JREF Homepage Swift Blog Events Calendar $1 Million Paranormal Challenge The Amaz!ng Meeting Useful Links Support Us
James Randi Educational Foundation JREF Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal
Click Here To Donate

Notices


Welcome to the JREF Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Tags afterlife

Reply
Old 29th February 2012, 11:31 AM   #401
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 12,141
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
I just watched it again. Harris didn't say that. How would he know, anyway?
He wouldn't, he'd be guessing. I suppose I can see that argument, but I'd have to think about it some. Removing the consciousness from the biological would definitely change the manner in which we perceived the world. I'm not certain I have the capacity to go much beyond that, though.
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw

Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.

All your base are belong to us.
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 12:59 PM   #402
George152
Master Poster
 
George152's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Hamilton New Zealand
Posts: 2,404
Smile

Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
I wonder why that is
__________________
Unemployment isn't working
George152 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 01:07 PM   #403
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 12,141
Originally Posted by George152 View Post
I wonder why that is
At a guess:
1 - Insulting people
2 - Never admitting he's wrong, even after several people carefully and politely point it out over many posts
3 - Arguing his own point of view for arguments sake, rather than trying to have a discussion
But that's just a guess. I assume in a computational model, he's already enjoying his afterlife and it's quite wonderful.
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw

Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.

All your base are belong to us.
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 01:31 PM   #404
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Posts: 10,242
Originally Posted by RobRoy View Post
At a guess:
1 - Insulting people
2 - Never admitting he's wrong, even after several people carefully and politely point it out over many posts
3 - Arguing his own point of view for arguments sake, rather than trying to have a discussion
.
4 lying about evidence
5 debating dishonestly
6 pretending to be an authority
7 making crap up as he goes along


who's got the last 3
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 01:39 PM   #405
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 12,141
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
4 lying about evidence
5 debating dishonestly
6 pretending to be an authority
7 making crap up as he goes along


who's got the last 3
Aren't all of those pretty much the same thing?
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw

Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.

All your base are belong to us.
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 02:08 PM   #406
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Posts: 10,242
Originally Posted by RobRoy View Post
Aren't all of those pretty much the same thing?
well at least he's consistent
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 02:10 PM   #407
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 12,141
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
well at least he's consistent
There is that. I hate to be down on the guy, because up until he insulted me, and then started to patently ignore being obviously wrong, it was an interesting conversation. He seems to have dropped off here entirely, which is probably a good thing.
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw

Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.

All your base are belong to us.
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 02:12 PM   #408
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,447
Originally Posted by RobRoy View Post
There is that. I hate to be down on the guy, because up until he insulted me, and then started to patently ignore being obviously wrong, it was an interesting conversation. He seems to have dropped off here entirely, which is probably a good thing.

Oh, he'll be back...
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 02:13 PM   #409
Resume
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10,327
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
4 lying about evidence
5 debating dishonestly
6 pretending to be an authority
7 making crap up as he goes along


who's got the last 3
8 Rredefinition
9 Retrofitting details

And?
Resume is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 02:15 PM   #410
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 12,141
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Oh, he'll be back...
I won't hold my breath on the apology, though.

Originally Posted by Resume View Post
8 Rredefinition
9 Retrofitting details

And?
Hand-waving and foot-stomping?
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw

Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.

All your base are belong to us.
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 05:28 PM   #411
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
 
Krikkiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,282
Apologies in advance for the rather long winded reply.

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Sure, the question is related. Just not in the way you have interpreted as an appeal to authority ( which is what I presume is still the issue ). The entire issue is simply for the sake of participation in an informal discussion.1 So I posed the question somewhat rhetorically2 as an interpretation of Paul's implied dismissal on the grounds of a lack of evidence. In other words: So ... OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence ...3
1 So you are saying that you're not trying to show evidence of anything, it's just an informal discussion where no-one is required to show evidence? If that's the case then you're at the wrong forum. You've stated that "Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ..." but you're not interested in presenting evidence in support of this view at a skeptics forum?

2 If the question was rhetorical you'd either be using it as a lead into an exposition of evidence and/or we'd already know the answer. I'm not sure you understand what a rhetorical question is let alone the context in which it should be used.

