Now this looks like a better board. Someone actually completely agrees with me!

[Interesting Ian]

http://forums.near-death.com/viewtopic.php?t=1713

:)

[Ed]

May I get the door for you?

[Dragon]

I hope you'll be very happy together, Ian.
Please drop by from time to time.
Oh, and I'm sure we'd all love to see the wedding photos

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Dragon
I hope you'll be very happy together, Ian.
Please drop by from time to time.
Oh, and I'm sure we'd all love to see the wedding photos

Huh?? I think this makaveli is a guy. And he might be my sock puppet for all you know! Who else would agree with me? :p ;)

[Zep]

Is agreeing with you all that will make you happy, Ian? You might care to notice that not all of us here agree with each other either - life would be VERY dull if we were all the same.

Muscles don't get fit without having to use force and effort. Same with your brain...

[Mercutio]

Originally posted by Zep
Is agreeing with you all that will make you happy, Ian? You might care to notice that not all of us here agree with each other either - life would be VERY dull if we were all the same.

Muscles don't get fit without having to use force and effort. Same with your brain... I disagree.













(not with this post, I'm just listing one of my behavioral traits :D )

[shemp]

I'm glad you found someone as stupid as you. I hope you will be happy together.

[magicflute]

So long , Ian!! Have a nice trip! Enjoy yourself in your new home! Don't forget to send us a postcard or some hate mail once in a while!!

[Sindai]

Wow. That forum...just...wow. It could stand to b part of Something Awful's Weekend Web articles. :D

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
http://forums.near-death.com/viewtopic.php?t=1713

:)
Sometimes there is a bit of fun in having your beliefs challenged...

Try not to get bored...

[Yahweh]

Just for fun, I think I'll sign up for those Near-Death forums.

I dont intend to turn them into skeptics, I'd just appreciate it if they'd take the time to sit down and critically examine the things they believe.

I guess I can split my non-JREF freetime between ChristianForums.com and another messageboard... I have no life...

[TLN]

Let's start a pool. I say Yahweh is banned in under five posts.

[Interesting Ian]

I'm not going anywhere. Everyone has ignored me apart from one guy. I hate being ignored! :mad: I know people won't ignore me on here.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not going anywhere. Everyone has ignored me apart from one guy. I hate being ignored! :mad: I know people won't ignore me on here.

So, that's what will make you happy: Attention.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


So, that's what will make you happy: Attention.

Well, his "TV" is broken and the "cosmic script writers" have been locked away in the Phantom Zone by Superman, don't you know.

It gets lonely when you blow your CRT.

But you have hit on another Clancie/Aye-Aye trait, Claus:

Attention seeking at any cost.

[iain]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
So, that's what will make you happy: Attention. You know, sometimes we do good work. Think what Ian could be doing to get attention if he wasn't getting enough here. We're performing a service to his local community.

Edited to add : Just a joke, by the way. I'm sure Ian's a lovely chap and if he could resist calling me names for an hour, I'd happily join him for a pint.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not going anywhere. Everyone has ignored me apart from one guy. I hate being ignored! :mad: I know people won't ignore me on here.
I think your opinions are to mainstream to generate attention on that board. Now if you would resurrect Mr. Sensiple and introduce him to the board, I'm sure you'd get plenty of responses. It's possible they'd ban you of course, but that's a form of attention too.

[Fluffy]

Did you create it?

whistler.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
http://forums.near-death.com/viewtopic.php?t=1713

:)

1. Sober up.
2. Then check your records to be sure that person who agrees with you isn't a sock puppet you created before step 1.
3. If still unsure, repeat step 1.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I'm not going anywhere. Everyone has ignored me apart from one guy. I hate being ignored! :mad: I know people won't ignore me on here.

Probably not ignoring you, Ian. It is just a poorly subscribed board. Check out the stats:
Our users have posted a total of 15,669 articles
We have 470 registered users
In total 95 users have visited this site today :: 18 Registered, 6 Hidden and 71 Guests

In total there are 4 users online :: 0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 4 Guests [ Administrator ] [ Moderator ]
Most users ever online was 17 on Wed Nov 20, 2002 7:55 pm


Compared to JREF
Members: 2,374, Threads: 20,097, Posts: 524,113
There are currently 68 members and 53 guests on the boards. | Most users ever online was 210 on 02-10-2004 at 11:42 AM.
JREF has more threads than they have posts. It is a ghost town there. (pun intended).

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by TLN
Let's start a pool. I say Yahweh is banned in under five posts.

no, no, he's pretty nice when in new territory. I say 15

[Suezoled]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Huh?? I think this makaveli is a guy. And he might be my sock puppet for all you know! Who else would agree with me? :p ;)

wow. ian is not unique in all the world. bummer.

[Upchurch]

If you look hard enough, I guess you can find someone who will believe anything.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I think your opinions are to mainstream to generate attention on that board.

Don't be absurd. I highly doubt they will feel inclined to subscribe to subjective idealism!

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If you look hard enough, I guess you can find someone who will believe anything.
Yeah, I believe you're right. :D

Oh, wait. Kinda of poisoned the well for that response. :(

[sackett]

I quickly signed up at the NDE group-grope site and started a new thread called Bring Me Lazarus. We wonders, yes we wonders: will the admins censor me w/in five minutes, or ten?

Some years back, I had a little discreditable fun on one or two UFO forums, bouncing objections off the hard, hard heads of the believers. I was eventually told to shove off if I didn't buy the UFO line -- and suddenly I felt ashamed of myself for p!ss!ng in their sand box.

Anybody else done this and come away feeling a little sick?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Now if you would resurrect Mr. Sensiple and introduce him to the board, I'm sure you'd get plenty of responses. It's possible they'd ban you of course, but that's a form of attention too.

Nah, but you've given me an idea. It might be a good idea to resurrect Skeptician and introduce him to another skeptics board! :D. Or should I just call myself !Xx+-Rational-+xX! . . .hmmmm :) Nah, Skeptician will do. Towelie is most definitely not my sock puppet no matter what people think! I just wish I could take the piss out of skeptics as effectively as he does! :) I'll do my best with Skeptician :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sackett
[B]I quickly signed up at the NDE group-grope site and started a new thread called Bring Me Lazarus.



Good, I have responded.



We wonders, yes we wonders: will the admins censor me w/in five minutes, or ten?



I should last at least 10 because I restrained myself and didn't call you an idiot ;)

[sackett]

Originally posted by Upchurch
If you look hard enough, I guess you can find someone who will believe anything.

It makes me uneasy to contradict a smart cookie like Churchie, but:

1. You don't have to look hard at all.

2. They often believe not just anything, but EVERYTHING!

If you can open wide enough to swallow NDEs, then UFOs and pyramids and chariots of the gods and cystals and maharishis and shrouds and weeping pictures of Elvis and -- gack! bring the basin! -- come easy, and there isn't and never will be an end to it. This is nothing but credophilia, and I hope it's a subject of serious research, because the problem is heap plenty serious, and getting more so.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sackett


It makes me uneasy to contradict a smart cookie like Churchie, but:

1. You don't have to look hard at all.

2. They often believe not just anything, but EVERYTHING!

If you can open wide enough to swallow NDEs, then UFOs and pyramids and chariots of the gods and cystals and maharishis and shrouds and weeping pictures of Elvis and -- gack! bring the basin! -- come easy, and there isn't and never will be an end to it. This is nothing but credophilia, and I hope it's a subject of serious research, because the problem is heap plenty serious, and getting more so.

Hmmmm . . . and what about the belief that everything we ever do, say, or think is simply the playing out of mindless physical laws? That we truly have no more free will than a volcano spewing forth lava, or a boulder rolling down a hill, or the earth orbiting the sun? That we are essentially robots living out our purposeless lives in a cold indifferent purposeless Universe? That a lump of meat actually is our conscious experiences?

And if what we do is simply the playing out of physical laws, and we cannot break out of them, what does this say about all our tortured decisions in this life? What indeed becomes of morality?

Not only do materialists/skeptics contend that our lives and the Universe have no purpose, not only do they contend that we do not have any more free will than programmed robots, but materialists even contend there is no self! And yet you and other materialists offer no evidence or reasons for such a cold, bleak and sterile interpretation of reality. Moreover you lot are quite content to ignore the unintelligible nature of the materialist metaphysic, and to ignore all the evidence which shows that your interpretation of reality is seriously askew.

I rather think it is the materialists/skeptics who have weird beliefs :rolleyes:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sackett


It makes me uneasy to contradict a smart cookie like Churchie, but:


Hmmm . . .someone described him and other people as concrete blocks in a pm to me about a year ago, and advised me to go on this philosophy board. The guy wasn't anyone you lot really knew. He's only ever made a handful of posts.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Hmmmm . . . and what about the belief that everything we ever do, say, or think is simply the playing out of mindless physical laws? That we truly have no more free will than a volcano spewing forth lava, or a boulder rolling down a hill, or the earth orbiting the sun? That we are essentially robots living out our purposeless lives in a cold indifferent purposeless Universe? That a lump of meat actually is our conscious experiences?

And if what we do is simply the playing out of physical laws, and we cannot break out of them, what does this say about all our tortured decisions in this life? What indeed becomes of morality?

