God On The Brain [Archive]

20th March 2003, 07:50 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Of course there are subjective mystical experiences. The question is whether they are anything more than personal fantasies.

~~ Paul

Yep. And here we have a skeptic materialist (who "knows" they can't be "real", because they have assumed a metaphysic that renders such things theoretically impossible) claiming that "If anyone actually had a 'bona fide' mystical experience I'd go insane." i.e. that such things *do not happen*. What right does this skeptic materialist have to claim that such things *do not happen*? How does their opinion carry more weight than those of generations of mystics from every tradition and every corner of the world reporting that very similar experiences *do happen*?

A true skeptic must surely be agnostic on this issue, not certain such experiences are not real. A hard atheist must believe they are not real, but that is also a belief. The only person in a position to determine whether this experience is truly something more than a personal fantasy is the person who has had it.

And I know what the response to this is....that even if the person who has experienced this claims it must be more than a personal fantasy then we still can't objectively see it is. And we never will be. But make no mistake - every person - even the hardest of atheists and the most skeptical of materialists - does have their own existential 'price'. What I mean by this is that up to a certain point (self-defined) one can rationalise away such experiences. But over and above that point there can be no rationalisation. Eventually the experience becomes so intense, so profound, so unlikely to be a fantasy and so impossible to rationalise that one must accept that something truly 'paranormal' has occured. The skeptics here simply believe that nobody ever experiences anything which would bust their own limit of what can be rationalised - based on their own metaphysical beliefs. They have no way of knowing that this is actually true, their certainty is based on nothing but their own personal bias.

Interesting Ian

20th March 2003, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by MaskedMentalist
Those of you in the UK and Europe that can get BBC 2 might like to know that tonight (Thursday 20th) at 21:00 there is showing an episode of "Horizon" (a science programme) that explores the theory that people's belief in god(s) is biologically based.

According to the blurb on the BBC's website, A doctor (Michael Persinger) will attempt to induce a religous experience into arch-atheist Richard Dawkins by stimulating his temporal lobes.

Sounds like it could be worth watching!

Excellent! Thanks for telling me! I'll be watching that. Pity that total retard Dawkins in going to be in it though. Oh well.

Lucifuge Rofocale

20th March 2003, 07:53 AM

UcE, we were just discussing this with II (and you...I'm not sure) a couple of days ago. Do you remember the thread?

Interesting Ian

20th March 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette
I'll bring the popcorn :)

And this programme seems to links in with some of the things that Lucifuge has discussed before in R&P

Sou

Well yes. Exactly what lucifuge was arguing with me about a few days ago. I quote from what it stays in the Sunday Times.

"Could it be that the make up of our brains programmes us to believe in God"? The thesis explored in this intriguing Horizon is that simulation of, or damage to, the temporal lobes may generate experiences that may be interpreted as "religious" or indicative of a "presence". It is an idea with profound implications: the "blinding light" experienced as an epiphany by Paul on the road to Damascus may have been a result of temporal lobe epilepsy, the new discipline of neurotheology might argue, and perhaps the "burning Bush" seen by Moses had a similar physical basis.

The programme hears from epileptics who describe feelings of being in hell, or the belief that their son was Christ, and makes reference to the case of Ellen White, the founder of the seventh day Adventists, whose religious visions could be traceable to her being hit on the head by a large stone and left comatose for three weeks. Catholic nuns at deep prayer and meditating Buddhist monks are shown to have the same areas of their brains suffused with blood; and it is suggested that for some people, the proximity of electromagnetic fields may make them suspect paranormal activity.

Dr Michael Persinger, a specialist in the field, insists he is able to induce "religious" experiences in anyone, and the avowed atheist Professor Richard Dawkins volunteers to have his lobes electronically tweaked to test the claim.

20th March 2003, 08:10 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
UcE, we were just discussing this with II (and you...I'm not sure) a couple of days ago. Do you remember the thread?

I do. But my point remains. The only person who can judge the true status of a mystical experience is a mystic, and that judgement can only ever be subjective. And that is the way it must be, forever.

My own personal limit of what can be rationalised away was not only breached, it was repeatedly blown to pieces. And I speak as a person who was a materialistic skeptic most of his life, previously an atheist activist who moderated the science&skepticism forum on the biggest atheist website on the net. From my POV the experiences were such that I was left feeling it had been done deliberately in such a way that even someone with my history could not deny what had happened. I found myself on numerous occasions dearly wishing I could have found a way of rationalising what happened, but it would have been impossible to do so without knowingly decieving myself. I would also say that right up until the moment it first happened, I did not believe such things were possible.

Now - none of this I offer as useful evidence to the skeptic. I wouldn't believe it if I was you. All I am saying is that YOU have no right to tell me that my experience could be rationalised. You weren't there. All you can really say is you do not believe such things are possible, not that they *do not happen*. They do. :)

synaesthesia

20th March 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

If Dawkins actually had a bona fide mystical experience he would probably go instantaneously insane.

UndercoverElephant,

That reminds me of the scientologist claim that any uninitiated who reads their advanced texts will have their brain explode.

I find your claim that a materialist cannot have every bit as powerful of a 'mystical' experience as anyone else utterly preposterous. Granted it is not likely to have any sort of magical-fairy-godmother quality. If that's what you mean than Dawkin's inability to have a "bona fide, UE approved" mystical experience is due simply to his lack of delusion.

Interesting Ian

20th March 2003, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Of course there are subjective mystical experiences. The question is whether they are anything more than personal fantasies.

~~ Paul

Ask the people who experience them whether they seem like fantasies. They're in the best position to know. Of course some people, such as Dawkins, will declare that the experience seems like a fantasy no matter how "real" the experience appears.

Interesting Ian

20th March 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by hammegk

Of course there are subjective scientific measurements of the world of perception. The question is whether they are anything more than personal -- albeit widely shared -- fantasies.

Indeed, arguably just as plausible.

synaesthesia

20th March 2003, 08:15 AM

PLEASE people, nobody is denying that people have mystical experiences. We materialists believe that we have objective access to the mind. Accordingly we can - and have - established the reality of such experiences.

What we do deny is that the claims about them are even remotely plausible. This is just a manifestation of man's tendency to attribute remarkable experiences to some bizarre metaphysical anomaly rather than admit that nature itself is every bit as impressive and unfathomable as 'bona fide' mystical experiences.

Lucifuge Rofocale

20th March 2003, 08:15 AM

MaskedMentalist

20th March 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Pity that total retard Dawkins in going to be in it though. Oh well.

I'm curious as to why you think he's a retard?

synaesthesia

20th March 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by MaskedMentalist
I'm curious as to why you think he's a retard?

Because he disagrees with Dawkins. Considering Dawkin's brilliance, one might even be forgiven for suspecting a touch of resentful envy.

Interesting Ian

20th March 2003, 08:23 AM

20th March 2003, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by synaesthesia
PLEASE people, nobody is denying that people have mystical experiences. We materialists believe that we have objective access to the mind. Accordingly we can - and have - established the reality of such experiences.

What we do deny is that the claims about them are even remotely plausible. This is just a manifestation of man's tendency to attribute remarkable experiences to some bizarre metaphysical anomaly rather than admit that nature itself is every bit as impressive and unfathomable as 'bona fide' mystical experiences.

Again, this is built upon the materialists "certainty" that certain things are impossible, owing to the fact that they are impossible if materialism is true. Your post is dripping with this dogma. You speak with absolute certainty of your own position. Yet even you have an existential limit - it would be possible for you to experience something so 'paranormal' that you could not rationalise it. You simply do not believe such things happen. In truth, all you can say is that they have never happened to you.

Lucifuge Rofocale

20th March 2003, 08:25 AM

The previous discussion started in this page (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15577&pagenumber=3) , so please to not repeat debated points (and you both are doing this, UcE and II) please at least do a quick check.

20th March 2003, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

I do remember now. You jumped to the discussion in the middle, missing some of the posts. My point was that mistycs were also estimulated and declared to have had the exact same experience, so for THEM their SUBJETIVE experiences, were the same, via god or via TMS.

Now, if you remember the thread could you please tell me wich was:(?

It was 'PWQs'.

And personally there was no way that 'stimulating my brain' could repeat much of what happened to me, since what happened to me was permament. It consisted of actual events that actually occurred. I am speaking of things like Jungian "synchronicities" but one level up from this - synchronicities so severe that they probably deserve a new name, and phenomena suggesting alterations to the timeline I was a part of. What I am suggesting is beyond 'weird'. I realise that the materialists among us will find this *totally impossible* to believe. But that doesn't actually mean they are *totally impossible*. And it doesn't mean you could create it by poking an electrode in my brain. You would have to erase part of my memory and rewrite it.

Lucifuge Rofocale

20th March 2003, 08:35 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

It was 'PWQs'.

And personally there was no way that 'stimulating my brain' could repeat much of what happened to me, since what happened to me was permament. It consisted of actual events that actually occurred. I am speaking of things like Jungian "synchronicities" but one level up from this - synchronicities so severe that they probably deserve a new name, and phenomena suggesting alterations to the timeline I was a part of. What I am suggesting is beyond 'weird'. I realise that the materialists among us will find this *totally impossible* to believe. But that doesn't actually mean they are *totally impossible*. And it doesn't mean you could create it by poking an electrode in my brain. You would have to erase part of my memory and rewrite it.

Hey stop UcE.

We are talking now about "synchronicities". Those are testable and objetive experiences, and by definition capable of third person testing! So,can we apply the scientific method to study thm?

And BTW, given your statement: "there was no way that 'stimulating my brain' could repeat much of what happened to me", who is now the one that refuses to see evidence, based in his metaphysical beliefs?

Interesting Ian

20th March 2003, 08:39 AM

Originally posted by MaskedMentalist
Pity that total retard Dawkins in going to be in it though. Oh well.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm curious as to why you think he's a retard?

Well he's as thick as f*ck. Have you seen his various arguments which are supposed to demonstrate the unlikehood of a "God". The guy is an absolute moron.

This was what I wrote in this forum a few weeks ago regarding an essay of Dawkins. Unfortunately I can't provide a link to his essay because it's no longer there. No doubt it was removed due to my devastating critique ;)
I paste below:

Well the first 2 paragraphs constitute no evidence against the notion of a "God" whatsoever. In the third paragraph he makes an unsubstantiated assertion. Namely where he says:

We now know that the order and apparent purposefulness of the living world has come about through an entirely different process, a process that works without the need for any designer . .

I'll read on to see if he justifies it . . .

Ok, the 4th paragraph neither gives any justification for his statement, neither does it say anything which would constitute any evidence against a "God".

Ditto for the fifth paragraph.

Ditto for the sixth paragraph.

In the seventh paragraph he says:

We can safely conclude that living bodies are billions of times too complicated - too statistically improbable - to have come into being by sheer chance.

My understanding is that evolution operating through the physical laws of nature do not make this improbable. Of course the whole notion of probability only make sense within the context of the physical laws of nature. It would be meaningless to declare for example that it is improbable that the Universe could simply acausally spring into being from absolutely nothing at all (nothing in its absolute sense, no space-time continuum or anything).

Interestingly in the rest of the 7th paragraphy he directly contradicts what he said in the very first sentence of the 7th paragraph and agrees with me.

Anyway, nothing has been said so far which could be construed as constituting any evidence against a "God" whatsoever. But let's look at the eighth paragraph.

Nope, still no arguments which could be construed to have demonstrated the unlikelihood of a "God". He simply makes the point that the eye is incredibly unlikely to suddenly spring into being fully formed within the context of evolution operating according to the physical laws of nature. I really am unable to see the remote relevance of anything he has said so far concerning the question of the existence of a "God". Let's look at the 9th paragraph to see if things improve.

Well I've just read through paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 and there is nothing in there so far which could be construed to demonstrate the unlikelihood of a "God". All he is doing is talking about evolution! :eek:

In paragraph 14 he says:

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.

On no! Not the stupid crass conceptualisation opf "god" represented by the "God of the gaps"! Does any intelligent theist believe thus? Conversely are any atheists capable of entertaining any notion of a "God" which is not represented by a "God of the gaps"?? Well Dawkins is supposed to be arguing for the very low probability of a "God" so I presume he won't merely content himself with dreaming up the most crass concept of "God" imaginable and argue against that. So I read on in hope . . .

Oh God! Now he's starting talking about creationism! Who the hell is interested in creationism??

Come on Dawkins! Where are your arguments that the probability ofr a "god" is unlikely??? :rolleyes:

Ok, he says in the 4th paragraph from the end:

The Argument from Design, then, has been destroyed as a reason for believing in a God.

The guy is a complete idiot. Nothing he has said remotely implies anything against the argument from design. All he has done is argue that given the way the world is changing according to the physical laws of nature, the present state of the world is to be expected. But this is wholly irrelevant to whether the world/Universe is wholly contrived! It is the fact that we do not find ourselves subsisting in a bodiless state experiencing a stream of random sensations, the fact that change in the Universe is governed by rules written in the language of mathematics which could be construed as being suggestive of argument from design.

He says near the end:

There is a temptation to argue that, although God may not be needed to explain the evolution of complex order once the universe, with its fundamental laws of physics, had begun, we do need a God to explain the origin of all things.

Not at all. There is no need for an explanation for the Universe. I have no problem with it simply acausally springing into being.

This idea doesn't leave God with very much to do: just set off the big bang, then sit back and wait for everything to happen.

Indeed. Now why don't you defend your thesis that a "God" is unlikely? I am not interested in you attacking a "God of the gaps", nor am I interested in your attacks on deism.

The physical chemist Peter Atkins, in his beautifully written book The Creation, postulates a lazy God who strove to do as little as possible in order to initiate everything. Atkins explains how each step in the history of the universe followed, by simple physical law, from its predecessor. He thus pares down the amount of work that the lazy creator would need to do and eventually concludes that he would in fact have needed to do nothing at all!

Not so beatifully written if this paragraph is a typical example. Like you he is attacking the strawman "God of the gaps" conceptualisation of "God". One is not surprised to hear this dribbling from the lips of Peter Atkins. The guy is as moronic as you are.

Ok, as I suspected before reading the essay, Dawkins has said nothing whatsoever to justify his originnal contention.

Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

20th March 2003, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

Hey stop UcE.

We are talking now about "synchronicities".

This was the form of paranormal activity that I have found most prevalent. However, there are degrees of 'synchronicity', ranging from the curious co-incidence to the (materialistically) totally implausible 'reality engineering' - and by this I mean something like you looking out the window and seeing the words "Hi Lucifuge" written in the clouds immediately after wishing for a 'sign'. (yeah, I know, impossible.....)

Those are testable and objetive experiences, and by definition capable of third person testing! So,can we apply the scientific method to study thm?

Not really. For a start they are not repeatable to order. It would be like trying to find an intermittent software bug which only chooses to manifest when the engineer isn't there. Secondly, it is often the case that only the person experiencing the synchronicity is capable of appreciating the relevance, because the synchronicity depends on other subjective information not verifiable by a third party. This doesn't make it any less relevant, just less testable. Thirdly, if I am speaking about perturbations to the timeline they may also be untestable since it is impossible to go back and verify the state of the initial 'unperturbed' timeline. These phenomena, like so many paranormal happenings, occur in such a way as to be untouchable by the scientific method. Trying to apply science to them is a bit like trying to apply science to the evaluation of the musical value of a composition. One might try to do this, but in doing so one is likely to just destroy the thing you are trying to grasp.

And BTW, given your statement: "there was no way that 'stimulating my brain' could repeat much of what happened to me", who is now the one that refuses to see evidence, based in his metaphysical beliefs?

It is based on things which actually happened to me, Luci. Your position is based upon things you think are theoretically impossible and have never experienced. Mine is based upon things which have actually happened to me.

Lucifuge Rofocale

20th March 2003, 09:11 AM

UcE.

I forgot that you will never allow your theory to be testable. I'm sure you believe that it is its true nature, but as soon as the slightest probability of external testing appears, you run to cover your basis.

Even in the original argument ( the TMS induced god experience) when we had the mystics testimonies about the experience, comparing it to the non induced experience, you deny the mystic testimony!.

Maybe, just maybe, you might want to check again your beliefs.

Soubrette

20th March 2003, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale

It is my pet topic. Can anyone post a comment about the show once presented?

Thanks

Would a transcript be feasible? Where would we stand on copyright?

Sou

20th March 2003, 09:21 AM

Luci :

I forgot that you will never allow your theory to be testable. I'm sure you believe that it is its true nature, but as soon as the slightest probability of external testing appears, you run to cover your basis.

That is the nature of the phenomena. I cannot help that. That is the way it is. Can you imagine what it would be like if God existed and it's presence could be scientifically verified? Would you want to live in such a world? A world where faith and subjective verification had been replaced by a scientific theory of God? I would not want to live in such a world.

Even in the original argument ( the TMS induced god experience) when we had the mystics testimonies about the experience, comparing it to the non induced experience, you deny the mystic testimony!.

Maybe, just maybe, you might want to check again your beliefs.

I cannot go back and rewrite my own personal history. I know what happened to me. It is very much like having had some aliens round for tea. I know you can't believe me. I know why you can't believe me. I don't even want you to "believe" me. But it is no use you telling me to "check my beliefs". If aliens came to tea, then aliens came to tea.

Aliens didn't come to visit me, but certain things happened which were just as paranormal, if not more so.

hammegk

20th March 2003, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by Lucifuge Rofocale
UcE.

I forgot that you will never allow your theory to be testable.

So true, as you will never know what a qualia *I* perceive as experiential is like.

Iff you ever have a mystical adventure I invite you to test that. You have a problem in that how would you even recognize such a mystical experience?

Matter makes consciousness. There. Stay happy. ;)

Q-Source

20th March 2003, 09:30 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

That is the nature of the phenomena. I cannot help that. That is the way it is. Can you imagine what it would be like if God existed and it's presence could be scientifically verified? Would you want to live in such a world? A world where faith and subjective verification had been replaced by a scientific theory of God? I would not want to live in such a world.

By any chance, have any other people -that you know- experienced the same kind of synchronicities?

Do you endorse all the paranormal phenomena? or do you think that some of them may be fake or misrepresentations?

Q-S

synaesthesia

20th March 2003, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Again, this is built upon the materialists "certainty" that certain things are impossible, owing to the fact that they are impossible if materialism is true. Your post is dripping with this dogma. You speak with absolute certainty of your own position. Yet even you have an existential limit - it would be possible for you to experience something so 'paranormal' that you could not rationalise it. You simply do not believe such things happen. In truth, all you can say is that they have never happened to you.

In point of fact I am very confident that claims of supernatural knowledge are invariably deeply flawed. Their belief is very far from justified - it shares the same sorts of flawed rationale as most all superstition. I believe that their belief is also false because it invokes principles which have no independent justification.

Secondly, how do you know I have never had a 'mystical' experience? Because I don't currently agree they are preturnatural in origin? (I did once think that) Because I think that they are within the domain of scientific study? (I use to dismiss that possibility)

20th March 2003, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

By any chance, have any other people -that you know- experienced the same kind of synchronicities?

I know a one or two who accept the existence of synchronicities, but not to the degree that I have experienced them. I have only met one or two individuals who would describe similar sort of happenings to those I have described, and both of them are deeply into mystical philosophy, and the reason I know them as well as I do was because of this.

Do you endorse all the paranormal phenomena? or do you think that some of them may be fake or misrepresentations?

No, I don't. Exploring the world of such phenomena is like walking through a bog. Be very careful or you will disappear down a hole. I would say that many of the phenomena reported by people did actually happen to them, but that the explanations are much more complex than either the experiencer or the skeptics believe. The skeptics simply refuse to believe any of these phenomena are real. The believers just accept them - they see aliens and believe that there are aliens. My position would be that some of the people who see aliens really do see aliens but that the explanation as to why they see aliens are not so straightforward as simply that aliens have visited earth. In other cases it is straightforward fraud in order to gain control or relieve the gullible of their money. In other cases still it is the result of psychological problems and the need to believe.

There is plenty of bathwater. This does not mean there is no baby.

20th March 2003, 09:48 AM

Originally posted by synaesthesia
[B]

In point of fact I am very confident that claims of supernatural knowledge are invariably deeply flawed.

That is your belief. It was my belief also when I was a materialist. My certainty, in fact.

Their belief is very far from justified because it is motivated by traditional superstion more than any cogent rationale.

You think that applies to me? :eek:

You think I went from science & skepticism moderator at the secweb to paranormalist because of traditional superstition? :eek:

You don't think it had anything to do with the thousands of posts I made on the subjects of ontology and mathematics?

I believe that their belief is also false because it invokes principles which have no independent justification.

So you are certain these phenomena are false because they do not happen to lend themselves to independent verification....ah...I remember now....you were the person who said qualia don't exist.... ;)

Secondly, how do you know I have never had a 'mystical' experience?

Because you would be making very different posts.

synaesthesia

20th March 2003, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
And personally there was no way that 'stimulating my brain' could repeat much of what happened to me, since what happened to me was permament. It consisted of actual events that actually occurred... And it doesn't mean you could create it by poking an electrode in my brain. You would have to erase part of my memory and rewrite it.

Isn't it interesting that those who embrace wild metaphysical speculation so often grossly underestimate the brain's role in our mental life? Yes, you can create memories by merely poking electrodes in your brain or putting drugs in it or any number of other merely physical interventions.

