|
Author
|
Topic: Peanut Gallery
|
AZPaul3
Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: 11-06-2006 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
Message 1261 of 1725 (624375)
07-17-2011 4:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1258 by RAZD
07-17-2011 2:58 PM
|
|
Re: Back on
I'm curious to know the methodology by which they eliminate the possibility of supernatural effect on the mind. Why should anyone assume there are supernatural effects on the mind?
Certainly if you cannot determine whether or not such effect exists, then you are just assuming that it isn't in effect rather than demonstrating it. I asked subbie if he could think of a test to see if a religious experience was real or a product of imagination, and he could not think of one. One piece of evidence that impacts this discussion is this: The Orientation/Association area in the brain appears to be a controlling site for deep religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and "voices" from "beyond". Decrease the blood flow to the OAA and religious euphoria, out-of-body views and "voices" are reported by the patients as observed results. Increase the blood flow to this area and those feelings cease.
Overview article in Psychology Today Deep meditation or prayer can cause such a change in blood flow to this area. This shows a direct relationship between at least some "supernatural" experiences and blood flow to areas of the brain. All naturally occurring, like an on/off switch, under personal and medical intervention control. One test, as Newberg, et al. show, is to medically intervene in a religious experience by increasing the blood flow to the OAA thus shutting down the experience. If you are going to posit some woo-woo entity that sticks its finger in the blood vessels to affect this phenomenon then I await your data. Absent this then we have one piece of evidence available that such supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention used to explain such feelings that occur naturally when the OAA is affected.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1258 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 2:58 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1266 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 4:45 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 1262 of 1725 (624376)
07-17-2011 4:03 PM
|
|
|
RAZ's Confusion Continues
From RAZ's latest Great Debate entry:
RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: How many times do I have to explain to you why the above is wrong? Scientific theories do not have to have to address unsupported claims that contradict them in the way you describe. No evolutionary biologist has to have a methodology/system/procedure for distinguishing an omphalist world from a non-omphalist world merely because the unsupported omphalist claim is made. This is you being a pseudoskeptic again. You need to have a methodology to test whether there is actual supernatural phenomena or not, and just assuming you are correct is NOT how science is done. The reason that this test applies to you rather than the biologist is that YOU have claimed to explain supernatural phenomena - they haven't. What supernatural phenomena has bluegenes claimed to be able to explain? If RAZ (or any of his supporters) could answer this specifically it would be much appreciated
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 7.0
|
Re: Xongsmith's analemma to scientific theory
Straggler writes: X writes: The 2nd Law can be falsified without the presence of any supernatural agent. This will NEVER happen according to my analemma which states that an un-investgatable supernatural agent steps in everytime the second law of thermodynamics is in danger of being violated. Interesting: 1. Where is the description of your, uh, "analemma"? 2. What evidence do you have to support your "analemma"? 3. How does someone reproduce the results that led you to this conclusion in their own laboratory? 4. How is your "analemma" falsified? I think your analemma just ran off the cliff. Bye bye. And you would have the nerve to call my analemma a "dimwiited approach to falsifiability". ... ...(stuff to KILL the new 4.0 dBoard blank line shit) ... ...
Straggler writes: X writes: bluegenes theory can only be falsified by the presence of a supernatural agent. Wrong. As you have been told previously many times - Any source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination will falsify the theory. Actually I was the one who first pointed this out. I was not told. See Message 357 and reiterated in Message 459's footnote. In fact I called it a superficial error.
