Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,078 Year: 5,335/9,624 Month: 360/323 Week: 204/160 Day: 21/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 751 of 1725 (602984)
02-02-2011 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 747 by RAZD
02-01-2011 11:00 PM


Re: instead of complaining, why don't you try to help bluegenes?
What evidence is that - I seem to have missed it.
quote:
(1)The theory that all rabbits come from other rabbits is built on the observation that baby rabbits are born from adults. Do you know of any other source of baby rabbits than adult rabbits?
(2)The theory that all books are authored by human beings is based on the observation that human writers are the only known source of books. Do you know of any other source of books than human authors?
(3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.
Do you know of any source of supernatural beings other than the human imagination?
Seems only logical to me. I can't think of any other source, can you? I've never seen one, obviously, it's supernatural. No one else has either, because I've never seen proof. Where else then?
Maybe it's the apes in Stragglers hypothesis that gave us the info?
The lack of objective empirical evidence to support the various claims made by bluegenes
The evidence is that there is no other know source of supernatural beings. I've only heard of supernatrural things from humans. In fact, humans have been the only species to ever talk to me and inform me of things.
To me it's the same with things like leprechauns, unicorns, and dragons come from the human imagination. This was something I figured out at the age of 10.
There can only be two sources of supernatural beings, but they would both require a human. Either it's from the human imagination, or, they really exist, humans can experience them using their sensory system, and they have conveyed this information to other humans.
If it's not the former, then it is the latter. But for it to be the latter, I'd need to see evidence.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 747 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2011 11:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 753 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 1:14 AM onifre has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2603
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


(1)
Message 752 of 1725 (602987)
02-02-2011 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 748 by Coyote
02-01-2011 11:15 PM


Re: No evidence, eh?
Coyote finally words it:
And if your position is "I have not ,and do not, claim that they do exist" then what is the point of this entire thread?
DUH!
To establish the means by which the scientific specialists at hand can determine whether something is made up or not!
It is a call for CLARIFICATION from the vault of bluegenes.
It will not be forthcoming.
He has a no truly scientific theory. He has no peer-reviewed reams of data printouts. He has no descriptions of the equipment he uses and how he calibrated it to remove bias.
He has no theory.
There was a movie, DOA, which stood for Dead On Arrival.
Come on. We can do better than bluegenes did. I know we can.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 748 by Coyote, posted 02-01-2011 11:15 PM Coyote has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 753 of 1725 (602988)
02-02-2011 1:14 AM
Reply to: Message 751 by onifre
02-02-2011 12:41 AM


Re: instead of complaining, why don't you try to help bluegenes?
Hi onifre,
Seems only logical to me. I can't think of any other source, can you?
Curiously, that is your opinion, not evidence.
(3)The theory that all supernatural beings come from the human imagination is built on the observation that the human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings.
Is it? Or are you just assuming that this is so in order to conclude that this is so?
There can only be two sources of supernatural beings, but they would both require a human. Either it's from the human imagination, or, they really exist, humans can experience them using their sensory system, and they have conveyed this information to other humans.
And if you are not the person that has the experience? There are lots of claims of various ways and experiences, how can you dismiss them as non-existent?
Again, an open-minded skeptic, imho, is one who is willing to consider the possibility of a(ny) claim but skeptical of accepting it as anything more than just a possibility on faith alone, without any kind of supporting objective, empirical, testable, evidence, and is willing to be undecided until that evidence is presented. (Message 728).
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 751 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 12:41 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 757 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 10:08 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 762 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 5:54 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 754 of 1725 (602990)
02-02-2011 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 749 by Blue Jay
02-02-2011 12:26 AM