Not only do materialists/skeptics contend that our lives and the Universe have no purpose, not only do they contend that we do not have any more free will than programmed robots, but materialists even contend there is no self! And yet you and other materialists offer no evidence or reasons for such a cold, bleak and sterile interpretation of reality. Moreover you lot are quite content to ignore the unintelligible nature of the materialist metaphysic, and to ignore all the evidence which shows that your interpretation of reality is seriously askew.

I rather think it is the materialists/skeptics who have weird beliefs
Now take a deep breath and answer one question:

What precisely does changing us from physical stuff to mental stuff do for this lamentation?

~~ Paul

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Nah, but you've given me an idea. It might be a good idea to resurrect Skeptician and introduce him to another skeptics board! :D. Or should I just call myself !Xx+-Rational-+xX! . . .hmmmm :) Nah, Skeptician will do.

Now that's a great idea! I've been thinking about showing skeptiscientisuperioristism off to other skeptic boards! But we're still different people!


Skeptics: I coined the term "kooktard" which is used to insult believers now use it against the opposition!

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!


Now that's a great idea! I've been thinking about showing skeptiscientisuperioristism off to other skeptic boards! But we're still different people!


Skeptics: I coined the term "kooktard" which is used to insult believers now use it against the opposition!
OK, kooktard. :D

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Kerberos

OK, kooktard. :D

Not !Xx+-Rational-+xX! :alc: We will be sure that the believers get it! :k:

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

2. Then check your records to be sure that person who agrees with you isn't a sock puppet you created before step 1.
3. If still unsure, repeat step 1.


LOL I thought the same thing. Ian are you sure that the poster who agrees with you is not a sock of yours? :p

[TheBoyPaj]

>Now this looks like a better board. Someone actually completely agrees with me!

Moderator, can we have a new topic line please? There seems to be something wrong with this one.

[sackett]

I didn't have to post much here
http://forums.near-death.com/viewtopic.php?t=1713

before I was challenged with the old "nyah, you cain't PROVE it ain't so!" defense; which is unanswerable, as it happens.

One of them got condescending, treating me as a poor fellow who can't see the truth -- at least that -seemed- to be the message; they don't write all that clearly over there.

I told them they should knock off the pitiful attempts to prove their line and just be openly religious: Let them believe in spite of the evidence, and anybody who don't like that can smell their shoes. I've always felt that that's the honest -- why, the manly! -- thing to do.

Now my head hurts. Damn brick walls.

[c0rbin]

"I highly doubt they will feel inclined to subscribe to subjective idealism!"

We will make a skeptic out of you yet, Ian.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Cleopatra



LOL I thought the same thing. Ian are you sure that the poster who agrees with you is not a sock of yours? :p

:rolleyes: Nope, no more than Towelie is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by sackett
I didn't have to post much here
http://forums.near-death.com/viewtopic.php?t=1713

before I was challenged with the old "nyah, you cain't PROVE it ain't so!" defense; which is unanswerable, as it happens.

One of them got condescending, treating me as a poor fellow who can't see the truth -- at least that -seemed- to be the message; they don't write all that clearly over there.

I told them they should knock off the pitiful attempts to prove their line and just be openly religious: Let them believe in spite of the evidence, and anybody who don't like that can smell their shoes. I've always felt that that's the honest -- why, the manly! -- thing to do.

Now my head hurts. Damn brick walls.

Damn, how come you've got so many replies?? :mad: Still only got one :S

This guy said to you:


You'll find that Ian is correct here, it does in no way indicate that they are false. The soul may just be preparing to detatch from the body. This 'reality' that you are a part of is a lot less real than than you may think, we are not seperate from the afterlife right now we are just experiencing a realm or matrix called earth.


Matrix? Perhaps they might feel sympathetic to subjective idealism after all! :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Or perhaps they are spewing meaningless buzzwords. :D

Don't forget, Ian:

Now take a deep breath and answer one question:

What precisely does changing us from physical stuff to mental stuff do for this lamentation?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Or perhaps they are spewing meaningless buzzwords. :D

Don't forget, Ian:

Now take a deep breath and answer one question:

What precisely does changing us from physical stuff to mental stuff do for this lamentation?

~~ Paul

Everything.

It's a diametrically opposed worldview.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Everything.

It's a diametrically opposed worldview.
How so? What sort of laws does it provide that aren't mindless? What is free will? How does it give our lives meaning? How does it alleviate our tortured decisions and bestow morality? What about it provides a personal self? Where is the higher purpose?

You have colored the same reality as I have, but with a different brush. Somehow your choice of brushes has made you content with the resulting picture, while sneering at my picture, even though the paint by numbers canvas is the same. Any pleasure you take in your worldview is simply a result of your desire to make the best of life, just as it is with me.

~~ Paul

[Wrath of the Swarm]

As is generally the case, minor opposites are exclusive while greater opposites are identical. There's no difference between the implications of 'materialism' and 'spiritualism', although foolish people often delude themselves into believing there is.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

How so? What sort of laws does it provide that aren't mindless? What is free will? How does it give our lives meaning? How does it alleviate our tortured decisions and bestow morality? What about it provides a personal self? Where is the higher purpose?

You have colored the same reality as I have, but with a different brush. Somehow your choice of brushes has made you content with the resulting picture, while sneering at my picture, even though the paint by numbers canvas is the same. Any pleasure you take in your worldview is simply a result of your desire to make the best of life, just as it is with me.

~~ Paul

Free will refers to mental causality. It gives our lives meaning because the future is genuinely open to us in a way in which determinism denies. We are truly author (to a certain extent) of our own destinies. We can choose to do good or evil.

The totality of reality is mind-dependent. We are all ultimately connected. We are not machines but spiritual beings. There is an ultimate purpose to our existences and the existence of the Universe.

This worldview could not be more different than materialism. Materialists hold that a putative material world, only revealed by our sensory perceptions, but not equated with such sensory perceptions, is the only reality. Here the experient and his/her experiences are conflated. In other words materialists propose a wholly unknowable reality (remember it's not equivalent to our sensory experiences so we can never know what it's like), and this wholly unknowable reality somehow includes conscious awareness. But we only suspect the existence of a material world in the first place because of consciousness! This whole world view is manifestly incoherent and absurd! Why anyone could ever be so stupid as to believe it's true is quite beyond me.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You cannot even define this free will that you hold so dear. In fact, it is this very inability to define it that gives it its charm. If you could define it, it would become just another materialistic process and its charm would evaporate.

So we are interconnected spiritual beings. How does that give our lives meaning, other than by the New Agey good feelings that we assign to interconnected and spiritual?

You say "But we only suspect the existence of a material world in the first place because of consciousness!" How does this differ from your suspicion of an idealist world? Consciousness is the basis of all our suspicions about consciousness.

I see nothing intrinsic in your philosophy to make it inherently a feel-good proposition, other than the good feelings you yourself bring to it.

~~ Paul

[Ed]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
You cannot even define this free will that you hold so dear. In fact, it is this very inability to define it that gives it its charm. If you could define it, it would become just another materialistic process and its charm would evaporate.

So we are interconnected spiritual beings. How does that give our lives meaning, other than by the New Agey good feelings that we assign to interconnected and spiritual?

You say "But we only suspect the existence of a material world in the first place because of consciousness!" How does this differ from your suspicion of an idealist world? Consciousness is the basis of all our suspicions about consciousness.

I see nothing intrinsic in your philosophy to make it inherently a feel-good proposition, other than the good feelings you yourself bring to it.

~~ Paul

As I pointed out some time ago, undergraduate maunderings that are not so insightful when one sobers up.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Free will refers to mental causality. It gives our lives meaning because the future is genuinely open to us in a way in which determinism denies. We are truly author (to a certain extent) of our own destinies. We can choose to do good or evil.

The totality of reality is mind-dependent. We are all ultimately connected. We are not machines but spiritual beings. There is an ultimate purpose to our existences and the existence of the Universe.

This worldview could not be more different than materialism. Materialists hold that a putative material world, only revealed by our sensory perceptions, but not equated with such sensory perceptions, is the only reality. Here the experient and his/her experiences are conflated. In other words materialists propose a wholly unknowable reality (remember it's not equivalent to our sensory experiences so we can never know what it's like), and this wholly unknowable reality somehow includes conscious awareness. But we only suspect the existence of a material world in the first place because of consciousness! This whole world view is manifestly incoherent and absurd! Why anyone could ever be so stupid as to believe it's true is quite beyond me.
From your worldview, Ian, you are addressing yourself to "people" who don't really exist about their lack of intelligence, which really doesn't exist. These non-existent people somehow make you angry and belligerent. They drive you to hurl epiteths and profanity.

So there you sit on a chair that doesn't exist, typing into a keyboard that doesn't exist to send non-existent electrons carrying non-existent and wholly unnecessary words such as "moron" and "idiot" and "p*** off" to people who are really figments of your imagination. You sit there on a non-existent chair screaming at yourself, unable to understand why you would create the appearance of a world filled with stupid skeptics.

Ian, to remain in your worldview, you need to ask yourself why you've constructed such a horrid world as to include a BillHoyt. Why did you make me, Ian? I only drive you nuts. I don't give up. I never "get it." Alternatively, Ian, you may want to consider a closer inspection of your worldview itself. Doesn't it make infinitely more sense for me to really exist?

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Now there is an !Xx+-Rational-+xX! over there! But it's not me the real !Xx+-Rational-+xX! :wow2:

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Hopefully it's just someone who wants to spread skeptiscientisuperioristism!