3 There is no reason for you to use "other words." The question you posed is:

"... what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?"

You changed that to:

"OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence."

Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.

Either way, I can't see how either of those questions is rhetorical except in the sense that you're about to present evidence which would make a reply unnecessary.

Then you launch into exactly the fallacy I and others have shown you to be committing:

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
well if you look at at this way this seems to make some sense ... and so and so over there with some scientific credentials also thinks it does ... so maybe he has some reasons ...
Originally Posted by ufology View Post
and if you find this interesting you might want to check it out ... That's all I'm saying.
And if that's all you're saying what was the point of letting us know about scientific credentials? In a general interest sense (no evidence required) scientific credentials are superfluous.

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
I'm not making any claims for truth or certainty or belief of or in it4 or any of that. Most simply put, if you had asked me if I think that because the scientist I used as a reference says it seems like we're living in a simulated universe that it must be true ... I would have said, "Of course not, we don't have sufficient evidence, but it is pretty interesting."5
4 You did say this though:

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ...
So what are we to think?

5 So in summary, you are saying that although you personally believe that the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality, and that there is circumstantial evidence to support this view and that some scientists are interested in the idea and that the computational model enables an afterlife, you don't think there's any need to present any evidence to back up any of the above.

You've stated that you think an afterlife is possible given the existence of the computational model but you've not shown evidence and you think there's no need to. That is exactly the kind of reasoning I've had from these other people I've had conversations with. The reason they believe, I think, is because they're too proud to admit they haven't thought their ideas through.
Krikkiter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 05:59 PM   #412
AdMan
Philosopher
 
AdMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 9,447
Originally Posted by Krikkiter View Post
[...]The question you posed is:

"... what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?"

You changed that to:

"OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence."

Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.

Based on his history here, it's one of ufology's favorite tactics--start off with a predetermined conclusion and then pick and choose and twist the "evidence" to make it fit, while ignoring everything that conflicts with that conclusion. It's sometimes known as the slanting fallacy.

In the UFO threads it's been explained to him how and why this approach is incorrect, but he refuses to admit he does it or to stop doing it.
__________________
It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
- Carl Sagan
AdMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 06:12 PM   #413
ufology
Master Poster
 
ufology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary Canada
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by Krikkiter View Post
Apologies in advance for the rather long winded reply.



1 So you are saying that you're not trying to show evidence of anything, it's just an informal discussion where no-one is required to show evidence? If that's the case then you're at the wrong forum. You've stated that "Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ..." but you're not interested in presenting evidence in support of this view at a skeptics forum?

2 If the question was rhetorical you'd either be using it as a lead into an exposition of evidence and/or we'd already know the answer. I'm not sure you understand what a rhetorical question is let alone the context in which it should be used.

3 There is no reason for you to use "other words." The question you posed is:

"... what evidence is there that we might be living in some form of generated construct?"

You changed that to:

"OK What information is out there that we might interpret as evidence."

Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.

Either way, I can't see how either of those questions is rhetorical except in the sense that you're about to present evidence which would make a reply unnecessary.

Then you launch into exactly the fallacy I and others have shown you to be committing:





And if that's all you're saying what was the point of letting us know about scientific credentials? In a general interest sense (no evidence required) scientific credentials are superfluous.



4 You did say this though:



So what are we to think?

5 So in summary, you are saying that although you personally believe that the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality, and that there is circumstantial evidence to support this view and that some scientists are interested in the idea and that the computational model enables an afterlife, you don't think there's any need to present any evidence to back up any of the above.

You've stated that you think an afterlife is possible given the existence of the computational model but you've not shown evidence and you think there's no need to. That is exactly the kind of reasoning I've had from these other people I've had conversations with. The reason they believe, I think, is because they're too proud to admit they haven't thought their ideas through.

