Chaos Magic

[Hellbound]

How do you submit non-anecdotal evidence on a web forum, wise one?

Facts that can be independently verified.

Links to scientific studies.

Pictures and other documentation of an event.

Logically consistent arguments that don't randomly introduce additional unprovens.

Detailed instructions on how to perform an experiment yourself that can prove/disprove some aspect of the phenomena in question.

That's just a few.

 

[AkuManiMani]

How do you submit non-anecdotal evidence on a web forum, wise one?

Facts that can be independently verified.

By whom?

Links to scientific studies.

Which ones?

Pictures and other documentation of an event.

What kind of pictures? And how is documentation any more evidential than other claims? Does a formal looking presentation make more true?

Logically consistent arguments that don't randomly introduce additional unprovens.

Again, ignoring the problem of establishing empirical proof on a web discussion board.

Detailed instructions on how to perform an experiment yourself that can prove/disprove some aspect of the phenomena in question.

That's just a few.

How do you experimentally test a field observation?

 

[Hokulele]

By whom?

By absolutely anyone. For example, if I make the claim that the acceleration due to gravity is roughly 9.8 m/s², and that I used an inclined plane set up to measure this (giving the details on how to construct one's own inclined plane), it is possible for you, PixyMisa, Hellbound, or anyone else reading this thread to replicate my observation. No matter how strongly anyone may doubt my claim, they can try it for themselves. If the acceleration numbers do not match mine, or if they are all over the place, my claim is falsified.

And that is the main problem with the OP and follow-up posts. When others do try the experiments regarding Chaos Magic themselves, the results are all over the map, leading one to strongly doubt the claims made on its behalf.

 

[PixyMisa]

By whom?

Independents.

Which ones?

Hopefully, ones that weren't fatally flawed from the very beginning.

What kind of pictures?

Pictorial ones.

And how is documentation any more evidential than other claims?

It's documentary.

Does a formal looking presentation make more true?

No, but words on a page don't change over time the way memories do.

Again, ignoring the problem of establishing empirical proof on a web discussion board.

No. Addressing that problem.

How do you experimentally test a field observation?

The same way that anyone else does.

 

[Hellbound]

By whom?

Anyone, really. You know, if I state something as a positive fact, then there should be other places that back that, such as dictionaries/encyclopedias, publications of some sort, news articles, something to support my version of things.

Which ones?

Any, if they exist, that support whatever notion or principle one happens to be arguing for.

What kind of pictures?

Depends on the specific claim being made. But a picture of the UFO you claim to have seen (for example) is much better than a person telling us about the UFO they saw.

And how is documentation any more evidential than other claims? Does a formal looking presentation make more true?

You fail at reading comprehension. Really, that's what you got from my question? And you accuse the skeptical side of playing games and twisting words?

Documentation. Such as person who claims to be prophetic keeping an online, timestamped journal of predictions (as an example). Or records kept by others that support the occurrance of a particular event.

Again, ignoring the problem of establishing empirical proof on a web discussion board.

No, addressing it. IF you can make a logically coherent argument that fits with what is currently known, that in and of itself is enough to show the event is possible without necessarily requiring extraordinary measures.

How do you experimentally test a field observation?

By detailing how the observation was made, what you observed, your methodology for the observations, times, circumstances, etc. Really, biology does this all the time. They publish observations, backed up by documentation and pictures, physcial evidence at the scence (sucha as scat or tracks of an abserved animal), detals of the behavior observed, time of day, circumstamces, etc, so that otehrs can go to areas that match this closely to see if they observe the same behavior.

Again, you simply confimr statements I've made before that you don't really seem to have an udnestanding of what science is, or what proof means in science. And you, especially, seem to be having a lo of confusion between science as a methodology and science as a body of knowledge. You keep talking about peopel claiming scientific dogma (referring tot eh body of knowledge), when my arguments have, except where specifically noted, been regarding science the method. I believe most of the others here use it in the same sense.

Yet your arguments haven't been just against current scientific knowledge, but against the method itself (whether you realize it or not, that's what you are advocating against).

