Chaos Magic

[Malerin]

So "X is undefined implies possibly not possibly x"

Firstly, that is an assertion, not a fact.

Secondly possibly not possibly x means not possibly x

So if it were true you would be saying that "X is undefined implies possibly X and not possibly X"

Which can't be true.

ETA: Just as I was dozing off it occcurred to me that statements with undefined terms should be evaulated in terms of epistemic probabilities (degrees of belief). It's easier for me, at least. For any statement of the type "All X's are Y's", "Some X's are Y's, etc. where X and Y are undefined, such statements are possibly true in that we should assign an agnostic degree of belief of .5. Any other value is unjustified.

 

[KarlG]

Well, many people who delve in to these mystical concepts end up having these encounters that are very similar. How would we test it out if they can't present physical evidence?

But should that not ring alarm bells? People very familiar with the details of these experiences having very similar experiences? Wouldn’t it be better if the people having these reported “encounters” hadn’t “delved in to these mystical concepts”. It’s almost as if they knew what they expected to happen beforehand and had a vested interest in the outcome.

It’s like most of the people who report seeing ghosts are the ones who already believe in ghosts.

 

[Zanders]

But should that not ring alarm bells? People very familiar with the details of these experiences having very similar experiences? Wouldn’t it be better if the people having these reported “encounters” hadn’t “delved in to these mystical concepts”. It’s almost as if they knew what they expected to happen beforehand and had a vested interest in the outcome.

It’s like most of the people who report seeing ghosts are the ones who already believe in ghosts.

You are right. But I also hear many similar accounts from people who haven't delved in to these concepts.

Of course, it could be selective thinking. Thinking of the number of experiences out there, there are bound to be some cases that have similarities. I bet if you looked you would see that the contradictions actually out weigh the similarities.

I decided to ask a few people I have talked to online in the past who claim they have had contact with non human entities what it felt and sounded like, and I also looked up some cases I remembered reading about a while back. Their experiences differed quite a bit.

So far none of them have mentioned a ringing sound or a spark in their head. One mentioned everything going completely silent before hearing a voice, and the other said that thoughts just started pouring in to his mind that he wasn't thinking, and it was like they were talking to him. There are some other people I have messaged in the past that I could ask about their experiences, but I would rather not get back in contact with those people. I'll just remember to ask everyone who has said they have had similar experiences how it felt and sounded.

So far they are all over the place, and it's not as consistent as I assumed it would be.

 

[Mirrorglass]

I have it on good authority that you are absolutely spot on. Really.

Well, I should be. I got the info from a disembodied voice in my head.

Let me see if I've got this straight: AkuManiMani has a story (made up or real seems irrelevant at this point). He has refused to offer sufficient details to allow any real analysis of it to be made. After repeatedly being asked to provide details of his claim or back down, he is now saying that the whole thing was a trap to lure out "pretentious ass-hats." Said ass-hats are not interested in a "real discussion." There are a few points I feel this raises.

1) This is surely violating rule 11? The purpose of this thread was to discuss chaos magic, not provide a platform for AkuManiMani to play pointless little games. Keep in mind, this isn't an accidental derail, or a couple of people playing with a joke that's cropped up in the discussion. According to Aku, he deliberately set out to "trap" people. Not really sure how that fits into rule 0 either.
2) Rule 12. Rather than addressing the points people have made, Aku is attacking the people making those points.
3) "Pretentious" seems to have been redefined to mean "people who won't blindly accept my claims." Does anyone have a copy of this new dictionary?
5) What happened to 4?
4) Ah, here it is: as already pointed out, the constant "I know you are but what am I?" responses. Wow. For all the idiocy we've seen come and go with people, it's still rare to see such childishness being used as a debating tactic. Bad show, Aku. Bad show.

Strictly, Aku has violated several rules in this thread, yes. I believe the only reason there hasn't been mod action is there's no mod observing the thread, and no-one has cared enough to report the posts.

