Chaos Magic

[Ichneumonwasp]

The fact that this issue of contention is what Aku and Malerin are so intent on championing speaks volumes. Never mind the actual point,...

Indeed. I'm actually a bit perplexed how Aku has managed to avoid being banned with the nearly constant stream of insults.......................

 

[Resume]

Indeed. I'm actually a bit perplexed how Aku has managed to avoid being banned with the nearly constant stream of insults.......................

What perplexes me is the refusal of many to admit exactly how piss-poor memory often is.

 

[PixyMisa]

Me and everyone familiar with the meaning of the word.

Definition of ACCOUNT
1archaic : reckoning, computation
2a : a record of debit and credit entries to cover transactions involving a particular item or a particular person or concern b : a statement of transactions during a fiscal period and the resulting balance
3a : a statement explaining one's conduct b : a statement or exposition of reasons, causes, or motives <no satisfactory account of these phenomena> c : a reason for an action : basis <on that account I must refuse>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/account

Rather than admit this trivial fact you once again dig in your heels and pretend to be infallible.

No. I shrug. I said: If you really want to call an explanation an "account", feel free.

So I suggested an explanation for the experience AkuManiMani reported. What of it?

Apart from the fact that (a) 'Wasp has more knowledge here and doesn't think we should jump straight to seizures as a cause (and naturally I defer to him on that) and (b) all we have to go on is a single, incomplete, unreliable report...

What of it?

I suggested AkuManiMani may have had a seizure. Well, people have seizures, and people who have seizures often have accompanying hallucinations.

People have hallucinations without seizures, and as 'Wasp noted, that's a simpler explanation.

The other thing I'll note is that all of a sudden you're putting a lot of effort into defining terms. Not just defining terms, but searching for the exact definition you want even if it contradicts more detailed definitions.

Yesterday it was an open field; today the only thing acceptable is definition 3b from Merriam-Webster.

Why is that?

 

[PixyMisa]

Indeed. I'm actually a bit perplexed how Aku has managed to avoid being banned with the nearly constant stream of insults.......................

I don't know, but a large proportion are directed at me and I've never reported anyone just for being annoyed with me.

I realise that I am uncompromising in the face of nonsense and people who believe in nonsense often find it extremely frustrating that I won't give them any slack.

But they came to a skeptics' forum. So they are getting exactly what it says on the box. Enjoy, guys! You bought the extra-large economy size, and there's plenty more No where that came from.

 

[dlorde]

And just what am I mistaken about, pray tell?

You are very probably mistaken if you interpret the memory of your experience (as reported) as evidence of an encounter with a physically real spiritual/paranormal/extraordinary entity (i.e. not a construct of your mind).

This is because there is good evidence that broadly similar experiences have occurred in other people, particularly in similar contexts (stress, tiredness) which are known to be internally generated; it is also known that the memory of memorable experiences is very likely to become distorted over time with repeated recall; conversely, there is no good evidence that any broadly similar experiences are due to events beyond the current purview of science. [didn't I explain all this already?].

So it seems to me that a rational observer would be reasonable to judge your experience, as reported in this thread, to be overwhelmingly more likely to be of mundane explanation than of non-mundane explanation. YMMV.

 

[dlorde]

Isn't it true that some drugs can come back and make you hallucinate even if you haven't taken them any time recently?

If you're talking about flashbacks, it's not the drug 'coming back', it's re-experiencing some element(s) of the drug-induced experience at a later date. Flashback experiences are typically of a very vivid and/or traumatic nature, suggesting that unusually strong/deep memory traces were laid down at the time, often with strong visual and/or emotional content. Later events that trigger recall of these memories result in an unexpectedly vivid and unsettling recall experience - the flashback.

 

[dlorde]

Really? The forum history shows differently. You must be suffering from that memory confabulation you were talking about

Not really. All that link shows is that Pixy offered a potential explanation for your report:

Those are all signs of a seizure - it sounds like a simple partial seizure...

Nowhere does it give any account of your experiences - just a possible explanation based on your account.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Really? The forum history shows differently. You must be suffering from that memory confabulation you were talking about

Not really. All that link shows is that Pixy offered a potential explanation for your report:

Those are all signs of a seizure - it sounds like a simple partial seizure...

