Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-26-2019 4:19 PM
22 online now:
kjsimons, ooh-child, PaulK, WookieeB (4 members, 18 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,681 Year: 3,718/19,786 Month: 713/1,087 Week: 82/221 Day: 36/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Author Topic:   Is My Hypothesis Valid???
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 391 of 409 (516554)
07-26-2009 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 384 by xongsmith
07-24-2009 5:57 PM


Re: Bigfoot Vs Gods: Which Tastes Better?
the fact that Straggler himself allowed as to how such subjective evidence could be used to begin the formulation of a tentative hypothesis would mean that even he really didnt think the OP equation was a valid hypothesis.

Then the confusion is in the terminology. I should have used the word "empirical" in the OP. Empirical in the sense of referring to our 5 empirical senses. Whether directly or indirectly (i.e. by means of technology).

To my knowledge nobody here is saying that "Large God Accelerators" or somesuch coul be used to eventually detect gods if we could just develop the technology to do so. As I understand it gods are immaterial entities not made of matter or energy as we understand the terms. Entities that are immune from material detection.

In which case if we restrict ourselves to the 5 senses as the sole form of evidencing external reality, gods by definition cannot be evidenced by "experiences". Whether single and isolated (i.e. subjective by the definition we appear to be using here) or otherwise.

So the Immaterial Pink Unicorn remains as unevidenced as any other immaterial god concept. Regardless of anyones "experiences". Exactly as I have been saying for some time now...................

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 384 by xongsmith, posted 07-24-2009 5:57 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 392 of 409 (516556)
07-26-2009 5:25 AM
Reply to: Message 389 by RAZD
07-25-2009 5:05 PM


Agreement and Closure
We all agree that our 5 empirical senses are our only means of gaining "perception of any external experience" (as you phrase it in Message 150)

Therefore we must all also agree that concepts such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn cannot, by definition, be evidenced by any "experience". Subjective or otherwise.

Thus we must also all conclude that any other immaterial, supernatural entity that is beyond the ability of our 5 empirical material senses to detect remains completely unevidenced by ANY "experience". Whether this experience is "subjective" or not.

Percy to Straggler writes:

To me the point you made with the aware but otherwise insensate intellect seems obvious. You established this as a baseline for the type of experiences that cannot constitute valid empirical evidence, and RAZD agreed with it.

Using this baseline you then argue that internal experiences that are of the same nature as those of an aware but insensate intellect also cannot constitute valid empirical evidence. This would seem to be inarguable and sufficient to settle the discussion, and I don't understand RAZD's position. Message 147

Wise words from Percy. I wish I had listened to them earlier.

I don't know what form your materially detectable, and thus "evidenced", gods take. Nor do I understand why you think these materially detectable entities are "scientifically unknowable".
If anyone can specifically explain this to me it would be much appreciated.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 389 by RAZD, posted 07-25-2009 5:05 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 393 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 11:57 AM Straggler has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 393 of 409 (516607)
07-26-2009 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 392 by Straggler
07-26-2009 5:25 AM


Still missing the point with poor logic
Re: Evidenced? Or not? (Message 150) - the actual full quote with context:

Eventually, but by gosh what a wrangle to get there from where he started. I find it humorous that he had to go to the point where perception of any external experience was impossible before he could get to a point where subjective perception was not possible evidence. All intermediate positions had some level of credibility that evidence so provided could be true.

In other words all experiences may contain true perceptions of reality. Notice that reality does not cease to exist for the insensate person incapable of sensing the world, only that they cannot sense it through the 5 senses. An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses. There can also be rare events that cannot be replicated and due to chaotic circumstances among other reasons.

Hence we can correct your most recent misrepresentation:

We all agree that our 5 empirical senses are our only a means of gaining "perception of any external experience" (as you phrase it in Message 150)

We agree that any experience that (appears) to be due to our sensing of reality is viable for forming testable hypothesis. Our best way of gaining verifiable evidence of reality is through tested experiences. Some experiences cannot be tested, for a number of reasons, however this just means a lack of reasonable conclusion.

Therefore we must all also agree that concepts such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn cannot, by definition, be evidenced by any "experience". Subjective or otherwise.

Curiously, if this were so, there would be no talk of the IPU. What we have, in fact, is a plethora of subjective evidence.

Thus we must also all conclude that any other immaterial, supernatural entity that is beyond the ability of our 5 empirical senses to detect remains completely unevidenced by ANY experience. Whether this experience is "subjective" or not.

Your biased preconceptions are showing again, once more limiting your ability to reach a logical conclusion.

Something that has not been observed does not mean that it necessarily cannot be observed, it only means that it has not been observed in a way that has yet been able to be verified.

