|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,916 Year: 4,173/9,624 Month: 1,044/974 Week: 3/368 Day: 3/11 Hour: 0/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
so it's just assumed to be imagination then? No, it is theorised to be imagination.
If the skeptics are claiming that it is imagination rather than a real experience, then they need to support that claim. The skeptics propose that imagination explains the examples and is consistent with everything else we know about reality. It isn't a claim, it is a theory. It is claimed that the only known source is the imagination. The best support for that claim is the absence of any other known sources despite a good number of people looking for them for a long time.
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.
bold added for emphasis. We are not asserting evidence for disproof. We are claiming that every 'psi result'/god that has a known origin transpires to be human originated. That all unknown origin psi results are consistent with human origination, and thus theorising that all such results are humanly created, unconsciously or consciously, leading to the prediction that any evidence in the future will point to human origination. We are not saying that there cannot be supernatural. We are not saying we have ruled out the supernatural. No more than evolution rules out the supernatural. If you want to assert that it is possible that a god exists outside of human conception - then the burden is on you, making that claim, to support it. Or you are the pseudoskeptic. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RADZ writes:
If you are having trouble remembering what you are talking about, you can scroll up and read the previous posts.
What theory is that?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Panda,
If you are having trouble remembering what you are talking about, you can scroll up and read the previous posts. Curiuosly, I am not aware that BG has a theory. So far all I've seen is a wishful thinking conjecture unsupported by any real testing or objective empirical evidence. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Mod
No, it is theorised to be imagination. Ah, so then you have a methodology to test for supernatural effect as part of the process, a means by which you can identify experiences due to imagination and those due to supernatural phenomena. Because supernatural phenomena would invalidate the hypothesis. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RADZ writes:
The theory has been stated many times - you can't have missed it, so I guess it must have slipped your mind. Curiuosly, I am not aware that BG has a theory. So far all I've seen is a wishful thinking conjecture unsupported by any real testing or objective empirical evidence. Your reference to 'wishful thinking' is probably because you are having more success retaining the details of your own posts. As I said: if you are having trouble remembering what is going on in this discussion you can scroll up and read the previous posts.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 7.0
|
Hi Panda,
Panda writes: So many 100's of replies by the likes of xongsmith and RAZD when all they have to do is provide a SB that was not created by the human imagination. NO. the doubters of the theory do not have to provide diddly squat first. My argument is that we don't even have to get to the falsification element. The proponent of the theory has to provide evidence supporting his theory at the outset. Furthermore, before any dissenters can even be allowed to bring their grumblings to the fore, the originator of the theory should provide the following: 1. argument proposed as a theory - show evidence that led you to this theory. After years, it seems that bluegenes may be trying. kudos, etc. 2. show how your scientific analysis led you to this conclusion. nothing other than confirmation bias.... 3. describe the equipment you used to reach this conclusion. nothing 4. provide the best documentation that your equipment was the best you could get at the time of the experiment. * definitely nothing 5. detail how other scientists could reproduce your results in their laboratory so super nothing... .. ... . .... * poor galileo Panda opines:
They can't even explain why they won't falsify it. The cognitive dissonance is deafening...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...
BECAUSE THIS IS NOT OUR JOB YET!!!! get with the program. - xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Ah, so then you have a methodology to test for supernatural effect as part of the process, a means by which you can identify experiences due to imagination and those due to supernatural phenomena. Sure. Get 100 people to experience the same supernatural phenomena, and have the entity behind it give some privileged information to the 100 people and then correlate the reports from the 100 people to see if they are as consistent when they are reporting on something like a horse with a jockey giving out some information. All you have to do is give us a supernatural entity to kick start the test. I suggest you find a ghost, since they seem most likely to help out, according to subjective reports that is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Panda,
The theory has been stated many times - you can't have missed it, so I guess it must have slipped your mind. A certain hypothetical conjecture has been stated many times. Calling it a theory does not actually make it one, particularly in the scientific sense: there are steps that need to be taken to go from hypothesis to theory, and I have yet to see any evidence of those steps.
As I said: if you are having trouble remembering what is going on in this discussion you can scroll up and read the previous posts. Perhaps you should familiarize yourself with what the debate is about that all those posts are supposed to be about. The debate is about whether or not bluegenes actually has what qualifies as a scientific theory, as claimed, rather than wishful thinking based on personal bias, as demonstrated to date.
the bluegenes Challenge (bluegenes and RAZD only)(bluegenes and RAZD only)[/color] statement of topic
Message 4 restatement of topic Message 22 another restatement of topic and many more ... Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
xongsmith writes:
And my statement was that you are UNABLE to falsify the theory, even if you wanted to.
