• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

A Truther challenge to the skeptics

Blue_Sargasso

Student
B
Joined
Jun 7, 2008
Messages
26
So, you all think David Icke is crazy when he says that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards. Consider the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As you know, Kant proposed the radical idea that the human mind is not a passive recipient of sensory data, but actively constructs a framework in which to understand the sensory input. In particular, the human mind, according to Kant, creates the concepts of space and time, cause and effect. The world as it exists in itself is called the noumenal world, while the world we perceive, the world of appearances, is the phenomenal world. Kant referred to this insight as another Copernican revolution.

Just to be clear...Kant is asserting that, in all probability, space and time, cause and effect do not exist anywhere outside of our human minds. All of the results of science can be true in relation to the phenomenal world in which we operate, but none of those results may apply in the noumenal world. In other words, science may be nothing more than an exploration of the simulation rules built into the human mind rather than an exploration of any sort of external reality. Think about the movie The Matrix. Scientists within the simulated world of the Matrix could be making the most wondrous discoveries - finding the cure for cancer and such like - and yet the whole thing would be an illusion because human beings, according to the movie, are actually living in a completely separate reality where they are used as living batteries to power a computer world.

David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix: they can create a reality that allows them to manipulate humans at will. "Mr Smith" in the Matrix would be something akin to one of Icke's lizards. We see him as human, but, every now and again, he would do something that would demonstrate that he had far greater powers than any human. Icke thinks that every now and again the reptiles' masks slip and we see the horrific underlying reality. All of Icke's ideas are reflected in The Matrix, except, for him, lizard-like creatures replace computers as our secret masters. It may be exceptionally improbable, but it's not insane, as many of Icke's detractors claim.

Now, while all of this is all incredibly far-fetched, it is nevertheless impossible to refute Kant. How can a human being ever know what it is like to see the world as a non-human? We can never escape the way our minds are configured, meaning, as Kant realised, that we can never have the vaguest idea of what external reality, the noumenal universe, is truly like. Any claims that we can must surely be met with the utmost skepticism. I am a scientist but I take a strictly instrumentalist approach to science: it is a useful tool that leads to useful things, and a coherent and meaningful way of understanding human experience. However, I am definitely not a scientific realist...I don't believe that science describes 'reality'. I would be in a position to say that science does describe reality only if I were able to consider the universe from some entirely mind-neutral stance - which is impossible. Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk we couldn't understand it. His point, it seems, is that a lion's mind may operate entirely differently from ours. There may be no common ground at all. Imagine one human being trying to communicate with another who had taken a very strong LSD pill. It would be a struggle to say the least! LSD massively distorts human perception of space and time. Maybe it's giving us a glimpse of the Kantian noumenal universe.

And, finally, consider evolutionary theory. Isn't it peculiar that evolution has produced human minds that, in the majority of cases, do not believe in evolutionary theory?! That's the problem with evolution of course. It is on the side of what works in terms of sexual reproduction, not on the side of what is true. There are far more religious believers in the world than non-believers. Assuming that God does not exist and is nothing but a human fantasy then that means that evolution has produced minds that declare unswerving devotion to mass hallucinations and delusions. These minds have proved massively more successful in the gene pool than the more sober minds of scientists. For every scientifically-minded, skeptical person in the world there must be at least ten people who are the complete opposite and who believe in any old nonsense. But since we 'intellectuals' are part of the same gene pool as the credulous masses, how can we be so sure of our own ability to resist delusion? After all, there's very little in genetic terms to separate the brain/mind of a skeptic from the brain/mind of a Truther. And how can we be confident of proclaiming the truth about anything when our minds clearly didn't evolve with the truth as a primary criterion?

I'm not a Truther by the way. I just made that up. Isn't that a worry too...that humans have such a propensity for lying. How do we know that we're not continually lying to ourselves as well as to others?

"What, ultimately, are man's truths? Merely his irrefutable errors." Nietzsche.
 
With his defense of David Icke's Reptalian Overlords,whatever credibility Blue Sargasso has vanished.
Everytime somebody runs this "We can know nothing about anything" crap, assume he is trying to put one over on you,and wants to get rid of that nasty thing called proof.
 
Farewell to Reason

Blue_Sargasso said:
So, you all think David Icke is crazy when he says that many prominent members of our society are actually lizards. Consider the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. As you know, Kant proposed the radical idea that the human mind is not a passive recipient of sensory data, but actively constructs a framework in which to understand the sensory input. In particular, the human mind, according to Kant, creates the concepts of space and time, cause and effect. The world as it exists in itself is called the noumenal world, while the world we perceive, the world of appearances, is the phenomenal world. Kant referred to this insight as another Copernican revolution.

Just to be clear...Kant is asserting that, in all probability, space and time, cause and effect do not exist anywhere outside of our human minds. All of the results of science can be true in relation to the phenomenal world in which we operate, but none of those results may apply in the noumenal world. In other words, science may be nothing more than an exploration of the simulation rules built into the human mind rather than an exploration of any sort of external reality. Think about the movie The Matrix. Scientists within the simulated world of the Matrix could be making the most wondrous discoveries - finding the cure for cancer and such like - and yet the whole thing would be an illusion because human beings, according to the movie, are actually living in a completely separate reality where they are used as living batteries to power a computer world.

David Icke's position is that creatures that understand the workings of the human mind are in the same position as the computers in the Matrix: they can create a reality that allows them to manipulate humans at will. "Mr Smith" in the Matrix would be something akin to one of Icke's lizards. We see him as human, but, every now and again, he would do something that would demonstrate that he had far greater powers than any human. Icke thinks that every now and again the reptiles' masks slip and we see the horrific underlying reality. All of Icke's ideas are reflected in The Matrix, except, for him, lizard-like creatures replace computers as our secret masters. It may be exceptionally improbable, but it's not insane, as many of Icke's detractors claim.