Krikkiter,

I'll sure give you credit for tearing right into all the little details, but you're really over analyzing it. Yes I think the computational model is the best explanation for reality I've run across. But that's not the same as saying that I believe it is actually the case. I admit I haven't thought it all the way through, but that's only because fully understanding reality is a very complex issue and nobody has the answer. So I think anyone who says they have thought it all the way through would be being pretentious. However I do claim to have thought it through far enough to be able to compare it to the logic the skeptic used in the video Paul posted, which brings us to the idea of evidence being required. In the video, the skeptic made no effort to provide any evidence that ectoplasm and software run on the brain had any evidence either because it's simply illustrative of a particular hypothetical position. That is perfectly fair, and if it's fair for him to do it, then it's equally fair for me to do the same. Keep in mind that the context of this issue isn't about proving we are in a generated construct, only that if we suppose we were, then "x,y,z" ( x being an afterlife ) are possibilities. Now even though in this context no evidence is required, I posted some references anyway for anyone who might be interested in exploring the idea. We also touched on some issues that lend circumstantial evidence for it. Now I think that we might get further and learn more if we focus on those particular ideas, because for me, I haven't been able to get past them and so far as I know, nobody in the history of mankind has either. Who knows ... maybe if you apply that analytical mind of yours to the issues of the topic rather than my presentation style, some overlooked detail might pop out that can move the discussion forward.
__________________
USI Calgary

Last edited by ufology; 29th February 2012 at 06:22 PM.
ufology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 06:30 PM   #414
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,279
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
Kryten: But, sir, do you not believe that God exists in all things? Are you not a pantheist?
Lister: Sure, I just don't think it applies to kitchen utensils. I'm not a frying pantheist.

Kryten: Is it not written in the Electronic Bible that the iron shall lie down with the lamp?

Lister is also the god of the cats, as revealed in "Waiting For God". I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make by referencing the programme, though. It doesn't support anything you're saying in any way that I can see.
For cats to have gods they'd have to accept something in the universe is superior to them; I see no sign of this.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 06:33 PM   #415
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,279
Originally Posted by Porterboy View Post
Not really. What's silly is pretending to ones self that one does not have this kind of feeling at all and projecting it onto those that do. Saying for instance: "It's so comforting not (having this new discovery). But we can face the truth!"
This us a common problem with those suffering from religious belief,; they're incapable of accepting that other people don't have or need these delusions and can cope quite well with reality without them.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 09:34 PM   #416
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
 
Krikkiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by AdMan View Post
Based on his history here, it's one of ufology's favorite tactics--start off with a predetermined conclusion and then pick and choose and twist the "evidence" to make it fit, while ignoring everything that conflicts with that conclusion. It's sometimes known as the slanting fallacy.

In the UFO threads it's been explained to him how and why this approach is incorrect, but he refuses to admit he does it or to stop doing it.
Thank AdMan. Business as usual for ufology then.

Thanks for the resource too. Very helpful.
Krikkiter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th February 2012, 10:02 PM   #417
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
 
Krikkiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Krikkiter,

I'll sure give you credit for tearing right into all the little details, but you're really over analyzing it.
I don't think I am. I think I've just shown that you employ logical fallacies in an effort to support your preconceived position and that (with AdMan's help) you don't follow where the evidence leads, you instead try to find bits of "evidence" that fit your preconceived position. Pretty simple really. Though it does get a bit strange when you say you don't need to support a position you've already taken...

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Yes I think the computational model is the best explanation for reality I've run across. But that's not the same as saying that I believe it is actually the case. I admit I haven't thought it all the way through, but that's only because fully understanding reality is a very complex issue and nobody has the answer.
I have an answer and so does Sam Harris: There is no evidence of an afterlife. Simple yes?

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
So I think anyone who says they have thought it all the way through would be being pretentious.
In which case you'll think I'm pretentious. To be honest that doesn't really bother me.

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
However I do claim to have thought it through far enough to be able to compare it to the logic the skeptic used in the video Paul posted, which brings us to the idea of evidence being required.
I have to ask, did you actually watch the video the whole way through?

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
In the video, the skeptic made no effort to provide any evidence that ectoplasm and software run on the brain had any evidence either because it's simply illustrative of a particular hypothetical position.
Sam Harris' position isn't about ectoplasm and software run on the brain why would he need to provide evidence for it?

