The Interesting Ian Thread

[Dcdrac]

Ian this is just for you, please expound your ideas and theories complete with evidence and backup.

[Genesius]

"Interesting" Ian? Evidence and backup?

:dl:

Oh, my aching sides. . .

Thanks, Dcdrac! I needed a bellylaugh today.

[NeilC]

He does cite evidence but it's not evidence that most people around here would accept as being particularly strong in terms of absolute proof.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian this is just for you, please expound your ideas and theories complete with evidence and backup.

I think you mean hypotheses.

Regarding what exactly?

BTW suppose I only have evidence but no backup? Or backup with no evidence?

[Interesting Ian]

I believe in "life after death" meaning that if we consider the totality of all the evidence coupled with philosophical reasoning, then it seems to me that this makes survival a much more reasonable hypothesis than extinction.

On the other hand I have to confess that at a purely emotional level the idea we simply cease to exist seems to have some considerable force. But that's not based on reason or evidence.

I think there's plenty of both direct and indirect evidence which can be construed as pointing to survival. There are mediums, reincarnation memories in young children, apparitions, NDEs, deathbed visions (which seem to be basically NDEs but where people really do die but they report the experiences in the 24 hours before death).

However the evidential value of all this phenomena varies greatly. For instance, although it seems to be the case that some alleged mediums do appear to obtain information without using the normal sensory channels, we can't just thereby conclude they are communicating with dead people.

And apparitions differ in their type. We have ghosts who simply appear to be reenacting certain actions whilst they were alive. In other words they merely seem to resemble a kind of "recording" and hence these types of apparitions do not really appear to provide any evidence at all for survival. At most they only do so in a very indirect manner.

And sometimes people experience seemingly going back in time and interacting people from a different era. Highly weird, but again it's unclear why such ghosts should particularly point to survival.

And poltergeists? Surely a more reasonable explanation is psychokinesis?

Amongst all the differing types of apparitions, apparitions of dead people and crisis apparitions, who seem to be aware of the person perceiving them and who sometimes convey messages, seem to constitute the better evidence for survival.

I think probably NDEs, deathbed visions, and memories of previous lives in young children provide the most compelling evidence for survival.

If there is indeed an afterlife realm I would speculate that the nature of this realm will be created by our collective consciousnesses. That is to say our expectations and desires will dictate the afterlife environment we will experience. I would also speculate that our minds will be completely open for anyone to read i.e effortless telepathy will be the norm and people might well not be able to have any private thoughts. I would speculate that nevertheless we will retain our individual identities, at least immediately after death, but that in the fullness of time we will realise that ultimately our individual identities are an illusion.

Just tossing out some highly speculative ideas.

[Cetecea]

Great speculation and thought provoking.

Can you tell me where I can find evidence of ghosts?

[Interesting Ian]

Great speculation and thought provoking.

Can you tell me where I can find evidence of ghosts?

Which type?

[Jekyll]

Which type?
Oh, any type of ghost will do.

[Belz...]

I believe in "life after death" meaning that if we consider the totality of all the evidence coupled with philosophical reasoning, then it seems to me that this makes survival a much more reasonable hypothesis than extinction.

Coupled with philosophical reasoning ?

What evidence do we have that makes survival likely at all ?

And if you're about to mention ghosts, I guess you're a UFO buff too. Same quality of pictures, after all.

[thaiboxerken]

Ian has stated before that his beliefs are based on faith and that no amount of evidence or science will change his beliefs.

[Nyarlathotep]

And apparitions differ in their type. We have ghosts who simply appear to be reenacting certain actions whilst they were alive. In other words they merely seem to resemble a kind of "recording" and hence these types of apparitions do not really appear to provide any evidence at all for survival. At most they only do so in a very indirect manner.



Thus explaining the differnece between a 'Class V free roaming vapor' and a 'Class II Full Torso Apparition'. Personally, I like the class V's, even if they are slimey little spuds.

[aggle-rithm]

Thus explaining the differnece between a 'Class V free roaming vapor' and a 'Class II Full Torso Apparition'. Personally, I like the class V's, even if they are slimey little spuds.

But good eatin'! Taste like chicken.

[Mercutio]

Props to Ian for straightforwardly stating his belief and the reasons for it. Moreso for his analysis, which recognises the alternate interpretations of the evidence, and his admission of the emotional motivation for possible bias.

This reminds me of about a century ago, when William James wrote about the current state of evidence in "psychical research":We have published records of experiments on at least thirty subjects, roughly speaking, and many of these were strikingly successful. But their types are heterogeneous, in some cases the conditions were not faultless, in others the observations were not prolonged, and generally speaking, we must all share in a regret that the evidence, since it has reached the point it has reached, should not grow more voluminous still. For whilst it cannot be ignored by the candid mind, it yet as it now stands, may fail to convince coercively the skeptic. Was it enough to convince James himself? For me the thunderbolt has fallen; and the orthodox belief has not merely had its presumption weakened, but the truth itself of the belief is decidedly overthrown. Mainly because of Mrs. Piper, James was convinced that there was evidence for at least one true medium. And that was enough to shift the burden of proof, in his eyes. So when I turn to the rest of our evidence, ghosts and all, I cannot carry with me the irreversibly negative bias of the rigorously scientific mind, with its presumption as to what the true order of nature ought to be. I feel as if, though the evidence be flimsy in spots, it may nevertheless collectively carry heavy weight.

Ian, and William James, both acknowledge that what is enough to convince them may not be enough to convince everyone, but both are honest enough to list the evidence, list the problems with the evidence, and take their stand. I cannot join in any Ian-bashing.

[uruk]

I see that you see NDE's, mediums, apparitions, reincarnation, etc. as evidence. I hope you at least consider that there could be more mundane and less spiritual explinations for aformentioned phenomena. I hope you treat those recollections with as much skepticisim as you would with the rebuttals givin you in this forum.

edited
Oops! I see that was already stated. My bad.

[JPK]

Good afternoon Ian.

You might find it helpfull if you change the spelling of evidence when refering to the way you use it. Evidance, effidence, evidunce...
Maybe something with some interesting and eye catching random capitalization of a letter or two. Who knows, maybe just use a differant color font evidence . This way we will all know that when you say " evidence" , you really mean (the new and improved Ian's personally defined) evidence.
Just an idea.

[sat556]

If there is indeed an afterlife realm I would speculate that the nature of this realm will be created by our collective consciousnesses. That is to say our expectations and desires will dictate the afterlife environment we will experience.

Fancy elaborating on this? And what makes you speculate that in the first place?

[Kochanski]

Fancy elaborating on this? And what makes you speculate that in the first place?

Cause he is the King of Wishful Thinking ;)

[Interesting Ian]

Props to Ian for straightforwardly stating his belief and the reasons for it. Moreso for his analysis, which recognises the alternate interpretations of the evidence, and his admission of the emotional motivation for possible bias.

This reminds me of about a century ago, when William James wrote about the current state of evidence in "psychical research": Was it enough to convince James himself? Mainly because of Mrs. Piper, James was convinced that there was evidence for at least one true medium. And that was enough to shift the burden of proof, in his eyes.

Ian, and William James, both acknowledge that what is enough to convince them may not be enough to convince everyone, but both are honest enough to list the evidence, list the problems with the evidence, and take their stand. I cannot join in any Ian-bashing.

Yes I agree pretty much with William James.

He actually thought Mrs Piper was getting the information from dead people rather than it being merely "super ESP"?

[TruthSeeker]

Thanks, Mercutio, for another thoughtful and provocative post. I second your position and my admiration for you only grows.

[sat556]

Cause he is the King of Wishful Thinking ;)

I get that, but I suppose I am just thinking that there must be some basis to it. Surely he didn't just pluck that out of the air. Well, I would imagine not anyway.

[Interesting Ian]

Good afternoon Ian.

You might find it helpfull if you change the spelling of evidence when refering to the way you use it. Evidance, effidence, evidunce...
Maybe something with some interesting and eye catching random capitalization of a letter or two. Who knows, maybe just use a differant color font evidence . This way we will all know that when you say " evidence" , you really mean (the new and improved Ian's personally defined) evidence.
Just an idea.


I mean by evidence anything which makes the thing concerned more likely to exist. For example the fact that many people have experiences of an apparent otherworldly realm during NDEs makes an afterlife more likely than if no-one ever had any NDEs ever in the entire history of the Universe. So by evidence I do not mean merely scientific evidence. And obviously the fact there is evidence supplied by NDEs for an afterlife says nothing about any competing hypotheses.


In addition, to have evidence for some putative phenomenon does not necessarily mean that this phenomenon is thereby likely to exist (i.e over 50%). Without the evidence in question we might judge there to be a 1% chance of the phenomenon actually existing. Taking into account the relevant evidence that chance might rise to say 1.5%. But it would still be extremely unlikely to exist!

So I draw distinctions between evidence, scientific evidence, proof, and scientific proof. They all have quite distinct meanings.

[thaiboxerken]

I woogy poo is a creature that only I can see and it lives inside my armpits. Since I just claimed to see it, does that make a woogy poo more likely to exist?

Scientific evidence is the only evidence that really matters in questions about the nature of the universe.

[Kochanski]

I mean by evidence anything which makes the thing concerned more likely to exist. For example the fact that many people have experiences of an apparent otherworldly realm during NDEs makes an afterlife more likely than if no-one ever had any NDEs ever in the entire history of the Universe. So by evidence I do not mean merely scientific evidence. And obviously the fact there is evidence supplied by NDEs for an afterlife says nothing about any competing hypotheses.


In addition, to have evidence for some putative phenomenon does not necessarily mean that this phenomenon is thereby likely to exist (i.e over 50%). Without the evidence in question we might judge there to be a 1% chance of the phenomenon actually existing. Taking into account the relevant evidence that chance might rise to say 1.5%. But it would still be extremely unlikely to exist!

So I draw distinctions between evidence, scientific evidence, proof, and scientific proof. They all have quite distinct meanings.

Ian are you a gamer? Cause you remind me of the gamers I know who will argue over the meaning of the word "the".

Are you going to publish your dictionary of meanings on your website? Seems like a good idea since you seem to have a different meaning almost every word.

[thaiboxerken]

Are you calling Ian a rules-lawyer?

[Interesting Ian]

I woogy poo is a creature that only I can see and it lives inside my armpits. Since I just claimed to see it, does that make a woogy poo more likely to exist?


yes.



Scientific evidence is the only evidence that really matters in questions about the nature of the universe.

No.

[Mercutio]

Yes I agree pretty much with William James.

He actually thought Mrs Piper was getting the information from dead people rather than it being merely "super ESP"?
If I recall correctly, all he said was that she did not get it through normal means. Whether it was dead or living she got it from, he did not feel the evidence merited one or the other conclusion. I will have to re-read, though, when back at the office.

Of course, the majority of his colleagues, even those who were in favor of researching psychical phenomena, disagreed with him and were not convinced by Mrs. Piper (or indeed, even the totality of the evidence).

[Mercutio]

yes.
If I understand, it does not make it likely; you are simply saying that something that one person reports is more likely than something which no person reports, if only by the strength of one piece of unconfirmed testimony.

"More likely to exist" is relative; in this case, it is more likely than p=0.

I don't know if I agree with you--you assign some degree of likelihood simply because of a report, not because of a "critically examined report." But then...I suppose you would simply say that the latter would make something even more likely than the former; that, once again, the terms are relative.

Am I close?

[Ashles]

yes.
So you accept as possible anything made up, no matter how implausible?

Narnia?

Lilliput?

Mordor?

I suspect though that you don't really think a wiggy woo is even the tiniest bit likely, but it would just rather collapse your argument to admit it.
But that's just my opinion.

[Rasmus]

yes.

Even if it was known that he was lying about that mysterious creature?

Rasmus.

[Nyarlathotep]

yes.


Why?

And I mean this in all seriousness.

[JPK]

I mean by evidence anything which makes the thing concerned more likely to exist. For example the fact that many people have experiences of an apparent otherworldly realm during NDEs makes an afterlife more likely than if no-one ever had any NDEs ever in the entire history of the Universe.

So simply saying something or thinking of something or believeing in something increases the chance of the something being so. Am I understanding this? Isn't this an Evil Eye like belief?

JPK

[I less than three logic]

I woogy poo is a creature that only I can see and it lives inside my armpits. Since I just claimed to see it, does that make a woogy poo more likely to exist? yes.
Not just to be disagreeable, but this doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. How can the mere claim by itself lend any credibility to the claim being made? Seems awfully circular doesn’t it?

Honestly I’m afraid to think about this statement more thoroughly. Lewis Black’s “If it weren’t for my horse…” comes to mind.

[Interesting Ian]

If I understand, it does not make it likely; you are simply saying that something that one person reports is more likely than something which no person reports, if only by the strength of one piece of unconfirmed testimony.

"More likely to exist" is relative; in this case, it is more likely than p=0.

I don't know if I agree with you--you assign some degree of likelihood simply because of a report, not because of a "critically examined report." But then...I suppose you would simply say that the latter would make something even more likely than the former; that, once again, the terms are relative.

Am I close?

Yes it certainly wouldn't make thaiboxerken's claim likely! Something can be more likely, but still be so vanishingly close to zero probability as to not make any practical difference from zero probability.

Actually I don't see how we can assign a zero probability of some creature living in his armpit whether he claims it or not. I would only assign a literal zero probability to that which is logically impossible (conceptually incoherent).

[Interesting Ian]

So you accept as possible anything made up, no matter how implausible?

Narnia?


I don't see how you can say that it is impossible that Narnia exists.



Lilliput?



It contravenes physical laws. You couldn't have little people who were exactly like us but much smaller just as you couldn't have spiders the same size as us.

Of course if someone claimed to see a tiny person that would constitute some evidence. But because we consider such tiny people to be physically impossible, the increase in likelihood of the existence of such people would be very tiny indeed.



Mordor?



No idea what mordor is.

[Interesting Ian]

Even if it was known that he was lying about that mysterious creature?

Rasmus.

No. If we know he's lying then it doesn't.

[Interesting Ian]

So simply saying something or thinking of something or believeing in something increases the chance of the something being so. Am I understanding this? Isn't this an Evil Eye like belief?

JPK

I don't know where you got this from. I said if someone alleges they experienced something then that something is more likely to exist than if no one had ever experienced it.

[Interesting Ian]

Not just to be disagreeable, but this doesn’t make any sense to me whatsoever. How can the mere claim by itself lend any credibility to the claim being made? Seems awfully circular doesn’t it?


More credible? Well I have no idea what a whingy poo is so I can't comment. But if he said that he had a tiny person living in his armpit I wouldn't consider that to be credible at all!

Is this avenue of discussion going anywhere at all??

I simply state that if someone claims to have experienced something, then obviously that something must be judged more likely to exist then if he never claimed this. It's really very simple and obvious. I don't know why people have such a problem grasping this.


If I tell you I've just drank a pint of blackcurrent squash, do you hold that it is absolutely no more likely that I have than if I hadn't of told you? I'm presuming not.

So what about 5 pints? 10 pints? 50 pints? At what point does the probability precisely equal the same as if I had claimed nothing?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I mean by evidence anything which makes the thing concerned more likely to exist. For example the fact that many people have experiences of an apparent otherworldly realm during NDEs makes an afterlife more likely than if no-one ever had any NDEs ever in the entire history of the Universe. So by evidence I do not mean merely scientific evidence. And obviously the fact there is evidence supplied by NDEs for an afterlife says nothing about any competing hypotheses.


In addition, to have evidence for some putative phenomenon does not necessarily mean that this phenomenon is thereby likely to exist (i.e over 50%). Without the evidence in question we might judge there to be a 1% chance of the phenomenon actually existing. Taking into account the relevant evidence that chance might rise to say 1.5%. But it would still be extremely unlikely to exist!

So I draw distinctions between evidence, scientific evidence, proof, and scientific proof. They all have quite distinct meanings.

Interesting Ian,

Is there room in this scheme for likelihood to go down rather than up?

Regards

[sat556]

No. If we know he's lying then it doesn't.





I simply state that if someone claims to have experienced something, then obviously that something must be judged more likely to exist then if he never claimed this.




What if they are lying yet you don't know it? Surely one can't always give the benefit of doubt when dealing with people of unknown character and extraordinary claims?

[Bronze Dog]

What if he thinks he's lying, but someone has reason to believe he's telling the truth? Does that mean it's more likely that he's telling the truth?

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian,

Is there room in this scheme for likelihood to go down rather than up?

Regards

Yes sure. If he said he doesn't have a widgy poo living in his armpit.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yes sure. If he said he doesn't have a widgy poo living in his armpit.

OK. And if he says he has got a widgy poo aboard, and I say he hasn't?

( Jolly good fun, this!)

Regards

[Interesting Ian]

OK. And if he says he has got a widgy poo aboard, and I say he hasn't?

( Jolly good fun, this!)

Regards

I'm glad someone thinks so! This thread has rapidly degenerated.

[Kochanski]

Are you calling Ian a rules-lawyer?

Yes and he is the one creating the rules. Played against many of them. Can spot them quite easily :p

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I'm glad someone thinks so! This thread has rapidly degenerated.

Fair enough. If it has, I shall take my share of the blame.

