PDA

View Full Version : Chaos Magic


Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

Resume
9th February 2011, 12:35 PM
since the existence of a skeptical observer actually alters the conditions.

Yes, having someone watch closely certainly prohibits your bending the spoon by slight of hand or misdirection. You then pretty much have to bend it using your telekinectic powers, which of course do not exist.

AvalonXQ
9th February 2011, 12:35 PM
Yuri Geller is a fraud.I'm surprised that you are taken in by him.
What on earth did I say that led you to believe I am taken in by Uri Geller?

And you also brought in the old canard about a skeptic's presence stifling the physic powers. The eternal excuse.
"Eternal excuse" or not, it's consistent with the theory. The whole idea is "perception alters reality". Standard lab conditions won't work because the observers themselves alter the experiment.
Putting an unbeliever in a room to test the statement "Person A can levitate when at least ten believers and no unbelievers are in the room" isn't an appropriate test.

Resume
9th February 2011, 12:40 PM
Putting an unbeliever in a room to test the statement "Person A can levitate when at least ten believers and no unbelievers are in the room" isn't an appropriate test.

Carp.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 12:41 PM
Shift a Geller experiment into a magician's paradigm, where witnessed phenomena are suspect rather than the rock-solid basis of analysis, and where the "psychic" is generally viewed with skepticism rather than acceptance, and his abilities evaporate.

There you are. Geller claimed he was psychic,so I assumed that you included him.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 12:42 PM
What on earth did I say that led you to believe I am taken in by Uri Geller?


"Eternal excuse" or not, it's consistent with the theory. The whole idea is "perception alters reality". Standard lab conditions won't work because the observers themselves alter the experiment.
Putting an unbeliever in a room to test the statement "Person A can levitate when at least ten believers and no unbelievers are in the room" isn't an appropriate test.

It would be a waste of time. Nobody can levitate,even if there were no unbelievers on Earth.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 12:46 PM
What on earth did I say that led you to believe I am taken in by Uri Geller?


"Eternal excuse" or not, it's consistent with the theory. The whole idea is "perception alters reality". Standard lab conditions won't work because the observers themselves alter the experiment.
Putting an unbeliever in a room to test the statement "Person A can levitate when at least ten believers and no unbelievers are in the room" isn't an appropriate test.

How does perception alter reality? What is the mechanism? What is the nature of the effect that skeptics have on so-called psychics? Every woo merchant who has ever been tested under proper conditions has failed.The skeptic in the room is just an excuse.

AvalonXQ
9th February 2011, 12:48 PM
There you are. Geller claimed he was psychic,so assumed that you included him.

Two somewhat unrelated things.
First: I gave the Randi example to try to explain paradigm-shifting in a mundane context. Paradigm-shifting is an important part of systems analysis and business management. It also explains how Randi can succeed where good laboratory scientists who are presumably just as smart as he is fail -- they're not in the right paradigm.
Magickal theory takes this one step further, claiming that the rules underlying reality itself are just as susceptible to paradigm-shift as our perception of reality. Skeptical observation is not a reasonable way to test these claims.
Second: Just because I believe a system of beliefs can be well-articulated and self-consistent, doesn't mean I agree with it. I personally believe that reality is objective, and so-called "psychics" are either deluded or frauds, often both.

And again, experiments that magickal theory would predict to yield negative results are not good experiments for attempting to disprove the theory.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 12:57 PM
Two somewhat unrelated things.
First: I gave the Randi example to try to explain paradigm-shifting in a mundane context. Paradigm-shifting is an important part of systems analysis and business management. It also explains how Randi can succeed where good laboratory scientists who are presumably just as smart as he is fail -- they're not in the right paradigm.
Magickal theory takes this one step further, claiming that the rules underlying reality itself are just as susceptible to paradigm-shift as our perception of reality. Skeptical observation is not a reasonable way to test these claims.
Second: Just because I believe a system of beliefs can be well-articulated and self-consistent, doesn't mean I agree with it. I personally believe that reality is objective, and so-called "psychics" are either deluded or frauds, often both.

And again, experiments that magickal theory would predict to yield negative results are not good experiments for attempting to disprove the theory.

I agree with your point about business management,although the term paradigm shift reeks of corporate babble. As for magickal theory,there is no theory,just medieval mumbo-jumbo. There is nothing to prove.

AvalonXQ
9th February 2011, 01:30 PM
As for magickal theory,there is no theory,just medieval mumbo-jumbo. There is nothing to prove.

And again, I disagree. There are affirmative claims describing how the world works. That's a theory, and it's reasonable to understand it better and to find ways to test it.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 01:57 PM
And again, I disagree. There are affirmative claims describing how the world works. That's a theory, and it's reasonable to understand it better and to find ways to test it.

The paranormal has been tested and found not to exist. There is a reason why nobody has won the Million Dollar Challenge,and it's not because of the baleful influence of the nasty skeptics.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 01:59 PM
And again, I disagree. There are affirmative claims describing how the world works. That's a theory, and it's reasonable to understand it better and to find ways to test it.

There is a theory that the world is turtles all the way down. Should that be tested too? Should every crazy idea about reality be tested?

Pure Argent
9th February 2011, 01:59 PM
Paradigm-shifting just means choosing to look at something from a different perspective, using a different point of view and different assumptions.
I think a really great example of paradigm-shifting is Randi's treatment of the McDonnell Laboratory and other similar "psychic investigation" practices.
The established paradigm was cooperative clinical investigation of phenomena from a laboratory science paradigm. As Randi has repeatedly pointed out, Uri Geller and his ilk can really thrive under this sort of open, collaborative attitude.
Enter a magician's paradigm. A magician is expecting slight-of-hand and deception; they thrive on the acknowledgment that human perception can be fooled. Shift a Geller experiment into a magician's paradigm, where witnessed phenomena are suspect rather than the rock-solid basis of analysis, and where the "psychic" is generally viewed with skepticism rather than acceptance, and his abilities evaporate. The assumptions and point of view are different, so the conclusions are different as well.

I think AvalonXQ is getting attacked a little unfairly here. I don't think he's saying that he believes in this stuff, just that that's what people who do believe in it think.

And correct me if I'm wrong, Avalon.

The underlying perception of magickal practice, as I understand it, is that not just the facts we can determine from observation but the fundamental realities of the world are paradigm-based. Your perception of the world can have a direct impact on what occurs in the world, and by viewing reality in a fundamentally altered way you can alter reality itself.
This particular belief is exceptionally hard to properly test under controlled conditions, since the existence of a skeptical observer actually alters the conditions.

Yes. This is called the sheep-goat effect (http://www.skepdic.com/sheep-goat.html), whether or not you believe the magical explanation of it or not. For whatever reason, believers in psi tend to do better in psi experiments than non-believers.

Believers in psi (or chaos magic, or whatever the flavor-of-the-month term for it is) are quick to use this to explain why skeptics never get any confirmation of psi in their experiments, as well as why believers do get confirmation. They say that it's because their paradigm makes it work better for them.

Of course, a simpler solution is that they're simply suffering from confirmation bias, but of course they refuse to admit this. Most of their studies can be shown to have flaws, and the rest don't pass the replication test (though, of course, you get more cries of "goat effect" when this happens).

It actually should be possible to test for this, though. Just have a group of believers carry out an experiment framed by skeptics while video-taping and otherwise recording all the procedures. Then have it replicated to the point where we know that it works, presumably by more groups of believers.

The key point here is the recordings. That way, we can make sure that objectivity is maintained even while the sheep-goat effect is negated.

Pure Argent
9th February 2011, 02:00 PM
There is a theory that the world is turtles all the way down. Should that be tested too? Should every crazy idea about reality be tested?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't see why not. Fortunately, most of them are trivially easy to test - and to disprove. Like the "turtles all the way down" one. We have sent people into space. No turtles.

dafydd
9th February 2011, 02:13 PM
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't see why not. Fortunately, most of them are trivially easy to test - and to disprove. Like the "turtles all the way down" one. We have sent people into space. No turtles.

We have also tested pyschics. No pyschics.

Resume
9th February 2011, 02:40 PM
Of course, a simpler solution is that they're simply suffering from confirmation bias, but of course they refuse to admit this.

And applying the razor belonging to William of Ockham . . . we have our answer.

Pure Argent
9th February 2011, 08:20 PM
We have also tested pyschics. No pyschics.

Agreed.

And applying the razor belonging to William of Ockham . . . we have our answer.

And agreed again.

PixyMisa
9th February 2011, 08:47 PM
Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.

Is there any such thing as chaos magic?

No. That's really stupid contrary to all scientific theory and all available evidence.

And yet, here's this thread.

P.J. Denyer
10th February 2011, 03:17 AM
[QUOTE=PixyMisa;6860730]Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.[QUOTE]

True, but there are exceptions, Edzard Ernst for example. One of the problems with the Sheep/Goat idea is that it presumes that believers can't perform trials that stand up to examination.

Filippo Lippi
10th February 2011, 05:40 AM
I know this wasn't addressed to me, but I don't see why not. Fortunately, most of them are trivially easy to test - and to disprove. Like the "turtles all the way down" one. We have sent people into space. No turtles.

But there are an infinite number of these stories (let's not call them theories, because they aren't) and we cannot test them all. They, in this case the chaos magicians, first have to demonstrate that there are phenomena to explain.

PixyMisa
10th February 2011, 05:44 AM
Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.

True, but there are exceptions, Edzard Ernst for example.
Yes, very good counterexample. And Susan Blackmore too.

One of the problems with the Sheep/Goat idea is that it presumes that believers can't perform trials that stand up to examination.
Well, statistically... ;)

Pure Argent
10th February 2011, 09:44 AM
But there are an infinite number of these stories (let's not call them theories, because they aren't) and we cannot test them all.

Hence the burden of proof. If they cannot meet the burden of proof, it's essentially disproven. Until they present some evidence, that is.

They, in this case the chaos magicians, first have to demonstrate that there are phenomena to explain.

Exactly.

Sledge
10th February 2011, 09:55 AM
Come on, Limbo. Come on, AkuManiMani. Let's get some demonstration going here. Read my mind. Tell us exactly what you can do and we'll demonstrate it to everyone. Can you tell what object I'm holding at a given moment? Can you read my mind to know why I still hate a teacher I had during my first year at primary school? Can you tell what clothes I'm wearing right now? Let's get some clear parameters on what you can do with chaos magic and show everyone that it works.

Unless of course it doesn't work. 'Cos then, obviously, you wouldn't want to do any such demonstration. But that can't be the case after all the word play you've indulged in, right?

dlorde
10th February 2011, 10:47 AM
And applying the razor belonging to William of Ockham . . . we have our answer.
Shaved psychics? :D

dafydd
10th February 2011, 11:43 AM
Come on, Limbo. Come on, AkuManiMani. Let's get some demonstration going here. Read my mind. Tell us exactly what you can do and we'll demonstrate it to everyone. Can you tell what object I'm holding at a given moment? Can you read my mind to know why I still hate a teacher I had during my first year at primary school? Can you tell what clothes I'm wearing right now? Let's get some clear parameters on what you can do with chaos magic and show everyone that it works.

Unless of course it doesn't work. 'Cos then, obviously, you wouldn't want to do any such demonstration. But that can't be the case after all the word play you've indulged in, right?

Yes,let's get back on topic,and ignore AkuManimani's sidetracks. Bring it on,let's see chaos magic in action.

tsig
10th February 2011, 05:24 PM
[QUOTE=PixyMisa;6860730]Of course, the people who can recognise incontrovertible evidence when they're slapped in the face with it usually aren't the ones posing the crazy ideas in the first place.[QUOTE]

True, but there are exceptions, Edzard Ernst for example. One of the problems with the Sheep/Goat idea is that it presumes that believers can't perform trials that stand up to examination.

Seems to me that it also presumes what it is supposed to explain. It presumes there are paranormal powers to explain why you can't test for paranormal powers.

AkuManiMani
10th February 2011, 08:23 PM
Wow, you guys don't waste any time to jumping right back to your self-congratulatory circlej**k, do ya? What a joke :rolleyes:

PixyMisa
10th February 2011, 08:26 PM
I take it you're not going to be presenting any evidence then?

Sledge
10th February 2011, 08:53 PM
Of course, I realise that AkuManiMani may not share Limbo's views on chaos magic. So, Aku, just tell us what chaos magic can do and we'll crack on with that demonstration. It'll certainly shut all those close-minded skeptics up when you show them what chaos magic can do.

tsig
10th February 2011, 09:22 PM
Wow, you guys don't waste any time to jumping right back to your self-congratulatory circlej**k, do ya? What a joke :rolleyes:

I don't see any argument there.

tsig
10th February 2011, 09:24 PM
Of course, I realise that AkuManiMani may not share Limbo's views on chaos magic. So, Aku, just tell us what chaos magic can do and we'll crack on with that demonstration. It'll certainly shut all those close-minded skeptics up when you show them what chaos magic can do.

Seems it can make you hear voices in your head other than that I'm :confused:.

Robin
11th February 2011, 12:18 AM
Of course, I realise that AkuManiMani may not share Limbo's views on chaos magic. So, Aku, just tell us what chaos magic can do and we'll crack on with that demonstration. It'll certainly shut all those close-minded skeptics up when you show them what chaos magic can do.
Well someone should tell us what chaos magic can do and how we can test this.

I am still waiting to find our what the evaluatable claims of the mystics mentioned in the OP are.

After that a specific and detailed description of how to test it would be good.

But I am not sure who is left who is defending the claims in the OP.

Or if anyone, including Limbo, was ever serious about those claims in the first place.

This thread is all derail, no mainline.

Robin
11th February 2011, 12:30 AM
Damn, I just went straight back into derail mode.

dafydd
11th February 2011, 09:09 AM
Wow, you guys don't waste any time to jumping right back to your self-congratulatory circlej**k, do ya? What a joke :rolleyes:

Why don't you show us chaos magic in action? We are just amusing ourselves until you or Limbo actually do something.

Bad vibe
11th February 2011, 09:45 AM
What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience? What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences? How is this process expressed thru the biochemistry of neurons? What part of the system actually has the experience(s) and what are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5398299&postcount=2737)[/QUOTE]

I seem to recall reading about the discovery of a pain gene amongst others that research could be well on the way to answering just this kind of question?

Craig4
11th February 2011, 12:37 PM
Wow, you guys don't waste any time to jumping right back to your self-congratulatory circlej**k, do ya? What a joke :rolleyes:

So that's a no on the evidence thing then?

PixyMisa
11th February 2011, 05:41 PM
But you have argued elsewhere that human concsiousness as we experience it could be the function of things other than human brains.

That it could be the function, at least theoretically, of people doing calculations on paper, or of millions of distinct electronic devices spread out in space and not communicating with each other.
Yep. All of which are corporeal.

AkuManiMani
12th February 2011, 08:39 AM
Wow, you guys don't waste any time to jumping right back to your self-congratulatory circlej**k, do ya? What a joke :rolleyes:

Why don't you show us chaos magic in action? We are just amusing ourselves until you or Limbo actually do something.

So because I've contrary views I'm somehow lumped in with the OP? At what point have I ever advocated 'chaos magic'? Like I said before, I don't know any more about it than you do.

AkuManiMani
12th February 2011, 09:51 AM
I take it you're not going to acknowledge the fact that your core epistemological position (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6861851&postcount=1771) is complete nonsense?

Off topic. The subject of this thread is chaos magic,feel free to start another thread.

The subject of this thread stopped being about 'chaos magic' a long time ago. If Limbo ever decides to come back to this sordid mess of a 'discussion' we'll talk about it. Either way though, the Pixy has a long history if turning tail whenever he's proven fundamentally wrong or caught in a lie. I doubt he'll be addressing the issue in this or any other thread.

PixyMisa
12th February 2011, 11:04 AM
Uhm, Pixy, there were two highlighted sentences (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6856541#post6856541); Both were Argent's. What posts have you been reading?
There was one, it was yours. You've lost your place in the discussion.

In anycase, its still a statement of fact that I've had repeated demands to recall more details of my experiences despite the insistence that my recollections are unreliable.Yes. So?

Right, right, like your whole "magic elves" strawman?Really, that's rather a tinman; it's actually more coherent than anything you've said.

I've recognized that that was your core position even before this train wreck of a thread began.Okey dokey.

No such thing as what, PixyMisa? Your "magic elves" strawman, or autonomous intelligences independent of an individual brain?Either; the two are thus equivalent.

Pixy, I hope for your sake that that was an honest mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation on your part [you've indulged in such behavior so frequently that, at this point, I can't help but to suspect that it's intentional dishonesty]. My exact words were:"The known is inherently a bounded subset of the unbounded unknown."Yes, that's what you said. That's mathematical gibberish. If we try to interpret it as something meaningful, the best we can come up with is a simple falsehood.



It does not follow that the superset is necessarily bounded by the subset, even though the subset may contain elements of the superset.The known is, by definition, not a subset of the unknown, so that's irrelevant.

Even disregarding your deliberate misrepresentation of both my argument and the properties of subsets/supersets, your statement that "the unknown is bounded by the known" is absurd. The logical implication of your position is that knowledge of [I]anything is equivalent to knowledge of everything -- i.e. omniscience.No. It is logically impossible to reach that conclusion from the stated premise.

Actually this is a misrepresentation of my actual position. What I'm saying is we don't know X, therefore we cannot speak definitively of Y because we lack the requisite knowledge.Two problems there.

First, this is not in fact what you argue.

Second, your claims that we don't know X are almost invariably false-to-fact.

Understandably you'd have a problem with such an admission because is runs directly counter to your megalomaniacal delusions of omniscience.Whose megalomaniacal delusions of omniscience?

Except that everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and computer science tells us nothing about what minds actually are or exactly how they're are related to those fields.There you go; as blatant and absurd a falsehood as anyone could possibly ask for.

Hence, why we are currently unable to answer the questions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5398299&postcount=2737) I posed earlier.All your questions have been answered. You don't like the answers, but that's your problem, not ours. And your questions are almost always based on false assumptions, which again we've been over dozens of times, but you have still failed to grasp.

Quick recap:

What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
Self-reference.

What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?It's not a property, it's just the organisation.

How is this process expressed thru the biochemistry of neurons?It's no different to the biochemistry of any other neuron. Stop looking for magic.

What part of the system actually has the experience(s) and what are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?The system has the experience. Stop looking for magic. There are no special properties in that portion of the system. Stop looking for magic.

Since you seem to be so confident that we have such sufficient knowledge why don't you try having a crack at it...?All those qestions have been answered for you. You have made no coherent response at any time. As I said, this is your problem, not mine.

tsig
12th February 2011, 11:04 AM
There is no such thing as a "pain gene", per se. What there are are genes that act as the templates for proteins necessary for cells to produce pain receptors. At this point we're still unable to discern whether questions like the ones I posed above are meaningful, let alone provide adequate answers to them. For all we know, what we call 'consciousness' may not even necessarily be a product of neurochemistry but some supervening [meta]physical process acting on/thru it.

delete

tsig
12th February 2011, 11:07 AM
The subject of this thread stopped being about 'chaos magic' a long time ago. If Limbo ever decides to come back to this sordid mess of a 'discussion' we'll talk about it. Either way though, the Pixy has a long history if turning tail whenever he's proven fundamentally wrong or caught in a lie. I doubt he'll be addressing the issue in this or any other thread.

Odd how the universal becomes personal.

PixyMisa
12th February 2011, 11:14 AM
The subject of this thread stopped being about 'chaos magic' a long time ago. If Limbo ever decides to come back to this sordid mess of a 'discussion' we'll talk about it. Either way though, the Pixy has a long history if turning tail whenever he's proven fundamentally wrong or caught in a lie. I doubt he'll be addressing the issue in this or any other thread.
Black Knight fallacy.

Sledge
12th February 2011, 11:23 AM
AkuManiMani, please stop trying to derail this thread. Show us some chaos magic.

AkuManiMani
12th February 2011, 11:31 AM
</yawn>

Yet another exercise in pedantic tedium from none other than the PixyMisa. Lets see if I can do it nearly as well... ;)

Uhm, Pixy, there were two highlighted sentences (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=6856541#post6856541); Both were Argent's. What posts have you been reading?
There was one, it was yours. You've lost your place in the discussion.

You're a baldfaced liar (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6856541&postcount=1716).

In anycase, its still a statement of fact that I've had repeated demands to recall more details of my experiences despite the insistence that my recollections are unreliable.Yes. So?

So you're making a red-herring of a moot point.

Right, right, like your whole "magic elves" strawman?Really, that's rather a tinman; it's actually more coherent than anything you've said.

Equivocation and more strawmanning.

I've recognized that that was your core position even before this train wreck of a thread began.Okey dokey.
:p


No such thing as what, PixyMisa? Your "magic elves" strawman, or autonomous intelligences independent of an individual brain?Either; the two are thus equivalent.

This coming from a person who's argued that consciousness is not medium dependent...? :rolleyes:

Pixy, I hope for your sake that that was an honest mistake and not a deliberate misrepresentation on your part [you've indulged in such behavior so frequently that, at this point, I can't help but to suspect that it's intentional dishonesty]. My exact words were:"The known is inherently a bounded subset of the unbounded unknown."Yes, that's what you said. That's mathematical gibberish. If we try to interpret it as something meaningful, the best we* can come up with is a simple falsehood.

By "we" I assume you're referring to yourself and the voices in your head. Are they whats behind your intellectual dishonesty?



Funny how anything that directly contradicts your tripe is "irrelevant"...

It does not follow that the superset is necessarily bounded by the subset, even though the subset may contain elements of the superset.The known is, by definition, not a subset of the unknown, so that's irrelevant.

No.

