Regarding Franko...

[PixyMisa]

The purported site claiming to be Nobeliefs.com appears to be a site that tries to dedicate itself to attempts at positions that may or may not resemble freethought (whatever that may be). It - if indeed there is such a thing - allegedly tries to provide supposed forum-like functionality for hypothetical individuals to supposedly discuss possible damage potentially caused by confusing (or otherwise correlating or miscorrelating) a perceived belief system with the alleged truth, not that there is necessarily any objective truth, alleged or otherwise.

Or not.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Pixie, you are my champion of rational thinking!

 

[Martin]

So long as someone is observing it. You have heard of the double slit experiment – haven’t you?

If no one is watching, the results are totally different then when someone is watching

Only if you refer to inanimate objects as 'someone'.

 

[thaiboxerken]

So long as someone is observing it. You have heard of the double slit experiment – haven’t you?

Yep, and as I understood it the results are inconclusive.


No junior-mint … my logic is fine. But your ability to go out of your way to almost deliberately misunderstand what another person is saying is quite extraordinary – someone, somewhere is undoubtedly very proud.

Your "i know you are but what am i game" is childish. It's apparent to the majority here that you are the one that goes out of his way to twist meaning, refuse to understand and fabricate evidence.

 

[thaiboxerken]

I find it rather insane that Franko quotes experiments in the Uncertainy Principle and yet he calls the principle "magic". This is just another illustration of how dishonest Franko is.

 

[Martin]

The purported site claiming to be Nobeliefs.com appears to be a site that tries to dedicate itself to attempts at positions that may or may not resemble freethought (whatever that may be). It - if indeed there is such a thing - allegedly tries to provide supposed forum-like functionality for hypothetical individuals to supposedly discuss possible damage potentially caused by confusing (or otherwise correlating or miscorrelating) a perceived belief system with the alleged truth, not that there is necessarily any objective truth, alleged or otherwise.

Or not.

You know, you can express precisely the same information in my language, M-Prime. Roughly translated, the above comes out as 'MMMOOOOO'. Actually, that's pretty much what everything comes out as in M-Prime. So it's fairly easy to learn, and just as effective as E-Prime.

Needless to say, I learned this fascinating language by studying Lucianarchy's rudimentary attempts at English.

 

[Interesting Ian]

My position is falsifiable. I say, without equivocation, that telepathy does not happen. All you have to do is demonstrate telepathy, and my position falls apart. I am undone.

And yet, this has not happened.

Your position is not falsifiable, or at least it would only be falsifiable if we lived in a Universe where superpsi phenemona could be produced at whim. But of course we don't live in such a Universe.

With the alleged effects that are manifested the skeptic will always find one way or another to dismiss them. There are countless tactics here at the "skeptics" disposal.

 

[PixyMisa]

I had an Uncle who told me that his cat talked to him, too. But much like you, he never gave me any reason to believe it was true.
[/B]

What did the cat say about it?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Easy. We don't have any. We don't need any. Materialism works.

Materialism works? I'm afraid materialism doesn't do anything. It is a wholly superfluous metaphysic, and moreover is quite clearly not even intelligible.

 

[PixyMisa]

Your position is not falsifiable, or at least it would only be falsifiable if we lived in a Universe where superpsi phenemona could be produced at whim.

My position is falsifiable in a universe where telepathy exists. All you need to do is demonstrate telepathy.

But of course we don't live in such a Universe.

Well, how about that.

With the alleged effects that are manifested the skeptic will always find one way or another to dismiss them. There are countless tactics here at the "skeptics" disposal.

Tactics like demanding evidence?
Tactics like using valid experimental controls?
Tactics like not allowing the subjects to cheat?

Those sorts of tactics?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Interesting Ian
Consciousness needs a source? Care to justify that thesis?

Pix
Clearly this is wrong. One can always subscribe to the Philosophy of Intellectual Defeatism, abandon learning, and assume what you once tried to understand. [/B]

Huh?? What on earth are you babbling on about? Why should consciousness have a source? Does the Universe have a source?

 

[PixyMisa]

Materialism works? I'm afraid materialism doesn't do anything. It is a wholly superfluous metaphysic, and moreover is quite clearly not even intelligible.

Really?

Materialism says the Universe is what it appears to be.

We build Science on this foundation, and we travel to the moon.

Idealism says that the Universe is a dream. Believers flounder in the mire for all eternity or until they return to their senses, whichever comes first.

Dualism says that the Universe is what it appears to be, except for the bits we don't understand, which we'll just assume to exist independently because we're too lazy to bother to work them out. Believers sit on the beach and congratulate each other on their cleverness until they all die because they've forgotten to eat anything.

Dualogical Squirrelism says that everything except acorns exists as thoughts in the mind of a pair of giant blue squirrels named Bip and Bop, who live in an oak tree on the planet Ookpik 5 under the care of Old Man Mud. It is more successful than Idealism or Dualism because it at least gets the acorns right. Plus the squirrels are cute.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Your position is not falsifiable, or at least it would only be falsifiable if we lived in a Universe where superpsi phenemona could be produced at whim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


My position is falsifiable in a universe where telepathy exists. All you need to do is demonstrate telepathy.

But due to the fact that psi effects cannot be reproduced on demand, the overall statistical significance of experimental data might be sufficiently low for "skeptics" to dismiss such results as being due to unknown artifacts of one sort or another, or fraud, or sloppy experimental protocol etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
But of course we don't live in such a Universe.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, how about that.