Still, it would be interesting to know: if one says " 'Tis! " and the other says " 'Taint!", does the likelihood go up and then down? By the same amount? Or what?

Regards

[joller]

Ian has stated before that his beliefs are based on faith and that no amount of evidence or science will change his beliefs.
Than what's the point in discussing anything with him?


I believe in "life after death" meaning that if we consider the totality of all the evidence (...)
What eveidence? Where's the evidence?
There are mediums, reincarnation memories in young children, apparitions, NDEs, deathbed visions
Where's the evidence for any of it? You're saying that these give the strongest evidence for survival.. but where's the evidence for mediums and all the other stuff you mentioned?

For instance, although it seems to be the case that some alleged mediums do appear to obtain information without using the normal sensory channels,(...)
Oh I agree, we call them con artists.
We have ghosts who simply appear to be reenacting certain actions whilst they were alive.
Any proof of those ghosts? You're saying they're one of the strongest evidence of consciousness surviving beyond death (somehow being shifted into 'another dimension' of which there's no proof either)

And sometimes people experience seemingly going back in time and interacting people from a different era.
Yah, I saw that movie. "Just visiting" and "Black Knight".

Highly weird,
Oh, I agree with you.
And poltergeists? Surely a more reasonable explanation is psychokinesis?
Well I think the reasonableness of both is fairly similar.
$1M waithing for you if you can proof any 'psychokinesis' exists.

(...)and who sometimes convey messages, seem to constitute the better evidence for survival.
You accept ghosts etc as evidence of afterlife, but how come you don't need evidence to prove to yourself the existence of all those ghosts?

I think probably NDEs, deathbed visions, and memories of previous lives in young children provide the most compelling evidence for survival.
Again, you accept them as evidence for afterlife, but you don't require evidence to prove to yourself all that stuff actually exists in the first place?

If there is indeed an afterlife realm
Why the 'if' now? you seemed so sure just a few lines above
That is to say our expectations and desires will dictate the afterlife environment we will experience.
Our desires are often very primal. This afterlife must be a scary place then.

Just tossing out some highly speculative ideas.
I've got some ideas as well, maybe a bit less speculative.

1. You die, your brain dies and your consciousness dies with it. Cool, isn't it?
What's wrong with that idea? Why is it that you don't want to accept it?
2. What states the consciousness? How could we possibly exist and think without our brains?
3. The fact that your state of mind deteriorates if you're brain damaged, isn't it proof enough that this brain and body is all we have?
4. What happens to brain damaged people when they die? do they just get back to their best or are they stuck with what they've had when they died?
5. What happens with infants and unborn children when they die, do they get an upgrade to a full grown up mind or are they stuck being kids for the rest of their unnnatural lives?
6. Does death cure ementia and other mental problems?
7. If it does, does death cure perversy and criminal behaviour as well? Do we get better when we die?
8. Different people have got different traits and some of them are realated to differencess in our brain capacity, etc. once we're not limited to our brains, are we all equally witty, inteligent, wise etc?

[joller]

Ian has stated before that his beliefs are based on faith and that no amount of evidence or science will change his beliefs.
Than what's the point in discussing anything with him?


I believe in "life after death" meaning that if we consider the totality of all the evidence (...)
What eveidence? Where's the evidence?
There are mediums, reincarnation memories in young children, apparitions, NDEs, deathbed visions
Where's the evidence for any of it? You're saying that these give the strongest evidence for survival.. but where's the evidence for mediums and all the other stuff you mentioned?

For instance, although it seems to be the case that some alleged mediums do appear to obtain information without using the normal sensory channels,(...)
Oh I agree, we call them con artists.
We have ghosts who simply appear to be reenacting certain actions whilst they were alive.
Any proof of those ghosts? You're saying they're one of the strongest evidence of consciousness surviving beyond death (somehow being shifted into 'another dimension' of which there's no proof either)

And sometimes people experience seemingly going back in time and interacting people from a different era.
Yah, I saw that movie. "Just visiting" and "Black Knight".

Highly weird,
Oh, I agree with you.
And poltergeists? Surely a more reasonable explanation is psychokinesis?
Well I think the reasonableness of both is fairly similar.
$1M waithing for you if you can proof any 'psychokinesis' exists.

(...)and who sometimes convey messages, seem to constitute the better evidence for survival.
You accept ghosts etc as evidence of afterlife, but how come you don't need evidence to prove to yourself the existence of all those ghosts?

I think probably NDEs, deathbed visions, and memories of previous lives in young children provide the most compelling evidence for survival.
Again, you accept them as evidence for afterlife, but you don't require evidence to prove to yourself all that stuff actually exists in the first place?

If there is indeed an afterlife realm
Why the 'if' now? you seemed so sure just a few lines above
That is to say our expectations and desires will dictate the afterlife environment we will experience.
Our desires are often very primal. This afterlife must be a scary place then.

Just tossing out some highly speculative ideas.
I've got some ideas as well, maybe a bit less speculative.

1. You die, your brain dies and your consciousness dies with it. Cool, isn't it?
What's wrong with that idea? Why is it that you don't want to accept it?
2. What states the consciousness? How could we possibly exist and think without our brains?
3. The fact that your state of mind deteriorates if you're brain damaged, isn't it proof enough that this brain and body is all we have?
4. What happens to brain damaged people when they die? do they just get back to their best or are they stuck with what they've had when they died?
5. What happens with infants and unborn children when they die, do they get an upgrade to a full grown up mind or are they stuck being kids for the rest of their unnnatural lives?
6. Does death cure ementia and other mental problems?
7. If it does, does death cure perversy and criminal behaviour as well? Do we get better when we die?
8. Different people have got different traits and some of them are realated to differencess in our brain capacity, etc. once we're not limited to our brains, are we all equally witty, inteligent, wise etc?

[Ashles]

I don't see how you can say that it is impossible that Narnia exists.
I can say there is exactly no evidence and no reason to think Narnia exists. Not 'a tiny bit because there is a story about it'. Exactly none.

It contravenes physical laws. You couldn't have little people who were exactly like us but much smaller just as you couldn't have spiders the same size as us.
Why not? Maybe there are physical laws you know nothing about.
And, again, someone has described this so according to your 'logic' this should increase the likelihood, albeit by a tiny amount. Yet you deny this example.
And how on earth can you delineate between the physical laws that allow Narnia to exist, but not Lilliput?
You are so far from a logical chain of thought that it is actually now quite embarassing to watch.

Of course if someone claimed to see a tiny person that would constitute some evidence. But because we consider such tiny people to be physically impossible, the increase in likelihood of the existence of such people would be very tiny indeed.
The claim is there in the book. So now you are saying that, although something is physically impossible, it is remotely possible?

Wow.

No idea what mordor is.
You never read or seen Lord of the Rings?

[joller]

It contravenes physical laws. You couldn't have little people who were exactly like us but much smaller just as you couldn't have spiders the same size as us.
Have you heard about the piygmys?
Since when the fact that something contravenes physical laws is a problem for you?
Human consciousness living outside of your brain contravenes physical laws much more than dwarves, pygmys or little people exactly like us but much smaller, and you don't have a problem with it.

And how on earth can you delineate between the physical laws that allow Narnia to exist, but not Lilliput?
You are so far from a logical chain of thought that it is actually now quite embarassing to watch.

Lilliput impossible? Physical laws?
How about the mind leaving outside ones bloody brain!!!
Don't you think it defies the physical laws just a little bit?

[Interesting Ian]

Let's try to get back on track. If many people witness some alleged phenomenon I think it would be utterly absurd to claim there is no more likelihood of the phenomenon existing than if no one had ever witnessed such a phenomenon. Was it truly the case that the fact that some people witnessed stones falling from the sky made it no more likely that stones occasionally fall from the sky, than if no-one had ever witnessed such a thing? In my opinion to assert this would be utterly preposterous.

But it was absolutely denied by skeptics that stones fall from the sky. Some guy is alleged to have said "stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky". This is just typical of the ludicrous statements made by skeptics.

And what about lucid dreams (a dream where you realise you are dreaming)? They were vehemently denied to exist by skeptics too. And OBEs. And NDEs. And ball lightening. And hypnosis. I could go on and on.

The point though is that if many people throughout history have reported similar experiences, we can occasionally be pretty sure that people are genuinely experiencing some phenomenon or other. We might disagree as to the best interpretation of what they're seeing, but seeing something they are.

I say occasionally because we are all physiologically alike and the alleged phenomenon may be wholly generated by the brain. Or it could be something perfectly normal they are perceiving, but the brain interprets it as something unusual.

But let's consider crisis apparitions i.e seeing an apparition around the time of that person's death. Quite often this apparition looks completely real. Indeed the people seeing these apparitions might not realise they are seeing an apparition at all and only discovered they must have been seeing an apparition when they discover that the person observed died approximately at the time the apparition was observed.

Now it is very obvious to me that it is not an illusion they are seeing i.e seeing something else eg a tree, which they are mistaking for a person. They are often up close to the apparition in clear daylight and clearly they are not really seeing a tree or whatever! Nor does it seem likely that it is purely an hallucination. First of all we're not talking about a one off here. These apparitions have been observed throughout history across everywhere in the world. Moreover these apparitions appear close to the death of the person whose apparition it is, often without the knowledge of the perceiver of the apparition realising that the person concerned was near death. It's like saying those who witnessed falling stones from the sky which landed a few feet from them were really hallucinating! Actually it's somewhat worse than that since meteorites are comparatively uncommon where as crisis apparitions are relatively common.

So I think it is highly unreasonable to suppose they are wholly a creation of the mind although it is certainly very possible that what we actually see is an interpretation by the mind working on what is possibly a telepathic communication by the spirit concerned. Hence that is why we see a human figure wearing clothes because that is the way we normally recognise that person.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that there does seem to be an external cause for peoples' experience of these type of apparitions. This does not mean to say that this external cause is physical and hence anything a camera could pick up, but it seems to be an external cause nevertheless. The real question is what is it? Is it really a dead person, or is it something else? That's the fascinating question.

[Interesting Ian]

1. You die, your brain dies and your consciousness dies with it. Cool, isn't it?
What's wrong with that idea? Why is it that you don't want to accept it?



I don't really want to get into the question of what's wrong with it. I don't have too many objections to the idea that the mind is generated by the brain, but where we suppose the mind is nevertheless something conceptually distinct from the brain and which can affect brain processes. But there are philosophical difficulties with such a notion, although nowhere near the difficulties materialism entails. And of course this model of the mind/brain relationship ignores all the paranormal evidence.



2. What states the consciousness? How could we possibly exist and think without our brains?



It's perfectly logically possible. It merely requires you to accept that consciousness is conceptually distinct from the brain and its processes.



3. The fact that your state of mind deteriorates if you're brain damaged, isn't it proof enough that this brain and body is all we have?



Certainly not. The fact that A affects B doesn't necessitate that B was generated by A.



4. What happens to brain damaged people when they die? do they just get back to their best or are they stuck with what they've had when they died?



They don't just get back to their best. I would speculate that once our selves are freed from operating through our brains, we reach our true potential.



5. What happens with infants and unborn children when they die, do they get an upgrade to a full grown up mind or are they stuck being kids for the rest of their unnnatural lives?



It's only our brains which makes us adults or children. I would speculate that after death we are our real true selves. Neither children nor adults.



6. Does death cure ementia and other mental problems?



Well yes since these are presumably a result of a damaged brain.



7. If it does, does death cure perversy and criminal behaviour as well? Do we get better when we die?



Not the innate disposition to behave in a criminal manner. I'm not sure what you mean by "perversy".



8. Different people have got different traits and some of them are realated to differencess in our brain capacity, etc. once we're not limited to our brains, are we all equally witty, inteligent, wise etc?

Well, I would doubt it. I would speculate that ones brain merely allows these innate intrinsic traits to manifest.

[Jeff Corey]

...But it was absolutely denied by skeptics that stones fall from the sky. Some guy is alleged to have said "stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky". This is just typical of the ludicrous statements made by skeptics.

And what about lucid dreams (a dream where you realise you are dreaming)? They were vehemently denied to exist by skeptics too. And OBEs. And NDEs. And ball lightening. And hypnosis. I could go on and on...
And you probably will. But you are, as usual, full of *****. Prove skeptics made those statements. And I mean skeptics, in the dictionary sense, not your looney tunes definition.

[Bronze Dog]

For the meteors, yeah, I'm pretty sure there were some skeptics, though the most commonly mentioned meteor deniers were of the non-skeptical religious bent, perfect heavens and all. The skeptics did the logical thing and changed their minds when the evidence piled up. So, pile up the evidence for the things we currently deny, Ian.

I know of no lucid-dream deniers. I know of no hypnotism deniers (though some definition is needed for that). I know of no OBE deniers. I know of no NDE deniers. I suspect those people are figments of Ian's imagination.

[Greyman]

…snip…

But let's consider crisis apparitions…

…snip…

The real question is what is it? Is it really a dead person, or is it something else? That's the fascinating question.


It is a fascinating question. However, what makes the question useful is the "or is it something else" part.

Anecdotally, I have "seen" my mother in clear daylight with the knowledge that she is somewhere else very much alive and have passed it by as a figment of my imagination; it comes to mind now simply because of introspection on the subject presented.

If I was inclined toward more fantastical thinking and this figment presented itself at a time approximate to her death, it most certainly would stand out more and not need introspection to recall. In this situation it is a wholly internal function of my memory and mind that would be blown out of proportion due to my, also wholly internal, thinking methods.

-Greyman

[thaiboxerken]

Ian, if I get 100 people to agree that I have a woogy poo in my armpit, does that increase the possibility that a woogy poo realy exists?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Props to Ian for straightforwardly stating his belief and the reasons for it...

... I cannot join in any Ian-bashing.

The problem with Ian, and you will have to agree, its his attitude. One thing is to express what he believes, and another very different is to insult everybody on the forum because we all are "stupid" and thats why we can't understand his arguments.

Excuse me, but I don't think the issue here is, at all, "bashing" Ian, but dealing with his attitude. True, sometimes he behave, like with the post you liked, but most of the time I can only see the old "Im right you are a bunch of idiots" kind of attitude, and I dont think that anybody, nor in this forum nor anywhere else, have to tolerate that.

[Jeff Corey]

I agree. But he is still a gaping flaming numbnuts,

[cbish]

I would speculate that once our selves are freed from operating through our brains, we reach our true potential.

I would speculate that after death we are our real true selves. Neither children nor adult.

I would speculate that ones brain merely allows these innate intrinsic traits to manifest.

Ian has been on this board far longer than '04. Ian, I appreciate your use of logic to defend your position. However, you seem to "Speculate" alot.

(is there any more beer in the fridge?)

[Z]

Millions of people have claimed to have seen fire breathing dragons. Unicorns. Vampires. Zombies. Elvis.

I suppose these things are real too?

Fifty million Elvis fans can't be wrong...?

[.13.]

It's perfectly logically possible. It merely requires you to accept that consciousness is conceptually distinct from the brain and its processes.

But is it distinct? How do you know?


Certainly not. The fact that A affects B doesn't necessitate that B was generated by A.

So consciousness could be killed by the brain when it dies?

[Ersby]

But it was absolutely denied by skeptics that stones fall from the sky. Some guy is alleged to have said "stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky". This is just typical of the ludicrous statements made by skeptics.


You do not know who the guy was, but you label him a skeptic regardless. Nice job.

The rest of your post is full of phrases which are worded in such a way as to convince yourself as much as anyone else. You said meteorites are uncommon and crises apparitions are common, but had no figures to back this up. Now, I know you said evidence is unnecessary and the argument is sufficient, but some kind of support for your assertions wouldn't go amiss.

[Interesting Ian]

You do not know who the guy was, but you label him a skeptic regardless. Nice job.

The rest of your post is full of phrases which are worded in such a way as to convince yourself as much as anyone else. You said meteorites are uncommon and crises apparitions are common, but had no figures to back this up. Now, I know you said evidence is unnecessary and the argument is sufficient, but some kind of support for your assertions wouldn't go amiss.

Doesn't matter what his name is. And that's what I mean by a skeptic, namely someone who continually denies the existence of phenomena which do not fit into prevailing beliefs.

[Interesting Ian]

You do not know who the guy was, but you label him a skeptic regardless. Nice job.

The rest of your post is full of phrases which are worded in such a way as to convince yourself as much as anyone else. You said meteorites are uncommon and crises apparitions are common, but had no figures to back this up. Now, I know you said evidence is unnecessary and the argument is sufficient, but some kind of support for your assertions wouldn't go amiss.

I've given links before. Not for meteorities but they are very uncommon I'm sure.

http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/omega.pdf


Rees, of the University of London, interviewed 293 widows and
widowers in Wales [4]. Fifty percent of the widowers and 46 percent of the
widows reported hallucinatory experiences of their dead spouses in a clearly
waking state. The experiences seemed independent of sex and age. but relatively
more professionals and managers and their widows reported them than members
of other classes. Social isolation had no effect on the occurrence of the
phenomenon, nor was it more common among those who had, according to their
medical reports, sought help for depression after losing their spouse. None of
these persons had told their physician or clergyman about their experience,
many of them citing fear of ridicule. Rees concluded that hallucinations of this
kind by widows and widowers should be considered a normal phenomenon.
Greeley [lo] and Haraldsson [l l] have since verified in large national samples
that about half of all widows and widowers report hallucinatory experiences of
their deceased spouses.