Even disregarding your deliberate misrepresentation of both my argument and the properties of subsets/supersets, your statement that "the unknown is bounded by the known" is absurd. The logical implication of your position is that knowledge of [I]anything is equivalent to knowledge of everything -- i.e. omniscience.No. It is logically impossible to reach that conclusion from the stated premise.

Wrong.

Actually this is a misrepresentation of my actual position. What I'm saying is we don't know X, therefore we cannot speak definitively of Y because we lack the requisite knowledge.Two problems there.

First, this is not in fact what you argue.

I've just argued it and it's what I've been arguing. Ergo, contrary to your boneheaded counter-assertions, its what I'm arguing.

Second, your claims that we don't know X are almost invariably false-to-fact.

Also wrong.

Understandably you'd have a problem with such an admission because is runs directly counter to your megalomaniacal delusions of omniscience.Whose megalomaniacal delusions of omniscience?

I see you're even more confused that I thought.

Except that everything we know about physics, chemistry, biology, neuroscience, and computer science tells us nothing about what minds actually are or exactly how they're are related to those fields.There you go; as blatant and absurd a falsehood as anyone could possibly ask for.

Hence, why we are currently unable to answer the questions (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5398299&postcount=2737) I posed earlier.All your questions have been answered.

More baldfaced lies on your part. I suppose if you make a concentrated effort to disregard your blatant disconnect with reality it really isn't there, huh?


What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?
Self-reference.

Define.

What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?It's not a property, it's just the organisation.

Of what?

How is this process expressed thru the biochemistry of neurons?It's no different to the biochemistry of any other neuron. Stop looking for magic.

I'm looking for something better than your regurgitated brain-farts.

What part of the system actually has the experience(s) and what are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?The system has the experience. Stop looking for magic. There are no special properties in that portion of the system. Stop looking for magic.

Misrepresentation, and also wrong.

Since you seem to be so confident that we have such sufficient knowledge why don't you try having a crack at it...?All those qestions have been answered for you. You have made no coherent response at any time. As I said, this is your problem, not mine.

Wrong :rolleyes:

AkuManiMani
12th February 2011, 11:32 AM
AkuManiMani, please stop trying to derail this thread. Show us some chaos magic.

"Chaos magic" has not been suitably defined by the OP. Therefore I consider verbally beating on your mascot PixyMisa to be "Chaos Magic" -- It has thus been demonstrated :p

Sledge
12th February 2011, 11:36 AM
"Chaos magic" has not been suitably defined by the OP. Therefore I consider verbally beating on your mascot PixyMisa to be "Chaos Magic" -- It has thus been demonstrated :p

Please stop trying to derail this thread. Show us your chaos magic.

tsig
12th February 2011, 11:47 AM
Please stop trying to derail this thread. Show us your chaos magic.

I take my siegel and use it to light my joint. Magic!!

PixyMisa
12th February 2011, 01:42 PM
</yawn>

Yet another exercise in pedantic tedium from none other than the PixyMisa. Lets see if I can do it nearly as well...
You're not actually reading anything anyone writes, are you?

You're a baldfaced liar (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6856541&postcount=1716).No, but I'm mistaken. Sorry, yes, you highlited Pure Argent's comments.

That said, you are still and always have been wrong in your interpretation of what Argent said.

So you're making a red-herring of a moot point.No; you've spent considerable time attacking Pure Argent based on your misinterpretation of what he said. Did he ask you for details? No. Therefore your statement was false.

Equivocation and more strawmanning.What is the difference between non-existent impossible magic elves and non-existent impossible non-corporeal minds, exactly? And how do you know this?

If you want to claim that my reference to "magic elves" is a strawman of your claim to "non-corporeal minds", then you have to have both a coherent definition of your "non-corporeal minds" and a better supported mechanism than your usual argument from asserted ignorance.

This coming from a person who's argued that consciousness is not medium dependent...?Information is medium-independent. That's simply a fact.

That means that it doesn't matter what the medium is. It does not mean that it doesn't matter whether there's a medium.

This has, of course, been explained to you dozens of times.

By "we" I assume you're referring to yourself and the voices in your head.Try reading the thread for once, rather than devoting all your efforts to inane ad hominems.

Funny how anything that directly contradicts your tripe is "irrelevant".It doesn't contradict anything I said.

No.You try to lecture us on set theory, and then claim that one of a pair of by defintion disjoint sets can be a subset of the other?

No. No, I don't think so.

Wrong.You are a very, very confused man.

I've just argued it and it's what I've been arguing. Ergo, contrary to your boneheaded counter-assertions, its what I'm arguing.No, in fact. I mean, if it were you'd still be wrong, because your premises are false, but at least you'd be logically consistent.

But no; your usual arguments (as opposed to this meta-argument) are just collections of logical fallacies.

Also wrong.Nope. We've already established this; your assertions of universal ignorance on whatever subject may be convenient are simply baseless - and in many cases, actually impossible.

I see you're even more confused that I thought.I really don't think you do.

More baldfaced lies on your part. I suppose if you make a concentrated effort to disregard your blatant disconnect with reality it really isn't there, huh?You're actually denying that those questions have been answered, rather than asserting you reject the answers?

Since you have, in the past, responded to and rejected those same answers, there's a serious disconnect there.

Define.Reference to self.

Of what?Of the system.

I'm looking for something better than your regurgitated brain-farts.You're looking for magic. That's your problem; it's always your problem.

What's the difference between the biochemistry or physics of a neuron involved in consciousness and one that's not?

Nothing. There's no difference whatsoever.

Consciousness is a property of the system, not the neuron. You're looking for an emergent property at the wrong level, and you're never going to understand anything until you give that up.

It's like looking for the wetness of water in hydrogen or oxygen themselves. You just ain't gonna find it there, 'cause that's the wrong level.

Misrepresentation, and also wrong.No, it's not a misrepresentation. You might not like the word when I use it, but it's entirely appropriate, and it's entirely accurate.

You want consciousness to be something special. It's not. It's just a computer circuit with a particular kind of feedback loop.

WrongAll the questions have been answered, and the mistakes you made in asking them have been explained.

Again. Not that anything changed after the last time this was all explained to you.

You want magic.

There is no magic.

Making an utter hash out of set theory doesn't mean you can argue for the existence of magic; it just means you've based your entire worldview on an error a bright twelve-year-old could straighten out for you if you would just listen.

Try that, for once. Rather than deciding that everyone who disagrees with you (and face it, you're outnumbered) has to be both dishonest and stupid, try examining your premises. Because they're very badly broken.

Pure Argent
12th February 2011, 09:18 PM
You're not actually reading anything anyone writes, are you?

I thought we had established this five or so pages back.

No; you've spent considerable time attacking Pure Argent based on your misinterpretation of what he said. Did he ask you for details? No. Therefore your statement was false.

I've explained this already. He ignored it then, too.

AkuManiMani
13th February 2011, 05:43 AM
Edited for rule 12.

Sledge
13th February 2011, 06:11 AM
Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?

AkuManiMani
13th February 2011, 06:38 AM
</yawn>

Yet another exercise in pedantic tedium from none other than the PixyMisa. Lets see if I can do it nearly as well...
You're not actually reading anything anyone writes, are you?

I take this to mean that you don't consider yourself pedantic and tedious? :p

You're a baldfaced liar (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6856541&postcount=1716).No, but I'm mistaken.

After so many pages of your insistence to the contrary I find it hard to believe that this was an honest mistake on your part.

That said, you are still and always have been wrong in your interpretation of what Argent said.

So you're making a red-herring of a moot point.No; you've spent considerable time attacking Pure Argent based on your misinterpretation of what he said. Did he ask you for details? No. Therefore your statement was false.

I said that there were repeated calls for me to recall more details despite the fact that my recollections were deemed unreliable. If he meant to deny that he personally didn't demand more details from me he should have specified such.

Equivocation and more strawmanning.What is the difference between non-existent impossible magic elves and non-existent impossible non-corporeal minds, exactly? And how do you know this?

Because I'm not referring to "magic elves". I'm suggesting that the auditory "voices" in people's minds are autonomous conscious entities and are possibly not confined to individual brains.

This coming from a person who's argued that consciousness is not medium dependent...?Information is medium-independent. That's simply a fact.

That means that it doesn't matter what the medium is. It does not mean that it doesn't matter whether there's a medium.

This has, of course, been explained to you dozens of times.[/QUOTE]

I'm saying consciousness is a physical medium IAOI.

By "we" I assume you're referring to yourself and the voices in your head.Try reading the thread for once, rather than devoting all your efforts to inane ad hominems.

Still confusing direct insults with ad hominem arguments, I see...

Funny how anything that directly contradicts your tripe is "irrelevant".It doesn't contradict anything I said.

You asserted that the superset is bounded (http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bounded.html) by the subset. That was a blatantly false statement.

No.You try to lecture us on set theory, and then claim that one of a pair of by defintion disjoint sets can be a subset of the other?

No. No, I don't think so.

No :rolleyes:

Wrong.You are a very, very confused man.

Wrong </snicker>

I've just argued it and it's what I've been arguing. Ergo, contrary to your boneheaded counter-assertions, its what I'm arguing.No, in fact. I mean, if it were you'd still be wrong, because your premises are false, but at least you'd be logically consistent.

But no; your usual arguments (as opposed to this meta-argument) are just collections of logical fallacies.

You baldly declare every statement that disagrees with you as a "logical fallacy" of some kind, regardless of whether it is or not; hence, your accusations of "logical fallacy" tend to not hold much weight. I suspect this is a product of your megalomania.

Also wrong.Nope. We've already established this; your assertions of universal ignorance on whatever subject may be convenient are simply baseless - and in many cases, actually impossible.

Wrong.

I see you're even more confused that I thought.I really don't think you do.

Irrelevant.

More baldfaced lies on your part. I suppose if you make a concentrated effort to disregard your blatant disconnect with reality it really isn't there, huh?You're actually denying that those questions have been answered, rather than asserting you reject the answers?

Since you have, in the past, responded to and rejected those same answers, there's a serious disconnect there.

An irrelevant and incorrect utterance does not constitute a suitable answer.


Define.Reference to self.

Define "reference". Define "self". Explain how conjunction of the two produces consciousness or how they produce variations thereof. :rolleyes:

Of what?Of the system.

Any system?

I'm looking for something better than your regurgitated brain-farts.You're looking for magic. That's your problem; it's always your problem.

I suppose since you apparently consider knowledge outside the scope of your omniscience to be "magic", I reckon so. Then again, you've never bothered to define what you mean by "magic".

What's the difference between the biochemistry or physics of a neuron involved in consciousness and one that's not?

[I]Nothing. There's no difference whatsoever.

Consciousness is a property of the system, not the neuron.

The neurons ARE the system under consideration. If you assert that consciousness is not a product of the physics of said system then you're arguing that consciousness itself is non-physical.

You're looking for an emergent property at the wrong level, and you're never going to understand anything until you give that up.

If you're going to make that argument, everything is an "emergent property", including the material components of the system in question. Either way, consciousness itself is still not properly accounted for in our current understanding of physics.

It's like looking for the wetness of water in hydrogen or oxygen themselves. You just ain't gonna find it there, 'cause that's the wrong level.

The "wetness" of water is itself a property of one's conscious experience of water.

Misrepresentation, and also wrong.No, it's not a misrepresentation. You might not like the word when I use it, but it's entirely appropriate, and it's entirely accurate.

You want consciousness to be something special. It's not. It's just a computer circuit with a particular kind of feedback loop.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong.

WrongAll the questions have been answered, and the mistakes you made in asking them have been explained.

Again. Not that anything changed after the last time this was all explained to you.

You want magic.

Define "magic".

There is no magic.

See above.

Making an utter hash out of set theory doesn't mean you can argue for the existence of magic; it just means you've based your entire worldview on an error a bright twelve-year-old could straighten out for you if you would just listen.

Try that, for once. Rather than deciding that everyone who disagrees with you (and face it, you're outnumbered) has to be both dishonest and stupid, try examining your premises. Because they're very badly broken.

Argumentum ad populum [thats a logical fallacy, in case you were wondering ;) ].

AkuManiMani
13th February 2011, 06:40 AM
Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?

Did I ever assert that it did? I don't even know what its supposed to be so how can I agree or disagree that it doesn't exist?

kmortis
13th February 2011, 08:09 AM
I split the epistimology discussion off to its own thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=200694). So, as has been suggested already, please return to your regularly scheduled discussion on Chaos Magick. I suggest the topic of "The Use of Sigils in Predictive Sorcery - Short Term Knowledge, or Doodling on Paper?"

carlitos
13th February 2011, 08:50 AM
It's like looking for the wetness of water in hydrogen or oxygen themselves. You just ain't gonna find it there, 'cause that's the wrong level.
The "wetness" of water is itself a property of one's conscious experience of water.
Could you please elaborate as to:
a - How your response answers PixyMisa's question, and
b - What you mean about the 'wetness' of water? I posit that water is as wet as it is, whether or not your conscious self is anywhere near it. There is wet water 3,000 feet under the ocean, and I don't have to experience it to know so.

PixyMisa
13th February 2011, 09:09 AM
It seems to be the standard answer to anything inconvenient, no matter that it's a well defined and purely physical phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wetness).

annnnoid
13th February 2011, 10:17 AM
So Pixy has his herd of lemmings and lapdogs well under control….and not a one dares make a peep in disagreement. Pixy declares the issue of consciousness all but resolved, and not a pin does drop. But then again, why is it that the issue invariably finds its way to the top every year of the biggest unanswered questions in science….and these are scientists who are surveyed, not lapdogs.

Evidence (why don’t we resort to the Pixy/Argent school of evidence…): Google it

Conclusion: Either the entire world scientific community is wrong, or Pixy and his sycophants are wrong. Why don’t we leave that one as an open question.

The implication being, of course, that there are some very fundamental questions that have yet to actually be answered about ourselves and the world we live in. Pixy and the lapdogs (…sounds like a good name for a band) would no doubt insist that the unanswered questions are of minor importance….consciousness being a thing of…how did you put it Pixy:


You want consciousness to be something special. It's not. It's just a computer circuit with a particular kind of feedback loop.



An amusing position which can be summed up as follows: "scientists animated by the purpose of proving themselves purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study"

(…just a note Pixy, ‘purpose’ was one of the words on that list that you and Argent have yet to respond to [those who fail to produce evidence of extraordinary claims could quite reasonably be argued to be staggeringly ignorant…but you didn’t hear that from me of course]….but since you obviously can’t I won’t bother waiting)

…but why don’t we see how the rest of the world views the issue…just to see if Pixy’s quaint little summary of the human condition is shared by others.

Christoph Koch….CalTech Cog. Sci. professor: “How brain processes translate to con¬sciousness is one of the greatest un-solved questions in science.” …Pixy: “nothing special”…Koch: “greatest unsolved question in science”….doubtless Koch is merely deluded (Koch…BTW…is one of the most highly respected cog.-sci. researchers in the world…while Pixy, on the other hand….is, as far as we can tell, nothing more than a chat-room junky).

How about Dan Dennet: “Daniel Dennett calls human consciousness just about the last surviving mystery." Pixy: ‘nothing special”…Dennet: “last surviving mystery”…Dennet must be a fool (Dennet is also one of the most highly respected cog.-sci. researchers in the world….strange…there seems to be a pattern here).

Of course….I could include Noam Chomsky here as well…but the Pixy/Argent cabal has already established that Chomsky is an irrelevant dotard….though of course, to the rest of the world he is also one of the mostly highly respected cog.-sci. researchers alive today. Hmmm….there’s that pattern again.

So we have at least two very highly respected members of the international cog.-sci. community who would seem to agree that the question of consciousness does belong on the list of the biggest unanswered questions (Pixy would no doubt relegate it to the equivalent of figuring out how to create synthetic butter).

And what other insignificant issues remain to be accounted for in our explanation of life, the universe, and everything (in other words….the unknown within which the known must…by every function of logic and sanity [except, of course, Pixy’s….which, come to think of it, might actually explain just how fundamentally warped Pixy’s POV actually is….come to think of it]…exist): What is time?...what is the universe actually made of?....why do we sleep?....where did life come from?...and of course, the perennial favorite…what is consciousness and how is it related to the human brain? Essentially….when we cannot answer who or what we are or what this reality is that creates us and everything else it is fundamentally absurd to suggest that what we don’t know is somehow bounded by what we do. Pixy will argue otherwise. When Pixy can actually answer the questions above Pixy will have some evidence to support this nonsensical claim (of course, if Pixy could answer the above questions Pixy would be a Nobel laureate and not a chat-room-junky).

And now that I have called for evidence I must not forget the stock Pixy/Argent fallback position: “Google it”…the standard evidentiary position of roadkill and dysfunctional toilet hardware.

And you’ve even acquired a groupie Pixy

Just wanted to say I sure enjoy reading Pixy's reply's & posts - they are always either remarkably informative, or sharp-as-a-titanium blade rebuttals.
Keep on keeping on Pixy :)

…the blind leading the blind.

So what we have, as usual, is Pixy making fantastical claims…that consciousness is a minor issue…and that it’s pretty much figured out anyway (without, as usual, a shred of supporting evidence), and claiming that any suggestion of anything psi related is merely an argument from ignorance. That it can’t happen based on Pixy’s all-but omniscient understanding of the laws of science…again, not a shred of supporting evidence provided (…oh yeah, I forgot….”google it”…silly me), and that there is absolutely no evidence to support or imply the existence of such things anyway.

….except for those few dozen links I provided a few pages ago…which doubtless not a single skeptic has even bothered to explore in the slightest…thus confirming Aku’s contention that all any of you are interested in is enshrining your own ignorance. I’ll just refer to one of them…a book which I’ve been exploring recently called Irreducible Mind. It’s 832 pages so those of you who choke on anything beyond two sentences will likely find the evidence contained therein to be beyond your meager abilities. I’d refer that category of skeptics to a publication called the National Enquirer. Essentially the book scuttles the dominant materialistic view that the human mind can be reduced to the brain alone. IOW….Pixy is wrong.

I’ll just include the book summary from Amazon for those of you who can actually handle an entire paragraph (tsig…you’d better go eat a waffle or something):

Current mainstream opinion in psychology, neuroscience, and philosophy of mind holds that all aspects of human mind and consciousness are generated by physical processes occurring in brains. Views of this sort have dominated recent scholarly publication. The present volume, however, demonstrates--empirically--that this reductive materialism is not only incomplete but false. The authors systematically marshal evidence for a variety of psychological phenomena that are extremely difficult, and in some cases clearly impossible, to account for in conventional physicalist terms. Topics addressed include phenomena of extreme psychophysical influence, memory, psychological automatisms and secondary personality, near-death experiences and allied phenomena, genius-level creativity, and 'mystical' states of consciousness both spontaneous and drug-induced. The authors further show that these rogue phenomena are more readily accommodated by an alternative 'transmission' or 'filter' theory of mind/brain relations advanced over a century ago by a largely forgotten genius, F. W. H. Myers, and developed further by his friend and colleague William James. This theory, moreover, ratifies the commonsense conception of human beings as causally effective conscious agents, and is fully compatible with leading-edge physics and neuroscience. The book should command the attention of all open-minded persons concerned with the still-unsolved mysteries of the mind.

…and a few of the idiots who have reviewed the book:

A brilliant, heroic and astonishing revival of late 19th century ideas about cosmic consciousness, individual mental powers and the spiritual or soulful nature of human beings. -- Richard A. Shweder, William Claude Reavis Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago

This book is required--and fascinating!--reading. -- Charles T. Tart, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Davis campus of the University of California and Professor at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology

This is an extraordinary book. In the arena of neuroscience of mind, it is the most exciting reading to have crossed my path in years. -- David Presti, Professor of Neurobiology, University of California-Berkeley

…and some of the idiots who wrote the book:

Dr. Edward Kelly: Research Professor in the Division of Perceptual Studies of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia Health System.

Dr. Emily Kelly: Research Assistant Professor in the Division of Perceptual Studies of the Department of Psychiatry and Neurobehavioral Sciences at the University of Virginia Health System.

Bruce Greyson, M.D: Professor of Psychiatry & Neurobehavioral Sciences and Director of the Division of Perceptual Studies at the University of Virginia.

So what does all this mean…? It does not mean that there is incontrovertible proof of psi or all these other issues. It does mean that there is a lot we do not know about ourselves and the universe we live in….that the subjects are extremely substantial and that there is a lot of evidence that clearly implicates the possibility of some very unusual realities. Good evidence does not become bad evidence just because the phenomena it supports appear improbable.

dlorde
13th February 2011, 11:28 AM
... I'm suggesting that the auditory "voices" in people's minds are autonomous conscious entities and are possibly not confined to individual brains.

The first part seems a reasonable hypothesis - we do know of circumstances where a single brain could (arguably) host more than one to-some-degree-autonomous conscious entity (depending on your definition of consciousness) - split-brain (http://www.macalester.edu/psychology/whathap/ubnrp/split_brain/Split_Brain_Consciousness.html) patients. AIUI, most neuroscientists would disagree with that suggestion, but there is interesting evidence, and it is at least debatable. In that situation, only one entity usually has direct access to the language/vocal areas, so it's not a good match, but possibly not a million miles away (I'm thinking here of a recent documentary showing a split-brain patient whose left arm would fight and try to undo what the right arm did - spooky).

The second part has nothing going for it (no evidence), and plenty against it - appears to contradict known physics, and if you accept the first part (dual consciousness in split-brain subjects) you can't really accept the second. So it is not a reasonable hypothesis. Bottom of the in-tray.

I'm saying consciousness is a physical medium IAOI.
Made of what?

Lord Emsworth
13th February 2011, 11:32 AM
Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy

Pixy ...

Pixy ...

Pixy ... Pixy

Pixy ...

Pixy ...

Pixy ...

Pixy … Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy ... Pixy

Pixy ...

Pixy ...