Materialism is a true 100% fact proven which is not to be questioned! We’re objective we make no claims! You don’t see us making claims, which is why we win the argument by default! All paranormal beliefs are proven to be nothing more than delusions! Materialists only believe what science tells us we would never claim something that science doesn’t directly support! Now believers show me evidence for your nonsense! The burden of proof isn’t on us which reminds me the fact that consciousness is nothing more than the brain!

[sackett]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

. . . . Ian, you are addressing yourself to "people" who don't really exist about their lack of intelligence, which really doesn't exist. These non-existent people somehow make you angry and belligerent. They drive you to hurl epithets and profanity. . . .

I've noticed (hell's afire, we've all noticed) that when you challenge people's religion they get either belligerent or condescending. Over at the NDE saloon I've had helpings of both. Indurated Ion sometimes tries for condescencion and achieves sneering; then he busts out with what BillHoyt politely calls epithets.

No more soupy condescension for me, thank you. I'll take electronic bullying every time. And I am NOT saying that I.I. has the manners of an inbred warthog with a sore armpit! I will not sink that sort of thing.

I'll give the NDE admins this: They haven't said a peep to me yet.

Edited to insert "armpit" in place of the word I originally typed, which was inexcusably coarse.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by !Xx+-Rational-+xX!
Now there is an !Xx+-Rational-+xX! over there! But it's not me the real !Xx+-Rational-+xX! :wow2:

Yes of course! We have no proof at all! No evidence in fact! Absolutely none whatsoever! Therefore necessarily the other !Xx+-Rational-+xX! cannot be you! :D

[Loki]

Paul,

I see nothing intrinsic in your philosophy to make it inherently a feel-good proposition, other than the good feelings you yourself bring to it.
And there's the truth of it all, nice and plain. "Self and "will" and "purpose" are simply DEFINED by Ian to exist, and to be desirable. He then constructs a worldview that makes them 'possible' (by declaring them axioms, or 'primitive existants'). Then he thinks about this worldview and concludes these things are desireable. Rinse, and repeat.

[Ed]

Ahem.....

Originally posted by Ed


As I pointed out some time ago, undergraduate maunderings that are not so insightful when one sobers up.

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Yes of course! We have no proof at all! No evidence in fact! Absolutely none whatsoever! Therefore necessarily the other !Xx+-Rational-+xX! cannot be you! :D

It can't be me because if it were me I would have already gone into some rants about false memories and the frolicking bunnies that are always experienced!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki
Paul,


And there's the truth of it all, nice and plain. "Self and "will" and "purpose" are simply DEFINED by Ian to exist, and to be desirable. He then constructs a worldview that makes them 'possible' (by declaring them axioms, or 'primitive existants'). Then he thinks about this worldview and concludes these things are desireable. Rinse, and repeat.

Ummmm . . . . self and will are not just defined to exist. Rather they are implicit in our experience. There is a sense in that the memories I have of the past 30 minutes happened to me, and not to you or anyone else. Of course there might not be a self. Perhaps I'm just spontaneously springing into existence and ceasing to exist every infinitesimal fraction of a second. Perhaps all memories are false memories as you seem to imply; but then this is scepticism run riot. Infinitely more so than solipsism for instance (i.e. only I exist. At least here we recognise the existence of an I or self).

As for free will, well, we are immediately aware of our capacity to choose from various alternatives.

Purpose? I could give philosophical reasons, but you wouldn't understand. So let's make it simple. I point to mystical experiences including NDEs. If they are authentic (and typically one would be presuming a materialist based metaphysic in dismissing them), then we immediately experience there is an ultimate purpose to our lives and the Universe, although this conviction is ineffable.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Purpose? I could give philosophical reasons, but you wouldn't understand. So let's make it simple. I point to mystical experiences including NDEs. If they are authentic (and typically one would be presuming a materialist based metaphysic in dismissing them), then we immediately experience there is an ultimate purpose to our lives and the Universe, although this conviction is ineffable.
Damn straight it's ineffable. It's so ineffable as to be completely incomprehensible. So we go around the wheel of reincarnation a bunch of times. How does that give us purpose? What's the purpose, Ian? It sounds like the purpose is simply, at all costs, not to be dead when we die.

Typically we would be presuming a materialist metaphysic in dismissing NDEs? What if I'm simply dismissing them due to lack of evidence? Is evidence a bugaboo of materialism but not idealism? Perhaps so.

~~ Paul

[The Mighty Thor]

Ahem.....



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ed


As I pointed out some time ago, undergraduate maunderings that are not so insightful when one sobers up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



__________________

Or. . . Mummy, I forgot to take my lithium again and imaginary people are ganging up on me.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

Damn straight it's ineffable. It's so ineffable as to be completely incomprehensible. So we go around the wheel of reincarnation a bunch of times. How does that give us purpose? What's the purpose, Ian? It sounds like the purpose is simply, at all costs, not to be dead when we die.

Typically we would be presuming a materialist metaphysic in dismissing NDEs? What if I'm simply dismissing them due to lack of evidence? Is evidence a bugaboo of materialism but not idealism? Perhaps so.

~~ Paul
Of course that's an explanation of "purpose," Paul, as any three year old knows. "Why do maple trees give us sweet syrup?" "Because our ancestor had to hide honey from the gods many moons ago and poured it down an ancestor of the maple trees. Ever since, maple trees have given us sweet syrup!" Its a just-so story. It is a dodge, a deferral of the question. It works for three year olds.

And the continuing insistence on pinning metaphysical presumptions on skeptics is needed, like the just-so story, to paint over the evidence and the need for evidence. It attempts to place us on equal epistemological grounds. It is similar to the insistence that science is a religion. "See, it is all belief? Why are you so arrogant as to claim your belief is better than mine?"

These tactics are necessary. Without them, the believer arguments crumble under the scientific evidence. We need to keep showing people not only the evidence, but the reason why science has epistemological privilege. If we let them paint us as coming from a materialistic metaphysic, then we seem to be on equal footing. We need to get the message out that we have come to a materialistic conclusion.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by BillHoyt

Of course that's an explanation of "purpose," Paul, as any three year old knows. "Why do maple trees give us sweet syrup?" "Because our ancestor had to hide honey from the gods many moons ago and poured it down an ancestor of the maple trees. Ever since, maple trees have given us sweet syrup!" Its a just-so story. It is a dodge, a deferral of the question. It works for three year olds.

And the continuing insistence on pinning metaphysical presumptions on skeptics is needed, like the just-so story, to paint over the evidence and the need for evidence. It attempts to place us on equal epistemological grounds. It is similar to the insistence that science is a religion. "See, it is all belief? Why are you so arrogant as to claim your belief is better than mine?"

These tactics are necessary. Without them, the believer arguments crumble under the scientific evidence. We need to keep showing people not only the evidence, but the reason why science has epistemological privilege. If we let them paint us as coming from a materialistic metaphysic, then we seem to be on equal footing. We need to get the message out that we have come to a materialistic conclusion.

Bill, you really are clueless when it comes to this subject. No-one denies that science is extremely successful in describing the world. But this is not the issue. We are talking about underlying metaphysical interpretations of reality and science certainly does not favor the materialist interpretation. Indeed, far from it!

Nothing is known in an absolute sense. It would be difficult declaring scientific theories accurately depict reality since all scientific theories in the past have eventually been overthrown to be replaced by new scientific theories employing quite different entities and concepts. Scientific method (in as much as one can be discerned) is useful at describing reality, not telling us what reality really is.


It is not the task of science to explain the experiencer (the self or consciousness) which experiences, nor the ontological character of the experiences themselves, but rather the patterns exhibited by the sub-branch of experiences represented by our sensory experiences. This is achieved by building mental representational models patterning and ordering these experiences (or qualia).

Objective reality, that is to say the reality that can be measured, abstracts from our experiences. Why should one suppose there is a wholly mysterious reality, which lies forevermore over and beyond everything that we ever see, hear, touch, taste and smell?? Why suppose there is anything more to a peach than its visual appearance, and the feel of it, and its taste etc?

Once we start saying that the peach doesn't really have a colour as experienced but simply reflects a certain wavelength of light; is not really solid but is really the electrons near the surface electrically repulsing the electrons in the tips of our fingers; doesn't really have a taste because that is just a process in ones brain when biting into a peach, then we are engaged in a profound scepticism in all things. Apparently everything that we ever perceptually experience is a delusion. Apparently the "real" world, a world forevermore beyond our direct acquaintance BTW, is the nightmarish world the scientists and materialists have dreamt up. A world devoid of colour, smells, tastes, in fact a world devoid of all that which we directly experience!

But it's even worse than that. The materialists would have it that we are soulless robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe with the added promise that soon we will cease to exist forevermore. They would have it that everything we ever perceive is a comprehensive delusion. That everything that we ever see is a lie. That our loves, hopes, fears, aspirations, everything that we have ever thought, felt and experienced is nothing over and above meaningless atoms in motion or meaningless chemical processes.

They deny everything and anything that appears to be truly real, and which truly matters, and substitute their lies, and then they have the effrontery to deride anyone who calls into question their wholly unwarranted crazy interpretation of reality.

But do you know what the worse thing of all is? It's that they have no reason or evidence for their grotesque metaphysic! We have no reason to suppose that qualia are somehow unreal, indeed we have no reason at all to even suppose a material world exists!