[Interesting Ian]

The problem with Ian, and you will have to agree, its his attitude.

My attitude is irrelevant to my arguments.

[Dcdrac]

Ian if I am honest, your arguments are vacuaous becasue they have no evidence to back them up, when I marked peoples assignments as part of my Masters degree, reams and reams of verbiage backed up by very little evidence normally denoted a poorly written and analysis free piece of work. Your posts are the same a lot of verbiage and very little else.

[Interesting Ian]

It is a fascinating question. However, what makes the question useful is the "or is it something else" part.

Anecdotally, I have "seen" my mother in clear daylight with the knowledge that she is somewhere else very much alive and have passed it by as a figment of my imagination; it comes to mind now simply because of introspection on the subject presented.


How long did you see her for? Apparitions of living people are also very common. Provided you didn't see her for a split second, and you saw her close up in clear light, then it seems likely to me that it was an apparition. Sometimes an apparition of a living person is seen when they "visit" the location via an OBE. Sometimes apparitions of living people are seen when they are experiencing some particular extreme emotion. Sometimes they are just seen anyway without any apparent reason. In the latter 2 cases the person whose apparition is seen normally has no inkling that an apparition of themselves was seen.



If I was inclined toward more fantastical thinking and this figment presented itself at a time approximate to her death, it most certainly would stand out more and not need introspection to recall. In this situation it is a wholly internal function of my memory and mind that would be blown out of proportion due to my, also wholly internal, thinking methods.

-Greyman

The research suggests strongly that this is not so. I've come across figures which reveal that the frequency of an apparition of specific individuals are vastly greater in the 12 hours or so before and after the death of the person concerned as compared to all other times. I can't recall the precise figures now though.

[Interesting Ian]

For the meteors, yeah, I'm pretty sure there were some skeptics, though the most commonly mentioned meteor deniers were of the non-skeptical religious bent, perfect heavens and all. The skeptics did the logical thing and changed their minds when the evidence piled up. So, pile up the evidence for the things we currently deny, Ian.

I know of no lucid-dream deniers.



Many people said that by definition they could not be dreaming since realising you are dreaming is an oxymoron.



I know of no hypnotism deniers (though some definition is needed for that). I know of no OBE deniers. I know of no NDE deniers. I suspect those people are figments of Ian's imagination.

Well you need to do some research then! NDEs were only generally accepted in the 1980's after Moody's book (life after life) drew them to popular attention. Of course they were subsumed under deathbed visions prior to 1975 when Moody's book was published. But mainstream scientists did not acknowledge the existence of such experiences.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian if I am honest, your arguments are vacuaous becasue they have no evidence to back them up, when I marked peoples assignments as part of my Masters degree, reams and reams of verbiage backed up by very little evidence normally denoted a poorly written and analysis free piece of work. Your posts are the same a lot of verbiage and very little else.

Providing speculative hypotheses do not require evidence.

And I am not engaged in writing an academic essay. And btw, by the time I was in my final year at University, all my essays received firsts (the top mark of over 70%). Evidence was generally lacking in them since they were essays on various aspects of philosophy.

[Interesting Ian]

Human consciousness living outside of your brain contravenes physical laws much more than dwarves, pygmys or little people exactly like us but much smaller, and you don't have a problem with it.



If consciousness is not physical then it living "outside" the human brain can scarcely contravene physical laws. If it did contravene such laws then, by definition, consciousness would be physical. But (for many many reasons) I'm assuming it's not physical.

[Interesting Ian]

And how on earth can you delineate between the physical laws that allow Narnia to exist, but not Lilliput?
You are so far from a logical chain of thought that it is actually now quite embarassing to watch.


Since Narnia, if it exists, resides in a different Universe, saying it is physically impossible makes no sense since our physical laws only apply to our Universe. However Lilliput exists in our Universe.




You never read or seen Lord of the Rings?

I tried to start reading the hobbit many many years ago, but I got bored. So no I've never read the books or seen the film (films?).

[aggle-rithm]

Since Narnia, if it exists, resides in a different Universe, saying it is physically impossible makes no sense since our physical laws only apply to our Universe. However Lilliput exists in our Universe.


Lisa: You speak English!
Kodos: No, we speak Rigellian. By amazing coincidence, it is exactly the same.

It would be an equally amazing coincidence (perhaps more so!) if a made-up world or country actually existed.



I tried to start reading the hobbit many many years ago, but I got bored. So no I've never read the books or seen the film (films?).

Go ahead and see the films. They cut out the boring parts. (Especially the long, irrelevant section at the end with the hobbit insurrection... What was that about?)

[kieran]

I don't see how you can say that it is impossible that Narnia exists.

It contravenes physical laws. You couldn't have little people who were exactly like us but much smaller just as you couldn't have spiders the same size as us.

Of course if someone claimed to see a tiny person that would constitute some evidence. But because we consider such tiny people to be physically impossible, the increase in likelihood of the existence of such people would be very tiny indeed.

No idea what mordor is.

Ian, I am not sure if this will help my understanding but it can't hurt to ask ... does your not knowing what "mordor" is affect the chances of it existing?

[kieran]

Since Narnia, if it exists, resides in a different Universe, saying it is physically impossible makes no sense since our physical laws only apply to our Universe. However Lilliput exists in our Universe.

Not having read the books, I'll need to ask one of you more learned people out there to enlighten me ... do the books state somewhere that Narnia is in a different Universe to our own or is this just an interpretation?

Also, why could Narnia not exist somewhere in our Universe? I know (in the sense that I am 100%-epsilon certain) that it doesn't but what is stopping it?

[Moochie]

Still lacking is any evidence of the phenomena Ian refers to. Anecdotes are not evidence.

This is all rather much ado about nothing.

M.

[kieran]

Go ahead and see the films. They cut out the boring parts. (Especially the long, irrelevant section at the end with the hobbit insurrection... What was that about?)

I thought that the hobbit insurrection was showing how the four hoobits from the fellowship had grow in their own self-belief, and were now able to stand up to the forces of evil on their own.

But that's just one interpretation - maybe J.R.R.Tolkien was being paid by the word/page so he just tacked a chunk on. ;)

[Dcdrac]

I too got 70 to 90 % marks for my first degree and my Masters.

In fact the philiosophy modules of both courses were the easiest parts precisley because of the need to provide evidence and specualte it was a breeze and boring because of that.

[Dcdrac]

the last post was meant to say becasue of the lack of the need to provide evidence.

[Kochanski]

Doesn't matter what his name is. And that's what I mean by a skeptic, namely someone who continually denies the existence of phenomena which do not fit into prevailing beliefs.

Once again Ian is creating meanings for words without giving his definitions for us to UNDERSTAND what he is attempting to say.

Or is it, when he is caught out by someone who is capable of logical thought and capable of coming up with something that refutes what Ian says, that he simply says that his definition of the word is different.

Come off it Ian. You can manage to go on for paragraphs about twaddle but can not manage to define words that you are using when you have given them meanings other than the meaning accepted by the rest of the world.

Stop playing games. Stop making up new rules. Start stating things clearly.

I have had enough of the "Ian wants to believe so it must be true" garbage.

Do you believe you are the most important person in the universe? Do you believe you know everything? Can see everything? And can control everything because you wish it to be so?

Sheesh, I would love to know what happy juice you are drinking or what hallucinogen you are taking. And if you aren't then I have the names of a few nice doctors who can help you.

[Dcdrac]

Once again Ian is creating meanings for words without giving his definitions for us to UNDERSTAND what he is attempting to say.

Or is it, when he is caught out by someone who is capable of logical thought and capable of coming up with something that refutes what Ian says, that he simply says that his definition of the word is different.

Come off it Ian. You can manage to go on for paragraphs about twaddle but can not manage to define words that you are using when you have given them meanings other than the meaning accepted by the rest of the world.

Stop playing games. Stop making up new rules. Start stating things clearly.

I have had enough of the "Ian wants to believe so it must be true" garbage.

Do you believe you are the most important person in the universe? Do you believe you know everything? Can see everything? And can control everything because you wish it to be so?

Sheesh, I would love to know what happy juice you are drinking or what hallucinogen you are taking. And if you aren't then I have the names of a few nice doctors who can help you.


i bet a unhealhty dose of Wittgenstein, that was enough to put me off philosophy for life.

[Bronze Dog]

Come off it Ian. You can manage to go on for paragraphs about twaddle but can not manage to define words that you are using when you have given them meanings other than the meaning accepted by the rest of the world.

There's glory for you. (http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Humpty_Dumpty#Quotations)
..

[JPK]

Good morning Ian
However Lilliput exists in our Universe.

How can you be sure there isn't a Lilliput in another universe? Since the story seemed to describe physical laws that do not apply here, wouldn't that mean it is in another universe? And now of course since I suggested this possiblity, hasn't the chances of Lilliput existing just increased?
JPK

[NeilC]

I think Ian makes a pretty obvious point - that there are different types of evidence and that non-scientific evidence is still evidence to be taken into account. He also weights non-scientific evidence quite highly particularly if if comes from lots of sources or is widely believed.

I don't think this is playing with words. In a way it is the quintissential non-scientific point of view and one that holds up when applied to concepts that are not measurable by scientific means - the existence of god, life after death, imaginary creatures and Narnia.

It's is saying: "I am willing to believe things if lots of other people believe them" and "if you cannot prove it ISN'T true then it might well be true" and not a lot more. I happen think we are lucky that there are people who are scientists and step outside of this way of thinking and operate in the world of testable claims and hard experimental evidence. It's nice to have a few philosophers, hippies and priests to chat to but we also need medicine, CD players and cars that work.

I do agree that the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books/films are tedious crap.

[Kochanski]

I think Ian makes a pretty obvious point - that there are different types of evidence and that non-scientific evidence is still evidence to be taken into account. He also weights non-scientific evidence quite highly particularly if if comes from lots of sources or is widely believed.



Ian's idea of evidence is complete hogwash.

People have believed all sorts of nonsense throughout time that does not make the nonsense true. It may be evidence of the beliefs of the time but it is not evidence of anything real.

Mass delusion is still mass delusion. The number of people that believe does not convey truth to it. A whole bunch of people believed Reverend Jim Jones could walk on water and then more than 900 of them were led to suicide by him.

Just because a story has been around for ages does not make it true. Urban legends exist because they are compelling and they get recycled through generations but that does not make them any more real. That does not make them evidence of truth of the legend. Just means lots of people got taken in and when someone rediscovers the thing back it comes for another cycle. No more true than the last time it appeared.

Ian believes these things because he WANTS to believe them. He seeks out things that CONFIRM his worldview and he IGNORES anything that doesn't. This is NOT skepticism by the NORMAL definition (or spelling) of the word. This may be what Ian defines as skepticism, but his definitions change according to his mood.

[Interesting Ian]

Doies anyone ever actually bother to try to understand what I'm saying? I addressed all this last night. Since people don't appear to have taken it is I shall paste it in.

Let's try to get back on track. If many people witness some alleged phenomenon I think it would be utterly absurd to claim there is no more likelihood of the phenomenon existing than if no one had ever witnessed such a phenomenon. Was it truly the case that the fact that some people witnessed stones falling from the sky made it no more likely that stones occasionally fall from the sky, than if no-one had ever witnessed such a thing? In my opinion to assert this would be utterly preposterous.

But it was absolutely denied by skeptics that stones fall from the sky. Some guy is alleged to have said "stones cannot fall from the sky because there are no stones in the sky". This is just typical of the ludicrous statements made by skeptics.

And what about lucid dreams (a dream where you realise you are dreaming)? They were vehemently denied to exist by skeptics too. And OBEs. And NDEs. And ball lightening. And hypnosis. I could go on and on.

The point though is that if many people throughout history have reported similar experiences, we can occasionally be pretty sure that people are genuinely experiencing some phenomenon or other. We might disagree as to the best interpretation of what they're seeing, but seeing something they are.

I say occasionally because we are all physiologically alike and the alleged phenomenon may be wholly generated by the brain. Or it could be something perfectly normal they are perceiving, but the brain interprets it as something unusual.

But let's consider crisis apparitions i.e seeing an apparition around the time of that person's death. Quite often this apparition looks completely real. Indeed the people seeing these apparitions might not realise they are seeing an apparition at all and only discovered they must have been seeing an apparition when they discover that the person observed died approximately at the time the apparition was observed.

Now it is very obvious to me that it is not an illusion they are seeing i.e seeing something else eg a tree, which they are mistaking for a person. They are often up close to the apparition in clear daylight and clearly they are not really seeing a tree or whatever! Nor does it seem likely that it is purely an hallucination. First of all we're not talking about a one off here. These apparitions have been observed throughout history across everywhere in the world. Moreover these apparitions appear close to the death of the person whose apparition it is, often without the knowledge of the perceiver of the apparition realising that the person concerned was near death. It's like saying those who witnessed falling stones from the sky which landed a few feet from them were really hallucinating! Actually it's somewhat worse than that since meteorites are comparatively uncommon where as crisis apparitions are relatively common.

So I think it is highly unreasonable to suppose they are wholly a creation of the mind although it is certainly very possible that what we actually see is an interpretation by the mind working on what is possibly a telepathic communication by the spirit concerned. Hence that is why we see a human figure wearing clothes because that is the way we normally recognise that person.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that there does seem to be an external cause for peoples' experience of these type of apparitions. This does not mean to say that this external cause is physical and hence anything a camera could pick up, but it seems to be an external cause nevertheless. The real question is what is it? Is it really a dead person, or is it something else? That's the fascinating question.

[JPK]

Good morning Ian.
Doies anyone ever actually bother to try to understand what I'm saying?

Do you find this to be the case on other forums you contibute to? How about people you interact with in person, do the majority seem to have a problem understanding what you are trying to say? Do you even engage in this these types of disscusions with people other than on this board?
Where do you believe the fault lies with this lack of understanding?
JPK

[Interesting Ian]

Good morning Ian.



Good evening.



Do you even engage in this these types of disscusions with people other than on this board?
JPK

Not now I don't. I gave up on that years ago. Everybody was incapable of understanding anything. Even at University.

[Dcdrac]

There is no evidence for the existence of telepathy, there is no evidence that NDE and OBE is anything other than hallcuination, ball lighetning is still under investigation and waking dreams have a known physical cause within the brain.

[sat556]

Sometimes an apparition of a living person is seen when they "visit" the location via an OBE.

You can't have any idea if that is true. Even to speculate that must be stretching even your mind, Ian. That is typical of the sort of response given by 'true believers', woo to back up woo.

Edit to add that I am not calling Ian a true believer, as I have no idea if that is the case.

[JPK]

Good evening.



Not now I don't. I gave up on that years ago. Everybody was incapable of understanding anything. Even at University.

This does speak volumes, don't you think?
JPK

[Interesting Ian]

This does speak volumes, don't you think?
JPK

Yes it does. I just find it perplexing that skeptics can't seem to understand anything.

[JPK]

Yes it does. I just find it perplexing that skeptics can't seem to understand anything.

Understand anything, or understand you?
JPK

[sat556]

This does speak volumes, don't you think?
JPK

That's a good point. Ian likes to appeal to the popular opinion when it comes to his 'evidence' for paranormal things... How about the popular opinion that his logic can't be understood?

Mind you, I tend to think that Ian writes things like that for a laugh.

[Bronze Dog]

So, no one can understand you, Ian? Ever consider the possibility that you're just plain incomprehensible?

[thaiboxerken]

Doies anyone ever actually bother to try to understand what I'm saying?

Most of us do understand what you are saying. Most of us just don't agree for reasons that have been posted. Your points are all based on fallacy.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

For example the fact that many people have experiences of an apparent otherworldly realm during NDEs makes an afterlife more likely than if no-one ever had any NDEs ever in the entire history of the Universe.

Interesting Ian,

I shall forgo an answer to my earlier question as I have another to raise. Has it struck you that your way of putting the point above begs the question? The neutral way of putting the point is: "...many people apparently have experiences of..." or perhaps "...many people have apparent experiences of..." The reason is simple: "experience" is a verb of success, and we cannot experience what is not there to be experienced. So using it of what's in dispute is begging the question.


Regards

[Kochanski]

Interesting Ian,

I shall forgo an answer to my earlier question as I have another to raise. Has it struck you that your way of putting the point above begs the question? The neutral way of putting the point is: "...many people apparently have experiences of..." or perhaps "...many people have apparent experiences of..." The reason is simple: "experience" is a verb of success, and we cannot experience what is not there to be experienced. So using it of what's in dispute is begging the question.


Regards

Ah, but I am betting that Ian has a different definition of "experience" than we do.

We simply have not been given the secret decoder ring needed to decipher his statements ;)

Beyond that, I am sure he delights in using words in a different way simply so he can feel superior to us since we then can not understand his statements.

[petre]

May I put forth a hypothesis? If Ian says that a large number of people believe in something, then that increases the chance that that something is true in reality.

If a large number of people think Ian is wrong, does that increase the likelyhood that Ian actually IS wrong?

