Are all mediums con artists then?

[Azrael 5]

I have an idea.Open a new thread entitled "Interesting Ian's evidence for the paranormal".See how long before it gets any replies!! :D

[Interesting Ian]

Well, in one posting, you have responded to my civil questions by calling me a 'dick' a 'clown' and 'unbelievably stupid'.



I'm just telling you how it is. If it weren't for the rules the insults would be much worse. Trust me on that.



I suspect your problems are not about skepticism, and you are not interested in debate: just trolling the internet for opportunities to throw insults.

I don't see any value in continuing with this.

I am interested in debate. But no longer on here. I gave up on that a long time ago. People on here are incorrigibly stupid and nothing I can say will alter that. So people on here just deserve to be insulted so far as I'm concerned.

I despise skeptics and I really feel ill-inclined to be polite to them.

[Ashles]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...
Ian, do you believe anyone has the ability to contact the dead or predict the future? If so who, and what are your reasons for believing that?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Dualists (of the traditional variety) believe in both substantial selves and believe in an existence of a physical world deemed to be ontologically independent of our perception of it.
This is what it appears you believe, because you have never managed to explain the connection between mind and the external world with any coherency.


Take the example of the Earth orbiting the Sun. We suppose that the Sun’s gravitational field constrains the Earth to follow a circular path around the Sun. Indeed, in the absence of any other forces, we would consider it miraculous if it took any other path.

In contrast we appear to be in direct control of much of our behaviour. It might be extremely unusual indeed for me to make the choice to eat porridge for breakfast; indeed it might be unprecedented. But it would scarcely be considered to be miraculous! This underscores the notion that it seems that I am never compelled to behave or choose in a given manner. It seems I have the power to choose to eat porridge rather than eggs and bacon, even in the absence of any good reasons for so choosing, and even if inevitably I never do so.
Yee-ha! Let's compare the consistency of the physics of gravity with the consistency of Ian's breakfast choice. It seems you have the power to choose to eat porridge because you don't have the slightest notion of a Theory of Ian Breakfast Choice and whether it would allow for the occasional porridge selection without recourse to miracle. So, having no notion of a theory at all, you name this ability free will. A free will of the gaps argument if I've ever heard one.


It doesn't. But our lives are certainly purposeless if we cease to exist. WE may have a sense of purpose of course. And our lives may be meaningful, but it is a self-created meaning rather than a meaning imposed from outside.
How does an outside agent impose meaning on my life? What meaning? To what end? Why? How?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am interested in debate. But no longer on here. I gave up on that a long time ago. People on here are incorrigibly stupid and nothing I can say will alter that. So people on here just deserve to be insulted so far as I'm concerned.
Where do you go for debate with intelligent people?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

I think you group a lot of people under your "materialists" banner.

I for one wouldn't claim the self is an illusion - I thought that was a Buddhist argument?



I'm not sure they have an actual argument for it, but I might be mistaken. Reductive materialists are like Buddhists in this sense. Other types of materialists might argue for a Cartesian self, but not successfully I don't think.



I'm not sure the word illusion has any meaning to something like the concept of self. Seems to me that I think therefore I have a self.



I think you might be confusing a self with consciousness.

At a given moment we have certain experiences. I mean experiences in the most general sense like particular thoughts, maybe a feeling of pain, seeing things etc. Commonsense inclines us to suppose that all these various experiences are had by a unique self. Moreover this self endures through time. But what if there are just experiences by themselves? Experiences without an experiencer so to speak?





I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with the idea that there is an external reality and that we experience it through our senses which both colour it, filter it and partially create it it.



That would take some explaining. Might be ok for a thread in P & R.




Free will is just too big a topic to cover IMO. It's been debated for centuries and nobody knows the answer.

It seems many simpler organisms don't have any freewill at all and we appear to get more as we go up the intelligence ladder. But I'm aware than much of what I do is automatic. I personally don't see that it matters - I think I can make decisions and I do. I don't have a problem with it.



We do most things on "autopilot" yes. But that's not really the issue.



You yourself don't seem to be all that light-hearted to be frank.

I think you might be very surprised. I am very light-hearted. But not when it comes to the serious stuff. Skeptics are the enemy. The amount of misery they cause in the world can scarcely be underestimated. And yet they can muster no good arguments to justify their beliefs. This makes me very angry indeed.

[Interesting Ian]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

Originally Posted by Ashles :
Ian, do you believe anyone has the ability to contact the dead or predict the future? If so who, and what are your reasons for believing that?



Why are you asking these questions??

Contact the dead? I don't know. Some mediums appear to be genuine in the sense they are acquiring information by non-normal means. Whether they are in genuine contact with dead people is a very difficult and involved question. I really don't know.

Predicting the future? You mean instantaneously rather than through dreams? I really don't know. I would guess not but I'm willing to be corrected.

[Interesting Ian]

Just for the record, I've found your responses to Ian enlightening. Thank you.

I can't say I did at all. It's good of course that other people did. The pertinent point though was that it was a complete non-sequitur to the post of mine he was responding to.