Do you just not remember any of the conversations you have had in the past? YES, i admit this was a forgettory. I was thinking, lying in bed trying to fall asleep, that I forgot this - and then, about 1 to 10 hours after that post, going - well...i'll fix it later...then i fell asleep. Thank you for reminding me. The theory should have been simply rephrased or been left to be later rephrased to say "self-aware imagination" or something like that, or perhaps just leave it at "imagination", a very cloudy, ominous, uncertain thingy. This gets over that technicality and moves on to the real problem - the supernatural. But then bluegenes does make a nice point here:
bluegenes writes: Chuck, bluegenes does not claim to "know" that "the only source of supernatural beings is the imagination". I claim that the only known source of SBs is the human imagination, meaning the only source that everyone on this board can know of, and the only one that can currently be established scientifically beyond all reasonable doubt.
because the only instances we currently would be putting into the Box 1 of Known things is the human part. Better to be cautious with the nature of where the evidence would come from, I suppose. And, actually as I think about it now, the subheader needs to changed. My analemma is not just an analemma to bluesgenes' theory. It is an analemma to all scientific theories. It is only when it is examined in conjunction with examining bluegenes' theory, that the singularity of the geometrical landscape of scientific theory becomes exposed and the system laws break down. In case you missed it:
Here is my analemma** to scientific theories:
xongsmith writes: Any objective scientific evidence of any phenomena will be always explained as a natural process and never be explained as a supernatural process. The only known scientific explanation of any phenomenon is a natural explanation. All scientifically known phenomena we have observed in the entire history of scientific investigation & study have been explained & described as natural. Just as rabbit DNA is only known to come from rabbit DNA, scientific explanations of every phenomenon known are only known to come from descriptions of natural processes. This analemma can be falsified by providing a single instance of objective scientific evidence accepted in the scientific community that describes a phenomenon or process as supernatural. Arguments that a supernatural scientific description can exist are not applicable here. And I should note that I was derelict in not mentioning this earlier in Straggler's Second Coming scenario - instead of getting caught up in alternate explanations - this is the equivalent of bluegenes argument that saying supernatural beings can exist are not arguments against his theory. By inductive reasoning, this analemma predicts that any future verified scientific explanation accepted by the scientific community will always be a natural explanation. There will never be a supernatural explanation. For evidence I will offer up the entirety of all peer-reviewed reputable scientific publications published to date, but these are not at all what I would describe as "plenty of evidence", so my analemma is not being put forth as a strong analemma. Note that even if it turns out that an article in one of these publications turns out to be in error, the article in question will never the less still describe a natural explanation of the phenomena observed. How to go about testing this analemma..... Go to any accredited decent university and go to the library. find the scientific journals. Pull a random one off the shelf. Open randomly to some page. Find the beginning of the article. Read to end of article. Determine whether the conclusions were in favor of a supernatural explanation. This is fundamentally different from the arguments against using old stories to support the existence of a supernatural being, because this is an analemma of what you will find in these sorts of documents, a small but easily understood step up from finding things like the letter 'e' or the trigylph 'the' - in this case, unlike the other, the text is valid evidence. ** analemma is a word i made up to capture the essence of a lemma with the nuance of an analogue with undertones of antagonism meant in a friendly way. True, it is also the figure-8 shape of something like the sun photographed around a whole year from the same spot in a backyard by many amateur astronomers. This is a good coincidence, because it resonates with the circularity of this whole subject of supernaturalness. We go around in repetition all the time with these things. Think of a mobius Yin/Yang snake-eating-its-tail Klein Bottle thingy. ===============================================
On a different note:
Straggler writes: My name is Maximus Argumenticus Stragglerus, commander of the EvC beer lovers brigade, General of the late night posters alliance, loyal servant to the cause of truth justice and the EvC way. Father to a neglected son, husband to a EvC widow of a wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next. Hear ye! Hear Ye! Let it be known that staying up so late so as to be hearing the wonderful birds in the forest around me that morning from my deck, 8-millionth IPA in hand, was simply awesome. It does not count if you go to bed and wake up early enough to hear them - you have to stay up all the way around the clock to fully appreciate them.
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 1264 of 1725 (624380)
07-17-2011 4:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1259 by Modulous
07-17-2011 3:19 PM
|
|
why
Hi Mod
It isn't eliminated. so it's just assumed to be imagination then?