Re: Supernatural
HI Bluejay, thanks.
Do you agree with me that science can only really work directly with ideas or hypotheses, and not with the realities that the ideas or hypotheses are supposed to represent? If so, then let's treat every putative supernatural being as a hypothesis.
Science works from objective empirical evidence to form an hypothesis of how things work, but not why they are so. Science can only work with falsifiable concepts to eliminate invalid concepts of how things work.
... bearded giant who throws thunderbolts like a spear, ...
... The Thor hypothesis was thus falsified.
We can show that the concept that this is how "Thor" causes lightening and thunder etc does not match physical reality.
So, when I say "Thor," I'm talking about a putative anthropomorphic, ... not about just any entity that may be in some way associated with the cause of lightning.
To me this is more like a caricatured strawman of the god/s than an actual description: it would need to be established what the original believers said about the god/s rather than assume that saturday morning cartoons capture them properly.
Ideas like this can only come from two sources: observation or imagination.
Here I have some trouble just accepting this on face value. There are several ways that information comes to an individual: they can observe it directly, they can imagine it, they can be told about it by someone else, they can read about it, etc etc etc.
There are a myriad number of ways that information is conveyed, to the point where most of the information we have about how things work is conveyed in these ways rather than by personal direct observation or personal imagination.
Now it can be argued that in the end it comes down to observation or imagination, but that is assuming that these are in fact the only sources for everyone, not demonstrating it.
If you were told a concept by a supernatural being posing as a human (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? If you dreamed some concept that turns out to be accurate, did you imagine it or did some spirit cause you to have that dream (as many people believe happens), then how would you know? If you are gently nudged by positive\negative (hot\cold) feelings by ancestral spirits in how you behave (as many people believe happens), then how would you know?
Without some means\method\etc to test an eliminate these possibilities, I cannot arrive at a finite conclusion in this regard by logic alone.
In other words, it has not been demonstrated that there are only two ways.
At this point, note that, unlike the Thor hypothesis, the Neo-Thor hypothesis is not, in any way, based on any sort of observation. So, this means we made up "Neo-Thor." Even if it turns out that Neo-Thor is real, we still made him up, and it is only by pure coincidence that we were right, like the broken clock that tells the right time twice a day.
Unless your Thor hypothesis is a strawman of the original god/s, so that the strawman is falsified while the original is not.
One of the problems I have is that people seem to think that god/s (a) should be describable in simplistic terms and conversely (b) that simplistic terms like this are full and completely accurate descriptions. This rather means that any human description is necessarily a strawman at some level of relationship to any actual god/s - to be treated with skepticism regarding accuracy.
If you experience something you do not, can not, understand, how can you accurately describe it without eliminating parts you do not understand enough to describe and simplifying it to your personal level of understanding?
Enjoy.
ps - love the new Avatar.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 749 by Blue Jay, posted 02-02-2011 12:26 AM Blue Jay has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 756 by Blue Jay, posted 02-02-2011 9:49 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 755 of 1725 (603007)
02-02-2011 8:17 AM
Reply to: Message 750 by xongsmith
02-02-2011 12:35 AM


Why are you making things up?
xongsmith writes:
How were they made up? Science does not seek to find out Why, but rather How.
Wrong. Science asks How, Why, Where, When, What questions, and more. My theory really comes from a "where" question. Where do the supernatural being - concepts in our minds come from? Do any of them have a real external supernatural source, or are they all our inventions?
You're the second person on this thread to state that science doesn't ask "why" questions. I could easily find you hundreds of papers with why questions in the actual title, and thousands (probably tens of thousands) with why questions in the text, not to mention all the "because" answers in discussion and conclusion sections.
If you want to ask about the processes of mind employed to invent supernatural beings (how question), and the underlying reasons we have the type of brains that invent them (why have we evolved the characteristic?), then you would be looking at the hypotheses being made by people who already take my theory as a given, and have moved on to more interesting areas.
Here's a paper called "How the Mind Works". It has a whopping 3,790 citations. The first paragraph ends by asking the following "why" questions (my bold).
quote:
....why is the thought of eating worms so disgusting when worms are perfectly safe and nutritious? Why do men do insane things like challenge each other to duels and murder their wives? Why do fools fall in love? Why do people believe in ghosts and spirits?.
Steven Pinker.
Edited by bluegenes, : forgot to link to the bloody paper!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by xongsmith, posted 02-02-2011 12:35 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Blue Jay
Member (Idle past 2805 days)
Posts: 2843
From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts
Joined: 02-04-2008


Message 756 of 1725 (603013)
02-02-2011 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 754 by RAZD
02-02-2011 2:31 AM


Re: Supernatural
Hi, RAZD.
I'm going to politely back out now.
I don't actually disagree with anything you're writing: I just don't think that any of it is a legitimate reason to not call Bluegene's theory a theory.

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)
Darwin loves you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 754 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 2:31 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 757 of 1725 (603014)
02-02-2011 10:08 AM
Reply to: Message 753 by RAZD
02-02-2011 1:14 AM


Re: instead of complaining, why don't you try to help bluegenes?
Curiously, that is your opinion, not evidence.
Curiously, can you then think of another source? If you can't, then you're wrong. It is evidence of a lack of another source until you can produce another source.
Or are you just assuming that this is so in order to conclude that this is so?
I have never heard about supernatural beings from any other species...so it must be human.
And if you are not the person that has the experience? There are lots of claims of various ways and experiences, how can you dismiss them as non-existent?
Because, if someone can see it, hear it, feel it or taste it, then it is not supernatural.
We are only left with the human imagination as the source. Unless you know of another species or source?
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 1:14 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 758 of 1725 (603015)
02-02-2011 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 745 by RAZD
02-01-2011 10:40 PM


Re: who's confused?
Panda writes:
Since I actually believe that there are no humans with 20 arms, then I cannot logically believe that I can make one up?
So, since I have (just now) imagined a man with 20 arms, logically he must exist?
RADZ writes:
No, you cannot logically believe that he must exist because you have made him up and don't believe in supernatural beings, and therefore you cannot claim that it is a supernatural being rather than a caricature of one.
Please quote where I said that the 20 armed man was supernatural?
Oh look - you can't.
You are just making shit up.
/golfclap
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 745 by RAZD, posted 02-01-2011 10:40 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3820 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 759 of 1725 (603018)
02-02-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 750 by xongsmith
02-02-2011 12:35 AM


