect the occurrence of any such phenomena.
Red herring.

Either telepathy happens, or it doesn't. It's not subjective. It's got nothing to do with consciousness.

It happens, or it doesn't.

If it happens, it's a physical interaction. If it's a physical interaction, it is by definition detectable in principle.

We know what sort of physical interactions brains are sensitive to. As it turns out, brains pretty much ignore external effects until they are strong enough to actually damage measuring equipment.

There is no way anyone could miss telepathy if it actually happened. As soon as someone fired up their telepathy, every mobile phone within a hundred feet would stop working.

This doesn't happen. That's negative evidence against telepathy.

Nor is there any positive evidence.

Therefore, there is no such thing as telepathy. End of discussion. Anything you say at this point - UNLESS you are presenting brand new, independently verified and truly astounding evidence - is special pleading and weaselry.

[Pure Argent]

Of course, we can’t even adjudicate the existence of one of the most basic human conditions but according to you we understand consciousness perfectly well.

Yes.

Again, I bring up the subject of computers. We know exactly what computers are and how they function. However, we can't look at any computer while it's running and say that this switch is the one currently being used, or that this switch is the one causing the program to give faulty output.

It's the same way for consciousness.

I (and, apparently, Chomsky…among others) beg to differ.

But you have no evidence supporting your opinion.

As for your ridiculous contention that every human condition (that is what that list represents, as I clearly pointed out) has been somehow detected by some variety of neurological instrument…you do realize don’t you that that, very specifically, is the holy grail of the psychological profession. The last thing they want to have to do is rely on unreliable patients to tell them what is going on. If they could only have some way of accurately determining the subjective state of their patients it would make their jobs infinitely easier…and you are claiming this has already been done.

I have never said that such a machine exists. Stop with the straw men already. I'm getting very tired of it.

H..u..m..a..n B..e..i..n..g..s. Not electrical impulses or computer readouts or electro-bio-chemical functions. Human beings. Every one of those words describes a very specific and explicit human condition (there are billions of them) and the simple fact is that there are no instruments that are in any way remotely capable of detecting any of them in the explicit way I described.

So perhaps it might be appropriate if you stopped pretending that there are.

I have never said that such a machine exists.

But I'm done trying to explain my position to you. You either don't want to know what my position actually is or you're too clueless to ever figure it out. Go back and read over my posts again. We'll talk when you've actually made some effort towards understanding.

[Resume]

So perhaps it might be appropriate if you stopped pretending that there are.
In regard to the thread topic, you might be wise to follow your own advise.

[Zanders]

Yes.

But I'm done trying to explain my position to you. You either don't want to know what my position actually is or you're too clueless to ever figure it out. Go back and read over my posts again. We'll talk when you've actually made some effort towards understanding.


I'm not sure he'd want to "waste time" on your "B.S."

[Pure Argent]

I'm not sure he'd want to "waste time" on your "B.S."

Probably not. He's like a lot of other psi believers on this board that way.

[PixyMisa]

OK, you speak of mountains of evidence. I could go to google scholar and post a kajillion studies that measure brain activity during things like love, arousal, anger, confusion, etc.
They're invisible mountains. Therefore God. Or something.

[Zanders]

You can't even hold music. It's just there in the air.

[tsig]

So here we have Pixy quite clearly stating that if psi were happening, we would be able to detect it….because, purportedly, our instruments are capable of detecting every such variety of phenomenon (a blatant contradiction since, given the paucity of understanding relating to these phenomenon [not to mention the origins and nature of consciousness itself] it is the height of ignorance to claim that we know what it is we are even testing for….). Pixy’s logic essentially says that we can already test for every such phenomenon (even though we don’t know what these phenomenon even are) and since we cannot detect them, there must be nothing going on. Argent, on the other hand, suggests that there may be phenomenon that we have yet to detect because we have yet to develop instruments capable of detecting them. As I said, Argent and Pixy do not agree.

