Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

[maatorc]

A mental event ? What did I miss ?

What you missed is the .

 

[maatorc]

It's a fair analogy though.
If you observed a man shuffling about in the middle of the road, grasping at his head and crying out ... who suddenly keeled over unconcious, would you call an ambulance? If so, why?

Could you explain your notion of an analogy a little more clearly.

 

[drkitten]

Will one's seemingly anti-Theosophist view deprive one of an intelligent independently minded understanding of a given text?

No. One's seemingly anti-Theosophist view will not be what deprives one of an intelligent independently minded understanding of a given text.

The poor quality of the text that prevents any "understanding" from being in any way intelligent is what will deprive one of that.

 

[maatorc]

Natural, supernatural, you still can't produce evidence.

Can you give an example of something that is not natural?

 

[maatorc]

No. One's seemingly anti-Theosophist view will not be what deprives one of an intelligent independently minded understanding of a given text.
The poor quality of the text that prevents any "understanding" from being in any way intelligent is what will deprive one of that.

Are you saying phenomena and noumena are commensurable?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

My point is that our objective phenomenal perceptions cannot physically and directly measure strictly mental noumenal realizations.

Yet.

Hence the objectively phenomenal protocols of the MDC cannot directly and experientially measure or demonstrate such events as remote viewing/psychic projection and telepathy, because material consciousness and strictly mental realizations are incommensurable.

No one ever said they could. If remote viewing/psychic projection and telepathy led to any knowledge distinguishable from guesswork then we could indirectly measure or demonstrate those abilities, and that would be good enough to win the million.

Nobody cares whether or not you can "directly and experientially" measure something. If it can be measured indirectly that's just fine, and if it can't it's not worth worrying about.

 

[maatorc]

So you don't use this particular brand of twisted logic in your day to day life? Why is that?

What logic are you talking about?

 

[maatorc]

...... Nobody cares whether or not you can "directly and experientially" measure something. If it can be measured indirectly that's just fine, and if it can't it's not worth worrying about.

But indirect measure still remains once-removed from what you are trying to measure or demonstrate. An inference is not a demonstration.

We all know how this logic works: Over 50% of all prisoners in the legal system of a certain well known country are claimed to have not committed the crime for which they were condemned.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

But indirect measure still remains once-removed from what you are trying to measure or demonstrate. An inference is not a demonstration.

Who cares? It makes no difference whether it's once-removed, if your sole interest is whether the effect is demonstrable or useful.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

So far, up to this day, you are right. It can't..... because there is no evidence that there is such thing as "the paranormal". Lots of evidence on phonies and deluded people, though.

 

[maatorc]

Who cares? It makes no difference whether it's once-removed, if your sole interest is whether the effect is demonstrable or useful.

If it is once-removed it cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, and its usefulness is not relevant to the MDC.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

If it is once-removed it cannot be demonstrated to have occurred, and its usefulness is not relevant to the MDC.

No, this is a philosophical error.

If it is once removed it is possible that there is no way to demonstrate that it has occurred. However it is also possible that it can still be demonstrated. If it has second-hand effects that are demonstrable, such as a claimed mind reader being able to know what someone else is thinking, it can still be demonstrated to have occurred.

Some claims are indeed impossible to demonstrate. Epistemologically, these claims are meaningless. They are of no interest, to the Challenge or to anyone else.

There are no claims that fall outside these two sets. All "supernatural" claims are either demonstrable, and thus interesting and testable, or non-demonstrable and thus meaningless.

The Challenge concerns itself solely with meaningful "supernatural" claims.

 

[Snixtor]

maatorc - Isn't the more relevant part of the challenge, the individual protocol? The premise laid out by the million dollar challenge, including any definitions that you think are misleading or incongruous (ie. that in your view there is no such thing as a testable supernatural claim) is not the protocol by which the individual is tested. It is the protocol itself that describes what, for the purpose of testing, would be considered "supernatural".

Indeed, if somebody displayed an ability to move objects with the power of their mind, that ability might no longer be considered "supernatural", but a previously un-proven natural phenomena. Much as there would have been a time in human history where the suggestion that two metal objects could attract each other would have been considered a supernatural claim, until we discovered magnetism.

As for your issue with the challenge, or any science for that matter being able to test your "noumenon", quite simply, so what? The challenge does not posit that it can do this, so where is the issue?

 

[maatorc]

...... All "supernatural" claims are either demonstrable, and thus interesting and testable, ......

Can you give an example of a demonstrable supernatural claim?

 

[maatorc]

...... It is the protocol itself that describes what, for the purpose of testing, would be considered "supernatural". ......

Whatever may be described as 'supernatural' by the protocol is contained within what is natural in universal existence and being.

 

[Sledge]

What logic are you talking about?

Can you explain what you mean by "are"?

Wheeeeeee! This is easy! The maatorc approach is such an easy way to win debates! Keep asking questions about irrelevant points in other people's posts until they give up and go away, making it look like you've won. It's BRILLIANT!

 

[chillzero]

Could you explain your notion of an analogy a little more clearly.

Look it up. Any english dictionary.
Can you answer my question?

 

[likelystory]

Maatorc:

There are a great many people claiming paranormal abilities. No one has been able to demonstrate them under test conditions. So we're skeptical. We hear so many excuses here--"Randi doesn't have the money...what does paranormal mean?...how would we know it was really remote viewing...etc."

We're waiting for a fair demonstration. Instead of excuses, I'd like for one of the very many people making claims to show us their talents are real.

Yes it's about time someone should perform their talent rather than making constant excuses for their BS.

 

[steenkh]

Can you give an example of a demonstrable supernatural claim?

Yes, the claim "I can levitate one meter above ground for ten minutes without using any method currently understood by science" would be supernatural, and its demonstration would net the one million dollars.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Can you give an example of a demonstrable supernatural claim?

Careful now folks, I suspect Maatorc is trying to drag the argument in semantic circles.

We have already agreed that the term "supernatural" is philosophically suspect, and that it does not mark out a defensible boundary. However regardless of such philosophical quibbles, the term as used by laypeople refers to a wide variety of claims such a claimed powers to read minds, levitate, bend spoons and so on.

In the layperson's sense of the word "supernatural", almost all supernatural claims would be demonstrable if they were true. The challenge is directed at claims which are supernatural in that layperson's sense.