Just askin'

[JPK]

May I put forth a hypothesis? If Ian says that a large number of people believe in something, then that increases the chance that that something is true in reality.

If a large number of people think Ian is wrong, does that increase the likelyhood that Ian actually IS wrong?

Just askin'

No. He is wrong because he is not correct. :)
JPK

[Kochanski]

No. He is wrong because he is not correct. :)
JPK

Ah, perhaps he is wrong because he is not coRRect ;)

[JPK]

Ah, perhaps he is wrong because he is not coRRect ;)
Good point. Unfortunetly will will never know since nobody is able to understand him.
JPK

[Kochanski]

Good point. Unfortunetly will will never know since nobody is able to understand him.
JPK

Yes, we still don't have our secret decoder rings so we can understand his coded use of words.

Ian is very good at creating self-fullfilling prophesies, he uses words but gives them entirely new meanings without explaining what the meanings are and says no one understands him.

I guess that is why he thinks that if you believe something it must be true. He has proved it to himself :p

[Cetecea]

Oh, any type of ghost will do.

A-N-T-I-C-I-P-A-T-I-O-N....

[Interesting Ian]

Understand anything, or understand you?
JPK

They certainly understand me normally. It is only when I advance arguments showing their position is irrational that they fail to understand me.

For instance take my essay I'm wriing for my website. When I argue for the brain producing consciousness hypothesis the skeptics reading it completely agree with it and have no difficulty understanding it at all.

Strange that.

[Kochanski]

They certainly understand me normally. It is only when I advance arguments showing their position is irrational that they fail to understand me.

For instance take my essay I'm wriing for my website. When I argue for the brain producing consciousness hypothesis the skeptics reading it completely agree with it and have no difficulty understanding it at all.

Strange that.

Gee, Ian, I have never seen you provide ANY support for your arguments that would prove a skeptic's position is irrational. You expound at length on what you believe but your support always amounts to that you believe it is so. If there is an absurdity going on it comes from you.

As for understanding you, as long as you use words with your own definitions but do not provide the definition in your "argument" there will be NO understanding of your meaning.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

May I put forth a hypothesis? If Ian says that a large number of people believe in something, then that increases the chance that that something is true in reality.

If a large number of people think Ian is wrong, does that increase the likelyhood that Ian actually IS wrong?

Just askin'

My bird, I think. :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"No one understands me". Where have I listened to that before? Lets see, to understand someone else all we have to do is agree (this is, in Ian's world) with everything he says. See? Its that easy. You want Ian to see that we all are really really really intelligent? and that of course we can understand him? All we have to do is to agree with him!

[Lord Muck oGentry]

May I put forth a hypothesis? If Ian says that a large number of people believe in something, then that increases the chance that that something is true in reality.

If a large number of people think Ian is wrong, does that increase the likelyhood that Ian actually IS wrong?

Just askin'

Or your bird. Just don't miss. With either barrel.

Regards

[joller]

It's perfectly logically possible. It merely requires you to accept that consciousness is conceptually distinct from the brain and its processes.

It's not - it would contravene physical laws, and you say you don't believe in Lilliput because it contravenes physical laws.

You're inconsistent with your logic and resoning.

[Interesting Ian]

That's a good point. Ian likes to appeal to the popular opinion when it comes to his 'evidence' for paranormal things...



Absolutely not.

It seems to me that most of the time I'm at odds with popular opinion. This has been so all my life.

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian,

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
For example the fact that many people have experiences of an apparent otherworldly realm during NDEs makes an afterlife more likely than if no-one ever had any NDEs ever in the entire history of the Universe.


Lord Muck oGentry

I shall forgo an answer to my earlier question as I have another to raise. Has it struck you that your way of putting the point above begs the question?



No, it hasn't for the simple reason it doesn't.




The neutral way of putting the point is: "...many people apparently have experiences of..."



No. People do certainly have these experiences. It's the interpretation which is at issue (or ought to be at issue). It's nonsensical to say I apparently had an experience but I didn't really. Either I did have an experience, or I didn't have an experience. Saying I apparently had an experience is literally without meaning.


or perhaps "...many people have apparent experiences of..." The reason is simple: "experience" is a verb of success, and we cannot experience what is not there to be experienced. So using it of what's in dispute is begging the question.


Sorry, but it is clear that we can experience that which is not there to be experienced.

Otherwise illusions and hallucinations are ruled out by definition.



Next . . .

[Interesting Ian]

May I put forth a hypothesis? If Ian says that a large number of people believe in something, then that increases the chance that that something is true in reality.



Eh???



If a large number of people think Ian is wrong, does that increase the likelyhood that Ian actually IS wrong?

Just askin'

Yes it does.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :
It's perfectly logically possible. It merely requires you to accept that consciousness is conceptually distinct from the brain and its processes.

Jolly
It's not - it would contravene physical laws, and you say you don't believe in Lilliput because it contravenes physical laws.

You're inconsistent with your logic and resoning.

This post and your other posts in this thread really does show to me that you really are utterly and completely clueless in this whole subject area. You both know nothing, and understand nothing, but you still wish to mouth off your complete ignorance and philosophical naivety.

Whatever disparaging remarks I may make about other skeptics, they appear to be outright geniuses compared to you.

Go away and stop wasting my time.

[Kochanski]

This post and your other posts in this thread really does show to me that you really are utterly and completely clueless in this whole subject area. You both know nothing, and understand nothing, but you still wish to mouth off your complete ignorance and philosophical naivety.

Whatever disparaging remarks I may make about other skeptics, they appear to be outright geniuses compared to you.

Go away and stop wasting my time.

You talk complete and utter twaddle at mindnumbing, eye-spinning, ear-bleeding length but can still be rude to these people???!!!??

You are a prat Ian. You are not worth any of our time. Go back to your website and leave us alone.

[DreadNiK]

This post and your other posts in this thread really does show to me that you really are utterly and completely clueless in this whole subject area. You both know nothing, and understand nothing, but you still wish to mouth off your complete ignorance and philosophical naivety.

Whatever disparaging remarks I may make about other skeptics, they appear to be outright geniuses compared to you.

Go away and stop wasting my time.

Translation: You disagree with me. Waaah!

Translation of some of the above:

"skeptics don't understand anything!"
"what's a skeptic, Ian?"
"someone who doesn't understand anything!"

Alongside all the fallacious logic and wishful speculation...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You see Ian? it is the way you behave, not what you say, what is important. I told you.

[Admiral]

Hi, Ian.


It seems to me that most of the time I'm at odds with popular opinion. This has been so all my life.

And yet when Petre asked "If a large number of people think Ian is wrong, does that increase the likelyhood that Ian actually IS wrong?" you responded "Yes it does."

These two statements you make say

a)"Most people believe I'm wrong."
b)"The more people believe I am wrong, the more likely it is that I am wrong."

Now, I disagree with the second statement, as popular opinion is often a very bad indication of the truth. However, if you hold both of these statements to be true, wouldn't that make it unlikely that you're correct?

[joller]

If consciousness is not physical then it living "outside" the human brain can scarcely contravene physical laws. If it did contravene such laws then, by definition, consciousness would be physical. But (for many many reasons) I'm assuming it's not physical.
If it's not physical, how can it interact with the physical world?

If it's not physical, how come injured brain limits it that much?
If it's not physical, how come it responds to physical stimulus at all (such as brain damage)?
We know memories etc. can be lost as a result of an injury, so they are definitely stored in the brain, not in the non-physical consciousness. how could we than retain the memories after death?

[Ceritus]

I mean by evidence anything which makes the thing concerned more likely to exist. For example the fact that many people have experiences of an apparent otherworldly realm during NDEs makes an afterlife more likely than if no-one ever had any NDEs ever in the entire history of the Universe. So by evidence I do not mean merely scientific evidence. And obviously the fact there is evidence supplied by NDEs for an afterlife says nothing about any competing hypotheses.



In addition, to have evidence for some putative phenomenon does not necessarily mean that this phenomenon is thereby likely to exist (i.e. over 50%). Without the evidence in question we might judge there to be a 1% chance of the phenomenon actually existing. Taking into account the relevant evidence that chance might rise to say 1.5%. But it would still be extremely unlikely to exist!



Forgive me I fail to understand the logic Ian, because there have been some people who claimed to experience a certain event it increases the chance of that event to have actually existed on a realistic level?

For example, there have been many mentally ill people who have hallucinated similar hallucinations all throughout the world. Some of these hallucinations are that of bugs crawling and poking out of their skin. When analyzed these hallucinations did not support the actual event of bugs crawling beneath the skin but supported the type of mental illness they are afflicted with or in the very least reflect on the persons mental health.

If treated the same NDE's would not support the existence of an afterlife but would support the affliction of which is causing the sensation. Which is a brain dying in a fairly pleasant manner.

People die in different ways and many people’s brains are different and there are many people who are resuscitated but not everyone experiences NDE's who were brought back to life. One reason could be because the trauma that caused the person to nearly die did not allow that opportunity or their brain just did not die off the same way as a person who had experienced a NDE.

If an afterlife were to be true wouldn't everyone who died and was brought back to life experience a NDE? Or do some go to an afterlife and others do not? Then what would be the deciding factor for those who do go to an afterlife, genetic predisposition?

[joller]

They certainly understand me normally. It is only when I advance arguments showing their position is irrational that they fail to understand me.
.
How about all our arguments showing your position is irrational?
How about the bad logic and lack of evidence being pointed out?

[joller]

This post and your other posts in this thread really does show to me that you really are utterly and completely clueless in this whole subject area.

What it shows is fundamental problems with your logic, and the fact that you're inconsistent with your thinking.
There is no evidence in the area, there is no serious research - it's all crap.
People use ad hominems when they have no other way of defending themselves, and this is what you've just done.
You both know nothing, and understand nothing, but you still wish to mouth off your complete ignorance and philosophical naivety.
I assure you my education and my understanding of things is much much better than yours. you said yourself even people at your uni couldn't understand you - did you tell them they know nothing?

Ian, if the cosciousness is paranormal, and not a part of physical world, how can it possibly interact with physical world?

Whatever disparaging remarks I may make about other skeptics, they appear to be outright geniuses compared to you.
This statemant will serve as an example of your inteligence Ian - you're the one who has to defend himself and is unable to do so. Not being able to show a single piece of evidence to support your statements, ehich are not even logicaly consistent.

[sat556]

No. People do certainly have these experiences. It's the interpretation which is at issue (or ought to be at issue).


Well I agree with that Ian. I thought it is the interpretation that is at issue here though. You say that these things can be used as evidence for the afterlife, yet that's only because you choose to interpret them as some event connected with that. The fact that many of these things can be explained within the realms of normality is what you are choosing to ignore.

[NeilC]

This discussion keeps going all over the place. Can we agree on some central facts as a basis for argument?

1. That some people have experiences of apparitions before death
2. That some people in "Near Death Experiences" see light/people/voices/other
3. That most people on planet believe in spirits or a god and or an afterlife
4. That the exact nature of consciousness eludes us somewhat and is probably key to this subject
5. That anecdotal evidence is, by definition, evidence but is not scientific evidence and needs weighing differently (we can then stop the boring dictionary definitions)
6. Anything else?

What do we disagree on?

1. The causes of the phenomena
2. The value of anecdotal evidence
3. Anything else?

Might be a start - what do you think?

[Dcdrac]

Ian i did not start out as a sceptic I became one, why? because i spent 15 years checking out the claims of the paranormal and found them to be either explained by normal processes, events, or that they are not happening at all and are just wishful thinking.

No amount of sophistry and logic chopping will change that.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I see new faces around, and Ian still sporting his old weak arguments (that he claims we think are weak because we "cant understand them"). ;) Now, Im happy to see that the newcomers can argue with no problems with Ian, and I also see that some of the old members are not as interested as before in showing where Ian's arguments are wrong.

I guess this is because we all are simply tired of explaining the same things, over and over, for some years now, to Ian. But for the sake of casual readers, I believe that it is important to continue to show the flaws on Ian's reasonements.

Sat556 express it right when he says that Ian CHOOSES to INTERPRET certain data (people experiencing certain things) as "supernatural" or "paranormal" or whatever. But the fact that there are other explanations that can perfectly deal with those experiences diminish Ian's ideas to the point of becoming inconsequential.

Ian is uncapable of accepting alternative explanations, because his desire to believe is stronger than his willing to reason. And this needs to be pointed out, over and over, for casual readers.

[NeilC]

How about establishing the common ground, agreeing where the differences lie and discussing the subject? Or is this thread just a set up to attack another JREF member?

[petre]

How about establishing the common ground, agreeing where the differences lie and discussing the subject? Or is this thread just a set up to attack another JREF member?

Normally I'd have viewed the thread as a bit of an attack, but Ian is a special case. So long as people are at least cordial and rational, I'm fully confident he can carry himself here with no real risk of emotional harm.

I'm a bit new, but not so new that I think Ian and other folks here will ever find much common ground ;) Still, your effort is commendable. Let me try to anticipate where such a focus might lead...

4. That the exact nature of consciousness eludes us somewhat and is probably key to this subject


Here, Ian will tell you exactly what he believe consciousness is. Then skeptics will counter that it is possible it arises from something else. Then Ian will (in many more words) state that he does not believe that is how it works. Then skeptics will request evidence that this is not the case. Then Ian will respond that, assuming what he believes about consciousness is true, that it would be impossible for the skeptics description to be adequate. Skeptics will then point out that he is assuming the very fact they are questioning the accuracy of. Then Ian will state a number of things that would follow if his belief is true. Skeptics will then point out that none of these are verifiable. Then Ian will state that many people believe some of those, even if they're not verifiable. Then he'll make some interesting claim about his version of logic, like "unverifiable facts can be convincing, if there's enough of them!" Then someone will add a new quote to their sig, and Ian will essentially start over and go on to describe some other piece of his world view.

Wow, look at that, I think I just saved us about 3 pages of posts! :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Splossy,

The community in JREF is very open, skeptics are always ready to listen to new ideas, I would say even eager to find them. When someone comes and says that he knows that souls are real, the first thing that happens is a question: "How do you know?"

This is contrary to what Ian believes, this is, that skeptics will deny a priori simply because they like to deny. Nope, skeptics will just ask for the evidence when needed.

Now, what happens after YEARS or discussing with some individual that is unable to listen or to learn? even worst, one that becomes rude and start to shout that nobody cant "understand him" (because no one will agree with him)?

Splossy, this is not to "attack", just an opportunity for Ian, yes, ANOTHER opportunity, to prove his points with more than insults (ad hominem).

[Kochanski]

How about establishing the common ground, agreeing where the differences lie and discussing the subject? Or is this thread just a set up to attack another JREF member?

How about, it is set up to get Ian to provide any REAL evidence to support the claims he makes, evidence that he purports to have. Claims that he regularly expounds at such length on, that it makes sane, rational individuals wish to rip their eyes out for bothering with this unsupported drivel.

Some of us are tired of his dodging and dancing. Tired of him avoiding answering direct questions. Tired of his endless droning with no actual substance and the lack of any real support of his beliefs. Tired of him creating new meanings for words and not letting people know that he is using his own meaning for the words so that he can crow about us being stupid or irrational or incapable of understanding his "superior" concepts.

We are calling him out. Insisting on honesty from him. Insisting on clarity from him. Insisting on actual answers to direct questions.

What you view as attack, is the normal process of any skeptical discussion. When someone makes an extraordinary claim they need to provide extraordinary evidence to support that claim. They have to expect to answer the tough questions. Otherwise they are wasting our time and Ian has wasted a LOT of our time.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Here, Ian will tell you exactly what he believe consciousness is. Then skeptics will counter that it is possible it arises from something else. Then Ian will (in many more words) state that he does not believe that is how it works. Then skeptics will request evidence that this is not the case. Then Ian will respond that, assuming what he believes about consciousness is true, that it would be impossible for the skeptics description to be adequate. Skeptics will then point out that he is assuming the very fact they are questioning the accuracy of. Then Ian will state a number of things that would follow if his belief is true. Skeptics will then point out that none of these are verifiable. Then Ian will state that many people believe some of those, even if they're not verifiable. Then he'll make some interesting claim about his version of logic, like "unverifiable facts can be convincing, if there's enough of them!" Then someone will add a new quote to their sig, and Ian will essentially start over and go on to describe some other piece of his world view.

Wow, look at that, I think I just saved us about 3 pages of posts! :)

Very good resume! and yes, you saved several pages of the same thing. The only thing you forgot to put is his ad hominem attacks as soon as his arguments are shown to be weak.

[petre]

Very good resume! and yes, you saved several pages of the same thing. The only thing you forgot to put is his ad hominem attacks as soon as his arguments are shown to be weak.

I prefer not to dwell on the negative. Also, the frustration builds on both sides and occasional unfriendly words are used by skeptics as well. Ian is at least different from many others in that he will eventually drop an attack and return to debate (or something resembling it).

[Complexity]

This thread is a playpen into which its intended occupant has crawled.

Long may he stay here.

Ian uses language and thinking in his own unique way. You may try to have a discussion with him as you will, but there is no shame in admitting fatigue and walking away.

By all means, talk away with Ian. A smart person would also begin to review some of the many threads that Ian has participated in.