Pixy also would like to believe that our neurological instruments have the precision to fathom subjective consciousness sufficiently to detect the occurrence of any such phenomena. I merely point out the indisputable fact that we cannot even accurately adjudicate the most basic of human conditions with the current state of technology …when is someone lying, so we can hardly expect to reliably detect a range of phenomenon that we are not even certain of the existence of, let alone in any way clear about the signature of.

IOW….we are very far from having the ability to detect what it is that is occurring within the subjective consciousness of another human being (as is quite obvious from our complete inability to accurately determine when someone is encountering even that most basic of human experiences…a lie). Thus, the conclusion that there is a vast range of phenomenon that exist completely outside of our ability to detect them is unavoidable. Many many many people report the experience of psi phenomenon. Given the dimensions of phenomenon that conclusively exist outside of our ability to detect them, it is not at all unreasonable to consider that psi phenomenon occur within THIS range, and not the measurable range of which Pixy is so confident. The evidence speaks. Period.

If psi is so subtle that we can't detect it then is effectively non existent.

[tsig]

Of course tsig…I present posts thousands of words long and you respond with something like this? Are you terminally anal or just trying to hard?

I gave it all the attention it deserved.

[AkuManiMani]

Did you get a strawman construction set for Christmas?

No, but you've provided plenty enough raw materials to stuff one.

[AkuManiMani]

So I shouldn't respect or trust any other humans, and assume that every person I meet is an arrogant fool who is totally full of crap? Is this your sage advice?

That's better than listening to the voices in your head.

Figuring out who's full of crap and who isn't is the beginning of wisdom.

If thats the case then you've never reached the starting line. How can you honestly assess if someone else if full of crap if you can't even recognize your own bull?

[dafydd]

Haphazard even.

Non existent even.

[tsig]

If thats the case then you've never reached the starting line. How can you honestly assess if someone else if full of crap if you can't even recognize your own bull?

I'm sure it's an Angus.

It's a shame you're reduced to throwing out insults, that usually means you haven't got any arguments left.

[annnnoid]

Yes.

Again, I bring up the subject of computers. We know exactly what computers are and how they function. However, we can't look at any computer while it's running and say that this switch is the one currently being used, or that this switch is the one causing the program to give faulty output.

It's the same way for consciousness.

But you have no evidence supporting your opinion.

I have never said that such a machine exists. Stop with the straw men already. I'm getting very tired of it.

I have never said that such a machine exists.

But I'm done trying to explain my position to you. You either don't want to know what my position actually is or you're too clueless to ever figure it out. Go back and read over my posts again. We'll talk when you've actually made some effort towards understanding.

….of course Argent. You can present some wackjob claim that every single condition of human subjective consciousness has been somehow detected (care to specifically define ‘detected’, or is asking for substantiation not allowed there either?) by some neurological test or other…without any need for a shred of evidence…(which then becomes endlessly qualified to read…” I never said that “…or “I never said this” …or…”I never said that”…so what the hell did you say Argent?)

…whereas I back up my claim with a statement of support from one of the most highly respected and experienced (…do you understand the meaning of the word ‘experience’ Argent?) cognitive scientists on the planet and somehow I am the one who fails to substantiate their claim.

Ok then.

You want to know what your position is Argent? Your position is that you have this vague idea that it’s possible to test for lots of human characteristics and you’d like to sometimes sneakily extrapolate that to read ‘all characteristics’ even though you have no real idea what either position actually means. As I said quite clearly, we don’t even have an accurate ability to adjudicate one of the most basic conditions of subjective consciousness…when is someone lying. You just have no idea of the dimensions of the reality that is subjective consciousness (most people [me included] don’t, ever), but, like most ignorant skeptics, you believe in scientism…you’re a religious dogmatist…you are (to borrow that most damning of accusations), deluded…and you’d like to think it’s a simple little thing (just like Pixy) because if it’s not then that means there really is a whole bunch of stuff that we don’t actually know about ourselves and no self-respecting skeptic likes to deal with issues like collective or personal ignorance.