[Ashles]

Why are you asking these questions??

Contact the dead? I don't know. Some mediums appear to be genuine in the sense they are acquiring information by non-normal means. Whether they are in genuine contact with dead people is a very difficult and involved question. I really don't know.
Well that's my point. If you have no reason to believe a thing exists, then why would you think it may?

I have no reason to think Leprechauns exist so I don't believe they do. I wouldn't say simply "I don't know" otherwise I have to say that to any made up concept anyone can possibly come up with. And that leads you down a route of logically doubting everything in existence. Which doesn't seem tremendously useful as an approach to learning anything.

But if you do have reason to think people might be in contact with the dead then I am wondering what your reasons are for thinking so. If you have been impressed with a particular person them it would be interesting to know who.

[Interesting Ian]

Wow, thanks for sharing. I'm glad you can make statements like this buried into your posts and assume it has some sort meaning...

Maybe I missed your point... were you in fact responding to the idea that you have no evidence to back up your arguments and yet feel compelled to tell sceptics that they are wrong?

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. The arguments alone suffice.

You need to be more specific. Are we talking about free will here? I've provided arguments many times in the past. I can't just keep pasting them in all the time, especially as this would be very much off-topic.

[Ashles]

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. The arguments alone suffice.
Ian, you are a one man sig generator. That's superb, even by your generally high and inventive standards.

[Cetecea]

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. The arguments alone suffice.

You need to be more specific. Are we talking about free will here? I've provided arguments many times in the past. I can't just keep pasting them in all the time, especially as this would be very much off-topic.

Could be too far OT to pursue right now, I apologize if that is the case. I just thought it was a huge generalization you were making regarding materialists/sceptics...

If arguments alone suffice... to what end? Sure I could provide an argument but without evidence it's like a homeopathic medicine... it works because we want it to (placebo) not because of any evidence for it.

(How's that for veering way OT? sorry for the interuption...:D )

[Interesting Ian]

Well that's my point. If you have no reason to believe a thing exists, then why would you think it may?


First of all there are all sorts of reasons. There is a great deal of evidence for survival, and from a philosophical perspective it all hangs together and makes sense.

Now I agree that it feels that we most probably cease to exist. After all we all experience deep sleep every night. So it's very easy to imagine that we simply cease to exist, and quite frankly it seems weird to to suppose that after we die we will experience a wholly different reality.

And then of course there's the way that mental states seem to be so dependent on brain states. We have people like Phineas Gage who apparently was a great person before his accident (I'll be discussing his case in my forthcoming website. Stay tuned!). Afterwards he was a bad tempered git all the time. And then there's alzheimers, split-brain patients etc etc. All of this is evidence that the brain produces consciousness and therefore "life after death" is unlikely (not impossible though eg the brain could produce consciousness but still for reincarnation to occurr).


But for all that I would say the evidence and reasons for subscribing to the survival hypothesis (life after death) significantly outweighs the evidence against it.

[wolfgirl]

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments.There you have it, folks. The one sentence that tells you everything you need to know about him. And the one sentence that gives us all a reason to completely ignore everything he has to say from here on out.

[Cetecea]

There you have it, folks. The one sentence that tells you everything you need to know about him. And the one sentence that gives us all a reason to completely ignore everything he has to say from here on out.

I'm so proud! In a response to little ole me we have the true nature of Ian's thought process.

Sniff...

[CFLarsen]

Ian is probably the poster here who has provided most sig material.

[Cetecea]

Okay, okay...

You already had adequate evidence of this...

It was fun for a minute though!

:p

[Ashles]

First of all there are all sorts of reasons. There is a great deal of evidence for survival, and from a philosophical perspective it all hangs together and makes sense.

Now I agree that it feels that we most probably cease to exist. After all we all experience deep sleep every night. So it's very easy to imagine that we simply cease to exist, and quite frankly it seems weird to to suppose that after we die we will experience a wholly different reality.

And then of course there's the way that mental states seem to be so dependent on brain states. We have people like Phineas Gage who apparently was a great person before his accident (I'll be discussing his case in my forthcoming website. Stay tuned!). Afterwards he was a bad tempered git all the time. And then there's alzheimers, split-brain patients etc etc. All of this is evidence that the brain produces consciousness and therefore "life after death" is unlikely (not impossible though eg the brain could produce consciousness but still for reincarnation to occurr).


But for all that I would say the evidence and reasons for subscribing to the survival hypothesis (life after death) significantly outweighs the evidence against it.
I don't understand - you make clear and well elaborated cases for why post death existence appears unlikely according to observable evidence, and then simply state that "the evidence and reasons for subscribing to the survival hypothesis (life after death) significantly outweighs the evidence against it."

I agree the reasons are certainly compelling - who wouldn't want to believe in life after death for a variety of reasons?
But the evidence isn't there. That's the problem.

You seem to think we wouldn't love you to be correct. I wish it were so. The concept of death seems so wrong on a fundamental level.
But mere desire does not make a thing true, or even likely. Or even plausible.

