Peanut Gallery

This explains most of your posts.
The light bulb is meant to come on and not go off.

The lights are on but nobody is home.......

Straggles and Panda seem to have missed it. Except that what both quoted was the generalized condition that was written AFTER the example, and NOT the example asked for and given. To repeat, the example previously given was:

quote:

---

Re: "detectable but not in an empirical manner"
If you want to quote yourself explicitly giving an example of something that is "detectable but not in an empirical manner" then feel free to do so

​

Sure, Message 274 on Subjective Evidence of Gods:

​

quote:

---

Message 94: If the thing is question is not empirically detectable then any conception of it must be derived from the internal workings of the human mind. How could it possibly be otherwise?

​

Here we have another false dichotomy by Straggles, who seems to dearly love living in a black and white world. The simple answer is that there are many possible sources that (as yet) are not "empirically detectable." One is the well known and documented religious experience.

​

If you met a supernatural being, would that not de facto be classed as a religious experience?

​

Are there documents of religious experiences where people claim to have met supernatural beings?

​

Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)?

​

Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc?

​

Can religious experiences be broadly or narrowly classed as consistent?

​

Message 94:

RAZD writes:

​

Do you have a means to test for the presence of supernatural essences?

​

If they are empirically detectable - Yes.

​

Otherwise - No.

​

In other words, you can have detectable phenomena that cannot be empirically tested, so we are in the "otherwise" category, and Straggles admits he does not have a test to determine whether supernatural effects are involved.

---

---

Let me help them out:Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)? -- Yes.Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc? -- No.Nuff said. Amusingly the birth of a child is not something that has only happened once. If you want a more narrow definition, then it would be something that only happened once and was only observed by one person.We've had this discussion before on the subject of subjective evidence, of a person along in the woods making an observation, so you should remember this.Enjoy.

So...you drag us all this way to finally say that religious experiences and brain activity are linked,
and you have no reason to suppose that they are "anything but a product of the internal workings of the human mind".Well, you got there in the end.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Ohooh RAZ you used the term "observation" thus implying empirical observation rather than internal experience. It seems we are slowly shaming you into some sort of specifity at long long last. Let's see if you can continue down this path of edification with some further clarification.If one has a waking 'vision' in the presence of others that none of those others can see does this qualify as the sort of "detectable but not in an empirical manner" evidence you are talking about or not?Don't be vague now will you.......

Straggles once again claims a "gotcha" Does it?Amusingly I have been consistent, clear and specific in previous arguments.Latecomers to this debate need to know I have previously used "unique single observations made one time by an aware and conscious person" in arguments regarding the value of subjective evidence.Enjoy.

Fine, as long as we agree they are SN. Wow, well me a RAZD will soon be appearing on Oprah as RAZD and myself are the only one's to have ever claimed this phenomena. Im sure people are talking about it.Straggler, do you ever leave the house? Not for you it isn't. I've been giving you information for a while now and you refuse to look at the cart AND the horse. You refuse to take anyones word for anything.Straggler, are you the type that buys the land THEN asks questions? Or no questions at all? So were back to philosophy now? Fine, did you share this link with bluegenes too or just me?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

So you are misrepresenting RAZD's argument and twisting what he's saying? Panda, that's dishonest. You have the whole page to read what RAZD is saying and this is ALL you can come up with. Geeez, when I said you were a parrot I didn't mean for you to lash out like this.Don't worry Panda, the feelings and emotions you are experienceing now are not real, and not the cause of anything real, they are all your imagination and NOT the result of anything emperical.So, disregard this comment as it is a figment of your imagination. Not really. It seems YOU got there in the end tho.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

No. I bow to your greater experience of being dishonest. Because that is all that there was.
If there was more, I would expect to see you shouting it triumphantly. You greatly overestimate the effect of your childish insults; almost as must as you overestimate your debating ability. That is a strange thing to say.
It would appear that your light bulb has gone out again. No. I will disregard your comments as pointless, unfounded drivel. *taps the light bulb*
Hmmm...I think the filament has blown.{abe}
I am enjoying watching you supporting RADZ.
I am sure that RADZ appreciates this support from an EvC member of your standing.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Well that is the question isn't it? So much for an end to the ambiguity. You seem to be implying that if you were to answer unambiguously you would have been "got". Doesn't it worry you that your position can only be maintained through such evasion? If you hold a position worth having why can't you honesltly and unambiguoulsy answer questions like the following one:If one has a waking 'vision' in the presence of others that none of those others can see does this qualify as the sort of "detectable but not in an empirical manner" evidence you are talking about or not?Have you read Percy's rather insightful comments about your tactics? Message 114That was nearly 2 and a half years ago and nothing has changed in that time. Observation: Observation is either an activity of a living being, such as a human, consisting of receiving knowledge of the outside world through the senses, or the recording of data using scientific instruments. The term may also refer to any data collected during this activity. LinkHeaven alone knows what you mean. But no doubt Chuck will support you no matter what you say and no matter how evasively you say it.