Personally, I'm fine with that; this gives us an opportunity to actually have a constructive discussion about trolling, instead of simply throwing half the thread into AAH. I believe we may actually have reached an understanding, something infractions seldom do. It's not like there was any real discussion going on in this thread before, and Limbo probably only sees Aku's posts, anyway.

I've observed the posting history of some of the people I've 'attacked'. Many of them are not particularly nice to begin with and almost continually fall-back on the passive-aggressive tactics you've expressed a disliking to. But because they mostly reserve such treatment for posters who hold unpopular views it seems most here turn a blind eye to it.

You misunderstand. I'm not necessarily defending other posters; some of them may well have bad habits. But whatever evils they may have committed, that does not give you the right to attack them. Not from a philosophical standpoint (although that, of course, is up for debate) and certainly not from a forum rules standpoint.

I don't think any damage was done when this thread turned into the mess it did, and I personally hope it won't fall into AAH. But do make sure not to do this to serious threads, as I will be reporting any violations in such a case.

While I realize that my level of vitriol can be excessive at times, my ire has more to do with my dislike of their character than it does any personal slights they may have directed towards me. However, your point is well taken and I'll definitely try to tone my behavior down.

That's all I ask. As a side note, I think the idea of attacking people because of their character is even worse than taking vengeance. We're all different, and we can't all like each other. But that certainly doesn't give any of us right to attack the people we don't like unprovoked.

Out of respect for posters like you I'll definitely try to tone it down. But FYI, I don't do ignore as I don't like hiding or blocking out something just because its unpleasant. If a poster wants respectful treatment from me then they will approach me with the respect they want in return. Else-wise, they're fair game as far as I'm concerned.

They aren't fair game; forum rules are very clear on that. You're free to dislike anyone you like, but this forum is not the place to unleash your ire.

I don't like ignoring people either, but I do attempt to avoid engaging people when I know it'll only lead to insults. I don't always succeed, either. But nevertheless, even with disrespectful posters, the correct conduct is to avoid conflict. That is something we all should attempt to do, if we want to keep this forum the nice place it is.

By the way, I do thank you for your patience; some of my responses to you have been less than polite, and I've no excuse for that. I'm glad you could overlook those parts and answer the serious ones; I only wish you could show the same kind of patience with all of our fellow forumites.

Especially based on accounts given by people like the OP of the thread the ExMinister linked earlier. At the very least, it seems that the "voices" are autonomous entities distinct from the consciousness of the subjects.

That is, in a way, true, and an established fact in psychological sciences. In a fashion, we all do have autonomous entities inside our minds, separate from our core consciousness. In some cases, these entities do appear to interact with us, and this often manifests as auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as many other types of symptoms.

The mechanisms behind such phenomena are complex and under constant research. We can't yet say what exactly the voices a schizophrenic hears are (though there are several interesting hypotheses). So no, we can't be certain that they don't come from outside the brain.

The important thing to realize, however, is that there is no reason to suppose they come from an outside source. The fact that such experiences are often associated with drugs that are known to act on the brain strongly suggests that it is the brain that creates them. There are also no documented cases where verifiable outside information has been gained via these experiences. And that's not just because no-one has looked for it; the belief of having received knowledge is fairly commonly associated with these experiences, but almost always demonstrably false.

 

[Nonpareil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Types_of_evidence

1. Anecdotal Evidence
Usually very weak 'positive' evidence
Description of one, or a small number of specific instances, presumably of the same type, general nature, or structure. Better used as 'negative' evidence; as counterexamples

So your best supporting example is Wikipedia, then? And you've also ignored a rather large part of the article.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Bolding mine.

http://depts.washington.edu/methods/evidencetypes.html

From the link:

Obviously an anecdote, or another kind of example, cannot prove a general statement, so avoid treating a single case as proving a general point. On the other hand, a single anecdote or counterexample is alone sufficient to disprove a general statement. An anecdote will not count as weighty evidence, however, either in support of or in opposition to a more limited, narrower claim, which is not intended to apply generally.