Pixy ... Pixy ...

Pixy ...


Feindbild.

Sledge
13th February 2011, 11:58 AM
Did I ever assert that it did? I don't even know what its supposed to be so how can I agree or disagree that it doesn't exist?

Then stop derailing the discussion. :)

So, we've got one person, Limbo, who thinks chaos magic exists. Any chance he could show us it in action?

Robin
13th February 2011, 12:01 PM
So Pixy has his herd of lemmings and lapdogs well under control….and not a one dares make a peep in disagreement. Pixy declares the issue of consciousness all but resolved, and not a pin does drop.
You don't read this forum much do you?

Robin
13th February 2011, 12:02 PM
Then stop derailing the discussion. :)

So, we've got one person, Limbo, who thinks chaos magic exists. Any chance he could show us it in action?
I wonder if even Limbo seriously thinks it exists.

dlorde
13th February 2011, 12:32 PM
...
And what other insignificant issues remain to be accounted for in our explanation of life, the universe, and everything (in other words….the unknown within which the known must…by every function of logic and sanity [except, of course, Pixy’s….which, come to think of it, might actually explain just how fundamentally warped Pixy’s POV actually is….come to think of it]…exist):

That sounds a little confused, or wrong. Pace Rumsfeld, the known and the unknown are subsets of everything (life, the universe, and). The unknown is those things we don't know, so the known (those things we do know) cannot be a subset of the unknown, or vice-versa. They are mutually exclusive. Within everything, each is bounded by the other - they share a limiting boundary. The less is known, the more is unknown. The more is known the less is unknown, and contrariwise.

'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
Tweedledee

The Norseman
13th February 2011, 01:02 PM
I wonder if even Limbo seriously thinks it exists.


I'm seriously wondering if Limbo exists.

Robin
13th February 2011, 02:29 PM
…and a few of the idiots who have reviewed the book:
...

…and some of the idiots who wrote the book:

Your point being?

Pure Argent
13th February 2011, 04:30 PM
But then again, why is it that the issue invariably finds its way to the top every year of the biggest unanswered questions in science.

Care to give the source that you're using for this claim?

Evidence (why don’t we resort to the Pixy/Argent school of evidence…): Google it

Nope. Not going to cut it here, I'm afraid. Who, exactly, annually declares that we don't understand anything about the source of consciousness? Who denies that we can and have detected emotions?

Conclusion: Either the entire world scientific community is wrong, or Pixy and his sycophants are wrong. Why don’t we leave that one as an open question.

Or we can do what logic dictates, and declare it a false dichotomy. One of the myriad of other options is that you are talking about something that you do not understand.

[those who fail to produce evidence of extraordinary claims could quite reasonably be argued to be staggeringly ignorant…but you didn’t hear that from me of course]….but since you obviously can’t I won’t bother waiting)

There is a difference between "can't" and "won't". If you aren't willing to even spend ten seconds on Google after I gave you the link to the appropriate Google search, there is absolutely no point in attempting to actually present you with anything. Not only are you ignorant, you want to be ignorant.

…but why don’t we see how the rest of the world views the issue…just to see if Pixy’s quaint little summary of the human condition is shared by others.

Christoph Koch….CalTech Cog. Sci. professor: “How brain processes translate to con¬sciousness is one of the greatest un-solved questions in science.” …Pixy: “nothing special”…Koch: “greatest unsolved question in science”….doubtless Koch is merely deluded (Koch…BTW…is one of the most highly respected cog.-sci. researchers in the world…while Pixy, on the other hand….is, as far as we can tell, nothing more than a chat-room junky).

So you're still strawmanning, then?

Of course….I could include Noam Chomsky here as well…but the Pixy/Argent cabal has already established that Chomsky is an irrelevant dotard.

That's a "yes", then. Moving on...

when we cannot answer who or what we are or what this reality is that creates us and everything else it is fundamentally absurd to suggest that what we don’t know is somehow bounded by what we do.

Non sequitur fallacy. Your conclusion does not follow from your premise.

So what we have, as usual, is Pixy making fantastical claims…that consciousness is a minor issue…

Straw man.

and that it’s pretty much figured out anyway (without, as usual, a shred of supporting evidence)

The basic mechanics, yes. The details, no.

There is a difference between saying "we understand consciousness" and "we understand every detail of consciousness". Why can you not understand this?

and claiming that any suggestion of anything psi related is merely an argument from ignorance.

And straw man again.

<snip insults, repetition, and argument-ad-quotes>

So what does all this mean…? It does not mean that there is incontrovertible proof of psi or all these other issues.

That's one thing you've gotten right in this post. Keep it up. Some day you may actually manage to write one that isn't total bollocks.

The Man
13th February 2011, 04:39 PM
Feindbild.

1Cv1RSDJOUc

annnnoid
13th February 2011, 06:04 PM
Your point being?

We all know what kind of history the study of these phenomenon has had. It’s obvious all over these boards. It’s called bias. A lot of it is quite understandable, given all that is involved. The fact is though, all-that-actually-is-involved crosses a huge swath of human activity (history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, religion, theology…not to mention the entire range of hard sciences), which is exactly why the issue is so frequently misrepresented …because those who attempt to understand it, on either side of the issue, frequently resort to simplistic explanations. Even the subject of this thread…sigils etc., can be explored to quite some degree of complexity from a range of different perspectives, and yet all that typically occurs are dumb single sentence comments that superficially dismiss the entire issue (obvious example: Sledge…” Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?”). Dumb comments are fine, it’s an open forum after all….but don’t pretend to have an understanding of an issue this big if that’s all you’re capable of.

Big changes have occurred, especially over the past few decades. Consciousness and the complete range of human reality have become legitimate areas of study at virtually every university around the world….and as these studies have become more comprehensive those who pursue them have ventured ever further into what was previously regarded as no-mans land. IOW…the areas of spirituality, religion, and what is referred to as psi research are no longer populated by crackpots and charlatans. These areas of study are populated by individuals with a great deal of credibility, education, and insight. Thus it is no longer possible for critics/skeptics to dismiss the issues by association. IOW…those who explore these things don’t hang out in dungeons, deserts, caves, or mountain tops…they now have doctorates and tenure and they understand and explore the subjects in ways that have previously never occurred.

What this means is that the subjects can finally receive the attention they actually deserve, rather than being the haunt of angel-chasers or pseudo-skeptics. There will continue to be opposition and blatant bias. It’s documented and it’s pervasive but as more and more credible studies are published perspectives will change.

From everything that I understand so far, Irreducible Mind actually succeeds in accomplishing exactly what the summary described. The issue, though, cannot be reduced to this absurd parody that is so often displayed at JREF… ”well we haven’t yet seen replicable tests done.” The subject requires a treatment quite explicitly on the scale of this book…because it is that substantial, and the issues are that complex.

So why the reference to ‘idiots’…? Because that’s exactly how anyone who even acknowledges these issues (let alone believes in them) is typically regarded by skeptics. You don’t have to go more than a few steps anywhere at JREF for quite explicit proof of that. It was merely a not-too-subtle attempt at irony….because, quite obviously, individuals with that degree of cog-sci credentials cannot be simply brushed under the rug with all the other charlatans and crackpots.


Argent…just read what follows if you actually want to understand where things stand re: consciousness. As for the rest of your garbage, you’re not even irrelevant.

Hi, all.

Still discussing the simulations, eh?

Well, I've been reading my new cognitive neuroscience books, and although I'm not all the way through (by a long shot), so far the computationalist view -- as it has been presented here -- is mentioned only to point out its fatal flaws.

When I get some time, I'll have to post some choice excerpts.

Suffice it to say that absolutely no one agrees with Pixy Misa that the phenomenon of consciousness is currently understood, and there is no indication that anyone believes that such a behavior can be purely programmed (rather than built) into a machine, and no trace of the tortured interpretations of Church-Turing.

………………

The fact remains that currently we have no explanatory framework which might tell us why a given neural state is correlated with a given conscious experience.

And the fact that the discovery of such a framework would necessarily lead to deeper questions... that does not in any way imply that the framework, when we discover it, would indeed provide an explanatory link between the two sets of observations.

………………

Originally Posted by PixyMisa
Yes, what I am saying - and I'm far from alone here - is that consciousness in and of itself is actually dead simple and fully understood. What is complex and hard to understand is all the other stuff that brains do - sensory processing and language and memory association and so on

….to which Piggy responds:
Then please back up this claim with evidence, since you seem to be in disagreement with all the brain scientists I've ever read.

(….to which Pixy, quite typically, responds with nothing…not even a ‘google it’!!!...perhaps he needs some of your deep wisdom there Argent)

……….

And in any case, this does not change the fact that currently we have no such framework that would allow us to understand NCCs (neural correlates of consciousness), even if we were able to describe all of them right now.

……..

even if we were to discover tomorrow all of the neural corrolates of every possible state of human consciousness (NCCs), we'd still have a problem -- we would have no way of explaining why the NCC associated with, say, seeing a green light is correlated with that particular conscious experience and not some other conscious experience or none at all.

In fact, we don't even have a way of imagining the solution to that problem!

……

Gazzaniga's point is that even if we were to discover tomorrow what the entire gamut of NCCs was for all possible conscious experiences, we still wouldn't know why any given neural state was associated with any given conscious experience.

PixyMisa
13th February 2011, 06:19 PM
Made of what?
Made of consciouness.

No, it makes no sense at all. We know that's not what consciousness is. (Cue much spluttering from the reality-challenged set.)

This is what I was saying about AkuManiMani's core epistemological position; it is to science what "Freeman on the Land" is to jurisprudence. But that is apparently a topic for another thread.

PixyMisa
13th February 2011, 06:21 PM
You don't read this forum much do you?
:)

PixyMisa
13th February 2011, 06:24 PM
Feindbild.
It would appear so.

Pure Argent
13th February 2011, 07:07 PM
<snip straw men, insults, and irrelevance>

Argent…just read what follows if you actually want to understand where things stand re: consciousness. As for the rest of your garbage, you’re not even irrelevant.

<snip quote>

Once again, you prove quite handily that you don't understand a single thing that is being said - and that you ignore everything which contradicts what you want to believe.

Posts such as this one by Guybrush Threepwood (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6861227&postcount=4859) explain the issues in Piggy's thoughts on consciousness. Ones like this one by laca (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6861074&postcount=4857) present an argument for the computational model which Piggy has yet to answer. And so on.

Try reading the entire thread rather than the posts which you think support your position. You might learn something.

annnnoid
13th February 2011, 09:19 PM
That sounds a little confused, or wrong. Pace Rumsfeld, the known and the unknown are subsets of everything (life, the universe, and). The unknown is those things we don't know, so the known (those things we do know) cannot be a subset of the unknown, or vice-versa. They are mutually exclusive. Within everything, each is bounded by the other - they share a limiting boundary. The less is known, the more is unknown. The more is known the less is unknown, and contrariwise.

'if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
Tweedledee

You are, of course, being excessively literal. The point was to describe the situation as it currently exists. Necessarily metaphorical…for what is the situation as it currently exists? How would it be possible to survey every specialized field of knowledge and come to some kind of conclusion on the sum total? All we can do is speak generally. Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically. Also it is an indisputable fact that there does not as yet exist an understanding of the fundamental reality of the universe… what reality is and how it occurs. So we don’t know who we are (or what variety of question that even is…though it is most certainly a relevant one since we know we cannot answer it), we don’t know what we are, we don’t know where reality comes from and we don’t know what reality is. Nor do we know what knowing is or how it comes to know whether or not it knows anything. For every ‘Science of Logic’ there is a Schopenhauer to tear it down. Lots of very substantial things that we simply do not have answers to.

What is, though, quite indisputable is that we and this entire universe exist and everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose. In fact, the only dissonant element in the whole colossal thing is us. Probably something to do with free will (which is….what?...and occurs…how?...and…why?)….one of those irrelevant elements of that insignificant thing that Pixy refers to as consciousness. Thus it can be said that though we quite obviously do not understand the superset that would describe an understanding of everything (because everything must have some variety of understanding since it has a functional existence) we just as obviously have some variety of an understanding of a portion of this everything (demonstrated by our ability to manipulate matter and meaning to a relatively sophisticated degree). Considering that the issues of which we are ignorant pertain to and implicate the biggest questions that occur (our identity and the identity of that place which we inhabit), it is quite reasonable…if only metaphorically…to conclude that our ignorance must somehow be a subset of a greater knowledge. The fact that it can be argued that the situation is more than just metaphor makes the argument that much more compelling.

As for you Argent…if you’re so convinced Piggy is mistaken go and take it up with him. Let’s see if you actually have the b......s to stand up for yourself for once instead of just grasping random quotes and throwing mud from the sidelines. I read all the posts long before I included those exerts so I already know exactly what Piggy’s positions are. You, on the other hand, quite obviously do not.

Here’s the link: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=187181&page=124

…go and find out. Or maybe I’ll just take your dumb little critique over there myself and see what Piggy has to say about it since spine is not something you’ve ever demonstrated any ownership of.

Robin
13th February 2011, 09:32 PM
So why the reference to ‘idiots’…? Because that’s exactly how anyone who even acknowledges these issues (let alone believes in them) is typically regarded by skeptics.
Oh, I see. You mean you didn't think they were idiots.

We are talking about people who wrote, or who took seriously a book about some old turkeys like how drug induced 'mystical' states could not be explained by physicalism, or positing that Transmission Theory makes sense. I mean Transmission Theory? You have got to be kidding me. I didn't think anybody was pushing that barrow since Interesting Ian left.

I am happy to be counted among those who regard the people you mentioned as idiots.

annnnoid
13th February 2011, 09:55 PM
Oh, I see. You mean you didn't think they were idiots.

We are talking about people who wrote, or who took seriously a book about some old turkeys like how drug induced 'mystical' states could not be explained by physicalism, or positing that Transmission Theory makes sense. I mean Transmission Theory? You have got to be kidding me. I didn't think anybody was pushing that barrow since Interesting Ian left.

I am happy to be counted among those who regard the people you mentioned as idiots.


So I’ll just conclude you didn’t actually read the book then. One way or another, we’ll all eventually see where these ‘old turkeys’ end up. I guess I can confidently say that it will be somewhere very unexpected. You seem to be drifting towards an overtly rational interpretation of being. As you once quite clearly pointed out, science is the worst epistemic system. The only question is why? Perhaps you would conclude that it simply doesn’t matter. I would conclude otherwise.

Robin
14th February 2011, 02:18 AM
So I’ll just conclude you didn’t actually read the book then.
I have read enough books about transmission theory thank you.
As you once quite clearly pointed out, science is the worst epistemic system.
No, I said the worst epistemic system apart from all the others.

An important difference and quite interesting that you chose to leave the last part out.

PixyMisa
14th February 2011, 02:43 AM
We all know what kind of history the study of these phenomenon has had. It’s obvious all over these boards. It’s called bias.
Yes, we admit it. We're biased. We're biased towards evidence and logic, and if you can't present either one, we will reject your claims as nonsense.

IOW…the areas of spirituality, religion, and what is referred to as psi research are no longer populated by crackpots and charlatans.
Sadly, these areas are populated more exclusively by crackpots and charlatans than ever before, because everyone else has seen the light - or lack thereof - and gone off to do something useful.

What this means is that the subjects can finally receive the attention they actually deserve, rather than being the haunt of angel-chasers or pseudo-skeptics.
Where is the evidence?

From everything that I understand so far, Irreducible Mind actually succeeds in accomplishing exactly what the summary described. The issue, though, cannot be reduced to this absurd parody that is so often displayed at JREF… ”well we haven’t yet seen replicable tests done.” The subject requires a treatment quite explicitly on the scale of this book…because it is that substantial, and the issues are that complex.
Book shmook. Show us the evidence.

As for the quote from Piggy - on this topic he's wrong and has always been wrong, this has all been covered in epic detail dozens of times with never a single cogent objection from him, and he has nothing to present at his point but cherry-picked sound bites.

PixyMisa
14th February 2011, 02:50 AM
I have read enough books about transmission theory thank you.
I could see the point in reading a book called "Transmission Theory and Why it is Wrong", which has half a page on transmission theory and eight hundred and a half pages on neurobiology with each chapter summing up with yet another refutation of transmission theory. Mind you, such a book would be even better if you cut out the transmission theory stuff entirely.

On the other hand, it could just say "Split brain patients." and that would be the end of it. Split brain patients are impossible to explain under transmission theory, but make perfect sense under a computational approach.

dafydd
14th February 2011, 04:04 AM
We all know what kind of history the study of these phenomenon has had. It’s obvious all over these boards. It’s called bias. A lot of it is quite understandable, given all that is involved. The fact is though, all-that-actually-is-involved crosses a huge swath of human activity (history, sociology, anthropology, psychology, philosophy, religion, theology…not to mention the entire range of hard sciences), which is exactly why the issue is so frequently misrepresented …because those who attempt to understand it, on either side of the issue, frequently resort to simplistic explanations. Even the subject of this thread…sigils etc., can be explored to quite some degree of complexity from a range of different perspectives, and yet all that typically occurs are dumb single sentence comments that superficially dismiss the entire issue (obvious example: Sledge…” Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?”). Dumb comments are fine, it’s an open forum after all….but don’t pretend to have an understanding of an issue this big if that’s all you’re capable of.

Big changes have occurred, especially over the past few decades. Consciousness and the complete range of human reality have become legitimate areas of study at virtually every university around the world….and as these studies have become more comprehensive those who pursue them have ventured ever further into what was previously regarded as no-mans land. IOW…the areas of spirituality, religion, and what is referred to as psi research are no longer populated by crackpots and charlatans. These areas of study are populated by individuals with a great deal of credibility, education, and insight. Thus it is no longer possible for critics/skeptics to dismiss the issues by association. IOW…those who explore these things don’t hang out in dungeons, deserts, caves, or mountain tops…they now have doctorates and tenure and they understand and explore the subjects in ways that have previously never occurred.

What this means is that the subjects can finally receive the attention they actually deserve, rather than being the haunt of angel-chasers or pseudo-skeptics. There will continue to be opposition and blatant bias. It’s documented and it’s pervasive but as more and more credible studies are published perspectives will change.

From everything that I understand so far, Irreducible Mind actually succeeds in accomplishing exactly what the summary described. The issue, though, cannot be reduced to this absurd parody that is so often displayed at JREF… ”well we haven’t yet seen replicable tests done.” The subject requires a treatment quite explicitly on the scale of this book…because it is that substantial, and the issues are that complex.

So why the reference to ‘idiots’…? Because that’s exactly how anyone who even acknowledges these issues (let alone believes in them) is typically regarded by skeptics. You don’t have to go more than a few steps anywhere at JREF for quite explicit proof of that. It was merely a not-too-subtle attempt at irony….because, quite obviously, individuals with that degree of cog-sci credentials cannot be simply brushed under the rug with all the other charlatans and crackpots.


Argent…just read what follows if you actually want to understand where things stand re: consciousness. As for the rest of your garbage, you’re not even irrelevant.

Drop the derailing and sophistry and tell us if you think that doodling on a bit of paper can have an effect on the physical world,in other words,do you give chaos magic any credence?

Robin
14th February 2011, 04:58 AM
I could see the point in reading a book called "Transmission Theory and Why it is Wrong", which has half a page on transmission theory and eight hundred and a half pages on neurobiology with each chapter summing up with yet another refutation of transmission theory. Mind you, such a book would be even better if you cut out the transmission theory stuff entirely.

On the other hand, it could just say "Split brain patients." and that would be the end of it. Split brain patients are impossible to explain under transmission theory, but make perfect sense under a computational approach.
And transmission theory does not explain what the authors of this book claim it explains.

For example even if we were to believe that there was such a thing as an out of body experience the authors do not demonstrate how transmission/filter theory is supposed to explain this.

I suppose that the unfiltered consciousness is supposed to possess a pair of eyes.

Robin
14th February 2011, 05:07 AM
And I am not completely convinced that annnoid has read more than the Amazon page for "Irreducible Minds" which is where all his information seems to come from.

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 08:06 AM
<snip nonsense>

Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically.

Wrong. Maybe you are incapable of saying who you are, but the rest of us do not suffer from your willful ignorance.

Also it is an indisputable fact that there does not as yet exist an understanding of the fundamental reality of the universe… what reality is and how it occurs.

True. But this is because "What is fundamental reality?" is nothing but word salad. It has no meaning.

<snip nonsense>

What is, though, quite indisputable is that we and this entire universe exist and everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose. In fact, the only dissonant element in the whole colossal thing is us.

And we are "dissonant"... how, exactly?

Probably something to do with free will (which is….what?...and occurs…how?...and…why?)…

It doesn't occur.

As for you Argent…if you’re so convinced Piggy is mistaken go and take it up with him. Let’s see if you actually have the b......s to stand up for yourself for once instead of just grasping random quotes and throwing mud from the sidelines.

"Grasping random quotes and throwing mud from the sidelines"? Looks like someone is projecting rather heavily.

As for taking it up with him, I really see no point. He hasn't begun to establish a case. Neither have you.

I read all the posts long before I included those exerts so I already know exactly what Piggy’s positions are. You, on the other hand, quite obviously do not.

Funny that you say this, then fail to explain what, exactly, I misinterpreted.

Or maybe I’ll just take your dumb little critique over there myself and see what Piggy has to say about it

Oh, no. I'm so scared. Someone is going to quote me to Piggy! :boxedin:

Seriously, though, go ahead. If I didn't want anyone knowing what I thought, I wouldn't have posted it. If Piggy thinks that it deserves a response, fine with me. I do, however, find it rather telling that you aren't even trying to formulate a response, but rather "threatening" me with bringing the post to the attention of another, more respected poster.

since spine is not something you’ve ever demonstrated any ownership of.