I think that Ian is honest in his discussions - he isn't cunning, he isn't deceptive, and he actually believes what he says. Boy, does he believe. He believes about things that he should think about instead.

Ian makes me sad, these days, rather than mad.

[sat556]

When someone makes an extraordinary claim they need to provide extraordinary evidence to support that claim.

Actually, I personally would be happy to see ANYTHING that Ian is claiming to be evidence. He just won't give it. I would like to see examples of the mediums that have given out 'bucketloads' of correct information, any (anecdotal even) evidence of people appearing as apparitions to others while they are on an OBE, and any (even anecdotal again) evidence that conciousness is a seperate entity to the physical brain/body. Just to evaluate it. Come on Ian, let's have a nosey.

[NeilC]

I think it goes beyond "tough questions". Setting up a thread where everyone weighs in against one person is pretty lame if you ask me. You clearly disagree.

Ian's arguments are fundamental to the differences between skepticism and belief in such things. Skeptics argue that without hard, scientific evidence something is not to be believed. Ian and his ilk (most of the planet probably) believe that anecdotal evidence cannot be dismissed especially when the belief is widespread. I'd like to get to the bottom of this difference - skeptics might believe that their arguments cannot be countered but I assure you that from Ian's point of view their arguments seem ridiculous at times. I'd like to see if a common ground can be reached - if it all stems from a single difference of opinion that can be debated or whether never the twain shall meet.

FYI: I've tried discussing with Ian and find it as fustrating as you guys clearly do. I'm just bored with the same circle of argument cropping up over and over: Ian says what he thinks, people ask for evidence, he gives what he things is evidence, people say that isn't evidence, he says it is evidence, someone gets the dictionary out, people say Ian is running away, he says you are all mad, everyong is called a prat, another claim is made and it starts again. Utterly pointless. Surely there is a way of hacking through all this?

[Correa Neto]

...snip...If there is indeed an afterlife realm I would speculate that the nature of this realm will be created by our collective consciousnesses. That is to say our expectations and desires will dictate the afterlife environment we will experience. I would also speculate that our minds will be completely open for anyone to read i.e effortless telepathy will be the norm and people might well not be able to have any private thoughts. ...snip...

Am I the only one to think this is pretty scary?

Ian, I hope you are right and there is indeed an afterlife (despite finding this possibility highly unlikely), but I also hope you are wrong in this particular speculation regarding the afterlife...

Sorry for the derail, move on folks, move on...

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

FYI: I've tried discussing with Ian and find it as fustrating as you guys clearly do. I'm just bored with the same circle of argument cropping up over and over: Ian says what he thinks, people ask for evidence, he gives what he things is evidence, people say that isn't evidence, he says it is evidence, someone gets the dictionary out, people say Ian is running away, he says you are all mad, everyong is called a prat, another claim is made and it starts again. Utterly pointless. Surely there is a way of hacking through all this?

Nope, this is the way. Why? Because a forum can't learn. Individuals do learn, at least some of them, and this is why you dont see many old members discussing with Ian.

So, I guess this is your answer, old members don't bother anymore with someone like Ian. Why do you think this is the case... because they all are stupid or because Ian will simply not learn to see that his arguments for PSI are very weak. You decide.

[Interesting Ian]

Sorry, I've got some catching up to do with this thread. Been having problems accessing betfair and have been sorting that out.

I'll respond to people in the fullness of time.

[Interesting Ian]

I

Sat556 express it right when he says that Ian CHOOSES to INTERPRET certain data (people experiencing certain things) as "supernatural" or "paranormal" or whatever. But the fact that there are other explanations that can perfectly deal with those experiences diminish Ian's ideas to the point of becoming inconsequential.

Ian is uncapable of accepting alternative explanations, because his desire to believe is stronger than his willing to reason. And this needs to be pointed out, over and over, for casual readers.

I really do wish you would bother to read my posts. I'll paste this in yet again.

"Anyway, the point I'm making is that there does seem to be an external cause for peoples' experience of these type of apparitions. This does not mean to say that this external cause is physical and hence anything a camera could pick up, but it seems to be an external cause nevertheless. The real question is what is it? Is it really a dead person, or is it something else? That's the fascinating question".

[Interesting Ian]

How about establishing the common ground, agreeing where the differences lie and discussing the subject? Or is this thread just a set up to attack another JREF member?

Yes that's fine. What are we going to talk about? Apparitions? NDEs?

If we're talking about apparitions I said that for some of them one hypothesis is that it is a telepathic communication by a dead person. Using this telepathic information our minds create the appropriate appearance representing the dead person.

Are people saying that this hypothesis definitely could not be true?

[sat556]

"Anyway, the point I'm making is that there does seem to be an external cause for peoples' experience of these type of apparitions. This does not mean to say that this external cause is physical and hence anything a camera could pick up, but it seems to be an external cause nevertheless. The real question is what is it? Is it really a dead person, or is it something else? That's the fascinating question".

You don't think there could be an internal cause? If not, why not?

The impression you give is that you are using these experiences as evidence for an afterlife. Is this not the case?

[Interesting Ian]

Actually, I personally would be happy to see ANYTHING that Ian is claiming to be evidence. He just won't give it. I would like to see examples of the mediums that have given out 'bucketloads' of correct information, any (anecdotal even) evidence of people appearing as apparitions to others while they are on an OBE, and any (even anecdotal again) evidence that conciousness is a seperate entity to the physical brain/body. Just to evaluate it. Come on Ian, let's have a nosey.

I've already provide one link

http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/omega.pdf

Do you want me to provide more??

[Interesting Ian]

I think it goes beyond "tough questions". Setting up a thread where everyone weighs in against one person is pretty lame if you ask me. You clearly disagree.

Ian's arguments are fundamental to the differences between skepticism and belief in such things. Skeptics argue that without hard, scientific evidence something is not to be believed. Ian and his ilk (most of the planet probably) believe that anecdotal evidence cannot be dismissed especially when the belief is widespread. I'd like to get to the bottom of this difference - skeptics might believe that their arguments cannot be countered but I assure you that from Ian's point of view their arguments seem ridiculous at times. I'd like to see if a common ground can be reached - if it all stems from a single difference of opinion that can be debated or whether never the twain shall meet.

FYI: I've tried discussing with Ian and find it as fustrating as you guys clearly do. I'm just bored with the same circle of argument cropping up over and over: Ian says what he thinks, people ask for evidence, he gives what he things is evidence, people say that isn't evidence, he says it is evidence, someone gets the dictionary out, people say Ian is running away, he says you are all mad, everyong is called a prat, another claim is made and it starts again. Utterly pointless. Surely there is a way of hacking through all this?

Yeah I suppose you're right. No effort is ever made to tease apart the fundamental differences. It's just mutual disbelieving incomprehension on both sides.

Just a slight correction though. It's not the fact that many people believe something, it's the fact that many people have experienced something.

Now if these experiences share a basic fundamental commonality, and if these experiences are universal, then I would say it's obvious that people are really having these experiences. The question then boils down to their origin. Yes?

[Interesting Ian]

Am I the only one to think this is pretty scary?

Ian, I hope you are right and there is indeed an afterlife (despite finding this possibility highly unlikely), but I also hope you are wrong in this particular speculation regarding the afterlife...

Sorry for the derail, move on folks, move on...

You mean people reading our minds? It doesn't worry me at all since I always say what I think :)

[JPK]

Yeah I suppose you're right. No effort is ever made to tease apart the fundamental differences. It's just mutual disbelieving incomprehension on both sides.

Just a slight correction though. It's not the fact that many people believe something, it's the fact that many people have experienced something.

Now if these experiences share a basic fundamental commonality, and if these experiences are universal, then I would say it's obvious that people are really having these experiences. The question then boils down to their origin. Yes?
And would you acccept that one possibilty is that all of these people are humans, with human minds that are basicly hardwired the same way? Not saying the only possibility, just one.
JPK

[NeilC]

"Now if these experiences share a basic fundamental commonality, and if these experiences are universal, then I would say it's obvious that people are really having these experiences. The question then boils down to their origin. Yes?"

An experience is what someone experiences, be it from an external source, an internal delusion, a brain malfunction or some realm of the unknown. So yes.

So.....apparitions - can you say:-
What people are experiencing?
Under what circumstances?
What you think they are?
What (if anything) you think they indicate?
How widespread are they?
How common are they (relatively speaking, compared to the number of people in the same circumstances who do not experience them)?
Why some people have them and not others?
Are they more common in some cultures than others?
Example evidence that they are happening?
What evidence is there that they cannot be explained by current scientific thinking?

Obviously evidence, references etc would be good.

[Correa Neto]

You mean people reading our minds? It doesn't worry me at all since I always say what I think :)

Yep, but I think the worst part would be the afterlife created by our collective consciousnesses (assuming such thing exists).

This possibility is quite frightening, specially when you look at the afterlife concepts from the main religions... Living under the shadow of a tyrannical genocidal attention whore deity might be Heaven for most people, but it would be my version of Hell.

[Bronze Dog]

It doesn't worry me at all since I always say what I think
If you redefine the dictionary until what you say matches up with what you think.

[sat556]

I've already provide one link

http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/omega.pdf

Do you want me to provide more??


Yes please. I liked that one :)

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I really do wish you would bother to read my posts. I'll paste this in yet again.

"Anyway, the point I'm making is that there does seem to be an external cause for peoples' experience of these type of apparitions. This does not mean to say that this external cause is physical and hence anything a camera could pick up, but it seems to be an external cause nevertheless. The real question is what is it? Is it really a dead person, or is it something else? That's the fascinating question".

I do read them, and I have to say thanks for your kind answer. I usually expect something agressive from you, and its refreshing to see that this is not always the case.

Having said that, I also believe that the topic is very interesting, but we have two different points of view regarding why. The phenomena is very real, but I dont see why I most assume that the apparitions are "external" to the observers. Let me explain why I think that the apparitions are in the mind of people. First of all, schizophrenics have this kind of apparitions. Furthermore, with some drugs one can induce those apparitions in "normal" individuals.

This points me to think that such episodes, while real, are made by the brain and thus its cause is internal.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If we're talking about apparitions I said that for some of them one hypothesis is that it is a telepathic communication by a dead person. Using this telepathic information our minds create the appropriate appearance representing the dead person.

Are people saying that this hypothesis definitely could not be true?

Nope, but its less probable than another hypothesis, that the brain produces what is called an "apparition". We could add more detail, if you want.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Yeah I suppose you're right. No effort is ever made to tease apart the fundamental differences. It's just mutual disbelieving incomprehension on both sides.

Just a slight correction though. It's not the fact that many people believe something, it's the fact that many people have experienced something.

Now if these experiences share a basic fundamental commonality, and if these experiences are universal, then I would say it's obvious that people are really having these experiences. The question then boils down to their origin. Yes?

I dont think that skeptics (in general) deny that there is a phenomena there, what some of them does (me for example) is to see if it can be explained within the theories we already have (and that are working well). If they can, we can easily discard any other explanation, as it is not needed.

Now, if the phenomena proves to be unexplainable with current approaches, we could turn ourselfs to other kind of explanations, but always looking for some theory that explains more and its more precise. Now, normally, this theory will be less speculative, as it will explain not only the isolated phenomena but a lot of other things.

[Interesting Ian]

Yes please. I liked that one :)


http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/cort/explain.pdf
http://www.psy.gu.se/PDF/JSPRNDE%204.pdf
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/12.3_cook_greyson_stevenson.pdf
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/13.2_keil_stevenson.pdf
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.4_stevenson.pdf
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/14.4_tucker.pdf
http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/17.2_stevenson.pdf
http://www.spiritwritings.com/EnigmaSurvivalHart.pdf
http://www.zarqon.co.uk/Lancet.pdf
http://www.hi.is/~erlendur/english/Apparitions/IyengarJSPR87.pdf

[Z]

Some of us are tired of his dodging and dancing. Tired of him avoiding answering direct questions. Tired of his endless droning with no actual substance and the lack of any real support of his beliefs. Tired of him creating new meanings for words and not letting people know that he is using his own meaning for the words so that he can crow about us being stupid or irrational or incapable of understanding his "superior" concepts.

Then you are always welcome to put him on 'Ignore'... :D

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What is this nonsense about seeing one's body from above being evidence of the survival hypothesis? Whenever I picture myself in a childhood situation, it is always from above. I'm looking down on my childhood homes, the streets, my school, and so forth. I have to force myself to view my bedroom, for example, from its doorway. Even then it's difficult to do.

What, I'm dead?

~~ Paul

[Lord Muck oGentry]

No, it hasn't for the simple reason it doesn't.




No. People do certainly have these experiences. It's the interpretation which is at issue (or ought to be at issue). It's nonsensical to say I apparently had an experience but I didn't really. Either I did have an experience, or I didn't have an experience. Saying I apparently had an experience is literally without meaning.



Sorry, but it is clear that we can experience that which is not there to be experienced.

Otherwise illusions and hallucinations are ruled out by definition.



Next . . .


Thank you for the reply.

Sadly, I still cannot see things as you do. Let's look at a familiar illusion ( IIRC, the Mueller Lyer) in which two lines of equal length appear to be unequal. If I am taken in by the illusion, have I experienced seeing two lines of unequal length? Or ( if you prefer to put it this way, as I do not) have I experienced two unequal lines? Obviously not. If you want to describe the experience that I have had, you will probably say that I have been taken in by two equal lines disguised to look different in length

For hallucinations, let us take that great hallucinator, LMoG, at the end of a bottle of Lagavulin. By now, he is hallucinating pink elephants. Has he experienced seeing ( or, again, just experienced) pink elephants. Again , obviously not. If you want a description of the experience he is in fact having, there are plenty to be had: " derangement of the senses brought on by excess of alcohol" is a strong candidate. LmoG has, of course experienced this derangement before.:)

You will probably have noticed that my observations about illusion and hallucination are commonplace. Now, how did I manage that if I am not merely denying their existence but denying it, as you suggest above, by virtue of definition?

If I had said in the cases described above that I had " experienced " or " experienced seeing " unequal lines and pink elephants, I should have been begging the question about the length of the lines and the existence of pink elephants. It is quite easy to avoid the fallacy: we need only distinguish what I actually saw or experienced from what I believed I saw or experienced.

One last question. Did Chicken Licken experience the sky falling down? Or an acorn falling on his head?

Regards

[sat556]

Whenever I picture myself in a childhood situation, it is always from above. I'm looking down on my childhood homes, the streets, my school, and so forth. I have to force myself to view my bedroom, for example, from its doorway. Even then it's difficult to do.

What, I'm dead?

~~ Paul


No, just wierd :D

I always picture the scenes as if I am filming a documentary of it, kind of following myself around.

[Hellbound]

No, just wierd :D

I always picture the scenes as if I am filming a documentary of it, kind of following myself around.

This is pretty typical. Also another way to show that memory is not an accurate recall of the past. You see your memories from angles and perspectives that you could not have been able to see when the original event occured; thus, your brain is reconstructing the event rather than replaying it. Kinda like the difference between WAV and MIDI formats for sound. People think memory is like a WAV file, a direct recording that can then be replayed, and which may decay over time. It's more like a MIDI file, where the memory isn't recorded, but is encoded or programed in, most likely referencing generic concepts that need to be linked..just as MIDI takes a programmed record, and ads details (such as specific instrument sounds) from a generic store. And memory, like MIDI, is much more prone to large change when the bits decay, because it has fewer bits.

Hopefully that made sense...if not, take a fifth of whiskey and re-read it ;)

[sat556]

Hopefully that made sense...if not, take a fifth of whiskey and re-read it ;)


I was watching a program yesterday on false memory syndrome and it was showing how different bits of memory were stored and then reclaimed to form the whole when we want it. Otherwise I might not have understood :D

False memory was the first thing that came to mind when I was reading the first PDF that Ian linked, the Iceland one. It's such a shame that the human memory is so unreliable.

[Kochanski]

I was watching a program yesterday on false memory syndrome and it was showing how different bits of memory were stored and then reclaimed to form the whole when we want it. Otherwise I might not have understood :D

False memory was the first thing that came to mind when I was reading the first PDF that Ian linked, the Iceland one. It's such a shame that the human memory is so unreliable.

Unreliable and also colored by our beliefs. Relying on peoples' experiences and their accounts of their experiences is the worst support for any argument.

[I less than three logic]

It's such a shame that the human memory is so unreliable.
Human memory isn’t the only thing that is unreliable; our sense of perception is as well.

Everything we perceive is filtered through a judgmental process which embodies all of our previous related experiences, and the resulting judgment is as much beyond conscious control as a preference for chocolate over vanilla. We cannot will ourselves to feel what we do not feel. Thus, when perceptions are so indistinct as to be wide open to interpretation, we will tend to perceive what we want to perceive or expect to perceive or have been told that we should perceive.
J. Gordon Holt
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/index.html

He was talking about people trying to detect subtle difference in music quality using some rather interesting gadgets being made and sold by a Peter Belt in the late 80s. Here is an example of one:

A 3"-square printed sheet of small, adhesive aluminum-foil squares called "Reactive Electret Foils." You separate these and stick them on various strategic spots in the room: the walls, your listening seat, your record labels (one side only!), the underside (important!) of your record player lid, around every mains fuse in the room, on your loudspeaker stands, and at the back of each loudspeaker grille. Finally, you wrap one around the water pipe coming into your home, but only if you don't have a computer or an electric heater.
What is surprising is the number of professionals in the music industry that reported experiencing better quality music using these gadgets. I think this example of how our perceptions can be manipulated by our expectations can easily be compared to other examples of ambiguous experiences such as NDEs.

