Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery 2012
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 29 of 83 (672174)
09-04-2012 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by New Cat's Eye
09-01-2012 7:11 AM


Guernica
Cognitive dissonance and other psychological impairments aside - What exactly is the whole Guernica thing about and how is it relevant to whether there exist any supernatural beings that aren't invented human concepts?
I'm intrigued.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-01-2012 7:11 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2012 2:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 32 of 83 (672193)
09-04-2012 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by Modulous
09-04-2012 2:13 PM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
Mod writes:
Remember the Hindu Hypothesis?
Yep.
Mod writes:
RAZD, I believe, is trying to say that religious myths are to supernatural beings what Guernica is to the horrors of war. An intermediary through which we have to do some interpretation.
OK. That seems fair enough as far as it goes. I would accept that some interpretation is required in order to extract the wisdom that might be entailed in religious texts (or any other literature) for example.
Mod writes:
He seems to be talking about information being transmitted in non-scientific ways, presumably religious notions are proposed to contain non-literal information like various art does.
OK. But (and I appreciate this isn't your argument but rather your take on RAZ's argument so my question is somewhat rhetorical) how does this get us to evidence of actual supernatural eings rather than evidence of human belief in the existence of supernatural beings (which is the observable phenomenon bluegenes theory seeks to somewhat explain).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Modulous, posted 09-04-2012 2:13 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by xongsmith, posted 09-06-2012 12:29 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 38 of 83 (672292)
09-06-2012 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by xongsmith
09-06-2012 12:29 AM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
Throughout the thread RAZ has repeatedly raised evidence of human belief in the existence of supernatural beings (e.g. religious texts) as if this is somehow indicative of there being a source of SBs other than human imagination. The idea seems to be that if lots of people genuinely believe such things to be real then there must be some real supernatural basis for such beliefs even if none of the specific beliefs are particularly accurate. Belief as a form of evidence upon which to justify belief in the supernatural. Circular. This whole Guernica thing seems to be (rather obliquely) heading along the same lines.
If the whole Guernica thing isn’t intended to make some point about interpretation and there being a real supernatural basis for such beliefs — What is the point of it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by xongsmith, posted 09-06-2012 12:29 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 39 of 83 (672365)
09-07-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by xongsmith
09-06-2012 12:29 AM


Re: The Guernica conjecture
I see you have "acknowledged" my reply. Fair enough I spose.
Is anyone (hello RAZ) going to definitively explain the relevance of this Guernica thing....?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by xongsmith, posted 09-06-2012 12:29 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by herebedragons, posted 09-10-2012 10:27 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 40 of 83 (672678)
09-10-2012 2:31 PM


Cut the CD - Off Topic?
I'm still following and enjoying the bluegenes Vs RAZD great debate.
But I wish the relentless accusations of cognitive dissonance could be deemed off-topic. They aren't adding anything except a way of sidetracking from the issue at hand.
There is even a whole thread about CD to which these accusations and the basis for making them can be legitimately discussed: Cognitive Dissonance and Cultural Beliefs

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 54 of 83 (672807)
09-11-2012 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by New Cat's Eye
09-11-2012 10:32 AM


Re: BG Challenge - flat planets
bluegenes writes:
My theory predicts that there cannot be a way of detecting non-imaginary supernatural beings.
CS writes:
Then it isn't capable of being proven wrong.
The theory predicts that there won't be any way of detecting such things because it predicts that such things don't exist. And you cannot detect that which doesn't exist can you?
CS writes:
We know what planets are and we know what it is to be flat. We don't have anything regarding what it is to be supernatural.
Lots of people (including you I believe) have claimed to have detected supernatural beings. People are constantly and relentlessly claiming to have detected supernatural beings. Are you suggesting these people have no idea what they are talking about.....?
CS writes:
If we're just going to use what people have imagined about supernatural beings, then we're only ever going to be dealing with imagination. There's no progress to make. The conjecture that they're all imagined becomes tautological. Supernatural beings become defined as coming from the imagination.
No such definition is in place. If any of these people who claim to have interactions with supernatural beings can provide the rest of us with positive evidence of their claims then we will have cause to think they are doing something other than getting carried away with their imagination.
So far no such evidence has been forthcoming. As bluegenes theory predicts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-11-2012 10:32 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2012 2:23 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 55 of 83 (672888)
09-12-2012 8:39 AM