…of course you never said any such machine exists. You just said that every single human reality has been detected…by something. And then you back-pedaled like crazy.
‘…stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me…’ then stop spouting garbage!

So you’re done explaining your position to me, too bad…I’m enjoying demolishing it.

I'm not sure he'd want to "waste time" on your "B.S."

As far as B.S. goes….what it comes down to is that many of those at JREF are massively biased, period. Not surprising and totally expected. What it also comes down to is that there is simply far too much we don’t know about science in general and about consciousness in particular to insist that vaguely or explicitly reported psi phenomenon contradict scientific understanding. It is also a simple fact that these phenomenon occur along the frontiers of our understanding of science and consciousness and implicate a massive range of scientific and psychological issues across the complete spectrum of human reality (it is not for nothing that consciousness has been described as the biggest unanswered question in science). There have been countless studies done of a wide variety of these phenomenon…and more are being complied all the time, and to suggest that we dismiss the issue simply because various stupidly biased reports (Randi, Shermer, Blackmore…the trinity of fools) of rudimentary studies show negative results is massively scientifically illiterate.

The appropriate skeptical approach to this subject is, first, to recognize the dimensions and unique characteristics of the issues in question. When you’re dealing with widely reported phenomenon that implicate the entire reality of human identity and fundamentally challenge our most significant scientific assumptions you don’t simply suggest that because our current instruments fail to detect it, we must conclude that it is not there…case closed! That is the default position of many JREFers. Dogmatic scientism. It’s a purely religious position, and it is plainly scientifically illiterate.

As for your conclusive test Pixy…that’s the first time I’ve heard you refer to such a thing. It’s nonsense of course, but creative nonsense. I’ll deal with it later. It’s Sunday morning here and I have to perform my wake-up rituals…hail the sun, moon, stars, and various bed bugs that accompany me through my daily spiritual distortions. Amen.

I'm sure it's an Angus.

It's a shame you're reduced to throwing out insults, that usually means you haven't got any arguments left.

Tsig…you want to know what you’ve been reduced to?....target practice. You might want to consider that this is not a compliment.

[tsig]

….of course Argent. You can present some wackjob claim that every single condition of human subjective consciousness has been somehow detected (care to specifically define ‘detected’, or is asking for substantiation not allowed there either?) by some neurological test or other…without any need for a shred of evidence…(which then becomes endlessly qualified to read…” I never said that “…or “I never said this” …or…”I never said that”…so what the hell did you say Argent?)

…whereas I back up my claim with a statement of support from one of the most highly respected and experienced (…do you understand the meaning of the word ‘experience’ Argent?) cognitive scientists on the planet and somehow I am the one who fails to substantiate their claim.

Ok then.

You want to know what your position is Argent? Your position is that you have this vague idea that it’s possible to test for lots of human characteristics and you’d like to sometimes sneakily extrapolate that to read ‘all characteristics’ even though you have no real idea what either position actually means. As I said quite clearly, we don’t even have an accurate ability to adjudicate one of the most basic conditions of subjective consciousness…when is someone lying. You just have no idea of the dimensions of the reality that is subjective consciousness (most people [me included] don’t, ever), but, like most ignorant skeptics, you believe in scientism…you’re a religious dogmatist…you are (to borrow that most damning of accusations), deluded…and you’d like to think it’s a simple little thing (just like Pixy) because if it’s not then that means there really is a whole bunch of stuff that we don’t actually know about ourselves and no self-respecting skeptic likes to deal with issues like collective or personal ignorance.

…of course you never said any such machine exists. You just said that every single human reality has been detected…by something. And then you back-pedaled like crazy.
‘…stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me…’ then stop spouting garbage!

So you’re done explaining your position to me, too bad…I’m enjoying demolishing it.