At the end of the day everything we believe we know about the world has to be cashed out in terms of our perceptual experiences. This so called measurable reality is itself something which is only known through experience. But if everything about the external world is only known through experience, then why go over and above what experience reveals? Why do we suppose that science is anything more than discerning the patterns in our perceptual experiences? What warrants us to suppose that this measurable reality, itself only known through experience, has primacy over our experiences, and indeed is the origin of our experiences??

Absolutely crazy!

To repeat what I have said many times:

Doubt thou the stars art fire;
Doubt thou the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
But never doubt I love.

[BillHoyt]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Bill, you really are clueless when it comes to this subject. No-one denies that science is extremely successful in describing the world. But this is not the issue. We are talking about underlying metaphysical interpretations of reality and science certainly does not favor the materialist interpretation. Indeed, far from it!

Nothing is known in an absolute sense. It would be difficult declaring scientific theories accurately depict reality since all scientific theories in the past have eventually been overthrown to be replaced by new scientific theories employing quite different entities and concepts. Scientific method (in as much as one can be discerned) is useful at describing reality, not telling us what reality really is.


It is not the task of science to explain the experiencer (the self or consciousness) which experiences, nor the ontological character of the experiences themselves, but rather the patterns exhibited by the sub-branch of experiences represented by our sensory experiences. This is achieved by building mental representational models patterning and ordering these experiences (or qualia).

Objective reality, that is to say the reality that can be measured, abstracts from our experiences. Why should one suppose there is a wholly mysterious reality, which lies forevermore over and beyond everything that we ever see, hear, touch, taste and smell?? Why suppose there is anything more to a peach than its visual appearance, and the feel of it, and its taste etc?

Once we start saying that the peach doesn't really have a colour as experienced but simply reflects a certain wavelength of light; is not really solid but is really the electrons near the surface electrically repulsing the electrons in the tips of our fingers; doesn't really have a taste because that is just a process in ones brain when biting into a peach, then we are engaged in a profound scepticism in all things. Apparently everything that we ever perceptually experience is a delusion. Apparently the "real" world, a world forevermore beyond our direct acquaintance BTW, is the nightmarish world the scientists and materialists have dreamt up. A world devoid of colour, smells, tastes, in fact a world devoid of all that which we directly experience!

But it's even worse than that. The materialists would have it that we are soulless robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe with the added promise that soon we will cease to exist forevermore. They would have it that everything we ever perceive is a comprehensive delusion. That everything that we ever see is a lie. That our loves, hopes, fears, aspirations, everything that we have ever thought, felt and experienced is nothing over and above meaningless atoms in motion or meaningless chemical processes.

They deny everything and anything that appears to be truly real, and which truly matters, and substitute their lies, and then they have the effrontery to deride anyone who calls into question their wholly unwarranted crazy interpretation of reality.

But do you know what the worse thing of all is? It's that they have no reason or evidence for their grotesque metaphysic! We have no reason to suppose that qualia are somehow unreal, indeed we have no reason at all to even suppose a material world exists!

At the end of the day everything we believe we know about the world has to be cashed out in terms of our perceptual experiences. This so called measurable reality is itself something which is only known through experience. But if everything about the external world is only known through experience, then why go over and above what experience reveals? Why do we suppose that science is anything more than discerning the patterns in our perceptual experiences? What warrants us to suppose that this measurable reality, itself only known through experience, has primacy over our experiences, and indeed is the origin of our experiences??

Absolutely crazy!

To repeat what I have said many times:

Doubt thou the stars art fire;
Doubt thou the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
But never doubt I love.

Ian,

We've been down these roads before. New science rarely "overthrows" old. This is a PoMo myth that began with Kuhn, amongst others. Your own claim of science as merely descriptive we've been over repeatedly as well. It is patently absurd.

More fundamentally, though, there is no materialistic metaphysic. Materialism is a conclusion, not a presumption. We have also been over the axioms of science repeatedly; there is nothing in these assumptions that mandates materialism as a conclusion.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
But it's even worse than that. The materialists would have it that we are soulless robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe with the added promise that soon we will cease to exist forevermore.
And what was the purpose bestowed upon us by idealism, again? I keep forgetting. This sort of statement by you is taking on the properties of a mantra: pleasant to repeat, yet meaningless.

At the end of the day everything we believe we know about the world has to be cashed out in terms of our perceptual experiences. This so called measurable reality is itself something which is only known through experience. But if everything about the external world is only known through experience, then why go over and above what experience reveals? Why do we suppose that science is anything more than discerning the patterns in our perceptual experiences? What warrants us to suppose that this measurable reality, itself only known through experience, has primacy over our experiences, and indeed is the origin of our experiences??
We suppose it in order to see if we can, indeed, explain it. This supposition is really quite less presumptuous than yours, which is that your little personal reality is somehow a piece of the ultimate nature of the universe. Not only do you make that presumption, but you sneer at those who do not. You may be correct, but that is no reason science should stop.

Apparently everything that we ever perceptually experience is a delusion. Apparently the "real" world, a world forevermore beyond our direct acquaintance BTW, is the nightmarish world the scientists and materialists have dreamt up. A world devoid of colour, smells, tastes, in fact a world devoid of all that which we directly experience!
This is to laugh. You have yet to explain how your mental perception of reality does not crumble under the weight of brain function gone awry. To repeat something that Bill Hoyt said about dualism, but which pertains equally here:
Why should I be concerned with your impotent, girlie-ghost? It seems to me that, if it exists at all, my chemicals are far more powerful. My surgery trumps the phantasm every time. Why should I care that you can construct such a lame ideation? I can put it to sleep by turning the gas knob.


~~ Paul

[NoZed Avenger]

Originally posted by Ed


As I pointed out some time ago, undergraduate maunderings that are not so insightful when one sobers up.

Truism.

May I use that for a sig sometime?

[The Mighty Thor]

Interesting Ian said:
Absolutely crazy!

To repeat what I have said many times:

Doubt thou the stars art fire;
Doubt thou the sun doth move;
Doubt truth to be a liar;
But never doubt I love.

I don't think anyone is doubting that you might 'love' Ian. But what do you mean by 'I love'? There need be nothing metaphysical about it. Indeed, no matter how disappointing and mundane, it could just be this:

"How the brain reacts to romance


The study looked at the brains of people in love Scientists say they have discovered what happens in the brain when someone falls in love. They studied chemical reactions in men and women who were all in the early stages of relationships.

Research, published by the Society for Neuroscience, found activity in areas of the brain which are linked to energy and elation . . .

. . . The brain circuitry for male-female attachment evolved to enable individuals to remain with a mate long enough to complete species-specific parenting duties
Dr Helen Fisher, Rutgers University"

from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/health/3261309.stm

[tdn]

Ian, I have been following your posts for a couple of months now. And I have come to the conclusion that you have absolutely no idea what a skeptic is. In fact, in your own mind you have constructed a pathetic being of your own invention, then ascribed that being's pathetic attributes to anyone that disagrees with you. It is the worst form of strawmannery, and the lamest type of debate. You will succeed in nothing but arguing with yourself. No skin off my nose, but you might want to question the value of living in such an angry and self-deluded world.

Allow me to shed a little light on the the subject:

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Bill, you really are clueless when it comes to this subject. No-one denies that science is extremely successful in describing the world. But this is not the issue.

OK, I'm with you so far.

We are talking about underlying metaphysical interpretations of reality and science certainly does not favor the materialist interpretation. Indeed, far from it!

Interpretations of reality are well and good. We'll discuss that in a minute. Science doesn't favor the materialist interpretation? Huh? What, pray tell, does it favor then? And what, pray tell, have you been smoking?

Scientific method (in as much as one can be discerned) is useful at describing reality, not telling us what reality really is.

If by that you mean that science can't tell us what our subjective experience is, that once again I'm with you. But while subjective experience is important to us (indeed, probably most imprtant), that does not make it reality. It makes it personal experience.

Once we start saying that the peach doesn't really have a colour as experienced but simply reflects a certain wavelength of light; is not really solid but is really the electrons near the surface electrically repulsing the electrons in the tips of our fingers; doesn't really have a taste because that is just a process in ones brain when biting into a peach,

Honestly, do you know anyone that talks like that? Do you really think that a real-life skeptic doesn't experience a peach as yummy goodness?

then we are engaged in a profound scepticism in all things.

No, then we are engaged in your pathetic straw man. Skepticism has never said that I don't like peaches.

Apparently everything that we ever perceptually experience is a delusion.

If you take nothing else from my post, learn this: Wrong. That is the sort of thinking more indicative of so-called believers, where reality is illusion and illusion is reality. When I step out into the street, I use caution not because I fear getting hit by an imaginary bus. When I see that bus approaching, I don't think "Hmm, it's just an illusion. It can't harm me." My perception tells me that the bus is big and solid and moving fast, and if I don't step back, the reality of it is soon going to be all too apparent.

Where you get your claim here is beyond me, but it is just plain wrong.

Apparently the "real" world, a world forevermore beyond our direct acquaintance BTW, is the nightmarish world the scientists and materialists have dreamt up. A world devoid of colour, smells, tastes, in fact a world devoid of all that which we directly experience!

Once again, you're just making stuff up as you go. When I read that, I thought you couldn't possibly get any sillier. Little did I know that this gem was coming up:

But it's even worse than that. The materialists would have it that we are soulless robots living out our purposeless lives in a purposeless Universe with the added promise that soon we will cease to exist forevermore.

Where do you get this stuff? Do you honestly think it's OK to just invent these things out of whole cloth?