Without evidence it is just a belief or a wish - which of course everyone is entitled to.
But there is no point in claiming there is evidence to back up our wishes, when there isn't.

As the quote goes (approximately):
"If I call a tail a leg how many legs does a dog have? Four - calling a tail a leg does not make it a leg"

[Aepervius]

At least thanks to you my sig look better.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... I'm just telling you how it is. If it weren't for the rules the insults would be much worse. Trust me on that...

... People on here are incorrigibly stupid and nothing I can say will alter that. So people on here just deserve to be insulted so far as I'm concerned...

... I despise skeptics and I really feel ill-inclined to be polite to them...

Poor soul!!!! Just go away and you will be happier. Go away.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. The arguments alone suffice.

Yup, we all KNOW that heavy stuff falls faster than lighter stuff. Who is the idiot who wants/need evidence? For crying out loud!

[Ashles]

Poor soul!!!! Just go away and you will be happier. Go away.
You left off another comment by Ian:
I would hate to break this civility rule. Politeness costs nothing and makes debate that much more pleasant for all concerned.

[sat556]

Ian seems so utterly annoyed that somebody contributed that knows more than he does about philosophy. Pathetic.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. The arguments alone suffice.
Well, the arguments alone suffice for conversational purposes, perhaps. Do you mean something more than that? If so, then the arguments must employ logic that proves the point in contention without need for evidence. I haven't seen that yet.

~~ Paul

[Hastur]

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. The arguments alone suffice.
And then you get laughed out of court.
Seriously, Ian, with no evidence to back up an argument, you're merely engaging in pie-in-the-sky-wouldn't-it-be-nice conversation. We're not interested in all the maybe's out there, we're interested in what is. And it is your burden as the claimant to show some evidence that any of the gris-gris you think are real are indeed real.

[Interesting Ian]

At least thanks to you my sig look better.

What's the problem here? What do you find so difficult to understand?

[Interesting Ian]

Well, the arguments alone suffice for conversational purposes, perhaps. Do you mean something more than that?

I mean what I say.

[Azrael 5]

Originally posted by Ian:
Some mediums appear to be genuine in the sense they are acquiring information by non-normal means.

Which ones? Names?

[blutoski]

Yup, we all KNOW that heavy stuff falls faster than lighter stuff. Who is the idiot who wants/need evidence? For crying out loud!

Not to defend Ian, but I think he's right: in some cases, you can eliminate an hypothesis because it is logically unsound, without doing any experiments.

It should be pointed out, though, that this is pretty limited to the task of disproof, although you can sometimes prove something by showing its opposite is unsound. You need to have mutually exclusive conclusions for this to work.

In the case you mention above, Newton disproved the theory that heavier objects fall faster in a mental exercise long before he did his public demonstration. He reasoned that if a heavy object fell faster than a lighter object, there was no good way to model what would happen when a light and heavy object were tied together. It led to contradictions, and so the hypothesis had to be discarded.

But that's different than proving that differently-weighed objects fall at exactly the same speed (maybe objects fall at random speeds?), and also, all the reasoning in the world was academic to ordinary people, so a public demonstration was warranted.


A famous critique of omnipotency is: "can God make a rock so big he can't lift it". The paradox caused by assuming omnipotence suggests that assuming it is unsound.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian seems so utterly annoyed that somebody contributed that knows more than he does about philosophy. Pathetic.

Philosophy is not a body of knowledge, it's a skill.

And besides, I'm aware of the ultimate origin of the word "skepticism". However it is both entirely irrelevant to the topic under discussion and, moreover, entirely uninteresting.

[sat556]

Ian seems so utterly annoyed that somebody contributed that is more skilled at philosophy than he is.

*Adds psychic to cv*

[Jeff Corey]

...In the case you mention above, Newton disproved the theory that heavier objects fall faster in a mental exercise long before he did his public demonstration. He reasoned that if a heavy object fell faster than a lighter object, there was no good way to model what would happen when a light and heavy object were tied together. It led to contradictions, and so the hypothesis had to be discarded.

But that's different than proving that differently-weighed objects fall at exactly the same speed (maybe objects fall at random speeds?), and also, all the reasoning in the world was academic to ordinary people, so a public demonstration was warranted...
Historical quibble - Galileo demonstrated that heavy and light objects roll down an inclined plane at the same rate. This experiment predated Newton.

[Azrael 5]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record like Ashles..



Which ones? Names?

[blutoski]

Historical quibble - Galileo demonstrated that heavy and light objects roll down an inclined plane at the same rate. This experiment predated Newton.

Duly noted.

I guess my point was that the rate proportional to mass theory can be nixed without experimentation, and Newton did some good work formalizing this disproof.

[Interesting Ian]

Not to defend Ian, but I think he's right: in some cases, you can eliminate an hypothesis because it is logically unsound, without doing any experiments.



No no! Heaven forbid!



It should be pointed out, though, that this is pretty limited to the task of disproof, although you can sometimes prove something by showing its opposite is unsound. You need to have mutually exclusive conclusions for this to work.

