Does anything exist?

[IanS]

I have had experiences of telepathy, and I know for a fact thoughts can be transmitted beyond the brain. On one occasion a friend of mine knew I was in trouble by ESP or telepathy, and he ran from his flat to mine to help me. How do you explain that?

If you could explain it in anything remotely approaching a way that could be independently investigated by objective science to confirm what you have said, then it would have been headline news all around the world long ago.

Sorry, but all the evidence is that it just did not happen. Not the way you have described it.

How do we know conclude that it could not happened? Answer - because all throughout human history, countless millions of people have told stories like that of the seemingly supernatural ... but wherever any of those claims have been open to independent objective examination, not a single one has ever turned out to be true. Nothing. Zero. ....

... millions of claims, 0% true (and whats more - no credible explanation from the claimants as to how it could have possibly been true). Above someone posted a reply that implicitly suggested all claims were equally likely ... but of course they are not!

Even when claims are said to have been “scientifically tested and confirmed”, you have to be very careful to look at who is saying that. Example – the Pope claims every year that various miracles have been tested by his independent panel of expert scientists … and the miracles have been “Proved” true! Real genuine miracles! Only problem is – the Popes claims and the claims of his scientific experts are of course 100% untrue nonsense.

And by the way (for others here) – I did not need, and nobody else here needed a course in philosophy of “Logic” to work that one out. We can do it perfectly well by ourselves thank you very much … in fact the evidence appears to show we can do it much better than the philosophers.

 

[Belz...]

Your first sentence (ANY claim of existence can be studied by science.) is patently false - you should review what 'science' means.

I know exactly what sicence means, and what it can do. I say again: anything that is claimed to exist can be tested for. That you don't like it that your beliefs are thus proven wrong is not my problem.

 

[LarryS]

I know exactly what sicence means, and what it can do. I say again: anything that is claimed to exist can be tested for. That you don't like it that your beliefs are thus proven wrong is not my problem.

When a scientist claims that anything exists, the certainty of that claim is fluid; over time, that certainty will likely increase or decrease, according to continued observations. But that claim is only true in a 'scientific sense' - claim is only true according to how it explains observations and successfully makes predictions. To extend any such claims beyond the observations is doing philosophy - and there's nothing wrong with that.
The above does not give me or you carte blanche to make any claims we want to, nor does it bad-mouth science - it simply describes how science works.

 

[Scorpion]

Sorry, but all the evidence is that it just did not happen. Not the way you have described it.

It is my position that I know, for a fact, that this experience I had of telepathy did occur. I am sure I am not mistaken. I did not imagine a friend bursting in to my room asking me if I was alright, because he sensed I was in trouble. He did, and all though I have lost touch with him now, and cannot ask him to confirm this event, it did happen
Therefore I know telepathy exists and pretty well all the people on this forum other than me are wrong.

 

[Belz...]

When a scientist claims that anything exists, the certainty of that claim is fluid; over time, that certainty will likely increase or decrease, according to continued observations.

Who cares? No claim is ever entirely certain, and certainly not in philosphy. So why even mention this?

But that claim is only true in a 'scientific sense' - claim is only true according to how it explains observations and successfully makes predictions.

I love how you're trying to imply that "true in the scientific sense" is somehow incomplete or less certain, when it's actually the MOST reliable and certain. You think philosophy offers more reliable results? Get out of here!

To extend any such claims beyond the observations is doing philosophy

Why would one do that? Observation is all we have when talking about reality.

Why do philosophy proponents want so much for there to be "something else" than the mundane? Grow up.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

We can't explain it. Not because "ZOMG TELEPATHY!!!!!" but because we have no first hand access to the events in question. We have no way of confirming that any of your recollections about the event are correct beyond the most basic details (not because you're a liar, but because human memory is just AWFUL) and no way to repeat the incident to exclude other possible alternative explanations.

We know you have, and yet you continually attempt to get us to accept things likeESP are real because of your experiences despite 1. These experiences you are claiming to have being literally some of the most common symptoms of untreated schizophrenia and 2. As I stated before even if this wasn't your illness we have no way of even verifying that your recollections are accurate let alone being able to exclude any other possibilities such as random chance or some other trick of the mind.

Both quoted for you Scorpion.

Also proclaiming to "know" ESP is real despite all evidence to the contrary, and therefore "knowing" everyone else is wrong speaks to supreme egotism. Just unfathomable levels of utterly baseless arrogance.

 

[Steve]

"I had a dream ...."

Sounds like Martin Luther King to me.

"I had a dream last night" also sounds like the lyrics in songs by:
- John Lee Hooker
- Buddy Guy
- Josh Ritter
- Jim Croce
- Taylor Swift
and numerous others.

 

[Scorpion]

Who cares? No claim is ever entirely certain, and certainly not in philosphy. So why even mention this?

I love how you're trying to imply that "true in the scientific sense" is somehow incomplete or less certain, when it's actually the MOST reliable and certain. You think philosophy offers more reliable results? Get out of here!
.

The history of philosophy is an astounding journey of human minds reaching out for understanding. The ancient Greeks invented atomic theories thousands of years before the atom was discovered

Why would one do that? Observation is all we have when talking about reality..

There you go using the word 'reality' when you have no idea what reality is.
You should do some philosophy on the matter.

Why do philosophy proponents want so much for there to be "something else" than the mundane? Grow up.

Why do scientism proponents have to brush aside anything not yet proved?