I know you'll never beieve this (as it would unravel your tightly constructed fantasy world), but every skeptic I know lives a life of passion, love, and wonder. The skeptics I know have some of the best taste in art and music. And they all have purpose in hteir lives. And guess what? They don't need the promise of an afterlife to be that way! They can find enough beauty in the here and now!

Once again, I know you won't believe that, as you seem to have an almost pathalogical need to be the only person in the universe with a soul. For that, I have for words for you: Psychiatry is your friend.

They would have it that everything we ever perceive is a comprehensive delusion.

Wrong again. They would have it that everything we ever perceive is cold, hard reality. It's usually the woo-woos who claim that it's all an illusion. I have no idea how you got so turned around on this.

But if everything about the external world is only known through experience, then why go over and above what experience reveals?

Passion for learning? Desire to improve mankind's lot? Love of life? Doesn't sound like the work of soulless automatons to me.

Absolutely crazy!

Your words, not mine.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by tdn
Ian, I have been following your posts for a couple of months now. And I have come to the conclusion that you have absolutely no idea what a skeptic is. In fact, in your own mind you have constructed a pathetic being of your own invention, then ascribed that being's pathetic attributes to anyone that disagrees with you. It is the worst form of strawmannery, and the lamest type of debate. You will succeed in nothing but arguing with yourself. No skin off my nose, but you might want to question the value of living in such an angry and self-deluded world.

Allow me to shed a little light on the the subject:



OK, I'm with you so far.



Interpretations of reality are well and good. We'll discuss that in a minute. Science doesn't favor the materialist interpretation? Huh? What, pray tell, does it favor then? And what, pray tell, have you been smoking?



If by that you mean that science can't tell us what our subjective experience is, that once again I'm with you. But while subjective experience is important to us (indeed, probably most imprtant), that does not make it reality. It makes it personal experience.



Honestly, do you know anyone that talks like that? Do you really think that a real-life skeptic doesn't experience a peach as yummy goodness?



No, then we are engaged in your pathetic straw man. Skepticism has never said that I don't like peaches.



If you take nothing else from my post, learn this: Wrong. That is the sort of thinking more indicative of so-called believers, where reality is illusion and illusion is reality. When I step out into the street, I use caution not because I fear getting hit by an imaginary bus. When I see that bus approaching, I don't think "Hmm, it's just an illusion. It can't harm me." My perception tells me that the bus is big and solid and moving fast, and if I don't step back, the reality of it is soon going to be all too apparent.

Where you get your claim here is beyond me, but it is just plain wrong.



Once again, you're just making stuff up as you go. When I read that, I thought you couldn't possibly get any sillier. Little did I know that this gem was coming up:



Where do you get this stuff? Do you honestly think it's OK to just invent these things out of whole cloth?

I know you'll never beieve this (as it would unravel your tightly constructed fantasy world), but every skeptic I know lives a life of passion, love, and wonder. The skeptics I know have some of the best taste in art and music. And they all have purpose in hteir lives. And guess what? They don't need the promise of an afterlife to be that way! They can find enough beauty in the here and now!

Once again, I know you won't believe that, as you seem to have an almost pathalogical need to be the only person in the universe with a soul. For that, I have for words for you: Psychiatry is your friend.



Wrong again. They would have it that everything we ever perceive is cold, hard reality. It's usually the woo-woos who claim that it's all an illusion. I have no idea how you got so turned around on this.



Passion for learning? Desire to improve mankind's lot? Love of life? Doesn't sound like the work of soulless automatons to me.



Your words, not mine.

tdn, it is clear you don't understand what materialism is, and what it implies, and what materialists have said on this board.

Sorry, but I attack no strawmen. I just give it as it is. Tastes, colors, sounds, everything we ever experience is left out in the cold under materialism. In as much as they can be said to exist at all they must be a fabrication of the mi . .er . .sorry brain.

[FutileJester]

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
We suppose it in order to see if we can, indeed, explain it.

Right! And it has explained a lot, and continues to explain new things all the time. Sure it's an assumption, and as such I'm perfectly willing to throw it away - as soon as it stops working so darn well. Or until someone comes up with a different assumption that provides me with even more predictive power.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
tdn, it is clear you don't understand what materialism is, and what it implies, and what materialists have said on this board.

I eagerly await an education on this. Please quote examples from other posters.

Sorry, but I attack no strawmen. I just give it as it is. Tastes, colors, sounds, everything we ever experience is left out in the cold under materialism. In as much as they can be said to exist at all they must be a fabrication of the mi . .er . .sorry brain.

Fabrication? No. Perception, yes.

I see where you're coming from, really I do. In a metaphysical sense, our perceptions are all that we have. It is the only reality that we can readily accept. But there is another reality seperate from our perceptions. It was around long before our little lizard brains were around to witness it. And it will go on long after we die. And honestly, it really doesn't care about us.

[The Mighty Thor]

tfttsu

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by tdn


I eagerly await an education on this. Please quote examples from other posters.



Fabrication? No. Perception, yes.

I see where you're coming from, really I do. In a metaphysical sense, our perceptions are all that we have. It is the only reality that we can readily accept. But there is another reality seperate from our perceptions. It was around long before our little lizard brains were around to witness it. And it will go on long after we die. And honestly, it really doesn't care about us.

Originally posted by malcolmdl
tfttsu

Oops. Sorry about that.

I think most of us have an idea of 'where Ian is coming from'. It's where he 'goes to' that is the problem. At the very lowest level of criticism he seems not to want to calmly discuss his ideas with the proles or undermenchen who are 'too stupid' to understand his superior musings.

[Ed]

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger


Truism.

May I use that for a sig sometime?

Please do. I am honored.

[Loki]

Ian,

I could just add my weight to the criticism (and repeat earlier posts) by highlighting the areas where you simply wander off into "colorful language" land, but why bother? Instead, just one simple comment...

Objective reality, that is to say the reality that can be measured, abstracts from our experiences. Why should one suppose there is a wholly mysterious reality, which lies forevermore over and beyond everything that we ever see, hear, touch, taste and smell??
Well, ONE reason (and a fairly good one IMO) that we can make a suppostion that there is a "wholly mysterious reality" that "abstracts from our experiences" is that this reality appears to tell us exactly that.

The apparent abstract earth tells me it is 5 billon years old.
The apparent abstract fossil records tell me that humans are 1 millon years old.
The apparent abstract historial record (human writings/artifacts) tell me human civilisation is thousands of years old.

Why do I suppose that 'reality' existed before humans could percieve it (and therefore is independant and separate to those perceptions)? Because it tells me this is true.

I think the better question is "Why do you suppose that 'reality' is lying to us?" As best I can tell, you have three choices open to you :

1. The Titus Rivas theory - Human conciousness IS only thousands of years old, but before that our 'souls' put their consciousness into dinosaurs. And before dinosaurs, our souls inhabitated amphibians, and before...etc. Our souls are as old as the universe (well, older probably) - the 'human perception' phase is just the the current state of play. Of course, you should note that this theory actually says that reality IS independant and separate from your precious human perceptions! Titus is arguing that reality is dependant on our souls 'interactions'.

2. The Matrix theory - The 'earth is 5 billion years old' is false. In fact, the earth is only 20 minutes old, and reality is just a consistent fiction generated by 'external powers' (god, the 'meta-mind', intelligent machines, etc) for some reason unknown and unknowable (but assumed to be nice).

3. The "Slow Cooking" theory - The earth IS 5 billon years old, and human consciousness IS 1 millon years old. Our souls are older than the earth, and have been "doing something else" for the past 4,999 million years while we waited for the earth to reach this "just right" moment where we enter the 'human perception' phase. What is this "something else" our souls have been up to? Well, nothing 'physical', since we appear to have left no visible traces.

Really Ian, why do you want to argue so stringly against the (apparently) clear signla that reality is giving you? The earth appeart to be 5,000 times older than human perceptions - why do you don; this obvious evidence? How do you 'fill in' the missing 4,999 millon years of 'soul perception'?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki

II
Objective reality, that is to say the reality that can be measured, abstracts from our experiences. Why should one suppose there is a wholly mysterious reality, which lies forevermore over and beyond everything that we ever see, hear, touch, taste and smell??

Loki

Well, ONE reason (and a fairly good one IMO) that we can make a suppostion that there is a "wholly mysterious reality" that "abstracts from our experiences" is that this reality appears to tell us exactly that.

The apparent abstract earth tells me it is 5 billon years old.
The apparent abstract fossil records tell me that humans are 1 millon years old.
The apparent abstract historial record (human writings/artifacts) tell me human civilisation is thousands of years old.



OK, that's all fine. This just boils down to if we were there we would have had certain perceptual experiences etc.



Why do I suppose that 'reality' existed before humans could percieve it (and therefore is independant and separate to those perceptions)? Because it tells me this is true.



Any sentient beings in the Universe :)




I think the better question is "Why do you suppose that 'reality' is lying to us?"



No, reality is telling us the truth. The world is really exactly like we perceive it. Objects are really colored, smells are out there in the world. Objects really are solid and have the texture we feel them to have :)


3. The "Slow Cooking" theory - The earth IS 5 billon years old, and human consciousness IS 1 millon years old. Our souls are older than the earth, and have been "doing something else" for the past 4,999 million years while we waited for the earth to reach this "just right" moment where we enter the 'human perception' phase. What is this "something else" our souls have been up to? Well, nothing 'physical', since we appear to have left no visible traces.