In the case you mention above, Newton disproved the theory that heavier objects fall faster in a mental exercise long before he did his public demonstration. He reasoned that if a heavy object fell faster than a lighter object, there was no good way to model what would happen when a light and heavy object were tied together. It led to contradictions, and so the hypothesis had to be discarded.



Well . . . yes. I should mention though that I wasn't just talking about arguments pertaining to empirical facts. But now we're on the topic, what about Berkeley's and Leibniz's arguments showing that the concept of absolute space was flawed?

BTW I apologise about my rudeness. I'm just feeling in a certain mood. You're certainly more reasonable than a good majority on here.

[Interesting Ian]

But now we're on the topic what about Berkeley's and Leibniz's arguments showing that the concept of absolute space was flawed?


Absolutely scandalous that these arguments were simply ignored for hundreds of years.

[Interesting Ian]

Historical quibble - Galileo demonstrated that heavy and light objects roll down an inclined plane at the same rate. This experiment predated Newton.

And a completely unimportant and irrelevant quibble to boot. But please don't let me deter you from contributing your worthless posts :rolleyes:

[Z]

Ian, let me ask you an honest question, if you can be bothered: why do you keep returning here, after claiming you 'can't be bothered' to post here any more? You keep claiming you're not going to waste your time here, but you return anyway. You even avoided getting banned by leaving for a brief period, only to return later on, after most of the mods appear to have forgotten you were one warning away from another ban. The evidence suggests you have some psychological need to enter the fray, again and again, yet you continue to get frustrated to the point of 'leaving' again and again. What's in it for you? It's not to be the forum fool - we have Iacchus firmly rooted in that role. It's not to show your blazing intellect off - If you're right, the people you're showing off for cannot appreciate it, and if I'm right you lack any such creature anyway. So why do you persist?

Mind you, I don't mind you being here any more - as long as you can remain civil - but your hypocracy is amazing. Look in this very thread, for example:


I'd like to express what I think about that, but I've already been reprimanded by some individual called . .umm . . ."Lisa Simpson" for saying ****load of accurate detail.

Youy know it's funny isn't it. Some retard is allowed to suggest I commit sucide on here, yet I'm not allowed to say ****load. Perish the thought it has anything to do with me not being a skeptic though

It rhymes with clucking bell.

I can't be bothered to contribute on here if I am to be prohibited from expressing myself properly.


Yet you're bothering to contribute... why?

Thanks!

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen :
Poor soul!!!! Just go away and you will be happier. Go away.

Ashless
You left off another comment by Ian:

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
I would hate to break this civility rule. Politeness costs nothing and makes debate that much more pleasant for all concerned.



:( It was tongue in cheek my dear friend :(

It's undoubtedly more "pleasant" in a sense, but perhaps more boring too.

But vastly more pertinently there are real issues here which are desperately important. The materialists/skeptics try to rob the world of all that is true and real. An embracement of the skeptic/materialist philosophy is ultimately dispiriting and might well lead to despair in many people.

If they have very good reasons to suppose their worldview is correct then, despite the bad consequences, it would not be something I would kick up a stink about.

But they don't have such good reasons. Or at least so far as I am able to tell they don't, and I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent guy. I want people to be skeptical of the skeptics, and that requires a forthright honest attitude and criticism of their beliefs.

I might be hated and despised, even amongst some non-skeptics. But I'm not trying to win a popularity contest here. I'm trying to do what is right. If just one person reads my contributions and thinks, "well he's really passionate about these issues, maybe there is a grain of truth in what he says. Maybe what the skeptics say is not so straightforwardly obvious after all". If it raises a question of doubt regarding the skeptical/materialist Weltanschauung, then that is surely to be desired. This requires careful dispassionate rational argumentation. But passion is also an important element.

[JPK]

I want people to be skeptical of the skeptics, and that requires a forthright honest attitude and criticism of their beliefs.

Didn't you mean sceptical of sKeptics? Just checking. ;)

JPK

[Interesting Ian]

Didn't you mean sceptical of sKeptics? Just checking. ;)

JPK

Yes. Thank you for pointing out that error.

[JPK]

Yes. Thank you for pointing out that error.

No problem. And now no one can claim you don't admit to mistakes. All is right in the world and now I can sleep.
JPK

[Jeff Corey]

And a completely unimportant and irrelevant quibble to boot. But please don't let me deter you from contributing your worthless posts :rolleyes:
And don't let me deter you from contibuting yours. As if anything could. I guess a polite request for you to sod off wouldn't work.

[Interesting Ian]

And don't let me deter you from contibuting yours. As if anything could. I guess a polite request for you to sod off wouldn't work.

You're a good guesser. Why not try asking me in a rude manner instead. You never know.

[Interesting Ian]

I don't understand - you make clear and well elaborated cases for why post death existence appears unlikely according to observable evidence, and then simply state that "the evidence and reasons for subscribing to the survival hypothesis (life after death) significantly outweighs the evidence against it."