Indeed, there is no sort of change within our minds that is not physical. If the brain does not change, the mind does not.

Stimulating the brain with magnetic fields and electric probes is still very primitive. It does not replicate the context as UE correctly points out, of religious experience. The troubles, ideologies, delusions and hopes of individuals who have mystical experiences are undoubtedly an important aspects of such experiences.

However, UE's contention that powerful, fundamentally life-changing experiences cannot be magnetically, chemically or electrically induced is quite erronious. It IS in fact mere 'stimulations' of the brain that DO change peoples lives. I have taken drugs that have permanantly altered my understanding of myself. I have seen things, read books that have inalterably changed the course of my life.

These are mere stimulations. If one were to study them, they would find nothing other than chemicals and photons coursing about through the fabric of space and time. There is no supervenient magic to the ink printed within the pages of a science text.

But here I am, changed forever, powerfully, by merely physical influence.

Lucifuge Rofocale

20th March 2003, 09:53 AM

UcE and Hammegk

My point is that an experiment which uses mystics to compare their mystic experiences with TMS induced experiences can overcome your objections.

20th March 2003, 10:00 AM

Syn :

However, UE's contention that powerful, fundamentally life-changing experiences cannot be magnetically, chemically or electrically induced is quite erronious.

I did not say that. I spoke merely of my own experiences.

It IS in fact mere 'stimulations' of the brain that DO change peoples lives. I have taken drugs that have permanantly altered my understanding of myself. I have seen things, read books that have inalterably changed the course of my life.

Of course. Me too. I've taken every hallucinogen you could care to name. However, the experiences I have been speaking of in this thread were not like that. I specifically stated that these experiences were so powerful that it was impossible for me to rationalise them. I repeat : even YOU have an existential limit as to what can be rationalised, you just do not believe it is possible for that limit to be breached.

Luci

My point is that an experiment which uses mystics to compare their mystic experiences with TMS induced experiences can overcome your objections.

Possibly in some cases. But then I do not know what these people are experiencing. I can only speak for myself.

Liamo

20th March 2003, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by Soubrette

Would a transcript be feasible? Where would we stand on copyright?

Sou
Check the Horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/) website after the show. They usually have transcripts there.

Liam

c4ts

20th March 2003, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Interesting that you have absolute knowledge regarding the subjective experiences of others.....

You believe there is no such thing as a mystical experience.

You do not know.

To assume that mystical experiences exist because you don't know if they do is twice as foolish as assuming that mystical experiences don't exist because you don't know if they do. Grasp not the sword by its blade, Franko.

20th March 2003, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

To assume that mystical experiences exist because you don't know if they do is twice as foolish as assuming that mystical experiences don't exist because you don't know if they do. Grasp not the sword by its blade, Franko.

Erm...you don't seriously think I'm Franko do you....?:(

I never advocated assuming mystical/paranormal experiences exist any more than I advocated assuming they don't. In fact, I clearly stated I did not want anyone to "believe me". From my POV I know they exist, because it happened to me. No belief was neccesary.

Dub

20th March 2003, 11:01 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Erm...you don't seriously think I'm Franko do you....?:(

I never advocated assuming mystical/paranormal experiences exist any more than I advocated assuming they don't. In fact, I clearly stated I did not want anyone to "believe me". From my POV I know they exist, because it happened to me. No belief was neccesary.

While the 'event' of the experience might be real, your attributing it to a mystical/paranormal experience is not. You may know the event happened, but you do not know it was mystical/paranormal, you just subjectively attribute it to that. Suppose you ingested hallucinagenic drugs without knowing, adn youo then began to hallucinate. While you know you hallucinated, you still dont know why. You may attribute it to a mystical/paranormal experience. You still, however would not know it was a mystical/paranormal experience. If you never found out the real reason you hallucinated you would continue to insist that you know you had a mystical/paranormal experience. With events such as these 'experiences' that have happened in the past its almost impossible to know exactly what caused them. Therefore, you will continue to believe that you know what the event was, whereas you actually dont.

This reminds me of people who claim they have seen UFO and claim "I know what I saw". They obviously dont know what they saw otherwise it wouldnt have been a UFO!

Filippo Lippi

20th March 2003, 12:04 PM

must think more smarter

c4ts

20th March 2003, 12:22 PM

Originally posted by Dub

While the 'event' of the experience might be real, your attributing it to a mystical/paranormal experience is not. You may know the event happened, but you do not know it was mystical/paranormal, you just subjectively attribute it to that. Suppose you ingested hallucinagenic drugs without knowing, adn youo then began to hallucinate. While you know you hallucinated, you still dont know why. You may attribute it to a mystical/paranormal experience. You still, however would not know it was a mystical/paranormal experience. If you never found out the real reason you hallucinated you would continue to insist that you know you had a mystical/paranormal experience. With events such as these 'experiences' that have happened in the past its almost impossible to know exactly what caused them. Therefore, you will continue to believe that you know what the event was, whereas you actually dont.

This reminds me of people who claim they have seen UFO and claim "I know what I saw". They obviously dont know what they saw otherwise it wouldnt have been a UFO!

What he said.

20th March 2003, 12:33 PM

Originally posted by Dub
[B]

While the 'event' of the experience might be real, your attributing it to a mystical/paranormal experience is not. You may know the event happened, but you do not know it was mystical/paranormal, you just subjectively attribute it to that. Suppose you ingested hallucinagenic drugs without knowing, adn youo then began to hallucinate. While you know you hallucinated, you still dont know why. You may attribute it to a mystical/paranormal experience. You still, however would not know it was a mystical/paranormal experience.

Except for the fact that part of what I am speaking about involved perceived alterations to things, alterations which persisted, and persist. It's like waking up from a dream with an artifact you dreamed about remaining in your hand.

If you never found out the real reason you hallucinated you would continue to insist that you know you had a mystical/paranormal experience. With events such as these 'experiences' that have happened in the past its almost impossible to know exactly what caused them. Therefore, you will continue to believe that you know what the event was, whereas you actually dont.

The precise causes and nature of the events I am still quite open-minded about. I suspect if I gave more details the result would be people would simply not believe me, which is why I haven't given them.

This reminds me of people who claim they have seen UFO and claim "I know what I saw". They obviously dont know what they saw otherwise it wouldnt have been a UFO!

Certainly there is a very great deal I do not know. All I can tell you is that a whole string of things happened which whilst not breaching any laws of physics managed to breach the laws of probability to such a degree as I could not doubt that something very unusual was happening to me. Imagine rolling a dice 100 times and getting 100 sixes.

Dub

20th March 2003, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Except for the fact that part of what I am speaking about involved perceived alterations to things, alterations which persisted, and persist.

Whats a 'percieved alteration' ? Do you mean subjectively, that you think something has changed but can't prove it objectively.

It's like waking up from a dream with an artifact you dreamed about remaining in your hand.

So you have objective evidence?

The precise causes and nature of the events I am still quite open-minded about. I suspect if I gave more details the result would be people would simply not believe me, which is why I haven't given them.

Therefore, you admit that you dont actually know, you are assuming.

Certainly there is a very great deal I do not know. All I can tell you is that a whole string of things happened which whilst not breaching any laws of physics managed to breach the laws of probability to such a degree as I could not doubt that something very unusual was happening to me.

Anything with a low probablity of occuring, that does occur, will be unusual. Just what do you mean by 'breach the laws of probability'? Are these probabilities you speak of subjective or objective? Alot depends on how unlikely you think something is to happen as opposed to how unlikely it actually is.

Imagine rolling a dice 100 times and getting 100 sixes.

Do it enough times and it will happen.

Soubrette

20th March 2003, 01:22 PM

Originally posted by Liamo

Check the Horizon (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/) website after the show. They usually have transcripts there.

Liam

Hey - glad I rechecked this thread on the offchance :)

Thanks Liam :)

Sou

Interesting Ian

20th March 2003, 01:58 PM

Oh f*ck!! It's been postponed until April!!! :mad: :mad: :mad:

Why do these things always happen to me??? I just know I'm going to miss it!

Why couldn't that damn programme on NDE's have been postponed likewise?? :mad: :mad:

billydkid

20th March 2003, 03:54 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I do. But my point remains. The only person who can judge the true status of a mystical experience is a mystic, and that judgement can only ever be subjective. And that is the way it must be, forever.

My own personal limit of what can be rationalised away was not only breached, it was repeatedly blown to pieces. And I speak as a person who was a materialistic skeptic most of his life, previously an atheist activist who moderated the science&skepticism forum on the biggest atheist website on the net. From my POV the experiences were such that I was left feeling it had been done deliberately in such a way that even someone with my history could not deny what had happened. I found myself on numerous occasions dearly wishing I could have found a way of rationalising what happened, but it would have been impossible to do so without knowingly decieving myself. I would also say that right up until the moment it first happened, I did not believe such things were possible.

Now - none of this I offer as useful evidence to the skeptic. I wouldn't believe it if I was you. All I am saying is that YOU have no right to tell me that my experience could be rationalised. You weren't there. All you can really say is you do not believe such things are possible, not that they *do not happen*. They do. :)

Well, don't leave us hanging. Tell precisely what you witnessed that could not be rationalized away? When you use the expressions "mysticism" or "mystic", it is unclear to me what, precisely, you mean. You used the word "paranormal" a couple of posts back from this. That leads me to believe that when you say mystic you mean someone who has either been able to obtain particular information without actual access to that information or is able to perform feats of one sort or another that are unexplainable by ordinary means. Personally, I would not need to have something proved scientifically in order to believe it, but it would have to be demonstrated in such a way that precludes the possibility of deception. That's not really too tall an order. Strange noone has ever done this after all these many thousands of years.

I full well believe that the brain/mind is capable of far more than we typically believe it is or use it for. I don't doubt that yogis, for example, have developed the ability to control their bodily functions far beyond the ordinary, ie. heart rate, capacity to endure/ignor discomfort of various sorts. I don't doubt that there are savants at nearly everything. Furthermore, I do believe that the mytical way of feeling, so to speak, can lead one to profound insights and kinds of wisdom that do not typically come to express recognition in most of us. (The same effect can be achieved through the use of mind altering substances - and these effects are every bit as "mystical" in nature as those achieved through more natural means.) And I guess, by some definitions you might refer to that sort of behavior as paranormal or supernatural.

None of which is to suggest that I in anyway believe anyone has ever been able to transcend/defy regular, plain old, boring reality itself. It's real easy, for some folks, to start slushing over from, say, yogi contortionists or discomfort endurers to precongnition or remote viewing or telekinesis or bending spoons or conversing with the dead or all the rest of the BS paranormal claims.

I would take particular exception to your assertion that the default or neutral position for a genuine skeptic in regard to extraordinary or paranormal (in the usual sense of the word) claims is to be open minded. Does this apply to all extraordinary or paranormal claims or only to the ones you find personally appealing? I'm thinking of the example I gave you once before - that I can fly if I jump off my roof and flap my arms really, really hard. Do you think the sensible position for a skeptic regarding that claim is to be open minded? Yet you think it is sensible to be open minded of about other claims that defy the laws of nature or are contrary to ordinary reality?

I don't doubt for one moment that there are people who can perform superhuman feats - feats of the mind and of the body and even of the spirit, so to speak. But, just like that old Beatles song said "Nothing you can do that can't be done...". You are either claiming that people can do things that flat out transcend reality, or you are simply claiming that some people either are tremendously gifted or developed in their natural human abilities. If it's the later, then we would have no argument. But the former and the later are quite distinct from each other.

20th March 2003, 05:13 PM

Hi Dub

Originally posted by Dub

Whats a 'percieved alteration' ? Do you mean subjectively, that you think something has changed but can't prove it objectively.

Imagine 100 shroedingers cats in 100 boxes which all turned out to be alive. From my perspective, the past appeared to be altered in a way that defied probability.

So you have objective evidence?

Only if I had known what was going to happen before it happened.

Anything with a low probablity of occuring, that does occur, will be unusual. Just what do you mean by 'breach the laws of probability'? Are these probabilities you speak of subjective or objective? Alot depends on how unlikely you think something is to happen as opposed to how unlikely it actually is.

I don't know where to start. I did it in public, though. The old-timers here know what I am referring to, at least partially. From my perspective it felt like switching timelines. The past was altered. But altered in a way such that only a few people very close to me could have witnessed it. Some people here did, in a way. But I have been through this before.....the materialists will try to rationalise anything I say.

Dub

20th March 2003, 05:19 PM

Hi,

Whats wrong with rationalising something? :) Do you have reasons for not wanting to attempt to rationalise it? Giving an event a cause is a way of rationalising it. Whether the cause is actually rational is another point.

20th March 2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

Well, don't leave us hanging. Tell precisely what you witnessed that could not be rationalized away?

It is a very long story. :)

I only tell it to people who I think really want to know. That doesn't include people who already know it's impossible.

When you use the expressions "mysticism" or "mystic", it is unclear to me what, precisely, you mean.

I mean philosophical mysticism. It starts with Plato, Buddha and the Tao, and ends with Schroedinger, Huxley and Bohm.

You used the word "paranormal" a couple of posts back from this. That leads me to believe that when you say mystic you mean someone who has either been able to obtain particular information without actual access to that information or is able to perform feats of one sort or another that are unexplainable by ordinary means.

I meant "not normal". Profound breaches of the laws of probability, with apparent specific meaning attached to it.

Personally, I would not need to have something proved scientifically in order to believe it, but it would have to be demonstrated in such a way that precludes the possibility of deception.

Then I can't help you. The possibility of deception is everywhere.

I full well believe that the brain/mind is capable of far more than we typically believe it is or use it for. I don't doubt that yogis, for example, have developed the ability to control their bodily functions far beyond the ordinary, ie. heart rate, capacity to endure/ignor discomfort of various sorts. I don't doubt that there are savants at nearly everything. Furthermore, I do believe that the mytical way of feeling, so to speak, can lead one to profound insights and kinds of wisdom that do not typically come to express recognition in most of us.

That is roughly the sort of thing I would have said 2 years ago. I might even say it now.

(The same effect can be achieved through the use of mind altering substances - and these effects are every bit as "mystical" in nature as those achieved through more natural means.) And I guess, by some definitions you might refer to that sort of behavior as paranormal or supernatural.

It is related.

None of which is to suggest that I in anyway believe anyone has ever been able to transcend/defy regular, plain old, boring reality itself.

There we part.

It's real easy, for some folks, to start slushing over from, say, yogi contortionists or discomfort endurers to precongnition or remote viewing or telekinesis or bending spoons or conversing with the dead or all the rest of the BS paranormal claims.

It is.

I would take particular exception to your assertion that the default or neutral position for a genuine skeptic in regard to extraordinary or paranormal (in the usual sense of the word) claims is to be open minded. Does this apply to all extraordinary or paranormal claims or only to the ones you find personally appealing?

Personally, my preferred position is to believe absolutely nothing

NoBeliefs.com (http://www.nobeliefs.com)

I'm thinking of the example I gave you once before - that I can fly if I jump off my roof and flap my arms really, really hard. Do you think the sensible position for a skeptic regarding that claim is to be open minded?
[/QOTE]

Actually, yes. But try to take off from the ground, not the third floor. :)

[QUOTE]
Yet you think it is sensible to be open minded of about other claims that defy the laws of nature or are contrary to ordinary reality?

I think that open-mindedness is the best option at all times.

But, just like that old Beatles song said "Nothing you can do that can't be done...".

So true.

You are either claiming that people can do things that flat out transcend reality, or you are simply claiming that some people either are tremendously gifted or developed in their natural human abilities.

Actually I am claiming that there are higher levels of reality than ours, and that entities residing within those higher levels are capable of intervening to defy the laws of probablilty on our behalf.

If it's the later, then we would have no argument.

Well, it is the latter as far as I am concerned. I think reality doesn't behave the same for everybody, but that everybody starts out with the same potential capabilities.

But the former and the later are quite distinct from each other.

I think it depends on your concept and understanding of reality, and the relationship between its various component parts.

:)

20th March 2003, 05:34 PM

Originally posted by Dub
Hi,

Whats wrong with rationalising something? :) Do you have reasons for not wanting to attempt to rationalise it? Giving an event a cause is a way of rationalising it. Whether the cause is actually rational is another point.

Well, what I meant was that materialists will try to rationalise it according to their own metaphyscial beliefs. I was very much a skeptical-atheist-materialist-scientist for the majority of my life. I know exactly the psychology underlying this worldview. Any reports of phenomena which are theoretically nonsensical under such a metaphysic are 'known' to be non-existent if you are a materialist, so faced with someone like me you will use a mixture of "strange things occassionally happen" and "even intelligent people sometimes delude themselves a bit and exagerate" to rationalise any claim I make, provided you don't want to believe I am simply lying to you. So long as those metaphysical beliefs remain it is pointless relating my story to you. You will rationalise it the best you can according to your metaphysical beliefs. That is why I do not normally discuss paranormal/mystical phenomena - instead I discuss ontology and the philosophy of science.

Dub

20th March 2003, 06:12 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Well, what I meant was that materialists will try to rationalise it according to their own metaphyscial beliefs. I was very much a skeptical-atheist-materialist-scientist for the majority of my life. I know exactly the psychology underlying this worldview. Any reports of phenomena which are theoretically nonsensical under such a metaphysic are 'known' to be non-existent if you are a materialist, so faced with someone like me you will use a mixture of "strange things occassionally happen" and "even intelligent people sometimes delude themselves a bit and exagerate" to rationalise any claim I make, provided you don't want to believe I am simply lying to you. So long as those metaphysical beliefs remain it is pointless relating my story to you. You will rationalise it the best you can according to your metaphysical beliefs. That is why I do not normally discuss paranormal/mystical phenomena - instead I discuss ontology and the philosophy of science.

To me, being a skeptic is part of being turly open minded. Having no desire for something to be a particular way. I know it sounds corny but all im after is truth. I have no desire for things to be rational. I'd love for fantasy worlds to be true, but there's just no evidence for it. I dont claim to 'know' anything is one way or the other. But I do require evidence. Unless evidence to the contrary surfaces, there's no reason to reject the materialist viewpoint. If there are other, know, possibilities for something to occur you have to rule them out before jumping to a fantastic answer. Remeber, fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

Non-materialists on the other hand, while so often claiming to be open minded, are in fact not so. Immediatley interpretting unknown occurences with some fantastic answer shows and extreme bias towards 'wanting' the answer to be something they desire. "Experts" see evidence of aliens in crop circles. They swear blind that can be the only explanation. Then the artist how created comes forward. Their perception was so bias towards there pre-composed answer that they blind themselves to more likely explanations.

Remeber, 'materialist' (well most I know of anyway) have no reason for seeing the world the way they do. They dont want there not to be fantasic pheomena. In fact, I started to research into the paranormal as I was very interested in the claims. If they we're doing what they claimed. wonderful! :) Unfortunately, when you look at the claims from an un-bias point of view they tend to fall apart.

The problem isnt 'materialists' and their beliefs that thing must not be paranormal. On the contaray, it is when people want things to be paranormal so badly that it warps their normally sensible judgement.

billydkid

21st March 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

It is a very long story. :)

I only tell it to people who I think really want to know. That doesn't include people who already know it's impossible.

I am open to the possibility that there are aspects of reality that most of us are not expressly aware of and that would appear fantastic to us. I am not comfortable with the notion that there aspects of reality which contradict each other. I do believe that Shakespeare line about there being more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in all our philosophies - however it goes. I do find it improbable that there are very many facets of experiencible reality that have not been generally recognized and excepted. In fact, my inclination has always been toward being excessively credulous or gullible. It is a trait that has cause some sufffering in life and I have, consciously, to fight it. My nature has been to gravitate toward the fantasitic. Is spite of that I have never encountered anything convincingly fantastic. Dreams are fine. They spawn creativity and progress. I have finally learned not to confuse them with reality.

QUOTE]Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I meant "not normal". Profound breaches of the laws of probability, with apparent specific meaning attached to it.[/QUOTE]

Well, that would be something. You could probably win the million by demonstrating a profound breach of the laws of probability.

QUOTE]Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Then I can't help you. The possibility of deception is everywhere. [/QUOTE]

Now that is just dishonesty. It is quite clear what I meant. The likelihood of deception occuring, say, on the set of "Crossing Over" or at one of Benny Hinn's revivals far exceeds the likelihood of deception in an environment in which the general intent is to discover truth.

NoBeliefs.com (http://www.nobeliefs.com)

:) [/B][/QUOTE]

21st March 2003, 11:17 AM

Originally posted by Dub

To me, being a skeptic is part of being turly open minded. Having no desire for something to be a particular way. I know it sounds corny but all im after is truth. I have no desire for things to be rational. I'd love for fantasy worlds to be true, but there's just no evidence for it. I dont claim to 'know' anything is one way or the other. But I do require evidence. Unless evidence to the contrary surfaces, there's no reason to reject the materialist viewpoint.

Well, firstly materialism really does have a serious problem explaining consciousness, as has been repeatedly demonstrated at this site. But this is only one half of the story - you see if you accept that materialism may actually be false and consider the way reality might work according to mentalism then it is entirely possible that ones beliefs and expectations influence what is capable of manifesting in your own 'reality tunnel'. It is your belief that materialism is true that prevents certain phenomena manifesting in your presence. I know you are likely to consider this insane. However, I have told you my history, and my experience is that when your belief system is more flexible then so your reality becomes more flexible also. There is only one way to verify this and that is to experiment with your own belief system. This was what Crowley described. It is also what Robert Anton Wilson describes.

