PWQs

[c0rbin]

Some delights from this thread...

Or, I suppose you could just say POOF ! the nonphysical thing does the physical things.
---------------------------------------------------------------
What's wrong with that?

When that happens, let me know. Or, when that has ever happened in the history of human kind, let me know as well, please.


And...

But why don't you think they are genuinely experiencing God?

This sort of thing is interesting to say to philosophy students or dates you want to impress with small talk about deep thing, but really, where does this get any of us?

What is the practical application of any of this discussion?

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

What is the practical application of any of this discussion?

That was my original point. And even more, apart that there are no practical application for this, there is no way on earth to decide if what we are talking about is true or not.

 

[Interesting Ian]

But why don't you think they are genuinely experiencing God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Because of parsimony.

{Shrugs} Materialists just define explanations consonant with materialism as always being more simple. Thus the assertion that it is more parsimonious is essentially vacuous unless you provide independent reasons. Let's see if you do.

1.- ECG and CAT show that mystical experiences by yogis and other mystics (excuse the redundance) are produced AFTER some changes in the electrical and chemical activity of the brain.

Yes, so what? So the brain needs to be in a certain physical condition before a mystical union with God can be obtained.

2.-Those changes, when replicated in test subjects using TMS show the same "god experience".

Excellent. Pity it can't be obtained after a pint of lager. Still no evidence.

3.- Some subjects can trigger those changes at will, having the same experience.

Interesting. Doesn't give evidence that the experience originates from the brain though.

To produce the experience ther was no necessity of introducing any god,

God isn't needed? But this presupposes that you are correct and the experience wholly originates from the brain. I still don't see what's wrong with the alternative explanation that the brain needs to be in a particular state before access to God can be acheived.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

{Shrugs} Materialists just define explanations consonant with materialism as always being more simple. Thus the assertion that it is more parsimonious is essentially vacuous unless you provide independent reasons. Let's see if you do.



Yes, so what? So the brain needs to be in a certain physical condition before a mystical union with God can be obtained.



Excellent. Pity it can't be obtained after a pint of lager. Still no evidence.



Interesting. Doesn't give evidence that the experience originates from the brain though.


God isn't needed? But this presupposes that you are correct and the experience wholly originates from the brain. I still don't see what's wrong with the alternative explanation that the brain needs to be in a particular state before access to God can be acheived.

You amaze me II. You acusse me of presuppose that I'm correct, but I'm only taking into account the registered FACTS. OTOH, you presuppose a god, make an argument using that premise and THAT makes my parsimonious explanation vacuous!

Please, read your post again carefully.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Does anybody else here notice a remarkable double standard in Ian's evaluation of "evidence"?

Whenever people comment on the lack of evidence for things Ian believes in, like NDEs, God, Psi, etc..., he complains that the scientific standard of evidence (extensive testing of a falsifiable theory) is too stringent. Instead, demonstrably unreliable things like anecdotal evidence, intuition, and subjective interpretation of personal experiences, should be accepted.

But when he asks for evidence supporting the scientific theories that contradict his beliefs, suddenly the scientific standard of evidence is not strict enough! Indeed, nothing short of absolute falsification of his own hypothesis will suffice. The is especially convenient (for him), because his own hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

The hypothesis that these "mystical experiences" are some sort of communication with God, is unfalsifiable. The hypothesis that no agency outside of the brain (God or otherwise) is involved, is falsifiable, and has been extensively tested. Those are the facts.

This is not specific to the question of consciousness either. One can always postulate that there is something more to any observed phenomena than just what is empirically determinable. But what's the point?

I offer once again the fact that we are currently unable to deduce the rules of Chemistry from the laws of physics. Does this imply that there is more to chemical reactions than just physical interactions? Is there any reason to postulate a metaphysical influence there? If not, why not? How is this any different from what is being done with respect to the mind?

Dr. Stupid

 

[c0rbin]

So the brain needs to be in a certain physical condition before a mystical union with God can be obtained.

Have you had such an expirience? How do you know it was God?