As far as B.S. goes….what it comes down to is that many of those at JREF are massively biased, period. Not surprising and totally expected. What it also comes down to is that there is simply far too much we don’t know about science in general and about consciousness in particular to insist that vaguely or explicitly reported psi phenomenon contradict scientific understanding. It is also a simple fact that these phenomenon occur along the frontiers of our understanding of science and consciousness and implicate a massive range of scientific and psychological issues across the complete spectrum of human reality (it is not for nothing that consciousness has been described as the biggest unanswered question in science). There have been countless studies done of a wide variety of these phenomenon…and more are being complied all the time, and to suggest that we dismiss the issue simply because various stupidly biased reports (Randi, Shermer, Blackmore…the trinity of fools) of rudimentary studies show negative results is massively scientifically illiterate.

The appropriate skeptical approach to this subject is, first, to recognize the dimensions and unique characteristics of the issues in question. When you’re dealing with widely reported phenomenon that implicate the entire reality of human identity and fundamentally challenge our most significant scientific assumptions you don’t simply suggest that because our current instruments fail to detect it, we must conclude that it is not there…case closed! That is the default position of many JREFers. Dogmatic scientism. It’s a purely religious position, and it is plainly scientifically illiterate.

As for your conclusive test Pixy…that’s the first time I’ve heard you refer to such a thing. It’s nonsense of course, but creative nonsense. I’ll deal with it later. It’s Sunday morning here and I have to perform my wake-up rituals…hail the sun, moon, stars, and various bed bugs that accompany me through my daily spiritual distortions. Amen.



Tsig…you want to know what you’ve been reduced to?....target practice. You might want to consider that this is not a compliment.

More insults. Well you gotta go with what you know.

You might want to consider the MA.

[annnnoid]

More insults. Well you gotta go with what you know.

You might want to consider the MA.

It’s not an insult tsig…just a fact. As for the MA (I’m assuming you’re referring to some variety of administrator), I’m rather disappointed to see you resorting to this kind of thing tsig. I’m forced to quote one of the few posts where you actually recorded something of substance:

Stand on your own two feet, find your own truths, heroes are obstacles in your way. Look up to no man, god or entity for it's your life to live and your death to die and nobody will do it for you.

There's no secrets to learn nor enlightened beings to teach them. Begging help from invisible agents only points out your own weaknesses and your own insecurities.

[carlitos]

MA is shorthand for the Membership Agreement that you agreed to when you joined this forum. Just FYI.

ETA - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744

[Pure Argent]

….of course Argent. You can present some wackjob claim that every single condition of human subjective consciousness has been somehow detected (care to specifically define ‘detected’, or is asking for substantiation not allowed there either?)

Registered on brain scanners of various types. We do have machines that monitor various areas of the brain, you know. When someone is feeling a certain emotion, certain areas of the brain light up.

This is why I said we can roughly tell which emotions are being experienced. Different areas of the brain correspond to different types of emotions. But our knowledge isn't complete enough - and there's too much background noise - to be able to figure out exactly which emotion is being experienced.

It's not a difficult concept.

by some neurological test or other…without any need for a shred of evidence…

The evidence is out there, and is available at a second's Googling. I don't feel like wasting my time giving you evidence that is so blatantly obvious.

Do your own homework.

(which then becomes endlessly qualified to read…” I never said that “…or “I never said this” …or…”I never said that”…so what the hell did you say Argent?)

Exactly what is in my posts. Nothing more, nothing less.

PROTIP: If you stopped accusing me of saying things which I never said, you would get less "I never said this".

…whereas I back up my claim with a statement of support from one of the most highly respected and experienced (…do you understand the meaning of the word ‘experience’ Argent?) cognitive scientists on the planet and somehow I am the one who fails to substantiate their claim.

Ok then.