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
That is perfectly fair, and if it's fair for him to do it, then it's equally fair for me to do the same.
Sam Harris' position is that damaging part of the brain damages part of the mind. I'm not aware of any science that would dispute this. His logical conclusion is that if you destroy the brain you destroy the mind. Is there any evidence to the contrary or is there any evidence that would cast doubt on his conclusion?

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Keep in mind that the context of this issue isn't about proving we are in a generated construct, only that if we suppose we were, then "x,y,z" ( x being an afterlife ) are possibilities.
I'm not sure this is the right forum to be supposing possibilities without evidence.

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Now even though in this context no evidence is required, I posted some references anyway for anyone who might be interested in exploring the idea.
You mean to say you used a logical fallacy in an attempt to lend some kind of credence to your idea. I showed how you did this in my last post.

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
We also touched on some issues that lend circumstantial evidence for it. Now I think that we might get further and learn more if we focus on those particular ideas, because for me, I haven't been able to get past them and so far as I know, nobody in the history of mankind has either.
The only issues are the ones you've created yourself by positing a computational model without evidence.

Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Who knows ... maybe if you apply that analytical mind of yours to the issues of the topic rather than my presentation style, some overlooked detail might pop out that can move the discussion forward.
All I've done ufology is examine critically your reasoning and logic. Unlike that of Sam Harris, yours is confused and disjointed.

Last edited by Krikkiter; 29th February 2012 at 10:04 PM.
Krikkiter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 12:37 AM   #418
Pixel42
Schrdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,924
Originally Posted by Krikkiter View Post
Can someone help me out here? I'm not sure that it's the right idea to go looking for information that we might interpret as evidence. There seems to be something not quite right about this but I can't put my finger on it.
Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it = pseudoscience.
__________________
"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 02:01 AM   #419
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by catsmate1 View Post
This us a common problem with those suffering from religious belief,; they're incapable of accepting that other people don't have or need these delusions and can cope quite well with reality without them.
I suppose that believing in aliens can be classed as a religion.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 02:06 AM   #420
ufology
Master Poster
 
ufology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary Canada
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by Krikkiter View Post


I have an answer and so does Sam Harris: There is no evidence of an afterlife. Simple yes?

You should review my initial response because you will find that I don't disagree with his position at all in the context he has presented it and under the premise he uses. So we've become separated in our views with respect to the context of the conversation.


Quote:
Sam Harris' position isn't about ectoplasm and software run on the brain why would he need to provide evidence for it?

This seems to be where we've become separated in our contexts. I do think that ectoplasm and software run on the brain are important parts of the problem because he says so. To Quote:
"If it's true that consciousness is being run like software on the brain ... and can ... by virtue of ectoplasm or something else we don't understand can be dissociated from the brain at death that would be part of our growing scientific understanding of the world if we could discover it ... now ... uh ... and there are ways that in fact we could discover that if it were true. The problem is, there are very good reasons to think it's not true."

So from my perspective, based on what he says, the entire "problem" is framed in the context of the premise of "ectoplasm" and "software run on the brain".


Quote:
Sam Harris' position is that damaging part of the brain damages part of the mind. I'm not aware of any science that would dispute this. His logical conclusion is that if you destroy the brain you destroy the mind. Is there any evidence to the contrary or is there any evidence that would cast doubt on his conclusion?

Again you've left out the context as outlined in the opening premise ( as was quoted for your convenience ). Such a significant ommission changes the context of the discussion. If we leave it out, then what you are saying makes sense. However not only have I included it, I've gone another step further by introducing a possibility ( the computational model ) that the brain damage rationale doesn't apply to, and in doing so addressed this statement:
"What we're being asked to consider is that you damage one part of the brain ... ( and so on ) ... and yet if you damage the whole thing at death we can rise off the brain with all our faculties intact recognizing grandma and speaking English."
In the computational model, we would not "rise off the brain" there would be no "ectoplasm" or "software run on the brain", and so far as I know, there is no way to "discover it" yet either. So all these things that make up part of his premise ( as quoted for your convenience ) simply don't apply. He could destroy as many brains as he wanted and under the computational model never prove anything other than that he's destroying brains. Therefore as applied to the computational model, the brain damage rationale is completely illogical and consequently as far from a "good reason not to believe" as you could get.