Nowhere does it give any account of your experiences - just a possible explanation based on your account.

As Malerin has already pointed out: definition 3b.

Not only did PixyMisa presume to declare my firsthand account "assertion" and "confabulation", he proceeded to represent the account in a manner that suited his whim and even confused the parties involved; and all this based only upon his own conjecture. I'm actually curious as to why you feel the need to try and defend him on this point.

 

[AkuManiMani]

And just what am I mistaken about, pray tell?

You are very probably mistaken if you interpret the memory of your experience (as reported) as evidence of an encounter with a physically real spiritual/paranormal/extraordinary entity (i.e. not a construct of your mind).

Like I said, that "mental construct"/hallucination/seizure truly had to be sumthin' else if it could carry on a lucid conversation and provide information I'd no previous knowledge of. Would you not agree that such a "mental construct" would very much fall within the category of 'extraordinary entity'? No?

</shrug>

I guess thats a matter of opinion then.

This is because there is good evidence that broadly similar experiences have occurred in other people, particularly in similar contexts (stress, tiredness) which are known to be internally generated; it is also known that the memory of memorable experiences is very likely to become distorted over time with repeated recall; conversely, there is no good evidence that any broadly similar experiences are due to events beyond the current purview of science. [didn't I explain all this already?].

So it seems to me that a rational observer would be reasonable to judge your experience, as reported in this thread, to be overwhelmingly more likely to be of mundane explanation than of non-mundane explanation. YMMV.

Do you think the bare details of my story would even be challenged nearly as much [or at all] if I'd simply said I heard a voice and left it at that? Hows about if I gave an account of the errands I ran last week? Do you think I'd get dozens of responses trying to convince me that my memories of doing such routines were "assertion" and "confabulation"? People are really falling over themselves trying to airbrush this one story to suit their liking; it really makes one wonder what could be the motivation behind all this fuss...

 

[AkuManiMani]

Indeed. I'm actually a bit perplexed how Aku has managed to avoid being banned with the nearly constant stream of insults.......................

Far's I can see this thread was full of insults and mockery before I even started participating in it. Would you suggest that a significant portion of JREF forum participants be banned?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

As Malerin has already pointed out: definition 3b.

Not only did PixyMisa presume to declare my firsthand account "assertion" and "confabulation", he proceeded to represent the account in a manner that suited his whim and even confused the parties involved; and all this based only upon his own conjecture. I'm actually curious as to why you feel the need to try and defend him on this point.

Well, I think it is very fair to say that he misread some of your account and attributed things to you that you did not state -- such as that you were tired and stressed when you mentioned these things of your friend.

But I don't think that was intentional.

The other things are appropriate. What you offered was an assertion since no one else can share your experience; and confabulation is simply an attempt to explain the cause of what you assert. It might be correct and it might be incorrect.

There are two senses in which someone can offer a different account. He could disagree with the details of what you said happened. He didn't exactly do that, but he certainly got some of the details wrong. Or he could offer a different explanation for the cause of the details. That second issue is what a lot of argumentation amounts to and is perfectly appropriate. Interpretation of the meaning of the Bible amounts to what we think is behind it. The words are the same no matter who reads them, but what they mean depends on why we think those words are there and what significance they have.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Far's I can see this thread was full of insults and mockery before I even started participating in it. Would you suggest that a significant portion of JREF forum participants be banned?

I think many folks could do with more politeness sometimes.

But there are different types of insults. Some 'insults' are not intended as direct insults but are merely felt as such. For instance, when some people did not agree with Limbo on a few things he took that as an insult even though what was expressed was disagreement. And some insults are clearly meant as insults. Calling someone 'it', for instance..........

 

[AkuManiMani]

Well, I think it is very fair to say that he misread some of your account and attributed things to you that you did not state -- such as that you were tired and stressed when you mentioned these things of your friend.

But I don't think that was intentional.

The other things are appropriate. What you offered was an assertion since no one else can share your experience; and confabulation is simply an attempt to explain the cause of what you assert. It might be correct and it might be incorrect.