I simply state it on this occasion, but I have mentioned the reasons before in the past on many occasions.

[alfaniner]

... I really don't know. I would guess not but I'm willing to be corrected.

No. You are not.

[Complexity]

Ian - Go work on your website.

[Gr8wight]

You're certainly more reasonable than a good majority on here.

Translation: "You haven't asked me to provide evidence in support of my outrageous claims yet."

[Interesting Ian]

Ian - Go work on your website.

Good idea! Are you looking forward to when it's finished so you can read it?

[delphi_ote]

Good idea! Are you looking forward to when it's finished so you can read it?

Which will come first, the completetion of this website or the heat death of the universe?

[Rasmus]

I might be hated and despised, even amongst some non-skeptics. But I'm not trying to win a popularity contest here.

obviously not, no.

I'm trying to do what is right. If just one person reads my contributions and thinks, "well he's really passionate about these issues, maybe there is a grain of truth in what he says. Maybe what the skeptics say is not so straightforwardly obvious after all".

Ypou appear to be under the mistaken impression that passion is a substitute for reason. Let me assure you that even if oyu'd find one lonely soul that would agree with you, you wouldn't have gained anything.

If it raises a question of doubt regarding the skeptical/materialist Weltanschauung, then that is surely to be desired.

It is to be desired to be successful with an intellectually dishonest approach to the discussion?

Why do you seek to be successful with such an irrational approach on a board full of sc/keptics and rationalists of all places? (Not that it matters where you chose to do this, but I still find your choice interesting.)

This requires careful dispassionate rational argumentation. But passion is also an important element.

Please explain to me how passion can play an important role in a dispassionate discourse?

And how come that you seem to be utterly unwilling to follow your own advise? You post nothing that is reasonable and everything that is passionable? Why?

Rasmus.

[blutoski]

Translation: "You haven't asked me to provide evidence in support of my outrageous claims yet."

In my defense, I'm trying to get the claims specific enough to know what evidence would even look like.

[NeilC]

Yes that would be nice - I've lose track of what is actually being argued here entirely.

[NeilC]

Out of interest Ian, do you believe that homeopathy works and works in the way homeopaths claim? Do you believe you can diagnose illnesses using Iridology? Do you believe the body is mapped out on people's feet as Reflexologists claim?

The reason I ask is to find out whether you yourself might be described as a skeptic by others.,

[Complexity]

Good idea! Are you looking forward to when it's finished so you can read it?
Oh, Ian - you silly, old dear!

I'll never visit your site. I have a life.

I'd just like you to go away for a while.

One can only take so much silliness, and several others are behaving badly. I'm afraid you've reached your quota for the day.

Go putter around on your site, happy at the the thought of how horrified we skeptics will be when we learn you've thoroughly trounced us.

[CFLarsen]

Good idea! Are you looking forward to when it's finished so you can read it?
Ian, for crying out loud: You have been working on that website for years now.

Will it ever be finished?

[Mojo]

Out of interest Ian, do you believe that homeopathy works and works in the way homeopaths claim? Do you believe you can diagnose illnesses using Iridology? Do you believe the body is mapped out on people's feet as Reflexologists claim?

The reason I ask is to find out whether you yourself might be described as a skeptic by others. To evaluate whether Ian is sceptical with regard to these, of course, we would also need to know why he believes or doesn't believe in these therapies. If he believes they work because he's seen conclusive evidence, he can be regarded as a sceptic (although I would, of course, be pretty interested in knowing where he'd found the evidence and seeing it for myself!). Conversely, if he doesn't believe they work simply because some authority figure has told him they don't, or because he once heard of someone's cat that was treated with homoeopathy and still died, then that is not a sceptical position.

By the way, the only reason I've spelt "sceptic" with a "c" instead of a "k" in this post is that that is the British spelling of the word. It has nothing to do with Ian's habit of typing it as "sKeptic".

[Interesting Ian]

In my defense, I'm trying to get the claims specific enough to know what evidence would even look like.

What exactly do you mean by a claim? I've certainly made no assertions about anything. That's more in the habit of my opponents. Are beliefs a claim?

What exactly are we talking about here. If I know I can let you know why I believe in it.

[Interesting Ian]

Which will come first, the completetion of this website or the heat death of the universe?

It's a pain doing it. It'll take a long time I'm afraid. The amount I intend to write keeps going up and up and up. 25,000 -- 30,000 words now! :( And I won't be writing anything about the paranormal.

[Interesting Ian]

Out of interest Ian, do you believe that homeopathy works and works in the way homeopaths claim? Do you believe you can diagnose illnesses using Iridology? Do you believe the body is mapped out on people's feet as Reflexologists claim?

The reason I ask is to find out whether you yourself might be described as a skeptic by others.,

I really have absolutely no idea whether any of these things work. I just don't possess the knowledge to even give an opinion.

[Interesting Ian]

Oh, Ian - you silly, old dear!

I'll never visit your site. I have a life.