Your insensate person is incapable of experiencing reality as we know it, however this does not mean that reality ceases to exist for this person - a position your conclusion inevitably leads to: for such a person reality is the same as the IPU and your (limited) "immaterial, supernatural entity".

Something that has been experienced, but not been verified does not mean that it has not been observed.

Something that cannot itself be observed does not mean that effects cannot be observed.

Which, of course, means that your conclusion is false.

Your problem is that you are trying to reach a conclusion before you have tested the evidence.

We can agree that the best method we currently know for testing evidence of reality is through replication and documentation. What this means is that we can place the evidence along a spectrum:

(1) at one end: tested and validated evidence, where we can tentativley conclude that they represent actual reality,

(2) at the other end: tested and invalidated evidence, where contradictory evidence shows that the initial experience was misinterpreted, and

(3) in between: all other evidence, where the most we can conclude is that there is insufficient evidence pro or con to reach a reasonable conclusion, ie that we don't know.

We take the things caught in the net of testing and place them into two piles - (1) tested and validated: those we tentatively believe are true aspects of reality, and (2) tested and invalidated: those we are highly confident are falsified aspects of reality - and all other concepts fall back through the net, to remain in the pool of possibilities until a better net becomes available.

I don't know what form your materially detectable, and thus "evidenced", gods take. Nor do I understand why you think these materially detectable entities are "scientifically unknowable".

It appears that your biases and preconceptions are preventing you from considering all the possibilities.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : 150


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 392 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 5:25 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 394 by onifre, posted 07-26-2009 12:40 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 395 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 12:50 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

onifre
Member (Idle past 1032 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 394 of 409 (516613)
07-26-2009 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by RAZD
07-26-2009 11:57 AM


Hi RAZD,

An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses.

So then we could not in any way interact with them, and none of our "experiences" can be said to have been a result of, our due to, these "elements of reality that we are unable to sense." Right?

So we cannot perceive them in any way.

There can also be rare events that cannot be replicated and due to chaotic circumstances among other reasons.

But even in rare events the original sensing must have been through the use of our 5 sense, right?

We all agree that our 5 empirical senses are a means of gaining "perception of any external experience"

Here is where you completely lose me.

What are the other means by which we perceive reality?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 11:57 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 1:16 PM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 397 by xongsmith, posted 07-26-2009 2:11 PM onifre has not yet responded
 Message 399 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 5:11 PM onifre has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 395 of 409 (516615)
07-26-2009 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 393 by RAZD
07-26-2009 11:57 AM


Sixth Sense? A Specific Example Please
RAZD writes:

I find it humorous that he had to go to the point where perception of any external experience was impossible before he could get to a point where subjective perception was not possible evidence. Message 150

What did you mean by "perception of any external experience was impossible........."? Impossible? This is completely and inarguably inconsistent with your current position.

Notice that reality does not cease to exist for the insensate person incapable of sensing the world, only that they cannot sense it through the 5 senses. An obvious corollary is that there are many elements of reality that we are unable to sense, being limited as we are to 5 senses.

But I don't dispute, and never have, that an immaterial "reality" might conceivably exist. The IPU might exist. My argument is that they are not, and indeed cannot be, evidenced as you claim they are. So just to be absolutely clear: You are now saying that a conscious and aware person utterly incapable of empirical sensation is capable of "experiences" that you consider to be valid indicators/evidence of reality external to his own mind?

1) Is the above correct?
2) Do you think this has position has been clear and unambiguous all along? Does it relate to Nessie for example? Bigfoot? Aliens? Or just immaterial entities of the sort you have repeatedly refused to discuss?
3) How exactly are phenomenon that cannot be experienced by means of the material senses "experienced"? A sixth sense?

4) Most importantly - Can you give us a specific example of an "experience" that our empirically insensate witness could have that you would consider as evidence of an immaterial external phenomenon such as a god. This is desperately unclear.

Be specific. And unambiguous.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 393 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 11:57 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 396 of 409 (516618)
07-26-2009 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by onifre
07-26-2009 12:40 PM


"Immaterial Evidence"
RAZD writes:

We all agree that our 5 empirical senses are a means of gaining "perception of any external experience"

Here is where you completely lose me.

What are the other means by which we perceive reality?

This is what I meant previously by "non-empirical evidence". Let's call it "immaterial evidence" to avoid further terminological confusion (unless you can think of a better term)

RAZD's position on "evidenced" gods has always quite obviously been reliant upon evidence that cannot be detected by our 5 empirical material methods of sensation. This is what ***Newsflash - Breaking News - Newsflash*** (Message 327) was all about.

RAZD has been evading admitting this demonstrably unjustifiable position for months. Now that he has finally had it dragged out of him will he attempt to justify it? Lets see.