OH DEAR GOD

THE IRONY

IT BURNS

tsig
14th February 2011, 08:21 AM
Originally Posted by annnnoid
<snip nonsense>

Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically.


Wrong. Maybe you are incapable of saying who you are, but the rest of us do not suffer from your willful ignorance.



True. But this is because "What is fundamental reality?" is nothing but word salad. It has no meaning.




He starts out denying the brain is material and winds up denying himself.

Then we have "argument by adjective". Is a "fundamental reality" anything like 'real reality' or 'other reality'?

kmortis
14th February 2011, 08:55 AM
Drop the derailing and sophistry and tell us if you think that doodling on a bit of paper can have an effect on the physical world,in other words,do you give chaos magic any credence?
I practiced Chaos Magick for about 5 years back in the 90's. I finally stopped when I realized that the only effect that it, or any other magickal ritual, had was to put me in the midset to either effect change or accept change in my life. I decided that I'd skip the middle man (doodling on a page) and just start effecting change in my life on my own.

I'm much happier now. :D

annnnoid
14th February 2011, 10:31 AM
I have read enough books about transmission theory thank you.

No, I said the worst epistemic system apart from all the others.

An important difference and quite interesting that you chose to leave the last part out.

It would, of course, be interesting if in fact I did choose as you described. As it is, I simply neglected to include it. I suppose I simply assumed the rest is obvious. I have no real argument with the position. The point, though, is not whether it is the worst except for all the others, or the worst period, or whatever…the point is simply why? What is the situation, and why does it exist as it does? Given the stature that ‘science’ has achieved…it is certainly damning with faint praise to describe it in such a way. You seem satisfied in accepting the status quo. I simply am not.

As for having read more than Amazon…I actually have, but that is really not relevant to the point. Whether you have may be more so as you seem to be the one who so vehemently dismisses the books conclusions. I could point you towards other credible sources who explore these issues (have a look at that list of links for example)…people with backgrounds which would seem similar to your own, but you don’t seem too interested, which is fine. No doubt you’ve explored….something…. that would account for your intransigent POV. The area of study is progressing rapidly though and the only reason it has not overtaken skeptics like you and the insect is simply because of the sheer dimensions of what is involved….and, to some degree…latent bias. The bias is understandable given the history and nature of the subject and the history and nature of collective and individual human psychology. The point is, the approach you and other skeptics seem to take is simply to smother the endless fires of every size that are constantly burning and starting all over the place…. when what you don’t seem to recognize is that the whole world is an inferno.

Thus my question re: the deficiencies of science (doubtless Pixy will insist that science has no deficiencies but I’ll let you haggle over that with him)….why (and, I suppose, what?)?

As for Piggy (and quite a number of others) being wrong Pixy, I’ll let you take that up with him. The point of that whole pointless exercise is precisely what Dennet alluded to. That consciousness is the last remaining mystery (and why). The fact that you’re so stubbornly convinced of the exact opposite (contrary to just about every credible published position) says all I need to know about your level of insight into the matter. It’s quite obvious that, short of an apocalypse, you’re never going to change your mind about anything….and one word responses and ‘google it’ evidentiary positions do not an argument make.

And the battle hymn of the skeptic is trumpeted once again....evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence! The book is the evidence Pixy, but you actually have to read the whole thing (you won't, but that's a given). Perhaps this insight will advance your understanding:
“The important thing in science is not so much to obtain new facts as to discover new ways of thinking about them.”


Argent…your tantrums are amusing but tedious and I’ve simply become bored with you. I suppose we’ll see if you ever actually have the courage to take up the issue with Piggy. Personally I doubt it. As Piggy quite clearly pointed out (apparently you missed it) computationlism is pretty much dead in the water (from what I can see...the computationlist position amounts to nothing more than bare assertion and hand-waving...unless you have some vital new insight to contribute of course...shall we hold our breath?...no...didn't think so). If you want a particularly effective summary of the whole argument go and read Aku’s annihilation of Nescafe on the same thread a while back…..if you’re interested in anything more than slinging mud from the sidelines and sticking your head in the sand.

As for free will….entire libraries have been written on the subject. It has been a fundamental component of every philosophical, psychological, sociological, and religious understanding since human beings have existed…… and you summarily dismiss it with an arrogant “it doesn’t occur”. And to support this absolutely astounding conclusion we have….nothing (what was that thing about extraordinary claims….?????). Not even ‘google it’ this time. How about I give you a hand with this one.

Here’s a link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=zH2&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=free+will&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist (that’s even more than Justin Bieber…and it’s generally accepted that he exists)…I’d say someone has got their facts mixed up.

I wish I cared enough to find this funny, because otherwise it would be hilarious…but I don’t. That says just about all anyone needs to know about your insight into the world. I think the appropriate adjective in this situation is ‘ignorant’.

Continue on the sidelines if you want. As I said, you’re not even irrelevant.

Mirrorglass
14th February 2011, 10:34 AM
It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

The Norseman
14th February 2011, 10:46 AM
IAs for free will….entire libraries have been written on the subject. It has been a fundamental component of every philosophical, psychological, sociological, and religious understanding since human beings have existed…… and you summarily dismiss it with an arrogant “it doesn’t occur”. And to support this absolutely astounding conclusion we have….nothing (what was that thing about extraordinary claims….?????). Not even ‘google it’ this time. How about I give you a hand with this one.

Here’s a link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=zH2&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=free+will&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist


LOL

You Googled for 'free' and 'will' which returned over 400 million hits, unsurprisingly.

When 'free will' is searched for, the results are 8.44 million.

There are 8.97 million hits when 'bigfoot' is searched for.

According to your logic, bigfoot has a higher likelihood of existing than free will.

dafydd
14th February 2011, 10:57 AM
It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

I noticed that.

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 10:58 AM
<snip repetitious nonsense>

Argent…your tantrums are amusing but tedious and I’ve simply become bored with you. I suppose we’ll see if you ever actually have the courage to take up the issue with Piggy. Personally I doubt it.

"Tantrums"? Don't flatter yourself. On your best day, you might get me up to "mildly annoyed" (punnnnn).

As for taking it up with Piggy, again, it's not a matter of courage - or lack thereof. And even if it were, it's irrelevant, and it's rather pathetic to see you trying to base your entire defense of your position on the fact that I haven't posted in another thread.

<snip insults, irrelevancy and repetition>

As for free will….entire libraries have been written on the subject. It has been a fundamental component of every philosophical, psychological, sociological, and religious understanding since human beings have existed…… and you summarily dismiss it with an arrogant “it doesn’t occur”.

Yep. Because it doesn't. There is no such thing as free will. That it forms the basis of many religions is irrelevant. That philosophers think it exists is irrelevant. Even if sociologists think it exists, it is irrelevant. They have no more evidence to support that claim than you do.

Free will does not exist.

And to support this absolutely astounding conclusion we have….nothing (what was that thing about extraordinary claims….?????). Not even ‘google it’ this time. How about I give you a hand with this one.

Or how about I give you one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof)?

Here’s a link: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=zH2&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&q=free+will&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=

I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist (that’s even more than Justin Bieber…and it’s generally accepted that he exists)…I’d say someone has got their facts mixed up.

No.

See, annnnoid, the difference between my Google link and yours is that mine actually led to the evidence. Yours doesn't.

<snip insults>

Are you done?

dlorde
14th February 2011, 11:18 AM
You are, of course, being excessively literal.

Yes, it was obviously my mistake for applying the logic you appealed to when you said:.. the unknown within which the known must…by every function of logic and sanity [...]…exist.
.
Next time you appeal to logic and sanity, I must remember not to take you so literally :D

Sledge
14th February 2011, 11:31 AM
It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

Or who think they can talk evidence into existence.

dlorde
14th February 2011, 11:32 AM
... all that typically occurs are dumb single sentence comments that superficially dismiss the entire issue (obvious example: Sledge…” Show us your chaos magic, Aku. Or do you agree it doesn't exist?”). Dumb comments are fine, it’s an open forum after all….but don’t pretend to have an understanding of an issue this big if that’s all you’re capable of.
.
So what would you consider a reasonable or appropriate challenge for a demonstration of chaos magic, if not "Show us" ?

dlorde
14th February 2011, 11:40 AM
...Generally speaking, we do not know who we are personally, and no one can answer the question what we are scientifically. Also it is an indisputable fact that there does not as yet exist an understanding of the fundamental reality of the universe… what reality is and how it occurs. So we don’t know who we are (or what variety of question that even is…though it is most certainly a relevant one since we know we cannot answer it), we don’t know what we are, we don’t know where reality comes from and we don’t know what reality is. Nor do we know what knowing is or how it comes to know whether or not it knows anything. For every ‘Science of Logic’ there is a Schopenhauer to tear it down. Lots of very substantial things that we simply do not have answers to.

What is, though, quite indisputable is that we and this entire universe exist and everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose.

Given all that stuff you feel we don't know, what makes you feel it's indisputable that everything seems to function within some degree of unity, coherence, and purpose?

In particular, what purpose?

our ignorance knowledge must somehow be a subset of a greater knowledge.

Same error as before. Fixed it for you.

dlorde
14th February 2011, 11:54 AM
I practiced Chaos Magick for about 5 years back in the 90's. I finally stopped when I realized that the only effect that it, or any other magickal ritual, had was to put me in the midset to either effect change or accept change in my life.

Why did it take five years for you to realise it had no effect except on your mindset? What kind of things were you doing with Chaos Magick?

A Laughing Baby
14th February 2011, 12:03 PM
It is fascinating how many people seem to think writing more hides the weakness of their grasp on the English language.

It's also weird to look at their syntax choice for the same reason. Hint: an inverted sentence does not a good argument make. ;)

kmortis
14th February 2011, 12:09 PM
Why did it take five years for you to realise it had no effect except on your mindset? What kind of things were you doing with Chaos Magick?
I'd come to it through Paganism, so I was already in the midset that magick did...something. I credit CM for my atheism. One of the things that Peter Carroll talks about (I can never remember if it's in Liber Null/Psychoanut or The Psychomicon) is keeping a detailed magick journal (ya know, collecting evidence ;)). When I did that, I found that no matter how strong I felt my gnosis was, it didn't seem to have an effect on the outcome. If I tried predictive magick, unless I kept the time frame ridiciously short (e.g. half-day or sooner) I'd be no better than chance. After about five years of that, I decided to drop all those trappings (with the exception of Discordianism, which fits nicely with atheism anyway) and go my own way.

I'm not sorry I spent all that time doing that silliness. It taught me how to examine my own practices to see how silly that can be at times.

dlorde
14th February 2011, 12:11 PM
...I ‘googled it’ for you. Funny…over 400,000,000 hits for something that doesn’t exist (that’s even more than Justin Bieber…and it’s generally accepted that he exists)…

Hey, I just discovered Santa Claus exists (33,800,000 results on Google) :D

Hellbound
14th February 2011, 12:12 PM
A man talking sense to himself, is no less sane than a man talking nonsense, not to himself.

Of which he does both.

So there we have it.

Stark raving sane.

dlorde
14th February 2011, 12:32 PM
...One of the things that Peter Carroll talks about (I can never remember if it's in Liber Null/Psychoanut or The Psychomicon) is keeping a detailed magick journal (ya know, collecting evidence ;)). When I did that, I found that no matter how strong I felt my gnosis was, it didn't seem to have an effect on the outcome.
Interesting - by following the recommended course, you demonstrated to your satisfaction that it was ineffective... would that everyone was so diligent :)

.. I decided to drop all those trappings (with the exception of Discordianism, which fits nicely with atheism anyway) and go my own way.
Thanks - I hadn't encountered Discordianism, it sounds intriguing.

I'm not sorry I spent all that time doing that silliness. It taught me how to examine my own practices to see how silly that can be at times.
Yes - I think recognising silly practices is important. I have one or two that seem to help allay anxiety, but I roll my eyes when I do them ;)

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 12:38 PM
To put it bluntly Argent…you are simply too lost to argue with. Anyone who can do no better than a single paltry wiki link to support an argument that dismisses what is universally regarded as the cornerstone of human identity is simply missing too many marbles to have the slightest respect for. You haven’t even presented an argument….just one single link. Ping!....and human reality is fundamentally redefined! Lost is a compliment in this case. Very impressive.

So you don't actually have any evidence in favor of free will, then?

Thought not. Keep blustering, though. It's very entertaining.

Robin
14th February 2011, 12:44 PM
It would, of course, be interesting if in fact I did choose as you described. As it is, I simply neglected to include it. I suppose I simply assumed the rest is obvious. I have no real argument with the position. The point, though, is not whether it is the worst except for all the others, or the worst period, or whatever…the point is simply why? What is the situation, and why does it exist as it does?
The answer to that question was known long before there even was science - since Aristotle.

It is the general problem of knowledge

We have to general methods of logic, deduction and induction.

Deduction can uncover no new knowledge.

Induction can uncover no certain knowledge.

This applies to any known epistemology, not just science
And Given the stature that ‘science’ has achieved…it is certainly damning with faint praise to describe it in such a way. You seem satisfied in accepting the status quo. I simply am not.
If you think you know a way around the problem of knowledge then, hey, knock yourself out.

Personally I think that something that has been an intransigent problem for the best minds of history for thousands of years will probably be an intransigent problem for me.

Science is not only the best we have. It is probably the best we can have.

Robin
14th February 2011, 12:47 PM
So you don't actually have any evidence in favor of free will, then?
And he won't.

I think the last serious essay on the subject was Broad's "Libertarianism" which at least tried to define libertarian free will - something few have even attempted.

Broad concluded that there could be no such thing.

As for 40,000 hits in Google for something that does not exist. Try googling Santa Claus.

kmortis
14th February 2011, 01:01 PM
Interesting - by following the recommended course, you demonstrated to your satisfaction that it was ineffective... would that everyone was so diligent :)
Part of my leaving could also have been a general disillusion toward Paganism and mysticism. Around the same time that I realized how silly it all was, the coven I'd been a part of defacto dissolved, and the discussion group I was part of "disinvited" me for asking difficult questions. I believe the last question posed to me was "If you don't believe, then why are you here?". I couldn't answer, so I left.

Thanks - I hadn't encountered Discordianism, it sounds intriguing.
Any religion that uses the phrase "We are a tribe of philosophers, theologians, magicians, scientists, artists, clowns and similar maniacs..." is the One True Religion™. :p

Yes - I think recognising silly practices is important. I have one or two that seem to help allay anxiety, but I roll my eyes when I do them ;)Hey, we all have to get through the day, right?

Mirrorglass
14th February 2011, 01:20 PM
It's also weird to look at their syntax choice for the same reason. Hint: an inverted sentence does not a good argument make. ;)

But patently obvious it is, to anyone with a shred of rationality or integrity (of course.. it would be foolish to assume these traits of the people with whom I've discussed, but shan't name.. silly me), that it is perfectly and utterly true that a sentence, and the truth value within said sentence, are greater, more pure, and more true, by a quantum order of magnitude, or more... when more exaggerating, more certain, more repetitive phrases.. phrases such as "as is abundantly clear", "as is agreed by every single person worth mentioning" and "which no one but a complete and utter fool could deny"... are used instead of evidence, logic, or arguments... and the more insults there are, the more obviously correct.. the post must be.

But you are, of course, beyond hope.

annnnoid
14th February 2011, 03:18 PM
And he won't.

I think the last serious essay on the subject was Broad's "Libertarianism" which at least tried to define libertarian free will - something few have even attempted.

Broad concluded that there could be no such thing.

As for 40,000 hits in Google for something that does not exist. Try googling Santa Claus.

...no, of course not Robin. There could not possibly be a single thing that could confirm the existence of free will. I mentioned that essay by Attran before...you really should read it. You people are becoming a parody, you truly are.

It’s almost laughable the extent to which you skeptics will go to deny the existence of human truth.

How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not. It’s got nothing to do with believing in free will or any other abstract philosophical or religious concept. You either make a difference in your life or you don’t.

Free will didn’t become the foundation of human identity because some dude walked down a mountain with ‘free will’ written on a piece of stone…..or because Plato had some big ideas about it. Free will became the foundation of human identity simply because every person with an ounce of insight knows they have the power to influence who they will be.

These are referred to as ‘the verities of life’. They are, for example, the stuff out of which movies are made….which is why we have David Fincher saying: “You’re in charge, you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.” An explicit and definitive affirmation of free will.

It may come as a real shock to some of you but just because we do not have the ability to define or quantify something does not mean it does not exist.

So as proof of ‘free will’ we have six or seven billion people who wake up every day and either do, or not, take responsibility for their lives. Deny this and you quite conclusively deny that you have a life.

…what equivalent proof do you have that it doesn’t exist?

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 03:25 PM
How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not.

Circular logic.

…what equivalent proof do you have that it doesn’t exist?

Burden of proof fallacy.

Try again.

Resume
14th February 2011, 03:27 PM
Free will became the foundation of human identity simply because every person with an ounce of insight knows they have the power to influence who they will be.

You can't possibly believe this.

Mirrorglass
14th February 2011, 03:29 PM
And we even have logical proofs that show free will cannot exist, or even be meaningfully defined, in a physical universe. But I suppose such things are worthless when we have bare assertions.

annnnoid
14th February 2011, 03:59 PM
And we even have logical proofs that show free will cannot exist, or even be meaningfully defined, in a physical universe. But I suppose such things are worthless when we have bare assertions.


….and of course, because something cannot be meaningfully defined (whatever the hell that means), it must therefore not exist. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you choose how your life proceeds or not? If you choose, for example, to have a child…does that ‘action’ in and of itself constitute a meaningful definition of the vocabulary of reality or not? Newsflash dude….we don’t define the world, it defines us.

But we have logical proofs that free will does not exist. Meaning what, exactly? That is does not exist? That you no longer get to decide who you’ll be? What a massive load of absolute garbage!

But of course…all I have are bare assertions. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you consider yourself nothing more than a bare assertion?

Do you…or do you not, choose? It's a blindingly simple question. Do you have the ability to answer it?

Edited to correct member's name. Do not change another Member's username in order to insult.

Lord Emsworth
14th February 2011, 04:08 PM
How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not. It’s got nothing to do with believing in free will or any other abstract philosophical or religious concept. You either make a difference in your life or you don’t.

Free will didn’t become the foundation of human identity because some dude walked down a mountain with ‘free will’ written on a piece of stone…..or because Plato had some big ideas about it. Free will became the foundation of human identity simply because every person with an ounce of insight knows they have the power to influence who they will be.

These are referred to as ‘the verities of life’. They are, for example, the stuff out of which movies are made….which is why we have David Fincher saying: “You’re in charge, you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.” An explicit and definitive affirmation of free will.

[...]

So as proof of ‘free will’ we have six or seven billion people who wake up every day and either do, or not, take responsibility for their lives. Deny this and you quite conclusively deny that you have a life.

Covered by compatibilist free will. Which is of course not to be confused with libertarian free will.

:crc:

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 04:45 PM
….and of course, because something cannot be meaningfully defined (whatever the hell that means), it must therefore not exist.

No, but it does mean that you need a coherent definition before you can say that it exists.

But we have logical proofs that free will does not exist. Meaning what, exactly? That is does not exist?

Yes.

But of course…all I have are bare assertions.

Yes.

It seems to have completely slipped your mind (which, I suppose, we could regard as proof of the fallibility of memory…but that’s an argument for another time) that it was you who asserted with nothing more than epileptic hand waving that there is no such thing as free will

Yep. And that assertion stands unless you can present evidence of the existence of free will.

Of course, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you don't understand the difference between negative and positive claims. Just one more thing on the long, long list of things that you don't understand in the least.

contrary to the explicit understanding of just about every major philosophical and religious tradition on the planet

Argument ad populum fallacy.

hell, even Dan Dennet believes in free will!

So?

I have provided six or seven billion examples of it

No, you haven't. You've asserted that your six or seven billion "examples" are evidence of free will. You haven't even begun to actually show that they are.

You haven’t even bothered to argue your case (I doubt you even could but that’s academic).

There's no case to argue. There is no evidence for free will. There is nothing for me to argue against.

All you’ve produced is a half-empty wiki page to support your claim.

Which is more than you've given.

But why don’t we simplify the argument for your kindergarten credentials.

More insults, annnnoid? Is this really the best you can do?

….do you choose…or not?

It depends on how you define "choose". Subjectively, I think I am choosing. Objectively, my "choices" are just the result of the chemical reactions in my brain.

It feels like I choose. In reality, I don't.

annnnoid
14th February 2011, 06:29 PM
….and of course, because something cannot be meaningfully defined (whatever the hell that means), it must therefore not exist.
No, but it does mean that you need a coherent definition before you can say that it exists.

Let me get this straight…something does not exist until we have a coherent definition of it. Wow…by that logic (just for example) the quantum universe did not exist until around about the time Einstein showed up. God only knows how things operated before then.

But we have logical proofs that free will does not exist. Meaning what, exactly? That is does not exist?
Yes.

Better tell that to the folks in the good old US of A cause their entire constitution is founded on that very principle. Come to think of it, just about every liberal democracy in the world includes the understanding of free will as a fundamental guiding principle in their charters and constitutions. And it doesn’t exist!!!! What a bunch of fools!

But of course…all I have are bare assertions.
Yes.

….the barest of assertions…a single word. So who’s the one slinging bare assertions about dude?

It seems to have completely slipped your mind (which, I suppose, we could regard as proof of the fallibility of memory…but that’s an argument for another time) that it was you who asserted with nothing more than epileptic hand waving that there is no such thing as free will
Yep. And that assertion stands unless you can present evidence of the existence of free will.

Of course, I'm not surprised in the slightest that you don't understand the difference between negative and positive claims. Just one more thing on the long, long list of things that you don't understand in the least.