RAZD writes:
If it predicts that you cannot show whether they are there or not, then you cannot show whether they are imaginary or not. It's that simple.
If you can show that they are there the prediction is wrong and the theory is falsified. It is that simple.

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 57 of 83 (672941)
09-12-2012 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by New Cat's Eye
09-12-2012 2:23 PM


Re: BG Challenge - flat planets
CS writes:
What makes it a being and what makes it supernatural?
CS writes:
I've just had experiences that convinced me they exist.
Well Mr "I'm convinced they exist" what is it you are convinced of the existence of?
Straggler writes:
Lots of people (including you I believe) have claimed to have detected supernatural beings. People are constantly and relentlessly claiming to have detected supernatural beings. Are you suggesting these people have no idea what they are talking about.....?
CS writes:
Of course they don't know what they're talking about. If they did, then it'd just be a common fact as opposed to something they're taking on faith.
People believed in the existence of Scarab the godly dung beetle that rolled the Sun across the sky. They knew what they were talking about. It's just that the thing they were talking about was factually wrong.
Likewise - People like Buzsaw know what sort of supernatural entity they believe in. It just happens to be nonsense.
The only real difference between these and the sort of thing I suspect you are talking about is vaguety. And simply defining things to be unfalsifiable isn't really a valid argument for considering them anything other than imagined.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-12-2012 2:23 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 69 of 83 (696687)
04-18-2013 9:47 AM


Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
RAZ writes:
it is my job to point out your failure to identify, test and show that non-imaginary supernatural beings are imagined\invented
Message 220
Doesn't this sum-up the absurdity of RAZ's position?
How the hell is it logically possible to show that something non-imagined is imagined?
Bluegenes has pointed out the stupidity of this in his reply but I thought it deserved highlighting.

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:28 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 71 of 83 (696691)
04-18-2013 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 70 by 1.61803
04-18-2013 10:28 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
Can you give an example of a REAL supernatural being....?
Because now it just looks like a demand for a real SB to be shown to be non-real. Which is equally logically impossible as RAZ's idiotic demand.
Anyway - If there are any real/non-imagined SBs then presenting evidence of these will falsify bluegenes theory. That's the entire point.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:28 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:55 AM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 73 of 83 (696694)
04-18-2013 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by 1.61803
04-18-2013 10:55 AM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
But I don't think you have stated it in a different way simply by using a different word. Because I am lost as to what the difference between REAL and non-imagined is in this context......

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 10:55 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by Stile, posted 04-18-2013 11:18 AM Straggler has not replied
 Message 75 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 11:20 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 79 of 83 (696723)
04-18-2013 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by 1.61803
04-18-2013 12:33 PM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
The idea that a maybe-extinct/maybe-not-extinct species of bird is evidentially equivalent to vampires (for example - pick whatever type of suprentural being floats your boat) - Is just silly.
Numbers writes:
In the end it does come down to personal choice on what we will believe.
Which is why we still have people who believe in creationism and suchlike.
However what people want to believe has no bearing on which conclusions are most strongly evidenced.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 12:33 PM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 1:13 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 83 of 83 (696851)
04-19-2013 7:06 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by 1.61803
04-18-2013 1:13 PM


Re: Non-Imagined Imagined Beings
Numbers writes:
I can't tell you how upset I was when my shipment of seamonkeys arrived.
In this at least I think widespread consensus exists. Very disappointing...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by 1.61803, posted 04-18-2013 1:13 PM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024