Can you explain why such a vague claim needs to be eliminated by the skeptics rather than supported by its proposers? Simple. If the skeptics are claiming that it is imagination rather than a real experience, then they need to support that claim. The is the heart of the issue about pseudoskepticism:
Pseudoskepticism and logic msg 1: Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia
quote:
Pseudoskepticism The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9] While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof. — Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987
bold added for emphasis. This is especially true if the skeptics are claiming to take a scientific approach, rather than just make a statement of belief (as the "vague" claimants have), in my not so humble opinion. 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 1259 by Modulous, posted 07-17-2011 3:19 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 7.0
|
Re: science and non-natural phenomena
Straggler says: Human conception of, and belief in the existence of, supernatural beings is an entirely natural observable phenomenon with wholly natural causes. The science of psychology has only grazed the surface of what the human mind is capable of, but this another subject.....
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 1266 of 1725 (624383)
07-17-2011 4:45 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1261 by AZPaul3
07-17-2011 4:03 PM
|
|
religious experience - real or imaginary?
Hi again AZPaul,
Why should anyone assume there are supernatural effects on the mind? Simple. If one is making the hypothetical claim that the religious experiences are products of human imagination, then one would need to develop a falsification test that would include positing such supernatural effects -- particularly if one is claiming to apply science to the question.
One piece of evidence that impacts this discussion is this: The Orientation/Association area in the brain appears to be a controlling site for deep religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and "voices" from "beyond". Decrease the blood flow to the OAA and religious euphoria, out-of-body views and "voices" are reported by the patients as observed results. Increase the blood flow to this area and those feelings cease. Overview article in Psychology Today Deep meditation or prayer can cause such a change in blood flow to this area. This shows a direct relationship between at least some "supernatural" experiences and blood flow to areas of the brain. All naturally occurring, like an on/off switch, under personal and medical intervention control. One test, as Newberg, et al. show, is to medically intervene in a religious experience by increasing the blood flow to the OAA thus shutting down the experience. Great, you've explained the mechanism involved, but this does not show that there is in fact no supernatural effect, just how it could work. In particular I note that "Deep meditation or prayer can cause such a change in blood flow to this area" can mean that this is the mechanism that opens the channels to the religious experience - that the effect can be consciously and intentionally instigated. Certainly this does not show that the experience is necessarily imagination.
If you are going to posit some woo-woo entity that sticks its finger in the blood vessels ... So, in effect you just assume that it is imagination, rather than actually demonstrate it. 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 1261 by AZPaul3, posted 07-17-2011 4:03 PM | | AZPaul3 has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: Xongsmith's analemma to scientific theory
If you don't understand why the demonstrable existence of a fairy or leprechaun or a vampire or a werewolf or a pixie or a djinn or a genie or any other supernatural concept including any of these....
Solar deities Wind gods Fertility deities Lunar deities Thunder gods Creator gods Fire gods ...would falsify the theory under discussion then I simply cannot help you any further.
Straggler writes: Any source of supernatural concepts other than human imagination will falsify the theory. X writes: Actually I was the one who first pointed this out. No you fucking were not!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had the same conversation with Bluejay in this thread. I even started a (slightly bizzarre) thread asking if animals could invent supernatural concepts as a result of that. And in the opening post of the thread you claim to have first raised this issue I wrote: Straggler in Inductive Atheism: This theory can be falsified by presenting another source of such concepts. Either the existence of such an entity or a supernatural concept derived from a non-human source. It seems that not only are you incapable of comprehension of the theory under discussion but that you are wilfully blinding yourself to the already refuted aspects of your position. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
Re: science and non-natural phenomena
Are you seriously disputing the fact that humans can and do invent supernatural beings? And can you answer Message 1262? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 1269 of 1725 (624387)
07-17-2011 5:00 PM
|
|
|
There's a reason for their denial...