If there are other, know, possibilities for something to occur you have to rule them out before jumping to a fantastic answer. Remeber, fantastic claims require fantastic evidence.

Fantastic evidence is only available if you go on a personal search for it. Subjective verification is the only verification possible. You have to want to know the truth yourself.

Non-materialists on the other hand, while so often claiming to be open minded, are in fact not so. Immediatley interpretting unknown occurences with some fantastic answer shows and extreme bias towards 'wanting' the answer to be something they desire.

The problem is that you are assuming reality operates the same for everybody. I can guarantee you that it does not. But you have to prove it yourself.

Remeber, 'materialist' (well most I know of anyway) have no reason for seeing the world the way they do.

Partly true, but most of them are atheists and do not want to alter their metaphysics in such a way as might challenge their atheism.

They dont want there not to be fantasic pheomena.

Neither did I.

In fact, I started to research into the paranormal as I was very interested in the claims. If they we're doing what they claimed. wonderful! :) Unfortunately, when you look at the claims from an un-bias point of view they tend to fall apart.

I thought this for years. Decades, in fact. Read some Robert Anton Wilson.

The problem isnt 'materialists' and their beliefs that thing must not be paranormal. On the contaray, it is when people want things to be paranormal so badly that it warps their normally sensible judgement.

I really do know exactly how you feel about this, and why. I also know that certain paranormal phenomena are very real indeed.

21st March 2003, 11:27 AM

Billy

I am open to the possibility that there are aspects of reality that most of us are not expressly aware of and that would appear fantastic to us. I am not comfortable with the notion that there aspects of reality which contradict each other.

Neither am I. In fact I would go further and say that any contradictions in your worldview MUST be eradicated.

I do believe that Shakespeare line about there being more in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in all our philosophies - however it goes. I do find it improbable that there are very many facets of experiencible reality that have not been generally recognized and excepted.

Accepted by science, you mean?

In fact, my inclination has always been toward being excessively credulous or gullible. It is a trait that has cause some sufffering in life and I have, consciously, to fight it. My nature has been to gravitate toward the fantasitic. Is spite of that I have never encountered anything convincingly fantastic. Dreams are fine. They spawn creativity and progress. I have finally learned not to confuse them with reality.

What is 'reality'?

Well, that would be something. You could probably win the million by demonstrating a profound breach of the laws of probability.

I do not want the million. I do not want to prove I am correct. It is absolutely imperative that people prove these things to themselves. The reason for this is that understanding the way metaphysics operates is neccesarily the investigation of your own subjective relationship with reality. It involves personal change and transformation. You have to be on a fearless search for the truth, and you have to go get it yourself. Waiting around for someone to provide you with proof is the wrong psychological state to engage with the process which produces the phenomena. Your 'reality tunnel' does not change until you change.

Now that is just dishonesty. It is quite clear what I meant. The likelihood of deception occuring, say, on the set of "Crossing Over" or at one of Benny Hinn's revivals far exceeds the likelihood of deception in an environment in which the general intent is to discover truth.

Again, I once would have said this. However, my experiences lead me to believe otherwise. It is very difficult for me to explain precisely what I mean without you understanding the basic principles of real metaphysics. Most materialists do not accept that metaphysics can mean anything, let alone that there be logical rules by which it operates. It is an unknown world to them. But I swear to you it exists, and its ways can be known.

billydkid

21st March 2003, 03:49 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Well, firstly materialism really does have a serious problem explaining consciousness, as has been repeatedly demonstrated at this site.

I'm sorry, no such thing has been demonstrated.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

It is your belief that materialism is true that prevents certain phenomena manifesting in your presence.

I think I first ran into this argument when I was about 13. I think it was reading something called Cosmic Consciousness. I have run into it again and again - The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, the Don Juan books, stuff by Jung - all over the place. I don't believe it. I used to believe it, but I don't now. I don't doubt that your mind set can alter your perception, but not for a second do I believe it can alter objective reality. (please don't go into the whole objective/subjective thing.) Furthermore, even if it were true I can absolutely verify to you that the maintaining a nonmaterialist belief system does not result in the manifestion of nonmaterialistic phenomena. Trust me, my belief system has gone through many permutations. Funny, but no matter what I believed, plain old ordinary reality was stubbornly persistent as the one true constant and the rest fell away like the BS it was.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The problem is that you are assuming reality operates the same for everybody. I can guarantee you that it does not. But you have to prove it yourself...

........ but most of them are atheists and do not want to alter their metaphysics in such a way as might challenge their atheism.

Incredibly presumptuous of you say. Even we stick in the mud materialists have had our spiritual journeys. We too have struggled with the god thing, the faith thing, the belief system thing. I dare say that most of the the atheists and materialists here started out as youngsters and young adults far more inclined towards seeking spiritual truth and the truth about reality than the vast majority of people. I suspect those who are most vehement in their attacks against the beliefs of "dualists" or "spiritual" types are also those who most deeply wanted to believe in the magical qualities of the universe and reality. My opinion is that most atheists would dearly love to be shown the error of their ways.

billydkid

21st March 2003, 04:31 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Accepted by science, you mean?

No, I do not mean that. Science is a process, a procedure, a way of gathering and evaluating information. There is a body of knowlege and information, the veracity of which has been confirmed through scientific method. But I'm not talking about that either. There are all sorts of generally accepted truths about the nature of reality. You throw a ball up, it comes down. and no, Newton did not discover that phenomenon nor did anyone need him to define it in order to believe that it happens. And it happens all the time whether you believe in it or not. Apparently you would argue that along side all these ordinary attributes of reality which happen all the time whether you believe in them or not is this assortment of secret, occassional and arbitrary aspects of reality which occur only if you believe in them or think about them in the right way. And they occur so unreliably that there existence has not been confirmed in the minds of plain, old, ordinary mankind over course of a thousand generations. How is that possible? Mind you, it does not count - all those people who simply, arbitrarily believe whatever comes down the pike. I am talking about people who have confirmed for themselves that these phenomenal aspects of reality exist. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

What is 'reality'?

Please,,,,,, don't.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I do not want the million. ?

Thats really beside the point isn't it. You have this great insight into the fundamental nature of reality that the vast majority of human beings have forever been and continue to be blind to and you can demonstrate the truth of it and you are unwilling to share it? You can lead us out of the darkness and choose not to do it? Imagine the vistas of possibility this would open up for mankind - confirmation that our very existences have cosmic meaning! Verification that "this" really is not all there is? Imagine how it would charge each and everyone of our lives with a significance all the rest of us have only dreamed they could have!

IOriginally posted by UndercoverElephant

It is absolutely imperative that people prove these things to themselves. The reason for this is that understanding the way metaphysics operates is neccesarily the investigation of your own subjective relationship with reality. It involves personal change and transformation. You have to be on a fearless search for the truth, and you have to go get it yourself. Waiting around for someone to provide you with proof is the wrong psychological state to engage with the process which produces the phenomena. Your 'reality tunnel' does not change until you change.

Oh, and you don't think that people who can't even imagine that there is another way to think might benefit from an actual demonstration of possibile rewards of undertaking such a spiritual journey? Wouldn't it maybe give them some real reason to believe that such a journey actually leads somewhere and is not just an exercise in gratuitous self delusion?

22nd March 2003, 03:20 PM

I'm sorry, no such thing has been demonstrated.

It has been clearly demonstrated, repeatedly. Materialism runs into very serious problems when the discussion centres on qualia. Materialism has been repeaedly shown to either be forced to state that "there are no such thing as qualia" or that "Qualia ARE brain processes" without being able to define what is meant by "IS". The Hard Problem is very real.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

It is your belief that materialism is true that prevents certain phenomena manifesting in your presence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think I first ran into this argument when I was about 13. I think it was reading something called Cosmic Consciousness. I have run into it again and again - The Crack in the Cosmic Egg, the Don Juan books, stuff by Jung - all over the place.

All over the place, yes.

I don't believe it. I used to believe it, but I don't now. I don't doubt that your mind set can alter your perception, but not for a second do I believe it can alter objective reality.

That would be the standard materialist viewpoint.

Furthermore, even if it were true I can absolutely verify to you that the maintaining a nonmaterialist belief system does not result in the manifestion of nonmaterialistic phenomena.

My personal experiences prevent me from accepting this.

There are all sorts of generally accepted truths about the nature of reality. You throw a ball up, it comes down. and no, Newton did not discover that phenomenon nor did anyone need him to define it in order to believe that it happens. And it happens all the time whether you believe in it or not. Apparently you would argue that along side all these ordinary attributes of reality which happen all the time whether you believe in them or not is this assortment of secret, occassional and arbitrary aspects of reality which occur only if you believe in them or think about them in the right way.

We are talking about the difference between physics and metaphysics. They are different sorts of phenomena and they manifest in very different ways. It is a different level of reality being discussed. It is like the difference between the operation of 4-d space-time and the operation of a branching many-worlds interpretation of QM. One we can see. The other we can't. Both affect us.

And they occur so unreliably that there existence has not been confirmed in the minds of plain, old, ordinary mankind over course of a thousand generations.

Depends who you listen to. You said yourself that the core of these beliefs pops up all over the place. And it always has done. You just don't happen to believe it and haven't happened to experience it. You are assuming that because it doesn't happen to you that it doesn't happen to anyone.

How is that possible? Mind you, it does not count - all those people who simply, arbitrarily believe whatever comes down the pike.

I believe NOTHING except for what I can logically demonstrate or have actually experienced.

:)

Peskanov

22nd March 2003, 04:44 PM

UCE;

----
quote:
It has been clearly demonstrated, repeatedly. Materialism runs into very serious problems when the discussion centres on qualia. Materialism has been repeaedly shown to either be forced to state that "there are no such thing as qualia" or that "Qualia ARE brain processes" without being able to define what is meant by "IS". The Hard Problem is very real.
----

We call qualia to the set of signals comming from the senses encoded by the brain for analysis and recording purposes.

How about that? Is it correctly e-primed?
(I don't get much sense of this e-prime thing, but anyway...).

Lord Kenneth

22nd March 2003, 05:53 PM

synaesthesia

22nd March 2003, 09:17 PM

Undercover Elephant,

That is your belief. It was my belief also when I was a materialist. My certainty, in fact.

I have not seen anything approaching or resembling a contender for an epistemic framework for direct, unmediated, self-evident qualia.

You think I went from science & skepticism moderator at the secweb to paranormalist because of traditional superstition? :eek:

The historical antecedents are far to complex for me to hope to distangle, Mr. Elephant. But only with great difficulty can I avoid the conclusion that proclivities, limitations in our ability to make sense of the world accumulate a gunk of symptomatic mistakes. Families of mechanisms of error can be discerned in our acceptance of inappropriate claims of justification.

You don't think it had anything to do with the thousands of posts I made on the subjects of ontology and mathematics?

I imagine that had a substantial effect and that your religious experiences are in many ways unique and poorly communicable epitomes of the human mind.

So you are certain these phenomena are false because they do not happen to lend themselves to independent verification....ah...I remember now....you were the person who said qualia don't exist.... ;)

Qualia are not only not independantly verifiable, their existence is purported to be demonstrated by systems, brain systems, that are not aminable to description in terms of qualia, but are describable as physical recurrent network. Qualia don't exist. :)

Because you would be making very different posts.

I'm no mystic-that's for damn sure- therefore I don't speak like one, share their beliefs or whatever. I have, however, had overwhelming 'religous' experiences - yes quite unlike any other drug. Were my experiences identical to yours?

The neuronal evidence suggests that they are in many ways different and yet there are commonalities. Precisely which respects you are different from me, characterizing the taxonomy of experience as it were, will have to await further development in the mind sciences.

synaesthesia

22nd March 2003, 09:44 PM

synaesthesia

22nd March 2003, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
I repeat : even YOU have an existential limit as to what can be rationalised, you just do not believe it is possible for that limit to be breached.

I have not one limit, but innumerable limits, some of which can be pressed if other factors fall into play, some of which are weakened to the breaking point by accompanying confusion.

Our cogntive toolbox is flexible but not infinitely so. Very often I find myself so confused that I find efforts to make sense of my confusion are thwarted.

This is of course a very natural consequence of the limits of recurrent neuronal networks. The scientific images are them most apt for integrating everything I see and think. Within them aspects of the idea of qualia have to be discarded.

scribble

23rd March 2003, 01:19 AM

bah.

UcE, you don't tell them about your mystical experience because you know they will LAUGH AT YOU.

Just like I am still laughing at you to this day... even as I laugh at you every time you mention mathematics...

Or worse, perhaps they will remind you of what I've already told you and you already know to be true. You're a nutter.

-Chris

23rd March 2003, 04:00 AM

Originally posted by Peskanov
UCE;

----
quote:
It has been clearly demonstrated, repeatedly. Materialism runs into very serious problems when the discussion centres on qualia. Materialism has been repeaedly shown to either be forced to state that "there are no such thing as qualia" or that "Qualia ARE brain processes" without being able to define what is meant by "IS". The Hard Problem is very real.
----

We call qualia to the set of signals comming from the senses encoded by the brain for analysis and recording purposes.

How about that? Is it correctly e-primed?
(I don't get much sense of this e-prime thing, but anyway...).

Hi Peskanov,

Well, it doesn't use "to be", but I'm not sure it makes much sense. For a start, 'the signals coming from the senses" does not appear to accurately describe what we mean by "qualia". The signals and the qualia differ. The qualia result from the signals. The relevant point is simply that we have a brain process and a qualia which very closely correlate but have totally different descriptions - one of them is (x) meat-based and the other (y) is mind-based. Therefore you cannot simply say "x IS y" without explaining what you mean by "is" (since they clearly differ).

23rd March 2003, 04:08 AM

Syn

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You think I went from science & skepticism moderator at the secweb to paranormalist because of traditional superstition?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The historical antecedents are far to complex for me to hope to distangle, Mr. Elephant. But only with great difficulty can I avoid the conclusion that proclivities, limitations in our ability to make sense of the world accumulate a gunk of symptomatic mistakes. Families of mechanisms of error can be discerned in our acceptance of inappropriate claims of justification.

I am merely stating that I understood only too well the pitfalls of "traditional superstition". Unlike the Christian fundies who claim "I once was an evolutionist" I really can lay claim to not only having been a skeptical atheist, but an activist also. I get irritated by anyone who suggests I do not understand both sides of this debate. I know exactly why the materialists remain materialists.

Qualia are not only not independantly verifiable, their existence is purported to be demonstrated by systems, brain systems, that are not aminable to description in terms of qualia, but are describable as physical recurrent network. Qualia don't exist.

Well....I'm happy to agree to disagree with that statement. It is the only coherent materialistic position, but it rather amounts to a denial of ones own existence, IMO.

Chris scribbled :

bah.

UcE, you don't tell them about your mystical experience because you know they will LAUGH AT YOU.

Just like I am still laughing at you to this day... even as I laugh at you every time you mention mathematics...

Or worse, perhaps they will remind you of what I've already told you and you already know to be true. You're a nutter.

I'm not sure they'd laugh, Chris - but they would be very unlikely to believe anything they could not rationalise into their metaphysics. I am not bothered about people laughing at me - we could use some more laughter in this world. But there is no point in relating things that I already know will not be believed.

Peskanov

23rd March 2003, 05:35 AM

Hi UCE,

----
quote:
Well, it doesn't use "to be", but I'm not sure it makes much sense. For a start, 'the signals coming from the senses" does not appear to accurately describe what we mean by "qualia".
----

Atom description also doesn't evoke matter. IMO this is no reason to discard a definition.
A good example: a program. Does a collection of electric charges on capacitors describe a program? Or magnetic fields? Of course not. More information has to be added to the definition to say "it''s a program".
Thats is the reason which made me add "encoded by the brain for analysis and recording purposes".

----
quote:
The signals and the qualia differ. The qualia result from the signals. The relevant point is simply that we have a brain process and a qualia which very closely correlate but have totally different descriptions - one of them is (x) meat-based and the other (y) is mind-based. Therefore you cannot simply say "x IS y" without explaining what you mean by "is" (since they clearly differ).
----

Not at all. The same could be said exactly of a computer program.
The brain is a system of information. The code changes, and the meaning changes, at several levels. I called Qualia at the information coded the right way for the conscience.

For example: You see a car. If you have notions of image reckoning on computers, you know that the same information will change of shape lots of times. In the end, a matching process is made with the external source and a set of known objects, and the result "it's a car", it's semantic. "It's a car" signal doesn't resemble the original input at all, but, unlike it, it HAS meaning.

The point: The definition I said is just a starting point of work. But it can't be discarded right away. It's as good as any other definition related to information systems. You would have to prove that Qualia is more than information to invalidate it.

23rd March 2003, 05:47 AM

Originally posted by Peskanov

Not at all. The same could be said exactly of a computer program.
The brain is a system of information. The code changes, and the meaning changes, at several levels. I called Qualia at the information coded the right way for [consciousness].

For example: You see a car. If you have notions of image reckoning on computers, you know that the same information will change of shape lots of times. In the end, a matching process is made with the external source and a set of known objects, and the result "it's a car", it's semantic. "It's a car" signal doesn't resemble the original input at all, but, unlike it, it HAS meaning.

The point: The definition I said is just a starting point of work. But it can't be discarded right away. It's as good as any other definition related to information systems. You would have to prove that Qualia is more than information to invalidate it. [/B]

Qualia is more than information by definition. Qualia is the awareness of the information. Claiming that "Qualia ARE information" is no more helpfull than claiming "Qualia ARE brain processes". The thing which distinguishes qualia are the fact that they are actually being experienced by something. It is the actual "redness" itself - the thing you experience - NOT the associated brain process, and NOT the associated "information". The "information" exists in both a normal human and in a philosophical zombie. Only the human has the qualia.

Rusty_the_boy_robot

23rd March 2003, 07:07 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Qualia is more than information by definition. Qualia is the awareness of the information. Claiming that "Qualia ARE information" is no more helpfull than claiming "Qualia ARE brain processes". The thing which distinguishes qualia are the fact that they are actually being experienced by something. It is the actual "redness" itself - the thing you experience - NOT the associated brain process, and NOT the associated "information". The "information" exists in both a normal human and in a philosophical zombie. Only the human has the qualia.

So who came up with this idea of "qualia". From all I can see you have never offered a pervasive argument for the belief that these "qualias" must exist. Perhaps you can drop a link, that is if there is any valid arguments that even suggest qualias must exist.

23rd March 2003, 07:27 AM

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot

So who came up with this idea of "qualia". From all I can see you have never offered a pervasive argument for the belief that these "qualias" must exist. Perhaps you can drop a link, that is if there is any valid arguments that even suggest qualias must exist.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qualia/

The word came into usage for the precise reason that there has been a tendency amongst physicalist scientists to mix up the subjective and objective elements of 'consciousness' in order to be able to claim that one is the other. "Qualia" thus came into use to describe the subjective "1st-person" part of this as distinguished from the physical/objective "3rd-person" brain process. I fail to understand how they can be said to "not exist". I am fairly certain I know the difference between the experience of seeing green and a physiological process in a lump of meat.

Peskanov

23rd March 2003, 08:19 AM

UCE,

----
quote:
Qualia is more than information by definition . Qualia is the awareness of the information. Claiming that "Qualia ARE information" is no more helpfull than claiming "Qualia ARE brain processes". The thing which distinguishes qualia are the fact that they are actually being experienced by something. It is the actual "redness" itself - the thing you experience - NOT the associated brain process, and NOT the associated "information". The "information" exists in both a normal human and in a philosophical zombie. Only the human has the qualia.
----

I don't see Qualia definition saying that it is more than information. Where is that said?
I already addresed the awareness topic in my previous reply. Probably you are asumming that awareness is more than an information process. But again, we don't have evidence of it.
If you accept that being aware is processing an information, there is no more problem with qualia.
Also, note that this materialistic model solves perfectly the mental experiments your link provides; I will elaborate if you want, but I think as a programmer you can also see it easily.

Interesting Ian

23rd March 2003, 09:01 AM

Originally posted by Peskanov
[B]UCE,

I don't see Qualia definition saying that it is more than information.

To say that qualia is information is to misunderstand the meaning of qualia.

Where is that said?
I already addresed the awareness topic in my previous reply. Probably you are asumming that awareness is more than an information process. But again, we don't have evidence of it.

The "evidence" is that awareness or immediate experiences are utterly qualitatively different from any physical process or thing. It's like asking someone what evidence is there that a banana and an elephant are not one and the same thing. What can one do apart from exhaustively state what bananas are and what are elephants are? The "evidence" that they are not the same thing, whether we are talking about qualia/information or bananas/elephants, is that that there is absolute zero reason to suppose that they are the same thing.

Peskanov

23rd March 2003, 09:21 AM

----
quote:
But making things up is sooooo much more fun!
----

Cobra, are you talking about Qualia,e-prime, or my definition?
:)

Peskanov

23rd March 2003, 09:53 AM

Hello Ian;

---
quote:
The "evidence" is that awareness or immediate experiences are utterly qualitatively different from any physical process or thing. It's like asking someone what evidence is there that a banana and an elephant are not one and the same thing. What can one do apart from exhaustively state what bananas are and what are elephants are? The "evidence" that they are not the same thing, whether we are talking about qualia/information or bananas/elephants, is that that there is absolute zero reason to suppose that they are the same thing.
----

This is not a good analogy, Ian. I am not relating two objects. I am not using "information" as a thing, but as a category.