 

[Malerin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence#Types_of_evidence

1. Anecdotal Evidence
Usually very weak 'positive' evidence
Description of one, or a small number of specific instances, presumably of the same type, general nature, or structure. Better used as 'negative' evidence; as counterexamples

So your best supporting example is Wikipedia, then? And you've also ignored a rather large part of the article.

(1) Evidence in the form of an anecdote or hearsay is called anecdotal if there is doubt about its veracity; the evidence itself is considered untrustworthy.

(2) Evidence, which may itself be true and verifiable, used to deduce a conclusion which does not follow from it, usually by generalizing from an insufficient amount of evidence. For example "my grandfather smoked like a chimney and died healthy in a car crash at the age of 99" does not disprove the proposition that "smoking markedly increases the probability of cancer and heart disease at a relatively early age". In this case, the evidence may itself be true, but does not warrant the conclusion.

In both cases the conclusion is unreliable; it may not be untrue, but it doesn't follow from the "evidence".

Bolding mine.

http://depts.washington.edu/methods/evidencetypes.html

From the link:

Obviously an anecdote, or another kind of example, cannot prove a general statement, so avoid treating a single case as proving a general point. On the other hand, a single anecdote or counterexample is alone sufficient to disprove a general statement. An anecdote will not count as weighty evidence, however, either in support of or in opposition to a more limited, narrower claim, which is not intended to apply generally.

Right, a single anecdote is not very strong evidence and probably won't change anyone's mind (although in the examples I gave, the anecdotal account was sufficient to change a degree of belief about the time, whether you're going the right way, etc.). That does not mean it is not evidence. A hundred people seeing X is evidence that X occurred. If anecdotal evidence wasn't evidence at all, it wouldn't matter how many people saw X. Obviously thats not true: the more people that see X, the greater the confirmation.

The whole field of NDE study is anecdotally based. That does not invalidate the research or make the phenemenon any less real.

 

[Resume]

The whole field of NDE study is anecdotally based. That does not invalidate the research or make the phenemenon any less real.

Doesn't make it any more real either.

 

[Hellbound]

Just an FYI...

The agnostic position would most definatively NOT be to assign a "truth value" of .5 to a proposition.

The agnmostic position would be that it is impossible to assign a truth value to any statement in with the terms are undefined. Assigning a truth value to such a statement is the same thing as assigning a truth value to a logical argument that has no premises, whatsoever. An undefined statement is meaningless, and cannot be assigned any value until it is defined.

Heck, even look at the word agnostic. A-gnostic. a meaning anti, gnostic meaning knowable (or something similar). The word agnostic itself means unknowable, not unknown or possible. The agnostic position is not one of a lack of knowledge, but a statement that the knowledge cannot be gained, and therefore the question cannot be answered.

The correct response is that such a statemetn cannot be discussed in any meaningful way. Full stop.

 

[carlitos]

I've sensed presences and similar things on different hallucinogens, but with DMT I vividly encountered what seemed like a council of over a dozen entities arrayed before me on steppes. They seemed to be wearing pottery masks of Mesoamerican style with 2 simple circles for eyes and a circle where the mouth would be, with all the colors of the rainbow dripping down their mask in streams of what looked like overlapping bands of wet paint. As it dribbled down the mask, the streams were arranging themselves into different Mesoamerican styled glyphs or runes of some sort. The hyperspace "chamber' my head seemed to have burst through the floor of was a mandala of infinitely morphing and contracting glyphs that also looked like Mexican or South American ancient glyphs which spun about clockwise, as they rotated they turned into different hieroglyphs, like a kaleidoscopic.

I had the distinct impression people had just visited this chamber from hundreds of years in the past, but it had only been minutes before in the warped time dilation of this dimension I was in.

All the while I was experiencing the most intense torrent of emotions imaginable, terror and ecstasy and complete astonishment.

The phrase is overused, and I hope you don't mistake my tone for sarcasm, as I'm quite serious. Cool story, bro!