Edited by Straggler, : Fix link


This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by onifre, posted 07-26-2009 12:40 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 5:13 PM Straggler has not yet responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1871
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 397 of 409 (516626)
07-26-2009 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by onifre
07-26-2009 12:40 PM


We all agree that our 5 empirical senses are a means of gaining "perception of any external experience"

Here is where you completely lose me.
What are the other means by which we perceive reality?

The woman in the woods who describes what she saw with her 5+ senses.
That gang at the watercooler in the morning telling you what happened after you left the Christmas party.

The pictures taken by your friends of a trip to the Grand Tetons.

If you are blind, the chance to touch the statue of David - indeed even if you are not blind - as a way of grokking what David may have been in the past - even if reconstructed as it is in the imagination, but not having alien tentacles sprouting from it head and large wheel-like things instead of what we generally regard as human feet.

etc.

2nd hand evidence.


- xongsmith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 394 by onifre, posted 07-26-2009 12:40 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 398 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 2:23 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 398 of 409 (516629)
07-26-2009 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 397 by xongsmith
07-26-2009 2:11 PM


First Hand Second Hand Who Cares
2nd hand evidence.

How can you have 2nd hand evidence of something that cannot have been materially "experienced", and thus evidenced, in the first place?

Immaterial entities cannot be "expereinced" by means of our 5 empirical methods of sensory perception. Thus they cannot be evidenced. Not first hand. And not second hand.

This whole "subjective" evidence thing (meaning 2nd hand anecdotes of "single isolated experiences") is just a giant smokescreen. A method of obfuscation. With regard to the evidential claims of immaterial entities it is completely irrelevant.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 397 by xongsmith, posted 07-26-2009 2:11 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 399 of 409 (516659)
07-26-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 394 by onifre
07-26-2009 12:40 PM


inside the sandbox, outside the box
Hi Onifre,

But even in rare events the original sensing must have been through the use of our 5 sense, right?

Or have the appearance of being sensed, yes, but what we have is that something was sensed. What was sensed may be an incomplete view of the cause of the experience or it may have been something of an after effect.

The insensate brain of Straggler's extrapolation would still "black-out" at 3g's of acceleration even though it was completely incapable of sensing the environment around it that cause the acceleration. Thus reality is still able to affect the experiences of the insensate person in spite of them not being able to sense what was going on or to explain what happened in terms of what was sensed. There is no way that the insensate person could make a testable hypothesis of what caused the blackout, or test it if they did.

The ultimate after effect, of course, would be if god/s created everything to behave the way it does, as then everything sensed is evidence of that creation, but we just don't know that we are sensing it.

What are the other means by which we perceive reality?

One other way is by comparing notes, by looking at other unexplained experiences. Another way is by looking for anomalies in the behaviors of things. Secondary experience.

A third way is to make extrapolations like Straggler did about the existence of life on other planets, using an evidence set of one (1) as a basis, a projection of possibilities that are not contradicted by known evidence of reality.

Another way would be through dreams and hallucinogenic states. As I've said before, any idea can form an initial basis, the critical element to me is that we have a way of testing those experiences to determine the validity of the concept, not what the initial concept was. Many an engineering or scientific breakthrough has come during dreams, however they were only validated by later work.

Now before anyone jumps up and down and has a tantrum, please note that I still only choose to discuss those experiences that we know, or are fairly certain, come from immediate sensations of an aware and conscious person, because I have a high confidence in such experiences being real possibilities that can be validated, and that even with such limitations on the experiences considered, we end up with possibilities that lie outside the box of Rummie's "known knowns", so we don't have to search for additional unknowns.

We agree, you and I, that not every concept can practically be considered and tested, and this is how I draw a line between what I consider practical and what I don't.

This is why I see no validity in discussing the reality of god/s and supernatural without additional evidence, there are too many unknowns.

Do we only play inside the sandbox, where the boundaries are known, or do we play outside the box? If we go outside, how far, practically, do we go?

Straggler needed to have a foundation for his extrapolations of alien life. To me the experiences of conscious and aware individuals that at least appear to be experience through the senses form a relatively solid basis for investigating possibilities as these are most likely to be validated by additional experiences.

It's still one end of the spectrum of all experiences, but the focus is a little wider.

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 394 by onifre, posted 07-26-2009 12:40 PM onifre has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 401 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 5:22 PM RAZD has responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 400 of 409 (516660)
07-26-2009 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 396 by Straggler
07-26-2009 1:16 PM


Another misconception exposed. Another lie.
RAZD's position on "evidenced" gods has always quite obviously been reliant upon evidence that cannot be detected by our 5 empirical material methods of sensation. This is what ***Newsflash - Breaking News - Newsflash*** (Message 327) was all about.