Like saying: A thunder is a sound which come from X phenomena and has Y properties.

I say: Qualia is a set of informations related to blah blah...
What I subjectively know about Qualia is only information related. Different forms of information.
So, I categorise qualia as an information phenomena. I put it in the same category of morse, speak, TV radiofrequency, etc...
Qualia's physical nature it's not important for explaining what it is in my opinion. I am asumming it's electrochemical nature, and talking about what I think is important here: the nature of the information of these signals.

Of course, I make lots of assumptions, as everything in materialism; but UCE says materialism can't deal with Qualia and I don't see this to be the case.

Interesting Ian

23rd March 2003, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Peskanov
Hello Ian;

---
quote:
The "evidence" is that awareness or immediate experiences are utterly qualitatively different from any physical process or thing. It's like asking someone what evidence is there that a banana and an elephant are not one and the same thing. What can one do apart from exhaustively state what bananas are and what are elephants are? The "evidence" that they are not the same thing, whether we are talking about qualia/information or bananas/elephants, is that that there is absolute zero reason to suppose that they are the same thing.
----

This is not a good analogy, Ian. I am not relating two objects. I am not using "information" as a thing, but as a category.

Like saying: A thunder is a sound which come from X phenomena and has Y properties.

I have no idea what you're talking about. What does saying information is a catagory mean?? A catagory of what?? As I said, saying qualia is information is like saying a banana is an elephant. Why is it a false analogy?? I don't care what you describe information as being. What I want to know is what sense can be made saying that it is the very same thing as qualia?

I say: Qualia is a set of informations related to blah blah...

What do you mean?? What has qualia got to do with information??

What I subjectively know about Qualia is only information related.
Different forms of information.
So, I categorise qualia as an information phenomena.

Qualia has absolutely nothing to do with information. Nothing to do with anything physical.

I put it in the same category of morse, speak, TV radiofrequency, etc...
Qualia's physical nature it's not important for explaining what it is in my opinion. I am asumming it's electrochemical nature,

Then you are presuming the correctness of materialism. Materialism is self-evidently absurd. Like saying a banana is numerically identical to an elephant.

Lord Kenneth

23rd March 2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by Peskanov
----
quote:
But making things up is sooooo much more fun!
----

Cobra, are you talking about Qualia,e-prime, or my definition?
:)

Mysticism, paranomalism...

Lord Kenneth

23rd March 2003, 12:14 PM

How red something is can be determined by the wavelength of the light. How bright something is can be determined with how much light the object emits. How much pain something feels can be determined by looking at brain and nerve activity. How salty something tastes can be determined by salt content and the reactions of taste buds...

23rd March 2003, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Peskanov

I don't see Qualia definition saying that it is more than information. Where is that said?

Well, physicalists have done their best to try to argue that "Qualia ARE information", because they have to. But it doesn't actually make any more sense than saying they "are brain processes". I do not believe the burden of proof can lie on a person who states that qualia are not information, for the simple reason that qualia and information are described as totally different things. You can store all the information you like about the physical aspects of 'red' - but you never know what it is like to actually see red until you experience the qualia. It simply does not answer the question - it just attempts to side-step it.

Probably you are asumming that awareness is more than an information process.

It isn't really an "assumption". If this difference (between information process and qualia) existed anywhere else then no-one in their right mind would claim thme to be the same. The materialist just accepts they "must be" the same, and that it is a bit of a mystery. I find it a little dishonest. Why shouls I have to prove that two apparently different things are actually the same? Why should it be called an "assumption" to treat them a being different things, when they are actually described very differently? Something here isn't quite right.

But again, we don't have evidence of it.

THis really does seem from my perspective to be a claim that "we don't have evidence that X isn't Y" when X and Y are only equated to protect that persons belief system. We don't have any evidence that they are the same. They appear to be close correlates, not the same thing.

If you accept that being aware is processing an information, there is no more problem with qualia.

And if I accept that the Bible is true then there is no problem with literalist Christianity.

Also, note that this materialistic model solves perfectly the mental experiments your link provides; I will elaborate if you want, but I think as a programmer you can also see it easily.

I can see nothing but an attempt to side-step an apparently unsolvable problem because the alternative requires a major belief-system change. I do not understand why "information" are "qualia" unless they have to be (because no other explanation can save materialism).

I spent years parroting the line "consciousness is information". I never really understood what it really meant. I never felt comfortable that it actually answered the question. But I couldn't see any other way of answering the question logically at all.

23rd March 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
How red something is can be determined by the wavelength of the light. How bright something is can be determined with how much light the object emits. How much pain something feels can be determined by looking at brain and nerve activity. How salty something tastes can be determined by salt content and the reactions of taste buds...

The question is "what does red look like?"

How do you describe what red looks like to a person blind from birth?

If it could be described physically, then the blind person could receive a meaningful description. No such description is possible. A best attempt would be something like "Red looks like a trumpet sounds".

billydkid

23rd March 2003, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

It has been clearly demonstrated, repeatedly. Materialism runs into very serious problems when the discussion centres on qualia. Materialism has been repeaedly shown to either be forced to state that "there are no such thing as qualia" or that "Qualia ARE brain processes" without being able to define what is meant by "IS". The Hard Problem is very real.

Well, I guess we have different definitions for the word "demonstrate". In what way would qualia differ from any other idea formed in the brain? How are they not ideas? Typically we think of ideas in terms of language, but clearly we have all sorts ideas or notions that flit by without ever formulating them into sentences. Can you begin to imagine how unwieldy consciousness would be if we were inclined to put every mental notion into language form? In fact, I would suggest that most of our thoughts never take the form of language. One rarely ever thinks to themselves "Well, I guess I'll get up and go out into the kitchen and make a sandwich." I think you are not uncomfortable with the idea that ideas are brain phenomena. Why are qualia distinctly different?

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

All over the place, yes.

Yes, similar to tales of alien abduction.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

We are talking about the difference between physics and metaphysics. They are different sorts of phenomena and they manifest in very different ways. It is a different level of reality being discussed. It is like the difference between the operation of 4-d space-time and the operation of a branching many-worlds interpretation of QM. One we can see. The other we can't. Both affect us.:)

Physics is a process by which we assertain and describe the behavior of the universe. Metaphysics, well, that is I don't know what. But either way, both are contrivances of man. Do you think nature makes this distinction? That it has a bunch of obvious aspects on the one side and on the other it has a bunch of other aspects that are only discernable (or, more accurately, only exist) if your brain is operating in the right mode? So plain old space time effects us (affects us?) and so does this "branching many-world interpretation" of the universe? Was does it mean to effected if you can not discern the effect?

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Depends who you listen to. You said yourself that the core of these beliefs pops up all over the place. And it always has done. You just don't happen to believe it and haven't happened to experience it. You are assuming that because it doesn't happen to you that it doesn't happen to anyone. :)

I will grant you, if it did happen to me I would be more inclined to believe it, but I don't disbelieve it merely because it has not happened to me. I disbelieve it because there no good reason to believe it and it would not be the neutral position to "open minded" about extraordinary or paranormal claims. Mostly I disbelieve it because it doesn't make any sense for there to be a fundamental, experiencable aspect of the universe that the vast
majority of human kind has never and will never experience. The fact that the notion has been around forever means nothing.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I believe NOTHING except for what I can logically demonstrate or have actually experienced.

:)

Sort of a catch-22 situation here. You claim that in order to experience the paranormal one must first believe in it. Yet, you claim to have been a skeptical materialist until you had your mind changed through a paranormal experience. So is believing a prerequisite to experiencing the paranormal or is it not? (and, again, I can verify that "being open" to the possibility does ensure that one will be able to encounter such an experience.)

I might add that I find it helpful to avoid the use of arcane sorts of philosphical lingo. I find, in general, that taking this approach one is less inclined toward obfuscation and I have always believed that there is nothing that is true (truly technical discussions aside) that can not be expressed in ordinary language. However, the overiding reason for this is that I prefer not having to go running to the dictionary in order to try to decipher what is trying to be communicated. Both the social "sciences" and philosophy are great offenders in this regard - the tendency to cloak ideas in jargon which serves no real purpose except to obscure and render inaccessable. It is a great way to make stupid arguments sound brilliant.

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd March 2003, 01:59 PM

UCE,

The question is "what does red look like?"

How do you describe what red looks like to a person blind from birth?

If it could be described physically, then the blind person could receive a meaningful description. No such description is possible. A best attempt would be something like "Red looks like a trumpet sounds".

This simply does not follow. What does it mean to explain to a blind person what red looks like? You are asking for an explanation that would somehow allow a blind person to experience what the sighted person is experiencing. This is nonsensical, even under materialism.

The simple fact is that the experience of seeing red is a physical process occurring in your brain. Nobody else's brain is physically capable of performing the process your brain performs when you see red.

You are dismissing materialism based on ridiculous claims that materialism simply does not make.

If it can be described physically, then it certainly is possible for a blind person to receive a meaningful description (although I would suspect that the shear amount of information necessary to constitute a meaningful description would be far more than any human being could deal with). But that in no way implies that the blind person is going to be able to experience seeing the color red, based on that information. To think that it does is to completely misunderstand how the brain works.

A Pentium processor can be made to emulate a Motorola processor, by providing it with the information necessary to describe the functioning of the Motorola processor. But the Pentium processor will never be about to physically perform the processes actually occurring in the Motorola processor. Likewise, even if I could provide your brain with every physical fact about my brain, and even if your brain was somehow capable of coping with that information, you could still not experience my experiences.

Dr. Stupid

23rd March 2003, 02:05 PM

Originally posted by billydkid

Sort of a catch-22 situation here. You claim that in order to experience the paranormal one must first believe in it.

You have to believe it is possible. Materiaism renders most of it impossible.

Yet, you claim to have been a skeptical materialist until you had your mind changed through a paranormal experience.

The initial changes were to do with understandings about mathematics and consciousness. The paranormal experiences occured considerably later.

I have to go to the pub now.... ;)

LucyR

23rd March 2003, 02:16 PM

What is a 'hard atheist'? I thought an atheist was someone who does not believe in the existence of any god. Are there degrees of atheism? Are there 'soft atheists'? Or is it a sexual reference?

Perhaps this question has already been answered, in which case I apologize.

Lord Kenneth

23rd March 2003, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
What is a 'hard atheist'? I thought an atheist was someone who does not believe in the existence of any god. Are there degrees of atheism? Are there 'soft atheists'? Or is it a sexual reference?

Perhaps this question has already been answered, in which case I apologize.

This is a good question, actually.

A hard atheist asserts under no possible conditions a god could exist. That a god is a pure impossibility.

A soft atheist does not believe in a god because of the nature of the claim, the evidence provided (NONE), and the apparent plausibility of it.

Lord Kenneth

23rd March 2003, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

You have to believe it is possible. Materiaism renders most of it impossible.

If materialism really is correct, then you are just delusional and/or are fooling yourself.

Stimpson J. Cat

23rd March 2003, 02:41 PM

LucyR,

What is a 'hard atheist'? I thought an atheist was someone who does not believe in the existence of any god. Are there degrees of atheism? Are there 'soft atheists'? Or is it a sexual reference?

Perhaps this question has already been answered, in which case I apologize.

As with anything, there are a variety of definitions often attached to the term "atheist".

The most general definition is simply "lack of belief in God". This is often referred to as "soft atheism", and is usually accompanied with agnosticism. That is, a person may lack belief in God due to the lack of supporting evidence, but may not go so far as to assert that no sort of God could possibly exist.

Hard atheism is usually used to refer to somebody who asserts that their are no Gods at all. This could be due to a set of metaphysical beliefs which exclude such a concept, such as Platonism, or to a religious belief which excludes Gods, such as Buddhism.

Also, sometimes a person will say that he is a soft atheist with respect to the general conception of God, but a hard atheist with respect to the various conceptions of God that mankind has invented throughout history. That is how I would describe myself, for example.

Of course, by that reasoning, any theist is a hard atheist with respect to all Gods other than his own. :p

Dr. Stupid

Lord Kenneth

23rd March 2003, 02:48 PM

Oh yes, with Stimpy's (better) response I realized there is a possibility I forgot (for "soft atheist")...

A soft atheist, as well, may simply not have been exposed to the concept of god.

Also, is saying "doesn't believe in a god" the same as saying "lacks a belief in a god"?

Of course, if you lack something, you don't have it, and if you don't have it, you lack it... of course, the average person may take "doesn't believe" as "denies entirely it exists"...

LucyR

23rd March 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

This is a good question, actually.

A hard atheist asserts under no possible conditions a god could exist. That a god is a pure impossibility.

A soft atheist does not believe in a god because of the nature of the claim, the evidence provided (NONE), and the apparent plausibility of it.

Really? I must say this is new to me. Does anyone have access to the OED (the only dictionary I take seriously), or to any other reputable source that might agree with these definitions?

I should also state that I have never met, or indeed even heard of anyone, who makes the dogmatic assertion contained in the first definition. The concept of god is simply to vague.

Peskanov

23rd March 2003, 03:16 PM

Ian;

----
quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about. What does saying information is a catagory mean?? A catagory of what?? As I said, saying qualia is information is like saying a banana is an elephant. Why is it a false analogy?? I don't care what you describe information as being. What I want to know is what sense can be made saying that it is the very same thing as qualia?
----

A category of phenomena.
How would you define a piece of news, or a rumour?
Them are phenomena related with information; the physical channel (sound, visual, etc...) it's meaningless.

----
quote:
Qualia has absolutely nothing to do with information. Nothing to do with anything physical.
----

That's your claim. Give me some evidence.
I can tell you why I say it is information. Qualia brings me new knowledge. In my book, this is information. The key in materialism is defining which kind of information it is.
Of course, you can argue that there is more than information in Qualia.
About the relation of information with physics; current physics seems to assume all information has to have a physical base. Anyway, I think this is not very interesting defining Qualia.

----
quote:
Then you are presuming the correctness of materialism. Materialism is self-evidently absurd. Like saying a banana is numerically identical to an elephant.
----

Why don't you read the thread?
UCE says materialism has trouble defining Qualia. I just did my part as a materialist advocate: try to define it.

LucyR

23rd March 2003, 03:19 PM

Stimpson J. Cat,

Thanks for your reply. I'd say that the distinction between agnosticism and soft atheism is too subtle to be useful.

As far as the definition of hard atheism is concerned, it contrasts with my own understanding of the term atheism, in that I think you have associated it with notion of the impossibilty of the existence of god.

23rd March 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

If materialism really is correct, then you are just delusional and/or are fooling yourself.

If it is, then I am. :)

23rd March 2003, 03:27 PM

Interesting Ian

23rd March 2003, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by Peskanov
[B]Ian;

----
quote:
I have no idea what you're talking about. What does saying information is a catagory mean?? A catagory of what?? As I said, saying qualia is information is like saying a banana is an elephant. Why is it a false analogy?? I don't care what you describe information as being. What I want to know is what sense can be made saying that it is the very same thing as qualia?
----

A category of phenomena.
How would you define a piece of news, or a rumour?
Them are phenomena related with information; the physical channel (sound, visual, etc...) it's meaningless.

As far as I can tell you're defending functionalism. The mind is to the brain as software is to hardware in a computer. Is that correct?

----
quote:
Qualia has absolutely nothing to do with information. Nothing to do with anything physical.
----

That's your claim. Give me some evidence.

I've already explained this with my banana elephant analogy. I have nothing more to add from what I said in my post above. If you still don't understand then there's nothing I could conceivable say now which would help.

I can tell you why I say it is information. Qualia brings me new knowledge.

It is not possible for qualia to give you new knowledge or information. Only physical facts can do that, otherwise it wouldn't be materialism.

In my book, this is information. The key in materialism is defining which kind of information it is.
Of course, you can argue that there is more than information in Qualia.

I repeat, qualia have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with information. Information is what the physical world is.

Peskanov

23rd March 2003, 03:49 PM

UCE,

----
quote:
Well, physicalists have done their best to try to argue that "Qualia ARE information", because they have to . But it doesn't actually make any more sense than saying they "are brain processes".
----

If you look at the definition of information, you will see it makes a lot sense. Another question would be to consider it insufficient.

----
quote:
I do not believe the burden of proof can lie on a person who states that qualia are not information, for the simple reason that qualia and information are described as totally different things. You can store all the information you like about the physical aspects of 'red' - but you never know what it is like to actually see red until you experience the qualia. It simply does not answer the question - it just attempts to side-step it.
----

When you see color red, you get knowledge; yes, intuitive knowledge, not reason knowledge. This is information.
It's not side-stepping nothing. The qualia problem you keep mentioning asumes that all knowledge is the same kind of knowledge, which is a totally unsupported assumption. If I remenber correctly, Kant already observed this difference between intuition and reason.

----
quote:
It isn't really an "assumption". If this difference (between information process and qualia) existed anywhere else then no-one in their right mind would claim thme to be the same. The materialist just accepts they "must be" the same, and that it is a bit of a mystery.
----

You keep forgetting the study of the brain. This is part of the materialist knowledge. Materialism found that the brain is composed of bricks called neuron which deals with information.
Materialism does not "accept" as you say; it proposes it, using prior knowledge as base.

----
quote:
I find it a little dishonest . Why shouls I have to prove that two apparently different things are actually the same? Why should it be called an "assumption" to treat them a being different things, when they are actually described very differently? Something here isn't quite right.
----

The intuitive description of things like mind, conciousness, awareness, memory, etc... are very fuzzy to say the least. Thanks to materialism studies, some of these definitions are better enclosed now (for example memory).

----
quote:
THis really does seem from my perspective to be a claim that "we don't have evidence that X isn't Y" when X and Y are only equated to protect that persons belief system. We don't have any evidence that they are the same. They appear to be close correlates, not the same thing.
----

If you don't accept counterintuitive definitions, why does you even bother to look at things like the theory of relativity?
The physical description of the memory on the brain doesn't seem related to my subjective experience. But empiric proof shows me otherwise. So I just accept it: that's the description of memory.

----
quote:
And if I accept that the Bible is true then there is no problem with literalist Christianity.
----

What I am saying is: the problems you see with Qualia and materialism exist because you don't accept some parts of materialism.
Materialism is consistent with itself, and Qualia can be defined inside this system. If you define some part of the mind to be non-physical, then you are already presupossing materialism is false.

----
quote:
I can see nothing but an attempt to side-step an apparently unsolvable problem because the alternative requires a major belief-system change.
----

I am not side-stepping anything. I say that the mental experiments proposed to show that qualia is not physical can be explained in the materialist framework. All these confussions come from mixing knowledge comming from different sources.

Interesting Ian

23rd March 2003, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by LucyR
Stimpson J. Cat,

Thanks for your reply. I'd say that the distinction between agnosticism and soft atheism is too subtle to be useful.

As far as the definition of hard atheism is concerned, it contrasts with my own understanding of the term atheism, in that I think you have associated it with notion of the impossibilty of the existence of god.

As far as I understood "hard atheism" is the positive assertion that there is no god. Soft atheists merely claim that they lack a belief in a god. The former case, being a positive assertion, requires that a person claiming to be a hard atheist to present appropriate evidence or compelling reasons to support his or her case. The latter would claim they do not need to do this as they are not making any positive existential assertions, but are simply stating that there is insufficient evidence, or indeed any evidence for a god. Therefore it is rational not to assent to any belief in any god. Basically the approach here is to say that one ought not to subscribe to the existence of X (whatever X might be), unless there is any evidence in support of the existence of X.

Of course I think the distinction is flawed. It rests upon a misunderstanding of what many theists are actually asserting.

c4ts

23rd March 2003, 04:14 PM

What is the distinction of a hard athiest? Does the hard atheist say there is no proof of God's existence, or does he say there is proof of God's non-existence?

Lord Kenneth

23rd March 2003, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
What is the distinction of a hard athiest? Does the hard atheist say there is no proof of God's existence, or does he say there is proof of God's non-existence?

Well, a religion, such as Buddhism, is based on of course faith, so proof isn't the factor.

But given those two choices, the hard atheist would probably say both... if there is proof of a god's non-existence, then there is no proof of his existence.

c4ts

23rd March 2003, 04:25 PM

Since the two are related, does he believe there is proof of god's non-existence?

Loki

23rd March 2003, 04:51 PM

uce,

I'm not sure they'd laugh, Chris
Trust me, Scribble's right - they'd laugh. I still do! I do notice with interest that you've downgraded your mystic experience from a "BREACH of the Laws of Physics" (as you first described it way back then) to a "breach of the laws of probability". Is this another example of the past changing itself?

Go ahead, tell us again the tale of the computer file that appeared on your desktop one morning, and how it contained information that answered 'all' your questions about reality. Then tell how you couldn't post any info from the file through fear of "copyright" infringement, and how you deleted the file because you felt it was "too dangerous". Oh, and don't forget to mention the "smoking" message on the message forum, or the entire web site that wasn't there the night before, but which appeared suddenly - yet every page was dated as being there for several years. And definitely don't forget to mention December 2012, and the coming of mankind's ascent to a new phase of existence, leaving these earthly bodies behind. Then explain how you know Infinity is behind htis, even though you don't grasp the basic math that underpins your "maths is reality" concepts. And remeber how excited you were when you posted the link to the "Atlantis found!" article?