Where do we go from here? Assuming we wanted to continue discussion on the topic, someone might suggest ways the computational model either would or would not be possible.
__________________
USI Calgary

Last edited by ufology; 1st March 2012 at 02:24 AM.
ufology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 02:29 AM   #421
ufology
Master Poster
 
ufology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary Canada
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it = pseudoscience.

And yet I get accused for "redefining" things? The above isn't even close to any standard view of pseudoscience, which is that first it ( whatever you believe ) has to be presented as science, and then shown to be unscientific. In the context of an informal discussion ( as we are doing here ), neither science nor pseudoscience is taking place. We're just having a discussion.
__________________
USI Calgary

Last edited by ufology; 1st March 2012 at 02:35 AM.
ufology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 02:44 AM   #422
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,101
Originally Posted by ufology View Post
And yet I get accused for "redefining" things?


'Of'. You stand accused of redefining things. Just about everything, in fact.


Originally Posted by ufology View Post
The above isn't even close to any standard view of pseudoscience, which is

<snip rredefinition of pseudoscience>


QED


Originally Posted by ufology View Post
We're just having a discussion.


Into which you keep trying to interject your pseudoscientific nonsense.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 03:09 AM   #423
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Belief in an afterlife is just that. A belief. There is no proof.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 03:26 AM   #424
Pixel42
Schrdinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Wiltshire, UK
Posts: 5,924
Originally Posted by ufology View Post
And yet I get accused for "redefining" things? The above isn't even close to any standard view of pseudoscience, which is that first it ( whatever you believe ) has to be presented as science, and then shown to be unscientific.
I wasn't defining pseudoscience, I was describing the difference in approach of scientists and pseudoscientists.

But if you prefer:

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there and then publishing your findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.

Better?
__________________
"The correct scientific response to anything that is not understood is always to look harder for the explanation, not give up and assume a supernatural cause". David Attenborough.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 03:27 AM   #425
Brainache
Nasty Brutish and Tall
 
Brainache's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Behind you!
Posts: 15,414
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
I think someone could make a pretty penny selling the idea of pet heaven to certain sections of the community...

I bet someone is aready doing it...

Just did a quick google and found this:
http://www.ourchurch.com/member/w/w_lasalle/


Oh My Dog
Originally Posted by Marduk View Post
this one has that beat hands down
http://eternal-earthbound-pets.com/

They might be making a pretty penny, but they aren't selling the idea of an afterlife for animals.

Do animals feature in Ufology's Computational Matrix Reality thingy?

Should each species get their own Heaven, or is it Humans only?

No opposable thumb = oblivion? Seems a bit unfair to our four-legged friends, no?
__________________
Words cannot convey the vertiginous retching horror that enveloped me as I lost consciousness. - W. S. Burroughs

Invert the prominent diaphragm!!!

I have eaten breakfast and have not written an Epistle to any Church. - dejudge.
Brainache is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 05:52 AM   #426
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,302
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I wasn't defining pseudoscience, I was describing the difference in approach of scientists and pseudoscientists.

But if you prefer:

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there and then publishing your findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.

Better?
ACK!! Please NO!!!

There is already a 2315 post long thread whereing Ufology (275posts) attempts to Rredefine pseudoscience to suit is a priori arguments.

Please, please, I beg you, take this line of discussion back to there.
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 05:54 AM   #427
EHocking
Philosopher
 