 

[AkuManiMani]

By whom?

Anyone, really.

Then multiple witnesses count as independent verification? If thats the case, then theres plenty of evidence with regard to my claims and others similar. The plural of anecdote is data.

You know, if I state something as a positive fact, then there should be other places that back that, such as dictionaries/encyclopedias, publications of some sort, news articles, something to support my version of things.

So if there are no official records backing up the events of your day-to-day life it didn't happen? In the absence of such sources, would not first hand accounts of the events in question count as evidence?

Which ones?

Any, if they exist, that support whatever notion or principle one happens to be arguing for.

What about the links and articles already presented?

What kind of pictures?

Depends on the specific claim being made. But a picture of the UFO you claim to have seen (for example) is much better than a person telling us about the UFO they saw.

True. But I don't see how one can take a photograph of their own internal perceptions of receiving veridical information.

And how is documentation any more evidential than other claims? Does a formal looking presentation make more true?

You fail at reading comprehension. Really, that's what you got from my question? And you accuse the skeptical side of playing games and twisting words?

Documentation. Such as person who claims to be prophetic keeping an online, timestamped journal of predictions (as an example). Or records kept by others that support the occurrance of a particular event.

No one here is making claims of prophetic predictions. What kind of documentation do you think would be able to substantiate the claims that actually have been made here?

Again, ignoring the problem of establishing empirical proof on a web discussion board.

No, addressing it. IF you can make a logically coherent argument that fits with what is currently known, that in and of itself is enough to show the event is possible without necessarily requiring extraordinary measures.

So basically, the claim/argument must conform to theoretical models in common currency to count as evidence? That does not sound like a very scientific or skeptical approach to me.

How do you experimentally test a field observation?

By detailing how the observation was made, what you observed, your methodology for the observations, times, circumstances, etc. Really, biology does this all the time. They publish observations, backed up by documentation and pictures, physcial evidence at the scence (sucha as scat or tracks of an abserved animal), detals of the behavior observed, time of day, circumstamces, etc, so that otehrs can go to areas that match this closely to see if they observe the same behavior.

But those are not experimental protocols. I asked how one would experimentally test field observations; detailing field protocol does not accomplish this. More to the point, tho, how would one experimentally test the kinds of claims that have been presented in this thread?

Again, you simply confimr statements I've made before that you don't really seem to have an udnestanding of what science is, or what proof means in science. And you, especially, seem to be having a lo of confusion between science as a methodology and science as a body of knowledge.

The methodology must be appropriate to the object(s)/area(s) of study. Controlled conditions and experimental protocols are not feasible methods for every scenario, such as the ones being discussed in this thread.

You keep talking about peopel claiming scientific dogma (referring tot eh body of knowledge), when my arguments have, except where specifically noted, been regarding science the method. I believe most of the others here use it in the same sense.

Yet your arguments haven't been just against current scientific knowledge, but against the method itself (whether you realize it or not, that's what you are advocating against).

First point: Scientific protocols must be appropriate to the area of investigation. Repeated calls for experimental evidence for every claim is itself indicative of a lack of understanding concerning the scientific process.

Second point: Scientific knowledge is cumulative. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are the tentative conceptual tools we formulate to frame, interpret, and explain that cumulative body knowledge. It's the hardening of scientific theory into dogma and the uncritical acceptance of such dogmas that leads to "scientism".

 

[Nonpareil]

Yeah, of course Pixy. The single most meaningful word in the human vocabulary and all that’s required is a short definition to do it justice. Typical nonsense.

"Most meaningful" is entirely subjective. Even if it weren't, that's no reason that it couldn't have a perfectly adequate definition consisting of only a few words.

"Love" isn't hard to define because it requires twenty pages to do so. "Love" is hard to define because each person has a different idea of what constitutes love. We lack a definition because there is no consensus on what it should be referring to, not because what it should be referring to is hard to describe.

Newsflash tsig: just because we have a word for something does not mean we know what the word means.