I assure you that the content will be absolutely nothing like my posts on here. I don't normally expand on what I say on here because people don't seem to grasp what I'm saying anyway and eventually the posts get deleted. But the website will be different. I'm making it as simple as possible and I'm making it as scrupulously fair and balanced as possible (unlike the vast majority of stuff out there on the mind/body problem!)

If you have any interest in what consciousness is, whether we are merely robots etc, but know nothing about this subject, then you will find it well worth reading.



I'd just like you to go away for a while.



I am aware of that. Nevertheless that doesn't alter the fact that it is an excellent idea of yours.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

A genious working, probably, from his own bedroom. Enjoying the grandiosity if his own thinking (measured by himself, of course!) and despising everyone who tells him he have nothing of importance because... they are idiots...

How many are there in the world?

Ian, if you really want to do this in the right way, study philosophy, REAL (this is academic) Philosophy. Learn to discuss, use the tools to understand why almost everything that you believe in is, how can I say this... less probable than current physicalist views. Please note that IM NOT A PHYSICALIST MYSELF (no Ian, this is true, really, not everybody in here is a "materialist", the world is not black and white). But above all, dont give the world more crap, if you are for real, teach the world to think correctly (this is what you want, in your own words). There are enough Ian's in the world already. You can be better than that.

[Complexity]

I assure you that the content will be absolutely nothing like my posts on here. I don't normally expand on what I say on here because people don't seem to grasp what I'm saying anyway and eventually the posts get deleted. But the website will be different. I'm making it as simple as possible and I'm making it as scrupulously fair and balanced as possible (unlike the vast majority of stuff out there on the mind/body problem!)
You certainly don't understand the concepts of marketing and advertising. You should be making some attempt to attract people to your site by your postings and behavior on this forum.

As it is, only a masochistic fool would visit your site for more of the same.

I have no reason to believe that what you will post on your site will be any better, deeper, more informed, or more persuasive that what you post here.

If you have any interest in what consciousness is, whether we are merely robots etc, but know nothing about this subject, then you will find it well worth reading.
I'm tremendously interested in consciousness.

I know quite a bit about the subject. Far more than you do, I fear.

I will never visit your site. I have a life. I want to keep what's left of my mind.

[Gr8wight]

What exactly do you mean by a claim? I've certainly made no assertions about anything. That's more in the habit of my opponents. Are beliefs a claim?

What exactly are we talking about here. If I know I can let you know why I believe in it.

Wiggle, wiggle, wiggle.


"Goll durn it! I keep losing my bait, and ain't caught but a single fish all day. Cletus, hand me that dynamite."

[NeilC]

^^^^^^

So it comes down to the fact that Ian has some beliefs that others don't share?

Is that it?

Why are we still discussing it?

[Dcdrac]

That is why i started the Interesting Ian thread so he can sound off there and leave the real discussions alone.

[Interesting Ian]

^^^^^^

So it comes down to the fact that Ian has some beliefs that others don't share?

Is that it?

Why are we still discussing it?

I don't know.

[delphi_ote]

It's a pain doing it. It'll take a long time I'm afraid. The amount I intend to write keeps going up and up and up. 25,000 -- 30,000 words now! :( And I won't be writing anything about the paranormal.

So you're going to write 30k words and drop them all at once on the web? That's just what the internet has been missing all these years: pages and pages of text. I'm sure this is going to be the most popular website ever!

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What exactly do you mean by a claim? I've certainly made no assertions about anything. That's more in the habit of my opponents. Are beliefs a claim?
You're a gigantic ass. Here you weasel out of the issue of evidence by saying that your statements are simply beliefs, yet whenever you are challenged you call everyone mind numbingly stupid. We're stupid because we don't agree with your beliefs?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

You're a gigantic ass. Here you weasel out of the issue of evidence by saying that your statements are simply beliefs, yet whenever you are challenged you call everyone mind numbingly stupid. We're stupid because we don't agree with your beliefs?

~~ Paul

No, because you fail to understand anything no matter how simply I put it.

[CFLarsen]

No, because you fail to understand anything no matter how simply I put it.
Has anyone ever understood anything you said, no matter how simply you put it?

[Interesting Ian]

Has anyone ever understood anything you said, no matter how simply you put it?

Even when I take my time and explain as simply as possible it certainly seems true that skeptics don't appear to understand me. I don't think non-skeptics have these difficulties.

I've pasted in a bit from my forthcoming website explaining what free will is in this very thread. Do you and other skeptics on here not understand it? If so there's absolutely nothing I can do about that since I've took the trouble to explain it as simply as I possibly could.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Ian, your opinions and ideas are extremely naive. For crying out loud. Think about it, are we ALL really stupid, or maybe we simply see your ideas as something of little importance?

Read again my last post, if you really really want to contribute, do yourself (and the few readers you might have) a favor and STUDY philosophy in an university.

[Rasmus]

Read again my last post, if you really really want to contribute, do yourself (and the few readers you might have) a favor and STUDY philosophy in an university.

Do you hoenstly have the impression, that he would benefit from that? Thus far, the impression I get is that he is not capable of understanding the most basic form of logical argument. that is something I would view as a requirement for enrolling at a university.