I think that my comments may provide some insight. Let us note that RAZD does not explicitly state what is being non-empiricably detected. I will take the charitable view that he is asserting that religious experiences might be detections of supernatural beings, which he believes do not qualify as empirical. There is nothing else which seems to qualify.

quote:

---

If you met a supernatural being, would that not de facto be classed as a religious experience?

---

On the face of it, no. An encounter with, say, a ghost or a werewolf need not even have any religious content, let alone invoke the strong emotional response associated with the more technical meaning that I think is intended.

quote:

---

Are there documents of religious experiences where people claim to have met supernatural beings?

---

Certainly there are, but whether they reflect actual encounters is another matter entirely.

quote:

---

Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)?

---

Certainly this is true.

quote:

---

Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc?

---

In practice it appears to not be the case - although it certainly would not necessarily be the case if such experiences were genuine contacts with supernatural beings. Moreover, the fact that religious experiences may be artifically induced tends to suggest that they are more likely not contacts with supernatural being. As is the fact that the interpretations often owe far more to the subject's pre-existing beliefs than the experience itself.

quote:

---

Can religious experiences be broadly or narrowly classed as consistent?

---

The raw experiences seem to be - provided we let go of the idea that any possible encounter with a supernatural entity would qualify - however as stated above the interpretations are far less so. And the idea that the experience represents contact with a supernatural being is an interpretation, not part of the raw experience.But let us note that the experience itself qualifies as an observation (and therefore is empirical) - indeed it is sometimes claimed that they represent the operation of a sense. Arguments based on comparing such experiences - even if it were not the case that the experiences could be induced in the laboratory - would clearly be inductive arguments based on repeated observation - clearly empirical. To forestall one possible objection I should repeat a point I have made before - detection does not have to be direct, and in fact even the concept of direct detection is dubious (all our senses are mediated by our sensory apparatus, at the very least).Thus, it is hard to see how such experiences can be classified as non-empirical detections. If they are detections, they are observations and therefore empirical. We are still left with the difficult question of how a detection can fail to involve an observation of some sort, a question which RAZD's post clearly fails to address.

Straggler continues: Let's hope you learn the fallacy of All A is B and here is B, therefore A.If I say Thor being real (A) is the same in my mind to "1 equaling 0" (B), you have erroneously fallen into the fallacy that any supernatural entity I may consider (C, E, G, Q, Z) in my mind is equivalent to "1 equals 0" (B). Did you want to see the Venn Diagram? I don't even have to go to the ridiculousness of you guessing what is in my mind...just look at the faulty logic leap you made there.As a near 6, I leave significant room for doubt - there maybe something new/unexpected/unimagined/unverbalized/undescribed with some kind of equally totally new/unexpected/unimagined/unverbalized/undescribed evidence with it that would convince me and I have no idea today/tonight what it might be. I have a long laundry list of things that it would NOT be. In fact I even went so far as to say the entire list of phenomena you & bluegenes have cooked up so far would fit in the things it would NOT be, in my mind.BUT NONE OF THIS IS THE POINT.What I do & think about these things OR what you do & think about these things HAS NOTHING to do with what the scientific community does & thinks about these things. The Analemma says they, the respected scientific community, will cook up a natural explanation no matter what it is. They may say in theory they will allow for it (Read my lips: "No new taxes"), but in practice they will never do it ("whoops"). Promises, promises. But no action as of yet. It will NEVER HAPPEN. EVER. I have NOTHING to do with it. You are off track. You have been asking me, someone who is NOT a respected member of the scientific community and NOT relevant to the Xongsmith Analemma's falsification, to describe what kind of supernatural being it would take - when I have no idea yet. I leave room for the possibility, but I have yet to see anything or even imagine anything. Clue: I sort of suspect it would be way beyond anything we human species have thought of yet. It possibly is so beyond comprehension that human recognition of it may not be possible yet. I only give you this because you keep asking me - although it has nothing to do with the issue. Since I am NOT a respected member of the scientific community, I am unable, myself, to provide "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" that bluegenes asks for. I don't matter. It's them respected dudes & dudettes that matter. I am not qualified to falsify bluegenes theory - it has to be someone in the field.Get it? In fact, just saying the respected scientific community isn't being careful enough here - it has to be the respected scientific community in the field of contention - the field of expertise. What is the field of contention here? Is it astrophysics? No. Is it molecular biology? No. Is it psychology? Yes, but only partially enough of the field of expertise - perhaps as a corroborating sub-community. Is it chemistry? No. Is it ecology? No. What is it? What is the scientific field of investigating supernatural phenomena? Now we have physicists who are so well respected that the other fields of science nod and respect them. We have biologists who are also likewise respected by scientists specializing in other fields. Who is even respected in the field of scientifically investigating supernatural phenomena? Name someone respected who does this. Shouldn't be too hard. There are some on the debunking/skeptic side - but who of any of these experts would publish something that would falsify bluegenes' theory? Name one.