It also doesn't mean that we don't know what it means. "Blue", for example, refers to a certain color. "Chicken" generally refers to a certain type of animal, though it can also be used as an insult. And so on.

Your entire argument is simply a hasty generalization fallacy tangled with a straw man. That some words lack a concrete definition does not mean that all of them do. You also claim - incorrectly - that the reason that certain words can't be defined is because they are beyond our capabilities to define, when in reality it is simply because each person has a different idea of what they should refer to. That each person has a different idea of what a "god" is does not mean that we cannot define "god". It simply means that the definition changes from situation to situation, depending on who is speaking.

It is no more accurate for you to suggest psi etc. don’t exist than for an advocate to suggest they do.

Actually, it's quite accurate - at least, in the specific sense.

Using the definition of "god" as an example again, it is fallacious to suggest that no gods exist, because the definition of "god" is so loose as to fit almost anything, and many of the definitions that it might be seen to fit indeed cannot be disproven.

However, specific definitions of "god" can be disproven. For example, the Biblical gods, and the Egyptian gods, and the Greek gods. They are defined as the gods which performed acts X, Y, and Z at time T. We can prove that these events did not occur at any time, let alone T, and thus can disprove the existence of those gods.

It's the same thing for psi, souls, ghosts, and spirits. We can't prove that they don't exist at all, because the definition is so loose that it's impossible to do so. However, we can prove that they do not exist for specific definitions. For example, we have proven that Uri Geller cannot use his particular flavor of psychic powers to bend spoons.

All we can do is recognize the evidence (IOW, admit that something exists)

The first bit of this I agree with. The second bit is a load of tripe.

Something might exist. This is true. But the evidence does not point to it.

Many skeptics simply prefer to stick their heads up their buts and pretend there is no evidence. Case in point.

"Case in point"? Do you know what that phrase means?

Obviously, neither you nor anyone on the planet can claim with any remote degree of certainty that they know what a human being is. We can, as I pointed out in the first paragraph, throw around all sorts of very clever sounding words, but ultimately, they add up to one indisputable conclusion: we…don’t….know. Anyone who claims otherwise will be picking up next years Nobel Prize.

Actually, we know exactly what a human being is: a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. We aren't yet sure of how exactly we work or what we are capable of, but we know what we are.

…the big question though, is who are you? We are a creature that is singularly defined by our ability to ‘know our self’, and yet we most indisputably do not (since I doubt you have the fortitude to bother examining all the incontrovertible EVIDENCE that establishes this as a fact I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it).

Except that we won't. Present your evidence, or stop making the argument.

How do you submit non-anecdotal evidence on a web forum, wise one?

By giving us evidence which can be independently verified.

We've been over this already. Technically, yes, all evidence is anecdotal to some degree. We have to take it on faith - a very small amount of faith, but faith nonetheless - that we aren't being lied to by everyone on the planet. But this amount of faith is so small as to be negligible, and thus we say that the evidence is not anecdotal.

 

[Robin]

Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science.

So does he go on to suggest some less "clumsy" tool by which ESP can be tested.

I mean specifically, not just some general buzz-phrase like "build your own telescope".

And why on earth does he think that there can be no emotions in an experiment?

 

[Hellbound]

Then multiple witnesses count as independent verification? If thats the case, then theres plenty of evidence with regard to my claims and others similar. The plural of anecdote is data.

No. Multiple eyewitnesses of a single event can help one determine possibilities. The commonalities between perceptions, and the differences, can help narrow the range of possibilities.

So if there are no official records backing up the events of your day-to-day life it didn't happen? In the absence of such sources, would not first hand accounts of the events in question count as evidence?

Do you actually want an honest debate? Because if you do, I'd suggest you actually respond reasonably, instead of this type of nonsense.

Do you seriously believe there's no difference between "I had a cup of coffee this morning" and "Spirits gave me special information this morning"? The level of evidence corresponds to the impact of the claim. The day-to-day events of my life are immaterial to most people on the planet. The claim your making here (and the claims made by most propoentns of psi or the mystical) would impact everyone the world over, and the entirety of science as well. Not to mention requiring a rethinking and modification of most of what we currently know. That takes a bit more than your word.