Rasmus.

[Hastur]

If just one person reads my contributions and thinks, "well he's really passionate about these issues, maybe there is a grain of truth in what he says. Maybe what the skeptics say is not so straightforwardly obvious after all".
Appeal to emotion

If it raises a question of doubt regarding the skeptical/materialist Weltanschauung, then that is surely to be desired.
Except this is not a court of law; reasonable doubt does not cut it. If you want to show that this supposed gri-gris we share is wrong, you're going to have to prove you have a better methodology. Better wo/men than you have tried and failed.

What exactly do you mean by a claim? I've certainly made no assertions about anything. That's more in the habit of my opponents. Are beliefs a claim?
If you're saying that the world works according to your beliefs and, ergo, our worldview is wrong, you're darn right you're making a claim.

[CFLarsen]

Even when I take my time and explain as simply as possible it certainly seems true that skeptics don't appear to understand me. I don't think non-skeptics have these difficulties.

I've pasted in a bit from my forthcoming website explaining what free will is in this very thread. Do you and other skeptics on here not understand it? If so there's absolutely nothing I can do about that since I've took the trouble to explain it as simply as I possibly could.

So, skeptics are simply incapable of understanding your simple wit?

[Ashles]

Ian, is there anything on this following list which you personally believe does not exist/really work?

Phrenology
Homeopathy
Acupuncture
Alien visitations
Aliens creating crop circles
Pyrokinesis
Atlantis
Leprechauns
Invisible Pink Unicorns

It's a serious question.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian, your opinions and ideas are extremely naive. For crying out loud. Think about it, are we ALL really stupid, or maybe we simply see your ideas as something of little importance?

Read again my last post, if you really really want to contribute, do yourself (and the few readers you might have) a favor and STUDY philosophy in an university.

Eh? I've already got a degree in philosophy. I only got a 2:1 though, but that was because of the ethics module which I only got a 2:2 in. That dragged my final grade down to a 2:1. Otherwise I would have got a first. I got firsts in the modules philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, and the empiricists.

And that was years ago. The amount of knowledge and understanding I had then was small compared to now.

I assure you that I'm certainly sufficiently knowledgeable and sufficiently competent to do this website. Indeed I'm giving serious consideration to expanding it into a book. Hopefully it will be very successful.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No, because you fail to understand anything no matter how simply I put it.
That's because you're describing beliefs, which are necessarily mushy and vague. If the ideas were more concrete, they would almost certainly involve evidence.

For example, I fail to understand your concept of free will because you have absolutely no explanation for it. You simply say it's your will to do something, with no mechanistic underpinnings. There's no content. There is nothing to grok, nothing to understand, nothing to turn about in my head and study. I would be a lying fool if I said I understood that. I could say I believed it, but I don't happen to.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

That's because you're describing beliefs, which are necessarily mushy and vague. If the ideas were more concrete, they would almost certainly involve evidence.

For example, I fail to understand your concept of free will because you have absolutely no explanation for it.



That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.



You simply say it's your will to do something, with no mechanistic underpinnings. There's no content. There is nothing to grok, nothing to understand, nothing to turn about in my head and study.



Well there indeed is very little to understand. And there's no need for you to study it.

Free will is very easy to understand -- a 5 year old understands it. Reconciling it with the idea that the whole world is described by physical laws is the problem.

I have absolutely no idea what you fail to understand about free will.

[CFLarsen]

For example, I fail to understand your concept of free will because you have absolutely no explanation for it.

That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.

Thus is the thinking of Ian. He doesn't need to explain at all!

[drkitten]

That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.

Free will is very easy to understand -- a 5 year old understands it. Reconciling it with the idea that the whole world is described by physical laws is the problem.

Indeed, most forms of magic are very easy to understand. You wave your wand, and the frog turns into a prince. And that's why most people above the age of 5 reject the idea of magic that does not require -- or indeed, permit -- any form of explanation.

[Interesting Ian]

Indeed, most forms of magic are very easy to understand. You wave your wand, and the frog turns into a prince. And that's why most people above the age of 5 reject the idea of magic that does not require -- or indeed, permit -- any form of explanation.

No. They reject it because it doesn't appear to work.

[Ashles]

No. They reject it because it doesn't appear to work.
But it does appear to work - that's exactly the point. It appears to work even to adults.

They eventually reject it because they become aware that there are other explanations for how the tricks are done. And the explanations for magic tricks are often far more complex and unexpected than the mundane explanations for paranormal phenomena.

Yet people do not reject paranormal phenomena in the same way.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That doesn't follow. My concept of free will does not require any explanation. It's simply the case that mental causality exists. There is no more to explain than a materialist being required to explain how physical causality works.
Well, now you've done gone and shot yourself in the foot. I would be perfectly happy if you said mental causality is equivalent to physical causality, because then I could just assume they were two names for the same thing. But you say "free mental causality exists," which is an oxymoron. Materialists do not deny a mechanism connecting one physical event to another, but you deny a mechanism connecting mental events to decisions.

