Peanut Gallery

Modulous continues: I'm just saying that it safer for bluegenes to state it in DNA terms. Remember, there are people like Buzzsaw around who may regard "coming from" as the birthing process. Nevermind, it's a tiny point. In fact, it's microscopic, as it were, if I may.... Yes - 2 parts. RAZD did not say "any IPU", he said the IPU. True, he did not capitalize "the", but I'm am 100% certain that he was talking about the IPU that has been talked in this forum. Now, you're the one bringing up other possible IPUs. YES! that is the 2nd part of the challenge. I'm talking about the 1st part. You do understand the difference! Thank you.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

As bluegenes noted in the thread (via quotes) safe theories suck compared to theories that actually take a risk. This isn't about constructing hard to falsify theories - they're easy enough to construct. It's just showing equivalently worded theories.All bullet wounds are from getting shot.
All books come from human authors.
All baby rabbits come from adult rabbits.
All supernatural beings come from human imagination.They can all be falsified - some easier than others. For instance, a Bonobo might one day 'write' a book (maybe they already have), geneticists might create a rabbit de novo. A clever murderer with lots of money and researchers may fake a bullet wound well enough, a supernatural creature may become as readily as apparant as horses are. What other IPUs are you talking about? I'm talking about the IPU we're talking about on this forum.She's a unicorn, she's intangible and she's pink. That one. There are no other properties she universally has. Some people have expanded the concept to include 'special revelation', but that isn't necessarily part of the concept. Sometimes the purple oyster (essentially a Satanic being) is brought up. It really depends on the satirical point being made at the time.There's no 'correct' IPU since (in case it wasn't clear) it's a made up entity and nobody has a monopoly on her characteristics. There's just a unicorn that's pink and intangible. And she's a goddess. If you want to specify exactly the properties the IPU that I've not been talking about, lemme know what they are. The evidence, seems to be the same. I know - that's why I've been talking principally about the evidence that the IPU is made up that bluegenes has provided. If you thought I was doing different I guess you can go back to that and get back to me as to why you think a bullet wound is sufficient evidence of someone having been shot, but 'it is an intangible coloured mythological animal' isn't sufficient to show that it was imagined.

You made me hoot and snort beer. Thank you.

---

Dost thou prate, rogue?
-Cassio

​

Real things always push back.
-William James

Modulous objects: Any version of the IPU that was not made up by our IPU's version of Bobby Henderson.You said in Message 430: That would be a different IPU. One that was not made up by our IPU's version of Bobby Henderson.Ever wonder why RAZD did not ask bluegenes to demonstrate that the Flying Spaghetti Monster was made up?Modulous further adds: Using evidence that something doesn't exist to demonstrate it was made up is not the same as using evidence that it was made up to demonstrate it doesn't exist.Certainly, in the case of you & me & Straggler - and even RAZD himself! - the evidence that something does not exist will demonstrate it was made up. But that was not what RAZD asked bluegenes to do in the 1st part of his 1st task for bluegenes. He was asked to provide evidence that The IPU was made up in order to demonstrate that it doesn't exist (could not be a supernatural being). What we all would accept under normal circumstances would then become what we could term a version of a directed graph that begs the question. "Well, it doesn't exist, therefore it was made up. Since it was made up, therefore it doesn't exist."If bluegenes had worded his theory the way I suggested, then we have the opposite direction: doesn't exist => made up. And I bet RAZD would have never taken on the debate.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

How would we know which one he made up, without first identifying him? How would we identify him unless we know which version we're trying to find the originator of? So let me get this straight, I provide you with a prospective 'Bobby' candidate. He verbally confirms he did it, he shows video footage of the creation, and gives you brains scans proving that he was not recalling a prior version of the IPU but instead generating it whole cloth...and you have concluded from that he is not the originator? How on earth did you do that? I picked a confession and tapes because you said that would satisfy you (Message 373), if you've changed your mind - let me know.Let me make it simple, even if we had the same evidence for the IPU as we do for the FSM - that wouldn't be sufficient. Even if we had absurd amounts of evidence above and beyond that (brain scans, video recordings) it wouldn't be enough to meet RAZD's standards. That's all I'm trying to say on that point. The important characteristic of the IPU is that you can't demonstrate it doesn't exist, no matter which direction you try. So I haven't been trying. Just because I criticised RAZD's ludicrously high standards of proof that doesn't mean the evidence I was discussing was an attempt to meet it.I don't need to find 'Bobby' to know the IPU was made up.
just like
I don't need to know who the murderer is to know a man was shot.
I don't need to know the author to know the book was written by a human.
I don't need to know the parents to know the baby rabbit came from adult rabbits.ANDIf we did find Bobby it still wouldn't be sufficient. We'd still have to prove that he made it up and wasn't influenced by the IPU (which would be revelation not imagination) but confused by the purple oyster into thinking he made it up. Or hypnotised by IPU cultists into spreading the word of the IPU, while thinking he was satirizing religion. Or one of the stupid get out 'possibilities' that RAZD has actually used before in this situation (which I have detailed previously).In short: bluegenes has provided wet paint evidence. Even if we were pile up the evidence and bring forward the culprit, it wouldn't be sufficient for RAZD's impossible standards of evidence. No he didn't. There was no 'in order to' in RAZD's challenge. It was a straightforward "Prove it was made up." and "Prove it's not real.". Both must be done before the theory is verified says RAZD.What actually happened was that bluegenes presented the theory

quote:

---

All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination

---

which RAZD erroneously interpreted as bluegenes making the factual claim + rationalisation:

quote:

---

there are absolutely no actual supernatural beings, because all the concepts are made up, imaginary fictions.