Why do I bother asking when I am willing to bet that a strait-forward answer will not be forth-coming?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Does anybody else here notice a remarkable double standard in Ian's evaluation of "evidence"?

Well I'm sure they would like to, unfortunately they most likely will have been or be disappointed. Or if they do detect a double standard that doesn't say much for their thinking ability.

Whenever people comment on the lack of evidence for things Ian believes in, like NDEs, God, Psi, etc..., he complains that the scientific standard of evidence (extensive testing of a falsifiable theory) is too stringent.

You're a liar. Name anywhere where I have stated this. Otherwise retract your statement and apologise. Why on earth should I hold the position that the scientific standard of evidence is too stringent?? Scientific evidence necessarily needs to be stringent. What you seem to be unable to get through to your head is that certain phenomena are really not amenable to a scientific investigation. What is it about the physical facts of the world which could possibly make you come to the conclusion that a God exists, or indeed a God doesn't exist? What is it about the physical facts of the world which could possibly make you come to a conclusion that there is a life after death, or indeed there is no life after death?? Science deals with the empirical realm, not otherworldly realities. Why the f*ck are you unable to understand the most elementary things??

Instead, demonstrably unreliable things like anecdotal evidence, intuition, and subjective interpretation of personal experiences, should be accepted.

All pertinent information should be taken appropriate notice of, whether it be suggestive of the existence of some phenomenon, or suggestive of its non-existence. The reliability or unreliability of the evidence, and to what extent we might judge its reliability or unreliability, is all taken into consideration to reach the most rational conclusion warrented by this evidence. I have stated on many occasions why the overall evidence and reasons compel a rational person to adopt the beliefs that I have.

But when he asks for evidence supporting the scientific theories that contradict his beliefs, suddenly the scientific standard of evidence is not strict enough! Indeed, nothing short of absolute falsification of his own hypothesis will suffice. The is especially convenient (for him), because his own hypothesis is unfalsifiable.

Metaphysical hypotheses generally are. This includes your own precious materialism. At least my theistic subjective idealism actually makes sense of the world.

Now I am a tad tired of your stupidities. Go get yourself a clue about elementary reasoning before attacking my position. I've had enough of your stupidities to be quite frank.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Ian said:

All pertinent information should be taken appropriate notice of, whether it be suggestive of the existence of some phenomenon, or suggestive of its non-existence. The reliability or unreliability of the evidence, and to what extent we might judge its reliability or unreliability, is all taken into consideration to reach the most rational conclusion warrented by this evidence. I have stated on many occasions why the overall evidence and reasons compel a rational person to adopt the beliefs that I have.

There is no way to take the reliability of anecdotes into consideration, because you do not know which anecdotes are true, if any.

~~ Paul

 

[Interesting Ian]

Ian said:
There is no way to take the reliability of anecdotes into consideration, because you do not know which anecdotes are true, if any.

~~ Paul

Indeed it is extremely difficulty to assess the reliability of various anecdotes. But you know, that's just the way things are. I never said it was easy to reach a rational decision on the ultimate nature of the world. But persuing the rational path is better than having a silly arbitrary faith in materialism, and petulantly demanding to anyone who expresses doubts as to its correctness, that they prove it is false!

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It's not that anecdote analysis is difficult, it's impossible. It is irrational to think that you can ponder a bunch of stories about NDEs, god visitations, OBEs, and ghosts and determine which ones are true. Give me an example of how it could possibly work. Does the story with the most votes win?

~~ Paul

 

[Loki]

Stimpy,

Does anybody else here notice a remarkable double standard in Ian's evaluation of "evidence"?

Sorry, but I disagree - I see no inconsistency in Ian's approach to "evidence". He clearly seems to be able to differentiate between 'hard/scientific/objective' evidence and 'soft/anecdotal/subjective' evidence.

If the 'hard' evidence seems to point towards a 'natural' conclusion (ie, consciousness arises from the brain), then he ignores it.

