Chaos Magic

[carlitos]

Actually, it can be quite easily and indisputably demonstrated that you don’t have the slightest understanding of a single thing that you are.

I deleted the rambling non-sequiturs for an attempt at clarity.

Now, can you please easily and indisputably demonstrate that I don't have the slightest understanding of a single thing that I am?

 

[dlorde]

...
As for evidence, there’s lots of it….and more arriving all the time (I’d refer to Bem’s recent experiments but doubtless you’re familiar with those).

There is a thread here somewhere on Bem's experiments - there have been doubts about his data analysis, but confirmed replication is awaited.

As many a hapless poster has discovered at JREF before, you’ve all already pre-judged the issue.

We're not an homogenous group - some may pre-judge, others may not.

I’ve watched a number JREF contributors post anecdotes relating extremely unusual and for the most part very well documented experiences that simply have no explanation (I could name each of them….they’ve all been, like AkuManiMani….extremely intelligent, capable, and, for the most part…skeptical) .

To the contrary, for the most part, they are completely undocumented experiences - purely anecdotal.

Many contributors who post anecdotes think they do have an explanation, often paranormal. They presumably post to a sceptic forum because they want sceptical evaluation or opinion of the anecdote. Because of the lack of corroborating evidence, it's usually impossible to give more than a few options for plausible explanations and a guess at their likelihood.

they’ve never suggested ESP or supernatural or paranormal or this or that or anything.
...
Like I said, most of you would rather stick pencils in your eyes than even consider the possibility.

Of what? of the ESP or supernatural or paranormal or this or that or anything, that you believe these contributors never suggested in the first place?

 

[AkuManiMani]

So he's preaching not arguing then.

You iz bad peepul, an' you goin' to dat bad plase. Snap-crackle-pop, son!

</snicker>

I kid, I kid!

 

[PixyMisa]

There is a thread here somewhere on Bem's experiments - there have been doubts about his data analysis, but confirmed replication is awaited.

His statistical methods are rubbish.

He finds a weak positive result from cherry-picked data. Anyone can do that for anything. We don't need replication here; we need proper experimental procedure in the first place.

 

[dafydd]

Well that worked quite well. You’re still in fine form there Pixy.



And for an appropriate response, I’ll quote you again Pixy:



There are many, besides Chomsky, who flatly disagree with your glowing assessment of the state of our understanding of consciousness. The never-ending conflicts on the various consciousness-related boards would also seem to blatantly contradict your position.

As for evidence, there’s lots of it….and more arriving all the time (I’d refer to Bem’s recent experiments but doubtless you’re familiar with those). The fact is, it’s an incredibly complex and unique area of study….and one which is fraught with massive prejudices (on both sides of the issues). I could point you to a number of individuals who explore the subject in a balanced and comprehensive manner (Braude, Radin, and Bem for example) but there’s no more point in doing that than there is in actually discussing them. As many a hapless poster has discovered at JREF before, you’ve all already pre-judged the issue.

I’ve watched a number JREF contributors post anecdotes relating extremely unusual and for the most part very well documented experiences that simply have no explanation (I could name each of them….they’ve all been, like AkuManiMani….extremely intelligent, capable, and, for the most part…skeptical) . Their experiences have invariably been presented in a very balanced and open manner. In other words, they’ve never suggested ESP or supernatural or paranormal or this or that or anything. They’ve simply tried to present the facts as they know them.

….and what has happened….every…single…time.

Liar, fool, dreamer, moron,…insults, derision, ridicule, contempt.

Every…single…time.

Like I said, most of you would rather stick pencils in your eyes than even consider the possibility. If you’re really interested, track down some of the work of those names I’ve mentioned (there’s lots more)….but I truly doubt any of you are interested. You’re only interested in preserving the bubble of ignorance you live in. The evidence really is overwhelming though (dump your prejudices for a few minutes and actually look)….and as science expands it’s understanding and it’s ability to confidently explore these issues it will become more overwhelming still.

But…most JREF’ers have already come to their own conclusions, despite our massive ignorance of what it is we’re even studying. Conclusion: explicit proof of scientific illiteracy (among skeptics….blasphemy!!!!)…IOW…assuming conclusions when the jury is still not just out but massively out on what it is that we’re even studying and despite numerous examples of phenomena for which we simply have no definitive or often even viable explanation (if may come as a genuine surprise to many here but to simply decide that someone is hallucinating actually is not a viable scientific explanation).