Let me get this straight…again…you make this extraordinary claim and provide nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to substantiate it….but unless I can prove you wrong your massively unsubstantiated bare assertion is somehow valid. You do know what that’s called don’t you….but then again, maybe you don’t (let me give you a hint...flying spaghetti monster).

contrary to the explicit understanding of just about every major philosophical and religious tradition on the planet
Argument ad populum fallacy.

No, actually it’s called basic confirmation theory. Something you don’t seem to be too familiar with.


hell, even Dan Dennet believes in free will!
So?

Yeah, I forgot….Dan Dennet is an idiot. Argent, who’s provided nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to dismiss the foundation of human identity for a substantial portion of the world’s population is obviously the intelligent one in this debate.

I have provided six or seven billion examples of it
No, you haven't. You've asserted that your six or seven billion "examples" are evidence of free will. You haven't even begun to actually show that they are.

That’s …because…they…show…that…they…are.

You haven’t even bothered to argue your case (I doubt you even could but that’s academic).
There's no case to argue. There is no evidence for free will. There is nothing for me to argue against.

In any other situation this would be regarded as a massive excuse. But this is JREF. No evidence for free will. Lets see…the charter/constitution of every liberal democracy in the world. All include free will as a foundational principle. Hegel, Kant, Plato, Descartes, Hume etc. etc….all have argued one way or another in support of free will. Virtually all the worlds major religious traditions include free will as a foundational principle in one form or another.

….buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, they must all be wrong because Argent has come to the conclusion that there is all but nothing to argue against. Or maybe Argent just doesn’t have a clue what he’s talking about.

All you’ve produced is a half-empty wiki page to support your claim.
Which is more than you've given.

….see above…or I could simply resort to the Argent/Pixy school of evidence: google it!

But why don’t we simplify the argument for your kindergarten credentials.
More insults, annnnoid? Is this really the best you can do?

...apparently not. But then again, maybe that's all that someone deserves who dismisses outright the foundational identity principle for the majority of the worlds population with nothing more than a scatter-brained wiki page link.

Quote:
….do you choose…or not?
It depends on how you define "choose". Subjectively, I think I am choosing. Objectively, my "choices" are just the result of the chemical reactions in my brain.

It feels like I choose. In reality, I don't.

Argent at the alter: "...sure I'll marry you, but in reality I'm really not...and BTW...death doesn't yet exist since we have yet to coherently define it so we'll have to part before then...if I can somehow choose not to choose that I'm leaving from somewhere that doesn't exist...but I do anyway...but that wasn't me who said that...blame the chemicals...they love you, not me..."

…you do realize that you are dangerously close to defining yourself as a p-zombie (with a special name). I wouldn’t let it bother you though. Your position never had the slightest substance in the first place. Personally, when I choose I don’t stand around for ten minutes trying to figure out how to define what I’m doing or whether or not there even is a definition (because, in, fact, there, isn't!). Most folks are the same. Maybe you’re not. P-zombie then.

….curious though….what exactly is this ‘reality’ in which you don’t actually choose? As far as I know, reality is yet to be coherently defined…and therefore, by one of Argents many rules of warped logic, must not yet exist. You aren’t a woo are you? Y’know…you believe in something that doesn’t actually exist. Mind you, you do have a history of extraordinary claims and multitudes of bare assertions. Very woo-like.

Seriously Argent, I’d suggest you quit while you’re behind. If not maybe you should go see a doctor about that foot-mouth thing.

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 06:56 PM
Let me get this straight…something does not exist until we have a coherent definition of it.

This is such a blatant, utterly pathetic attempt at a straw man that I seriously cannot believe that you managed to type it with a straight face.

Better tell that to the folks in the good old US of A cause their entire constitution is founded on that very principle.

Your point?

….the barest of assertions…a single word. So who’s the one slinging bare assertions about dude?

You.

Let me get this straight…again…you make this extraordinary claim and provide nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to substantiate it….but unless I can prove you wrong your massively unsubstantiated bare assertion is somehow valid.

Essentially, yes. I would take the time to explain why, but I really don't care enough to give you a crash-course in fundamental logic. If you actually wanted to understand it, you would have bothered to look it up before you posted here. As it is, I see no reason to help you. Not only do you not know, you don't want to know, and anything I did to try and explain it to you would just be wasted effort.

No, actually it’s called basic confirmation theory. Something you don’t seem to be too familiar with.

No, actually, it's called argument ad populum. You can try to say it's something else all you want. It doesn't change facts.

Yeah, I forgot….Dan Dennet is an idiot.

Straw man.

Argent, who’s provided nothing more than a half-empty wiki page to dismiss the foundation of human identity for a substantial portion of the world’s population is obviously the intelligent one in this debate.

Argument ad populum, appeal to ridicule, straw man.

That’s …because…they…show…that…they…are.

No, they don't.

In any other situation this would be regarded as a massive excuse.

No. It's plain statement of fact. You haven't presented any evidence. There is nothing to refute.

No evidence for free will. Lets see…the charter/constitution of every liberal democracy in the world.

Not evidence.

All include free will as a foundational principle.

Not evidence.

Hegel, Kant, Plato, Descartes, Hume etc. etc….all have argued one way or another in support of free will.

Bare assertion by proxy.

Virtually all the worlds major religious traditions include free will as a foundational principle in one form or another.

Not evidence.

<snip irrelevancy>

Argent at the alter: "...sure I'll marry you, but in reality I'm really not.

Straw man.

and BTW...death doesn't yet exist since we have yet to coherently define it so we'll have to part before then.

Straw man, falsehood.

if I can somehow choose not to choose that I'm leaving from somewhere that doesn't exist...but I do anyway...but that wasn't me who said that...blame the chemicals...they love you, not me..."

Incoherency.

you do realize that you are dangerously close to defining yourself as a p-zombie (with a special name).

No. Free will is not required for consciousness.

Try again.

I've ignored the rest, because it's yet another straw man. I think I'll let you figure out which bits of it are wrong and why, though. Or try, anyway.

annnnoid
14th February 2011, 07:31 PM
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 07:35 PM
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.

Or you could actually try responding to what I post rather than running away.

You know, you could just admit that you don't have any evidence. It would make you look much less foolish than your continued arrogance and feigned superiority.

Sledge
14th February 2011, 07:37 PM
Your position is crap, annnnoid. So I guess you're wrong about that as well.

PixyMisa
14th February 2011, 07:59 PM
annnnoid, could you make a concise statement as to your views on the issue of free will, so that people could focus on that?

PixyMisa
14th February 2011, 08:00 PM
And perhaps tie it in to chaos magic before the thread gets split again...

kmortis
14th February 2011, 08:00 PM
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.

No, I'd say that only Pure Argent has a sufficient predilection toward masochism to bother.

Pure Argent
14th February 2011, 08:07 PM
But I’m not running away my dear dear Argent…you have simply yet to argue a single thing.

Burden of proof fallacy.

Again.

I, on the other hand, have marshaled the evidence of every democracy in the world, every religion, and a phalanx of the most respected minds who have ever thunk a thought.

Which is not evidence. It's the argument ad populum fallacy ad nauseum.

No, I'd say that only Pure Argent has a sufficient predilection toward masochism to bother.

Though which one of us is in which role is up for discussion. ;)

PixyMisa
14th February 2011, 08:11 PM
This is such a blatant, utterly pathetic attempt at a straw man that I seriously cannot believe that you managed to type it with a straight face.
Oh, that happens all the time in R&P.

The Norseman
14th February 2011, 11:24 PM
I have provided six or seven billion examples of it (a few more than my initial four hundred million but why quibble).


I called you on your misleading Google search minutes after you did it. I'm not terribly surprised you continue to bandy about your laughable search results as some kind of evidence in support of the idea that humans have free will.

PixyMisa
14th February 2011, 11:49 PM
Kant, Hegel, Descartes, and Plato would all recognize you as a fool.
We haven't taken up Hegel, that I remember, but Kant, Descartes and Plato were all wrong.

Also dead.

Hegel too.

And neither this nor anything else in your posts constitutes evidence or even an argument.

Mirrorglass
15th February 2011, 01:58 AM
….and of course, because something cannot be meaningfully defined (whatever the hell that means), it must therefore not exist. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you choose how your life proceeds or not? If you choose, for example, to have a child…does that ‘action’ in and of itself constitute a meaningful definition of the vocabulary of reality or not? Newsflash dude….we don’t define the world, it defines us.

So.. we can add the word "word" to the list of.. words you don't understand? There's a zen koan here, somewhere. :boggled:

But we have logical proofs that free will does not exist. Meaning what, exactly? That is does not exist? That you no longer get to decide who you’ll be? What a massive load of absolute garbage!

Sure, I get to decide certain things. However, that only holds true for definitions of "decide" that don't invoke a nonexistent aspect -that of free will. The definitions that do are also meaningless.

But of course…all I have are bare assertions. Tell me Mirrorglass…do you consider yourself nothing more than a bare assertion?

Do you…or do you not, choose? It's a blindingly simple question. Do you have the ability to answer it?

Blindingly simple questions are, quite often, poorly defined - as is the case here. And yes - that makes the question meaningless.

But it occurs to me that you probably just don't really understand what is meant by "meaningless" here, so let me help you.

Words are tools humans use to communicate ideas. They are sounds or strings of characters that represent an idea, making it possible to share thoughts on these ideas.

However, in order for this to work well, there must be a consistent and shared definition of what ideas the words are supposed to represent. In the case of corporeal, everyday things, such as cats or dogs, it's a fairly easily satisfied condition - although it is important that everyone present speaks the same language - for example, the English "Die, Cat" and the German "Die Katze" seem very similiar, but have very different meanings.

But even with a common language, things get more difficult when we're talking about ideas that don't refer to real, existing things. Love, god, evil, delicious and such, for example. Different people mean different things with these words - in other words, they don't have a clear definition.

In everyday conversation, these words can still be used. However, once we enter into logic, we really run in to trouble. In logic, it's not enough to just provide a vague idea of what you mean - you have to have a sound, understandable statement. And that's only possible if all the terms used are well-defined.

When those terms are not defined, that means they do not actually refer to any single thing. Especially with contested terms like "free will", accurate definitions are vitally important. It's ridiculous to suggest one should believe something like that exists, despite having no coherent definition for the phenomenon. Although I do realize this is the only tool at your disposal, I really believe you would be better off without it.

So yes - since you can't define "free will" - in your case, even inadequately - any claims you make about it's existence are meaningless. It's just another god - something that makes no sense, shows no sign of existing, that you just "feel in your heart" must be there - and proceed to attack anyone who questions it.

I have written more on the subject on the forums in the past, but I'm sure you aren't interested in reading long-winded post with actual arguments instead of insults. I look forward to your next post filled with assertions and insults. Do try to make the most of your time until your inevitable ban.

Edited to correct member's name. Do not change another Member's username in order to insult.

Tsk, tsk. Was it even a good insult?

dafydd
15th February 2011, 05:46 AM
I hate to see chaos magic neglected like this.

Robin
15th February 2011, 06:12 AM
...no, of course not Robin. There could not possibly be a single thing that could confirm the existence of free will. I mentioned that essay by Attran before...you really should read it.
I could not find where you mentioned the name of the essay by Scott Atran, could you let me know.
How do we know free will exists?...because each and every person here has the ability to wake up tomorrow morning and decide to make their world a better place (or any variety of place)…or not. It’s got nothing to do with believing in free will or any other abstract philosophical or religious concept. You either make a difference in your life or you don’t.
So when you say free will, you mean that our conscious intentions can be significant proximate causes of our actions - yes?

In which case I completely agree and would point out that free will of that variety is perfectly compatible with Materialism.

Brains are physical objects in a physical Universe and as such can have an effect within that Universe.
It may come as a real shock to some of you but just because we do not have the ability to define or quantify something does not mean it does not exist.
If you are unable to define what you mean by a term then how do you know that it means anything at all?

Graximoks may exist. It depends upon what graximok means.
…what equivalent proof do you have that it doesn’t exist?
Since you wont tell us what you mean by the term I don't even know what you are talking about. Do you accept my definition above, the one italicised?

Robin
15th February 2011, 06:23 AM
No, but it does mean that you need a coherent definition before you can say that it exists. Wow…by that logic (just for example) the quantum universe did not exist until around about the time Einstein showed up. God only knows how things operated before then.
Let me get this straight…something does not exist until we have a coherent definition of it.
Did you again think that nobody noticed when you altered what somebody said?

He said "you need a coherrent definition before you can say that it exists".

And you changed it to "it does not exist until we have a coherent definition of it"

Interesting.

It is perfectly true that nobody could say that the quantum universe existed until we had a coherent definition of the quantum universe.

By the way, Einstein did not deveop quantum physics - in fact he resisted it for some time.

Waterman
15th February 2011, 08:10 AM
Interesting isn’t it Argent….how nobody else bothers to show up to either defend your position, or challenge mine. Maybe that’s a sign. It is for me. You’ve now once again become ‘beyond irrelevant’. There’s only so much rank stupidity I can enjoy every day and I’m afraid that watching my cat urinate has now become more entertaining than reading your posts. See ya never…post an actual argument sometime.

Seems like Argent is doing a decent job to me and a better one than I. Don't assume that silence is a tacit agreement with any particular side. <insert smily eating popcorn thingy>

kmortis
15th February 2011, 08:14 AM
Seems like Argent is doing a decent job to me and a better one than I. Don't assume that silence is a tacit agreement with any particular side. <insert smily eating popcorn thingy>
:popcorn1 :popcorn2 :popcorn3 :popcorn6

Which one?

tsig
15th February 2011, 08:20 AM
Seems like Argent is doing a decent job to me and a better one than I. Don't assume that silence is a tacit agreement with any particular side. <insert smily eating popcorn thingy>

With the pounding that Pixy and Argent are dealing out I'd feel a little guilty piling on.

I have never understood the "Appeal to the Lurker". Do they really think there's a silent majority of members secretly cheering for them?

Pure Argent
15th February 2011, 09:39 AM
I would respond to annnnoid's latest batch of nonsense, but I'm not sure what the rules are on responding to AAHed posts.
As a general rule, it's wiser not to respond to them. Especially if they were sent there for breaking Rule 11. Either way, you are safer if you let them be.

Sledge
15th February 2011, 11:53 AM
With the pounding that Pixy and Argent are dealing out I'd feel a little guilty piling on.

I have never understood the "Appeal to the Lurker". Do they really think there's a silent majority of members secretly cheering for them?

On a few occasions, I've responded to that approach by asking people who are reading but haven't commented yet to post and say which, if any, side they come down on. To the surprise of exactly one person (the person insisting the lurkers side with them), the people who respond never side with the person who thought they had a massed invisible army behind them. Strange that.

dafydd
15th February 2011, 04:16 PM
So no demonstration of chaos magic? I am disappointed.

Mirrorglass
15th February 2011, 04:48 PM
Well, since there's apparently a quiet moment in discussion, I do actually have a thought on the topic I'd like to share.

Now, I'm not very familiar with the concept of Chaos Magic, but from what I've read in this thread, it appears to be something like meditation, free association and doodling, combined with drugs and rigorously searching for anything that could be called an effect of the magic. Apparently it was employed by at least a couple prominent artists in the past few decades.

I find the idea somewhat interesting, as it just happens that lately, I have once again gotten into meditation, free association and writing stuff on paper, in an attempt to focus on things better and maintain a mental state conductive to work. And, in my personal anecdotal experience, they do seem to work. After a tiring day, I generally feel better after writing in my journal before bed, and if I write a task down in a notebook, I'm more likely to complete it on time. Meditation might do something, or not, but it usually improves my mood. And there certainly are times when free association helps solve problems.

There are clear differences, but in some ways, those things appear to be similar to the exercises suggested in the salad days of the thread. Considering they're things I use and appreciate, I'm not surprised to hear that these chaos spells could appear to do some good to people. And it's really not that surprising a thing, anyway. If you strip away the magical explanations tacked on by people with a paranormal agenda, the core of the proposed ideas appears to be just focusing on a goal while allowing lateral thinking - and it's not really a secret that those are generally useful things to do.

Robin
15th February 2011, 05:21 PM
Well, since there's apparently a quiet moment in discussion, I do actually have a thought on the topic I'd like to share.

Now, I'm not very familiar with the concept of Chaos Magic, but from what I've read in this thread, it appears to be something like meditation, free association and doodling, combined with drugs and rigorously searching for anything that could be called an effect of the magic. Apparently it was employed by at least a couple prominent artists in the past few decades.

I find the idea somewhat interesting, as it just happens that lately, I have once again gotten into meditation, free association and writing stuff on paper, in an attempt to focus on things better and maintain a mental state conductive to work. And, in my personal anecdotal experience, they do seem to work. After a tiring day, I generally feel better after writing in my journal before bed, and if I write a task down in a notebook, I'm more likely to complete it on time. Meditation might do something, or not, but it usually improves my mood. And there certainly are times when free association helps solve problems.

There are clear differences, but in some ways, those things appear to be similar to the exercises suggested in the salad days of the thread. Considering they're things I use and appreciate, I'm not surprised to hear that these chaos spells could appear to do some good to people. And it's really not that surprising a thing, anyway. If you strip away the magical explanations tacked on by people with a paranormal agenda, the core of the proposed ideas appears to be just focusing on a goal while allowing lateral thinking - and it's not really a secret that those are generally useful things to do.
"Paradigm manipulation" mentioned as part of chaos magic is, itself, quite a useful way of priming lateral thinking or getting a new perspective on things.

PixyMisa
15th February 2011, 05:47 PM
Okay.

Chaos magic is confirmation bias... Plus muddying the waters as much as possible so that you won't know it's confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is real.

Drugs do reduce mental acuity.

Case closed.

Next!

The Man
15th February 2011, 05:57 PM
Well, since there's apparently a quiet moment in discussion, I do actually have a thought on the topic I'd like to share.

Now, I'm not very familiar with the concept of Chaos Magic, but from what I've read in this thread, it appears to be something like meditation, free association and doodling, combined with drugs and rigorously searching for anything that could be called an effect of the magic. Apparently it was employed by at least a couple prominent artists in the past few decades.

I find the idea somewhat interesting, as it just happens that lately, I have once again gotten into meditation, free association and writing stuff on paper, in an attempt to focus on things better and maintain a mental state conductive to work. And, in my personal anecdotal experience, they do seem to work. After a tiring day, I generally feel better after writing in my journal before bed, and if I write a task down in a notebook, I'm more likely to complete it on time. Meditation might do something, or not, but it usually improves my mood. And there certainly are times when free association helps solve problems.

There are clear differences, but in some ways, those things appear to be similar to the exercises suggested in the salad days of the thread. Considering they're things I use and appreciate, I'm not surprised to hear that these chaos spells could appear to do some good to people. And it's really not that surprising a thing, anyway. If you strip away the magical explanations tacked on by people with a paranormal agenda, the core of the proposed ideas appears to be just focusing on a goal while allowing lateral thinking - and it's not really a secret that those are generally useful things to do.





Certainly when I write some task down it seems that I’m more likely to complete it (unless I just forget where I wrote it down) and I’ll remark more on a related issue about writing stuff down later.

Also I can see how writing the days events in your journal helps you put them in perspective and it is kind of like you’re closing the book on the day when you close the journal.


It can be important and very helpful to write stuff down. I had automated (for the most part) the data collection in an engineering lab I used to work at. No longer did technicians need to write down the data on paper and then enter it into the computer system, they could just click the mouse and the data would be captured. What we found was that people would just keep clicking the mouse and an anomalous reading would end up in the data. The test would continue and we might have to redo the test because of some flaky reading. Before when people had to actually write down the data they were more prone to being aware of some problem and correcting it (loose wire or bad sensor whatever) before the test continued. We found that it didn’t matter how many bell and whistles we added to the system there were just so many data point to collect and most of them normal, that the tendency was just to click right by the abnormal ones. I found myself even doing it so we started making people write down the numbers again before the accepted them into the database. That slowed things down again but gave people both the chance (by not just flying through the data) and also forced them to be somewhat cognoscente t of each data point so we were able to chance and corrected the occasional hookup or sensor problem before the test continued and it became more of a problem. So in some cases just writing something can make someone more cognoscente of what’s going on.

kmortis
15th February 2011, 05:59 PM
To be fair though, Pixy, what isn't confirmation bias? Besides my own philosophy, of course. ;)

AkuManiMani
15th February 2011, 09:12 PM
Okay.

Chaos magic is confirmation bias... Plus muddying the waters as much as possible so that you won't know it's confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias is real.

Drugs do reduce mental acuity.

Case closed.

Next!

LOL!

I take it this means you believe you're not under the influence of any confirmation biases? I really wish you could observe yourself from the outside, PixyMisa...

>_>

AkuManiMani
15th February 2011, 09:28 PM
Well, since there's apparently a quiet moment in discussion, I do actually have a thought on the topic I'd like to share.

Now, I'm not very familiar with the concept of Chaos Magic, but from what I've read in this thread, it appears to be something like meditation, free association and doodling, combined with drugs and rigorously searching for anything that could be called an effect of the magic. Apparently it was employed by at least a couple prominent artists in the past few decades.

I find the idea somewhat interesting, as it just happens that lately, I have once again gotten into meditation, free association and writing stuff on paper, in an attempt to focus on things better and maintain a mental state conductive to work. And, in my personal anecdotal experience, they do seem to work. After a tiring day, I generally feel better after writing in my journal before bed, and if I write a task down in a notebook, I'm more likely to complete it on time. Meditation might do something, or not, but it usually improves my mood. And there certainly are times when free association helps solve problems.

There are clear differences, but in some ways, those things appear to be similar to the exercises suggested in the salad days of the thread. Considering they're things I use and appreciate, I'm not surprised to hear that these chaos spells could appear to do some good to people. And it's really not that surprising a thing, anyway. If you strip away the magical explanations tacked on by people with a paranormal agenda, the core of the proposed ideas appears to be just focusing on a goal while allowing lateral thinking - and it's not really a secret that those are generally useful things to do.