If there is no 'hard' evidence to support a paranormal claim (ie, ghosts, for example), but some amount of 'soft' evidence then he feels the claim is probably proven.

The presence, or even absence, of hard evidence = "meaningless"

The presence, or even absence, of soft evidence = "meaningful".

Very consistent.

 

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Ian,

Whenever people comment on the lack of evidence for things Ian believes in, like NDEs, God, Psi, etc..., he complains that the scientific standard of evidence (extensive testing of a falsifiable theory) is too stringent.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You're a liar. Name anywhere where I have stated this. Otherwise retract your statement and apologise.

I am not lying. You have repeatedly claimed that things like anecdotal evidence, intuition, and subjective experiences, should be accepted as evidence in support of things you believe in.

Why on earth should I hold the position that the scientific standard of evidence is too stringent?? Scientific evidence necessarily needs to be stringent. What you seem to be unable to get through to your head is that certain phenomena are really not amenable to a scientific investigation.

Says who? Who decides? And once you determine that a specific phenomenon is not amenable to scientific investigation, why does this imply that you should allow less stringent evidence?

What is it about the physical facts of the world which could possibly make you come to the conclusion that a God exists, or indeed a God doesn't exist?

Nothing that I know of, hence the claim that there is no evidence.

What is it about the physical facts of the world which could possibly make you come to a conclusion that there is a life after death, or indeed there is no life after death??

That depends on what you mean by life after death.

Science deals with the empirical realm, not otherworldly realities. Why the f*ck are you unable to understand the most elementary things??

What does any of this have to do with what I said? The fact remains that when it comes to these "otherworldly realities" you are happy to accept unreliable evidence, but when it comes to entirely scientific claims which happen to dispute your beliefs, you will not accept even scientific evidence as being sufficient.

Instead, demonstrably unreliable things like anecdotal evidence, intuition, and subjective interpretation of personal experiences, should be accepted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All pertinent information should be taken appropriate notice of, whether it be suggestive of the existence of some phenomenon, or suggestive of its non-existence. The reliability or unreliability of the evidence, and to what extent we might judge its reliability or unreliability, is all taken into consideration to reach the most rational conclusion warrented by this evidence. I have stated on many occasions why the overall evidence and reasons compel a rational person to adopt the beliefs that I have.

Unfortunately, what you don't seem to understand is that if the evidence is unreliable, then the appropriate way to take consideration of it, is to disregard it. Reliable conclusions cannot be drawn from unreliable evidence!

But when he asks for evidence supporting the scientific theories that contradict his beliefs, suddenly the scientific standard of evidence is not strict enough! Indeed, nothing short of absolute falsification of his own hypothesis will suffice. The is especially convenient (for him), because his own hypothesis is unfalsifiable.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Metaphysical hypotheses generally are. This includes your own precious materialism.

No, it doesn't.

At least my theistic subjective idealism actually makes sense of the world.

It makes no sense at all. It is not only unsupported by any evidence, but like all metaphysical beliefs, it is fundamentally incoherent.

Now I am a tad tired of your stupidities. Go get yourself a clue about elementary reasoning before attacking my position. I've had enough of your stupidities to be quite frank.

Call me stupid all you want. That doesn't render my argument any less valid, or my statements any less true.

Dr. Stupid

 

[Guest]

That was my original point. And even more, apart that there are no practical application for this, there is no way on earth to decide if what we are talking about is true or not.

Not from the POV of an objective intellect maybe, certainly not from the POV of matter and science. But maybe the yogi genuinely knows something you don't. Maybe, from the subjective POV of the person experiencing 'mystical Union' it is something they cannot doubt, simply because of the direct knowledge imparted by the experience. You have no way of either affirming the relevance of this and you have no way of discounting it either. You cannot say for sure that the Yogi does not know something you don't. In Western lingo the Yogi achieves direct Union with the 'mind of God'. I know you don't believe that such a thing can happen - but if it did happen, and it happened to you, it is quite conceivable that you would be left with no choice but to accept it.

Until you stand at the top of Everest you can never know what it feels like to stand at the top of Everest.