[Interesting Ian]

What is this nonsense about seeing one's body from above being evidence of the survival hypothesis?



What are you referring to?

[Interesting Ian]

I was watching a program yesterday on false memory syndrome and it was showing how different bits of memory were stored and then reclaimed to form the whole when we want it. Otherwise I might not have understood :D

False memory was the first thing that came to mind when I was reading the first PDF that Ian linked, the Iceland one. It's such a shame that the human memory is so unreliable.

We can explain anything by invocating either false memories or hallucinations. I was hoping that people might take a more sensible and rational look at the evidence.

[Interesting Ian]

Human memory isn’t the only thing that is unreliable; our sense of perception is as well.


http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/110/index.html

He was talking about people trying to detect subtle difference in music quality using some rather interesting gadgets being made and sold by a Peter Belt in the late 80s. Here is an example of one:


What is surprising is the number of professionals in the music industry that reported experiencing better quality music using these gadgets. I think this example of how our perceptions can be manipulated by our expectations can easily be compared to other examples of ambiguous experiences such as NDEs.

So you're claiming these experiences of people near death are illusions rather than hallucinations?

[Interesting Ian]

Thank you for the reply.

Sadly, I still cannot see things as you do. Let's look at a familiar illusion ( IIRC, the Mueller Lyer) in which two lines of equal length appear to be unequal. If I am taken in by the illusion, have I experienced seeing two lines of unequal length?



Yes.



Obviously not.



Wha . .??

If we don't agree about such fundamental things, I cannot imagine any progress being made.




For hallucinations, let us take that great hallucinator, LMoG,



Who?




at the end of a bottle of Lagavulin. By now, he is hallucinating pink elephants. Has he experienced seeing ( or, again, just experienced) pink elephants.



Yes.



Again , obviously not.



{shrugs}



If I had said in the cases described above that I had " experienced " or " experienced seeing " unequal lines and pink elephants, I should have been begging the question about the length of the lines and the existence of pink elephants. It is quite easy to avoid the fallacy: we need only distinguish what I actually saw or experienced from what I believed I saw or experienced.



You mean that what we experience might not correspond to anything out there. I really don't understand why you have the need to be so verbose.

[Interesting Ian]

Unreliable and also colored by our beliefs. Relying on peoples' experiences and their accounts of their experiences is the worst support for any argument.


You mean the worst support for any belief?

I think the reasons why you believe what you do i.e blind prejudice is probably the worst support for any belief.

I simply cannot agree that this type of evidence is poor. Indeed I think that it is utterly absurd to hold this. I used to wonder why people didn't believe that OBE's, NDE's etc occur i.e the actual experience without any interpretation as to what they imply. I don't think I really truly believed that some people believed that these experiences have never occurred. Now I realise I was wrong. You guys exist alright!

Hey, I went to my local shop today. At least I thought I did. But it could be a false memory. Or the whole experience could have been a hallucination.

If I am wide awake, sober, haven't taken any drugs, and it is bright and clear, by what criteria should I decide that something I experience is an hallucination or false memory? Presumably I shouldn't if what I experience is something of any everyday nature? Merely anything paranormal no doubt. But what good grounds do we have to suppose that what I experience is an hallucination if what I experience is very similar to what other people have experienced? What good reasons have I to doubt what I see? I can't think of any.

[JPK]

Good evening Ian.

Perhaps you missed this, or you didn't feel a need to respond to this but I would like to know what you think about this.
Originally Posted by Interesting Ian http://www.randi.org/forumlive/images/misc/backlink.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=53317&page=4#post1497484):
Yeah I suppose you're right. No effort is ever made to tease apart the fundamental differences. It's just mutual disbelieving incomprehension on both sides.

Just a slight correction though. It's not the fact that many people believe something, it's the fact that many people have experienced something.

Now if these experiences share a basic fundamental commonality, and if these experiences are universal, then I would say it's obvious that people are really having these experiences. The question then boils down to their origin. Yes?

And would you acccept that one possibilty is that all of these people are humans, with human minds that are basicly hardwired the same way? Not saying the only possibility, just one.
JPK

[DreadNiK]

You mean the worst support for any belief?

I simply cannot agree that this type of evidence is poor.

Because once you do that, your whole speculative belief system crumbles.



Indeed I think that it is utterly absurd to hold this.



And for some reason you go one step further, and not only are unwilling to be critical about evidence, you then insult those that are.



I used to wonder why people didn't believe that OBE's, NDE's etc occur i.e the actual experience without any interpretation as to what they imply. I don't think I really truly believed that some people believed that these experiences have never occurred. Now I realise I was wrong. You guys exist alright!



What are you babbling about here?



Hey, I went to my local shop today. At least I thought I did. But it could be a false memory. Or the whole experience could have been a hallucination.

If I am wide awake, sober, haven't taken any drugs, and it is bright and clear, by what criteria should I decide that something I experience is an hallucination or false memory? Presumably I shouldn't if what I experience is something of any everyday nature? Merely anything paranormal no doubt. But what good grounds do we have to suppose that what I experience is an hallucination if what I experience is very similar to what other people have experienced? What good reasons have I to doubt what I see? I can't think of any.

Firstly, when people are near death, I think it is safe to say they aren't 'wide awake and sober'.

Second of all, if you see something that no one else does and is rather incongrous with generally accepted reality, then you have to consider you might be a bit nuts.

Thirdly, being willing to accept your own experience as evidence is a bit different to blanket acceptance of other people's accounts of their experience.

"I can't think of any."

Can't, or are unwilling to...?

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

We can explain anything by invocating either false memories or hallucinations. I was hoping that people might take a more sensible and rational look at the evidence.

If "sensible and rational" means "like I (Ian)" then you have a problem. You have to accept the fact that your interpretation does not have to be shared. Oh, and that this has NOTHING to do with the intelligence or stupidity of those who believe different from you.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yes.



Wha . .??

If we don't agree about such fundamental things, I cannot imagine any progress being made.



Who?



Yes.



{shrugs}




You mean that what we experience might not correspond to anything out there. I really don't understand why you have the need to be so verbose.

Interesting Ian,

I am mortified at being found verbose by a master of the limpid vernacular.

However, on to matters of almost equal importance. How you use common words such as experience is a matter of choice. But the humdrum usage is a matter of fact. Your usage is deviant or, to put it at its lowest, skates over a distinction that is effortlessly drawn in humdrum talk. You may say, if you wish, that your usage is technical, but you had better be able to define it in humdrum terms, on pain of being unintelligible.

You neither quote nor answer my reply to your suggestion that I have denied the possibility of hallucination or illusion. If you would like to reply now, please do so.

As for your suggestion that, on my view, we can experience what isn't " out there", I wonder whether you are not just being perverse. I have said in so many words that experience is a term of success. That is, we do not in humdrum talk say that we experience what is not there or isn't so. It is in your talk, not mine, that what we experience need not "correspond" to what is "out there". [ I have used sneer quotes here to mark vernacular terms poisoned by subjective idealism.]

Do, please, let me know what Chicken Licken experienced. Was it the sky falling down, or an acorn falling on his head?

Now, I'm off to practise hallucinating. A glass of Highland Park is winking at me.

Regards

[sat556]

We can explain anything by invocating either false memories or hallucinations. I was hoping that people might take a more sensible and rational look at the evidence.

I haven't really started to take a different look at the evidence. I have been too busy. I was just responding to the post above me.
However, false memory is sensible and rational is it not? We have to look at all possibilities whether you like them or not.
I thought the Iceland document was fab, but mostly because it was a good collection of stories. It admits itself that no conclusions can really be drawn from it, and as somebody who has researched many haunted places and accounts, I know that very often in these cases people will 'spice it up' a bit. There is no way of knowing if this is the case, but it has to be taken into account. This is why anecdotal evidence isn't the ideal, but it seems that it's all we have on this.

[Jeff Corey]

... I really don't understand why you have the need to be so verbose.
Piffle.

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian,


However, on to matters of almost equal importance. How you use common words such as experience is a matter of choice.



No I don't think it should be. What's the point in that? It just makes communication impossible.



But the humdrum usage is a matter of fact. Your usage is deviant or, to put it at its lowest, skates over a distinction that is effortlessly drawn in humdrum talk.



I have absolutely no idea how you are defining the word experience, but it certainly ain't the proper definition!


That is, we do not in humdrum talk say that we experience what is not there or isn't so. It is in your talk, not mine, that what we experience need not "correspond" to what is "out there". [ I have used sneer quotes here to mark vernacular terms poisoned by subjective idealism.]


But everything we experience is an interpretation by the mind! We are never acquainted with this putative reality as it is in itself.

Consider that checker square illusion.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/images/shades%20illusion.jpg

"A" and "B" look different colours, but they are "really" the same colour.

To declare we do not experience them as differing colours is simply not to use the word "experience" in its correct sense!

The same goes for a host of other words like evidence, consciousness, intelligence, understanding, memory etc etc etc.


Just started reading Shadows of the mind of Roger Penrose. WOW! It's really great to read someone who understands the meanings of words!

[I less than three logic]

So you're claiming these experiences of people near death are illusions rather than hallucinations?
Guess I didn’t draw the distinction. Which would you say NDEs are, illusions or hallucinations?

Maybe they’re a little of both, I’d say that NDEs are probably produced when the brain tries to make sense of abnormal or indecipherable sensory signals created as the brain dies. The information is filtered through a judgmental process and compared with memories most likely resulting in an experience of what the person wanted to or expected to perceive. The hallucination being the false sensory information, the illusion being that what was experienced was real and not just our brain filling in the blanks.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

No I don't think it should be. What's the point in that? It just makes communication impossible.



I have absolutely no idea how you are defining the word experience, but it certainly ain't the proper definition!



But everything we experience is an interpretation by the mind! We are never acquainted with this putative reality as it is in itself.

Consider that checker square illusion.

http://www.grand-illusions.com/images/shades%20illusion.jpg

"A" and "B" look different colours, but they are "really" the same colour.

To declare we do not experience them as differing colours is simply not to use the word "experience" in its correct sense!

The same goes for a host of other words like evidence, consciousness, intelligence, understanding, memory etc etc etc.


Just started reading Shadows of the mind of Roger Penrose. WOW! It's really great to read someone who understands the meanings of words!


Interesting Ian,

Thank you for the reply.

How I use the term experience is neither here nor there. What matters is how literate people in general use the term. For my part, I am content to accept the usage of people on this board. If you disagree, you are free to say so and to say why. But whatever your definition may be, it has to be translatable into the vernacular. Humdrum is what we all speak.

Do you wish to persist with the assertion that your definition of experience is correct?
Did Chicken Licken experience the sky falling?

Regards

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian,

Thank you for the reply.

How I use the term experience is neither here nor there. What matters is how literate people in general use the term. For my part, I am content to accept the usage of people on this board. If you disagree, you are free to say so and to say why. But whatever your definition may be, it has to be translatable into the vernacular. Humdrum is what we all speak.

Do you wish to persist with the assertion that your definition of experience is correct?
Did Chicken Licken experience the sky falling?

Regards

What the hell is chicken licking???

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

... and we are heading to nowhere, Ian will say again that no one "understands" him and we all still fill as he is merely playing. Another pointless thread?

BTW Ian, you ignored my two last posts.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

What the hell is chicken licking???

Not what you might think:

http://fairytales4u.com/story/chicken.htm

Essential reading if you are pondering the notion of experience

Regards

[Kochanski]

You mean the worst support for any belief?

I think the reasons why you believe what you do i.e blind prejudice is probably the worst support for any belief.

Nope, wrong presumption. Any belief you have will color your memory of the event. If you believe in ghosts then your experience of something that is unexplained that seems to fit the stories you have heard of ghosts will lead you to think you have experienced a ghost. You make the situation FIT your expectations, especially with a little distance from the actual occurence.


I simply cannot agree that this type of evidence is poor. Indeed I think that it is utterly absurd to hold this. I used to wonder why people didn't believe that OBE's, NDE's etc occur i.e the actual experience without any interpretation as to what they imply. I don't think I really truly believed that some people believed that these experiences have never occurred. Now I realise I was wrong. You guys exist alright!

Really, Ian you think every person who reports these experiences can be relied upon as a good witness? You think every person who reports these things is a person in a normal situation with a normal rational understanding of the world? You think that none of these people might be under some sort of stress and that their brains might not respond in some sort of wigged out manner? That is accepting an awful lot on faith.

You think that in a near death experience when things in your body are failing or working not quite right that the brain is functioning correctly?

Do you believe that dreams are real representations of what we experience during the day? Do we fly around above the world and get eaten by monsters in normal every day life? Or do any of those other whacked out things we dream about really happen to us in every day life? And isn't it POSSIBLE that in a near death experience our brains might do something similar?

Same with out of body experiences. Dreams of flying and seeing our own bodies below us do happen. Isn't it possible that out of body experiences are us in DREAM STATES?

Oh, people can report on all these things but without knowing the state of their brains at the time, I would hardly rely on their reports of these things as evidence.


Hey, I went to my local shop today. At least I thought I did. But it could be a false memory. Or the whole experience could have been a hallucination.

Cute Ian, but if something a bit odd happened to you on your trip to your local shop. Something that you just sort of dismissed and didn't think much about, but later it cropped into your mind that it was weird, can you truly say you could remember everything that happened EXACTLY AS IT HAPPENED IN COMPLETE DETAIL IN PROPER ORDER hours or days after that event? I doubt it.


If I am wide awake, sober, haven't taken any drugs, and it is bright and clear, by what criteria should I decide that something I experience is an hallucination or false memory? Presumably I shouldn't if what I experience is something of any everyday nature? Merely anything paranormal no doubt. But what good grounds do we have to suppose that what I experience is an hallucination if what I experience is very similar to what other people have experienced? What good reasons have I to doubt what I see? I can't think of any.

And you are making the assumption that people who report these things are wide awake, sober and drug free with proper functioning brains when they report on these things. Wrong, do not presume to know their mental state or ability to reason.

Unless we can be certain of the people making the reports their information is suspect.

Now I am going to give you some good reading matter. Approach it with an open mind, read it thoroughly, it has important things to say. Book is "Decpetion & Self-Deception Investigating Psychics" by Richard Wiseman.

[Johnny Pixels]

I saw a guy on the TV talking about the "Near death experiences" he'd had. He'd had loads of them, taking the form of a dark tunnel with a bright light at the end.

His job? He was a pilot. He'd get them everytime he came close to blacking out due to g-force. It was where the blood supply would shut off to his eyeball, but the most sensitive part of the eye is right in the centre, so that would be the last place that the blood supply would still flow to. This resulted in a reduced field of vision, or a bright spot of light in the middle of his vision.

[Dcdrac]

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/ShermerNDE.htm

[vbloke]

Argument from Ian


Definition

'Argument from Ian' is an informal logical fallacy, formally known as argumentum ad interesting, where a participant argues that a belief is correct because the person making the argument is Ian. The most general structure of this argument runs something like the following:
Person A claims that P
Person A claims that he is more intelligent than everyone else and that nobody understands things like he does
Therefore, P is true.This is a fallacy because the truth or falsity of the claim depends solely on the person being Ian.

Example:
Protagonist: There is no life after death.
Antagonist: Well, I say there is. You don't understand what I'm talking about, so you are wrong and there is life after death.

Argument from Ian thus shades into argumentum ad hominem, in allowing personal characteristics to affect our assessment of the truth or falsity of a statement. (http://forums.randi.org/#)

[Interesting Ian]

Really, Ian you think every person who reports these experiences can be relied upon as a good witness?

No. People are highly unreliable and we cannot rely upon every single witness ever. Indeed it is not altogether outrageous to suggest we cannot rely upon any witness if they are claiming to have witnessed something we do not believe is possible.

But then of course we do not have to. It is not required.

The proper question is can every person who has ever had such experiences be assumed to be unreliable in accurately relating what they think they've seen?

Obviously not.

People genuinely do experience apparitions. They can be little argument about that. But then we need to decide whether such experiences are wholly generated from within so that they do not have an external cause, or whether they do have an external cause .

I'm getting the impression that people are opting for the former. So it's not a question of unreliability. Certainly some people are having such experiences.

If people think these experiences are hallucinations then some sort of argument or justification needs to be provided to justify this thesis. For example do these people who have these experiences agree that they were most likely hallucinations? If not do you think it's more reasonable that you know the origin of their experiences, or that they do? What is it about the nature of these experiences which suggest they are hallucinations?

In the absence of any arguments for supposing they are hallucinations, then it would be unreasonable to insist that they simply must be regardless. We have to provisionally conclude they have an external origin.

If they have an external origin what is this origin? A tree, a grandfather clock, a trick of the shadows making people think they are seeing a person? This is highly implausible once we have familiarised ourselves with the eyewitness accounts.

