|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: However, the case we are discussing is one where the evidence strongly favours one conclusion. That you might refuse to draw it based either on a principled but hopelessly impractical demand for absolute proof in everything or out of bias against that conclusion is hardly my problem. It would seem to be yours.
quote: The writing was intended to illustrate the confusion of your ideas. It seems to have been successful. Your problem however is in failing to consider the context. The alleged method of detecting supernatural entities is religious experiences, and it is more yours, than mine. And you might have noticed that that is the ONLY possible means of detecting supernatural beings that either of us has proposed. I am afraid that your obsession is leading you into error here.
quote: It is not like that at all. Again, we are not addressing the question of whether supernatural beings exist. We are addressing the question of whether the alleged method of detection (religious experiences) works or not. Now, obviously any proposed method of detection must distinguish between the presence and the absence of the thing it supposedly detects. If we find that it's behaviour is fully determined by other factors, we must conclude that it does not work. For instance if Jefferson chose a detector sensitive to sound, and the results it produced were entirely explained by the sound of the thunder, he could not claim that it was a detector of electricity just because electricity in the form of lightning just happened to be present.
quote: There is nothing curious about it. The mere observation that you resort to innuendo rather than valid criticisms is sufficient to make my point.
quote: Of course. I would further add that attempts to imply that an opponent is engaging in any of these - sometimes to the point of ignoring the actual point of discussion (as in your point which I answer at the top of this post) is hardly the tool of someone interested in honest discussion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: Curiously, your objection is completely irrelevant. I illustrated the content of your post, not your writing style.
quote:Of course the confusion is yours, and therefore your problem. And it is a fact that you are either confused about the whole concept of detection or unable to remember the point we are discussing.
quote: RAZD, we are discussing a case where we have quite thoroughly tested for "evidence of the other", to the point where we have eliminated the possibility. To be precise, by watching brain function we have no inputs that are unaccounted for and all point to a natural origin of the experience, thus we can say that the experience is the product of natural causes, and it does not detect supernatural beings - for the simple reason that given the same natural causes the same experience would occur whether there were a supernatural being present or not. To say that a method of detection works merely because the thing it supposedly detects happened to be present when it went off - despite evidence beyond any reasonable doubt that the thing in question had nothing to do with the " detector"'s outputs we would be engaging in confirmation bias of the worst sort. And yet, this is the argument that you appear to be putting forth.
quote: And I am pointing out that this is completely irrelevant to what we are discussing, which is how we might determine if religious experiences are detections of supernatural beings or not. Once we have hypothetically determined that the experience is entirely due to natural causes the question of whether a supernatural being happens to be present or not becomes an irrelevance for the reasons I have given.
quote: Alternatively we can examine the detector, find that it's behaviour is governed entirely by factors unrelated to the thing it supposedly detects and therefore conclude that it does not work. You have presented no valid argument against such a test.
quote: The confusion here is yours. The test does not seek to detect supernatural elements. Instead it determines if the known natural elements are sufficient to explain the experience (measured at the level of brain function). You may argue that finding a gap in our understanding is not sufficient to conclude that a supernatural explanation is needed and you would be correct, but that is not the point of the test. Thus despite your continuing use of innuendo, you have failed to address my actual argument once again. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: Obviously you don't agree with RAZD's approach at all, jumping to conclusions like that.Since you have missed it, we are discussing a hypothetical case and the question is whether religious experiences should be considered detections of supernatural beings or not. Given that even someone who was considered a 1 on Dawkins scale could reasonably accept my argument your conclusion is seriously divorced from reality. (They could easily hold that investigation would NOT lead to the hypothetical situation we are discussing, and in fact that quite likely would - to raise just one point) quote: RAZD has badly confused you, to the point where you keep missing all my corrections. I hope he will apologise to you for misleading you so badly. The question of whether supernatural beings exist or not is not part of my argument at all.
quote: Religious experiences, as the term is usually used. And let me remind you that we are dealing with a hypothetical situation. Your report is interesting, but not really relevant. Self control in this context seems to refer to inhibiting inappropriate actions. It isn't really that surprising that a rather exhibitionistic action is possibly associated with a lack of inhibition. I say possibly associated because the frontal lobes do a lot, so jumping on one function seems rather premature. The absence of language function is a little more interesting, but tends to support the idea that the "speech" is meaningless babble - just as your link says that it seems to be. Do you really think that your God would make people babble meaninglessly ?
quote: And this is why you should be careful about jumping into conversations. You have completely missed the fact that we are talking about a hypothetical situation. You can't rate someone on Dawkin's scale by simply considering the situations they are prepared to entertain for the sake of argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: RAZD is the one suggesting that they might be detections. I am pointing out that his assertion that we cannot possibly determine if that is true or not is false. As to your questions, submitting to a scientific study, if there were one available. I hope you will at least admit that there are reasons to be skeptikal of the idea that it is real communication.
quote: It means that normal people are capable of considering hypothetical situations without believing that they are true or even might be true. Do you lack this capacity ? Or did you not only miss the fact that we were discussing a hypothetical situation, but my explicit statements to that effect ?
quote: Clearly you do NOT understand. I said nothing like that at all.
quote: The fact that people who are babbling nonsense sounds in public have low brain activity in areas which help form coherent speech and areas which might act to prevent them doing something silly like babbling nonsense sounds in public is actually helpful in that respect. Although the fact that they are babbling nonsense sounds is more important.