Trust me... they'll laugh.

Peskanov

23rd March 2003, 04:55 PM

Ian,

----
quote:
As far as I can tell you're defending functionalism. The mind is to the brain as software is to hardware in a computer. Is that correct?
----

Is correct that I endorse that idea. However, note that I have not read about functionalism, so I don't know if I endorse all their ideas.

----
quote:
I've already explained this with my banana elephant analogy. I have nothing more to add from what I said in my post above. If you still don't understand then there's nothing I could conceivable say now which would help.
----

I have read the definition of Qualia. I don't see any afirmation of anything outside of physics.
Here is it one definition, coming from UCE's link:

"Philosophers often use the term qualia (singular quale) to refer to the introspectively accessible, phenomenal aspects of our mental lives"

I don't see anything here which "is not physical". What I see is concepts like "mental" and "introspectively accessible" which still have to be well described in physical terms.
Why do you say qualia is defined as non-physical?
About my definition: I don't see any problem in defining the same concept from several POV. I can define a lighting using a graphical description, or using physics of electricity. What's the problem with defining qualia using the theory of communication?

----
quote:
It is not possible for qualia to give you new knowledge or information. Only physical facts can do that, otherwise it wouldn't be materialism.
-----

???
I am already claiming qualia is information with a physical base (electrochemical signals). Why can not physical signals bring me knowledge?!?

----
quote:
I repeat, qualia have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with information. Information is what the physical world is.
----

What? Can you point who is saying "Information is what the physical world is"?
About qualia and information, there are already philosophers telling the same I do. If you want to back your assertion, give me some definitions / references.

billydkid

23rd March 2003, 05:04 PM

Originally posted by Loki
uce,

Trust me, Scribble's right - they'd laugh. I still do! I do notice with interest that you've downgraded your mystic experience from a "BREACH of the Laws of Physics" (as you first described it way back then) to a "breach of the laws of probability". Is this another example of the past changing itself?

Go ahead, tell us again the tale of the computer file that appeared on your desktop one morning, and how it contained information that answered 'all' your questions about reality. Then tell how you couldn't post any info from the file through fear of "copyright" infringement, and how you deleted the file because you felt it was "too dangerous". Oh, and don't forget to mention the "smoking" message on the message forum, or the entire web site that wasn't there the night before, but which appeared suddenly - yet every page was dated as being there for several years. And definitely don't forget to mention December 2012, and the coming of mankind's ascent to a new phase of existence, leaving these earthly bodies behind. Then explain how you know Infinity is behind htis, even though you don't grasp the basic math that underpins your "maths is reality" concepts. And remeber how excited you were when you posted the link to the "Atlantis found!" article?

Trust me... they'll laugh.

Enlightening. Thanks. Actually, I'm a little disappointed, but thanks.

scribble

23rd March 2003, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by Loki
Trust me, Scribble's right - they'd laugh. I still do!

Hehe... well, thanks for explaining all the details. I was going to do it myself if UcE didn't pony up. To anyone else reading the thread, Loki's not joking. UcE actually has claimed and defended over and over again the claims that Loki has just laid down.

Then tell how you couldn't post any info from the file through fear of "copyright" infringement, and how you deleted the file because you felt it was "too dangerous".

That is ALWAYS going to be my favorite.

-Chris

Lord Kenneth

23rd March 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by scribble

Hehe... well, thanks for explaining all the details. I was going to do it myself if UcE didn't pony up. To anyone else reading the thread, Loki's not joking. UcE actually has claimed and defended over and over again the claims that Loki has just laid down.

That is ALWAYS going to be my favorite.

-Chris

:D :D :D

UCE, that crazy nut... post the links to where he claimed those things, I need to see it for myself!

:D :D :D

scribble

23rd March 2003, 08:22 PM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

:D :D :D

UCE, that crazy nut... post the links to where he claimed those things, I need to see it for myself!

:D :D :D

Sadly, most of these converations took place the better part of a year ago -- the forum has been through a lot since then and I'm guessing they're not still around.

Anyone have any of the good bits archived?

-Chris

24th March 2003, 01:39 AM

Originally posted by Loki
uce,

Trust me, Scribble's right - they'd laugh. I still do! I do notice with interest that you've downgraded your mystic experience from a "BREACH of the Laws of Physics" (as you first described it way back then) to a "breach of the laws of probability". Is this another example of the past changing itself?

Go ahead, tell us again the tale of the computer file that appeared on your desktop one morning, and how it contained information that answered 'all' your questions about reality. Then tell how you couldn't post any info from the file through fear of "copyright" infringement, and how you deleted the file because you felt it was "too dangerous". Oh, and don't forget to mention the "smoking" message on the message forum, or the entire web site that wasn't there the night before, but which appeared suddenly - yet every page was dated as being there for several years. And definitely don't forget to mention December 2012, and the coming of mankind's ascent to a new phase of existence, leaving these earthly bodies behind. Then explain how you know Infinity is behind htis, even though you don't grasp the basic math that underpins your "maths is reality" concepts. And remeber how excited you were when you posted the link to the "Atlantis found!" article?

Trust me... they'll laugh.

They will when they hear your misquotation and confused over-elaboration of it. This is bringing the quality of the debate down really low. I rather expect it from scribble - but you can do better, Loki. :)

24th March 2003, 01:41 AM

Originally posted by billydkid

Enlightening. Thanks. Actually, I'm a little disappointed, but thanks.

Perhaps you should treat second-hand accounts from biased people with 'skepticism'?

The above is an attempt to describe what happened to me, but it is not accurate. Parts of it bear some resemblance to what happened. Parts of it are just purile attempts at character assasination by people who know that this is the easiest way to discredit a person who posts things that challenge their beliefs. It has turned a good-natured thread into an acrimonious and unpleasant one, which was precisely what I was trying to avoid. Well done, Chris. You bring light and love to the debate, as usual.

24th March 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra

:D :D :D

UCE, that crazy nut... post the links to where he claimed those things, I need to see it for myself!

:D :D :D

Good idea.

Interesting Ian

24th March 2003, 08:33 AM

Originally posted by scribble

Originally posted by Loki
Trust me, Scribble's right - they'd laugh. I still do!

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

Hehe... well, thanks for explaining all the details. I was going to do it myself if UcE didn't pony up. To anyone else reading the thread, Loki's not joking. UcE actually has claimed and defended over and over again the claims that Loki has just laid down.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then tell how you couldn't post any info from the file through fear of "copyright" infringement, and how you deleted the file because you felt it was "too dangerous".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is ALWAYS going to be my favorite.

Looks like my original assessment of you was the correct one.

Yahzi

24th March 2003, 11:25 AM

Here is an article that talks about the show (even though it hasn't been shown yet!)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2865009.stm

billydkid

24th March 2003, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Perhaps you should treat second-hand accounts from biased people with 'skepticism'?

The above is an attempt to describe what happened to me, but it is not accurate. Parts of it bear some resemblance to what happened. Parts of it are just purile attempts at character assasination by people who know that this is the easiest way to discredit a person who posts things that challenge their beliefs. It has turned a good-natured thread into an acrimonious and unpleasant one, which was precisely what I was trying to avoid. Well done, Chris. You bring light and love to the debate, as usual.

You are right Undercover, I was credulous. I apologize.

Loki

24th March 2003, 03:34 PM

uce,

They will when they hear your misquotation and confused over-elaboration of it.
Well, I'll admit that I'm working from memory, and therefore it may be letting me down - but I don't think the details are substantially wrong at all.

I still recall the way you insisted on typing "A MAJOR BREACH OF PHYSICS" (yes, you insisted on using caps) for about a week when describing this "mysterious file" that had appeared on your computer desktop. And the increasing silly excuses you gave when people kept asking you post this file, or parts of it. First it was "there's no point - materialists wouldn't understand it". When people kept pressing, it was "I'm not sure I can - I don't know if the author would allow it" - despite the fact that you admitted not knowing who the author was (you had 'suspicions'). Finally it was "I can't because I deleted the file - it was knowledge that is too dangerous".

If this is completely wrong, then correct me if you wish - did you get such a file via a "physically impossible" process? Did you refuse to post extracts from the file? Did you then delete the file?

Are you denying that you claimed to have found a 2 year old web site that wasn't there the day before? Are you denying that several people tried to work out a protocol with you to examine this claim, aiming to try and reproduce the effect of having the past "create itself" in response to your thoughts? Are you denying that this died away when you refused to try and work through the issues?

Are you denying the entire "smoking message" incident? You posted a link to the site that you believe had a message that was addressed *directly* to you and your decision to stop smoking, even though the people behind the site had no knowledge of you. I read that message - are you saying you didn't claim these things?

Are you denying that you stopped posting as uce when your post count reached 2012, and the reason you gave was that '2012' is *the year* that all will be revealed? The Mayan calender, remember. Have you forgot how, when you returned as Juggler, that Franko spent a considerable amount of time telling you that you'd post again as uce, and you repeatedly insisted that you'd never, ever, under any circumstances, use 'uce' again, because you couldn't disturb the 2012 post count?

Are you denying the long series of posts regarding the mathematics of your theory of "zero". Remember your claim that "negative-Infinity + positive-Infinity = zero", and the explanations from several people as to why this is incorrect? Are you denying that eventually you changed your position to "the maths doesn't really matter, it's the principle that's important"?

Look, I'll admit that my post was trying to provided a short, sharp summary of things that unfolded over a period of weeks or even months almost 2 years ago - therefore, it may lack detail, or create a wrong impression. And it's probably very true that I don't know the "true story" - hell, everything you posted back then may have been a smokescreen to cover what really happened - how would I know? Still, I'd suggest that if you're unhappy with the way your past is being summarised, you need to do better than just say "thats a misquotation".

This is bringing the quality of the debate down really low. ... but you can do better, Loki.
Okay, apologies, uce. Since the retirement of 'juggler' and the return of the elephant you have been substantially different in your style (if not in the basic content.) I'm more than happy to concentrate any future discussions on the current uce, and leave some of the more erratic moments of your past posts in the dust bin of history.

24th March 2003, 04:34 PM

Loki

I still recall the way you insisted on typing "A MAJOR BREACH OF PHYSICS" (yes, you insisted on using caps) for about a week when describing this "mysterious file" that had appeared on your computer desktop.

In retrospect, breaches of the normal laws of probablility is something I am more comfortable with.

Strange things were happening to me. It took me a long while to know how to react.

Are you denying that you claimed to have found a 2 year old web site that wasn't there the day before?

Well...I still claim that the past is not fixed. Does that say enough?

Okay, apologies, uce. Since the retirement of 'juggler' and the return of the elephant you have been substantially different in your style (if not in the basic content.) I'm more than happy to concentrate any future discussions on the current uce, and leave some of the more erratic moments of your past posts in the dust bin of history.

Apology accepted. I am a very open sort of person. I was going through a period of dramatic changes in my own concepts of reality. It would be more helpful if you deal with my current posts on their content. I feel I have a better undertanding now of the context than I did at the time. At the time I just knew very strange things were happening to me.

:)

Lord Kenneth

24th March 2003, 05:22 PM

Golly gee wiz, is UCE dodging some of those questions about what he thought!? :eek:

25th March 2003, 02:30 AM

Originally posted by Dark Cobra
Golly gee wiz, is UCE dodging some of those questions about what he thought!? :eek:

I already states several times that it was counter-productive to make claims I know that materialists are incapable of believing.

Peskanov

25th March 2003, 02:59 AM

UCE,

----
quote:
I already states several times that it was counter-productive to make claims I know that materialists are incapable of believing.
----

It's true, but you surely know that this is also true for most people who doesn't even know what materialism is.
Revelations are not so uncommon; however they keep changing and changing over time, and every new one seems to be influenced by previous ones...
What attitude is common sense, remain skeptical about all revelations, or try to extract some meaning of them?
This has nothing to do with materialism at all, but with pragmatism.

25th March 2003, 03:12 AM

Peskanov

It's true, but you surely know that this is also true for most people who doesn't even know what materialism is.

Well, actually no. I get a very different view on this in my day-to-day life. I live in a city that is packed with mystics, pagans, artists and the like. Brighton is well-known for it. A surprisingly large number of people both believed me and were interested in what I had to say, some of them on a highly intellectual level.

Revelations are not so uncommon; however they keep changing and changing over time, and every new one seems to be influenced by previous ones...

There are reasons for why it appears like this. They are not so much influenced by previous ones, as they are all attempting to communicate the same things. Times change, so the format of the messages change, but ultimately they all try to serve a similar purpose.

What attitude is common sense, remain skeptical about all revelations, or try to extract some meaning of them?

Well, if one is the direct recipient of such a revelation then one is in a rather different situation. For a start, there is little room for doubting that the revelation is real. Other people can think I am telling lies, it is more difficult to tell myself that it didn't happen. Extracting meaning from them isn't so straightforward. There needs to be a context.

There is a great deal I could explain about the mechanisms involved, and indeed the meaning. The problem is that materialists are totally incapable of believing the events themselves are anything more than elaborate fantasy, let alone being able to understand the meaning of the events. To be blunt, the materialists are being left behind to a certain extent. Vast numbers of people whose beliefs are routinely dismissed as nonsense by the 'skeptics' understand all sorts of things that the skeptics are quite incapable of grasping, because they lack the conceptual framework to make sense of them.

The skeptics see only the bathwater. They make no attempt to look for the baby.

Q-Source

25th March 2003, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I already states several times that it was counter-productive to make claims I know that materialists are incapable of believing.

O.K., Speak to the mystic and theist audience then.

25th March 2003, 05:34 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

O.K., Speak to the mystic and theist audience then.

Here?

The mystics and theists here have a pretty good understanding about where I am coming from already, IMO.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw
your pearls before swine." (Matt. 7:6)

25th March 2003, 05:38 AM

Q :

What is the point in me trying to explain the meaning of such 'revelations' as predictions of the second coming of Christ, the kingdom of God, and the battle of armageddon to an audience of people who ascribe no meaning whatsoever to anything outside of science?

I dearly wish there was an audience here who were interested in these things, but there is not. The audience here is only interested in trying to prove that all religious mythology is meaningless claptrap and most of philosophy is pointless.

Peskanov

25th March 2003, 06:07 AM

UCE,

----
quote:
Well, actually no. I get a very different view on this in my day-to-day life. I live in a city that is packed with mystics, pagans, artists and the like. Brighton is well-known for it. A surprisingly large number of people both believed me and were interested in what I had to say, some of them on a highly intellectual level.
----

I have not much doubts about the intellectual level of mystics. I have read the writtings of some of them, they all seem to have strong curiosity and deep of thought.
But being intelligent and being of pragmatic nature are different things.
I am just saying that pragmatism (not materialism) make people reject revelations.

----
quote:
There are reasons for why it appears like this. They are not so much influenced by previous ones, as they are all attempting to communicate the same things. Times change, so the format of the messages change, but ultimately they all try to serve a similar purpose.
----

That's subjective. If you want to find common issues between revelations, you will sure find them. But what value give you to differences?
Are you underrating them because them could be human error introduced by the receiver of the message? This has important meaning as well; if you admit error in a revelation, you admit you don't know what it's true and what is not...

----
quote:
Well, if one is the direct recipient of such a revelation then one is in a rather different situation. For a start, there is little room for doubting that the revelation is real. Other people can think I am telling lies, it is more difficult to tell myself that it didn't happen. Extracting meaning from them isn't so straightforward. There needs to be a context.
----

Few people here will think you are lying. Most of them will think is illusion, chance, or a combination of both.
Your history is quite similar to the history one of my favourite fiction writters: Philip K. Dick.
All Philip 's books deal with reality being a complex, elaborate illusion hidding something much more important.
My surprise came when I read his biography. His books mostly are reflections of his own experiences, which have some resemblance with the ones loki mentioned. Some of the strange happenings in his life even has witness...
However, you seem quite sure about the world being an illusion, while Philip wasted all his life divided beween a full rejection or full acceptation of the received messages.

----
quote:
There is a great deal I could explain about the mechanisms involved, and indeed the meaning. The problem is that materialists are totally incapable of believing the events themselves are anything more than elaborate fantasy, let alone being able to understand the meaning of the events. To be blunt, the materialists are being left behind to a certain extent. Vast numbers of people whose beliefs are routinely dismissed as nonsense by the 'skeptics' understand all sorts of things that the skeptics are quite incapable of grasping, because they lack the conceptual framework to make sense of them.
The skeptics see only the bathwater. They make no attempt to look for the baby.
----

Skeptics are seeing a different baby...But as I said; this not a question of materialism, but of coherence. A pragmatic person can dismiss revelations because of his contradictory nature; there is no need to be a materialist.

25th March 2003, 06:27 AM

Peskanov :

I accept that from a pragmatic point of view that revelations are of little use.

That's subjective. If you want to find common issues between revelations, you will sure find them. But what value give you to differences?
Are you underrating them because them could be human error introduced by the receiver of the message? This has important meaning as well; if you admit error in a revelation, you admit you don't know what it's true and what is not...

The answer to this is complex. Nothing is what it appears to be. Part of the problem is that the message has to be of a form that makes it understandable to people, and this causes the message to be distorted. Few of us are ready for the naked truth.

Few people here will think you are lying. Most of them will think is illusion, chance, or a combination of both.

Fair enough. But just imagine you found yourself in the kind of situation that Moses did, or Joseph Smith. Revelation recieved in physical form. Not much room for chance there. Something happened to me that really was not far from this. The day before it happened I would have maintained that it was impossible.

However, you seem quite sure about the world being an illusion, while Philip wasted all his life divided beween a full rejection or full acceptation of the received messages.

I arrived at my current worldview after many years of science and skepticism. I had a very good understanding of physics, of the psychology associated with belief, and to a growing extent also philosophy. I knew exactly why I believed the things I believed. So when strange things started happening to me I had to find a way to interpret those strange things without abandoning all that I had learned beforehand. I had to find a way to make sense of all of it together. So I had no choice but accept that the world was an illusion and that all consciousness was linked together. It was the only way it could all make sense. However, a full acceptance of the messages doesn't just involve an intellectual learning process. It also requires an acceptance of the need for total selflessness. But I am a human being, and I am a humanist. Ultimately, an acceptance of the meaning of the messages involves a level of self-discipline of which I am incapable. I am not fit to be a preacher. I do my best to be a philosopher.

Q-Source

25th March 2003, 08:03 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Here?

The mystics and theists here have a pretty good understanding about where I am coming from already, IMO.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw
your pearls before swine." (Matt. 7:6)

Oh, you have to work on that Ego thingy that makes you look stupid.

Otherwise, you'll never reach enlightment, Darling. :rolleyes:

Q-Source

25th March 2003, 08:07 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I dearly wish there was an audience here who were interested in these things, but there is not. The audience here is only interested in trying to prove that all religious mythology is meaningless claptrap and most of philosophy is pointless.

BINGO!

If you believe so, then why are you wasting your time here?

25th March 2003, 08:08 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Oh, you have to work on that Ego thingy that makes you look stupid.

Very true.

Otherwise, you'll never reach enlightment, Darling.

I do not deserve to reach enlightenment, Darling. :D

You shouldn't make me laugh out loud at work. People are beginning to think I am strange.

25th March 2003, 08:13 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

BINGO!

If you believe so, then why are you wasting your time here?

Well...I'm not wasting my time here. Many of the people here are trying to prove that all religious mythology is meaningless claptrap and most of philosophy is pointless. They aren't neccesarily succeeding in doing so.

edited : What would be the point in preaching to the converted?

:)

hammegk

25th March 2003, 08:14 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

BINGO!

If you believe so, then why are you wasting your time here?

But who can resist synchronicity??? ;)

Peskanov

25th March 2003, 08:18 AM

UCE,

----
quote:
The answer to this is complex. Nothing is what it appears to be. Part of the problem is that the message has to be of a form that makes it understandable to people, and this causes the message to be distorted. Few of us are ready for the naked truth.
----

Either this or it is a form of illusion. No wonder most people choose to see it as illusion.

----
quote:
Fair enough. But just imagine you found yourself in the kind of situation that Moses did, or Joseph Smith. Revelation recieved in physical form. Not much room for chance there. Something happened to me that really was not far from this. The day before it happened I would have maintained that it was impossible.
----

There is always room for delusion from an objective POV. Not from a subjective one, of course. If I have the security of receiving a revelation I have it and that's all.

----
quote:
I arrived at my current worldview after many years of science and skepticism. I had a very good understanding of physics, of the psychology associated with belief, and to a growing extent also philosophy. I knew exactly why I believed the things I believed. So when strange things started happening to me I had to find a way to interpret those strange things without abandoning all that I had learned beforehand. I had to find a way to make sense of all of it together. So I had no choice but accept that the world was an illusion and that all consciousness was linked together. It was the only way it could all make sense.
----

Again, there is always 2 interpretations, revelation or delusion. Phil couldn't choose between them, which carried him to nearly having 2 different personalities.
I had a strange experience some years ago, which it's dificult to describe. A sort of an avalanche of ideas falling in my mind in a very short lapse of time. If you have read about Rousseau, he describes an experience which fits mine quite well. I think he called it an "the illumination".
At this time I was already of very pragmatic nature, and the nature of the ideas I "received" was not mystical. However, maybe if I was of religious or mystical nature, my experience would have been very different!

billydkid

25th March 2003, 08:19 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Peskanov :

The answer to this is complex. Nothing is what it appears to be. Part of the problem is that the message has to be of a form that makes it understandable to people, and this causes the message to be distorted. Few of us are ready for the naked truth.