What about the links and articles already presented?

Which ones have not been addressed by others? These are evidence, but what they prove depends on the strength of the argument and evaluation of the evidence.

True. But I don't see how one can take a photograph of their own internal perceptions of receiving veridical information.

I was answering your question of how one can provide evidence on the internet. If you would like to know how to provide evidence of your specific event, then these may need to be modified. THis one may not apply to you, which would be obvious if you read this with honmest intentions, instead of "How can I reply in a way that makes them look stupid?"

No one here is making claims of prophetic predictions. What kind of documentation do you think would be able to substantiate the claims that actually have been made here?

*sigh*

THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE.

Seriously, do you have any intention of intellectual honesty?

So basically, the claim/argument must conform to theoretical models in common currency to count as evidence? That does not sound like a very scientific or skeptical approach to me.

If all you have is your assetion of truth, yes, it should. If it doesn't, then you'd better have some evidence to support why most of what we know is wrong. Your misreading of what I'm saying is not my fault.

But those are not experimental protocols. I asked how one would experimentally test field observations; detailing field protocol does not accomplish this. More to the point, tho, how would one experimentally test the kinds of claims that have been presented in this thread?

Actually yes, they are experimental protocols. Your inability to understand why this might be so simply realtes to your inability to understand scientfiic method. The information given concerning the details of the observation allow other researchers to look for similar behavior, thus allowig for independent replication...one of the main pillars of scientific study. Additionally, the original researcher should work on replicating his observation.

As to how it applies to this, how about ANY level of detail even REMOTELY comparable to that done by field biologists, geologists, or anthropologists? Have you ever been able to replicate the experience? Have you excluded other possible factors, and how? Have others replicated your experience, and how do the details of their observation differ from your own? How are they the same? Have you verified your "veridical information" was not obtained through other, mundane means? Quite frankly, to date you've presented nothign to indicate that you've ruled out any mundane factors besides your own personal certainty.

The methodology must be appropriate to the object(s)/area(s) of study. Controlled conditions and experimental protocols are not feasible methods for every scenario, such as the ones being discussed in this thread.

Which is EXACTLY why I brought up the subject of biology. Historical sciences operate under this same restriction, yet still manage to maintain the level of science.

First point: Scientific protocols must be appropriate to the area of investigation. Repeated calls for experimental evidence for every claim is itself indicative of a lack of understanding concerning the scientific process.

You're lack of understanding, again, does not make it true. Experiment does NOT equal something tested in a lab.

Second point: Scientific knowledge is cumulative. Scientific theories, on the other hand, are the tentative conceptual tools we formulate to frame, interpret, and explain that cumulative body knowledge. It's the hardening of scientific theory into dogma and the uncritical acceptance of such dogmas that leads to "scientism".

Can you provide any evidence of this happening in the past, or that it is happening now?

"People won't accept my word over the internet as proof that a majority of current scientific knowledge is wrong, therefore science=dogma" seems to be about the level of your argument. What have I missed?

Seriously, it's responses liekthis that convince me you aren't here to discuss ideas. TO any rational reader, it would have been obvious that I Anyoen interested in actual discussion and understanding would easily pick up that the level of evidence needed varies depening on the level of impact and the general likeliehood (based on what is known) of the claim. Anyone interested in anythign other than painting their opposition in the worst possible light (a straw man tactic) would udnerstand the concept of experimetn means more than just a test tube. Ayone interested in discussing science, the method, woudl understand that repeatability and replication are key, and don't require a laboratory. Really, have you ever studied anything about the soft sciences? Things like field biology, paleontology, archeology and anthropology? They operform experiments all the time, despite the fact that they can't put their subjects in a lab.

You've simply confirmed that you have a limited and incomplete view of science, yet somehow feel qualified to say that scinece is wrong, and you can revolutionize it by allowing in subjective experience...which is pretty much exactly the opposite of what scientific method is based on.