There are two senses in which someone can offer a different account. He could disagree with the details of what you said happened. He didn't exactly do that, but he certainly got some of the details wrong. Or he could offer a different explanation for the cause of the details. That second issue is what a lot of argumentation amounts to and is perfectly appropriate. Interpretation of the meaning of the Bible amounts to what we think is behind it. The words are the same no matter who reads them, but what they mean depends on why we think those words are there and what significance they have.

And yet we're still missing the elephant in the living room: Why is there such an impetus to discount, recast, and reinterpret someone's first hand account of their own experiences?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I think many folks could do with more politeness sometimes.

But there are different types of insults. Some 'insults' are not intended as direct insults but are merely felt as such. For instance, when some people did not agree with Limbo on a few things he took that as an insult even though what was expressed was disagreement. And some insults are clearly meant as insults. Calling someone 'it', for instance..........

I specifically asked Pixy if he had objections to my designation and even inquired if he felt insulted or if his feelings were hurt. Thus far, hes expressed no such objections. If he feels hurt or insulted by my posts he is free to speak up for himself, otherwise I'll assume he has no problem with it.

ETA: And one would have a very hard time seriously arguing that many of the responses on this thread are anything but insults. Theres actually more mockery going on in this thread than actual rational discussion. All I see is the same tired crap in the day-n-life of the JREF forum: a band of 'poo-poos' ganging up on some 'woo-woos' for some good times.

 

[PixyMisa]

Do you think the bare details of my story would even be challenged nearly as much [or at all] if I'd simply said I heard a voice and left it at that?

Of course not. Because that actually happens.

As Malerin has already pointed out: definition 3b.

As I noted, Malerin is suddenly all hot on definitions.

Not only did PixyMisa presume to declare my firsthand account "assertion"

I referred to certain parts of your account as assertions. Which was and remains entirely accurate.

and "confabulation"

Which is, of course, very likely the case.

he proceeded to represent the account in a manner that suited his whim

Whim? No. I merely offered a possible explanation that was connected to reality.

and even confused the parties involved

In one particular - the individual suffering the stress you mentioned - yes. I've acknowledged that.

and all this based only upon his own conjecture.

Not in the slightest. Your story - and all you have presented is a story - does not stand alone. We have a vast body of similar stories, but unlike yours, many of them come with clinical evidence.

We do find similar stories connected to verifiable evidence of neurological events like hallucinations, seizures, and strokes.

We do not ever find similar stories connected to verifiable evidence of independent non-corporeal minds.

So. There you are.

You have presented a story. Parts of it resemble known and common neurological events. The other parts are not only unsupported by evidence - understandable - but unsupported even by detail; they are merely asserted, as I stated previously.

 

[PixyMisa]

I specifically asked Pixy if he had objections to my designation and even inquired if he felt insulted or if his feelings were hurt. Thus far, hes expressed no such objections. If he feels hurt or insulted by my posts he is free to speak up for himself, otherwise I'll assume he has no problem with it.

The insults are inane and irrelevant, but no, I'm not upset by them.

However, their inanity and irrelevance certainly detracts from the value of the discussion to others, so perhaps on that basis you should keep to the topic.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I specifically asked Pixy if he had objections to my designation and even inquired if he felt insulted or if his feelings were hurt. Thus far, hes expressed no such objections. If he feels hurt or insulted by my posts he is free to speak up for himself, otherwise I'll assume he has no problem with it.

Whether or not Pixy feels insulted is beside the point. In offering clear insults you are violating your user agreement. It's your decision to make. I simply expressed amazement that no moderator has called you on it.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The insults are inane and irrelevant, but no, I'm not upset by them.

Out of his own mouth...

 

[PixyMisa]

Out of his own mouth...

They are still inane and irrelevant, and, as 'Wasp noted, a violation of your user agreement.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Whether or not Pixy feels insulted is beside the point. In offering clear insults you are violating your user agreement. It's your decision to make. I simply expressed amazement that no moderator has called you on it.

I've had plenty of my posts edited and even romoved -- some of them were not even of a mocking tone. As I already said, this thread alone is chock full of insults, slights, and mockery by numerous posters. I don't see any call to have those individuals penalized or banned.