Really Ian, why do you want to argue so stringly against the (apparently) clear signla that reality is giving you? The earth appeart to be 5,000 times older than human perceptions - why do you don; this obvious evidence? How do you 'fill in' the missing 4,999 millon years of 'soul perception'?

I'm not sure what your problem is here. I agree that the earth is 5 billion years old. As for the question about souls, well I just don't know, and neither does anyone else. But I would say that souls would have existed in a timeless state while not incarnated. But at the end of the day there are a lot of mysteries in the world which are simply beyond human intellect ever to work out the answers to. And yes, my worldview has unanswered questions as much as yours. So what? That's what it is like to be a human being. And at least my interpretation of reality, unlike yours, doesn't have any glaring problems (as in the sense of intelligibility). We live in a world ultimately of unfathomable mystery. All we can really aspire to do is reject the silly interpretations of the world such as the various materialist philosophies. But to understand all things in our present incarnation? Nah :)

[tdn]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
We live in a world ultimately of unfathomable mystery. All we can really aspire to do is reject the silly interpretations of the world such as the various materialist philosophies. But to understand all things in our present incarnation?

Yeah, really. You might as well ask what the square root of a million is. We'll never know the answer.

:D

[Jeff Corey]

Isn't that, like, a thousand?
I didn't even need a calculator for that one.
Do I get the $1000 squared Prize?
(Editer to spell "Prize" right

[Loki]

Ian,

This just boils down to if we were there we would have had certain perceptual experiences etc.
Hmmm... this comment seems to imply that you accept that (a) "we" (meaning humans, and our perceptions) were not there, and (b) that this "there" did actually happen. So peaches in the Jurassic Era had a smell, even though there were no humans to percieve the smell? So you are separating the concepts of "smell" and "perception"?

Any sentient beings in the Universe
Okay, a fourth option!! You simply posit the existence of creatures having "Human-like consciousness/perceptions" living somewhere in the universe, at all times. This is really just a variation of the "Slow Cook" theory - our souls are off inhabiting Mars while we wait of Earth to be "ready for perception". ANY evidence to help separate this theory from the "fairies at the bottom of the garden are tricking me" theory?

No, reality is telling us the truth. The world is really exactly like we perceive it. Objects are really colored, smells are out there in the world. Objects really are solid and have the texture we feel them to have
Humour? Sarcasm? Opinion? I don't understand what you're getting at here.

And yes, my worldview has unanswered questions as much as yours.
Not bloody likely! My worldview has only one question that appears unanswerable - "Is it actually true?" If I assume that the answer to that question is "yes", then ALL other questions are either answered, or (potentially) answerable. ON the other hand, your worldview is explicitly defined as "a world ultimately of unfathomable mystery". Hopefully, you can see the difference between our worldviews - mine offers the potential to answer the questions - yours declares it impossible. You admit this, then immediately declare our worldviews to have 'the same number of unaswerable questions'. Makes me suspect you have no real idea what the alternative worldviews to you preferred pet theory actually are (which isn't a surprise, given your stated intention to not read any book that you can clearly see is false).

And at least my interpretation of reality, unlike yours, doesn't have any glaring problems ...
No, your interpretation doesn't have any glaring problems, because as soon as you hit a difficult topic you either declare it 'a primitive existence - clearly true, and needing no further explanation' or declare it 'Ineffable - part of the wholly mysterious world in which we live'. I'm still waiting to discover just what "self-causation" is. It's an action that is not determined, and not random, but 'caused by the self; wholly owned by the self, but not determined by the self's contents'. Of course, you don't see this as glaring problem - you just define it away! 'Self-causation is what it is'. It's a common point with you Ian - you define things in terms of what they aren't.

'Self-causation' is 'not determined and not random'.

'psi' is 'not normal cognition'.

'purpose' is 'not determined in this world.'

When asked to provide a positive description for such concepts, you reply 'How should I know? Why ask me? It's all ineffable? It's a wholly mysterious world?'

You've said many times before 'so skeptics say if I can't explain everything, then I MUST be wrong! How absurd!'.

No, I say 'If you declare everything to be inexplicable, then you've explained nothing'. You might be right, but about what?

And I find it extremely frustrating to have you then declare 'but our positions have equal explanatory power!'.

Sure they do!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Loki

II
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This just boils down to if we were there we would have had certain perceptual experiences etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Loki
Hmmm... this comment seems to imply that you accept that (a) "we" (meaning humans, and our perceptions) were not there, and (b) that this "there" did actually happen. So peaches in the Jurassic Era had a smell, even though there were no humans to percieve the smell? So you are separating the concepts of "smell" and "perception"?


You keep approaching the issue by presupposing your own position is correct!


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Any sentient beings in the Universe
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay, a fourth option!! You simply posit the existence of creatures having "Human-like consciousness/perceptions" living somewhere in the universe, at all times.



They don't have to have human like consciousnesses. Any consciousness at all I am talking about here.




This is really just a variation of the "Slow Cook" theory - our souls are off inhabiting Mars while we wait of Earth to be "ready for perception". ANY evidence to help separate this theory from the "fairies at the bottom of the garden are tricking me" theory?



Huh?? That there are other sentient beings in the Universe apart from on the earth?? :eek: Well, slightly yeah :eek:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yes, my worldview has unanswered questions as much as yours.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Not bloody likely! My worldview has only one question that appears unanswerable - "Is it actually true?"



Don't be absurd. You don't even know what this material reality is since everything we know about it is through our sensory perceptions, and of course this material reality isn't to be equated with such perceptions. We don't know why the world is as it is, why it is governed by physical laws. Why the physical laws are as they are. Why they can be described in the language of mathematics. Why there exists something (ie the Universe) rather than nothing.

Basically the only answers you can supply is through science. But science can't tell us why reality is as it is, it can't tell us about any mysterious material reality, it can only describe the world (via theories). Try to understand. Science is not philosophy.




If I assume that the answer to that question is "yes", then ALL other questions are either answered, or (potentially) answerable. ON the other hand, your worldview is explicitly defined as "a world ultimately of unfathomable mystery".



Loki! We live in the same world. It is ultimately of unfathomable mystery. Let's not pretend otherwise. We can just do our best to make the most sense of it as we can.



Hopefully, you can see the difference between our worldviews - mine offers the potential to answer the questions - yours declares it impossible.



No. How could you do this? Science certainly doesn't. Your materialism certainly doesn't. You are deluded my friend.




'Self-causation' is 'not determined and not random'.



It's the intention to perform some action, followed by that action. Perfectly understandable.



'psi' is 'not normal cognition'.



By definition yes.



'purpose' is 'not determined in this world.'



Are people disputing this.

[Valmorian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

It's the intention to perform some action, followed by that action. Perfectly understandable.


Where does the intention come from? If it comes purely from stimuli (internal or external) it is deterministic. If it does not, how do you differentiate it from random?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Valmorian


Where does the intention come from? If it comes purely from stimuli (internal or external) it is deterministic. If it does not, how do you differentiate it from random?

The decision between 2 alternatives is not wholly determined by the physical state of the world. This only influences. The ultimate decision is made by the self. The intention is ultimately simply a disposition of the self. We immediately experience the reality of our capacity to choose between competing alternatives. There is a genuine possibility of choosing any of those competing alternatives, although, ultimately only one alternative is chosen. This then necessarily rules out that our actual action is determined (because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to choose other than I did), or random (my action is inevitably correlated with my intention).

Perfectly clear. I just find it astounding the inability of materialists to understand anything. LOL

Anyway, the determinist must deny this sentence

"We immediately experience the reality of our capacity to choose between competing alternatives".

But I say we immediately experience it to be true. Otherwise we wouldn't get out of bed in the mornings! LOL

[Loki]

Ian,

We don't know why the world is as it is, why it is governed by physical laws. Why the physical laws are as they are. Why they can be described in the language of mathematics. Why there exists something (ie the Universe) rather than nothing.
A philosopher who demands to know "why", without first establishing the need for a why? Can you explain to me, in simple terms, the basis you have for believing that there is a "why" to be discovered in the instances. I told you before - these questions are not unanswerable -they are without meaning. You do understand the difference, don't you?

My worldview - The various "Why" issues you've raised are empty questions. They're as meaningful as asking "why are triangles not circles?". They are unanswerable because they aren't actually sensible questions!

Your Worldview - The various "Why" issues are fundamental, and go the very heart of who and what we are. They also happen to be "ineffable". Your worldview is fundamentally an exercise in frustration - it DEMANDS a "why", elevating the question to the highest possible level of importance, and then declares it unobtainable.

Try to understand. Science is not philosophy
Try to understand. Your Philosophy has more questions than answers.

It is ultimately of unfathomable mystery. Let's not pretend otherwise.
May I direct you to an earlier comment of yours, which seems entirely appropriate here : "You keep approaching the issue by presupposing your own position is correct!"


( loki wrote) : 'purpose' is 'not determined in this world.'

(Ian wrote) : Are people disputing this.
Yep.

Anyway, the determinist must deny this sentence

"We immediately experience the reality of our capacity to choose between competing alternatives".

Nope, I don't have to deny that (assuming for a moment I put on a determinist hat). Again, your own words seem a nice fit here (slightly modified) : "I just find it astounding the inability of Ian to understand anything."