Sorry, but I'm bowing out of this thread, as well. You seem to have little interest in anythig except name calling and thinly vieled accusations of scientism. And I tire of having to explain a concept that shoudl be obvious to someone who simply triers their best to twist words and meanings.

 

[Robin]

I see, he is referring to scientific dogma, it is probably implied (from his perspective) in the attitude of scientists to 'that which has not been scientifically tested', or can't be.
They brow beat folk into believing that if its not scientifically 'known' its hogwash.

Dogma exists in all forms of religion or organised 'teaching'.

I mentioned it this morning in the thread 'There is no God'.

But that was not what I asked. I was asking who these scientific fanatics or dogmatists were.

Are there any actual people who fit this bill or is it just some vague undefined "other"?

 

[Robin]

This is a question that comes up and again.

If science is a clumsy and oafish tool, suitable only for simple obvious things like inferring and then demonstrating the structure of DNA and determining what happened, billions of years ago at the beginning of the Universe - then what is this delicate precision tool that will be used to test the claims of psi.

Can somebody give a precise description of this tool and a detailed example of how it will be used to test some psi claim.

 

[Waterman]

I have been reading this thread and while it has been interesting there are a number of things that we seem missed. As others have noted or at least implied you have to be careful when dealing with experiences to separate the observation from the interpretation or explanations made to explain the observation.

I have seen no one claim that Aku did not experience an event where he recalls a conversation, that later turned out to seem to be prophetic.

However the issue most people are having is that the ultimate conclusion that was reached which was that an intelligence being not corporally present in the room with telekinetic (or mind control) and precognitive abilities approached him and provided specific information about a future event.

To my knowledge it has not been scientifically demonstrated that:
There exist non-human, super human or former human intelligences on earth as described
That telekinetic or mind control abilities exist
That precognitive abilities exist

However, based on the data that was presented there were a number of references to the setting, the implied mental state and sensations and could be adequately explained by phenomenon which have been scientifically demonstrated. These were presented as alternate explanations and were considered more probable because THEY HAVE BEEN SCIENTIFICALLY confirmed to exist.

Does that mean that we can logically conclude that he wasn’t visited by such an entity? In the strictest sense, No. However to accept that his story as the correct INTERPRETATION of the event he experienced we would also have to accept a number of other unconfirmed hypotheses. That is why people have rejected that interpretation of events. Until such time as it can be scientifically demonstrated that these entities or abilities exist claims that require them will very often be rejected.

Well what about the precognitive message? At this point all we have again is Akus’s non-specific claim that it was precognitive. Without any detail we cannot assess if it significantly specific enough to really be remarkable. In addition unless it was documented before hand there is no way to confirm that the specificity remembered after the fact was actually present in the ‘precognitive event’ and not modified after the fact. Fortune tellers rely on our brains ability to do that. While on your journey you will soon meet an important person from your past. A month later you cross paths with an old HS Friend at the air port. You recall the fortune tellers prediction. She told me I would met someone soon. Weeks later after retelling the events the fortune mentally has merged with the event and you recall it is much more specific than the very ambiguous prediction. Perhaps the memory has morphed to add a HS friend, their name or even the circumstances of the meeting. Without prior to the event documentation and information about the specificity of the prediction it does not seem reasonable to consider the unconfirmed unstated event is sufficient evidence to accept the existence of a precognitive ability (regardless of the source).

Well what about the similarity of our experiences? Again as you speak of this person you obviously admire or are emotional invested in them and I would imagine have a similar outlook on life. It is known that memory can be plastic and that people discussing things can have their memories altered. I can easily imagine that the conversation could go:

I had this crazy exp the other day...
Really tell me…
<Long Story>
Cool, I has something similar <story>
Did it have this?
Not that I recall, no wait a minute now that you mention it I do seem to recall that. Plus there was that other unusual thing.
That was really odd, but it’s coming back to me I had the same thing happen.