Re: Great Debate thread - who's grasping straws?
xongsmith writes:
My dear Panda:
Patronising - nice start.
Your post contained little to do with my questions.
If you want to support RADZ's arguments then answer the questions that RADZ has refused to answer.
RADZ asked for an example of a supernatural being created by human imagination.
I suggested Pinhead.
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that imaginary supernatural beings have to be believed to be true for them to count as imaginary supernatural beings.
Why do imaginary supernatural beings require belief before they can be considered valid imaginary supernatural beings?
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that Pinhead was a caricature.
Where is it shown that Pinhead is a caricature?
RADZ refused to answer these questions and back-up his claims.
I expect that you will also refuse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 750 by xongsmith, posted 02-02-2011 12:35 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 760 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 1:13 PM Panda has not replied
 Message 783 by xongsmith, posted 02-03-2011 10:59 AM Panda has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 760 of 1725 (603047)
02-02-2011 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 759 by Panda
02-02-2011 10:33 AM


Re: Great Debate thread - who's making up stuff?
Hi Panda
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that imaginary supernatural beings have to be believed to be true for them to count as imaginary supernatural beings.
ROFLOL, too funny, but curiously, not my position. It appears that you keep reading your opinion into my argument and assuming the consequent.
ALL supernatural beings would include ones where you can show people believe in them. You need to start with the right end of the question. If you start with fictional characters then you need to demonstrate that the supernaturalness actually applies. However, if you start with a believed in supernatural being then you just need to demonstrate that it is fictional.
Fictional characters can be shown to be fictional characters, but I seriously doubt that anybody would rationally consider them as anything but fictional characters, especially when they are advertised as such, and thus providing a long list of fictional characters, as long as you want to waste bandwidth, does not address supernatural beings where you can show people believe in them being fictional.
This is like masturbating instead of participating in actual sex with someone else, and claiming that it is the same.
RADZ then made the baseless assertion that Pinhead was a caricature.
Where is it shown that Pinhead is a caricature?
Can you show that pinhead is not an exaggeration, a parody, of supernatural beliefs but actually represents a supernatural being?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : ...

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 759 by Panda, posted 02-02-2011 10:33 AM Panda has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 761 by Dr Jack, posted 02-02-2011 4:58 PM RAZD has replied

Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 761 of 1725 (603079)
02-02-2011 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 760 by RAZD
02-02-2011 1:13 PM


Re: Great Debate thread - who's making up stuff?
Let's consider Father Christmas

This message is a reply to:
 Message 760 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 1:13 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 763 by bluegenes, posted 02-02-2011 6:54 PM Dr Jack has not replied
 Message 775 by RAZD, posted 02-03-2011 1:35 AM Dr Jack has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 762 of 1725 (603095)
02-02-2011 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 753 by RAZD
02-02-2011 1:14 AM


one question
Hey RAZD,
Would you agree that there are only two possible sources for supernatural beings: Either they have been imagined, or, humans actually experience them?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 753 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 1:14 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 764 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 7:29 PM onifre has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2584 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 763 of 1725 (603108)
02-02-2011 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 761 by Dr Jack
02-02-2011 4:58 PM


Harry Potter.
As someone around here seems to think that people believing in a supernatural character is some kind of evidence for its real existence, why not Harry Potter?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 761 by Dr Jack, posted 02-02-2011 4:58 PM Dr Jack has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 880 by ICANT, posted 02-06-2011 3:23 AM bluegenes has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1512 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 764 of 1725 (603113)
02-02-2011 7:29 PM
Reply to: Message 762 by onifre
02-02-2011 5:54 PM


Re: one question
Hi onifre,
Would you agree that there are only two possible sources for supernatural beings: Either they have been imagined, or, humans actually experience them?
Would you agree that there are many claims of supernatural communication, either in religious experiences, dreams, or with spirits pretending to be people?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 762 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 5:54 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 765 by onifre, posted 02-02-2011 7:40 PM RAZD has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 3058 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 765 of 1725 (603114)
02-02-2011 7:40 PM
Reply to: Message 764 by RAZD
02-02-2011 7:29 PM


Re: one question
Would you agree that there are many claims of supernatural communication, either in religious experiences, dreams, or with spirits pretending to be people?
You need look no further for that than here at EvC. So yes of course, there are many claims.
But that doesn't answer my question.
Would you accept the two as the only possible sources: Imagination and actual experience.
In other words, there is no other source but a human's imagination or a human's experience and testimony.
Can you agree with that?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 764 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 7:29 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 766 by RAZD, posted 02-02-2011 8:23 PM onifre has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024