You think that a Universe with either a low level of paranormal phenomena oir where it is wholly absent is somehow a priori more likely than a Universe where such phenomena is more prevalent and can be produced at will? Well well, that's interesting. Love to hear your reasoning here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

With the alleged effects that are manifested the skeptic will always find one way or another to dismiss them. There are countless tactics here at the "skeptics" disposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Tactics like demanding evidence?
Tactics like using valid experimental controls?
Tactics like not allowing the subjects to cheat?

Those sorts of tactics?

No. Of course as a preliminary he use these "tactics". If they work then great. If not he will resort to dishonest tactics.

 

[PixyMisa]

Huh?? What on earth are you babbling on about? Why should consciousness have a source?

Clearly, unless you simply assume its existence, it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.

Does the Universe have a source?

Clearly, unless you simply assume its existence, it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.

 

[Martin]

No. Of course as a preliminary he use these "tactics". If they work then great. If not he will resort to dishonest tactics.

Creationists use dishonest tactics to defend their 'theories'. Doesn't make them any less falsifiable, nor any less false. Produce a scientific demonstration of telepathy and the statement 'telepathy does not exist' is falsified, whether or not those who make it accept this.

 

[PixyMisa]

But due to the fact that psi effects cannot be reproduced on demand

Or indeed do not exist at all.

the overall statistical significance of experimental data might be sufficiently low for "skeptics" to dismiss such results as being due to unknown artifacts of one sort or another, or fraud, or sloppy experimental protocol etc.

And indeed it is likely that the results are due to any or all of these.

You think that a Universe with either a low level of paranormal phenomena oir where it is wholly absent is somehow a priori more likely than a Universe where such phenomena is more prevalent and can be produced at will?

No.

Well well, that's interesting. Love to hear your reasoning here.

I'd be interested too, if you could find someone who believed this.

No. Of course as a preliminary he use these "tactics". If they work then great. If not he will resort to dishonest tactics.

And you will resort to baseless accusations.

Ian, face it: no claim of the paranormal has ever been borne out in a properly conducted test. There's no need for the skeptics to cheat. The claimed powers just don't work.

 

[Interesting Ian]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Materialism works? I'm afraid materialism doesn't do anything. It is a wholly superfluous metaphysic, and moreover is quite clearly not even intelligible.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Really?

Yes.

Materialism says the Universe is what it appears to be.

No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe. Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality which in some mysterious manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions. Morover they hold that phenomenal consciousness is one and the same thing or reducible to particular physical processes.

We build Science on this foundation, and we travel to the moon.

No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.

Idealism says that the Universe is a dream.

It most certainly does not. As empirical reality is equated with our very sensory perceptions, then by definition the Universe is what it appears to be. Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?

Believers flounder in the mire for all eternity or until they return to their senses, whichever comes first.

Believers in what? Materialism?

Dualism says that the Universe is what it appears to be, except for the bits we don't understand, which we'll just assume to exist independently because we're too lazy to bother to work them out. Believers sit on the beach and congratulate each other on their cleverness until they all die because they've forgotten to eat anything.

Er . . yeah.

Dualogical Squirrelism says that everything except acorns exists as thoughts in the mind of a pair of giant blue squirrels named Bip and Bop, who live in an oak tree on the planet Ookpik 5 under the care of Old Man Mud. It is more successful than Idealism or Dualism because it at least gets the acorns right. Plus the squirrels are cute.

You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?

 

[Martin]

You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?

Oh, don't go Franko on us, Ian.



Besides...Dualogical Squirrelism...hrmm...kinda has a ring to it. Might have to rethink this whole Physicalist thing.

Hello, I'm an agnostic atheist compatabilist dualogical squirrelist? I can pull that off...

 

[Interesting Ian]

Clearly, unless you simply assume its existence,

So why can't we just do that? Treat consciousness as a basic ontological existent. Or if you're not entirely happy about that say the source is from "God" or the infinite ultimate reality or whatever.

it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.

Don't worry, I won't. I won't ever expect an answer. Consciousness is not in principle susceptible to a scientific explanation.

Clearly, unless you simply assume its (ie the Universe) existence, it must have a source. We are currently not sure exactly how this works. We are working on the problem. Do not expect an answer soon.

No the Universe need not have a source. There is nothing inherently absurd about it acausally springing into being without reason or rhyme.

 

[PixyMisa]

No it doesn't. This is what idealism holds, at least for the "physical" Universe.

Idealism holds that objects are perceptions. That's not what the Universe appears to be. It's backwards.

I see a tree. It appears to be a tree. It does not appear to be the perception of a tree, which is another thing entirely.

Materialists advocate a wholly unknowable reality

- which follows consistent rules and can be consistently observed by independent consicousnesses -

which in some mysterious

- or not mysterious -

manner gives rise to our sensory perceptions.

In other words, the Universe is what it appears to be.

Morover they hold that phenomenal consciousness is one and the same thing or reducible to particular physical processes.

Yes. "One and the same thing" sounds kind of odd to me, but I'll certainly grant you reducible.

No we don't. In no shape or manner does science require materialism. If anything subjective idealism is more consistant with science.

Subjective idealism denies objective reality. There is no reason for there to be physical laws, or indeed any coherent pattern. Science doesn't work very well in this situation.

It most certainly does not. As empirical reality is equated with our very sensory perceptions

That's idealism, yes.

then by definition the Universe is what it appears to be.

By the definition of idealism. You've already assumed that.

Saying it's a dream is meaningless. What is meant by describing it as a dream?

Subjective "reality". A dream is about the closest single word in our language

Believers in what? Materialism?

Idealism.

Er . . yeah.

Heh. Tough luck for the dualists.

You really are utterly clueless aren't you Pixiepants?

Have you caught an infection from Franko?