Now this I find especially irritating. Why on earth would anything/everything appear to anything other than what it is. Is it part of some sort of cosmic conspiracy? Does the universe say to itself "Hell, I guess I'll just disguise everything to appear to be something other than what it is." I will grant that it would total overload to percieve every imaginable aspect of anything and everything one might encounter, but I think it is absurd to suppose that what we percieve is some sort of a mask obscuring it's true nature.

You mentioned Joseph Smith. As it happens, old Joseph recieved his visit from the angels and his gold tablets not far from where I am sitting at this moment. Funny about Joseph and every single person like him - they receive these tangible objects form the other side and without exception they are misplaced before anyone else can verify their existance. Damn, these profits are just God awful unlucky or forgetful. And if I remember correctly, old Joseph felt it necessary to dictate from his tablet from behind a screen for some reason. Hmmm, wonder what that was all about. But you, decent folks should just take Joseph and all those like him at their word. Makes sense to me.

Q-Source

25th March 2003, 08:20 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

edited : What would be the point in preaching to the converted?

The problem is that you refuse to tell us the most exciting part of your preach.

You keep us asking and asking, you're mean :cool:

It is like reading the Bible with no miracles.... he, he.

25th March 2003, 08:48 AM

Billy

Now this I find especially irritating. Why on earth would anything/everything appear to anything other than what it is.
Is it part of some sort of cosmic conspiracy?

I deeply sympathise with you. How could there be a cosmic conspiracy?

All I can say is that however counter-intuitive and backwards and unbelievable and irritating it may appear to you, from your POV a 'cosmic conspiracy' is not very far from a true evaluation of the situation. It isn't a cosmic conspiracy, but it certainly looks like it. Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction. Sometimes in order to understand something you need to understand its context, and out of its context it just appears incomprehensible.

Does the universe say to itself "Hell, I guess I'll just disguise everything to appear to be something other than what it is."

Something very close to that, YES. But unless you understand what it is you will not be able to understand why it has to be hidden.

I will grant that it would total overload to percieve every imaginable aspect of anything and everything one might encounter, but I think it is absurd to suppose that what we percieve is some sort of a mask obscuring it's true nature.

Again, I sympathise with your reasons for taking this line.

You mentioned Joseph Smith. As it happens, old Joseph recieved his visit from the angels and his gold tablets not far from where I am sitting at this moment. Funny about Joseph and every single person like him - they receive these tangible objects form the other side and without exception they are misplaced before anyone else can verify their existance.

Well, in my case I deleted the tangible evidence partly because I didn't want to admit what was happening was happening. I did not know how to react. But it doesn't really matter, because had I publicly displayed the evidence it would have been dismissed as a fake i.e. only I knew the circumstances regarding the arrival of the evidence. To anybody else it was either put their by me, or somebody hacked into my computer.

Q :

You keep us asking and asking, you're mean

Always leave the audience wanting more..... ;)

You know precisely what will happen if I say more than I have.

scribble

25th March 2003, 09:10 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source

The problem is that you refuse to tell us the most exciting part of your preach.

You keep us asking and asking, you're mean :cool:

It is like reading the Bible with no miracles.... he, he.

Q-Source:

You are very insightful. PErhaps UcE will recall when he first came to this place, and I was desperate to learn from him. I begged him over, and over, and over to tell me what it was he knew, what it was he was trying to tell us.

Finally he attacked me in a series of e-mails that were incredibly rude and accused me of being stupid, never being able to understand, etc, etc.

Ever since then, UcE and I have been at each other's throats.

Be careful how far you push him for knowledge -- he may snap on you as well. Usually when you are just about to reach that point where he either reveals everything or you realize he is full of crap.

-Chris

scribble

25th March 2003, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
But it doesn't really matter, because had I publicly displayed the evidence it would have been dismissed as a fake i.e. only I knew the circumstances regarding the arrival of the evidence. To anybody else it was either put their by me, or somebody hacked into my computer.

Gee, my recollection is this document contained the ANSWERS to the DEEP QUESTIONS you were pondering at the time.

I'd think if it was the Real Deal, that would have been self-evident. After all, the questions you were pondering at the time were absolutely fascinating -- as well as your answers to them. Unfortuantely, you refused to ever explain. And now, two yearsish later, we still have progressed exactly zero steps in your philosophy.

Always leave the audience wanting more...

Wanting *anything* you mean.

-Chris

25th March 2003, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by scribble

Q-Source:

You are very insightful. PErhaps UcE will recall when he first came to this place, and I was desperate to learn from him. I begged him over, and over, and over to tell me what it was he knew, what it was he was trying to tell us.

Finally he attacked me in a series of e-mails that were incredibly rude and accused me of being stupid, never being able to understand, etc, etc.

Ever since then, UcE and I have been at each other's throats.

Be careful how far you push him for knowledge -- he may snap on you as well. Usually when you are just about to reach that point where he either reveals everything or you realize he is full of crap.

-Chris

Actually, Chris, you have been at my throat. Personally I see you more like an irritating insect. Not worth getting upset about, if you know what I mean.

Peace, brother.

:)

scribble

25th March 2003, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Actually, Chris, you have been at my throat. Personally I see you more like an irritating insect. Not worth getting upset about, if you know what I mean.

Agreed, and you aren't worth getting upset about to me anymore, either. I just wanted to warn some folks about your game, so they won't waste all the time I did getting to the end of it.

Peace, brother.

:) [/B]

In my book, one EARNS the right to call me Brother. You do not have that right.

(and who calls an 'irritating insect' a brother?)
-Chris

Q-Source

25th March 2003, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by scribble

You are very insightful. PErhaps UcE will recall when he first came to this place, and I was desperate to learn from him. I begged him over, and over, and over to tell me what it was he knew, what it was he was trying to tell us.

Finally he attacked me in a series of e-mails that were incredibly rude and accused me of being stupid, never being able to understand, etc, etc.

Ever since then, UcE and I have been at each other's throats.

Be careful how far you push him for knowledge -- he may snap on you as well. Usually when you are just about to reach that point where he either reveals everything or you realize he is full of crap.
-Chris

Chris,

Is it possible that this is true?. I find it hard to believe that Geoff can be rude just because someone asks him information.
But, if this happened to you, then you know what you're talking about.

In my case, I am not begging for knowledge. I don't think anyone of us has the ultimate Truth. But if we look here and there, maybe we can find something that we can consider the Truth ™.

Geoff's revelations belong to him. He needs to keep them sacred because they hold his beliefs system.

I am not so naive to think that someone's revelations will influence my own dogmatic beliefs.

Anyway, thanks for the advice. Stay around.

Q-S

LeFevre

25th March 2003, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by Q-Source

Chris,

Is it possible that this is true?. I find it hard to believe that Geoff can be rude just because someone asks him information.
But, if this happened to you, then you know what you're talking about.

Q-S

UCE gets real emotional at times (the cheering comment that he later took back when he was calm) as we all do. He did get pretty down in the gutter there a long while back. IIRC that is one of the reasons he started to post as Juggler, cause Geoff as UCE back in the day was a fecking ass.

That and having scribble question his zero=infinity ;)

I like the calm UCE :)

Martin

25th March 2003, 12:44 PM

Originally posted by scribble
and who calls an 'irritating insect' a brother?

Another irritating insect? :D

25th March 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Martinm

Another irritating insect? :D

:D LOL

c4ts

25th March 2003, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
The mystics and theists here have a pretty good understanding about where I am coming from already, IMO.

Would any of you "mystics and theists" care to explain it better than he does?

Dub

26th March 2003, 07:45 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Q :

What is the point in me trying to explain the meaning of such 'revelations' as predictions of the second coming of Christ, the kingdom of God, and the battle of armageddon to an audience of people who ascribe no meaning whatsoever to anything outside of science?

I dearly wish there was an audience here who were interested in these things, but there is not. The audience here is only interested in trying to prove that all religious mythology is meaningless claptrap and most of philosophy is pointless.

So in other words, to believe in what you believe in, we have to already believe in it? If it was true, it wouldnt matter what people believe in or dont believe in. People here are are obivously interested in "these things". What most people here require however, is evidence. And objective evidence at that. You're argument, in a very subtlle way, is ad hominem. You say its 'our' fault that we dont understand what you're saying (or not as is the case here).

26th March 2003, 12:58 PM

Originally posted by Dub

So in other words, to believe in what you believe in, we have to already believe in it?

No. Absolutely not. The basic principles are derivable logically, and I have been demonstrating this over and over again. Logic can take you as far as an understanding of the metaphysical principles underlying what I speak of. The only requirement is that you do not have a prior belief system to defend. The stumbling block is that most skeptics are very attached to their materialistic belief system and this is a very effective block to getting any further. Once you get over that hurdle all that can be supplied is signposts and ideas, and the new terrotory must be exploed by the individual. The last thing I want is anyone to take my word for anything at all. ALL belief systems are damaging. They are cages for the mind.

If it was true, it wouldnt matter what people believe in or dont believe in. People here are are obivously interested in "these things".

Some of them are, yes.

What most people here require however, is evidence. And objective evidence at that.

Well, objective evidence stops when you want to investigate the subjective. If you want to explore the world of subjectivity then you must explore it on your own. I can't do anything about that.

You're argument, in a very subtlle way, is ad hominem.
You say its 'our' fault that we dont understand what you're saying (or not as is the case here).

Not really. I understand only too well why people here resist what I am saying. I repeat that I was once part of the admin team at the secular web. I have not forgotten what led me towards science, skepticism and rationalism in the first place. I genuinely have the deepest sympathy and respect for all people of that ilk who treat me with respect. And I do not mean sympathy in a patronising way - I mean I sympathise with your viewpoint. The mental leap required to accept that materialism may actually be false and seriously consider the alternatives is huge. It is the psychological equivalent of 'giving up'. One of the main reasons I ended up taking the path I did was that I was searching for information about the historical roots of Christianity in order to de-convert a Christian I knew. What I found ended up opening up all sorts of others doors I had no idea existed. My problem is even convincing people to search for answers in these sorts of places, even though I know exactly why the people here refuse to look in those sorts of places. I have many times spoken about commonalities in the roots of all religions, and in the philosophical writings of many great scientists. Even this is rejected as worthless. From my perspective, I now see the same belief-sytem dependence exhibited here as I once criticised Christians for. But the last thing I really want to do is alienate people.

edited....

Perhaps materialism is the wrong target anyway. The real problem is blind reductionism and scientism. By that I mean a total refusal to look at information from different sources together, both within science and on a wider perspective.

Dub

26th March 2003, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

The mental leap required to accept that materialism may actually be false and seriously consider the alternatives is huge. It is the psychological equivalent of 'giving up'.

"Giving up" sounds an awfully lot like "having faith". I, for one, am quite open to other points of view, so long as they are valid. I was brought up in a very religous environment. I also studied 'the paranormal' pretty extensively. I have never said "i dont want to believe this is true". In fact, I'd love for it to be true. However, I wont believe in something just because I 'want to believe'. While it may be nice to believe somewthing is true, when there's no evidence to support it, I wont be convinced. If something can be proved to be true, then no mental leap would be required. Now, belivers usually insert an analogy of how theories in science arent accepted when they first appear. Which is true. And they shouldnt be. These theories gain credibility through experimentation. Then, if the experimentation shows the theory to be correct it is accepted. People have been believing in the 'paranormal' (which definition here includes religions) for many thousands of years. So there has been plently of time for evidence to surface. But has it? If you think it has and you have it you may be $1,000,000 richer.

One of the main reasons I ended up taking the path I did was that I was searching for information about the historical roots of Christianity in order to de-convert a Christian I knew. What I found ended up opening up all sorts of others doors I had no idea existed.

Care to share any of this information that so convinced you?

My problem is even convincing people to search for answers in these sorts of places, even though I know exactly why the people here refuse to look in those sorts of places.

Myself, and im sure alot of people here, have searched very deeply for such things. However, the truth is more important than believeing in something because it feels nice to believe in it, or its how I would like the world to be.

I have many times spoken about commonalities in the roots of all religions, and in the philosophical writings of many great scientists. Even this is rejected as worthless. From my perspective, I now see the same belief-sytem dependence exhibited here as I once criticised Christians for. But the last thing I really want to do is alienate people.

The truth is not a belief system.

Perhaps materialism is the wrong target anyway. The real problem is blind reductionism and scientism. By that I mean a total refusal to look at information from different sources together, both within science and on a wider perspective.

It isnt a case of refusing to look at the information, its a case of not be convinced by it.

Loki

26th March 2003, 07:14 PM

uce,

The mental leap required to accept that materialism may actually be false and seriously consider the alternatives is huge.
You seem to have no problem in making sweeping generalisations, despite your self professed claim that you don't want to be blinkered by any particular "belief system". Anyway, perhaps you're right. Personally, I don't seem to find myself "over committed" to materialism - I just find it the best alternative I've come across. You've done very little to show a viable alternative.

I have many times spoken about commonalities in the roots of all religions, and in the philosophical writings of many great scientists. Even this is rejected as worthless.
Not rejected as worthless, uce, just added to the list of "patterns" that humans seem so fond of inventing.

From my perspective, I now see the same belief-sytem dependence exhibited here as I once criticised Christians for.
And from my perspective I see yet another person convinced that they are "on to something big..." that "defies conventional thinking" and which "can't be understood without letting go of your preconceived ideas". Only problem is, you're talking the same process as many others, but reaching wildly varying conclusions. I see the commonality as the process, not the conclusions - which, unfortunately, leaves me wondering why I should trust a process that seems to lead in every possible direction at the same time.

Yahzi

26th March 2003, 07:29 PM

ALL belief systems are damaging
I reject your damaging belief system that belief systems are damaging.

BTW, I'm not attached to my materialism: it's attached to me, and won't let go. I'd love to get rid of it. But everytime I throw it out, it comes back with a vengance.

Max560

26th March 2003, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by c4ts

Would any of you "mystics and theists" care to explain it better than he does?

The real problem is that your whole stance and preconceived notions about reality blind you from the truth. You can be saved though.

The first step to enlightenment is to cast aside the demon of critical thinking.

Then, and only then, can you ascend to higher levels of understanding. The first level of understanding is only 4 equal payments of $29.95. If you act within the next 30 days, you will receive a $50.00 credit towards attaining the 2nd level of understanding.

Through faith, sincerity of purpose, and generous donations, one day you may attain all 37 levels of understanding, and the amazing truth will be revealed.

27th March 2003, 02:44 AM

Dub

Giving up" sounds an awfully lot like "having faith".

That may be how it appears to you. However, I repeat for about the tenth time that I am not expecting anyone to have any faith in anything at all. I don't. I am asking people to relinquish their faith in materialism and accept the numerous logical demonstrations that it is false. I believe nothing at all.

www.nobeliefs.com

I, for one, am quite open to other points of view, so long as they are valid.

Who is to be the judge of their validity? I hear this over and over again, usually followed by a claim that without materialism their can be no means of validation.

I was brought up in a very religous environment.

As was I.

I also studied 'the paranormal' pretty extensively. I have never said "i dont want to believe this is true". In fact, I'd love for it to be true. However, I wont believe in something just because I 'want to believe'.

And I am not asking you to!

While it may be nice to believe somewthing is true, when there's no evidence to support it, I wont be convinced. If something can be proved to be true, then no mental leap would be required.

Unfortunately this is not true. Materialism has been demonstrated to be false. Certain groups of people here will claim it has not, but they are no different to Christians at an apologetics site claiming the Bible hasn't been demonstrated false. The Hard Problem is REAL. The failure to accept it is psychological. You do not have to "believe" me. No logical argument on the planet will convince the "believers" here, no matter how watertight, no matter how ridiculous their attempts to defend materialism. They will accept only scientific evidence, and none can be forthcoming because it is a philosophical question.

Now, belivers usually insert an analogy of how theories in science arent accepted when they first appear. Which is true. And they shouldnt be. These theories gain credibility through experimentation. Then, if the experimentation shows the theory to be correct it is accepted.

The problem being that many experiments have shown paranormal effects (minor ones). These experiments (at PEAR) are just dismissed by the materialists. The materialists "know" the results must be wrong so they accuse PEAR of fraud and incompetency. They do not provide any evidence of fraud and incompetency, they just assert it because they "KNOW" paranormal phenomena don't exist. There is a double-standard here, but the materialists won't and can't see it, because they know they are right.

People have been believing in the 'paranormal' (which definition here includes religions) for many thousands of years. So there has been plently of time for evidence to surface. But has it? If you think it has and you have it you may be $1,000,000 richer.

Randis prize is bogus for several reasons. I have discussed this many times in the past. I don't really want to get into it in this thread. There is also a creationist prize for proof that Darwinism is correct. Nobody has won that one either. Why? Well, the fact that the creationists are the judge and jury is part of the problem. But this is off-topic.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of the main reasons I ended up taking the path I did was that I was searching for information about the historical roots of Christianity in order to de-convert a Christian I knew. What I found ended up opening up all sorts of others doors I had no idea existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Care to share any of this information that so convinced you?

I can certainly share some information that helped.

Here are two sources that were important. You will need more information to know why they were important, but they are both interesting documents in their own right :

Origins of Christianity :

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Origins of existence :

http://www.hedweb.com/witherall/zero.htm

Myself, and im sure alot of people here, have searched very deeply for such things. However, the truth is more important than believeing in something because it feels nice to believe in it, or its how I would like the world to be.

I know that. Really I do know that. :)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perhaps materialism is the wrong target anyway. The real problem is blind reductionism and scientism. By that I mean a total refusal to look at information from different sources together, both within science and on a wider perspective.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It isnt a case of refusing to look at the information, its a case of not be convinced by it.

Actually, in many cases it is a point blank refusal to even consider it as a worthwhile source. "So what if 90% of the founders of QM were mystics? I am not interested in knowing why they were, so long as their reasons were not purely scientific." (Stimpson paraphrased).

27th March 2003, 02:52 AM

Loki :

Interesting it is Loki and Yahzi, two of the most committed materialism-believers who are responding to me....

Only problem is, you're talking the same process as many others, but reaching wildly varying conclusions.

Not true. There is only ONE conclusion to mystical philosophy. Compare that to the confused mess we call quantum physics.

I see the commonality as the process, not the conclusions - which, unfortunately, leaves me wondering why I should trust a process that seems to lead in every possible direction at the same time.

Need I say "quantum physics" again?

There you have a theory which only really makes sense if it indeed does lead in every possible direction at the same time! :D

Max :

The first step to enlightenment is to cast aside the demon of critical thinking.

Here is my favourite website :

www.nobeliefs.com

I am a true critical thinker. I have NO BELIEFS.

Dub

27th March 2003, 05:04 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Dub

That may be how it appears to you. However, I repeat for about the tenth time that I am not expecting anyone to have any faith in anything at all. I don't. I am asking people to relinquish their faith in materialism and accept the numerous logical demonstrations that it is false. I believe nothing at all.

www.nobeliefs.com

You claim to bleieve in "nothing at all" yet you also claim religious/mystic beliefs (although you havent made this clear). Believeing nothing at all is the position of myself, a skeptic.

Who is to be the judge of their validity? I hear this over and over again, usually followed by a claim that without materialism their can be no means of validation.

Validation comes through objective evidence.

Unfortunately this is not true. Materialism has been demonstrated to be false.

And where is the proof of this?

The problem being that many experiments have shown paranormal effects (minor ones). These experiments (at PEAR) are just dismissed by the materialists. The materialists "know" the results must be wrong so they accuse PEAR of fraud and incompetency. They do not provide any evidence of fraud and incompetency, they just assert it because they "KNOW" paranormal phenomena don't exist. There is a double-standard here, but the materialists won't and can't see it, because they know they are right.

For someone claiming "no beliefs" you have a pretty strong belief about 'materialists'. Infact you have a strong predjudic against materialists. If experiemtns are show to be flawed, a great example is the experiemtns that appeared to show homeopathy worked, then they have to be rejected. Its pointless ignoring bad experimental techniques just because the outcome appears to show what you want it to show.

Randis prize is bogus for several reasons. I have discussed this many times in the past. I don't really want to get into it in this thread. There is also a creationist prize for proof that Darwinism is correct. Nobody has won that one either. Why? Well, the fact that the creationists are the judge and jury is part of the problem.

It's not "Ranid's Prize" it is the JREF prize. At one time the challeneg existed but offered no prize money. People started saying that JREF should put its money where its mouth is. And so they did. The creations prize is totally different. The JREF prize merely asks that people can do what they claim to do. JREF claim, through experience, that people cant. The JREF protocol is also worked out between both parties. The creations however, are merely asking people to convince them. They dont merely not believe in evolution, they believe in a totally different process based on religious reasons. That menas that objective evidence woont change their mind because they will alsways say "well it says this and this in the bible". Darwinism has been proved true throught the study of genetics and the fossil record. As long as there is varition in a population, with some indiviuals 'fitter' than others, natural selection will ensure that the 'fittest' pass on more of their genes. By default, the creationists are not just asking people to prove darwinism is true, they are asking people to prove creationism is false.