So many 100's of replies by the likes of xongsmith and RADZ when all they have to do is provide a SB that was not created by the human imagination. Their complete and utter failure to falsify Bluegene's theory clearly shows that they are unable to. They haven't even attempted to name a SB not sourced by human imagination - because then they would have to face the fact that they can't. They can't even explain why they won't falsify it. The cognitive dissonance is deafening... Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 1270 of 1725 (624388)
07-17-2011 5:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1266 by RAZD
07-17-2011 4:45 PM
|
|
Re: religious experience - real or imaginary?
RAZD writes: So, in effect you just assume that it is imagination, rather than actually demonstrate it. No. It is the most evidenced conclusion. If you want to say that these experiences could have been caused by fluctuations in the matrix, magic moonbeams, telepathic aliens, parasitic undectable thetans, gods attempting to interact, spirits of the dead, morphic fields, an undectable drug placed in the water supply by the CIA or anything else of a similar nature.... Then nobody will explicitly deny these as philosophical possibilities. But why would anyone give any of them serious rational consideration?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1266 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 4:45 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1274 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 5:44 PM | | Straggler has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 1271 of 1725 (624392)
07-17-2011 5:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1257 by Michael
07-17-2011 2:53 PM
|
|
pseudoskeptics and logic
Hi Michael
RAZD writes: Amusingly bluegenes was shown to be a pseudoskeptic (as was straggles) on a previous thread, so this is no small surprise to any open minded skeptic. It would be nice if you could provide a link to the previous thread so that we can check the veracity of your statement. No problem, see Pseudoskepticism and logic and note that anyone that claimed to be a 6 (or higher) and did not present any objective empirical evidence to substantiate that view qualifies as a pseudoskeptic, whether the issue is gods or whatever. Enjoy. ps -- the Dawkins scale was originally mentioned, however due to inherent problems with the wording of it, I have made some modifications to better describe the spectrum of belief:
- Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
- Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
- Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
- Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
- Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
- Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
- Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
Where the logically invalid positions need to be validated\substantiated by objective empirical evidence. I can also show you the logical analysis if you like. I'm a 3, btw.
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 1257 by Michael, posted 07-17-2011 2:53 PM | | Michael has not replied |
|
xongsmith
Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: 01-01-2009 Member Rating: 7.0
|
Re: Xongsmith's analemma to scientific theory
YES I WAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! i posted february 2010. you posted february 2011. CAN YOU SAY BUSTED?
- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 1273 of 1725 (624394)
07-17-2011 5:39 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1271 by RAZD
07-17-2011 5:23 PM
|
|
Re: pseudoskeptics and logic
Due to inherent problems with the wording of it, I have made some modifications to better describe the spectrum of belief:
- Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
- Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
- Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
- Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
- Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
- Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically valid position)
- Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
This adds support to BG's theory. Thanks for providing it.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1271 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 5:23 PM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1275 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 5:46 PM | | Panda has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
Re: religious experience - real or imaginary?Hi
Hi Straggles,
But why would anyone give any of them serious rational consideration? Because you are claiming they are imagination instead, and dismiss them without any consideration rather than actually test them. Do you know of any branch of science that just dismisses possible invalidating phenomena without testing? You can only arrive at a natural explanations when you a priori exclude non-natural explanations. Thus you are assuming the consequent.
No. It is the most evidenced conclusion. And yet, curiously, you still fail to present even a scintilla of such overwhelming objective empirical evidence? Amusingly it appears to be the most assumed conclusion by those who want to believe it. 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)
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1299 by Straggler, posted 07-18-2011 3:46 AM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 1275 of 1725 (624397)
07-17-2011 5:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 1273 by Panda
07-17-2011 5:39 PM
|
|
Re: pseudoskeptics and logic
Hi Panda
This adds support to BG's theory.
Thanks for providing it. What theory is that? 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 1273 by Panda, posted 07-17-2011 5:39 PM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1277 by Panda, posted 07-17-2011 5:52 PM | | RAZD has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