Paul :

There is no way to take the reliability of anecdotes into consideration, because you do not know which anecdotes are true, if any.

True. Therefore if you want to know these answers you have to go and get them yourself.

It's not that anecdote analysis is difficult, it's impossible. It is irrational to think that you can ponder a bunch of stories about NDEs, god visitations, OBEs, and ghosts and determine which ones are true. Give me an example of how it could possibly work. Does the story with the most votes win?

No. We must take into account all the information available. By that I mean we must take what we have learned from science, and the mysteries we have trouble understanding. We must think about what we have learned from 18 months discussing the difficulties regarding materialism and consciousness (instead of digging our heels in and pretending these difficulties don't really exist), and we must examine the long and rich history of religion and philosophy and see if any of the recurring themes in this history fit into the picture created by our understandings of science and philosophy. In short we must spread out all the pieces of our jigsaw and try to grasp the bigger picture, instead of just categorising the pieces and hoping to find the answer by analysing each piece on its own.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

UcE said:

No. We must take into account all the information available. By that I mean we must take what we have learned from science, and the mysteries we have trouble understanding. We must think about what we have learned from 18 months discussing the difficulties regarding materialism and consciousness (instead of digging our heels in and pretending these difficulties don't really exist), and we must examine the long and rich history of religion and philosophy and see if any of the recurring themes in this history fit into the picture created by our understandings of science and philosophy. In short we must spread out all the pieces of our jigsaw and try to grasp the bigger picture, instead of just categorising the pieces and hoping to find the answer by analysing each piece on its own.

This is a fine and possibly profitable intellectual exercise, but when you are done you have a pastiche of scientific and philosophical ideas, with no way of knowing whether some of the ideas are nothing more than fanciful daydreams. You may adopt the resulting potpourri as your own philosophy, but that does not mean that it is in any sense the "correct" metaphysics.

~~ Paul

 

[c0rbin]

Science deals with the empirical realm, not otherworldly realities. Why the f*ck are you unable to understand the most elementary things??

Why get angry about it, or call people stupid? Seems a little more meditation might be in order.

How does any of this metaphysics further the plight of man (beyond paying the salary of philosophy professors?

 

[Guest]

UcE said:
This is a fine and possibly profitable intellectual exercise, but when you are done you have a pastiche of scientific and philosophical ideas, with no way of knowing whether some of the ideas are nothing more than fanciful daydreams. You may adopt the resulting potpourri as your own philosophy, but that does not mean that it is in any sense the "correct" metaphysics.

~~ Paul

Well, that rather depends on what sort of picture emerges. There is a tendency in some circles round here to assume various things which aren't neccesarily true - e.g. that all religions are equally meaningless and equally wrong, that all metaphysics are equally meaningless and equally wrong, that nobody actually experiences any sort of paranormal phenomena, that the laws of reality work the same for everybody and do not depend on belief or expectation, and, basically, that there is no "bigger picture" to be found. I get the impression you are more of a fence-sitter, at least on some of the above issues.

What I am trying to say is that it is my opinion that what would result from such an investigation is not a potpourri at all, but rather a few rather profound inevitabilities which have been continually re-interpreted in different ways and different times for different sorts of ears. Rather than a pot-pourri we find the same ideas represented in many different ways. We need to look through the surface and try to find the common threads that lie beneath.

There has been a great resistance to this from the 'skeptics' on this board. There has been a tendency to argue that everything outside science is meaningless, and therefore of no interest. Certainly with regard to mysticism, most of its detractors understand either very little or not at all (except Franko who is a special case). IMO if those people actually took a little bit of time to investigate it a little more closely they may find reasons to change their outlook. But its safer to argue it is meaningless from the useful vantage point of knowing nothing whatsoever about it.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Not from the POV of an objective intellect maybe, certainly not from the POV of matter and science. But maybe the yogi genuinely knows something you don't. Maybe, from the subjective POV of the person experiencing 'mystical Union' it is something they cannot doubt, simply because of the direct knowledge imparted by the experience. You have no way of either affirming the relevance of this and you have no way of discounting it either. You cannot say for sure that the Yogi does not know something you don't. In Western lingo the Yogi achieves direct Union with the 'mind of God'. I know you don't believe that such a thing can happen - but if it did happen, and it happened to you, it is quite conceivable that you would be left with no choice but to accept it.