Q-Source

27th March 2003, 08:33 AM

Geoff

Here is my favourite website :

www.nobeliefs.com

I am a true critical thinker. I have NO BELIEFS.

You believe that Materialism is false
You believe in the Metamind
You believe that the physical realm is a subset of the mental realm.
You believe that a consciousness is generating this reality
You believe....
You believe...
etc

Geoff, the truth is that we cannot live with empty heads. We need to believe in something. It is natural and understandable that we will always assume that our beliefs are based on rational and logical explanations, while the others' are based on emotional reasons.

Smart and educated people have better skills to defend their beliefs.

27th March 2003, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Q-Source
[b]Geoff

You believe that Materialism is false

I have gine to extra-ordinary lengths to demonstrate why materialism is logically incapable of explaining consciousness. I do not accept it to be a belief.

You believe in the Metamind

This is indeed belief, but given that materialism is false and that an objective reality exists, the metamind must also exist. My 'belief' is that solipsism is false. I see solipsism or the metamind as the only logical possibilities once materialism is demonstrated to be false. Some form of dualism might be possible but I am yet to hear a convincing solution to the binding problem.

You believe that the physical realm is a subset of the mental realm.
You believe that a consciousness is generating this reality

Again, all of these things logically follow once materialism is demonstrated to be false. Logical inevitabilities aren't beliefs. I do not "believe" that 2 + 2 = 4.

Geoff, the truth is that we cannot live with empty heads. We need to believe in something. It is natural and understandable that we will always assume that our beliefs are based on rational and logical explanations, while the others' are based on emotional reasons.

Maybe true, but the Hard Problem cannot be escaped. How is this a belief?

I am more fearful of beliefs than any materialist is. My worldview suggests that my beliefs are capable of effecting my existence in ways I cannot predict. I have very good reasons for avoiding all beliefs like the plague. My worldview renders beliefs even more dangerous than the mere psychological handicaps you see them as.

If you suspected (and I mean that if you felt your experiences demanded that it be true) that beliefs could shape reality then would you believe anything?

I have all sorts of perceptions and conceptions about metaphysics, politics, psychology and art. I am very much aware that they are opinions. I depend on none of them for my psychological well-being. I know what you are saying about 'needing a belief system'. Personally, I need a belief system like I need a hole in my head. Absolute certainties are very hard to come by, and I have very few. That materialism is false is one of those few certanties I have, and I have spent hundreds of hours explaining to people why I am certain.

Yahzi

27th March 2003, 10:42 AM

UCE
I am asking people to relinquish their faith in materialism
Even I don't expect people to give up their religious beliefs until I provide some kind of alternative.

The branch you want us to crawl out on has to exist before we let go of the one we are clinging to. This is called "common sense."

billydkid

27th March 2003, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Dub

Unfortunately this is not true. Materialism has been demonstrated to be false.

You keep saying this. Nothing has been demonstrated. You have made some arguments from which you claim their are inescapable conclusions. You claim certain things are true based on certain presumptions. I can demonstrate that a rock is "real", that it has mass and inertia and dimension by smacking you in the head with it. You can not demonstrate ANY effect that can not be attributable to material reality. The sensation of "I" is not dependent on something other than material reality.

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Certain groups of people here will claim it has not, but they are no different to Christians at an apologetics site claiming the Bible hasn't been demonstrated false. The Hard Problem is REAL. The failure to accept it is psychological. You do not have to "believe" me. No logical argument on the planet will convince the "believers" here, no matter how watertight, no matter how ridiculous their attempts to defend materialism. They will accept only scientific evidence, and none can be forthcoming because it is a philosophical question.

BS plain and simple. No, scientific evidence is not required. Although any genuine phenomenon should be demonstratable under whatever conditions. And this ridiculous notion that the mentality of the observers allows of prevents a phenomena to occur - patently absurd. I don't need scientific evidence to know there is air, I can feel it blowing against me when I walk out the door. And I would feel it even if I didn't have a clue what it was, let alone believed in it or not. And this insulting ******** about how no argument however logical or watertight being enough to convince us "believers". You saying your arguments are logical or watertight does not make them so. You post here saying, essentially, "The sky is pink! It may look blue to you, but it's really pink." and then make some long convoluted argument about the nature of consciousness making the rest of us poor dolts believe the sky is blue, but if we would only open our minds as have those gifted few like yourself, we would be able to see the true sky in all it's genuine pinkness.

Things are either true or they are not true. They are not not true because you don't accept them and they are not true because you do. Can you imagine what kind of reality we would inhabit if it were otherwise? All of us would inhabit the universe of a schizophrenic. Have you ever tried to imagine what the implications would be if your view of reality were actually true. Yes, I know you think it is true. Luckily for you and the rest of us it is not.

27th March 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Yahzi
UCE

Even I don't expect people to give up their religious beliefs until I provide some kind of alternative.

The branch you want us to crawl out on has to exist before we let go of the one we are clinging to. This is called "common sense."

http://www.distance.vic.edu.au/vce/Philosophia/why.htm

"Dear Sophie,

... A lot of people experience the world with the same incredulity as when the magician suddenly pulls a rabbit out of the hat which has just been shown to be empty.

In the case of the rabbit, we know the magician has tricked us. What we would like to know is just how e has done it. But when it comes to the world it's somewhat different. We know that the world is not all sleight of hand and deception because here we are in it, we are part of it. Actually, we are the white rabbit being pulled out of the hat. The only difference between us and the white rabbit is that the rabbit does not realize it is taking part in a magic trick. Unlike us. We feel we are part of something mysterious and we would like to know how it all works.

P.S. As far as the white rabbit is concerned, it might be better to compare it with the whole universe. We who live here are microscopic insects existing deep down in the rabbit's fur. But philosophers are always trying to climb up the fine hairs of the fur in order to stare right into the magician's eyes....

... Although philosophical questions concern us all, we do not all become philosophers. For various reasons most people get so caught up in everyday affairs their astonishment at the world gets pushed into the background. (They crawl deep into the rabbit's fur, snuggle down comfortably, and stay there for the rest of their lives.)

To children, the world and everything in it is new, something that gives rise to astonishment. It is not like that for adults. Most adults accept the world as a matter of course.

This is precisely where philosophers are a notable exception. A philosopher never quite gets used to the world. To him or her, the world continues to seem a bit unreasonable - bewildering, even enigmatic. Philosophers and small children thus have an important faculty in common. You might say that throughout her life a philosopher remains as thin-skinned as a child.

So now you must choose, Sophie. Are you a child who has not yet become world-weary? Or are you a philosopher who will vow never to become so?

If you shake your head, not recognizing yourself as either a child or a philosopher, then you have gotten so used to the world that it no longer astonishes you. Watch out! You are on thin ice... I will not allow you, of all people, to join the ranks of the apathetic and the indifferent...

To summarize briefly: A white rabbit is pulled out of a top hat. Because it is an extremely large rabbit, the trick takes many billions of years. All mortals are born at the very tip of the rabbit's fine hairs, where they are in a position to wonder at the impossibility of the trick. But as they grow older they work themselves ever deeper into the fur. And there they stay. They become so comfortable they never risk crawling up the fragile hairs again. Only philosophers embark on this perilous expedition to the outermost reaches of language and existence. Some of them fall off, but others cling on desperately and yell at the people nestling deep in the snug softness, stuffing themselves with delicious food and drink.

'Ladies and gentlemen,' they yell, 'we are floating in space!' But none of the people down there care.

'What a bunch of troublemakers!' they say. And they keep on chatting: Would you pass the butter, please? How much have our stocks risen today? What is the price of tomatoes? Have you heard that Princess Di is expecting again? ..."

;)

27th March 2003, 12:40 PM

Billy :

I can demonstrate that a rock is "real", that it has mass and inertia and dimension by smacking you in the head with it.

Yes, Samuel Johnsons famous 'rebuttal' remains the only response the materialist can provide.... :D

And this ridiculous notion that the mentality of the observers allows of prevents a phenomena to occur - patently absurd.

Berkeley the lunatic! :)

Have you ever tried to imagine what the implications would be if your view of reality were actually true.

Can you imagine what that question might sound like to someone who had already seen the implications in effect, and been terrified and awed like never in his life before?

Can you imagine being a lifelong skeptic, then finding that the paranormal was real and then finding yourself getting into it way over your head because at the outset you didn't really believe it was real, and didn't understand what you were getting involved in?

Loki

27th March 2003, 01:53 PM

uce,

Interesting it is Loki and Yahzi, two of the most committed materialism-believers who are responding to me....
This statement alone tells me you don't bother to read other posts, except to find points to disagree with. "Materialist-believer" ... nice one! A not quite so subtle adHom ...

Not true. There is only ONE conclusion to mystical philosophy.
Sure there is - and it's different for each person. That's why it's a subjective conclusion.

Materialism has been demonstrated to be false.
Except you don't seem to be able to get anyone to agree with you that it has. Which particular demonstration are you referring to here ?

(a) The famous "statement 5" ?
(b) P-ZombieWorld ?
(c) Mary the blind eye specialist ?
(d) Other (pleas epovide details)

Certain groups of people here will claim it has not, but they are no different to Christians at an apologetics site claiming the Bible hasn't been demonstrated false.
Oh, I think there's a difference, and I think you'd agree with me there's a difference if you weren't busy trying to score a few quick points.

The Hard Problem is REAL.
Well, you put "real" in CAPS and bold, so I guess you must mean it. Pity you can't even prove this point. Even Chalmers admits there are possible alternatives (although, clearly, he rejects them) :

1. Type-A materialism : The "Hard Problem" is not real.
2. Type-B materialism : The "Hard Problem" is real, but does not reflect an underlying split in the nature of reality
3. Type-C materialism : The "Hard Problem" is real, but will eventually be solved by the discovery of new information about the physical world.

There are two interesting things here, uce.

First, why does Chalmers reject Type-A? In simple terms, he argues that :
a. rejecting the Hard Problem is counter-intuitive;
b. counter-intuitive concepts require strong evidence to be accepted;
c. the evidence in this case is not strong;
d. therefore, rejection of Type-A is valid.

The thing to note is that he doesn't actually offer any direct evidence that the Hard Problem exists!! All he says is that it is counter-intuitive to reject the Hard Problem, and therefore he will assume it exists until such time as strong evidence against it is provided. This works for me - I also assume the Hard Problem exists (until I'm convinced otherwise) - but the point is Chalmers cannot prove the Hard Problem exists; he assumes it.

The second point is that Type-C materialism is at least logically acceptable. It simply says that the Hard Problem exists, and will eventually be resolved by some as yet unknown discovery. So the acceptance of the Hard Problem as real is not enough to logically disprove materialism. Or at least that's what it seems to me that Chalmers is saying.

billydkid

27th March 2003, 03:18 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Billy :

Can you imagine what that question might sound like to someone who had already seen the implications in effect, and been terrified and awed like never in his life before?

Can you imagine being a lifelong skeptic, then finding that the paranormal was real and then finding yourself getting into it way over your head because at the outset you didn't really believe it was real, and didn't understand what you were getting involved in?

Pulllleeeeze!

asherah

27th March 2003, 05:27 PM

Am new to the forum as a whole and have read a number of undercover elephant's comment's about materialism the paranormal and his or her conversion from the skeptical to the credulous but was unable to locate an explanation of the specific life changing events that influenced his/her decision beyond vague references and if only you understood what happened you would know i'm right platitudes ... please tell me that he or she has been willing to allow an open and critical discusion of her transformation in detail.
:rolleyes:

Dub

27th March 2003, 05:52 PM

Welcome to the forum asherah :)

Loki

27th March 2003, 06:15 PM

asherah
please tell me that he or she has been willing to allow an open and critical discusion of her transformation in detail
A brief summary of the past...

uce's conversion has happened in two stages.

In stage one (before he came to the JREF, I think), he moved from "Science is ALL", to a position of "Science hides the ultimate truth by blinkering your thinking." He spent a long while here arguing various flavours of "materialism is dead, and I can prove it". These threads would often deteriorate (on both sides - not trying to blame uce for this!) into quite abusive posts. Things would go quiet, then it would start up again. Uce, not alone, had a bit of an anger management problem in those days, and could get VERY abusive if pushed. Also spent quite a bit of effort to push a theory that use of certain drugs (not the legal kind) was either "necessary" or "beneficial" in exploring these "alternative ways" of thinking. In other words, was quite heavily pro-drugs.

Then stage two arrived - over a period of weeks, he went VERY strange. Annouced he was quitting drugs. Posted lots of things about "you won't believe what happened to me", involving (his words) "A MAJOR BREACH of the laws of physics". Posts IMO became very erratic, and he seemed very emotional. Seemed very depressed. Posted a theory that the past could change depending upon a peron's desires ("archeologists find dinosaur bones because that's what they 'wish' to find" is the simple example he gave). Then started on a theory that reality is the result of what the majority of people want it to be, and if enough of us want it to be 'utopia', then it will be. In this context, atheist/skeptics 'want' the world to be without paranormal events, and if there's enough of us around this becomes 'reality'. Various attempts to formulate a protocol to test his "past/reality changes through wiill/desire" were proposed, but he rejected them all as "doomed to fail".

Anway, eventually he announced he was leaving and would no longer post as uce because he had reached post 2012 (a significant number in his version of reality. Look up "Mayan Calender" for more info). Disappeared for a while (months?) then reappeared as "Juggler". Everyone knew immediately who it was because he launched straight back into the same old stuff.

Eventually, for some reason, stopped using Juggler and returned to uce. Has been pretty much the same old story, but with much better delivery, since returning as uce.

And in answer to your question, yes, a number of attempts have been made to go over uce's various 'paranormal' experiences, but they never got very far - he has always been reluctant to co-operate. In fairness, I don't actually think he's lying (I think he's mistaken in interpretation, not necessarily in observation), and I attribute his reluctance (back then) in large part to the fairly hostile reception he got whenever he posted just about anything.

Okay, enough talking about uce behind his back - you can come in now Geoff and clear up the total misconception you undoubtly feel I've created.

asherah

27th March 2003, 06:45 PM

first off thanks for the warm welcome dub and the detailed and thoughtful reply loki ... one of my reasons for posting a comment concerning juggler/uce was that i have a friend with a similar philosophy ... this friend was heavily into drugs at one time and subsequently had experiences that could only be explained as paranormal and/or of supernatural origin specifically dealing with demons and the existance of evil forces which makes him paranoid for example in the presence of ouija boards and of movies like the Exorcist (but which did for better or worse led him to joining AA)... now the similarity that i found interesting is he took a vague stance when questioned about his experiences prefering to defer to statements such as; if you had experienced what i did you would understand or i don't want to go into it. speaking in deeply reverent tones about seeing things that left no doubt in validating the existence of evil forces, demons etc... now this is a very likable gregarious and talented artist who doesn't come off as a kook, but when questioned directly took the vague- i'm in the know and your not and i can't talk about it -stance. Now this person knows that i'm skeptical, which led me to the admittedly unsubstantiated conclusion that part of the reason he and possibly uce is vague about specifics is that such detailed description opens the door for skeptical questioning against the wall of vagueness that protects the belief system they've created for themselves ... any specifics would lead to uncomfortable "annoying" questions, those -what about this and couldn't it be this questions- we skeptics love to ask ... as far as the ideas that you conveyed loki concerning uce's rants about our creating our own reality by focused will, for example, i would refer uce/juggler to what is possibly the best book on skeptical thought, How to Think About Wierd Things which deals with solipsism and other ideas of alternate realities in a logical and fair handed manner ... thanks again for you kind responses :p

AmateurScientist

27th March 2003, 07:13 PM

Originally posted by asherah
first off thanks for the warm welcome dub and the detailed and thoughtful reply loki ... one of my reasons for posting a comment concerning juggler/uce was that i have a friend with a similar philosophy ... this friend was heavily into drugs at one time and subsequently had experiences that could only be explained as paranormal and/or of supernatural origin specifically dealing with demons and the existance of evil forces which makes him paranoid for example in the presence of ouija boards and of movies like the Exorcist (but which did for better or worse led him to joining AA)... now the similarity that i found interesting is he took a vague stance when questioned about his experiences prefering to defer to statements such as; if you had experienced what i did you would understand or i don't want to go into it. speaking in deeply reverent tones about seeing things that left no doubt in validating the existence of evil forces, demons etc... now this is a very likable gregarious and talented artist who doesn't come off as a kook, but when questioned directly took the vague- i'm in the know and your not and i can't talk about it -stance. Now this person knows that i'm skeptical, which led me to the admittedly unsubstantiated conclusion that part of the reason he and possibly uce is vague about specifics is that such detailed description opens the door for skeptical questioning against the wall of vagueness that protects the belief system they've created for themselves ... any specifics would lead to uncomfortable "annoying" questions, those -what about this and couldn't it be this questions- we skeptics love to ask ... as far as the ideas that you conveyed loki concerning uce's rants about our creating our own reality by focused will, for example, i would refer uce/juggler to what is possibly the best book on skeptical thought, How to Think About Wierd Things which deals with solipsism and other ideas of alternate realities in a logical and fair handed manner ... thanks again for you kind responses :p

Very nice story about your friend, asherah. Also, good insight into UCE and reasons for his dodges.

Also, welcome to the forum.

One more thing...I don't mean this to be critical, but I suggest that in the future you include more punctuation and capital letters in your posts. Stream of consciousness type writing, although common elsewhere on the web, is very difficult to read and decipher.

AS

[edited to correct embarrassing spelling error.]

asherah

27th March 2003, 07:45 PM

Thanks for you response AS, point well taken, will adjust in future.

Yahzi

27th March 2003, 11:47 PM

UCE
Yes, Samuel Johnsons famous 'rebuttal' remains the only response the materialist can provide....
It's not the only one they can provide; it is the only one they need to provide.

Can you imagine being a lifelong skeptic, then finding that the paranormal was real
The last time I dreamed I was able to fly, I deliberately flew up to the top of a flag pole while wearing a Walkman playing music. I could hear both the music and the flag snapping in the wind, so I reasoned that I couldn't be dreaming, because I couldn't possibly imagine so much rich detail. Even in my dreams, I subject my experiences to the most rigourous test I can devise. So I think it's safe to say that I would react to paranormal events in the real world with the same attitude.

In my dreams, they pass the test: because in my dreams, I can actually fly. Why don't your paranormal expierences pass the test?

28th March 2003, 02:10 AM

Originally posted by asherah
Am new to the forum as a whole and have read a number of undercover elephant's comment's about materialism the paranormal and his or her conversion from the skeptical to the credulous but was unable to locate an explanation of the specific life changing events that influenced his/her decision beyond vague references and if only you understood what happened you would know i'm right platitudes ... please tell me that he or she has been willing to allow an open and critical discusion of her transformation in detail.
:rolleyes:

A) If you want to talk to me then please do me the service of addressing me directly.

B) An open and critical discussion of my 'transformation' was on-going, since I was posting prolifically at the time.

C) Talking about the specific details in public now is counter-productive for the simple reason that the skeptics are incapable of believing it. See Billys response above.

D) If you personally are interested in finding out more about what happened to me then PM me

E) Everything which occured can be accounted for by breaches in the laws of probability and the past not being fixed. i.e. the laws of physics were respected.

If you are actually interested, then I will talk to you. If the sole point of the discussion is for you to 'educate' me about 'how these things can be rationalised', then don't bother. They cannot be. You will end up either thinking I am a liar or a fool. I am neither, and I have no need to prove anything to you, but I am interested in helping anyone who wants to know more about these things. This is after all supposed to be a foundation for educating people about the 'paranormal'.

:)

Geoff

28th March 2003, 02:16 AM

OK Loki.....

In stage one (before he came to the JREF, I think), he moved from "Science is ALL", to a position of "Science hides the ultimate truth by blinkering your thinking." He spent a long while here arguing various flavours of "materialism is dead, and I can prove it".

It was always materialism I attacked, not science.

These threads would often deteriorate (on both sides - not trying to blame uce for this!) into quite abusive posts. Things would go quiet, then it would start up again. Uce, not alone, had a bit of an anger management problem in those days, and could get VERY abusive if pushed. Also spent quite a bit of effort to push a theory that use of certain drugs (not the legal kind) was either "necessary" or "beneficial" in exploring these "alternative ways" of thinking. In other words, was quite heavily pro-drugs.

Plenty of people get there without drugs. Certain drugs make the transformation easier by destroying certain illusions.

Then stage two arrived - over a period of weeks, he went VERY strange. Annouced he was quitting drugs. Posted lots of things about "you won't believe what happened to me", involving (his words) "A MAJOR BREACH of the laws of physics". Posts IMO became very erratic, and he seemed very emotional. Seemed very depressed.

I wasn't depressed. I was elated like never before.

Posted a theory that the past could change depending upon a peron's desires ("archeologists find dinosaur bones because that's what they 'wish' to find" is the simple example he gave).

Not quite.....

Anway, eventually he announced he was leaving and would no longer post as uce because he had reached post 2012 (a significant number in his version of reality. Look up "Mayan Calender" for more info). Disappeared for a while (months?) then reappeared as "Juggler".

Juggler re-appeared a week after UCE left.

.