So before the conversation they probably had distinct memories of the events that may have had some similarities. Now after the discussion and by relying strictly on their recall of a past event, the two different experiences have been reinterpreted as something new. Now if Aku and his friend kept dream journals or independently documented these experiences before talking about them that would be considered really interesting. However it would not yet conclusive but could lead to an avenue of investigation into the phenomenon.

Aku’s did implicitly make the claim that the conflating of the experience or later adjustments did not happen. It was pointed out that to consider one’s own memories as fixed when it has been shown scientifically that memory is not as fixed as we think is it disagrees with what has been observed using the scientific method. It is known that false memories can be created of events that did not happen and once done the person will argue vehemently that such events did happen, even when presented with contradictory evidence.

I would like to add that in order to assess the probability of an event occurring has to be based on the frequency of the event with in a known data set. Until there is enough study to establish the existence of the event the probability of it being true or real is unknown however based on the size of the data set it can be roughly said that it is <x% where x the inverse of the size of the data set. If the number of times that people have tried to scientifically confirm the existence of a thing or ability is very large and the number of confirmed cases is 0. For each new investigation following the scientific method which results in a null or even unknown renders the probability of the hypothesis being true as moving closer to 0.

As to all the claims about people following the ‘orthodoxy of science’ is implying that people are rigidly following the current conclusion of science as fixed and rigid. I don’t see that here in any of these discussions sure a few have been making the logical leap from nearly 0% probability to ‘it doesn’t exist.’ What I see though is that people are adhering strongly to is the ‘scientific method’ NOT the conclusion of arrive at by scientists. If something is real and interacts with our universe in some way, that interaction can be measured or observed. In actuality the tools necessary to document the existence and nature of some of these abilities are little more than prior documentation and providing a controlled environment. Perhaps the tools do not yet exist that can measure how it occurs or the mechanism. However eventually they will be developed, but only once the abilities have been demonstrated to exist using the scientific method and this is replicated by others. No serious or sustained financial investment will be made in this type of research until this can be reliably replicated. If these abilities were proven true and could be utilized the potential financial reward would be enormous. The fact that industry is not pursuing these ideas is telling, but cannot be considered is not proof of their non-existence. Only that the captains of industry don’t think it is potentially profitable.

Furthermore, as to the idea that because these type of experiences that involve voice or visions of people that are not there occur throughout the population and are described in historical accounts leaned credence to there necessarily being more too it I think that is wishful thinking. The human body and brain has a significant commonality in how it functions how it fails and how things sometimes go a little wonky. I see no reason at this time to proposed external intelligent agents to explain schizophrenia, lucid dreaming, sleep paralysis or other mental and physical manifestations that are often attributed to external agent by many. Until such entities can be demonstrated to have independent existence outside our very human manufactured fantasies, I seen no reason to accept that they are real. Could it be true? Perhaps, but based on the data that has been obtained using the scientific method the probability is approaching 0 to many decimal places.

No where am I claiming that science has perfect knowledge of everything, there is much yet to discover. The quantum reach may some up with some really cool and as yet unimaginable results and effects. I fully expect that research into the biochemistry of the brain, embryonic development and cancer yield surprising results that will revolutionize medicine. That there will be man machine interfaces that will be developed that would redefine what it means to be human. Will me meet non-human intelligences one day, I hope so that would be so cool. Do I think it is happening now, as near as I can tell, no.

 

[tsig]

No, genius. I've just enough honest presence of mind to realize that every answered question simply opens the door to still more questions. There have been countless other people who've, in previous generations, assumed that the scientific state of the art in their day was pretty much the whole story. The truth is that there is no end to scientific inquiry and whatever understandings are gleamed from it are always tentative and liable to change.

Do you expect the law of gravity, conservation of energy or the speed of light in a vacuum are going to change soon?

Things do change in science but generally in evolutionary not revolutionary ways. Einstein extended Newton's theories he didn't overthrow them.