My argument is that we don't even have to get to the falsification element. xongsmith writes:
What evidence is being ignored? nothing other than confirmation bias....Oh - you don't know of any. Your list of requirements has been met.But you could always just provide evidence to disprove the theory...ah, but you can't. xongsmith writes:
NO!!!! IT IS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T!!!! BECAUSE THIS IS NOT OUR JOB YET!!!!EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO!!!! BECAUSE IF YOU COULD HAVE, YOU WOULD HAVE BY NOW!!!!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
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. That's easy. The falsification test would be: Show us a god. Show us some evidence that some phemonemon is obviously and exclusivley of supernatural origin.
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. Oh but it most certainly does. I can flip a switch and turn off the feelings that people claim are supernatural. You can't do this unless the supernatural feelings were imagined as part of the natural functioning of the brain. I can flip a switch and give a life-long atheist the most powerful religious epiphany. You can't do this unless the supernatural feelings were imagined as part of the natural functioning of the brain.
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. It shows more to imagination than it does to some woo-woo finger in the pipes.
So, in effect you just assume that it is imagination, rather than actually demonstrate it. Maybe your problem is how you define "imagination." Just because a experience feels so excruciatingly real does not mean it may not be imagined. The demonstration is quite pointed and real. Flip a switch and get religious ecstacy. Flip it again and those imagined feelings go away. Now, unless you want to say some god has his finger on the switch and show reasonable evidence in this regard then the phnomenon stands as triggering an imagined supernatural experience.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RAZD writes:
It is good to see that you have re-discovered what you are meant to be talking about. The debate is about whether or not bluegenes actually has what qualifies as a scientific theory, as claimed, rather than wishful thinking based on personal bias, as demonstrated to date. BTW: Thanks (again) for helping support BG's theory with your 'atheist list'.Much appreciated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Mod,
Ah, so then you have a methodology to test for supernatural effect as part of the process, a means by which you can identify experiences due to imagination and those due to supernatural phenomena. Sure. Get 100 people to experience the same supernatural phenomena, ... Is that the only test? There are reports of mass experiences after all. What is your methodology for accomplishing this? Remember you are the one that is devising the test, and that others should be expected to be able to reproduce it.
... and have the entity behind it give some privileged information to the 100 people ... and what is your methodology for accomplishing that?
All you have to do is give us a supernatural entity to kick start the test. Except that you need to have already done some testing in order to go from hypothetical conjecture based on wishful thinking to scientific theory based on objective empirical evidence. You should have some evidence already, or are you just assuming, again, the truth of your claim? Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi AZPaul
Show us some evidence that some phemonemon is obviously and exclusivley of supernatural origin. You are the one making the claim, you need to substantiate it. All I am doing is questioning your claim.
I can flip a switch and give a life-long atheist the most powerful religious epiphany. You can't do this unless the supernatural feelings were imagined as part of the natural functioning of the brain. or the supernatural experience is just waiting to be tapped.
The demonstration is quite pointed and real. Flip a switch and get religious ecstacy. Flip it again and those imagined feelings go away. Now, unless you want to say some god has his finger on the switch and show reasonable evidence in this regard then the phnomenon stands as triggering an imagined supernatural experience. Open a door and you can see through the opening, close the door and you can't. The reality of what is beyond the door does not depend on whether the door is open or closed. Enjoy. 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
You are the one making the claim, you need to substantiate it. You asked for a falsification test. I gave you one. Do you deny that such a show would falsify the proposition?
or the supernatural experience is just waiting to be tapped.
And the evidence for this would be ...?
Open a door and you can see through the opening, close the door and you can't. The reality of what is beyond the door does not depend on whether the door is open or closed. And when I turn on my TV the little people dance and sing. When I turn it off they go away. So what?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3743 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
RADZ writes:
Damn. AZPaul writes:
You are the one making the claim, you need to substantiate it. All I am doing is questioning your claim. Show us some evidence that some phemonemon is obviously and exclusivley of supernatural origin. You've forgotten what you are meant to be talking about again. We are not saying that there IS evidence of 'supernatural phenomena not imagined by humans'.We are saying that there IS NOT evidence of 'supernatural phenomena not imagined by humans'. These may seem similar to you, but they are actually very different. I am sure that if you knew of any 'supernatural phenomena not imagined by humans', then you would have identified it by now.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024