This is actually a very thoughtful and reasonable take on what was presented in the OP. If more posters actually took the time to approach the topic this way the discussion so far would have been a lot more productive and informative :)

!Kaggen
15th February 2011, 10:26 PM
LOL!

I take it this means you believe you're not under the influence of any confirmation biases? I really wish you could observe yourself from the outside, PixyMisa...

>_>

I am reading The Black Swan-The impact of the highly improbable. Nassim Nicholas Taleb right now. It is all about confirmation bias and I have been thinking how Pixy and the computationalists are doing exactly this with regards consciousness.

All we hear from them as an argument is that " all the evidence confirms consciousness is computational" .

So it is ironic that in one instance they are vehemently skeptical about confirmation bias and in the other they embrace it at all costs.

An indication of Pixy having feelings?
Dreams of silicon immortality perhaps due to the the dreaded fear of death?
In Pixy' s case though it may just be because he might miss out on a few train set builds in this lifetime ;-).

Carry on....

PixyMisa
15th February 2011, 10:34 PM
I am reading The Black Swan-The impact of the highly improbable. Nassim Nicholas Taleb right now. It is all about confirmation bias and I have been thinking how Pixy and the computationalists are doing exactly this with regards consciousness.

All we hear from them as an argument is that " all the evidence confirms consciousness is computational" .
No.

So it is ironic that in one instance they are vehemently skeptical about confirmation bias and in the other they embrace it at all costs.
No.

PixyMisa
15th February 2011, 10:35 PM
Of course all the evidence does confirm that consciousness is computational, but that's hardly the entirety of the argument.

!Kaggen
15th February 2011, 10:57 PM
Of course all the evidence does confirm that consciousness is computational, but that's hardly the entirety of the argument.

Sure the rest of the argument consist of strawman arguments such as " what else is required for consciousness: magic, souls, God , elves ?"

punshhh
16th February 2011, 04:24 AM
LOL!

I take it this means you believe you're not under the influence of any confirmation biases? I really wish you could observe yourself from the outside, PixyMisa...

>_>

The Rubicon

punshhh
16th February 2011, 04:30 AM
Sure the rest of the argument consist of strawman arguments such as " what else is required for consciousness: magic, souls, God , elves ?"

My avatar is a photograph of a goblin, keep it under your hat though, or I'll never live it down;)


Oh and I've found Pixy in the same photo that I took this from, about 1cm diagonally up to the right from the centre.

Pure Argent
16th February 2011, 06:56 AM
I am reading The Black Swan-The impact of the highly improbable. Nassim Nicholas Taleb right now. It is all about confirmation bias and I have been thinking how Pixy and the computationalists are doing exactly this with regards consciousness.

All we hear from them as an argument is that " all the evidence confirms consciousness is computational" .

So it is ironic that in one instance they are vehemently skeptical about confirmation bias and in the other they embrace it at all costs.

Um, quick question: if all the evidence confirms that consciousness is computational, how is it confirmation bias to accept that consciousness is computational?

AkuManiMani
16th February 2011, 07:01 AM
I am reading The Black Swan-The impact of the highly improbable. Nassim Nicholas Taleb right now. It is all about confirmation bias and I have been thinking how Pixy and the computationalists are doing exactly this with regards consciousness.

All we hear from them as an argument is that " all the evidence confirms consciousness is computational" .

So it is ironic that in one instance they are vehemently skeptical about confirmation bias and in the other they embrace it at all costs.

An indication of Pixy having feelings?
Dreams of silicon immortality perhaps due to the the dreaded fear of death?
In Pixy' s case though it may just be because he might miss out on a few train set builds in this lifetime ;-).

Carry on....

Maybe the real motivation is so he can rationalize away his own [presumably unpleasant] emotions. Hes conspicuously silent and evasive whenever the topic of his own feelings is brought up. Usually if a person is asked "What are you feeling right now?" they simply answer with something along the lines of "I'm feeling X, why do you ask? or "I don't wish to discuss that, its none of your business". Pixy, however, seems to be extremely reluctant to even acknowledge the question. It can't be a coincidence that he also seems to have an extreme aversion to the concept of qualia, which riefies things like emotions, feelings, and the like. Of course, this is all just idle speculation than could easily be resolved by a strait-forward admission from a particular party...

>_>

AkuManiMani
16th February 2011, 07:07 AM
Um, quick question: if all the evidence confirms that consciousness is computational, how is it confirmation bias to accept that consciousness is computational?

Serious question:

What, in your opinion, does it mean for something to be computational or non-computational?

punshhh
16th February 2011, 07:08 AM
I'd come to it through Paganism, so I was already in the midset that magick did...something. I credit CM for my atheism. One of the things that Peter Carroll talks about (I can never remember if it's in Liber Null/Psychoanut or The Psychomicon) is keeping a detailed magick journal (ya know, collecting evidence ;)). When I did that, I found that no matter how strong I felt my gnosis was, it didn't seem to have an effect on the outcome. If I tried predictive magick, unless I kept the time frame ridiciously short (e.g. half-day or sooner) I'd be no better than chance. After about five years of that, I decided to drop all those trappings (with the exception of Discordianism, which fits nicely with atheism anyway) and go my own way.

I'm not sorry I spent all that time doing that silliness. It taught me how to examine my own practices to see how silly that can be at times.

I am one of these mystics refered to (or at least who he should have refered to) in the OP.
It seems rather absurd that sceptics should be investigating or even trying to perform 'magic'.
Its rather like saying lets make some wings out of feathers, get some powerful microphones and night vision binoculars and go out into the fields to catch some mice like an owl! Or some of the first attempts to fly with wings made of feathers or the like.

Even geniune mystics can't perform 'magic', they merely notice subtle clues of the nature of reality, rather like the owl sees and catches its mice.

There is only one form of 'magic' that is even worth attempting and that it is well documented in teachings on 'Raja yoga'.

I hope you have fond memories of these times, I have a few myself of my early years on the path.

Robin
16th February 2011, 07:20 AM
Even geniune mystics can't perform 'magic', they merely notice subtle clues of the nature of reality, rather like the owl sees and catches its mice.
Do you consider yourself one who sees subtle clues about the nature of reality?

!Kaggen
16th February 2011, 07:24 AM
Um, quick question: if all the evidence confirms that consciousness is computational, how is it confirmation bias to accept that consciousness is computational?

If before 9/11 all the evidence suggested that 2 hijacked passenger airplanes could never fly into New York City in broad daylight, crash into the World Trade Center causing them to burn and collapse killing thousands of people within minutes, how is it confirmation bias for those people before 9/11 that said this would never happen?

Science does not work on confirmation. No amount of evidence makes a scientific theory true. It makes it probable. But one event/find will negate it.
Its the problem of induction and your welcome to offer a solution.

At this stage the computationalist are not offering a test which may negate their theory they are just pointing to existing evidence which confirms it.
The Turing test is one test which could negate their theory which the father of AI suggested, but computationalist like Pixy mostly regard the test as irrelevant since it involves at least one human judge and therefore the possibility of their theory failing the test, since the outcome is not nearly as predictable as a computer program. Which all translates once again to confirmation bias being the strongest in those with a vested interest in the outcome of any scientific test.

Robin
16th February 2011, 07:49 AM
Maybe the real motivation is so he can rationalize away his own [presumably unpleasant] emotions. Hes conspicuously silent and evasive whenever the topic of his own feelings is brought up. Usually if a person is asked "What are you feeling right now?" they simply answer with something along the lines of "I'm feeling X, why do you ask? or "I don't wish to discuss that, its none of your business". Pixy, however, seems to be extremely reluctant to even acknowledge the question. It can't be a coincidence that he also seems to have an extreme aversion to the concept of qualia, which riefies things like emotions, feelings, and the like. Of course, this is all just idle speculation than could easily be resolved by a strait-forward admission from a particular party...

>_>

I don't think that he has an extreme aversion to the concept of qualia, I think that he simply rejects the concept, as do I.

And I am the sort of person who, when asked "how are you?" will actually answer the question. People who know me generally do not ask.

PixyMisa
16th February 2011, 08:26 AM
The concept of qualia is incoherent under materialism. Materialism is, as we have already established, true. Case closed.

AkuManiMani's speculation regarding my motives and personality is also incoherent. Do I detect a pattern here?

PixyMisa
16th February 2011, 08:31 AM
The Rubicon
"The Rubicon" to you too. :)

I am of course aware not only of confirmation bias, but many of the other types of cognitive and memory biases, which I have pointed out to you before:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cognitive_biases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_memory_biases

It is not I but AkuManiMani who rejects the idea that his brain might be lying to him.

And it is I, not AkuManiMani, who constantly demands objective evidence and careful statistical analysis to avoid - as much as possible - these biases.

Compare the facts and his assertions and draw your own conclusions.

Robin
16th February 2011, 08:41 AM
The concept of qualia is incoherent under materialism.
It is incoherent under any metaphysical system.

PixyMisa
16th February 2011, 08:46 AM
Yes. More precisely, it is incoherent under any coherent metaphysical system.

Mirrorglass
16th February 2011, 08:46 AM
This is actually a very thoughtful and reasonable take on what was presented in the OP. If more posters actually took the time to approach the topic this way the discussion so far would have been a lot more productive and informative :)

So you liked my post? Great. It's really lovely that you chose to show that by attempting to twist it into a snide attack against people you have personal grudges against, once again trying to poison the discussion.

Seriously. If the only thing you have to contribute is insults against people, don't bother.

punshhh
16th February 2011, 08:54 AM
Do you consider yourself one who sees subtle clues about the nature of reality?

Yes, occasionally, or at least I try to be open to such experiences.

tsig
16th February 2011, 09:40 AM
The concept of qualia is incoherent under materialism. Materialism is, as we have already established, true. Case closed.

AkuManiMani's speculation regarding my motives and personality is also incoherent. Do I detect a pattern here?

I do.

Pure Argent
16th February 2011, 10:57 AM
Serious question:

What, in your opinion, does it mean for something to be computational or non-computational?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/computational

If before 9/11 all the evidence suggested that 2 hijacked passenger airplanes could never fly into New York City in broad daylight, crash into the World Trade Center causing them to burn and collapse killing thousands of people within minutes, how is it confirmation bias for those people before 9/11 that said this would never happen?

The evidence did not suggest that. Beyond that, your example is incoherent even if it did; if the evidence had suggested that such an event could not happen, it wouldn't have been confirmation bias. So what are you talking about?

Science does not work on confirmation. No amount of evidence makes a scientific theory true. It makes it probable. But one event/find will negate it.
Its the problem of induction and your welcome to offer a solution.

I never said I could solve the problem of induction. But you said that all the computationalists have is confirmation bias, even as in the same breath you say that they argue that all the evidence is on their side. If the evidence is on their side, as they claim, it isn't confirmation bias.

At this stage the computationalist are not offering a test which may negate their theory they are just pointing to existing evidence which confirms it.

Bollocks. There are plenty of tests which could disprove computational consciousness. Just show that there is a situation in which consciousness does not behave as though it is computational.

The Turing test is one test which could negate their theory which the father of AI suggested, but computationalist like Pixy mostly regard the test as irrelevant since it involves at least one human judge and therefore the possibility of their theory failing the test, since the outcome is not nearly as predictable as a computer program.

Depends on the computer program.

The Turing test can only offer evidence against computational consciousness if we are absolutely certain that the tester - the human - is completely without confirmation bias of his own. Since we can't, there's really no way to use the Turing test to disprove computational consciousness.

Which all translates once again to confirmation bias being the strongest in those with a vested interest in the outcome of any scientific test.

No, it doesn't. This doesn't follow at all from your previous statements. What are you talking about?

The Norseman
16th February 2011, 11:29 AM
I am one of these mystics refered to (or at least who he should have refered to) in the OP.
It seems rather absurd that sceptics should be investigating or even trying to perform 'magic'.
Its rather like saying lets make some wings out of feathers, get some powerful microphones and night vision binoculars and go out into the fields to catch some mice like an owl! Or some of the first attempts to fly with wings made of feathers or the like.

Not quite. It's the mystics who proclaim that if you stuck feathers in your butt you'd become a chicken.

The skeptics would say, "that sounds implausible. How does this action work, exactly?"

Mystics would then say, "you have to believe first; if you don't believe, it won't work. Then, it's not *really* a physical transformation, that's just the word I used 'become.' The language is imprecise when talking about these kinds of things."

Skeptics then might say, "if it isn't a physical transformation, then how do you know if it works?"

To which the mystic responds, "once you become the chicken, you are able to see reality as it truly exists and not this illusion that you skeptics call reality."

And then the skeptic says, "great! Here are some chicken feathers. Knock yourself out."



Even geniune mystics can't perform 'magic', they merely notice subtle clues of the nature of reality, rather like the owl sees and catches its mice.


There are mystics here on JREF who have made those claims. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong and cannot perform chaos magic?


There is only one form of 'magic' that is even worth attempting and that it is well documented in teachings on 'Raja yoga'.


Ah. You practice raja yoga then, I presume?


I hope you have fond memories of these times, I have a few myself of my early years on the path.

And I have fond memories of when I tried the ouja board and when I and a friend of mine made wiccan magical amulets in order to bring more love into our lives. I kept the little crystal and feather and other stuff that was rubber banded together for a fair number of years. Followed all the steps and everything. Good, innocent intentions; it still didn't work.



Yes, occasionally, or at least I try to be open to such experiences.


The thing I find to be quite fascinating is that mystics think they're doing something that skeptics don't. The hubris can be quite amazing in some cases.

There are a huge number of skeptical JREFfers who have had these kinds of experiences, you're actually nothing special. Or rather more specifically, your experiences are nothing special. Ever had a NDE? I have. Many people have. A good friend of mine has had one and it's interesting to me to see how it's now the core of her life (not necessarily in a bad way); it redefined her and she identifies with her NDE. She has made claims of seeing the beginning of the universe and other similar statements. Alas, in my NDE, I never saw such things. Who knows? Maybe I'd be as "spiritual" as she is now.

And speaking of mundane experiences, that's why I think that for a long while I was really into buddhism. The teachings I read and studied taught that even if or when one reached enlightenment, it was wise to treat it as nothing special. One of my favorite parables is about exactly that.

And by "mundane experiences" I don't mean to belittle the experiences that you, I, all humans encounter. They are all truly amazing to me; it's just that I think it a mistake to take *one* particular experience and hold it up above all others and say "this is it. This is the meaning of ..."

PixyMisa
16th February 2011, 03:48 PM
Bollocks. There are plenty of tests which could disprove computational consciousness. Just show that there is a situation in which consciousness does not behave as though it is computational.
Which is kind of what this thread is about.

If there were any evidence that Chaos Magic were real, that would be a significant blow to computationalism.

As we have seen, there is no such evidence. Instead, the entire concept of Chaos Magic is one big ugly mass of woolly thinking.

The Turing test can only offer evidence against computational consciousness if we are absolutely certain that the tester - the human - is completely without confirmation bias of his own. Since we can't, there's really no way to use the Turing test to disprove computational consciousness.
Actually, !Kaggen is far wronger than you think. A properly-run Turing Test would be blinded or double-blinded, and replicable, making bias irrelevant.

His assertion that I think the test is irrelevant is entirely his invention too. Indeed, I hold the exact opposite position.... Kind of like Turing. The whole point of the test being, if you can't tell the difference between something you call "conscious" and something you don't, then you don't actually have any basis for that position. That tears the anti-computational position apart; they not only have to claim that a computer can't be conscious, they have to claim that a computer can't act conscious.

AkuManiMani
16th February 2011, 09:17 PM
Serious question:

What, in your opinion, does it mean for something to be computational or non-computational?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/computational


[...]

At this stage the computationalist are not offering a test which may negate their theory they are just pointing to existing evidence which confirms it.

Bollocks. There are plenty of tests which could disprove computational consciousness. Just show that there is a situation in which consciousness does not behave as though it is computational.

Saying that consciousness is 'computational' is about as meaningful as saying that water is 'torrential'. Computation is the means by which the experiences of conscious subjects are organized but consciousness IAOI is not computation.

AkuManiMani
16th February 2011, 09:25 PM
The concept of qualia is incoherent under materialism. Materialism is, as we have already established, true. Case closed.

AkuManiMani's speculation regarding my motives and personality is also incoherent. Do I detect a pattern here?

Do you have motives or emotions you're aware of? If so, are they 'coherent'?

Robin
16th February 2011, 09:51 PM
Saying that consciousness is 'computational' is about as meaningful as saying that water is 'torrential'. Computation is the means by which the experiences of conscious subjects are organized but consciousness IAOI is not computation.
Do you regard consciousness as a sort of substance?

tsig
16th February 2011, 10:11 PM
Do you have motives or emotions you're aware of? If so, are they 'coherent'?

Are your emotions coherent?

AkuManiMani
16th February 2011, 10:25 PM
Saying that consciousness is 'computational' is about as meaningful as saying that water is 'torrential'. Computation is the means by which the experiences of conscious subjects are organized but consciousness IAOI is not computation.

Do you regard consciousness as a sort of substance?

In the most general sense, yes; just as any extant entity is substantive in some way.

AkuManiMani
16th February 2011, 10:26 PM
Do you have motives or emotions you're aware of? If so, are they 'coherent'?

Are your emotions coherent?

As coherent as musical chords, they are :)

Robin
16th February 2011, 10:42 PM
In the most general sense, yes; just as any extant entity is substantive in some way.
So you also see consciousness as an extant entity.

For comparison, is "running" an extant entity?

Robin
16th February 2011, 10:44 PM
As coherent as musical chords, they are :)
Would that be even tempered or well tempered?

PixyMisa
17th February 2011, 12:17 AM
I was going to comment, but I see Robin has the situation well in hand.

The Norseman
17th February 2011, 12:31 AM
I was going to comment, but I see Robin has the situation well in hand.


So one Robin who has it well in hand is worth two in the bush? :D

punshhh
17th February 2011, 05:18 AM
Not quite. It's the mystics who proclaim that if you stuck feathers in your butt you'd become a chicken.

The skeptics would say, "that sounds implausible. How does this action work, exactly?"

Mystics would then say, "you have to believe first; if you don't believe, it won't work. Then, it's not *really* a physical transformation, that's just the word I used 'become.' The language is imprecise when talking about these kinds of things."

Skeptics then might say, "if it isn't a physical transformation, then how do you know if it works?"

To which the mystic responds, "once you become the chicken, you are able to see reality as it truly exists and not this illusion that you skeptics call reality."

And then the skeptic says, "great! Here are some chicken feathers. Knock yourself out."






There are mystics here on JREF who have made those claims. Who are you to tell them that they're wrong and cannot perform chaos magic?

Yes I gather there are mystics who make such claims. Well when I examine the evidence I might accept them, I have not been shown any up to now.

This is not to say that phenomena akin to 'magic' may not occur through or around them.



Ah. You practice raja yoga then, I presume?

Not currently, I did about 15 years ago, along with various other practices.


And I have fond memories of when I tried the ouja board and when I and a friend of mine made wiccan magical amulets in order to bring more love into our lives. I kept the little crystal and feather and other stuff that was rubber banded together for a fair number of years. Followed all the steps and everything. Good, innocent intentions; it still didn't work.

Yes I joined in on a few ouja boards too, I was never very interested in divination though.






The thing I find to be quite fascinating is that mystics think they're doing something that skeptics don't. The hubris can be quite amazing in some cases.

I don't, although we all do different things at the end of the day. I do woodwork, some people work in offices etc.

People do tend to become specialist in a field after years of doing it all the time. Like the owl, it has finely tuned its abilities to catch mice over many generations.

There are a huge number of skeptical JREFfers who have had these kinds of experiences, you're actually nothing special. Or rather more specifically, your experiences are nothing special. Ever had a NDE? I have. Many people have. A good friend of mine has had one and it's interesting to me to see how it's now the core of her life (not necessarily in a bad way); it redefined her and she identifies with her NDE. She has made claims of seeing the beginning of the universe and other similar statements. Alas, in my NDE, I never saw such things. Who knows? Maybe I'd be as "spiritual" as she is now.

Yes, I come across this a lot, my experiences are the same as for most other folk, perhaps its my interpretations which are different. There are a great many factors influencing how a persons life develops. Mine just happens to have developed my way and yours your way.

And speaking of mundane experiences, that's why I think that for a long while I was really into buddhism. The teachings I read and studied taught that even if or when one reached enlightenment, it was wise to treat it as nothing special. One of my favorite parables is about exactly that.

Yes, I also studied buddhism, and likewise to me enlightenment is of no importance, if for example Jesus (if he existed) passed me in the street, I might say hi or good morning, I wouldn't feel a need to disturb him.

I am content, as long as I can have a cup of tea when I want one, thats all I need in life.

And by "mundane experiences" I don't mean to belittle the experiences that you, I, all humans encounter. They are all truly amazing to me; it's just that I think it a mistake to take *one* particular experience and hold it up above all others and say "this is it. This is the meaning of ..."

Yes I quite agree, however in the mystical aspects of my life, I do assign importance to certain things only in a personal way. I think it is a good thing to have a personal private space in ones life, to experience ones own company, to be friends with yourself so to speak.

I only say this because the life of a mystic involves working with and within yourself.

Resume
17th February 2011, 05:46 AM
I only say this because the life of a mystic involves working with and within yourself.

What does the term mystic mean? Within yourself?

Squeegee Beckenheim
17th February 2011, 05:55 AM
People do tend to become specialist in a field after years of doing it all the time.

That includes being adept at fooling themselves that things have significance, importance or reality when they don't.