28th March 2003, 02:22 AM

aserah

Now this person knows that i'm skeptical, which led me to the admittedly unsubstantiated conclusion that part of the reason he and possibly uce is vague about specifics is that such detailed description opens the door for skeptical questioning against the wall of vagueness that protects the belief system they've created for themselves ... any specifics would lead to uncomfortable "annoying" questions, those -what about this and couldn't it be this questions- we skeptics love to ask ... as far as the ideas that you conveyed loki concerning uce's rants about our creating our own reality by focused will, for example, i would refer uce/juggler to what is possibly the best book on skeptical thought, How to Think About Wierd Things which deals with solipsism and other ideas of alternate realities in a logical and fair handed manner ... thanks again for you kind responses

OK...an extra piece of information :

I spent most of my life studying science. I have been a subscriber to NewScientist for over 15 years. I studied chemistry, physics and biology for my A-levels. I was a hard atheist from about the age of 8. I spent 6 months as the science and skepticism moderator for www.infidels.org, the biggest atheist website in existence.

So please don't tell me to read "How to thing about weird things" and expect it to contain anything I do not already I know!

Just for a moment, I want you to consider that I understand your position better than you do, and I still "believe weird things", for the simple reason that I have actually seen weird things.

If you aren't capable of entertaining that possibility then there is nowhere for us to go. The reason I resist giving details is that I know precisely what your belief system will allow you to accept, and what it won't. I've been there.

28th March 2003, 02:23 AM

Originally posted by Yahzi
UCE

It's not the only one they can provide; it is the only one they need to provide.

The last time I dreamed I was able to fly, I deliberately flew up to the top of a flag pole while wearing a Walkman playing music. I could hear both the music and the flag snapping in the wind, so I reasoned that I couldn't be dreaming, because I couldn't possibly imagine so much rich detail. Even in my dreams, I subject my experiences to the most rigourous test I can devise. So I think it's safe to say that I would react to paranormal events in the real world with the same attitude.

In my dreams, they pass the test: because in my dreams, I can actually fly. Why don't your paranormal expierences pass the test?

Erm....what "test"? :confused:

Dub

28th March 2003, 04:31 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

E) Everything which occured can be accounted for by breaches in the laws of probability and the past not being fixed. i.e. the laws of physics were respected.

Can you explain what you define as the laws of probability? What proabilities are against this law? The lottery has a 14 million to 1 probabiliy yet people regularly win it.

Dub

28th March 2003, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

If you aren't capable of entertaining that possibility then there is nowhere for us to go. The reason I resist giving details is that I know precisely what your belief system will allow you to accept, and what it won't. I've been there.

I'd say the problem here is your predjice view of other people. You "know" how they will think and react, and therefore dont deem them worthy of your story. You need to be less judgemental of people. Why dont you just explain you story again? Many people enquiring about it werent even around when you originally posted it about.

Dub

28th March 2003, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

Just for a moment, I want you to consider that I understand your position better than you do, and I still "believe weird things", for the simple reason that I have actually seen weird things.

I though you had "no beleifs"?

28th March 2003, 04:49 AM

Originally posted by Dub

Can you explain what you define as the laws of probability? What proabilities are against this law? The lottery has a 14 million to 1 probabiliy yet people regularly win it.

I mean the laws of quantum probability.

http://www.artseensoho.com/Life/readings/eddington.html

I am standing on the threshold about to enter a room. It is a complicated business. In the first place I must shove against an atmosphere pressing with a force of fourteen pounds on every square inch of my body. I must make sure of landing on a plank travelling at twenty miles a second round the sun - a fraction of a second too early or too late, the plank would be miles away. I must do this whilst hanging from a round planet head outward into space, and with a wind of aether blowing at no one knows how many miles a second through every interstice of my body. The plank has no solidity of substance. To step on it is like stepping on a swarm of flies. Shall I not slip through? No, if I make the venture one of the flies hits me and gives a boost up again; I fall again and am knocked upwards by another fly; and so on. I may hope that the net result will be that I remain about steady; but if unfortunately I should slip through the floor or be boosted too violently up to the ceiling, the occurrence would be, not a violation of the laws of Nature, but a rare coincidence...

Verily, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a scientific man to pass through a door. And whether the door be barn door or church door it might be wiser that he should consent to be an ordinary man and walk in rather than wait till all the difficulties involved in a really scientific ingress are resolved.

To take Eddingtons example, all it would take to sink through the floor would be a major breach of the laws of probability, not the laws of physics. If this principle is combined with an acknowledgement that the past is indeterminate then all sorts of things are possible without breaking any physical laws, since the improbability doesn't have to be restricted to the present moment. If such effects could be 'orchestrated' then the possibilities are mind-boggling.

Dub

28th March 2003, 06:48 AM

So in what way did you break the quantum probability laws? and can you prove that you did, and not merely that you 'think' you did? Even if some event, such as falling through the floor, did occur it would not be paranormal, just higly unlikely. But, unless the probability of an event is 0, there is still a possibility that it will occur. Hence it's occurance would not be paranormal.

28th March 2003, 07:03 AM

Originally posted by Dub

So in what way did you break the quantum probability laws?

I didn't break them. I was just there when they were broken.

and can you prove that you did, and not merely that you 'think' you did?

No, I cannot prove it, and I don't want to. Please stop asking me for proof. I am explaining what happened to me because people asked. I already explained that I cannot prove it, and why I do not want to prove it. Try to stop thinking in terms of objective proof. There can be no objective proof.

Even if some event, such as falling through the floor, did occur it would not be paranormal, just higly unlikely.

But what is the difference between paranormal and highly unlikely? I have often complained that most people here do not really know what 'paranormal' means. Both breaches in the laws of probability and an indetemrinate past are allowed by the laws of physics, but together they provide ample opportunity for events to occur which, if they happened to you, would leave you in no doubt at all that something 'paranormal' had occured. At the time, I yelled and screamed that I had seen the laws of physics breached. In retrospect, and after a great deal of thought, I realised that breaches in the laws of physics were not required to explain what I experienced, but that an indeterminate past and non-randomisation of quantum wave-function collapse could account for it.

You appear to have defined 'paranormal' as 'breaking the laws of physics'. If so, I am agnostic towards such events.

Dub

28th March 2003, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

I didn't break them. I was just there when they were broken.

But you still wont say what actually happened? Also, how do you know they were broken?

No, I cannot prove it, and I don't want to. Please stop asking me for proof. I am explaining what happened to me because people asked. I already explained that I cannot prove it, and why I do not want to prove it. Try to stop thinking in terms of objective proof. There can be no objective proof.

So, you cant and do not want prove it. Therefore it's a fantasy you choose to believe in. You also want me to not use objective proof, even though none exists. How about i make up answer to explain what I see? As it doesnt have to be based on objective proof I can choose anything I want. Therefore I propose an invisible dragon has taken my cars keys. I 'know' this dragon is invisible as I can't see it. Don't ask me to prove this dragon exists because I cannot and do not want to.

You appear to have defined 'paranormal' as 'breaking the laws of physics'. If so, I am agnostic towards such events.

How do you define paranormal? If there is a probability that something can happen, no matter how small that probablity is, its occurence would not be paranormal, just highly unlinkey. Are you saying that you define unlikely events as paranormal? Is winning the lottery paranormal?

asherah

28th March 2003, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant

A) If you want to talk to me then please do me the service of addressing me directly.

B) An open and critical discussion of my 'transformation' was on-going, since I was posting prolifically at the time.

C) Talking about the specific details in public now is counter-productive for the simple reason that the skeptics are incapable of believing it. See Billys response above.

D) If you personally are interested in finding out more about what happened to me then PM me

E) Everything which occured can be accounted for by breaches in the laws of probability and the past not being fixed. i.e. the laws of physics were respected.

If you are actually interested, then I will talk to you. If the sole point of the discussion is for you to 'educate' me about 'how these things can be rationalised', then don't bother. They cannot be. You will end up either thinking I am a liar or a fool. I am neither, and I have no need to prove anything to you, but I am interested in helping anyone who wants to know more about these things. This is after all supposed to be a foundation for educating people about the 'paranormal'.

:)

Geoff

First off UCE you must forgive me for an etiquette breech by not addressing you directly; my reason for doing so was based on the thought that it would be a waste of your time to repeat an account of your experiences if such an account had been rendered several times previous.

As to your having more knowledge of my position than i do myself and to my attempt to educate you, well to the former position; I make no claims on super intelligence nor anything more than a laymans knowledge of quantum physics, additionally I respect your accomplishments in the A levels of your education system. As to the latter I feel that we - all of us in the forum for example - can learn from each other. However, I don't hold any hope for changing your mind about what you have felt and seen, just as you hold little hope for changing mine. But, that doesn't mean that an open and unaggressive dialogue cannot be illuminating for someone else who might read and evaluate the ideas presented here. Therefore I hope that you continue to provide us with your views since us skeptics can get bored with patting each other on the back and "preaching to the choir" so to speak. So I hope you will allow a public discussion on your views again with the additional hope that they can be soberly discussed without degenerating into insult matches. Also do not presume that I will think you are a fool or a liar ... at worst I might consider you mis-led and who among us hasn't been mis-led at one time or another, either by ourselves or others. :cool:

asherah

28th March 2003, 06:05 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
aserah

OK...an extra piece of information :

I spent most of my life studying science. I have been a subscriber to NewScientist for over 15 years. I studied chemistry, physics and biology for my A-levels. I was a hard atheist from about the age of 8. I spent 6 months as the science and skepticism moderator for www.infidels.org, the biggest atheist website in existence.

So please don't tell me to read "How to thing about weird things" and expect it to contain anything I do not already I know!

Just for a moment, I want you to consider that I understand your position better than you do, and I still "believe weird things", for the simple reason that I have actually seen weird things.

If you aren't capable of entertaining that possibility then there is nowhere for us to go. The reason I resist giving details is that I know precisely what your belief system will allow you to accept, and what it won't. I've been there.

In answer to this response, first of all i'm an agnostic not an atheist so that may help to "understand my position better than I do " even to a degree more than "better than i do" (Thing Spinal Tap but with understanding amps that go all the way to 11 instead of 10).

As to your position formerly as an atheist, did you not feel as strongly about the absolute truth of the non existance of the paranormal as you do now about the absolute truth of the paranormal based on your experiences.

Another question; is there anything that could happen, any future occurance that might call into question in your mind the validity or connection of these experiences to the paranormal. For example aren't Eddington's idea's about quantum mechanics and probability open for revision? And to would you recommend a book such as How to Think about Wierd Things to those not as educated as yourself as an introduction, say, to reason and logical fallacies and as a tool for the evaluation of unsubstantiated claims? (with of course the respectful exclusion of your own0? Certainly a general paradigm for dealing with reality is not without merit in most situations, correct? Thanking you in advance for you consideration in reading an answering what may seem to you peurile and useless questions.:)

c4ts

28th March 2003, 09:28 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
aserah

OK...an extra piece of information :

I spent most of my life studying science. I have been a subscriber to NewScientist for over 15 years. I studied chemistry, physics and biology for my A-levels. I was a hard atheist from about the age of 8. I spent 6 months as the science and skepticism moderator for www.infidels.org, the biggest atheist website in existence.

So please don't tell me to read "How to thing about weird things" and expect it to contain anything I do not already I know!

Just for a moment, I want you to consider that I understand your position better than you do, and I still "believe weird things", for the simple reason that I have actually seen weird things.

If you aren't capable of entertaining that possibility then there is nowhere for us to go. The reason I resist giving details is that I know precisely what your belief system will allow you to accept, and what it won't. I've been there.

You think he would have learned something after all that studying, yet he continues to cling dogmatically, rather than reasonably, to his dualistic philosophy. Thus he fails to understand materialism because he cannot understand what he cannot incorporate into his systematic beliefs. I think "hard" athiesm, if it exists as anything more than a strawman (I have never actually met a "hard" athiest, nor have I seen one on these boards), is as illogical as a True Believer mentality. UCE claims knowledge of our particular belief system because he has studied a similar system belonging to people other than ourselves which is "hard" athiesm. He does not know or understand what you know or understand, which is made apparent by his actions. Any attempt to reach knowledge of a particular though knowledge of a generalization to which the particular belongs is asking for errors. One should seek knowledge of the whole within which the particular functions instead of its catergory.

scribble

29th March 2003, 12:18 AM

Hell, all this has been gone over so many times it makes me sick.

And I'm tired of presenting the same ignored rebuttals to UcE again and again, so I will simply ask the audience one question -- anyone wishing to investigate further may feel more than welcome to start a thread where I will be willing to discuss all with them.

My simple question is this:

If UcE is trying to present himself as a staunch skeptic and unbeliever who suddenly had his entire universal paradigm shifted by some "major breaches of the laws of physics," then why is it that any of us must give up our own non-believer status before we can experience the same enlightenment?

Can you imagine being a lifelong skeptic, then finding that the paranormal was real and then finding yourself getting into it way over your head because at the outset you didn't really believe it was real, and didn't understand what you were getting involved in?

-Chris

29th March 2003, 02:40 AM

Hello Dub

Originally posted by Dub

But you still wont say what actually happened? Also, how do you know they were broken?

You would have known if you were there. The accounts given by some others weren't entirely innacurate, even if they were a bit dramatised. Forgive me for being careful about what I post.

How do you define paranormal? If there is a probability that something can happen, no matter how small that probablity is, its occurence would not be paranormal, just highly unlinkey. Are you saying that you define unlikely events as paranormal? Is winning the lottery paranormal?

If a man walks out onto a lake and each time he puts his foot down quantum randomness and co-ordinated brownian motion throw molecules up towards his feet so he does not sink into the water, is it a miracle? He can do this without breaking the laws of physics - all that is required is an incredibly co-ordinated co-incidence. Is it paranormal? The word doesn't matter. If you saw this, then you would know something strange was going on.

29th March 2003, 02:42 AM

Originally posted by asherah

So I hope you will allow a public discussion on your views again with the additional hope that they can be soberly discussed without degenerating into insult matches. Also do not presume that I will think you are a fool or a liar ... at worst I might consider you mis-led and who among us hasn't been mis-led at one time or another, either by ourselves or others.

Great. Welcome to the board. :)

29th March 2003, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by asherah

As to your position formerly as an atheist, did you not feel as strongly about the absolute truth of the non existance of the paranormal as you do now about the absolute truth of the paranormal based on your experiences.

I felt they were theoretically impossible.

Another question; is there anything that could happen, any future occurance that might call into question in your mind the validity or connection of these experiences to the paranormal.

No. If you had aliens to tea, then you wouldn't later doubt it.

For example aren't Eddington's idea's about quantum mechanics and probability open for revision?

All sorts of things are open for revision.

And to would you recommend a book such as How to Think about Wierd Things to those not as educated as yourself as an introduction, say, to reason and logical fallacies and as a tool for the evaluation of unsubstantiated claims?

This sentence doesn't scan and I'm not sure what it is meant to say.

(with of course the respectful exclusion of your own0? Certainly a general paradigm for dealing with reality is not without merit in most situations, correct?

Thanking you in advance for you consideration in reading an answering what may seem to you peurile and useless questions.[

Yes, we need a general paradigm of reaity. But we must be prepared every now and then to go back to the drawing board and examine that paradigm very carefully indeed.

Skepticism can go hand in hand with subjective explorations of the nature of reality, even if these cannot be scientifically pinned down.

29th March 2003, 04:55 AM

Originally posted by c4ts

You think he would have learned something after all that studying, yet he continues to cling dogmatically, rather than reasonably, to his dualistic philosophy.

I am a mental monist, not a dualist.

Thus he fails to understand materialism because he cannot understand what he cannot incorporate into his systematic beliefs.

The reverse is true. Ultimately I could not incorporate consciousness into the systematic belief system I held based upon materialism.

UCE claims knowledge of our particular belief system because he has studied a similar system belonging to people other than ourselves which is "hard" athiesm.

I claim knowledge of your belief system because I was just like you for 20 years, c4ts.

29th March 2003, 05:02 AM

Perhaps I can move this debate on in a different way. Here is a quote from a website which covers this sort of subject :

Truth Analysis

Montalk 3/3/03

This article describes the reasoning process I use to write most of the articles on this site.

This process is based on two axioms: truth is not relative, and truth never contradicts itself. Because truth is not relative, some ideas are more objective than others. This means that no matter what your worldview is, it can always be improved to be more objective. It shows that there is indeed something to strive for.

The idea that truth never contradicts itself is a very powerful axiom. Lies can be internally consistent as well, but a mixture of truth and lies will show contradictions. You can use this principle to discover what's true and what's false. Here's what I mean:

It is difficult to tell if any single idea is true or false, just like it is difficult to tell which of two similar puzzles a single puzzle piece belongs to. But a large collection of non-contradicting ideas will reveal whether the entire collection is true or false. The larger the collection, the easier it is to see. You start with one ambiguous puzzle piece, find others that fit onto it, and soon you can tell which of the two puzzles you've put together.

Another analogy is panning for gold. You start with a large amount of material that includes both silt and gold flakes, then you shake the pan and let the silt fall away. This indicates the importance of continually thinking, reading, and discussing large amounts of new material, which is then to be sorted or filtered via intuition and critical thinking to reveal what is true.

It is better to look for what's wrong with a theory than what's right. Debates can rage forever concerning the thousand facts supporting a single lie, but no one can argue with a single fact that disproves a thousand lies.

Remember, as long as your worldview is internally consistent, it is most likely entirely true or entirely false. Combine this principle with the five-step process below, and you will have an effective truth analysis method. The process of discovering truth is one of cycling between gathering material, formulating theories, working out inconsistencies, and gathering more material.

Most importantly, truth is always verified by both logic and intuition -- logic without intuition, or intuition without logic should never be used to determine truth. They must be used in tandem. If there is conflict between logic and intuition, check your logical assumptions. Use intuition to guide and logic to analyze.

The process goes like this:

1) Gather new ideas from contemplation, observation, discussion, or some reading material. Then pick a mystery, a contradiction, a set of observations or anything that needs to be explained or resolved.

2) To make a good theory that will explain all of that, start with the infinite set of all possibilities. This means anything goes, no idea is too ludicrous. Use your intuition and guess.

3) As ideas come to mind, use critical thinking to eliminate everything that is self contradictory or absolutely impossible. Look for holes in these ideas, try to shoot them down.

4) Of the bulletproof theories that are left, select the theory that:

- explains all the facts
- explains the facts better than any other theory
- explains facts that previous theories could not
- is logically consistent and has no internal contradictions
- makes sense
- feels intuitively correct

4) The theory is worth keeping if:

- it predicts things which are later confirmed by observation
- you find correlation from other independent sources

5) If you come across something that challenges the theory, then:

- check to see that it's really a challenge, and not just an illusory paradox based on assumptions or incorrect perspective
- check to see if the challenge is even valid, or if it is internally inconsistent and full of holes
- modify the theory to accomodate the challenge
- come up with a whole new theory that explains everything more elegantly than the old one

This is opposite the process used in science and mathematics that starts with axioms and builds upon them. The problem with that method is that it starts with a very limited finite set and creeps upward like a stalagmite. If the assumptions or axioms are false, then everything built on it is in error. Furthermore, such a process cannot skip steps, as it always needs verification from the status quo to proceed to the next step. It cannot take leaps of faith or logic, and therefore cannot make paradigm shifts. It's an inflexible process that definitely has its advantages when it comes to high risk applications that need lots of security and assuredness, but as far as breaking new ground is concerned, it's incredibly slow. Any creativity in that process happens only in the formation of the basic axioms, or in accidents that occur along the way.

The process described in this article starts with an infinite set, and whittles away what doesn't fit. This means there is no need to leap across a logical abyss because one approaches from the other side. It is much easier to build a bridge if someone is already on the other side. Likewise, once a radical idea has been confirmed using this process, it is much easier to work backwards and logically bridge the abyss. Also, the fitting together of ideas and sorting of truth from lies requires creativity at every step, so it's the best method of achieving rapid innovation.

asherah

29th March 2003, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Perhaps I can move this debate on in a different way. Here is a quote from a website which covers this sort of subject :

Am comfused, does this quote represent how you analize reality now or before your strange experience that defied the known laws of physics?

Also, as regards my previous confusing and admittedly convoluted sentence, let me rephrase: If you do not have any respect for the paradigm presented in a book such as How to Think About Wierd Things, could you recommend a few texts yourself that cover what you consider an appropriate paradigm for dealing with everyday non miracle laced reality? And, more important, any texts or sites that might illuminate us as to examples of or methods for dealing with our own possible future experiences with breaks in the laws of physics. Thanks :)

29th March 2003, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by asherah

Am comfused, does this quote represent how you analize reality now or before your strange experience that defied the known laws of physics?

The process of my views evolving from exclusive scientism to a more holistic way of thinking kind of happened as a long process. My understanding of the way things fitted together and the level of 'strangeness' of the experiences changed together.

Also, as regards my previous confusing and admittedly convoluted sentence, let me rephrase: If you do not have any respect for the paradigm presented in a book such as How to Think About Wierd Things, could you recommend a few texts yourself that cover what you consider an appropriate paradigm for dealing with everyday non miracle laced reality?

I should think that this is probably a good book for describing every day non-miracle-laced reality.

And, more important, any texts or sites that might illuminate us as to examples of or methods for dealing with our own possible future experiences with breaks in the laws of physics.

I have stated about four times in this thread that I have spoken about breaks in the normal laws of probability and a potentially non-fixed past. I have specifically stated I am agnostic as regards whether the known laws of physics can be broken.

And I don't think it is likely to happen to you unless you go looking for it.

:)