EHocking's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 5,302
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
Do animals feature in Ufology's Computational Matrix Reality thingy?
Must do. There's video evidence of such.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"A closed mouth gathers no feet"
"Ignorance is a renewable resource" P.J.O'Rourke
Prayer: "a sophisticated way of pleading with thunderstorms." T.Pratchett
"It's all god's handiwork, there's little quality control applied", Fox26 reporter on Texas granite
Forum Birdwatching Webpage
EHocking is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 10:49 AM   #428
Marduk
Banned
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Newbury, Berkshire
Posts: 10,242
Originally Posted by Brainache View Post
Should each species get their own Heaven, or is it Humans only?
?
Yes, one heaven for each species, except for the cats, they'll be too busy running them all,


and us



The Egyptians were right
Marduk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 11:00 AM   #429
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 12,141
Originally Posted by Krikkiter View Post
Apologies in advance for the rather long winded reply.
Nopers, this was quite a good, and I'd even say succinct review of the discussion to this point. It illuminated something for me specifically:

Quote:
1 So you are saying that you're not trying to show evidence of anything, it's just an informal discussion where no-one is required to show evidence? If that's the case then you're at the wrong forum. You've stated that "Personally I believe the computational model is the best theory for explaining our reality ..." but you're not interested in presenting evidence in support of this view at a skeptics forum?
Damn! All this time, I was somehow under the impression that ufology was using the "computational model" in the sense that we could develop a means by which biological data (memories and whatnot) could be transferred from our current storage unit into a more resilient one. I'm afraid that I have no idea how I came about this conclusion, but this makes most of what I was arguing invalid, as my premise was faulty.

<sigh>

However, it does highlight the misuse, again, of a term by ufology to fit his own predetermined conclusion.
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw

Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.

All your base are belong to us.
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 11:41 AM   #430
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,101
Originally Posted by RobRoy View Post
However, it does highlight the misuse, again, of a term by ufology to fit his own predetermined conclusion.


Exactly the sort of thing that Pixel42 was talking about here:

Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.


Ufology will be along any minute to claim this is "more misrepresentation".
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 11:46 AM   #431
Cainkane1
Philosopher
 
Cainkane1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: The great American southeast
Posts: 7,834
Fear of death is a survival mechanism. Nobody wants to do it. I fear dying and I hope I don't see it comming when it happens. My greatest fear is laying on a bed sick and dying slowly with no chance of recovery. Being an atheist getting dead will be no picnic. The funs over and its over forever.
__________________
If at first you don't succeed try try again. Then if you fail to succeed to Hell with that. Try something else.
Cainkane1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:11 PM   #432
Krikkiter
Graduate Poster
 
Krikkiter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,282
Originally Posted by ufology View Post
You should review my [url="http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=8060495&postcount=120"][color=blue][b]initial response...

<snipped for readability>

Where do we go from here? Assuming we wanted to continue discussion on the topic, someone might suggest ways the computational model either would or would not be possible.

Y'know, I had a feeling you'd bring out the context card again. It's generally your fall back position.

I must admit that I wasn't really understanding your position before the above post and I'm still not sure I really get it but I think I'm starting to.

There's no point replying to much of your post because other people have already done that and done it better than I could. What I will say though is that you seem to hold a position that is so unnecessarily convoluted that it's almost useless in any logical sense. Why you don't take the simplest position - there is no evidence for an afterlife - can only be because of your insistence on beginning with a conclusion.

On your Harris quote, the problem that you think exists just doesn't. You'll notice that he says "If it's true that consciousness is being run like software on the brain and can, by virtue of ectoplasm or something else we don't understand ..." Software on the brain/ectoplasm are examples. He's saying it doesn't matter what idea you might dream up regarding an afterlife, right now there's no evidence for it. In fact there's evidence to the contrary.

Where do we go from here? Well I'm not going any further with it (and I doubt anyone else will either) until you show some evidence for your Convoluted Computational Conclusion.

Last edited by Krikkiter; 1st March 2012 at 01:13 PM.
Krikkiter is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:30 PM   #433
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Fear of death is a survival mechanism. Nobody wants to do it. I fear dying and I hope I don't see it comming when it happens. My greatest fear is laying on a bed sick and dying slowly with no chance of recovery. Being an atheist getting dead will be no picnic. The funs over and its over forever.
'I'm not afraid of death. I just don't want to be there when it happens.'-Woody Allen
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:34 PM   #434
ufology
Master Poster
 
ufology's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Calgary Canada
Posts: 2,679
Originally Posted by Pixel42 View Post
I wasn't defining pseudoscience, I was describing the difference in approach of scientists and pseudoscientists.