Yes I quite agree, however in the mystical aspects of my life, I do assign importance to certain things only in a personal way. I think it is a good thing to have a personal private space in ones life, to experience ones own company, to be friends with yourself so to speak.

I do all that. There's nothing mystical about it. Can you not enjoy your own company without believing it to be more than it is?

punshhh
17th February 2011, 06:11 AM
What does the term mystic mean? Within yourself?

The term can be summarised thus;
Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.
Mystics hold that there is a deeper or more fundamental state of existence beneath the observable, day-to day world of phenomena, and that in fact the ordinary world is superficial or epiphenomenal.

My use of 'within yourself', I am refering to working with aspects of the concious and subconcious mind, emotions and the physical body.

punshhh
17th February 2011, 06:32 AM
That includes being adept at fooling themselves that things have significance, importance or reality when they don't.

Yes many folk specialise in unconstructive things



I do all that. There's nothing mystical about it. Can you not enjoy your own company without believing it to be more than it is?

Great, so do I, I also follow pursuits/hobbies which I enjoy, such as painting, walking and mysticism among other things.

Squeegee Beckenheim
17th February 2011, 06:51 AM
Great, so do I, I also follow pursuits/hobbies which I enjoy, such as painting, walking and mysticism among other things.

So why do you believe "hav[ing] a personal private space in ones life, [...] experienc[ing] ones own company, [...] be[ing] friends with yourself so to speak" to fall under the category of "mysticism"?

Resume
17th February 2011, 07:24 AM
The term can be summarised thus;
Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.
Mystics hold that there is a deeper or more fundamental state of existence beneath the observable, day-to day world of phenomena, and that in fact the ordinary world is superficial or epiphenomenal.

My use of 'within yourself', I am refering to working with aspects of the concious and subconcious mind, emotions and the physical body.

You can understand, I hope, that to many that are struggling with reality on a daily basis (raising kids, coping with sick parents, etc) the above sounds like bong induced hooey.

dafydd
17th February 2011, 12:39 PM
You can understand, I hope, that to many that are struggling with reality on a daily basis (raising kids, coping with sick parents, etc) the above sounds like bong induced hooey.

Exactly. And I am still waiting for punshhh to produce evidence of the existence of this so-called god.

tsig
17th February 2011, 03:19 PM
Yes I quite agree, however in the mystical aspects of my life, I do assign importance to certain things only in a personal way. I think it is a good thing to have a personal private space in ones life, to experience ones own company, to be friends with yourself so to speak.

I only say this because the life of a mystic involves working with and within yourself.

There are other terms for that.

tsig
17th February 2011, 03:21 PM
The term can be summarised thus;
Mysticism is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic.
Mystics hold that there is a deeper or more fundamental state of existence beneath the observable, day-to day world of phenomena, and that in fact the ordinary world is superficial or epiphenomenal.

My use of 'within yourself', I am refering to working with aspects of the concious and subconcious mind, emotions and the physical body.

That's all very well if you want to understand yourself, if you want to understand the world outside yourself, not so much.

tsig
17th February 2011, 03:24 PM
Exactly. And I am still waiting for punshhh to produce evidence of the existence of this so-called god.

Apparently you have to look inside yourself to find the infinite god.

How he got in there I'll never know.

AkuManiMani
17th February 2011, 05:05 PM
In the most general sense, yes; just as any extant entity is substantive in some way.
So you also see consciousness as an extant entity.

For comparison, is "running" an extant entity?

I'm pretty sure I've already had very lengthly discussions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5532992#post5532992) on this very same issue on numerous occasions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137713&page=56) -- some of which I think you even participated in. I really don't feel like explaining myself all over again.

AkuManiMani
17th February 2011, 05:07 PM
As coherent as musical chords, they are :)
Would that be even tempered or well tempered?

Well tempered. I prefer to give voice to all my emotions, no matter the tonality. Its the only way one can work toward getting them to operate in harmony. The brighter and darker emotions sometimes intermingle to produce strange and powerful undertones that are hard to describe :)

punshhh
18th February 2011, 03:55 PM
Well tempered. I prefer to give voice to all my emotions, no matter the tonality. Its the only way one can work toward getting them to operate in harmony. The brighter and darker emotions sometimes intermingle to produce strange and powerful undertones that are hard to describe :)

Nicely put,

The music of the spheres(spheres of the body).

dafydd
18th February 2011, 05:55 PM
Nicely put,

The music of the spheres(spheres of the body).

Oh Jesu Mawr,more gibberish. I hesitate to ask,but what are the spheres of the body?

The Norseman
18th February 2011, 06:11 PM
Oh Jesu Mawr,more gibberish. I hesitate to ask,but what are the spheres of the body?


I'm going to ask that the question only be answered if it relates to chaos magic since that's the thread.

dafydd
18th February 2011, 06:31 PM
I'm going to ask that the question only be answered if it relates to chaos magic since that's the thread.

The believers in this nonsense seem very reluctant to comment on it.

dafydd
18th February 2011, 06:35 PM
Well tempered. I prefer to give voice to all my emotions, no matter the tonality. Its the only way one can work toward getting them to operate in harmony. The brighter and darker emotions sometimes intermingle to produce strange and powerful undertones that are hard to describe :)

Do you have anything intelligible to say about chaos magic?

The Norseman
18th February 2011, 06:54 PM
The believers in this nonsense seem very reluctant to comment on it.

Quite.

I have been guilty of going off topic in this thread, but I did explain a bit of my own experiences, though I honestly don't know if what I did could be considered 'chaos magic' or not.

It was a spell, for a specific purpose, with the guidance of another, with the use of a talisman or fetish to help channel the "good intentions" or magical energies, or blessings or whatever to me and my friend.

I was sincere in my belief and strong in my desire for a positive outcome. My paradigm then was that magic could maybe work if I did the right thing.

So these days, I find it hard to believe that all it takes is a paradigm shift to believe that one can levitate, for example.

Squeegee Beckenheim
19th February 2011, 02:16 AM
Oh Jesu Mawr,more gibberish. I hesitate to ask,but what are the spheres of the body?

They're the bits women have. You know, on the front.

dafydd
19th February 2011, 05:04 AM
They're the bits women have. You know, on the front.

I'm all in favour of those.

Robin
20th February 2011, 05:52 AM
I'm pretty sure I've already had very lengthly discussions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=5532992#post5532992) on this very same issue on numerous occasions (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=137713&page=56) -- some of which I think you even participated in. I really don't feel like explaining myself all over again.
So why are you making the claims all over again if you don't want to explain yourself all over again?

I don't recall that you actually committed yourself to a definite position on the being/doing thing on the previous occasions either.

dafydd
20th February 2011, 08:33 AM
Why can't there be cubes of the body?

Squeegee Beckenheim
20th February 2011, 09:01 AM
Why can't there be cubes of the body?

There can:

NSFW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnuRpHkg0H8)

Mirrorglass
20th February 2011, 09:51 AM
There can:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnuRpHkg0H8

Dude, NSFW. Please use the tag.

Squeegee Beckenheim
20th February 2011, 10:18 AM
Dude, NSFW. Please use the tag.

Sorry, I didn't know such a tag existed. In fact, I still don't know how to use it, so I'll edit a warning in to my post instead.

Mirrorglass
20th February 2011, 11:19 AM
Sorry, I didn't know such a tag existed. In fact, I still don't know how to use it, so I'll edit a warning in to my post instead.

Yeah, actually there doesn't appear to be one; I must have gotten my forums mixed up. It's still good manners to indicate a NSFW link, so thanks for the edit. :)

The Norseman
20th February 2011, 11:26 AM
There can:

NSFW (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnuRpHkg0H8)



I now have to see the entire movie.

Squeegee Beckenheim
20th February 2011, 12:03 PM
I now have to see the entire movie.

It's awesome. Cube. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/) Having provided the imdb link, though, I'll say try to watch it without reading anything about it at all - the less you know the better it will be.

The prequel isn't bad either. The sequel is dreadful.

dlorde
20th February 2011, 02:25 PM
... consciousness IAOI is not computation.

IAOI - If And Only If ??

The Norseman
20th February 2011, 02:39 PM
It's awesome. Cube. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0123755/) Having provided the imdb link, though, I'll say try to watch it without reading anything about it at all - the less you know the better it will be.

The prequel isn't bad either. The sequel is dreadful.


Noted and thanks! :)

Squeegee Beckenheim
20th February 2011, 03:23 PM
Noted and thanks! :)

No worries. If you do watch it, PM me and let me know what you think. I'd be interested to hear.

The Norseman
20th February 2011, 03:56 PM
No worries. If you do watch it, PM me and let me know what you think. I'd be interested to hear.


Okay! Just started practicing a little chaos magic of my own. The kind where you cast your intentions out into the wide world of web-like interconnections of human beings and, if one makes all the proper preparations, will soon begin receiving what is wished for... sometimes in a torrential-type fashion even.

In fact, this is the best kind of magic to practice -- to return manyfold what you receive.

Myriad
20th February 2011, 06:19 PM
IAOI - If And Only If ??


From the context, I'd guess In And Of Itself.

Respectfully,
Myriad

dlorde
21st February 2011, 03:56 AM
So these days, I find it hard to believe that all it takes is a paradigm shift to believe that one can levitate, for example.

I levitate quite often - in dreams. It feels so real and everyday that I can see how it could easily become part of some magical mythology confusing the imaginary with reality - if you believe dreams are more than pure imagination.

dlorde
21st February 2011, 04:06 AM
From the context, I'd guess In And Of Itself

Ah, of course, thanks :)

Did a quick Google, but only found If And Only If...

The Norseman
21st February 2011, 10:47 AM
I levitate quite often - in dreams. It feels so real and everyday that I can see how it could easily become part of some magical mythology confusing the imaginary with reality - if you believe dreams are more than pure imagination.


Ah, good point. Reminds me of the old, "am I a man dreaming he's a butterfly, or a butterfly dreaming he's a man" type deal.






Or this (slightly NSFW due to Ed Bagley Jr's nekkid rear)

evx_Ps85yu8

dafydd
21st February 2011, 04:07 PM
How do I locate these bodily spheres? Or was that just more new age waffle?

Sledge
21st February 2011, 04:13 PM
As a man you should be checking your bodily spheres at least once a month.

carlitos
21st February 2011, 05:28 PM
I levitate quite often - in dreams. It feels so real and everyday that I can see how it could easily become part of some magical mythology confusing the imaginary with reality - if you believe dreams are more than pure imagination.

One of my favorite parts of Gabriel Garcia-Marquez' One Hundred Years of Solitude is when the priest levitates after drinking chocolate. Do you dream this way after consuming chocolate?

dlorde
22nd February 2011, 06:14 PM
One of my favorite parts of Gabriel Garcia-Marquez' One Hundred Years of Solitude is when the priest levitates after drinking chocolate. Do you dream this way after consuming chocolate?

Very good question - I do eat a fair amount of high-quality chocolate (from the Chocolate Tasting Club (http://www.chocs.co.uk/) - they offered an irresistable bond that gives me free chocolate every month as the coupon :drool:).

But I'm pretty sure I levitate in dreams even during the lean spell between monthly boxes :D

The Norseman
22nd February 2011, 08:14 PM
Very good question - I do eat a fair amount of high-quality chocolate (from the Chocolate Tasting Club (http://www.chocs.co.uk/) - they offered an irresistable bond that gives me free chocolate every month as the coupon :drool:).

But I'm pretty sure I levitate in dreams even during the lean spell between monthly boxes :D


In the past, I have been known to commune with spirits -- I'd begin my ritual by unscrewing the cap from the whiskey or vodka bottle and pouring out a glass.

After a while, I would be levitating too!

I hope this counts as chaos magic.

The Man
22nd February 2011, 08:33 PM
In the past, I have been known to commune with spirits -- I'd begin my ritual by unscrewing the cap from the whiskey or vodka bottle and pouring out a glass.

After a while, I would be levitating too!

I hope this counts as chaos magic.

A communion I occasionally and am currently indulging, though no levitating yet, guess I just need to commune some more. Come to me, oh chaos magic (and the barmaid).

PixyMisa
23rd February 2011, 07:04 PM
So, no evidence for Chaos Magic then?

Resume
23rd February 2011, 07:09 PM
So, no evidence for Chaos Magic then?

Evidently not.

dafydd
24th February 2011, 06:52 AM
Evidently not.

Limbo has abandoned ship because he had no evidence.

tsig
24th February 2011, 07:46 AM
Limbo has abandoned ship because he had no evidence.

I thought it had more to do with the ship sinking.

punshhh
24th February 2011, 11:42 AM
So, no evidence for Chaos Magic then?

I observed some chaos the other day.

I was looking to buy a car on ebay, I found the perfect one so rang up and arranged to view it the following morning.

Unfortunately early in the morning the seller phoned me to say sorry its gone already, I was really disappointed.

That evening I happened to look out the window of my house and couldn't believe it, the same car was parked outside, (I was able to check the number plate).

Now the car was on sale approximately 50 miles away, I estimate that there are probably 3 or 4 million cars in a 50 mile radius of this location.

Also a similar number of addresses the new owner might have gone to when parking the car that evening.

Now thats pretty chaotic behavior for you!

dafydd
24th February 2011, 12:35 PM
I observed some chaos the other day.

I was looking to buy a car on ebay, I found the perfect one so rang up and arranged to view it the following morning.

Unfortunately early in the morning the seller phoned me to say sorry its gone already, I was really disappointed.

That evening I happened to look out the window of my house and couldn't believe it, the same car was parked outside, (I was able to check the number plate).

Now the car was on sale approximately 50 miles away, I estimate that there are probably 3 or 4 million cars in a 50 mile radius of this location.

Also a similar number of addresses the new owner might have gone to when parking the car that evening.

Now thats pretty chaotic behavior for you!

Sigh! What are you here for? The are plenty of other places on the net for innocuous chatter.

catsmate1
24th February 2011, 01:04 PM
I observed some chaos the other day.

I was looking to buy a car on ebay, I found the perfect one so rang up and arranged to view it the following morning.

Unfortunately early in the morning the seller phoned me to say sorry its gone already, I was really disappointed.

That evening I happened to look out the window of my house and couldn't believe it, the same car was parked outside, (I was able to check the number plate).

Now the car was on sale approximately 50 miles away, I estimate that there are probably 3 or 4 million cars in a 50 mile radius of this location.

Also a similar number of addresses the new owner might have gone to when parking the car that evening.

Now thats pretty chaotic behavior for you!
Chaotic (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=chaotic).
Coincidence. (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=coincidence1&o7=&o5=&o1=1&o6=&o4=&o3=&h=000)

annnnoid
26th February 2011, 11:55 AM
I observed some chaos the other day.

I was looking to buy a car on ebay, I found the perfect one so rang up and arranged to view it the following morning.

Unfortunately early in the morning the seller phoned me to say sorry its gone already, I was really disappointed.

That evening I happened to look out the window of my house and couldn't believe it, the same car was parked outside, (I was able to check the number plate).

Now the car was on sale approximately 50 miles away, I estimate that there are probably 3 or 4 million cars in a 50 mile radius of this location.

Also a similar number of addresses the new owner might have gone to when parking the car that evening.

Now thats pretty chaotic behavior for you!


I’d say you observed ‘something’ the other day. Even the omniscient insect would have a hard time rationalizing that one. A ‘coincidence’?....of course Pixy. I’ll enlighten you then: “We use words so we can avoid having to fact the fact that we don’t know what we’re talking about.”

…my explanation: God has a sense of humor.

Pure Argent
26th February 2011, 12:18 PM
A ‘coincidence’?....of course Pixy.

catsmate1 is not Pixy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6913715#post6913715).

Myriad
26th February 2011, 12:23 PM
I’d say you observed ‘something’ the other day. Even the omniscient insect would have a hard time rationalizing that one. A ‘coincidence’?....of course Pixy. I’ll enlighten you then: “We use words so we can avoid having to fact the fact that we don’t know what we’re talking about.”

…my explanation: God has a sense of humor.


Your explanation has disturbing theological implications though. May I inquire further about your interpretation of this event?

Does it mean that if I buy a car, my selection might have been influenced by God so as to amaze a neighbor I don't even know? What happened to free will? Do you believe that God overrides people's free will in order to play jokes?

Or are you instead claiming that the car got outside your house without any human agency at all? Did God perform a miracle by moving the car? If so, do you think He make the car fly or teleport or drive itself, or incarnated for the second time in human history to buy the car and drive it to your house?

Also, a related question: in any ordered universe, regardless of the source of that order (God, physical laws, or whatever), coincidences must occur. Do you believe God acts to prevent any coincidences that are not deliberately caused by Him? If not, why do you not accept that meaningless coincidences can and do occur and that therefore any given coincidence might be meaningless?

Respectfully,
Myriad

carlitos
26th February 2011, 12:41 PM
catsmate1 is not Pixy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6913715#post6913715).

We are all Spartacus Pixy in annnnoid's world.

Myriad,
Do you think that God is the one who puts all the cars out there that are just like yours but you never noticed them until you got one? Sounds like some sort of Trickster archetype to me.

annnnoid
26th February 2011, 12:50 PM
Your explanation has disturbing theological implications though. May I inquire further about your interpretation of this event?


No.


Does it mean that if I buy a car, my selection might have been influenced by God so as to amaze a neighbor I don't even know?


I don’t know…does it?


What happened to free will?


Ask Argent?


Do you believe that God overrides people's free will in order to play jokes?


Define ‘free will’.


Or are you instead claiming that the car got outside your house without any human agency at all?


Define the sum total of ‘human agency’.


Did God perform a miracle by moving the car?


Did God move the car?


If so, do you think He make the car fly or teleport or drive itself, or incarnated for the second time in human history to buy the car and drive it to your house?


God made a universe to move the car with. Hardly a miracle.


Do you believe God acts to prevent any coincidences that are not deliberately caused by Him?


There is no uncaused cause.


If not, why do you not accept that meaningless coincidences can and do occur and that therefore any given coincidence might be meaningless?


What does ‘meaningless’ mean?

Myriad
26th February 2011, 12:53 PM
We are all Spartacus Pixy in annnnoid's world.

Myriad,
Do you think that God is the one who puts all the cars out there that are just like yours but you never noticed them until you got one? Sounds like some sort of Trickster archetype to me.


You got a silver 2006 Nissan Altima about a year ago too? Wow, that's amazing!

I think the cause of that is Satan. I haven't figured out why, but that's undoubtedly because Satan is cleverer than me.

(Actually, what Satan does do -- at least metaphorically -- is tempt people who've experienced coincidences to embellish them. They realize that the mere facts will not quite convey how amazing it felt to have the coincidence happen to them. So in the retelling, the gist stays the same but a few extra orders of magnitude of improbability slip in. A car of the exact same year, model, and color becomes the very same car license number and all, or a parking lot a few miles away becomes the street right outside your house. It's not really lying, it's an attempt to more accurately convey the emotions of the experience. But it does make rational discussion of coincidences that much more difficult.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

annnnoid
26th February 2011, 01:32 PM
You got a silver 2006 Nissan Altima about a year ago too? Wow, that's amazing!

I think the cause of that is Satan. I haven't figured out why, but that's undoubtedly because Satan is cleverer than me.

(Actually, what Satan does do -- at least metaphorically -- is tempt people who've experienced coincidences to embellish them. They realize that the mere facts will not quite convey how amazing it felt to have the coincidence happen to them. So in the retelling, the gist stays the same but a few extra orders of magnitude of improbability slip in. A car of the exact same year, model, and color becomes the very same car license number and all, or a parking lot a few miles away becomes the street right outside your house. It's not really lying, it's an attempt to more accurately convey the emotions of the experience. But it does make rational discussion of coincidences that much more difficult.)

Respectfully,
Myriad


"You’re in charge…you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts." David Fincher

Do you think you're in control Myriad? Would you be one of those Mr. Fincher would regard as 'nuts'?

carlitos
26th February 2011, 01:34 PM
Proof by quote is awesome.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
--Carl Sagan

Myriad
26th February 2011, 02:01 PM
No.



I don’t know…does it?



Ask Argent?



Define ‘free will’.



Define the sum total of ‘human agency’.



Did God move the car?



God made a universe to move the car with. Hardly a miracle.



There is no uncaused cause.



What does ‘meaningless’ mean?


Deliberate obfuscation and refusal to answer simple, clearly worded questions noted.

Sorry to have bothered you with my curiosity about your beliefs. Carry on with... whatever it was you were hoping to accomplish posting this stuff.

Respectfully,
Myriad

Lord Emsworth
26th February 2011, 02:22 PM
I’d say you observed ‘something’ the other day. Even the omniscient insect would have a hard time rationalizing that one. A ‘coincidence’?....of course Pixy. I’ll enlighten you then: “We use words so we can avoid having to fact the fact that we don’t know what we’re talking about.”

…my explanation: God has a sense of humor.

I asked God, and She and Her Hubby ain't got anything to do with it.

annnnoid
26th February 2011, 02:27 PM
Deliberate obfuscation and refusal to answer simple, clearly worded questions noted.

Sorry to have bothered you with my curiosity about your beliefs. Carry on with... whatever it was you were hoping to accomplish posting this stuff.

Respectfully,
Myriad


Yeah…obviously Myriad. Those were all sincere questions from someone who honestly wants to understand more about the most important things in my life.

Example: “Did God make the car fly or teleport or drive by itself?”

Deliberate ridicule and condescension noted. Replies in kind.

Next question.

Respectfully
Annnnoid


Proof by quote is awesome.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
--Carl Sagan


Carlitos, it’s not proof, it’s argument. As for your quote, what does it mean to ‘grasp the Universe as it truly is’…when we quite obviously neither know what it truly is nor do we know the truth of the means or processes by which we grasp anything at all? Suggesting that it is possible to 'grasp the universe as it truly is' is, itself, nothing more than a blatantly religious statement. IOW...you don't know what it truly is any more than you know what you truly are...you just believe you do.