 

[Hellbound]

Just to clarify my earlier point (as I thought of a better way to phrase it). Take the following argument:

1. If A, then B.
2. A
3. Therefore, B.

Trying to assign a truth value to an argument with undefined terms is identical to trying to assign a truth value to the above. You can't. The truth value simply cannot be determined at all from the above, because the premises are not defined. There is no meaningufl truth value that could be assigned to the above. The best you can say is that it is logically consistent, and if A is true then B is true. But the entirety of the truth lies in whether or not A is true, in other words, it rests on your premises (your definitions).

 

[I Am The Scum]

Perhaps I should clarify.

The structure of an argument is not true or false. The structure is either valid or invalid. Strictly speaking, logic does not concern itself with the truth of propositions. Rather, it is a focus on whether or not the connection of certain propositions will lead one to a given conclusion.

So when you say trying to assign a truth value to the argue argument, you're really asking about our ability to judge the truth of the conclusion. And, yes, this would require us to evaluate the truth of the supporting premises.

Read the validity^WP page for more info.

 

[Hellbound]

Perhaps I should clarify.

The structure of an argument is not true or false. The structure is either valid or invalid. Strictly speaking, logic does not concern itself with the truth of propositions. Rather, it is a focus on whether or not the connection of certain propositions will lead one to a given conclusion.

So when you say trying to assign a truth value to the argue argument, you're really asking about our ability to judge the truth of the conclusion. And, yes, this would require us to evaluate the truth of the supporting premises.

Read the validity^WP page for more info.

Exactly the point I was getting at. Of course, mine was much harder to understand and had a lot more words in it, so there

 

[Dancing David]

Doesn't make it any more real either.

The phenomena are real, the explanation of the spirit leaving the body is unsubstantiated.

 

[Dancing David]

The whole field of NDE study is anecdotally based. That does not invalidate the research or make the phenemenon any less real.

Anecdotes are evidence, so far there is no blinded data that shows the person acquired extra data while they were in an NDE.

No sights in other rooms, no data transmission. The NDE is real for the perceptions, the explanation of the spirit leaving the body is unsubstantiated.

 

[Resume]

The phenomena are real, the explanation of the spirit leaving the body is unsubstantiated.

Wouldn't that depend on the definition of the phenomena?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I've observed the posting history of some of the people I've 'attacked'. Many of them are not particularly nice to begin with and almost continually fall-back on the passive-aggressive tactics you've expressed a disliking to. But because they mostly reserve such treatment for posters who hold unpopular views it seems most here turn a blind eye to it.

You misunderstand. I'm not necessarily defending other posters; some of them may well have bad habits. But whatever evils they may have committed, that does not give you the right to attack them. Not from a philosophical standpoint (although that, of course, is up for debate) and certainly not from a forum rules standpoint.

I came into this thread with the full intention of carrying on productive discussions. But I also recognized that not everyone here necessarily had the same intentions. The "baiting" was just my way of getting the individuals looking to mock and troll to differentiate themselves from the serious posters.

While I realize that my level of vitriol can be excessive at times, my ire has more to do with my dislike of their character than it does any personal slights they may have directed towards me. However, your point is well taken and I'll definitely try to tone my behavior down.

That's all I ask. As a side note, I think the idea of attacking people because of their character is even worse than taking vengeance. We're all different, and we can't all like each other. But that certainly doesn't give any of us right to attack the people we don't like unprovoked.

I think I understand where you're coming from with your moral philosophy as I've had very similar discussions with a close friend of mine IRL. He doesn't think its justified to ever attack "bad" people because doing so just results in one stooping to their level. I've been forming my own philosophy with regard to that and I've decided to try putting it into practice:

Judge each according to their character; treat each according to their quality.

IMO, treating a bad person well is as unjust as treating a good person poorly. Treating everyone with the same dignity and respect not only renders one's conduct morally meaningless, in many cases such conduct is downright inappropriate and often just leads to enabling and encouraging evil. I realize that fully applying such a philosophy can lead to one indulging in not-so-nice behaviors themselves but, the way I see it, not-so-nice conduct may actually be more morally advisable in some scenarios than trying to keep one's halo from being tarnished.