No, just that I see no point in discussing it.

Message 398

This whole "subjective" evidence thing (meaning 2nd hand anecdotes of "single isolated experiences") is just a giant smokescreen. A method of obfuscation. With regard to the evidential claims of immaterial entities it is completely irrelevant.

So what I have been discussing is "completely irrelevant" to what I have NOT been discussing? Stunning observation.

Here's another misrepresentation Message 401:

It was you that first raised subjective evidence as the defining difference between different concepts of immaterial gods.

Nope. Curiously Straggler still doesn't provide any quote of mine saying so, even though he promised to put up or shut up. Another lie?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : do you think there is a reason?

Edited by RAZD, : /i

Edited by RAZD, : another lie


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 396 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 1:16 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10284
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 401 of 409 (516663)
07-26-2009 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by RAZD
07-26-2009 5:11 PM


Evasion. Again.
It was you that first raised subjective evidence as the defining difference between different concepts of immaterial gods. I put it to you that you are simply unable to justify that specific position. Which is why you have been evading it ever since. "Off topic". "Irrelevant". "Not interested". Etc. Etc. Evasion. Pure and simple.

Please give us a specific example of an "experience" that our empirically insensate witness could have that you would consider as evidence of an immaterial external phenomenon (such as a god). This is desperately unclear.

Be specific. And unambiguous.

And if you cannot do that how can you continue to hold the ridiculous and irrational position that some immaterial god concepts are evidenced whilst others are not?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 5:11 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 402 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 7:12 PM Straggler has not yet responded

RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 402 of 409 (516676)
07-26-2009 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 401 by Straggler
07-26-2009 5:22 PM


More unsubstantiated lies.
It was you that first raised subjective evidence as the defining difference between different concepts of immaterial gods. I put it to you that you are simply unable to justify that specific position. Which is why you have been evading it ever since. "Off topic". "Irrelevant". "Not interested". Etc. Etc. Evasion. Pure and simple.

More unsubstantiated lies.

Once again, see Message 138 (quoted in it's entirety):

Thanks Straggler,

We have finally established that RAZD is in fact intentionally conflating the possibility of the "subjective interpretation of objective evidence" (even if it is recounted second hand) with his flawed notions that there is some form of evidence that can apply to empirically undetectable entities. See Why You Are Wrong (Message 134).

ROFLOL de LOL. You just CANNOT GET DEITIES OUT OF YOUR MIND, can you. You just CANNOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES, can you.

NEWS FLASH:

RAZD ARGUMENT ON THE VALUE OF SUBJECTIVE EVIDENCE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES!!!

.... for more on a logical argument regarding the value of subjective evidence that has nothing to do with deities stay tuned for more of my posts ....

sheesh! What is WITH you and DEITIES? Bad childhood experience?

Enjoy.

Still not one post of mine quoted as substantiating the claim by Straggler about my argument and my position.

He has absolutely failed to justify his straw man versions of my arguments by actually going back to the original sources as challenged to do so on Message 332, a challenge he accepted in Message 334

I will put up or shut up.

Another lie it seems.

Sad.


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 401 by Straggler, posted 07-26-2009 5:22 PM Straggler has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 403 of 409 (516677)
07-26-2009 7:13 PM


Moderator Inquiry
RAZD has requested closure. Since we're at 400 posts this makes a lot of sense. Time to post summations, here are the rules:

  • Please post only a single summation.

  • Please do not reply to any message. At most post a single summation.

  • Please, no new participants. If you haven't posted to this thread already, then please don't start now.

  • Passions might be running a little high, so just a reminder to please keep your summation in line with the Forum Guidelines.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 404 by RAZD, posted 07-26-2009 7:26 PM Admin has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19759
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 404 of 409 (516680)
07-26-2009 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 403 by Admin
07-26-2009 7:13 PM


Closing, once more. Simple.
My summations are at Closing argument\summary (Message 338), More Summation - Straggler's continued Failure/s (Message 351) and The nature of evidence and the possibilities of reality (Message 353), and I don't need to add anything to those to cover my position.

The contents of these summations have not been debated nor challenged further, so I safely assume that they are still valid and nothing needs to be recanted or restated in answer to a valid criticism.

It seems that my actual posts of my actual positions are not really challenged nor debated.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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 403 by Admin, posted 07-26-2009 7:13 PM Admin has not yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12580
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 405 of 409 (516797)
07-27-2009 2:22 PM


Thread Now Reopened
My intention when I posted Message 403 was to leave this thread open two or three days to give people adequate opportunity to post summations. I don't know how this thread was closed, I suppose I could have done it myself by accident, but anyway, it's open again.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

  
RewPrev1
...
23242526
27
28Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019