I have absolutely no idea what you fail to understand about free will.
I do not understand how mental events lead to decision making. I do not understand by what processes my will is formed.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

Well, now you've done gone and shot yourself in the foot. I would be perfectly happy if you said mental causality is equivalent to physical causality, because then I could just assume they were two names for the same thing. But you say "free mental causality exists," which is an oxymoron.



Since I do not even understand what "free mental causality" is I can confidently state that I certainly did not say this.

How does "free mental causality" differ from "non-free mental causality"?



Materialists do not deny a mechanism connecting one physical event to another, but you deny a mechanism connecting mental events to decisions.



That's not the issue. You can say that you can specify a mechanism whereby "z" results from "a" by "a" causing "b", and "b" causing "c" . . . etc. But you cannot expect an answer by asking how "a" causes "b" (eg how does a billiard ball move after another impacts on it). Physical causality simply exists. You're simply confused when you ask what is the mechanism whereby causality works. It's a basic existent whether we have in mind physical causality, or mental causality. There is no mechanism. It's just the way the world is. And if we have free will then that's just the way the world is.



I do not understand how mental events lead to decision making.



Through you consciousness initiating events in the brain via psychokinesis.




I do not understand by what processes my will is formed.


By the dictates of the self.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Wow, I was about to answer. But whats the point? This is truly amazing.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

How does "free mental causality" differ from "non-free mental causality"?
Same way "libertarian free will" differs from "compatibilist free will," so you had better tell me. As I said, I don't understand it.

That's not the issue. You can say that you can specify a mechanism whereby "z" results from "a" by "a" causing "b", and "b" causing "c" . . . etc. But you cannot expect an answer by asking how "a" causes "b" (eg how does a billiard ball move after another impacts on it). Physical causality simply exists. You're simply confused when you ask what is the mechanism whereby causality works. It's a basic existent whether we have in mind physical causality, or mental causality. There is no mechanism. It's just the way the world is. And if we have free will then that's just the way the world is.
I said I would agree that "mental causality simply exists," too. But you're using this causality as an excuse to avoid all the complexity concerning how mental monism operates.

Scientists assume randomness or unexplained causality for some very low-level constructs, such as the quantum vacuum, momentum, spin, and so forth. From this they build theories to explain the "macro" behavior of the world. If you would like to postulate some equivalent low-level constructs for mental monism, be my guest. But then you have to do all the work you're avoiding by effectively calling your entire metaphysic an axiom. You have to explain how these low-level constructs lead to the Metamind, individual minds, free will, telekinesis, the appearance of the external world on my senses, the consistency of the external world between minds, the coherency of a free-floating soul, etc.

Why does adopting a mental monism free you from doing the hard scientific work of explaining the mind? Apparently, simply because you want it to.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Through your consciousness initiating events in the brain via psychokinesis.
Here is an example of how you're avoiding the hard work. This is equivalent to neurophysiologist saying "Through your consciousness initiating events in other parts of the brain via neural connections" as the sum total of his explanation of decision making behavior. It's vapid, content-free, and uninteresting. It's proof by drawing a blank.

~~ Paul

[Jeff Corey]

Since I do not even understand what "free mental causality" is I can confidently state that I certainly did not say this....
{And later in the same post}
...Through you consciousness initiating events in the brain via psychokinesis.
By the dictates of the self.
Boy am I really looking forward to not reading a website with tons of gibberish like this on it.
And you called us morons, stupid, etc.

[alfaniner]

So...

"Are all mediums con artists then?"

[CFLarsen]

So...

"Are all mediums con artists then?"

So far, yes.

[Ersby]

In the end it was option (a).

(edited to make sure this wasn't the third post in a row to start with "so")

(I'm referencing my post on page 3, btw)

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I kind of miss this thread.

~~ Paul

[exarch]

A lot of charlatans exist, yes. But that's what you would expect given the way people are. As I've always explained, the existence of charlatans cannot possibly provide evidence against the reality of psychic phenomena. Indeed, in a Universe where certain psychic abilities exist but they are unpredictable and capricious in nature, one would expect there to be more charlatans in this area than if we lived in a Universe which was totally absent of any psychic phenomena. The fact that some people can do it sometimes, makes it more plausible for people to think these charlatans are the genuine thing.
So how many (or few) mediums would have to exist for you to conclude that there's no such thing as psychic ability?
I'd say that, by your own words, the fact there's so few of them (although the popularity and lucrativity of the scam has certainly drawn a lot more people into it) is a clear sign that there's no such thing as psychic powers. I think the mere fact that it's so easy to mistake coincidence for something more than it really is should be a clear indicator that any psychic phenomena are most likely of the same category as optical illusions. You think that guessing the right suit of a card about 13 times throughout a deck is pretty darn special, until you do the math and realise that's exactly what chance would dictate.

[exarch]

Oops. I guess this thread was already dead. Never mind ...

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian has bowed out of addressing the details of his metaphysic. I refer you to this thread:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53533

~~ Paul