Yep. It doesn't matter who says it if there's no evidence backing it. You can quote cognitive scientists who back your position until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that not a single one of them - or yourself - has any evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

Of course, it's incredibly easy to prove me wrong on this. Just present me with some actual evidence, rather than baseless quotes.

You want to know what your position is Argent?

PROTIP2: Don't tell someone else what they think. It just makes you look like a pompous idiot.

Your position is that you have this vague idea that it’s possible to test for lots of human characteristics and you’d like to sometimes sneakily extrapolate that to read ‘all characteristics’ even though you have no real idea what either position actually means.

Not even close.

As I said quite clearly, we don’t even have an accurate ability to adjudicate one of the most basic conditions of subjective consciousness…when is someone lying. You just have no idea of the dimensions of the reality that is subjective consciousness (most people [me included] don’t, ever), but, like most ignorant skeptics, you believe in scientism…you’re a religious dogmatist…you are (to borrow that most damning of accusations), deluded…and you’d like to think it’s a simple little thing (just like Pixy) because if it’s not then that means there really is a whole bunch of stuff that we don’t actually know about ourselves and no self-respecting skeptic likes to deal with issues like collective or personal ignorance.

I've got no issue against ignorance. I admit that I am ignorant on any number of subjects. Quantum mechanics, for example. And the history of Turkey. And the reproductive habits of deep-sea animals. But this isn't a matter of ignorance.

Accuse me of being dogmatic all you want. It doesn't change reality. It just highlights the fact that you are entirely incapable of producing a single shred of actual evidence to support your position, and that you are willing to fall back on insults to attempt to hide this fact.

…of course you never said any such machine exists. You just said that every single human reality has been detected…by something. And then you back-pedaled like crazy.

I never backpedaled. You failed to understand my position.

‘…stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me, stop strawmanning me…’ then stop spouting garbage!

I am not spouting garbage. Even if I was, it would not excuse your strawmanning.

Try again.

So you’re done explaining your position to me, too bad…I’m enjoying demolishing it.

You've demolished nothing. As I said, I'm done going over this with you. If you want to know what my position is, go back and read my posts again. Without your straw glasses on this time.

As far as B.S. goes….what it comes down to is that many of those at JREF are massively biased, period. Not surprising and totally expected. What it also comes down to is that there is simply far too much we don’t know about science in general and about consciousness in particular to insist that vaguely or explicitly reported psi phenomenon contradict scientific understanding. It is also a simple fact that these phenomenon occur along the frontiers of our understanding of science and consciousness and implicate a massive range of scientific and psychological issues across the complete spectrum of human reality (it is not for nothing that consciousness has been described as the biggest unanswered question in science). There have been countless studies done of a wide variety of these phenomenon…and more are being complied all the time, and to suggest that we dismiss the issue simply because various stupidly biased reports (Randi, Shermer, Blackmore…the trinity of fools) of rudimentary studies show negative results is massively scientifically illiterate.

The appropriate skeptical approach to this subject is, first, to recognize the dimensions and unique characteristics of the issues in question. When you’re dealing with widely reported phenomenon that implicate the entire reality of human identity and fundamentally challenge our most significant scientific assumptions you don’t simply suggest that because our current instruments fail to detect it, we must conclude that it is not there…case closed! That is the default position of many JREFers. Dogmatic scientism. It’s a purely religious position, and it is plainly scientifically illiterate.

Your first paragraph is largely bunkum. I have neither the time nor the desire to go through it all. However, there are many studies which are not "rudimentary" and which were not performed by Randi or the rest. None of them showed positive results. The only ones which did were later shown to either be flawed methodologically or failed to repeat.

The second paragraph is even farther removed from reality. You're still acting as through brain scanners are our only tools. Again, if someone claims something about psi - such as clairvoyance, telepathy, or telekinesis - we can test that. It's stupidly simple, annnnoid. You can't contest it. It's blatantly obvious, and that you maintain that it isn't is mind-boggling.