But if you prefer:

Looking at all the available evidence, coming up with the simplest hypothesis that seems to fit it all, then testing it by looking for evidence that contradicts it and for additional evidence your hypothesis predicts should be there and then publishing your findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals = science.

Deciding what you want to believe and then looking for anything you can interpret as evidence to support it and then putting your findings in books or posting it on blogs and posting boards claiming those findings are scientifically valid= pseudoscience.

Better?

Better, but it still leaves too much wiggle room. For example scientifically valid evidence can become part of anyone's "scientific findings" and included in an informal manner in any form of media we want without it being pseudoscience, e.g. a collection of data from several meteor showers shows x number of meteors were seen during x time. Similar things are often done here, but since we're just having an informal discussion it's just fine. So called "popular science" also does the same thing, but IMHO often crosses the line. However if we were to say, "oh no what we are doing here is science", then it would open the door to being judged as valid science ( or not ) under the accepted criteria ... scientific method and so on ... and this forum ( as a whole ) would no doubt fail the test.
__________________
USI Calgary

Last edited by ufology; 1st March 2012 at 01:38 PM.
ufology is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:39 PM   #435
Stray Cat
Philosopher
 
Stray Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: The Land That Time Forgot
Posts: 6,805
Originally Posted by ufology View Post
Better, but it still leaves too much wiggle room. For example scientifically valid evidence can become part of anyone's "scientific findings" and included in an informal manner in any form of media we want without it being pseudoscience, e.g. a collection of data from several meteor showers shows x number of meteors were seen during x time. Similar things are often done here, but since we're just having an informal discussion it's just fine. So called "popular science" also does the same thing, but IMHO often crosses the line. However if we were to say, "oh no what we are doing here is science", then it would open the door to being judged as valid science ( or not ) under the accepted criteria ... scientific method and so on ... and this forum ( as a whole ) would no doubt fail the test.
This has nothing to do with what Pixel42 said.
__________________
It's only my madness that stops me from going insane!
Stray Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:46 PM   #436
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
 
Akhenaten's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Pi-Broadford, Australia
Posts: 29,101
Originally Posted by Stray Cat View Post
This has nothing to do with what Pixel42 said.


I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with anything that anyone said, ever.

I've seen bowls of alphabet soup that made more sense.
__________________


Life is mostly Froth and Bubble - Adam Lindsay Gordon

The Australasian Skeptics Forum
Akhenaten is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:50 PM   #437
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: On the Flanders/Nederland border.
Posts: 35,445
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
I'm fairly sure it has nothing to do with anything that anyone said, ever.

I've seen bowls of alphabet soup that made more sense.
The words were English, but made no sense in the order he put them in.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:50 PM   #438
catsmate1
Penultimate Amazing
 
catsmate1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Dublin (the one in Ireland)
Posts: 11,279
Originally Posted by Krikkiter View Post
Jesus ufology, you'll have the whole forum on ignore pretty soon. Oh wait, you can't read this can you?
Well I suspect I'm not alone in having killfiled ufology.
catsmate1 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:53 PM   #439
Paul2
Graduate Poster
 
Paul2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,606
Originally Posted by Cainkane1 View Post
Being an atheist getting dead will be no picnic. The funs over and its over forever.
As Christopher Hitchens said before he died (paraphrasing), "the party's not over, it's still going on, you're just not invited."
__________________
It's nice to be nice to the nice.
Paul2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st March 2012, 01:53 PM   #440
RobRoy
Not A Mormon
 
RobRoy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: In the sandbox
Posts: 12,141
Originally Posted by Akhenaten View Post
I've seen bowls of alphabet soup that made more sense.
Could you share them? They might help clear things up . . . or at least satisfy my hunger.
__________________
Logic is what man stoops to when absurdity and surrealism has failed. It's shameful. whatthebutlersaw

Far an taine n abhainn, s ann as m a fuaim.

All your base are belong to us.
RobRoy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

JREF Forum » General Topics » General Skepticism and The Paranormal

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:55 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
2001-2013, James Randi Educational Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.