Sorry Pixy, but for you to claim that we already pretty much know everything there is to know about consciousness is, to borrow your expression, utter fantasy.

A story told on the internet is not "well documented".

 

[PixyMisa]

A story told on the internet is not "well documented".

The recurring theme here is that some people are easily impressed.

 

[dlorde]

His statistical methods are rubbish.

He finds a weak positive result from cherry-picked data. Anyone can do that for anything. We don't need replication here; we need proper experimental procedure in the first place.

Yes - that sounds about right

Thanks, interesting link.

 

[Robin]

His statistical methods are rubbish.

He finds a weak positive result from cherry-picked data. Anyone can do that for anything. We don't need replication here; we need proper experimental procedure in the first place.

As I said in the thread, he has shipped out the replication packages with a disastrous design fault that is practically an invitation for experimenters to ditch data that does not support the hypothesis - either consciously or otherwise.

It seems almost as though it were deliberate.

 

[PixyMisa]

Hanlon's Razor.

 

[annnnoid]

Now, can you please easily and indisputably demonstrate that I don't have the slightest understanding of a single thing that I am?

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Confucius
The small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify we give the name of knowledge.
Ambrose Bierce
To know anything well involves a profound sensation of ignorance.
John Ruskin
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.
Thomas Sowell
I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance.
Diogenes
Sixty years ago I knew everything; now I know nothing; education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.
Will Durant

…and finally…what is the meaning of ‘is’?

 

[PixyMisa]

So, we'll take that as a "no", shall we?

 

[annnnoid]

So, we'll take that as a "no", shall we?

....are you, like, spying on me Pixy? Didn't say I was finished y'know. Now that you're here though, shall we discuss washing machines?

 

[PixyMisa]

....are you, like, spying on me Pixy?

You posted that nonsense on a public forum.

Didn't say I was finished y'know.

So why did you start with a whole bunch of irrelevant quotes?

 

[Robin]

I’ve watched a number JREF contributors post anecdotes relating extremely unusual and for the most part very well documented experiences that simply have no explanation (I could name each of them….they’ve all been, like AkuManiMani….extremely intelligent, capable, and, for the most part…skeptical) . Their experiences have invariably been presented in a very balanced and open manner. In other words, they’ve never suggested ESP or supernatural or paranormal or this or that or anything. They’ve simply tried to present the facts as they know them.

….and what has happened….every…single…time.

Liar, fool, dreamer, moron,…insults, derision, ridicule, contempt.

Well I, for one, am doubting you.

If you notice that AkuManiMani put his story near the end of page 6 and by the end of page 7 is implying that anyone skeptical of his claim is a fundy and a fanatic who has made a religion out of their concept of what constitutes science.

So, hello, who started the insults, derision, ridicule, contempt?

Now I would bet that most of the cases you allude to follow this pattern. I can think of one proponent of mysticism on this forum who likes to start the insults and then put on the martyrs sackcloth when people respond.

 

[Nonpareil]

Didn't say I was finished y'know.

So you didn't mean to click that "Submit Reply" button? There's an "Edit" button for that.

But if you're just planning on submitting more irrelevant quotes, don't bother.

 

[annnnoid]

So you didn't mean to click that "Submit Reply" button? There's an "Edit" button for that.

But if you're just planning on submitting more irrelevant quotes, don't bother.

...why, because you said so?

Actually Argent, some arguments do in fact require more than the two sentences some people typically have the capacity to comprehend. Thus I take my time preparing them.

Well I, for one, am doubting you.

If you notice that AkuManiMani put his story near the end of page 6 and by the end of page 7 is implying that anyone skeptical of his claim is a fundy and a fanatic who has made a religion out of their concept of what constitutes science.

So, hello, who started the insults, derision, ridicule, contempt?

Now I would bet that most of the cases you allude to follow this pattern. I can think of one proponent of mysticism on this forum who likes to start the insults and then put on the martyrs sackcloth when people respond.

I would take issue with your conclusions, but that's not really the fundamental point.

The problem…what is grating for anyone presenting such an experience… is that the question is one which encompasses such a huge range of issues all across philosophy, psychology, neuroscience, bio-chemistry, physics, and even theology (not to mention that the experiences themselves often are significant to the point of being life-altering) and it invariably gets reduced to simplistic truth conditions in these JREF debates by so many participants. In a very real sense, this one single unique issue actually encompasses the entirety of our conceptual reality (how and why would simply require far too much space to argue). Not to put too fine a point on it, but while Aku often is expansive in his explanations, he does not seem to be one to suffer fools. With an issue this big that covers just about every aspect of human reality from the deeply personal to the inconceivably abstract, there are simply far too many opportunities for stupidity….on both sides of the issue.