Of course, in dealing with you I've come to expect mind-boggling amounts of willful ignorance, so... par for the course, I guess.

[annnnoid]

Registered on brain scanners of various types. We do have machines that monitor various areas of the brain, you know. When someone is feeling a certain emotion, certain areas of the brain light up.

This is why I said we can roughly tell which emotions are being experienced. Different areas of the brain correspond to different types of emotions. But our knowledge isn't complete enough - and there's too much background noise - to be able to figure out exactly which emotion is being experienced.

It's not a difficult concept.

The evidence is out there, and is available at a second's Googling. I don't feel like wasting my time giving you evidence that is so blatantly obvious.

Do your own homework.

Exactly what is in my posts. Nothing more, nothing less.

PROTIP: If you stopped accusing me of saying things which I never said, you would get less "I never said this".

Yep. It doesn't matter who says it if there's no evidence backing it. You can quote cognitive scientists who back your position until the cows come home. It doesn't change the fact that not a single one of them - or yourself - has any evidence to support that claim whatsoever.

Of course, it's incredibly easy to prove me wrong on this. Just present me with some actual evidence, rather than baseless quotes.

PROTIP2: Don't tell someone else what they think. It just makes you look like a pompous idiot.

Not even close.

I've got no issue against ignorance. I admit that I am ignorant on any number of subjects. Quantum mechanics, for example. And the history of Turkey. And the reproductive habits of deep-sea animals. But this isn't a matter of ignorance.

Accuse me of being dogmatic all you want. It doesn't change reality. It just highlights the fact that you are entirely incapable of producing a single shred of actual evidence to support your position, and that you are willing to fall back on insults to attempt to hide this fact.

I never backpedaled. You failed to understand my position.

I am not spouting garbage. Even if I was, it would not excuse your strawmanning.

Try again.

You've demolished nothing. As I said, I'm done going over this with you. If you want to know what my position is, go back and read my posts again. Without your straw glasses on this time.

Your first paragraph is largely bunkum. I have neither the time nor the desire to go through it all. However, there are many studies which are not "rudimentary" and which were not performed by Randi or the rest. None of them showed positive results. The only ones which did were later shown to either be flawed methodologically or failed to repeat.

The second paragraph is even farther removed from reality. You're still acting as through brain scanners are our only tools. Again, if someone claims something about psi - such as clairvoyance, telepathy, or telekinesis - we can test that. It's stupidly simple, annnnoid. You can't contest it. It's blatantly obvious, and that you maintain that it isn't is mind-boggling.

Of course, in dealing with you I've come to expect mind-boggling amounts of willful ignorance, so... par for the course, I guess.





Adoration, fondness, liking, attraction, caring, tenderness, compassion, sentimentality, Arousal, desire, lust, passion, infatuation, longing, etc. etc. to infinity and beyond...

We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them….except, of course, the 'scientific instrument' that is those who experience them.


That was my very clear and explicit response to Pixy’s nonsense suggesting that we have instruments capable of detecting all but everything that a human being can experience. Essentially, the entire range of human subjective consciousness is completely hidden from view.

You, of course, don’t like this idea (you probably don’t even understand it, but that’s a different matter). The fact that it is demonstrably true is merely inconvenient. So you resort to blatant slander:


Your ignorance is staggering.


Based, of course, on your own bald assertion that we have, in fact, detected every single possible condition of subjective consciousness that exists. Which, upon being exposed for the utter garbage that it is, is endlessly qualified to read ‘well, I didn’t mean to say that’.

B.S.

MA is shorthand for the Membership Agreement that you agreed to when you joined this forum. Just FYI.

ETA - http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=25744

Should have thought of that Carlitos (my first intuition drifted towards 'marijuana anonymous'...but I just couldn't make the connection). I guess I owe tsig an apology. Maybe I'll make it conditional upon him actually producing a post that contains a whole paragraph with a point that has some relevance to the subject at hand. Y'never know, it might be just enough to wake him up.