Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9174 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,605 Year: 4,862/9,624 Month: 210/427 Week: 20/103 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1196 of 1725 (623488)
07-10-2011 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1193 by xongsmith
07-10-2011 5:05 PM


Super Experiment
So - bluegenes - give us the methodology to test this theory out so we can reproduce your results here.
I have been watching this thread with great interest and have been wonderfully entertained. But, come on, x, every one already knows the methodology of this one.
As you already state via Einstein, "go look!"
Choose any supernatural concept you want and go through as much of the literature, oral history, all the evidence available from as far back in antiquity as is possible.
That is your repeatable experiment.
Do this with as many such concepts as you may have time, inclination.
What did you find? Inconclusive for some, imagination for most ...
Did you find even one real clearly demonstrable god?
To my view no result from such experiments have yet falsified bluegenes theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1193 by xongsmith, posted 07-10-2011 5:05 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1207 of 1725 (623643)
07-12-2011 8:35 AM
Reply to: Message 1205 by Larni
07-12-2011 4:54 AM


Faith-Based Drudgery
I predict that this 'knowing' will become a stumbling point right off the bat.
Oh, Straggler can drag this out with continuing to poke and prod around "evidence" and the minutia of other definitions, but, I agree, this Great Debate has quickly hit the ultimate wall.
As Sam Harris noted, faith ends all useful discussion. If this debate continues it will just be circular and boring.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1205 by Larni, posted 07-12-2011 4:54 AM Larni has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1208 by Dr Jack, posted 07-12-2011 9:27 AM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 1211 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 10:13 AM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1212 of 1725 (623657)
07-12-2011 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1211 by Straggler
07-12-2011 10:13 AM


Re: Faith-Based Drudgery
Are you not entertained? Is this not why you are here?
We have the greatest confidence, My Liege, that you will enthrall us all with your wit, intellect and charm. The name of Stragglerus will live forever in the archives of EvC. Please don't hurt me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1211 by Straggler, posted 07-12-2011 10:13 AM Straggler has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 1255 of 1725 (624324)
07-17-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1253 by Chuck77
07-17-2011 1:11 AM


Re: Back on
The existance of god(s) is one of philosophy and not science.
Sorry, Chuck77, but Gould's Non-Overlapping Magisteria is wrong. The popularly assumed restriction on science to investigate "supernatural" phenomena is bogus. The existence of "gods" is as open to scientific scrutiny as any other proposed phenomenon.
As you, yourself, have listed there is a scientific method apropos to the study and Straggler has answered well within the guidelines. The old view that such supernatural phenomena are "unevidenced" and "untestable", thus not subject to scientific scrutiny, is a self-serving shield against this type of intellectual treatment out of an emotional fear of the result. It is rejected.
The theory that supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention has been evidenced to a great extent by both indirect (the lack of obvious supernatural causation) and direct (in psychology, neuroscience, etc.) evidence. As with all other theories in science bluegenes theory is open to falsification by future evidence. Show us a god and bluegenes is out the door. The argument that this can never happen due to the "supernatural" nature of gods is circular, vainglorious and fallacious and is discarded.
Edited by AZPaul3, : direct/indirect got turned around.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1253 by Chuck77, posted 07-17-2011 1:11 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1258 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 2:58 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1261 of 1725 (624375)
07-17-2011 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 1258 by RAZD
07-17-2011 2:58 PM


Re: Back on
I'm curious to know the methodology by which they eliminate the possibility of supernatural effect on the mind.
Why should anyone assume there are supernatural effects on the mind?
Certainly if you cannot determine whether or not such effect exists, then you are just assuming that it isn't in effect rather than demonstrating it.
I asked subbie if he could think of a test to see if a religious experience was real or a product of imagination, and he could not think of one.
One piece of evidence that impacts this discussion is this:
The Orientation/Association area in the brain appears to be a controlling site for deep religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and "voices" from "beyond". Decrease the blood flow to the OAA and religious euphoria, out-of-body views and "voices" are reported by the patients as observed results. Increase the blood flow to this area and those feelings cease.
Overview article in Psychology Today
Deep meditation or prayer can cause such a change in blood flow to this area. This shows a direct relationship between at least some "supernatural" experiences and blood flow to areas of the brain. All naturally occurring, like an on/off switch, under personal and medical intervention control.
One test, as Newberg, et al. show, is to medically intervene in a religious experience by increasing the blood flow to the OAA thus shutting down the experience.
If you are going to posit some woo-woo entity that sticks its finger in the blood vessels to affect this phenomenon then I await your data. Absent this then we have one piece of evidence available that such supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention used to explain such feelings that occur naturally when the OAA is affected.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1258 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 2:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1266 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 4:45 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1285 of 1725 (624411)
07-17-2011 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1266 by RAZD
07-17-2011 4:45 PM


Re: religious experience - real or imaginary?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1266 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 4:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1288 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 6:43 PM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1289 of 1725 (624416)
07-17-2011 6:55 PM
Reply to: Message 1288 by RAZD
07-17-2011 6:43 PM


Re: religious experience - real or imaginary?
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1288 by RAZD, posted 07-17-2011 6:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1436 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2011 6:19 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1304 of 1725 (624471)
07-18-2011 5:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1293 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 1:01 AM