quote: The linguistic analysis suggests that it has no meaning to anyone (and why would anyone need to have God put words in a special language into their mouths to communicate with Him?). And how can actually uttering noises be "groanings that cannot be uttered"? Wouldn't it make more sense to see that passage as referring to purely spiritual communication?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
quote: And you DON'T know that with 100% certainty. You haven't dealt with, for instance, Descartes demon or the similar "brain-in-the-box" scenarios. In other words, you dismiss unfalsifiable, yet (apparently) possible scenarios to claim to have knowledge. And unless you do so, you cannot even "know" that the tests have even been performed, let alone their outcomes. So, is it acceptable to dismiss unfalsifiable and implausible scenarios that - for all we know - could be true ? Or do we need to give them serious consideration ? This is one of the central considerations of this discussion, and it appears that you are taking both sides.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Let's look at your statement again:
"... we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."
How can it be true if all you have is false reports of evidence and if the test methods would show a different date if they were applied (or worse, HAVE been applied and shown different date) ? You are implicitly assuming access to an external reality where the evidence exists and where the tests have been carried out with the results you claim. And therefore you are implicitly dismissing those non-falsifiable possibilities where that is not the case.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
quote: In other words you are asserting not only that does this alleged "detection of supernatural beings" use informational channels unavailable to natural methods, but that it CANNOT produce any noticeable differences in brain function, even indirectly. Retreating to unfalsifiability would be bad enough. But insisting that the supernatural is utterly incapable of producing any detectable evidence is going much further. Your mind is closed to the possibility that the tests might work. Needless to say, your dogmatic refusal to accept that even quite weak evidence of the supernatural could exist does not in any way affect the validity of the tests.
quote: In fact the proposed test is to look at the scans and determine whether the observed behaviour is accounted for by known inputs and interactions or whether the evidence suggests that there is an additional input. IF that possibility is ruled out then we can conclude that the experience is not detection of supernatural beings.
quote: What is "it" in the post here ? The religious experience is the only thing claimed to "detect supernatural beings".
quote: In fact my proposed tests make no judgements of that sort at all. They operate on the lower level of brain function, simply looking for evidence of unexplained inputs.
quote: Of course you are criticising the wrong test here ! The test that you are attacking makes no such claim. If the test found an unexplained input it would not mean that the input was definitely from a supernatural source. The point of the test is to FALSIFY that claim, by testing for unexplained inputs. If all the inputs are fully accounted for by natural sources then the hypothesis is falsified. It is not proven simply by the detection of an unexplained input, simply NOT falsified !
quote: Well, you keep saying it, but it remains false. The test you are attempting to criticise attempts to determine if your "detector" can be said to work or not, by seeing if it's behaviour is completely accounted for by factors OTHER than the things it supposedly detects.
quote: On the evidence of this post, I would have to say that you are greatly confused. I repeat that the test you are talking about is intended to look only at the level of brain function and only looks for evidence of unexplained inputs. It does not make any judgements as to the state of mind of the person having the experience. Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
Or some of them...
I will address only the part of RAZD's reply that seems to be aimed at my points. I say "seems to be aimed" since RAZD misses very badly.
quote: Of course, this is not at all what I proposed. Rather I proposed that if the supernatural had effects on the natural world - as RAZD suggested might be the case - that by examination we could falsify the claim by examining the causes of the event and seeing if natural explanations fully sufficed or if a gap was left that might potentially be due to supernatural influence. RAZD has failed to refute this suggestion.
[quote]
When
[list=a]\[/quote\] Let us note that RAZD seems to completely miss the fact that my suggestion was based on brain scans, not on psychological investigation. The "explanations" he proposes are simply not applicable to my suggested test, which operates at the level the workings of the material brain rather than the mind. Perhaps he has confused this with the second test I proposed which did intend to look at reports of religious experiences. However, that test only looks for positive evidence of supernatural involvement, and a failure is not taken as falsifying the existence of supernatural beings at all. All in all while this description echoes RAZD's recent attacks on my proposals the content is largely RAZD's own imaginings. A serious failure indeed.
quote: ...is a repeated failure. It is not analogous to my proposed test at all. And I have corrected RAZD more than once on this issue, however,in his confusion RAZD fails to notice and repeated the same error again and again. Franklin was attempting to detect electricity, my test does not propose to detect anything, rather it tests an alleged detector, to see if it might possibly work. This is already a major difference. My test - which RAZD has failed to rebut, answering a strawman of his own invention instead - despite my corrections - does not require a means of detecting supernatural beings. To make a genuine analogy, if I claimed that my room light detected supernatural beings whenever I operated the switch we could point out that the operation of the switch combined with the electricity supply and the circuitry was sufficient to explain the light coming on, and come to the conclusion that the light was not detecting supernatural beings. The question of whether a supernatural being was present or not is irrelevant - indeed that is the point of the test, it establishes that the presence of a supernatural being IS irrelevant to the observation.
quote: We will note that RAZD cannot even accurately get the conclusion of my test right. The conclusion is only that the alleged detector does not in fact work as a detector. The argument he is supposedly addressing never claimed to be able to falsify the existence of supernatural beings.
quote: And of course, having concluding that the alleged detector did not work, in my argument we would conclude that it was NOT a test for the presence of supernatural beings ! RAZD therefore agrees that my conclusion is the proper one to draw !
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024