So what are they? I've provided my hypothesis. It appears to me to be the most reasonable one. But I'm always willing to hear other peoples suggestions (provided they are not utterly ridiculous).

[Interesting Ian]

I saw a guy on the TV talking about the "Near death experiences" he'd had. He'd had loads of them, taking the form of a dark tunnel with a bright light at the end.

His job? He was a pilot. He'd get them everytime he came close to blacking out due to g-force. It was where the blood supply would shut off to his eyeball, but the most sensitive part of the eye is right in the centre, so that would be the last place that the blood supply would still flow to. This resulted in a reduced field of vision, or a bright spot of light in the middle of his vision.

These experiences induced by centrifuges and the like have a resemblance to NDEs but lack the structured coherence. Not that this is important. I see no reason why we could not have glimpses of an afterlife reality by being subject to high g-force. If such a reality exists what do you imagine prevents us from experiencing that realm right now? It can only be the brain, or more accurately the physical processes occurring within it. It is scarcely surprising that alteration of such processes might allow us to experience other realities. It is such processes which stop us from being aware right now of an afterlife reality!

[Interesting Ian]

http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Chapters/ShermerNDE.htm

She says:


On the one hand, the claim that the experiences are evidence for survival after death is untenable.


It is transparently obvious that the survival hypothesis is rendered more likely if many many people throughout history and across all cultures have certain characteristic experiences suggesting they are on a threshold of another reality, than if no one in the entire history of the Universe had ever had any such experiences.

Thus it is simply transparently false that NDEs do not constitute evidence for survival. We have yet another person who fails to understand what the word evidence means.

[Interesting Ian]

Guess I didn’t draw the distinction. Which would you say NDEs are, illusions or hallucinations?



I think in an appropriate sense everything we ever perceive is an "illusion". NDEs are no exception.



Maybe they’re a little of both,



They cannot instantaneously be both.

[I less than three logic]

I think in an appropriate sense everything we ever perceive is an "illusion". NDEs are no exception.



They cannot instantaneously be both.
:confused:
In that case your first sentence should of read:

I think in an appropriate sense everything we ever perceive, except hallucinations, is an "illusion". NDEs are no exception.

[Interesting Ian]

:confused:
In that case your first sentence should of read:

I think in an appropriate sense everything we ever perceive, except hallucinations, is an "illusion". NDEs are no exception.

Hallucinations are not external to us, so I'm not sure we should say we perceive them.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Nonsense.

There is no need for ad hoc hypothesis.

We have explained that countless of times.

[Interesting Ian]

Nonsense.

There is no need for ad hoc hypothesis.

We have explained that countless of times.

What are you talking about? What ad hoc hypothesis? That apparitions and NDEs are hallucinations?

[Complexity]

Ian - You continue to believe in a lot of nonsense and behave as though you are impervious to or insusceptible to reason or sense.

Please do us all a favor and take a break from all of this - this forum, your website, thinking about it - for a few months. I think you'll find that some things will improve for you if you can do so.

None of this is worth what it is costing you.

[Interesting Ian]

Ian - You continue to believe in a lot of nonsense and behave as though you are impervious to or insusceptible to reason or sense.


I would say that I am the absolute opposite to this.

[JPK]

Good morning Ian.
Now if these experiences share a basic fundamental commonality, and if these experiences are universal, then I would say it's obvious that people are really having these experiences. The question then boils down to their origin. Yes?

And would you acccept that one possibilty is that all of these people are humans, with human minds that are basicly hardwired the same way? Not saying the only possibility, just one.
JPK

[Interesting Ian]

Good morning Ian.


And would you acccept that one possibilty is that all of these people are humans, with human minds that are basicly hardwired the same way? Not saying the only possibility, just one.
JPK

I have never denied the possibility that such experiences are hallucinations. I reject nothing. Perhaps everything I have ever experienced is an hallucination.

[JPK]

Good morning Ian.
I have never denied the possibility that such experiences are hallucinations. I reject nothing. Perhaps everything I have ever experienced is an hallucination.
Thank you for your response.
JPK

[sat556]

It is transparently obvious that the survival hypothesis is rendered more likely if many many people throughout history and across all cultures have certain characteristic experiences suggesting they are on a threshold of another reality, than if no one in the entire history of the Universe had ever had any such experiences.

Hi again Ian.
Don't you think that it could be a possibility that it's just something that is part of the human condition? It seems a huge leap from many many people having strange experiences to saying that it's any form of evidence for survival.

[Interesting Ian]

Hi again Ian.
Don't you think that it could be a possibility that it's just something that is part of the human condition? It seems a huge leap from many many people having strange experiences to saying that it's any form of evidence for survival.

Of course it's a possibility. And I don't think you're using the word "evidence" in its proper sense.

I entirely sympathise with the idea that the afterlife seems weird and prima facie unlikely. A relative of mine just died yesterday and it seems strange to think that she is still conscious inhabiting some other reality . . .

{shrugs}

But I'm not sure if we should allow our feelings to ignore the evidence suggesting otherwise. I would also point out that many of our feelings draw us in differing directions.

[Admiral]

But I'm not sure if we should allow our feelings to ignore the evidence suggesting otherwise.

This is a damn good sentiment, Ian, that many skeptics on this forum consider a cornerstone of rational thought.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to agree with it. Didn't you once say (If someone can find the exact thread, it would be great) that you would continue to believe in ESP no matter how many tests of it failed?

The reason you would, you said, is that when you watch television shows such as "Crossing Over," you feel certain that they are doing things that cannot be faked. Forget that actual tests of paranormal activity never suceed- if someone can spend four hours guessing and cheating about the audience, then come up with half an hour of correct guesses, that seems to be evidence enough for you.

I think, Ian, that you underestimate the importance of carefully controlled experiments- without these controls, the evidence becomes far, far less credible. There are so many opportunities for John Edward to cheat, and such a strong motivation to do so, that the show could never be used as any form of evidence.

In terms of NDEs and OBEs, I might note that there are medical explanations for both that feel no need to invoke anything paranormal. For NDEs, the great example Johnny Pixels relates is all the evidence we need. It's true that, as you note, when the physical processes of the brain are altered, the functioning changes. However, that is an argument for the localization of the mind within the brain, not against it. The idea you suggest, that the brain is "what stops us" from seeing the afterlife, has no evidence. The idea that low blood flow to the brain is what causes a particular hallucination is far more likely.

As for OBEs... a friend once tried an illegal drug, I don't remember its name (it was an herb that he smoked), that caused him to collapse, after which his mind seemed to rise above his own body and look at it from above. Since we know psychoactive drugs just alter neurochemistry, this would seem to indicate that OBEs are a result of strange chemical reactions in our brains after injuries. Now, this evidence is anecdotal, but I gave it because I was hoping a doctor on the forum knew of this drug and its effects. It's true that OBEs are something experienced by many people from different backgrounds around the world, but so are migraines, and the reason may be just as mundane.

[Interesting Ian]

This is a damn good sentiment, Ian, that many skeptics on this forum consider a cornerstone of rational thought.

Unfortunately, you don't seem to agree with it. Didn't you once say (If someone can find the exact thread, it would be great) that you would continue to believe in ESP no matter how many tests of it failed?


Certainly I would if they all failed. Not that they do all fail. Some succeed, some fail.



The reason you would, you said, is that when you watch television shows such as "Crossing Over," you feel certain that they are doing things that cannot be faked.



I had never heard of "crossing over" or the Edwards guy featured in it until I came on this board. I have never watched the programme and have no interest in doing so. I don't know if hot reading is going on and the programme might well be edited. That makes it completely worthless in my opinion.

Now stop telling lies about me and creating strawmen. If you are unable to say anything sensible don't bother contributing.



Forget that actual tests of paranormal activity never suceed



Yeah right. I can tell you get your information from an unbiased source :rolleyes:



In terms of NDEs and OBEs, I might note that there are medical explanations for both that feel no need to invoke anything paranormal.



There are no explanations for consciousness and a fortiori no explanations for any aspect of consciousness. The most that could ever be achieved is to map out correlations between conscious experiences and physical activity in the brain. Since during NDEs this has not been achieved and in many instances no brain activity whatsoever has been detected or could be detected with our best instruments, then again, your statement is simply one of ignorance.

[Jeff Corey]

...There are no explanations for consciousness and a fortiori no explanations for any aspect of consciousness. The most that could ever be achieved is to map out correlations between conscious experiences and physical activity in the brain. Since during NDEs this has not been achieved and in many instances no brain activity whatsoever has been detected or could be detected with our best instruments, then again, your statement is simply one of ignorance.
I don't understand this. First you say that mapping the correlations between NDEs and brain activity has not been achieved and then you claim that no brain activity whatsoever was detected.
How can mapping that was not achieved detect whether something was present? Was anything ever measured or not?
If so, I'd like to have a link.

[thaiboxerken]

There are no explanations for consciousness

Yes, there are. You just don't like them.

[Hellbound]

Since during NDEs this has not been achieved and in many instances no brain activity whatsoever has been detected or could be detected with our best instruments, then again, your statement is simply one of ignorance.

Bollocks.

I'm still waiting for you to back this statement up, Ian. I think you're blowing smoke. This is a lie.

I'm willing to change my statement if shown otherwise, but I have found no evidence of anyone coming back from zero brain activity (outside of specific cases of near-freezing, but none of those produced NDEs to my knowledge, and I believe even there residual brain activity remained).

[.13.]

It is transparently obvious that the survival hypothesis is rendered more likely if many many people throughout history and across all cultures have certain characteristic experiences suggesting they are on a threshold of another reality, than if no one in the entire history of the Universe had ever had any such experiences.

Thus it is simply transparently false that NDEs do not constitute evidence for survival. We have yet another person who fails to understand what the word evidence means.


How is it obvious? Only thing that is obvious to me is that people have some kind of experiences. How are these experiences evidence for any specific hypothesis?

[Interesting Ian]

I don't understand this. First you say that mapping the correlations between NDEs and brain activity has not been achieved and then you claim that no brain activity whatsoever was detected.
How can mapping that was not achieved detect whether something was present? Was anything ever measured or not?
If so, I'd like to have a link.

I don't understand this at all. How can what detect whether something was present?

No I don't have any links. But in the context of NDEs it's common knowledge that on occasions no brain activity can be detected.

[Interesting Ian]

Bollocks.

I'm still waiting for you to back this statement up, Ian. I think you're blowing smoke. This is a lie.



{shrugs}

I'm just repeating what I've read from numerous sources. I hadn't realised that it was something that skeptics contested.



I'm willing to change my statement if shown otherwise, but I have found no evidence of anyone coming back from zero brain activity (outside of specific cases of near-freezing, but none of those produced NDEs to my knowledge, and I believe even there residual brain activity remained).

Then clearly you have done very little reading indeed regarding NDEs

[Interesting Ian]

How is it obvious? Only thing that is obvious to me is that people have some kind of experiences. How are these experiences evidence for any specific hypothesis?

By definition. If I experience something, then there is evidence for that something by virtue of what the word evidence means. Indeed we cannot have evidence for anything other than by experience.

[Interesting Ian]

By definition. If I experience something, then there is evidence for that something by virtue of what the word evidence means. Indeed we cannot have evidence for anything other than by experience.

Just to clarify. Suppose I am experiening a table by virtue of appropriate visual qualia i.e a brown colour of a certain shape. Now by definition of the word evidence there cannot be zero evidence that there actually is a table. Otherwise there would be no evidence for anything ever and it would be irrational for us to get out of our beds in a morning.

[Interesting Ian]

Bollocks.

I'm still waiting for you to back this statement up, Ian. I think you're blowing smoke. This is a lie.

I'm willing to change my statement if shown otherwise, but I have found no evidence of anyone coming back from zero brain activity (outside of specific cases of near-freezing, but none of those produced NDEs to my knowledge, and I believe even there residual brain activity remained).

Why shouldn't people come back from zero brain activity?

Anyway I said none can be measured, not that there wasn't any. What about these people who come back to life in the morgue?

[alfaniner]

Why shouldn't people come back from zero brain activity?

Anyway I said none can be measured, not that there wasn't any. What about these people who come back to life in the morgue?

They are called "zombies", and that only happens in the movies, mate.

[I less than three logic]

By definition. If I experience something, then there is evidence for that something by virtue of what the word evidence means. Indeed we cannot have evidence for anything other than by experience.
Evidence and experience are not interchangeable. I’ll give you part of that statement; evidence can not be gathered unless someone has some form of experience. But it doesn’t necessarily work the other way around. Just because something is experienced by someone doesn’t make it evidence for what they experienced is real.

How about we look at your own example:

http://www.grand-illusions.com/images/shades%20illusion.jpg

"A" and "B" look different colours, but they are "really" the same colour.

To declare we do not experience them as differing colours is simply not to use the word "experience" in its correct sense!
As you said, we experience squares “A” and “B” as different colors. Is that evidence that that are really different colors? No, if I were to claim they are different colors I would easily be proven wrong. My saying they are different colors can only be taken as evidence that I experience them as different colors, it provides no evidence that they are in fact different colors.

Now, why would my claim that they are different colors be proven wrong? Because both you and the picture itself say they are the same color? No, just like my previous claim, there is no evidence within this claim itself.

Here is how I obtained evidence that they really are the same color (I also hope you did something similar before posting the picture with your claim). You don’t need a nice image processing program to do this, MS paint is built into Windows and most other operating systems contain similar programs. I simply copied your picture and pasted it into MS paint. I selected a part of square “A” and moved it off the picture. Next, I did the same for square “B”. I selected a piece of it and moved it off the picture only this time I moved it so part of it overlapped the piece of “A” I had already moved. Then you can clearly see they are the exact same color. This is evidence, despite what you, I, or anyone else experienced when looking at the original picture.

[.13.]

By definition. If I experience something, then there is evidence for that something by virtue of what the word evidence means. Indeed we cannot have evidence for anything other than by experience.

But why does these experiences support one hypothesis over another?

[Hellbound]

II:

Just to make certain I understand this...

You refuse to back up your assertion that these people have no measurable brain activity? It only takes a single example. IF it's as prevelant as you claim, that shouldn't be hard to do.

Of course, you do have to be able to read and comprehend on at least a 9th grade level.

[sat556]

Of course it's a possibility. And I don't think you're using the word "evidence" in its proper sense.

When I typed the word 'evidence', I was referring to that which you had given me and referred to yourself as 'evidence'. What is it that you are thinking I mean?

[Z]

No, Ian, what is common knowledge is that after the brain reaches zero activity, there is no hope of recovery.

This might help you out: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9&q=http://www.ctdn.org/downloads/UnderstandingBrainDeath.pdf&e=14911

Brain death is irreversible. Full stop.

[Jeff Corey]

... But in the context of NDEs it's common knowledge that on occasions no brain activity can be detected.
Another case where definitions are warped beyond all recognition.
"Common knowledge" means "Some stuff I read somwhere by another idiot who just made ***** up."

[Belz...]

I don't understand this at all. How can what detect whether something was present?

No I don't have any links. But in the context of NDEs it's common knowledge that on occasions no brain activity can be detected.

It was my understanding that, if your brain activity is zero, you can't have ANY experience. I thought NDEs happened when there was LACK of oxygen, not zero oxygen, to the brain.

[Interesting Ian]

Evidence and experience are not interchangeable. I’ll give you part of that statement; evidence can not be gathered unless someone has some form of experience. But it doesn’t necessarily work the other way around. Just because something is experienced by someone doesn’t make it evidence for what they experienced is real.



Your statement is just completely and utterly absurd.



How about we look at your own example:

As you said, we experience squares “A” and “B” as different colors. Is that evidence that that are really different colors?



Obviously. This is so by definition.



No,



It really truly is a waste of time talking to people on here. You're all off your rockers!



if I were to claim they are different colors I would easily be proven wrong.



You're not taking the picture seriously. It's a 2 dimensional representation of a 3D object. But if you think about it everything we ever visually perceive are 2D representations of 3D objects. We do not directly see a 3D world. It is an implicit low level theory we have about the world and it is not possible to see the world without seeing through the interpretational lens of this theory.

If anyone were to see those squares as the same colour, then I bet they wouldn't have much success in visually negotiating their environment! The 2 squares are different colours. We can all see clearly they are different colours. Does an object change its colour throughout the day from dawn to dusk depending upon the nature of the light from the sun? No? It looks the same colour all the time, therefore it is.




My saying they are different colors can only be taken as evidence that I experience them as different colors, it provides no evidence that they are in fact different colors.



Even if this were true, which it is not as I have just explained, then this would still be false. Let's suppose (contrary to facts) the 2 squares really are the same colour, then the fact we perceive them as different colours still must necessarily constitute evidence they are indeed different colours.



Here is how I obtained evidence that they really are the same color (I also hope you did something similar before posting the picture with your claim). You don’t need a nice image processing program to do this, MS paint is built into Windows and most other operating systems contain similar programs. I simply copied your picture and pasted it into MS paint. I selected a part of square “A” and moved it off the picture. Next, I did the same for square “B”. I selected a piece of it and moved it off the picture only this time I moved it so part of it overlapped the piece of “A” I had already moved. Then you can clearly see they are the exact same color.



No no no, you're not allowed to do that. That's cheating.