Re: not making a claim of disproof
So, the TOE is a strong high confidence theory. It says basically " the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Many, many millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian."
And in bluegenes theory the only known source of supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination.
From what I understand, if a Rabbit fossil (even an adult rabbit fossil that makes baby rabbit fossils) were found in the precambrian strata it would falsify the TOE.
Right. It is not incumbent upon us to go find a pre-cambrian rabbit. But if one were found it would invalidate the Theory of Evolution.
By the same token, it is not incumbent upon us to go find a god. But if one were found it would invalidate bluegenes theory.
YET, we are supposed to falsify bluegenes "theory" with a real "rabbit" in the precambrian when the precambrain doesn't even exist in bluegenes world.
The "pre-cambrian" analog to bluegenes theory is all other vectors of supernatural entities that may or may not exist.
The "rabbit" analog is any kind of "god".
A falsification of TOE would be the empirical evidence of a pre-cambrian rabbit. For all our looking, no one has yet found one.
The falsification of bluegenes theory would be the empirical evidence of some god. For all our looking, no one has yet found one.
Edited by AZPaul3, : clarify ... I think.
Edited by AZPaul3, : more muddied clarity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1293 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 1:01 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1306 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 5:16 AM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1305 of 1725 (624473)
07-18-2011 5:09 AM
Reply to: Message 1301 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 4:08 AM


Re: Can't expect Scientific results
Straggs, it would really aid in communication if you would please do the following in response to bluegenes statement about the "imagination being the only known source of supernatural beings".
A)Identify a question about SB's, then propose an explanation (hypothesis),
B) conceive a test of the hypothesis (experiments which cannot be ...
I believe Straggler did this in his Message 1254

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1301 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 4:08 AM Chuck77 has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1307 of 1725 (624475)
07-18-2011 5:27 AM
Reply to: Message 1306 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 5:16 AM


Re: not making a claim of disproof
Sorry, Chuck77. I made a significant change to my post prior to your reply.
I really need to learn to proof read prior to hitting the "submit".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1310 of 1725 (624481)
07-18-2011 5:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1306 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 5:16 AM


Re: not making a claim of disproof
Exactly, incorrect. If the precambrian can be tested, identified, given an age etc it is an established part of the TOE, it is in fact, empirical. Likewise a REAL rabbit (that gives birth to baby rabbits) would potentially falsify it.
The TOE says nothing about geologic strata nor the age of these things. Other scientific disciplines provide that information. So the route to falsification is open via the information from these other areas.
In bluegenes theory nothing is said about the efficacy of supernatural realms or other possible vectors of supernatural thoughts. Other philosophies do that. So the route to falsification is open via the information from these other areas.
Until he does, it is silly to suggest an empirical Supernatural entity falsifiy his "theory' (claim), as it stands now.
Why? If a supernatural concept were to be shown to stem from any other source than human imagination then bluegenes theory would be falsified. Where is the problem with this?
Unlike what RAZD would want, it is not incumbent upon the theory to provide its own falsification, just that it be open to falsification by some means. Bluegenes theory is open to falsification.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1306 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 5:16 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1311 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 6:13 AM AZPaul3 has replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1313 of 1725 (624488)
07-18-2011 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1311 by Chuck77
07-18-2011 6:13 AM


Re: not making a claim of disproof
Circular reasoning rings a bell.
Bluegenes: Imagination is the only vector.
Falsification: Here is a different vector.
Where is the circularity?
On the other hand, bluegenes is claiming every single person to have ever experienced a religious experience is simply their imagination. He said he can prove this with evidence. The people have provided their evidence with why they believe this. Bluegenes has NOT provided HIS as to why he thinks it's not true. See?
Bluegenes evidence is not one piece not one test. It is, as with all theories, a preponderance of evidence, this one from history, psychology and neurology. Re-read the thread. The evidence is there.
There are 9000 different sources out there for supernatural beings. They are just as valid as any. You say prove it right? I don't have to, im perfectly content believing what I do.
Incredulity is not evidence.
If there are 9000 sources out there then certainly you can point to one empirical source, no?
Look, Chuck77, bluegenes theory, whatever you may think of it, has been stated, backed by evidence and is falsifiable. It is not tautological since its statement "the only known source of supernatural concepts is human imagination" is not self-referential nor is its truth closed to falsification.
It is now incumbent upon its detractors to dispute the theory by negating its evidence or by falsification. No one has yet done this. And personal incredulity or appeals to 9000 unevidenced claims will not accomplish this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1311 by Chuck77, posted 07-18-2011 6:13 AM Chuck77 has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1435 of 1725 (625645)
07-24-2011 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 1387 by xongsmith
07-21-2011 2:41 PM


Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
All of the supporters AND the originator are from the UK. Maybe there should be a theory of inductive reasoning that, if you are from the UK, you will support your countryman's theory out of a combination of cultural bias and national pride.
A noble sentiment to be sure. However, those of us who are supporters as winthin your 1.0 scale from outside the UK have an even more noble reason to support BG theory. This because it is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1387 by xongsmith, posted 07-21-2011 2:41 PM xongsmith has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1471 of 1725 (629238)
08-16-2011 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1465 by bluegenes
08-16-2011 4:21 AM


Thanks bluegenes
I hadn't seen this before. I appreciate the link again. Thanx, bluegenes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1465 by bluegenes, posted 08-16-2011 4:21 AM bluegenes has not replied

AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8593
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 1479 of 1725 (630058)
08-22-2011 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1478 by Chuck77
08-22-2011 7:15 AM


Re: Semantics? Seriously?
And on what basis?
The Bible, testimony, witnesses for starters.
Let's see, here.
Bible, written by various men (and badly at that) based on and showing differences within their individual human psychologies.
Testimony, firmly ensconced in human psychology.
Witness, indistinguishable from testimony thus human psychology.
If that is the evidence then Straggler is correct.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1478 by Chuck77, posted 08-22-2011 7:15 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1496 by Chuck77, posted 08-25-2011 7:17 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024