Until you stand at the top of Everest you can never know what it feels like to stand at the top of Everest.

So, you agree with me. There is no way to know is the experience is true? I'm sorry but I changed my mind.

If
1.- The yogi agrees that he experiences the same in his mystical state of meditatios and during the TMS estimulation

and

2.- CAT and EEG shows the same configuration during both experiences.

I can say objetively that the experience in both cases is the same. And if I was stimulated using TMS and my CAT and EEG are the same as the yogi, I can say OBJETIVELY that I had the same SUBJETIVE experience.

So, your point is not valid Mr. UCE

 

[Guest]

Luci

When I said "There is no way for YOU to know if the yogi is experiencing Union with the Metamind" I meant YOU, not the Yogi. The Yogi knows what he is experiencing.

So, you agree with me. There is no way to know is the experience is true?

Did you actually read my post?

"There is no way to know the experience is true" just muddles everything up again. No way for YOU to know? No way for the Yogi to know? No way for objective science to know? Please avoid "No way to know". No way for WHO?

If
1.- The yogi agrees that he experiences the same in his mystical state of meditatios and during the TMS estimulation

and

2.- CAT and EEG shows the same configuration during both experiences.

I can say objetively that the experience in both cases is the same.

No you can't. You don't even know whether the brain acts as a 'generator' of conscious experiences or a 'transmitter/receiver' of conscious experiences.

And if I was stimulated using TMS and my CAT and EEG are the same as the yogi, I can say OBJETIVELY that I had the same SUBJETIVE experience.

All you can say objectively is that your CAT and EEG were the same as the Yogi. You can NEVER know objectively what was going on in the subjective realm of the mind of the Yogi.

 

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Luci

When I said "There is no way for YOU to know if the yogi is experiencing Union with the Metamind" I meant YOU, not the Yogi. The Yogi knows what he is experiencing.

And when the yogi claims that both experiences are the same (TMS and "metamind"), it follows that both are the same.

Did you actually read my post?

That`s why I answered it.

"There is no way to know the experience is true" just muddles everything up again. No way for YOU to know? No way for the Yogi to know? No way for objective science to know? Please avoid "No way to know". No way for WHO?

As far as the yogui can claim that his experience is the same, we all can know if it is the same.

No you can't. You don't even know whether the brain acts as a 'generator' of conscious experiences or a 'transmitter/receiver' of conscious experiences.

If I use parsimony, I can say that the brain produces it. If I want to imagine any sort of external entity and disregard the fact that stimulation of the EMF field of the brain produces the experience then I'm screwed .

All you can say objectively is that your CAT and EEG were the same as the Yogi. You can NEVER know objectively what was going on in the subjective realm of the mind of the Yogi.

This time I have to agree and that is because we don't have yet a technology that can read the exact electrical charge AND chemical composition of a parte of a LIVE brain. We have gross aproximations...of course and we are making it better every year.

But when we have the complte picture of the brain, if my description of the subjetive experience is the same as the other person and my brain state is the same, I'd say that we had the same subjetive experience, objetively.

 

[Guest]

Luci

We may be talking at cross-purposes here - I jumped in having missed a couple of days posts. All I am saying is this : If the Yogi experiences the Unity of his own consciousness with all other consciousness - if his consciousness fuses with the Metamind - then all of the scientists running around with probes aren't going to be able to know what the Yogi knows. But the Yogi himself will have no doubt what he is experiencing, based on the fact that he has becomes joined with Beingness itself - he has BECOME Everything. And this is what mystics have claimed throughout the centuries. Such an experience is difficult to mistake, no? You can lie about it I suppose, but if it actually happened to you there wouldn't be much room for doubt, would there?