---

which bluegenes didn't do. Which is why he had to fruitlessly explain the difference between a factual claim and a provisional theory. RAZD's challenge was not only unreasonable, it was irrelevant to bluegenes' actual position and your characterisation of it seems to be in some other tangent entirely. But bluegenes never made any absolute claims regarding the ontology of the IPU, only hypothesised it was made up based on the evidence he provided. So why should bluegenes have to meet RAZD's over the top evidential demands to prove a claim he never actually made? Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The first is a well evidenced, high confidence yet tentative theory about human behaviour based on positive evidence in favour of the human ability and proclivity to create such concepts regardless of reality.The second is a confused sentence that conflates the idea of positive evidence regarding human behaviour with the stupid notion that this involves some form of evidential disproof regarding individual entities.

Well every single post in which you demand a "Bobby Henderson for the IPU" or specifically demand anything else about an individual entity rather than the evidence in favour of humanity's ability and proclivity to create such concepts.Things such as the following: (there are plenty more examples) So rid your head of this stupid nonsense about individual entities and ask yourself whether or not the human behaviour associated with inventing supernatural concepts for reasons that have everything to do with human subjective needs and nothing to do with external reality is an evidenced phenomenon or not.Then compare this with the evidence favouring the actual existence of supernatural entities.Then you will (finally) get the gist of Bluegenes argument.

In Message 45, the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)Great Debate[/bgcolor] the bluegenes Challenge That does not seem right to me.If you could deduce it from the evidence, then it would be a fact rather than a hypothesis.

I would avoid using the word 'fact' - it all goes a bit Pete when people start using words like 'fact', 'truth' and 'proof'. I think RAZD is objecting to forming a hypothesis and then looking for evidence since a hypothesis is "a proposed explanation for an observable phenomenon" [Wiki].
This requires phenomenon to be first observed.Personally, I think RADZ was picking on a 'slip of the tongue'.
But then I think the whole discussion is based on vague nuances that the written word is not good at communicating.

But there is no point in looking forming a hypothesis, if you are not going to look for evidence.Typically, a hypothesis is formed on the basis of partial evidence. And then you look for additional evidence to either support or refute the hypothesis.

I agree.
But RADZ is picking up on Bluegenes phrase: "starting with the stated hypothesis.".
RADZ is saying that you should start with evidence and then explain it.However, I am not convinced that how it starts is important.If Newton had dropped his Scrabble game and the letters randomly spelt out:
"every action has an equal and opposite reaction"
which he then went and confirmed by experimentation - I see no reason to criticise the hypothesis or his results.Sure, you could say he wasn't a genius - he was just lucky, but that is not connected to the veracity of his hypothesis.

---

Always remember: Quidquid latine dictum sit altum viditur

What you're describing IMO is an idea born from a random event, which could happen to, by pure chance, bare some truth to the way reality functions. Who knows, stranger things have happened. But that is not what a "hypothesis" is.That is why Newton didn't form his hypothesis based on a game of Scrabble, but from a series of evidence already established before him. My understanding would be that it's not connected to the veracity of the idea, the hypothesis would be established after.How do you see it?- Oni

The classic formulation begins with an observation that you seek an explanation for. In the case in question the observation is "People talk about supernatural creatures such as gods, but despite a lot of searching they have to be as apparent as horses."
bluegenes' hypothesis is, in short "They are all imaginary."
Further evidence of this might be a 'god module' in the brain. A specialised brain area that generates agency based models when presented with novel situations. Perhaps a predilection towards personification, of creative story telling, of embellishment, enjoyment of paradox and absurdity. And so on.

I am failing to see how "an idea that explains observations" is different from "a hypothesis that explains observations".But, IMHO, the whole RADZ/Bluegenes debate seems more like 'arguing the toss' than 'discussion'.If you look at the difficulty that people are having defining 'supernatural', I doubt if an agreement on "All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination" is anywhere close.I am more on the side of "The word 'supernatural' is a figment of the human imagination". Edited by Panda, : typo

I see that in his latest post in the great debate RAZD has once again felt the need to raise the issue of subjective "evidence" in the context of a discussion about deities. Subjective "evidence" in the form of religious experiences, dreams and suchlike.I find it remarkable that he keeps feeling the need to raise such "evidence" in the context of discussions about supernatural beings given his rather forthright position on the absence of a relation between the two and the rampant accusations of "lying" that were made by RAZ when any suggestion that the two might be related was made. In the context of the great debate at hand the question of course is whether or not supernatural beings can legitimately be concluded to be the cause of such experiences.To conclude supernatural causes for such human experiences is in itself an evidentially baseless conclusion. And one that flies in the face of all of the historical and psychological evidence regarding mankinds tendencies in this area.In fact the whole "subjective evidence" argument amounts to nothing more than citing belief itself as a form of evidence.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.