[Interesting Ian]

But why does these experiences support one hypothesis over another?

The more obvious straightforward hypothesis is to be preferred. If I visually perceive what appears to be a table, then I should assume it is indeed a table unless other evidence suggests otherwise. If we didn't assume this we would never be able to do anything.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Folks, this is going to descend into hell if we can't agree on the definition of "the color of an object."
the frequency of the light reflecting from the object in a vacuum with a perfect white light source
the frequency of the light reflecting from the object in its normal setting
the frequency of the light falling on my retina
the apparent color of the object when viewed in its normal setting
the apparent color of an object when placed in an empty setting
the color I know it to be, regardless of visual experience
fill in the blank


~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

II:

Just to make certain I understand this...

You refuse to back up your assertion that these people have no measurable brain activity?



Which people? The ones who don't have measurable brain activity? Not all NDE'ers have non-measurable brain activity. You don't even have to be near death to have an NDE!


I have a great deal of knowledge about many things. Am I supposed to "back up" any of this knowledge to anyone who asks me to do so by supplying a URL? Obviously not, and I do not have a URL anyway. I'm sure you're as proficient as using search engines as I am. Why should I do your homework for you. Look on the net, or better still go to your local library and start reading relevant material.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Does an object change its colour throughout the day from dawn to dusk depending upon the nature of the light from the sun? No? It looks the same colour all the time, therefore it is.
Your question is sloppy. Are you asking whether the object changes its reflective properties, or whether different frequencies reflect from it, and/or whether our perception of the reflected light changes?

And why you think a tree looks the same at noon and dusk I cannot imagine.

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

When I typed the word 'evidence', I was referring to that which you had given me and referred to yourself as 'evidence'. What is it that you are thinking I mean?

I havce no idea. Why don't you paste in the last few exchanges so I understand the context?

[Interesting Ian]

No, Ian, what is common knowledge is that after the brain reaches zero activity, there is no hope of recovery.

This might help you out: http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&start=9&q=http://www.ctdn.org/downloads/UnderstandingBrainDeath.pdf&e=14911

Brain death is irreversible. Full stop.

As I said, there is no measurable brain activity. Maybe there is activity but our instruments cannot detect it. Maybe as this webpage you referenced states:

"Brain death means there is no activity in the brain. The brain is no longer functioning in any capacity and it never will again. A brain dead person is dead."

they therefore must be brain activity.

Mind you it's just an unsubstantiated assertion they're making. What about people lying in the morgue and coming back to life? eg George Rodonaia.

There's a current 3 fold testing method used to establish death:

1. An EEG check for brain-wave activity.

2. Auditory-evoked procedures to measure brain-stem viability.

3. Documentation from other tests to show the absence of blood flow to the brain.

But, from what I've read, there are people who meet all 3 criteria but still have an NDE and return to life.

[Interesting Ian]

Another case where definitions are warped beyond all recognition.
"Common knowledge" means "Some stuff I read somwhere by another idiot who just made ***** up."

Well in that case there are a number of very well qualified people making ***** up.

[Interesting Ian]

It was my understanding that, if your brain activity is zero, you can't have ANY experience. I thought NDEs happened when there was LACK of oxygen, not zero oxygen, to the brain.

Well of course skeptics deny that these experiences occur during the period where no activity in the brain can be measured.

[Hellbound]

Ian:

Since you can't prove your assertion, and I can find no evidence of it myself, I have this to say:

Ian, You Are Wrong.

There has never been a case of an NDE occurring during full brain death (unmeasureable activity), and never been a case of recovery from a lack of measureable brain activity (limiting scope to, say the last decade or two, Since we've had EEG's that were accurate).

Your refusal to post even one instance of an NDE with full brain death simply proives the vacuous nature of your argument. When you are countered by facts, you simply make up your own. When called, you complain about "not doing homework". It's a bit different. You made the calim, so obviously you should know where this information is. I did not make the claim, simply asked you for evidence of it.

You have no evidence of it. You are making it up, and doing a rather poor job of it.

No, Ian, it's not because you're too smart for us to understand. It's not because we're brainwashed. It's not because everyone on the face of the Earth except you is a blithering idiot.

It's because you are willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, coniving, biasesd, decietful, intentionally obtuse, and too emotionally invested in your own pet theory to come within the same galaxy as an objective viewpoint.

You are rude, ignorant, dismissive of those with more knowledge than you, and unable to recognize your own limitations.

You are a philosopher in the same way that I am a Nobel-prize winning astronaut fireman who plays professional football and is King of his own nation.

You are even less a scientist.

[Lothian]

No no no, you're not allowed to do that. That's cheating.
:dl:

[Interesting Ian]

Folks, this is going to descend into hell if we can't agree on the definition of "the color of an object."
the frequency of the light reflecting from the object in a vacuum with a perfect white light source
the frequency of the light reflecting from the object in its normal setting
the frequency of the light falling on my retina
the apparent color of the object when viewed in its normal setting
the apparent color of an object when placed in an empty setting
the color I know it to be, regardless of visual experience
fill in the blank


~~ Paul

It means the colour an object appears to be in good light and relatively close up. I don't care whether it is in a shadow or not.

[Interesting Ian]

Your question is sloppy. Are you asking whether the object changes its reflective properties, or whether different frequencies reflect from it, and/or whether our perception of the reflected light changes?


I'm asking whether its colour changes. Provided there is sufficient daylight so we can still see clearly, then an object will remain the same colour. Otherwise they would change colour when it becomes cloudy or it is cast in a shadow. Does the nature of the colour you experience change when this happens?

[Interesting Ian]

you are willfully ignorant, intellectually dishonest, coniving, biasesd, decietful, intentionally obtuse, and too emotionally invested in your own pet theory to come within the same galaxy as an objective viewpoint.

You are rude, ignorant, dismissive of those with more knowledge than you, and unable to recognize your own limitations.


But otherwise I'm ok?

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It means the colour an object appears to be in good light and relatively close up. I don't care whether it is in a shadow or not.
That seems like a poor choice since it is entirely subjective. You could never agree on anything with a color blind person. You couldn't even have a conversation about color with a blind person. You'd be dancing around blue/green with a tetrachromatic woman. Even worse, we cannot talk about the color of an object when it is not in good light and relatively close up. For example, we cannot discuss the color of a tree at dusk or the color of a fish when diving at 200 feet.

You do agree that we can talk about those other definitions of color as long as we qualify them, right? For example, we can ask what frequences of light are reflected from an object?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I'm asking whether its colour changes. Provided there is sufficient daylight so we can still see clearly, then an object will remain the same colour. Otherwise they would change colour when it becomes cloudy or it is cast in a shadow. Does the nature of the colour you experience change when this happens?
You cannot ask that question, because you have defined color to be "the colour an object appears to be in good light and relatively close up." This is not the case on an overcast day with the object in shadow. Perhaps you want to amend your definition?

And yes, the color I experience changes depending on the light. And on whether I am looking at a photo or graphic rendering of the object, as is the case with the chessboard. I built a model of a custom '62 Thunderbird and painted it Aston Martin blue-green. It has been photographed for magazines three times. Of those three photos, only one is close to the "actual" color of the model. So what is the color of the model?

~~ Paul

[Interesting Ian]

That seems like a poor choice since it is entirely subjective.



That's fine. So is everything. The "objective" is the view from nowhere (to quote the title of a famous book).

As far as we know we might all experience differing colours when looking at objects. Doesn't matter.

[Jeff Corey]

Well in that case there are a number of very well qualified people making ***** up.
Name one such very well qualified person and cite where she or he made this error.
Uri Geller doesn't count.

[Interesting Ian]

You cannot ask that question, because you have defined color to be "the colour an object appears to be in good light and relatively close up." This is not the case on an overcast day with the object in shadow. Perhaps you want to amend your definition?

And yes, the color I experience changes depending on the light. And on whether I am looking at a photo or graphic rendering of the object, as is the case with the chessboard. I built a model of a custom '62 Thunderbird and painted it Aston Martin blue-green. It has been photographed for magazines three times. Of those three photos, only one is close to the "actual" color of the model. So what is the color of the model?

~~ Paul

It's a dank miserable day here. My room is not as light as it would normally be at this time of day. Nevertheless, to me all the objects in my room look the same colour as they do normally. It is true that turning on the light makes the colour of objects look brighter, but I wouldn't say their colour has changed. They just look a bit brighter, that's all.

Obviously in the dark or if I close my eyes I will not experience an object in front of me as being coloured. Maybe I can only make out a faint outline. But I wouldn't say they have ceased to be coloured anymore than objects cease to exist when I close my eyes.

To give a colour to an object is to specify that colour under ideal viewing conditions. In other words when maximum discrimination between various shades of colour is obtained. Under dull conditions it will appear to be the same colour, it's just that it will be less distinct.

Consider an analogy. I can see the text on my monitor absolutely fine. If I go to the opposite side of the room I will no longer be able to read the text although I will still clearly recognise it as text. Would I say that it no longer looks like text?

[Belz...]

You're not taking the picture seriously. It's a 2 dimensional representation of a 3D object. But if you think about it everything we ever visually perceive are 2D representations of 3D objects. We do not directly see a 3D world. It is an implicit low level theory we have about the world and it is not possible to see the world without seeing through the interpretational lens of this theory.

Correct.

If anyone were to see those squares as the same colour, then I bet they wouldn't have much success in visually negotiating their environment! The 2 squares are different colours. We can all see clearly they are different colours. Does an object change its colour throughout the day from dawn to dusk depending upon the nature of the light from the sun? No? It looks the same colour all the time, therefore it is.

No it doesn't. The same object can appear to be different colours depending on the time of day or circumstances. Ever been in a dark room ? The red light kinda messes up with things, doesn't it ?

Even if this were true, which it is not as I have just explained, then this would still be false. Let's suppose (contrary to facts) the 2 squares really are the same colour, then the fact we perceive them as different colours still must necessarily constitute evidence they are indeed different colours.

Even so. The evidence is clearly wrong.

[Belz...]

Well of course skeptics deny that these experiences occur during the period where no activity in the brain can be measured.

I'm just asking a question: how can you have an NDE if your brain stops working ? Can you provide evidence for this assertion ?

[alfaniner]

I'm asking whether its colour changes. Provided there is sufficient daylight so we can still see clearly, then an object will remain the same colour. Otherwise they would change colour when it becomes cloudy or it is cast in a shadow. Does the nature of the colour you experience change when this happens?

Ah, don't know anything about color theory either then? Just like most of the other disciplines you spout off on.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's a dank miserable day here. My room is not as light as it would normally be at this time of day. Nevertheless, to me all the objects in my room look the same colour as they do normally. It is true that turning on the light makes the colour of objects look brighter, but I wouldn't say their colour has changed. They just look a bit brighter, that's all.
I daresay this is because you know what color they are on a bright day. Look at a tree as dusk settles. It not only becomes darker, it changes from green to gray to black. If you did not know it was green, you would say it was gray.

Obviously in the dark or if I close my eyes I will not experience an object in front of me as being coloured. Maybe I can only make out a faint outline. But I wouldn't say they have ceased to be coloured anymore than objects cease to exist when I close my eyes.
But of course they do, given your definition! You just know what color they are. You're not defining color to be your knowledge of the color, rather than your perception of the color, are you?

Consider an analogy. I can see the text on my monitor absolutely fine. If I go to the opposite side of the room I will no longer be able to read the text although I will still clearly recognise it as text. Would I say that it no longer looks like text?
If you were honest with your definition, which includes the phrase "up close," yes. Either that, or you've given us the wrong definition.

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

No it doesn't. The same object can appear to be different colours depending on the time of day or circumstances. Ever been in a dark room ? The red light kinda messes up with things, doesn't it ?
Or try diving to 200 feet. Heck, try staring at the ocean from the beach and then from atop a platform on the beach. I wonder why the color changes?

~~ Paul

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Consider a flower. I see it as one color, an insect sees it as a completely different color. How can one object be two different colors?

~~ Paul

[Belz...]

Obviously in the dark or if I close my eyes I will not experience an object in front of me as being coloured. Maybe I can only make out a faint outline. But I wouldn't say they have ceased to be coloured anymore than objects cease to exist when I close my eyes.

To give a colour to an object is to specify that colour under ideal viewing conditions. In other words when maximum discrimination between various shades of colour is obtained. Under dull conditions it will appear to be the same colour, it's just that it will be less distinct.

I think you don't even know what you're arguing. A moment ago, you said that the colour is different, or not, simply because your perception says so, and now you're saying your perception hasn't anything to do with it.

So, which is it ?

[Interesting Ian]

Consider a flower. I see it as one color, an insect sees it as a completely different color. How can one object be two different colors?

~~ Paul

Easy so long as you abandon the idea that there is a unique mind-independent reality which we all perceive differently. If I experience an object as what I call "red" and your experience it as "green" (but still call it "red"), what of it? We will still both stop at red traffic lights.

The important point is that it is not the case that one of us is right and the other wrong, or both of us are wrong. To assume that is to introduce the abstract metaphysical hypothesis of a mind-independent reality to which our respective visual qualia conform or resemble.

[sat556]

Originally Posted by Interesting Ian :

It is transparently obvious that the survival hypothesis is rendered more likely if many many people throughout history and across all cultures have certain characteristic experiences suggesting they are on a threshold of another reality, than if no one in the entire history of the Universe had ever had any such experiences.

My reply:

Hi again Ian.
Don't you think that it could be a possibility that it's just something that is part of the human condition? It seems a huge leap from many many people having strange experiences to saying that it's any form of evidence for survival.

Your reply:

Of course it's a possibility. And I don't think you're using the word "evidence" in its proper sense.



So, since I was referring to the 'evidence' you provided, how can I be using the word in the incorrect sense?


__________________

[Belz...]

Easy so long as you abandon the idea that there is a unique mind-independent reality which we all perceive differently.

How is the fact that there is a unique mind-independent reality which we all perceive differently prevent the fact that we all perceive it differently ? The colour is still the same.

[Belz...]

It is transparently obvious that the survival hypothesis is rendered more likely if many many people throughout history and across all cultures have certain characteristic experiences suggesting they are on a threshold of another reality, than if no one in the entire history of the Universe had ever had any such experiences.

What if I don't sense that my consciousness is in any way, shape or form, special or distinct from "reality" ? What if I don't feel anything different than I would were I simply the result of physical processes ? What is that evidence of ?

[Bronze Dog]

Just to throw in two insignificant cents on the color thing: I've often found myself in situations where someone would describe something as "red", and I'd think "That's not red! That's pink!" or "That's not red! It's a red-leaning orange."

[Valmorian]

How is the fact that there is a unique mind-independent reality which we all perceive differently prevent the fact that we all perceive it differently ? The colour is still the same.

Ian is using the term "colour" differently than you. In his terminology, "colour" is the sensation you experience, not a quality that the object has. I am inclined to agree with him to a point. The thing is that you're talking at odds to each other, since YOU intend colour to mean "the frequency of the light that is reflected from the object".

[I less than three logic]

Honestly Ian, the whole point of that illusion seems to have gone over your head. I understand that the picture is intended to represent a 3-D object, and if it were a real checkerboard squares “A” and “B” would be different colors.

However, I also know that when viewing a 3-D object my brain starts assuming information such as shadows and lighting vectors to process its own interpretation of what is being viewed. The fact of the matter is that the pixels on your screen within both square “A” and “B” are exactly the same, giving off the same color of light, and being detected as the exact same color by your eyes because they are incapable of doing anything else.

http://naukiniekonwencjonalne.feedle.com/materialy/foto/checkershadow_animation_top.html

The illusion shows that our perception is inseparable from our expectations and assumptions about how things work. Most of these assumptions are instinctive, and we don’t necessarily need to know the mechanics behind them for our brain to make accurate predictions.

You said, “If anyone were to see those squares as the same colour, then I bet they wouldn't have much success in visually negotiating their environment!” This is exactly why our brain makes such assumptions in its processing of vision, but that doesn’t change the color of the pixels on the screen. They are the exact same color as I’ve shown you, but try as you might, as long as your brain is getting the other visual cues contained in the picture you’ll never see them as the same color.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And you know, if the color is just what I perceive/know it to be, then why do the lighting conditions have anything to do with it at all? Ian refuses to equate the color of the object with the the reflected wavelengths of light, yet the intensity of the reflected light has something to do with the color.

~~ Paul

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

The important point is that it is not the case that one of us is right and the other wrong, or both of us are wrong. To assume that is to introduce the abstract metaphysical hypothesis of a mind-independent reality to which our respective visual qualia conform or resemble.

Not true, you have said countless of times that you are right and everyone else is stupid, so, for you, its important to know that you are right. (whatever that means)

That aside, the "abstract metaphysical hypothesis" is not there, we naively accept that there is a real world out there because its obvious. You are the one who have to do all sorts of metaphysical aberrations to deny it. :D Now, whether that world is as we see it or extremely different is another kind of question.

[Belz...]

Ian is using the term "colour" differently than you. In his terminology, "colour" is the sensation you experience, not a quality that the object has. I am inclined to agree with him to a point. The thing is that you're talking at odds to each other, since YOU intend colour to mean "the frequency of the light that is reflected from the object".

If he's right, then there's no point in discussing anything with anyone, ever.