 

[Myriad]

As for the fundamental issue I referred to. I did give you a major clue. Evidence it’s called. Science is just not your strong point is it. What does ignorance mean? It means you don’t know something. Obviously, neither you nor anyone on the planet can claim with any remote degree of certainty that they know what a human being is. We can, as I pointed out in the first paragraph, throw around all sorts of very clever sounding words, but ultimately, they add up to one indisputable conclusion: we…don’t….know. Anyone who claims otherwise will be picking up next years Nobel Prize. Nor do we really know how much we don’t know. There is a great deal of evidence (there’s that pesky word again….EVIDENCE…care to actually take the time and go and look) that suggests it is a great deal.

…the big question though, is who are you? We are a creature that is singularly defined by our ability to ‘know our self’, and yet we most indisputably do not (since I doubt you have the fortitude to bother examining all the incontrovertible EVIDENCE that establishes this as a fact I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it). Ignorance explains every single success, or failure, individually and/or collectively on this planet. It has a very clear and defined trajectory. If you don’t know yourself, life is more likely to go in the wrong direction, if you do know yourself, life is more likely to go in the right direction (that, of course, is a monumental simplification).

So why don’t we know ourselves? What don’t we know? What does ignorance implicate? What would awareness implicate?

….or to put it more simply…why don’t you know yourself…tsig, and what, specifically don’t you know?

I'll give you a clue...straight out of the bible: 'man cannot live on bread alone'

You’ve got a few days to brush up on the subject tsig as I may be offline taking care of other matters. A summary of the human condition…a few days should be more than enough for someone with 12,000 posts under their belt don’t ya think?

The odd thing about the spirit hypothesis is that, contrary to how it is advertised, it intrinsically stands against any acquisition of deeper knowledge of what a human being is. The spirit concept emerges directly from rejecting the human being as an active participant in creating experiences and phenomena. It a path that leads in the direct opposite direction away from self-knowledge.

Here's how.

Let's suppose you are a cave man walking around a stone canyon, and suddenly you sense the presence of a deer. At the same time, you are fully aware that no actual physical deer is present.

One possible hypothesis is that you are experiencing the presence of a spirit of a deer.

But, it turns out that what you are actually experiencing is a picture of a deer, drawn on the canyon wall.

The contradictory impression of "deer, and yet no deer" is occurring because your senses are giving you contradictory information. The part of your mind that recognizes certain features of a deer, such as having eyes, a certain shape head, body outline, and so forth, is saying that it's recognizing the presence of one right now. But another part of your mind, that recognizes some other characteristics of a deer, such as having a solid three-dimensional body that occupies space and (when stationary) rests on the ground, is saying there cannot be a deer there.

But, you can only understand this if you have experience with pictures, and know at least a little bit about how your eyes and brain work. If you didn't know about any of that, or if you deliberately reject those notions (perhaps on the basis that you are just too smart to be "fooled" in any way at all by mere paint on the wall), you will probably reject this explanation:

"You are experiencing a picture of a deer painted on the wall."

...and conclude something like this instead:

"I am experiencing the spirit of a deer, which has been captured on the wall by the magic paint."

After all, the impression of the presence of a deer has to be coming from somewhere. Since the paint is not a deer, and there's no actual deer there, there are only two remaining choices: the impression is coming from the presence of a deer spirit, or it is coming from you.

If you didn't know anything, if you'd never seen a picture before and were aware of brains only as funny-flavored head meat, then either of those possibilities would seem reasonable. And the spirit one would probably seem a lot more interesting and potentially useful. If you depended on hunting deer for survival, imagine how important being on good terms with deer spirits would be. If they actually existed.

But experience and greater understanding of how the world and ourselves work has shown us the reverse. The hypothesis that gives yourself an active role in generating experiences will, if pursued with the tools of science, lead to a greater understanding of yourself and other humans. The spirit hypothesis, no matter how pursued, will lead only to a thousand generations of trying unsuccessfully, with ever more subtle and elaborate explanatory narratives and arcana, to wheedle favors from the elusive deer spirits and their endless numberless relatives.