The intention is ultimately simply a disposition of the self.
...
There is a genuine possibility of choosing any of those competing alternatives,
You see no conflict here? The choice is the 'disposition' if the self, yet this same self could have genuinely selected from two diametrically opposed choices? What does it say about the consistency of the self if in the nanosecond prior to the self making this 'disposition' it was genuinely possible to select either?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:
Don't be absurd. You don't even know what this material reality is since everything we know about it is through our sensory perceptions, and of course this material reality isn't to be equated with such perceptions. We don't know why the world is as it is, why it is governed by physical laws. Why the physical laws are as they are. Why they can be described in the language of mathematics. Why there exists something (ie the Universe) rather than nothing.
This is stunningly disingenuous of you, Ian. You don't know what your reality is either, nor can you answer any of the equivalent questions.

Basically the only answers you can supply is through science. But science can't tell us why reality is as it is, it can't tell us about any mysterious material reality, it can only describe the world (via theories). Try to understand. Science is not philosophy.
The implication being that philosophy can answer the tough questions? If so, then have at it. Because you ain't answered them yet.

The decision between 2 alternatives is not wholly determined by the physical state of the world. This only influences. The ultimate decision is made by the self. The intention is ultimately simply a disposition of the self. We immediately experience the reality of our capacity to choose between competing alternatives. There is a genuine possibility of choosing any of those competing alternatives, although, ultimately only one alternative is chosen. This then necessarily rules out that our actual action is determined (because otherwise I wouldn't have been able to choose other than I did), or random (my action is inevitably correlated with my intention).

Perfectly clear. I just find it astounding the inability of materialists to understand anything.
Because all you've told us is what free will is not. We want to know what it is.

Anyway, the determinist must deny this sentence

"We immediately experience the reality of our capacity to choose between competing alternatives".
Cute, but it simply hinges on the meaning of the word choose.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Loki said:
You see no conflict here? The choice is the 'disposition' if the self, yet this same self could have genuinely selected from two diametrically opposed choices? What does it say about the consistency of the self if in the nanosecond prior to the self making this 'disposition' it was genuinely possible to select either?
That the decision was arbitrary and capricious?

(That was a test, wasn't it?)

~~ Paul

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

There is no free will it’s an irrational illusion! Skeptics are just neurologically inclined by the physical laws of nature to be superior! Believers on the other hand…I’ll just say natural selection is extremely prone to making mistakes!


!Xx+-Rational-+xX!'s site has been updated with more skeptical rants!

[tdn]

*sigh*

Like arguing with a brick wall.

An irrational, stubborn, uneducated brick wall.

[tdn]

Originally posted by Jeff Corey
Isn't that, like, a thousand?

No, the question is unanswerable. Mathematics doesn't have the answer. That's because extinct dinosaurs from Mars could smell peaches. I am smart, and all of you are dumb. I can't believe you don't know this.

Or something like that.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Ah, yes. Debating with Ian.

Do you know what the only way to win this game is?

[Ed]

It isn't really a debate, per se. When one has beliefs that are not particularly grounded in reality it makes for a difficult discussion. Look, for example, at the roach fest on the other thread. The "experiment" was used as a jumping off point for a discussion of experimenter impact on Psi (which I guess means "noise"). Because of the narrow belief system any questioning of the experiment itself was deemed irrelevant. In other words, Ian might just as well made up something out of whole cloth and proceeded from there, which it appears he did.

That narrow and self important belief system is bad enough but couple that with a complete ignorance of science, at it's most elementary level, and it is like talking to a willful child.

Sad, really.

[sackett]

Impenetrable Iain is getting some attaboys from the NDE crowd. One of them commended him for being a kinda Lone Ranger on JREF. I would have said Tonto, but never mind.

Oh but it's a weary labor, throwing water in the sea!

[Ed]

Originally posted by sackett
Impenetrable Iain is getting some attaboys from the NDE crowd. One of them commended him for being a kinda Lone Ranger on JREF. I would have said Tonto, but never mind.

Oh but it's a weary labor, throwing water in the sea!

If the adulation of Woo's is meaningful then more power to him. Sad, really.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Ah, yes. Debating with Ian.

Do you know what the only way to win this game is?

Surrender.

I'm still going to give PalTalk a shot tonight, but my hopes are low. Frankly, I'm expecting him to show up drunk so he won't have to participate.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

I would have said the only way to win is not to play. Or in this case, stop playing.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
I would have said the only way to win is not to play. Or in this case, stop playing.

Yes, thank you Joshua. ;)

[scribble]

Hooray! People are finally starting to listen to me.

"Interesting game. The only winning move...

...is not to play."

[TLN]

Originally posted by scribble
Hooray! People are finally starting to listen to me.

Oh, I wouldn't get excited. There will always be some who can't resist and even one responder gives Ian the attention he craves and keeps him posting.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Perhaps there should be some kind of social censure applied to anyone who corresponds with him.

[TLN]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Perhaps there should be some kind of social censure applied to anyone who corresponds with him.

Tried it. This will only result in posts like "You can't tell me what to do!" and "It's my time to waste!"

Ian's going nowhere because his incredibly low self-esteem is fed here.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Then we need to find ways to insult him more effectively.

One suggestion: the moderators could alter his user title. "Idiotic Ian" would be nice, wouldn't it?

[TLN]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Then we need to find ways to insult him more effectively.

Insults are still attention and any attention is good attention in Ian's book. No, the only solution is total shunning, which will never occur.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Surrender.

I'm still going to give PalTalk a shot tonight, but my hopes are low. Frankly, I'm expecting him to show up drunk so he won't have to participate.

Sorry not tonight. Tomorrow maybe.

And hey guys, as I said before, if you want to ignore me you should:
[list=a]
Stop talking about me.
Stop posting on threads that I start.
[/list=a]

Just some friendly advice :)

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by TLN


Insults are still attention and any attention is good attention in Ian's book. No, the only solution is total shunning, which will never occur.

Hmmmm . . .this reminds me a bit of "Life of Brian"! LMAO

[TLN]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Sorry not tonight. Tomorrow maybe.

Ahh, believer tactic #27: the infinite postponement.

[Loki]

TLN/Wrath,

OKay, you've convinced me. A minimum 2 week trial. I'm in.

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Perhaps there should be some kind of social censure applied to anyone who corresponds with him.
I dont think I'll ever agree with Ian, but personally I appreciate his posts (when he's being civil).

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Bah. You just enjoy having someone to play the foil to your rapier wit. It's like dressing up and diapering a doll: you can teach Ian all about a variety of interesting subjects, and thirty seconds later you can do it all over again.

[Ceinwyn]

I ignore Ian's posts all the time. Even when he's insulting.

How? He's boring. I find more interesting posts elsewhere.

[ceptimus]

I've had him on ignore for a couple of weeks now. Saves time. Up till now, I still get the gist of his ramblings by reading other's replies.

[Interesting Ian]

I think I should perhaps explain for anyone from the NDE board who might be reading this. Many of the people on here get frustrated because they are unable to defeat me in any arguments. Therefore a few of them have adopted this policy of ignoring me! LOL :D

So much for the intellectual supremacy of skeptics! LOL :)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think I should perhaps explain for anyone from the NDE board who might be reading this. Many of the people on here get frustrated because they are unable to defeat me in any arguments. Therefore a few of them have adopted this policy of ignoring me! LOL :D
I think you meant to write this: :D
"I think I should perhaps explain for anyone from the NDE board who might be reading this. Many of the people on here get frustrated because of my constant use of straw men no matter how many times it is pointed out to me. Therefore a few of them have adopted this policy of ignoring me! LOL :D"
Documentation: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870342123&highlight=relevant+passages#post1870342123

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I think you meant to write this: :D
"I think I should perhaps explain for anyone from the NDE board who might be reading this. Many of the people on here get frustrated because of my constant use of straw men no matter how many times it is pointed out to me. Therefore a few of them have adopted this policy of ignoring me! LOL :D"
Documentation: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870342123&highlight=relevant+passages#post1870342123

I confess I haven't read that post before. Anyway, I do not attack strawmen. This is something that people on here continually accuse me of when it is in fact them who continually attack strawmen.

If 85% of people voted thus, then what are you whining about? Why is this conclusion invalid? Start another poll if you like explicitly asking whether the "I Ching" is worth investigating. Are you claiming the figure would be much greater than 15%?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I think you meant to write this: :D
"I think I should perhaps explain for anyone from the NDE board who might be reading this. Many of the people on here get frustrated because of my constant use of straw men no matter how many times it is pointed out to me. Therefore a few of them have adopted this policy of ignoring me! LOL :D"
Documentation: http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&postid=1870342123&highlight=relevant+passages#post1870342123

Ah yes, I never got to read most posts in that thread. I was otherwise engaged. I completely fail to see how I was attacking a strawman. You are in error in supposing I was. I'll do another poll just to see if the results are different this time if you like.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


I confess I haven't read that post before. Anyway, I do not attack strawmen. This is something that people on here continually accuse me of when it is in fact them who continually attack strawmen.