Pure Argent
26th February 2011, 02:35 PM
Deliberate ridicule and condescension noted. Replies in kind.

http://i165.photobucket.com/albums/u65/Maestro134/irony.jpg

Seriously, though, annnnoid, if you don't want people pointing out the obvious implications of the beliefs you hold, don't post here.

Carlitos, it’s not proof, it’s argument. <snip nonsense>

It's a fallacious argument, and can therefore be ignored.

annnnoid
26th February 2011, 03:43 PM
It's a fallacious argument, and can therefore be ignored.


It’s a fallacious argument (for what, Argent…do you even know…or are you just guessing again) and can thus be ignored. We don’t know why it’s a fallacious argument, because Argent never argues anything (should we wait for a ‘google it’?), nor do we know why it can be ignored, because, once again, Argent seems incapable of presenting a point of view.

Argent says it, so it must be so. Bare assertion anyone?

How about another big picture Argent. They get everyone’s attention and they conveniently hide the fact that you never say anything. Argument by pretty picture. What doctoral program did you learn that in?

Pure Argent
26th February 2011, 04:53 PM
It’s a fallacious argument (for what, Argent…do you even know…or are you just guessing again)

It's fallacious because it is an argument with no basis. It is nothing more than bare assertion by proxy. Quotes mean nothing, especially without knowing the context. Evidence is everything.

You can quote people who believe in free will all you want. It doesn't even count as evidence, let alone an argument.

We don’t know why it’s a fallacious argument, because Argent never argues anything (should we wait for a ‘google it’?), nor do we know why it can be ignored, because, once again, Argent seems incapable of presenting a point of view.

Straw man.

I thought you would be capable of spotting the bare assertion fallacy when it appeared. It appears that I overestimated you. For that, I apologize.

catsmate1
26th February 2011, 05:02 PM
catsmate1 is not Pixy (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=6913715#post6913715).
Well now, a good skeptic wouldn't want to ignore the possibility of multiple personality disorder........ However to the best of my knowledge we are different persons:)

PixyMisa
26th February 2011, 08:24 PM
I'm Pixicus!

dafydd
26th February 2011, 09:16 PM
Where's punshhh? I want to know where my bodily spheres are.

Robin
27th February 2011, 05:24 AM
I'm Pixicus!
No, I am Pixicus!

Pure Argent
27th February 2011, 09:13 AM
Where's punshhh? I want to know where my bodily spheres are.

If they're missing, you should probably get yourself to a hospital.

dafydd
27th February 2011, 09:23 AM
If they're missing, you should probably get yourself to a hospital.

I see that punshhh is busy in another thread talking about finite infinities.

dafydd
27th February 2011, 10:00 AM
There is no uncaused cause.



What does ‘meaningless’ mean?

Buy a dictionary. I am surprised that you do not know the meaning of the word meaningless.

carlitos
27th February 2011, 10:21 AM
Where's punshhh? I want to know where my bodily spheres are.

I'd suggest using one of those 9th-Century papal nut-check chairs.

Elizabeth I
27th February 2011, 03:17 PM
If they're missing, you should probably get yourself to a hospital.
Oooh, or what if he woke up in a hotel room and couldn't remember where he was but he was sitting in the bathtub packed in ice and there was a big gash in his side and a letter telling him to call 911?

Pure Argent
27th February 2011, 03:40 PM
Oooh, or what if he woke up in a hotel room and couldn't remember where he was but he was sitting in the bathtub packed in ice and there was a big gash in his side and a letter telling him to call 911?

Then that would be proof of idealism, obviously. Haven't you followed punshhh's argument at all?

annnnoid
28th February 2011, 09:16 AM
Argent…the following evidence proves you are not only wrong, but that you fabricated your entire position.

The current state of neural scanning:
-How accurately and efficiently a mental state can be inferred is unknown.
-Whether a person’s compliance is required is unknown.
-Whether it is possible to decode concealed thoughts or even unconscious mental states is unknown.
-The maximum temporal resolution is unknown.
-The degree to which it is possible to provide a quasi-online estimate of an individual’s current cognitive or perceptual state is unknown.
-The problem of inverse referencing remains, essentially, unresolved.
-Whether decoding methods are sensitive enough to reliably reveal personal information for individual subjects in unknown.
-The conclusions being that brain reading will be restricted to simple cases with a fixed number of alternatives...for all of which training date are available....because of the all but infinite number of cognitive states and necessarily limited training categories.

Essentially…with currently available technology and processing and interpretive software …if you or anyone were to walk off the street into a lab and be wired into a neural scanner (fMRI for example) the results would NOT be able to show EITHER an explicit or even general representation of:
- what your are seeing
- what you are hearing
- what your are smelling
- what you are touching/feeling
- what you are imagining
- what you are thinking
- what you are feeling

Every case is substantially subjective. Generalized predictive software exists (with limited degrees of resolution), but specific scanning requires subjectively evaluated training categories and even then there are significant limits on what exactly can be achieved (as described in the last point).

This was all confirmed by a number of sources, but primarily by a professor of cognitive neuroscience at an English university with quite a number of published/peer reviewed studies (all of which I can confirm/reference/link to if you really want to drag your humiliation out for another few posts).

What it comes down to Argent, is you simply can’t face the fact that science cannot tell you who, or what, you are. It can’t. Period.

Your contention that science has all these abilities …

Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.



…is now established to be complete unmitigated crap.

Googling ‘brain emotion’ does not qualify as evidence of anything except a grade 2 spelling ability. In addition… your ‘proof’ has now been conclusively exposed as proof of nothing except the indisputable fact that you fabricated the whole thing and simply do not know what you’re talking about. In the scientific community if you had made such colossal unsubstantiated claims that were not only false, and were not only the basis for trumped up charges against another member, but turned out to be complete fabrications…. you would be ridiculed, you would be immediately fired from whatever job you hold, you would have every professional qualification you possess revoked, you would be banned from publication for the rest of your life and your membership in every professional organization would be summarily nullified.

….but at JREF you have groupies. What do you suppose that says about the groupies?

What is truly amusing is to watch as this herd of skeptics appears and dutifully makes all the right bleats of support in all the right places. Does anybody actually think for themselves? Only once has the blatant absurdity of Argent’s various positions been contradicted. Integrity is also a word on that list…do you suppose that doesn’t exist either?

So basically Argent…you accused me of being ‘staggeringly ignorant’ based on evidence that turns out to be not just wrong, but a complete fabrication. Unless you can provide actual evidence that contradicts mine (…I’ve got lots more where that comes from…from Caltech to MIT to Cambridge…all the results show your position [if you even have one] to be nothing but complete B.S.) we’ll just have to conclude that you are, in fact, staggeringly ignorant (not to mention willfully fraudulent).

…and from your first point, follows your second point, which turns out to be equally vacant.

(…and what does any of this have to do with ‘chaos magic’?...the practice of ‘chaos magic’ is something that would explicitly appear on that list that Argent disputed above…. and ‘free will’ can quite easily be argued to be a fundamental/pure form of chaos magic, but I’ll leave those issues for later)

You flat out dismiss what is generally accepted as the foundation of human identity. You provide not even two words of an argument. You don’t even define your terms (…at least not until nine posts later…and then with nothing more than fatuous scientific references that merely beg the question: what the hell are you talking about?...a dangerous question to ask because all you ever do is wave your hands about with epileptic grandeur and complain that you’re under no obligation to actually explain anything…or ‘google it’..[and, as is obvious from my first point, even your ‘google it’ positions are a pile of crap]).

If I were a creationist presenting such a position I would be laughed off the page…but when a skeptic does exactly the same thing not only are they NOT called-out, they are actually supported. NEWFLASH dudes…the emperor has no clothes. Doubtless quoting a moderator to support my position is ‘bad-form’ but what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.

“If you want to discuss it as philosophy (or, we’ll assume, anything at all:…my edit) it is still up to you to present your workings i.e. how did you get to that conclusion. Otherwise people cannot discuss and perhaps argue against your argument which is what we can argue against.”

So basically Argent, you have claimed ‘x’ does not exist. You have provided not a shred of an argument to support this claim (even more questionable given that the ‘x’ in question is generally recognized as the foundation of human identity….to say it does not exist is an extraordinary claim if ever there was one). You have barely even defined your terms. All you have said is that since annnnoid has no evidence that ‘x’ does exist, your conclusion that ‘x’ does not exist is, by default, correct. Remember the FSM?

….but on the contrary, I have provided massive amounts of direct and indirect evidence that support the existence of ‘x’. I could go on for pages and pages and pages about the philosophical, religious, psychological, social, political, and even scientific implications of ‘free will’ (and I’ve specifically referenced all of these issues). Entire libraries have been written on the subject…literally…and that is not an exaggeration.

I’ll just summarize the evidence here: Nelson Mandela….: “ I am the captain of my soul, the master of my destiny.” ….just try and tell Nelson Mandela that free will does not exist! As for what NM means by that, and whether/how it supports ‘free will’ and all the other arguments, we’ll just wait and see if Argent actually says something for once. Doubtless Argent will somehow try to establish that NM is either irrelevant, or does not know what he’s talking about (five bucks says a one/two word answer….if there even is one).

There are actually well-known metaphysical objections to the existence of free will, but you haven’t even managed to reference any of those. All you have said is that it does not exist because Argent says so (bare assertion anyone?). And Argent is entirely justified in summarily dismissing entre libraries of evidence because….well, Argent hasn’t yet provided two words of an argument to explain that position either.

You have yet to demonstrate you have the ability to present more than two words to support anything Argent.

So….as Darat said, present an argument. If not we’ll just assume you don’t have one and this discussion will be over.

(…just a rather irrelevant point there Argent, but ‘free will’ would be one of the ‘words’ on that list that you insisted have been detected; ….so on the one hand you insist that everything has been detected [we’ll assume, by extension, that ‘detected’ means ‘exists’] but then on the other hand you insist that one of the words [free will] does not exist!...so which is it….we’ve detected everything and free will does exist, or it does not exist, in which case we haven’t detected everything?)

Question: What words would describe someone who completely dismisses the generally accepted foundation of human identity...without ever arguing the point?

Answer: Staggeringly Ignorant

Question: What words would describe someone who slanders/ridicules another’s position based on completely fabricated evidence or none at all?

Answer: Staggeringly Ignorant.

Two strikes Argent….wanna try for three?

Pure Argent
28th February 2011, 12:02 PM
Argent…the following evidence proves you are not only wrong, but that you fabricated your entire position.

The current state of neural scanning:
-How accurately and efficiently a mental state can be inferred is unknown.

No, it's known quite precisely. We know what the limits of neural scanning are.

-Whether a person’s compliance is required is unknown.

No, it's known. People who are actively trying to confuse things like neural scanners and polygraphs often can. Still, this obfuscation only drops the accuracy by a certain percentage (about ten percent) rather than making it entirely unreliable.

-Whether it is possible to decode concealed thoughts or even unconscious mental states is unknown.

No. We know it's possible. We may or may not have the technology to do so at the moment.

-The maximum temporal resolution is unknown.

The what now?

-The degree to which it is possible to provide a quasi-online estimate of an individual’s current cognitive or perceptual state is unknown.

No, it's entirely known.

-The problem of inverse referencing remains, essentially, unresolved.

And what problem would that be?

-Whether decoding methods are sensitive enough to reliably reveal personal information for individual subjects in unknown.

No, it's known, and the answer is "yes, it can, with about seventy-five percent accuracy in people trying to fool the machine and up to ninety-five percent in people who are cooperative".

Essentially…with currently available technology and processing and interpretive software …if you or anyone were to walk off the street into a lab and be wired into a neural scanner (fMRI for example) the results would NOT be able to show EITHER an explicit or even general representation of:
- what your are seeing
- what you are hearing
- what your are smelling
- what you are touching/feeling
- what you are imagining
- what you are thinking
- what you are feeling

Wrong (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WSS-4V4113M-P&_user=134779&_coverDate=12/10/2008&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=gateway&_origin=gateway&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_acct=C000011238&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=134779&md5=b5865c54ca54249ec39601c08ef4d674&searchtype=a). Do your research.

Every case is substantially subjective.

No.

Generalized predictive software exists (with limited degrees of resolution)

By "limited", of course, you mean seventy-five to ninety-five percent accuracy.

This was all confirmed by a number of sources, but primarily by a professor of cognitive neuroscience at an English university with quite a number of published/peer reviewed studies (all of which I can confirm/reference/link to if you really want to drag your humiliation out for another few posts).

Please do.

What it comes down to Argent, is you simply can’t face the fact that science cannot tell you who, or what, you are. It can’t. Period.

Actually, it can, but I don't particularly care whether it can or not.

Your contention that science has all these abilities …




…is now established to be complete unmitigated crap.

No, it isn't. Try again.

Googling ‘brain emotion’ does not qualify as evidence of anything except a grade 2 spelling ability.

So you still don't get that I wasn't trying to provide you with any evidence? Not surprising, really. You don't seem to be able to process the fact that I simply don't care whether or not you ever figure out the truth.

I don't care about your arguments, annnnoid, because you are unwilling to even take thirty seconds and do a Google search to find facts which are readily available. Hell, you won't even take ten seconds and look at the results of a search that was done for you.

In addition… your ‘proof’

What proof? I haven't tried to prove anything to you (above link excepted), because I don't care. I've simply told you that you're wrong. If anyone else on this forum actually cares enough to want to see me give the proof, I will, but I don't see any reason to do so because you asked.

<snip repetition and lies>

So basically Argent…you accused me of being ‘staggeringly ignorant’ based on evidence that turns out to be not just wrong, but a complete fabrication.

No. I accused you of being staggeringly ignorant, period. And you are. You still are, despite your above grandstanding. You have offered absolutely no substantiation for the claims which you gave above, and they are all demonstrably false.

If you want to find the proof, Google it.

Unless you can provide actual evidence that contradicts mine

You haven't given us any evidence. Not a smidgen. Just repeated ignorant assertions.

You flat out dismiss what is generally accepted as the foundation of human identity.

Whether or not people think it exists is irrelevant. They have no evidence.

You provide not even two words of an argument.

There is no argument to be made. "Free will does not exist" is the null hypothesis.

You don’t even define your terms

They're your terms. You're the one arguing for free will. You define it.

If I were a creationist presenting such a position I would be laughed off the page…but when a skeptic does exactly the same thing not only are they NOT called-out, they are actually supported.

No. If you were someone presenting a position which has no supporting evidence, as you are, you would be laughed off the page. My position is supported by the evidence. I just don't care enough to bring it to you. Everyone else understands that, which is why I have not been accused of the bare assertion fallacy. You might as well be a flat-Earther accusing me of the bare assertion fallacy for saying "the Earth is round".

So basically Argent, you have claimed ‘x’ does not exist. You have provided not a shred of an argument to support this claim

Burden of proof fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html).

even more questionable given that the ‘x’ in question is generally recognized as the foundation of human identity….to say it does not exist is an extraordinary claim if ever there was one.

Argument ad populum fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html).

You have barely even defined your terms.

Your terms.

All you have said is that since annnnoid has no evidence that ‘x’ does exist, your conclusion that ‘x’ does not exist is, by default, correct.

And it is.

Remember the FSM?

Yep. And this is exactly what the FSM is meant to illustrate. Lacking evidence of non-existence does not prove existence.

but on the contrary, I have provided massive amounts of direct and indirect evidence that support the existence of ‘x’.

No, you haven't.

I could go on for pages and pages and pages about the philosophical, religious, psychological, social, political, and even scientific implications of ‘free will’ (and I’ve specifically referenced all of these issues). Entire libraries have been written on the subject…literally…and that is not an exaggeration.

All of which is irrelevant, because it is not evidence. It's argument ad populum on a massive scale.

I’ll just summarize the evidence here: Nelson Mandela….: “ I am the captain of my soul, the master of my destiny.” ….just try and tell Nelson Mandela that free will does not exist!

Not evidence.

Doubtless Argent will somehow try to establish that NM is either irrelevant, or does not know what he’s talking about (five bucks says a one/two word answer….if there even is one).

You would win that bet. A one- to two-word answer is all it takes to debunk your drivel. What Nelson Mandela believes is irrelevant unless he can present evidence to back it up.

HINT: He can't.

There are actually well-known metaphysical objections to the existence of free will, but you haven’t even managed to reference any of those.

Because there is no need.

All you have said is that it does not exist because Argent says so (bare assertion anyone?).

Straw man.

And Argent is entirely justified in summarily dismissing entre libraries of evidence

There aren't libraries of evidence. There are libraries of people either failing to establish its existence or assuming its existence. Trying to pretend that this is evidence only makes you look foolish.

You have yet to demonstrate you have the ability to present more than two words to support anything Argent.

Isn't it rather sad, then, that I accomplish more with two words than you do in several paragraphs? In two words, I show that your entire position is fallacious. In a mountain of gibberish, you manage only to make yourself look more foolish.

…just a rather irrelevant point there Argent, but ‘free will’ would be one of the ‘words’ on that list that you insisted have been detected;

Then that would be an exception. I didn't read your entire list. Of course we didn't detect free will. It doesn't exist.

So do you have any actual argument to present or not?

annnnoid
28th February 2011, 05:26 PM
…. they are all demonstrably false.


Every one of these ‘ignorant assertions’ (as you called them) was either written or reviewed and explicitly confirmed by Professor Geraint Rees, Director… Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London…who is the one of the authors of (among other things) the following paper: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/jocn.2011.21631?prevSearch=allfield%253A%2528decod ing%2Bfmri%2529&searchHistoryKey=

As for that link you included (whatever happened to 'google it' ?), did you even read it? Do you know what any of it means (inverse referencing is one of the most significant stumbling blocks in neural scanning…if you don’t even know what that means I can only wonder about your understanding of everything else)? It actually does far more to confirm the conclusions I presented than anything you presented.

And once again…you throw out a mass of claims without a shred of supporting evidence what-so-ever. I’m not going to waste any more time waiting for ‘google-it’.

We’ll just conclude that, once again…you don’t know what you’re talking about. That discussion is now over.




As for ‘free will’….I have presented massive amounts of evidence to support the existence of the phenomenon. The explicitly stated positions of some of the most brilliant philosophers who have ever lived: Descartes, Hegel, Plato, Kant…to name a few. Just about every major religious tradition that has ever existed. The constitutions and founding documents of every liberal democracy in the world. Only a complete and utter fool would insist that ‘free will’ does not figure fundamentally and prominently in the metaphysics of these individuals and social phenomenon.

Where ever it is that even you live Argent, you can be 100% guaranteed that ‘free will’ is a basic component of the philosophy upon which the legal realities of your society function. It may have escaped your notice there Sherlock, but that’s what societies (and lives) are based on…philosophical concepts created out of human truths (which, I’m sure, you’re also going to insist don’t exist). If you want some really convincing evidence of ‘free will’…try going to a place where they don’t believe in it, like North Korea. I’m sure you’d find lots of folks who would just love you, and then they’d show you to the nearest rice paddy…. which is where you’d spend the rest of your short life in blissful misery.

…and yet, somehow all of these are ‘ignorant assertions’…and there is ‘no supporting evidence’ ?!?!?!?!?!? A huge chunk of the world’s history is predicated on the metaphysics/behavior interpreted as ‘free will’ (using the exact same varieties of considered inductive and deductive reasoning from which every variety of science and philosophy of science is achieved). ‘Something’ exists that all of this evidence is the result of. We call that something ‘free will’. We could call it ‘dog poop’ or ‘dingbat’…obviously what we call it doesn’t matter. It is generally regarded as a fundamental human truth and colossal social and psychological structures are indisputably built on its foundation. The indisputable existence of these structures implicitly and explicitly implicates the existence of the foundation. As Robin quite clearly and explicitly pointed out in an earlier post, the epistemology of science is incapable of adjudicating these realities. Sam Harris is only the most recent to try…and fail [utterly] to alter this implacable fact. Apparently you think you can succeed where Harris so spectacularly failed. The floor is open.

As for your argument (if it can be so generously called one), all you have done is make excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse after excuse.

You say your position is supported by the evidence…

…yet once again…

ARGENT DOES NOT SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!!

Argent goes on for post after post after post after post after post insisting that Argent is right…and insisting that Argent has the evidence to prove this fact. But for some mysterious reason Argent is constrained from submitting this evidence. Apparently, you “don’t care enough to bring it to me” (why ever not?....just show it….it sure sounds conclusive…. and then we can put this whole argument to rest).

…but you seem to care enough to go on for post after post after post making endless excuses and reminding everyone just how little you care about explaining how little you care.

Y’know what that’s called Argent?......B*******Z******P!

So please Argent…present this startling evidence that rids the human landscape so conclusively of this petty triviality. I mean…just about everyone…including the idiot Nelson Mandela… is convinced that they are responsible for their own actions. You have evidence to the contrary.

SHOW US THE DAMN EVIDENCE THEN….if, that is, you have any.

Or perhaps one of your fellow skeptics has this magical information available (you claim this is the reason no one has been critical…let’s see if you’re right). I’d sure like to know what it is…and if they don’t (present it), I’ll just assume they don’t know what it is either (which will establish your claim to be wrong) …so maybe they’re all just as eager to learn about it as I am. Being fellow skeptics of course, they can’t actually admit that because that would make your position look rather silly….wouldn’t it.

Of course, I could be wrong. It could be a conspiracy. Perhaps all the skeptics have access to this miraculous evidence and no one cares enough to prove that I am wrong. Wow, that would be a first. Skeptics withholding evidence so as to avoid establishing that an opponent is a fool. A truly novel debating tactic as well. Your compassion is truly touching but please, go ahead and prove I’m a fool…I insist.