Straggler, why won't you deal with this: Maybe if you had used the word "usefully" rather than "possibly" you might have made a point instead of an illogical argument along the lines of "I have seen triangles. I have been able to conceptualize and understand squares as things that are not triangles. Therefore all polygons, if they are not triangles, must be squares."

A woman comes out of a forest claiming to have seen Sasquatch, describing a great detail what she observed, under her microscope, but, since she lost her equipment, she has no reproducible scientific evidence. They have recorded her lengthy testimony and can reproduce that any number of times as they wish, but it is still only her testimony. It may also be the case that she is a reputable scientist, highly respected, in the field of anthropology.A month later, another respected anthropologist reports the same, but is also beset with a tragedy of losing the data due to a hard drive crash.Certainly the group here can imagine zillions of similar unfortunate examples.We might even have a scientist in Optics capture an image of bluegenes' dwarf on RAZD's shoulder, only to have the camera's memory wiped by getting wet in an unfortunate fall into a torrential, flooded river on the way back. "Any", you ask? You want to contest this? If you do, you falling into the same thinking used to contest bluegenes' numerous poofed SN entities he was drumming up on a wild goose chase regarding a side issue of whether or not homo sapiens was capable of imagining SN things in early innings of their Great Debate.But, instead of all of that, why don't we concentrate on something as simple as Self Awareness in species other than homo sapiens?We all "know" what it is, on a simplistic level in what appears to be an obvious manner. Cogito ergo sum. But how do we measure the self awareness of a cat? A beetle? An octopus? An oak tree!!!!What are the tools used to get the findings?This is also missing from bluegenes theory. How would he determine whether some particular phenomenon could be supernatural? A figment of human imagination? All he has is the weak psychological evidence, the scientifically inadmissible hearsay of story-telling contradictions and a few actual forensic instances of evidence that would stand up under scrutiny (oh, say Piltdown Man, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, bluegenes' elf in this forum, and so forth - not at all "plenty").All of the admissible equipment mentioned here, so far, by the very way it's constructed & calibrated & deployed, presupposes the data can only be natural and thus can only be interpreted in the context of a natural explanation.

My Standing? I wasn't aware we had standings here? Is this a good ole' boys club or a debate forum?RAZD doesn't need my support or anyones for that matter, He does just fine on his own. He's been at it a long time here and is about as rational as they come.I on the other hand am probably not that rational being I do "know" God exists. Being a #1 on the "revered Dawkins" scale is irrational.That is my experience tho and can't deny it. So if I come off as irrational at times it's my passion getting the best of me.Although you can come off as arrogant your dog pile thread shows some humility. Maybe im wrong but you seem like a busy body to me and a whiner. I don't consider myself arrogant, you on the other hand only seem to parott everything Straggler says here and nothing new to add from your own perspective.You remind me of a Chihuahua. A loud annoying bark with no bite hiding behind his master.The only time you show up at the peanut gallery is to bark at someone. Last time it was Jar, who you barked at for pages ruining any debate that was taking place. And now, your doing the same thing again. No substance just parotting.BTW Gidget (The Taco Bell chihuahua) you havn't been here that long either, so settle down chum. Go get fixed and go for a walk.Again tho, I may be wrong, I only go by what I see, and you seem to be everywhere. The whine list, responding for admins when I ask one a question,critiqing PNT's etc etc.Your a mole arent you? You remind me of a Parott, a chihuahua and a mole all in one. Goodness dude, relax already and stop being the sites little errand boy, although, every site needs one.Your Percy's son aren't you? Admit it. Does he know your on here?Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.