Now, while all of this is all incredibly far-fetched, it is nevertheless impossible to refute Kant. How can a human being ever know what it is like to see the world as a non-human? We can never escape the way our minds are configured, meaning, as Kant realised, that we can never have the vaguest idea of what external reality, the noumenal universe, is truly like. Any claims that we can must surely be met with the utmost skepticism. I am a scientist but I take a strictly instrumentalist approach to science: it is a useful tool that leads to useful things, and a coherent and meaningful way of understanding human experience. However, I am definitely not a scientific realist...I don't believe that science describes 'reality'. I would be in a position to say that science does describe reality only if I were able to consider the universe from some entirely mind-neutral stance - which is impossible. Wittgenstein famously said that if a lion could talk we couldn't understand it. His point, it seems, is that a lion's mind may operate entirely differently from ours. There may be no common ground at all. Imagine one human being trying to communicate with another who had taken a very strong LSD pill. It would be a struggle to say the least! LSD massively distorts human perception of space and time. Maybe it's giving us a glimpse of the Kantian noumenal universe.
Click to expand...



I’m surprised you rolled with Kant instead of Descartes. In any event, perhaps you can contribute to the “Poststructuralist conspiracy theories” thread.
 
Is it April 1st somewhere?
Do unicorns fly in the magic playland of Blue Sargasso?
 
Last edited:
Blue_Sargasso said:
And, finally, consider evolutionary theory. Isn't it peculiar that evolution has produced human minds that, in the majority of cases, do not believe in evolutionary theory?! That's the problem with evolution of course. It is on the side of what works in terms of sexual reproduction, not on the side of what is true. There are far more religious believers in the world than non-believers. Assuming that God does not exist and is nothing but a human fantasy then that means that evolution has produced minds that declare unswerving devotion to mass hallucinations and delusions. These minds have proved massively more successful in the gene pool than the more sober minds of scientists. For every scientifically-minded, skeptical person in the world there must be at least ten people who are the complete opposite and who believe in any old nonsense. But since we 'intellectuals' are part of the same gene pool as the credulous masses, how can we be so sure of our own ability to resist delusion? After all, there's very little in genetic terms to separate the brain/mind of a skeptic from the brain/mind of a Truther. And how can we be confident of proclaiming the truth about anything when our minds clearly didn't evolve with the truth as a primary criterion? I'm not a Truther by the way. I just made that up. Isn't that a worry too...that humans have such a propensity for lying. How do we know that we're not continually lying to ourselves as well as to others? "What, ultimately, are man's truths? Merely his irrefutable errors." Nietzsche.
Click to expand...


Incidentally, was this section written by someone else or pasted on as an afterthought?
 
Soon a sock will appear here and call Blue Sargasso a disinfo agent.
 
WildCat said:
Soon a sock will appear here and call Blue Sargasso a disinfo agent.
Click to expand...

I can think of a few other things to call him, but most would get me a stern warning, so I'll just point out that I have peanut butter that isn't as... well you get the point.
 
Blue_Sargasso, several points:

First, what, exactly, is the challenge?

Second, it's Icke's job to support his claims with evidence, not ours to refute unsupported claims. Unsupported claims are refuted by default.

Third, how do you know that Kant's analysis of human perception is correct? How do you know that Wittgenstein's analysis of Lions is correct? Doesn't your thesis actually undermine itself? If you're correct that fundamental truth is unknowable, then how can you possibly know the fundamental truth that fundamental truth is unknowable?

Fourth, if fundamental truth is unknowable, then it actually doesn't matter that it's unknowable. We can go right on behaving as if fundamental truth is knowable, and reasoning through our beliefs accordingly, and communicating with each other on that basis.

Fifth, indeed, we can only communicate on the basis of a shared agreement that fundamental truth is knowable. Your entire post is founded on the assumption that you and I agree that some truths--the existence of David Icke, the gist of his claims, the theories of Kant and Wittgenstein--are indeed knowable, and known to us both. In order for your post to have any meaning at all, we must assume that fundamental truth is knowable. In order for our conversation to have any meaning at all, we must agree to investigate the truth by certain means.

Sixth, and by those means, David Icke's ideas are unsupported and most likely untrue. Now, in a world of unknowable truths and meaningless phenomena--if the word "world" can even have meaning in such a context (and if very idea of "words" can have meaning, and if the idea of "meaning" can have meaning...)--in a world of meaninglessness, David Icke may very well be correct. But of course in such a world, "correctness" would have no meaning. Who would care?
 
Yes anybody who says that Boxcar Willie was a reptile, Satanist and a pedophile, is crazy. And he even claims that Kris Kristopherson is a reptile, Torturer and mind controller. So where is the proof? Icke claimed that Bob Hope was a reptile and a mind-controlled slave handler? :D
 
I really thought we'd lost the truthers who felt the Matrix was a profound and philosophical movie, after the sequels.

Blue, you had ten cents of new age philosophy dressed up in 90 million dollars of special effects, you then got 4 hours of nonsense that exposed the earlier film as window dressing, and some dreadful CGI.

Honestly Scientology is a better base for a cul.....



Pauses.

I need a few dozens JREFs who'll look good in black leather and latex, some urban centers for book shops, the rights to Keanu's image, and some kinda of pseudoscientific test that prays on the vulnerable.

Boys matrixology is going to make us rich, rich, rich.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom