Peanut Gallery

Detectable in a non-empirical manner?Can you exapand upon this please? What do you mean? Can you give an example?Sounds like Immaterial "Evidence" to me. But you have always denied you were relying on such "evidence". Change of heart?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Can you give an example?

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. But I am willing to bet a considerable amount of moeny that you won't be able to. As Percy put it some time ago: Message 114But by all means prove me wrong........

Can you give an explicit example of something that is "detectable but not in an empirical manner" or not?Your vaguety is just as Percy predicted all that time ago. This obviously isn't an example.And by this definition the birth of my first son was "detectable but not in an empirical manner" because it only happened once. But I can assure you that it was very detectable in a very empirical manner.Try again. Lots of experiences get classed as religious experiences. And all sorts of experiences that are conceivably being caused by supernatural entities might not be classed as such. If I met a God in a dream I doubt I would class it as a supernatural experience. But who knows if it was actually some God trying to communicate with me huh? I consider it deeply improbable. But don't discount the philosophical possibility.So the question remains as to why we should consider the experiences you keep referring to (but never detailing) as indicative of the existence of gods rather than any other conceivable cause. Why (for example) are such experiences not considered as caused by fluctuations in the Matrix and thus evidence in favour of the existence of the matrix? Why aren’t such experiences indicative of undetectable magic moonbeams messing with human minds? Or indeed any other conceivable cause?The problem with subjective evidence is that ultimately it is nothing more than another name for circular reasoning. You have to assume the conclusion before the so-called evidence supports the conclusion.Far better to consider the objectively evidenced causes of such experiences. And that involves looking at the sort of psychological factors you find so upsetting.

And why do you think what people claim/believe has any bearing on the matter?It is just as evidentially valid to claim that such experiences are indicative of fluctuations in the matrix as indicative of supernatural causes isn't it?You and RAZ seem to have this strange idea that if people believe that a particular phenomena is caused by something then that phenomena is evidence in support of their belief.This is the 'cart before horse' approach to evidence. Actually it's more of a philosophical position than a religion. ARE YOU LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION? BY NICK BOSTROM Department of Philosophy, Oxford University

If you can find RAZ providing an explicit example of something that is "detectable but not in an empirical manner" then do feel free to provide it. But I doubt you will find one.Let's have some more of Percy's highly insightful prediction: Message 114

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

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.......

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.

Actually it is based on your inability to give a single example of a supernatural entity that conceivably could actually exist despite repeated requests to do so.So just give me an example of a supernatural entity whose actual existence you do not consider to be mathematically impossible.Once we have an example we'll discuss your anal Emma with respect to that example.Because so far all the indications are that you are using some sort of private definitions of words like "exist" and "supernatural" that make the actual existence of such a thing impossible. And we need to get past that before doing anything else.

Well how could it possibly be otherwise?I can conceive of ways it could be otherwise. It could be that some immaterial entity is directly manipulating the brain of the experiencer to cause them to have such an experience. But what makes you think this sort of thing is possible? And if anyone is advocating this sort of thing they have (at least) two problems:1) How can something immaterial and empirically undetectable interact with a material brain? (i.e. the mind body problem by any other name)2) If we are positing direct manipulation of the brain by supernatural entities then why not consider all or any experience to be caused by such? The whole of perceived reality could be caused by such? Why just "religious" experiences?So Xongsmith - If you think it could possibly be otherwise explain how. RAZ obviously can't.

Why would the Matrix be supernatural? Yes lots of people have claimed the phenomena. But what do their beliefs have to do with establishing the actual cause of that phenomena? You keep telling me about your beliefs if that is what you mean. And it is true that I no more take your "word" with regard to your beliefs than you take the word of Hindus or scientologists or Moslems etc.Why should I? You want questions? OK. Why do you think RAZ won't give a straight answer to questions such as the following: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? I'm sure bluegenes will be happy to discuss the matrix with you if you ask him nicely.

However you phrase it you are up against the mind body problem.Until you solve the seemingly philosophically insurmountable problem problem of how entities which are "detectable but not in an empirical manner" can possibly interact with physical human brains how on Earth can any suggestion that such experiences are likely to be caused by anything external to the physical brain make any sense? It has nothing to do with "ALL A are B" blah blah.I am simply asking why it is that some experiences are being cited as being caused by supernatural entities whilst others aren't.What is the basis for the distinction?

Xongsmith you are playing a game of atheism by definitions.If you define existence in terms of what has been peer reviewed and define supernatural in terms of what hasn't been peer reviewed then obviously it becomes logically impossible for anything genuinely supernatural to actually exist.Hence your ongoing inability to give me an example of a supernatural entity whose actual existence you do not consider to be mathematically impossible without contradicting yourself.So prove me wrong - Give me an example of a supernatural entity whose actual existence is not mathematically impossible.Or show us how you have concluded a degree of certainty about such things that equates to the mathematical impossibility of 1=0

I'm still fascinated as to the basis upon which you special plead "religious" experiences as warranting supernatural explanations but not other subjective experiences.If you can't tell if there is a supernatural presence\beings then how can you tell if mundane dream experiences are caused by them or not?If you can't tell if there is a supernatural presence\beings then how can you tell if sexual fantasy experiences are caused by them or not?What basis is there to conclude that some subjective experiences are caused by supernatural entities whilst others aren't. How are you making the distinction?Or are ALL subjective experiences potentially evidence of the supernatural?