If 85% of people voted thus, then what are you whining about? Why is this conclusion invalid? Start another poll if you like explicitly asking whether the "I Ching" is worth investigating. Are you claiming the figure would be much greater than 15%?
Because the poll did not represent all possible choices, and thus forced people to chose an option that didn't truly represent their opinions. What most skeptics felt was that I Ching was absurd, almost certainly didn't work, and thus the energy required to examine it could be spent more fruitfully elsewhere. This option was however not available.
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

I completely fail to see how I was attacking a strawman. You are in error in supposing I was. I'll do another poll just to see if the results are different this time if you like.
And you still don't get it, the problem is not that you claim that skeptics don't feel that I Ching is worth investigating, which indeed most of us don't. Rather the problem is that you claim that we claim that I Ching is impossible which most of us doesn’t. That result was caused by the fact that there was no poll-option that correctly represented the position of most skeptics. If you want to correct the flaw of your earlier poll you should repost the poll but including an option along the lines of the one I've described above.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Because the poll did not represent all possible choices, and thus forced people to chose an option that didn't truly represent their opinions. What most skeptics felt was that I Ching was absurd, almost certainly didn't work, and thus the energy required to examine it could be spent more fruitfully elsewhere. This option was however not available.


Right, so it is absurd, almost certainly doesn't work, but nevertheless might work? How might it work then?

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Right, so it is absurd, almost certainly doesn't work, but nevertheless might work?
Sure in stating that something almost certainly doesn’t work is obviously implicitly stated that there is some remote possibility that it does. What's your problem with that?
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
How might it work then?
There is no way it could work under the laws of probability, but there is a possibility that these laws are not universally valid. I regard this as a very faint possibility but nonetheless it exists. As for how the laws of probability could be broken: god, fairies, spirits or invisible unicorns - you name it.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

There is no way it could work under the laws of probability, but there is a possibility that these laws are not universally valid. I regard this as a very faint possibility but nonetheless it exists. As for how the laws of probability could be broken: god, fairies, spirits or invisible unicorns - you name it. [/B]

Actually you don't need to maintain that to suppose the "I Ching" works.

But anyway.

It might be the case that the questions I originally posed did not make the fine distinction between declaring something to be impossible, and declaring something to be astounding unlikely and opposed to everything we understand about reality. I don't know because that poll was months ago and I really can't remember. I do however think you might be being a bit pedantic here. In everyday speech, saying something is impossible is just a short hand way of saying that it goes against everything we have experienced about reality, and there is no possible conceivable mechanism to account for the alleged phenomenon of interest. If this is how one feels then describing such an alleged phenomenon as being naturally impossible does not seem to me to be unreasonable.

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


Actually you don't need to maintain that to suppose the "I Ching" works.

But anyway.

It might be the case that the questions I originally posed did not make the fine distinction between declaring something to be impossible, and declaring something to be astounding unlikely and opposed to everything we understand about reality. I don't know because that poll was months ago and I really can't remember. I do however think you might be being a bit pedantic here. In everyday speech, saying something is impossible is just a short hand way of saying that it goes against everything we have experienced about reality, and there is no possible conceivable mechanism to account for the alleged phenomenon of interest. If this is how one feels then describing such an alleged phenomenon as being naturally impossible does not seem to me to be unreasonable.
I totally and unreservedly agree (who would have thought :eek: ). I am however forced to make this distinction absolutely clear since you repeatedly attacked skeptics for claiming I Ching was impossible. That was as a mater of fact that exact strawman which you repeatedly attacked, and thus I'm somewhat surprised to hear you call this pedantic!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

I totally and unreservedly agree (who would have thought :eek: ). I am however forced to make this distinction absolutely clear since you repeatedly attacked skeptics for claiming I Ching was impossible. That was as a mater of fact that exact strawman which you repeatedly attacked, and thus I'm somewhat surprised to hear you call this pedantic!

When I was attacking skeptics for this I was using the term impossible as in naturally impossible. I did not mean to insinuate that skeptics were claiming the "I Ching" is logically impossible :rolleyes:

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


When I was attacking skeptics for this I was using the term impossible as in naturally impossible. I did not mean to insinuate that skeptics were claiming the "I Ching" is logically impossible :rolleyes:
If you didn't mean it why did you say it? :D "
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Tricky
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Now I think about 85% of the people have voted that the "I Ching" could not possibly work in the sense that throwing coins could not possibly provide you with the most appropriate hexagram(s). I imagine that they a priori reject the possibility because they basically subscribe to your statement.

But how on earth do you show it to be true? If you or anyone else can proof that the statement is true, then I will publicly state they cannot be anything to the "I Ching" in terms of the selection of the most appropriate hexagram. (But of course I might still well agree with T'ai Chi about the "I Ching's" usefulness).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I have shown you how it might be done, by rating the appropriateness of each outcome before the cast then performing a statistical evaluation. However, this would be an incredible amount of work, and I decline to use my time in that manner. It's more fun crafting these incredibly witty posts.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No No! You must show it by logic. "Emphasis mine.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


When I was attacking skeptics for this I was using the term impossible as in naturally impossible. I did not mean to insinuate that skeptics were claiming the "I Ching" is logically impossible :rolleyes:

:hit:

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos
[B]
If you didn't mean it why did you say it? :D "



What makes you think I didn't mean it?

[Yahweh]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
I think I should perhaps explain for anyone from the NDE board who might be reading this. Many of the people on here get frustrated because they are unable to defeat me in any arguments. Therefore a few of them have adopted this policy of ignoring me! LOL :D

So much for the intellectual supremacy of skeptics! LOL :)
For the NDE board members who might be reading this right now:

Ian has a bit of what would be termed "an inflated ego". Ian may or may not realize this, but most of the folks who put him on ignore do so because of his general attitude on the boards, the rest do so because they are generally disinterested in the clutter that eventually fills a thread when it comes to responding to Ian. I believe Ian was using a bit of sarcastic humor above, but there is no reason why should shouldnt represent the skeptic's position appropriately.


Your's truely,
An Intellectual Infererior

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

What makes you think I didn't mean it?
Because you said that too. :rolleyes::hit: :mad: :hb: :a2: "When I was attacking skeptics for this I was using the term impossible as in naturally impossible. I did not mean to insinuate that skeptics were claiming the "I Ching" is logically impossible " Emphasis mine.

[Ratman_tf]

Originally posted by Yahweh

Ian has a bit of what would be termed "an inflated ego". Ian may or may not realize this, but most of the folks who put him on ignore do so because of his general attitude on the boards, the rest do so because they are generally disinterested in the clutter that eventually fills a thread when it comes to responding to Ian.

For me, it was both. Since the board hiccup I haven't been twerked off enough to put him back on ignore. Maybe he's mellowed out, or maybe I'm just ignoring his posts on my own more often. *shrug*

[magicflute]

Arguing with Ian is like banging your head against a wall. It feels soooo good when you stop!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
Perhaps there should be some kind of social censure applied to anyone who corresponds with him.

ROTFLMFAO!!! Go here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37567)

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian


ROTFLMFAO!!! Go here (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=37567)
Now that you're here, are you going to explain the blatant contradictions I've pointed out above?

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Now that you're here, are you going to explain the blatant contradictions I've pointed out above?

What contradictions?

[Interesting Ian]

Let's be clear. There is a logically possible Universe where the I Ching works. Now clearly no-one could deny that, right? But my understanding of what skeptics are saying is that the "I Ching" would disobey the laws of probability. OK??

That has been my position throughout.

Now could you spell out the contradictions?? :confused:

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Let's be clear. There is a logically possible Universe where the I Ching works. Now clearly no-one could deny that, right? But my understanding of what skeptics are saying is that the "I Ching" would disobey the laws of probability. OK??
Correct
Originally posted by Interesting Ian

That has been my position throughout.

Now could you spell out the contradictions?? :confused:

Sure I can (again).
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
85% of people have voted that it is impossible. Now you're saying that it is not sufficient for me to simply argue against that. Instead I need to both argue that it is not utterly inconceivable it could work, and in addition, I need to specify precisely what is happening if it does work. If I don't know, this means that necessarily it doesn't work But the thing is I don't know how many things work. That doesn't logically necessitate they don't exist! Emphasis mine
Care to explain why you pointed out that it wasn't logically impossible for I Ching to work, if you didn't think or pretended to think that skeptics made that claim? Of course this is only the most crystal clear demand you make for logical proof, you also repeatedly said that we claimed I Ching was "utterly impossible", "that it is utterly impossible that it could conceivably work", "absolutely 100% confident that it cannot possibly work" etc. which basically amount to claiming logical proof.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Kerberos

Correct

Sure I can (again).

Care to explain why you pointed out that it wasn't logically impossible for I Ching to work, if you didn't think or pretended to think that skeptics made that claim?

You're saying that inconceivable has the exact same meaning as logically impossible? I guess if you wish to be pedantic you're right. It might seem strange though to say that it is conceivable that tomorrow you will lose your head, but still be able to walk around and have all your cognitive faculties intact.

Hang on . . . I think I see what you're getting at.

Logically necessitate is incorrect yes. I don't know whether you have taken this quote out of context though, and this conversation was months ago and I really can't be bothered to check. But yes, it looks like I made a mistake inserting the word "logically". Looks like I'll fail my Ph.D :rolleyes:

Is there any point to all this?? Does it defeat the essence of my position in any shape or form?? You must be truly desperate to nitpick on a simple error like that. Damn the substance of the points I make! :rolleyes:

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Perhaps I'm being a bit dense here, but is anyone saying that the I Ching is logically impossible, or logically inconceivable, or logically possible but inconceivable, or naturally impossible, or that it defies the laws of probability?

I think we're just asking for some evidence that it works. Heck, I'd be pretty excited by a simple statement of what it means for one choice to be more appropriate than another.

~~ Paul