However, I do acknowledge that it was a bit reckless of me to allow my conduct here to go so far. As I said, I will make a deliberate effort to tone down my responses.

Out of respect for posters like you I'll definitely try to tone it down. But FYI, I don't do ignore as I don't like hiding or blocking out something just because its unpleasant. If a poster wants respectful treatment from me then they will approach me with the respect they want in return. Else-wise, they're fair game as far as I'm concerned.

They aren't fair game; forum rules are very clear on that. You're free to dislike anyone you like, but this forum is not the place to unleash your ire.

I don't like ignoring people either, but I do attempt to avoid engaging people when I know it'll only lead to insults. I don't always succeed, either. But nevertheless, even with disrespectful posters, the correct conduct is to avoid conflict. That is something we all should attempt to do, if we want to keep this forum the nice place it is.

By the way, I do thank you for your patience; some of my responses to you have been less than polite, and I've no excuse for that. I'm glad you could overlook those parts and answer the serious ones; I only wish you could show the same kind of patience with all of our fellow forumites.

If every poster here approached the discussion with the same level of maturity you've displayed I don't think we'd even be having this conversation.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Especially based on accounts given by people like the OP of the thread the ExMinister linked earlier. At the very least, it seems that the "voices" are autonomous entities distinct from the consciousness of the subjects.

That is, in a way, true, and an established fact in psychological sciences. In a fashion, we all do have autonomous entities inside our minds, separate from our core consciousness. In some cases, these entities do appear to interact with us, and this often manifests as auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as many other types of symptoms.

The mechanisms behind such phenomena are complex and under constant research. We can't yet say what exactly the voices a schizophrenic hears are (though there are several interesting hypotheses). So no, we can't be certain that they don't come from outside the brain.

The important thing to realize, however, is that there is no reason to suppose they come from an outside source. The fact that such experiences are often associated with drugs that are known to act on the brain strongly suggests that it is the brain that creates them. There are also no documented cases where verifiable outside information has been gained via these experiences. And that's not just because no-one has looked for it; the belief of having received knowledge is fairly commonly associated with these experiences, but almost always demonstrably false.

I agree with what you're saying up to a point. The fact that so many purported cases of receiving outside information from such entities come from individuals with a compromised sense of reality definitely casts doubt over the hypothesis that such entities exist independently of one's brain. However, there are just as many instances where the subject may not have a history of psychiatric illness or delusion but report having recived veridical information from such experiences [e.g. OBEs, "voices", etc.].

In my case, before I had my own unusual experiences, I used the make the exact same arguments concerning the lack of evidence with regard to "spirits" and other purportedly 'paranormal' phenomena. I had no vested interest in ascribing such phenomena to influences outside of one's brain -- in fact, I was fairly biased toward the contrary position. However, due to experiencing more than one episode in which I, or other parties, appeared to have acquired specific information they theoretically should not have had access to the null hypothesis has come into serious doubt, IMO.

Within the context of my own firsthand-experiences, the reports of individuals purporting to have gained veridical information from OBEs sounds a lot more plausible than it used to. Documented accounts of a condition called folie à deux in which subjects start to share psychological conditions, up to and including shared hallucinations, also strongly suggest mental influences beyond the confines of individual brains.

 

[Hellbound]

mental influences beyond the confines of individual brains

We call that "language". Also see marketing, psychology, discussion, observation, imitation...there are more, as well.

 

[AkuManiMani]

We call that "language". Also see marketing, psychology, discussion, observation, imitation...there are more, as well.

Those are all valid examples but I do not think they are sufficient to account for all cases.

 

[carlitos]

We call that "language". Also see marketing, psychology, discussion, observation, imitation...there are more, as well.

Yep. A whole group of high-school students in Australia totally remember the same UFO sighting, and years later their individual brains share a set of vivid details that they didn't see at the time. Therefore shaman and spirits exist.