I’ll just end by with a few quotes:

Dlorde wrote::
Zanders thought he was experiencing more than his fair share of weirdness too, it's a common feeling. He can probably explain to you how it works. If you think about it rationally, it doesn't make sense that you should be a weirdness magnet any more than anyone else - it's an egocentric view, similar to that which led to thinking the Earth was the centre of the universe. We're predisposed to these forms of thinking. Doesn't mean it's true.

And Scott Atran:
I find it fascinating that among the brilliant scientists and philosophers at the conference, there was no convincing evidence presented that they know how to deal with the basic irrationality of human life and society other than to insist against all reason and evidence that things ought to be rational and evidence based. It makes me embarrassed to be a scientist and atheist.

The skeptical approach may be to live rationally (which may answer the question about why there is such an impetus to discount, recast, and reinterpret someone else’s account of their own firsthand experiences). The human approach is to realize that life is infinitely bigger than our understanding of it (thus we have Socrates famous admonishment) and trust yourself.

 

[Elizabeth I]

…and finally…what is the meaning of ‘is’?

...a fan of William Jefferson Clinton, are you?

 

[PixyMisa]

The skeptical approach may be to live rationally (which may answer the question about why there is such an impetus to discount, recast, and reinterpret someone else’s account of their own firsthand experiences). The human approach is to realize that life is infinitely bigger than our understanding of it (thus we have Socrates famous admonishment) and trust yourself.

The reason we're skeptics is that people are fallbile. We don't trust ourselves - or anyone - because we aren't reliable.

We ask for evidence. We question our assumptions. We test our ideas.

While this is a lot of work, it has one big advantage: We get the right answers. Or at least, over time, we can discard most of the wrong ones.

We discount your first-hand experiences? Of course we do. We don't accept your statements at face value? Of course we don't.

Because that doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

Want us to accept your claims? Present us with evidence. Not fallacy-riddled quotes. The Universe doesn't care what you believe, and neither do we.

 

[annnnoid]

The reason we're skeptics is that people are fallbile. We don't trust ourselves - or anyone - because we aren't reliable.

We ask for evidence. We question our assumptions. We test our ideas.

While this is a lot of work, it has one big advantage: We get the right answers. Or at least, over time, we can discard most of the wrong ones.

We discount your first-hand experiences? Of course we do. We don't accept your statements at face value? Of course we don't.

Because that doesn't work. Never has. Never will.

Want us to accept your claims? Present us with evidence. Not fallacy-riddled quotes. The Universe doesn't care what you believe, and neither do we.

....seems you care enough to keep reminding me you don't care.

Every second of every minute of every hour of every day of every week of every month of every year of every decade of the life of every person is entirely a function of something we did not create, do not create, and do not understand.

We function entirely, 100%, on faith. Trust, in other words (you just had to trust yourself to produce that last post; you didn’t create the thing that produced it and you sure as hell don’t understand it, but somehow it came out anyway). However much you may want to insist otherwise, it is a simple, demonstrable, indisputable, fact.

As Atran says, the processes that orient and guide the lives of just about everybody are not rational ones, and they are very far from being understood.

You’re a smart guy Pixy, it’s too bad you’re so trapped in this bubble of dogmatism. In this sense you have a lot more in common with the religious you despise than with any skeptical ideals.

 

[Hellbound]

I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing.
Socrates
Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance.
Confucius
The small part of ignorance that we arrange and classify we give the name of knowledge.
Ambrose Bierce
To know anything well involves a profound sensation of ignorance.
John Ruskin
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.
Thomas Sowell
I know nothing, except the fact of my ignorance.
Diogenes
Sixty years ago I knew everything; now I know nothing; education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.
Will Durant

…and finally…what is the meaning of ‘is’?

Just thought I'd point asomething out here.

If one knows what they don't know (i.e.-they are aware of their ignorance), then, by simple elimination, they also know what they do know.

All your quotes come down to saying "I know what I know and I don't know what I don't know".

Not exactly as mind-blowing as they appear at first glance, eh?

And here, since you asked before, you're suggsting, implicitly, that you know more than, well, all the experts that study in the field of psychology, psychiatry, and neurology (since you seem to know what they don't).

But please, continue to sort fortune cookies for more nuggets of wisdom to enlighten the masses.