 

[IanS]

It is my position that I know, for a fact, that this experience I had of telepathy did occur. I am sure I am not mistaken. I did not imagine a friend bursting in to my room asking me if I was alright, because he sensed I was in trouble. He did, and all though I have lost touch with him now, and cannot ask him to confirm this event, it did happen
Therefore I know telepathy exists and pretty well all the people on this forum other than me are wrong.

Unfortuanltely the assurances of how correct you are really don't count for anything though. Because the rest of us are pretty sure the story is untrue (for the sort of reasons I already mentioned).

 

[LarryS]

Who cares? No claim is ever entirely certain, and certainly not in philosphy. So why even mention this?



I love how you're trying to imply that "true in the scientific sense" is somehow incomplete or less certain, when it's actually the MOST reliable and certain. You think philosophy offers more reliable results? Get out of here!



Why would one do that? Observation is all we have when talking about reality.

Why do philosophy proponents want so much for there to be "something else" than the mundane? Grow up.

you're agreeing with me, and you are so angry you can't see it.

 

[LarryS]

It is my position that I know, for a fact, that this experience I had of telepathy did occur. I am sure I am not mistaken. I did not imagine a friend bursting in to my room asking me if I was alright, because he sensed I was in trouble. He did, and all though I have lost touch with him now, and cannot ask him to confirm this event, it did happen
Therefore I know telepathy exists and pretty well all the people on this forum other than me are wrong.

if you are like most people, you've noticed that for every time someone showed up unprompted to help, there are 10's of times where someone did not appear. You can call it coincidence or telepathy - in any case, I suggest not relying on either, and make the call.

 

[IanS]

The history of philosophy is an astounding journey of human minds reaching out for understanding. The ancient Greeks invented atomic theories many hundreds of years before the atom was discovered

It was thousands of years actually (starting about 500BC). But afaik all they actually did was observe the fact that things like rocks, pieces of wood, almost anything, could be cut up into smaller and smaller pieces until they got to a point where the pieces were almost too small to see and where their implements could not cut such tiny bits and further ... and they concluded (wrongly!) that such objects could not be be further sub-divided.

The word "atom" apparently comes from the ancient Greek word “atmos” or “atomon”, which just means indivisible or uncut-able. So there is nothing at all insightful or clever about the words “atmos … atomon” being used by Greek philosopers from the 5th century BC … it was just the Greek word for things that could not be cut any smaller.

But their ideas of what these very small uncut-able pieces were, ie their atomon pieces, were nothing at all like what we have since discovered (through science … not through any philosophy!).

Why do scientism proponents have to brush aside anything not yet proved?

Ahh, there's that word “scientism” again. Just shows your enormous bias, and how much you want science to be wrong and want it to be no better than philosophy or the mystical beliefs that you enjoy so much … but unfortunately for you, for philosophers, and for mystical believers, science has turned out vastly superior, and philosophy and mystical beliefs have turned out to be a silly self-indulgent incorrect waste of everyone's time.

 

[Belz...]

The history of philosophy is an astounding journey of human minds reaching out for understanding.

And failing.

Maybe instead of making wild, vague claims you should engage posters here on the points raised.

The ancient Greeks invented atomic theories thousands of years before the atom was discovered

That is very misleading. They imagined that matter might be formed of smaller parts. What they imagined had nothing in common with actual atoms, and it's science, not philosophy, that discovered those.

There you go using the word 'reality' when you have no idea what reality is.

See? Again you completely dodge the point to make a jab. How about you go back and address what I said? If you do that you'll notice that what I wrote completely negates said jab.

You should do some philosophy on the matter.

And just make up the answers the way you do? Count me out.

Why do scientism proponents have to brush aside anything not yet proved?

I have no idea what "scientism" is or what it has to do with anything.

 

[Belz...]

you're agreeing with me, and you are so angry you can't see it.

Angry? What are you talking about? Is that more of your "philosophy" of making stuff up as you go along?

How about you address the points I made? It seems that the philosophy proponents in this thread continually avoid that.

Only when you're done with that do you then get to tell me in what way you and me agree here. Because from where I stand we absolutely do not.

 

[Belz...]

Ahh, there's that word “scientism” again. Just shows your enormous bias, and how much you want science to be wrong and want it to be no better than philosophy or the mystical beliefs that you enjoy so much …

That's because they don't want understanding. Understanding is boring. They want the thrill of the mystery and of wild musings about it. In other words they simply don't have the brains for serious real-world inquiry.

 

[Scorpion]

That's because they don't want understanding. Understanding is boring. They want the thrill of the mystery and of wild musings about it. In other words they simply don't have the brains for serious real-world inquiry.

So are you claiming to understand the 'real-world'?

 

[Belz...]

So are you claiming to understand the 'real-world'?

Inasmuch as we can understand it, yes.

What's your alternative to evidence-based inqury? If you can't test your musings, what are they worth?

 

[Steve]

Inasmuch as we can understand it, yes.

What's your alternative to evidence-based inqury? If you can't test your musings, what are they worth?

Going through life knowing nothing seems to be a point of honor for some. Not knowing if you even exist is about as ignorant as a person can get.

 

[MarkCorrigan]

Both quoted for you Scorpion.

Also proclaiming to "know" ESP is real despite all evidence to the contrary, and therefore "knowing" everyone else is wrong speaks to supreme egotism. Just unfathomable levels of utterly baseless arrogance.

Well Scorpion, are you going to address my points, or are we going to add intellectual dishonesty to the massive egotism and logical inconsistency?

 

[Thor 2]

Going through life knowing nothing seems to be a point of honor for some. Not knowing if you even exist is about as ignorant as a person can get.

"I think, therefore I am." Is good enough for me.

Mind you, I do sympathise with some, who find thinking a challenge.