Similarly, if you had not the slightest clue how your thoughts could cause flesh to move, if the notion of your flesh being comprised of countless tiny machines made of intricate proteins were as far beyond your grasp as they were beyond everyone's grasp a mere century ago, then you'd probably imagine your body being occupied by your own spirit, which makes your body move by pushing it around like the hidden hand in a puppet. (That's why ghosts in popular culture have the shapes of bodies, or Halloween cartoon approximations of that shape: because while living they have to occupy the same space as their bodies so as to be there to push them around.) And you might wonder where that spirit came from and where it will go, and whether those places might have any connection with the odd places your spirit goes in your dreams.

And if you had not the slightest clue as to how a bunch of jizz could turn into a baby (assuming you'd figured out even that much of the causality, which might not be completely obvious if social controls on sex were yet to be invented) there's no telling what you might think up, except that it would almost certainly involve invisible and highly talented spirits at every step.

So here we are, here in the future, with our instruments and our theories; close to having our hands firmly on the proteins and the genetics and the neural circuitry itself ourself.

And still people come telling us, I felt something, I sensed something, and it wasn't anything solid and it couldn't have been me since I'm just a passive infallible sensing and remembering machine, so it must have been spirits.

Well, okay, fine. Go chase the spirits then. May you have better luck with that than the last thousand generations did.

But don't try to tell us that you know yourselves or humans better than scientists do. You have chosen deliberately not to. You are determined to look everywhere for the causes of spiritual phenomena, except where they actually occur.

Respectfully,
Myriad

 

[tsig]

Yeah, of course Pixy. The single most meaningful word in the human vocabulary and all that’s required is a short definition to do it justice. Typical nonsense.



Newsflash tsig: just because we have a word for something does not mean we know what the word means. As has been pointed out on numerous occasions (which you and others quite predictably insist on ignoring) there are many words for things we don’t understand (all of them actually, but that’s a bit too abstract). It is no more accurate for you to suggest psi etc. don’t exist than for an advocate to suggest they do. All we can do is recognize the evidence (IOW, admit that something exists) and make a reasonable effort to explore what is available to explore. Many skeptics simply prefer to stick their heads up their buts and pretend there is no evidence. Case in point.

As for the fundamental issue I referred to. I did give you a major clue. Evidence it’s called. Science is just not your strong point is it. What does ignorance mean? It means you don’t know something. Obviously, neither you nor anyone on the planet can claim with any remote degree of certainty that they know what a human being is. We can, as I pointed out in the first paragraph, throw around all sorts of very clever sounding words, but ultimately, they add up to one indisputable conclusion: we…don’t….know. Anyone who claims otherwise will be picking up next years Nobel Prize. Nor do we really know how much we don’t know. There is a great deal of evidence (there’s that pesky word again….EVIDENCE…care to actually take the time and go and look) that suggests it is a great deal.

…the big question though, is who are you? We are a creature that is singularly defined by our ability to ‘know our self’, and yet we most indisputably do not (since I doubt you have the fortitude to bother examining all the incontrovertible EVIDENCE that establishes this as a fact I guess you’ll just have to take my word for it). Ignorance explains every single success, or failure, individually and/or collectively on this planet. It has a very clear and defined trajectory. If you don’t know yourself, life is more likely to go in the wrong direction, if you do know yourself, life is more likely to go in the right direction (that, of course, is a monumental simplification).

So why don’t we know ourselves? What don’t we know? What does ignorance implicate? What would awareness implicate?

.or to put it more simply…why don’t you know yourself…tsig, and what, specifically don’t you know?
I'll give you a clue...straight out of the bible: 'man cannot live on bread alone' You’ve got a few days to brush up on the subject tsig as I may be offline taking care of other matters. A summary of the human condition…a few days should be more than enough for someone with 12,000 posts under their belt don’t ya think?

I suggest you pay more attention to your own internal state and less to mine.

Finish the quote: but by every word that comes from the mouth of god

So you want me to hear god?

As to 'A summary of the human condition" I have this feeling you were being a bit sarcastic there.

Keep posting and one day you too will have 12,000 posts. You'll love the 10,000 post ceremony.

 

[Katopale]

That is one of the truest statements I've ever come across. All too often do I run across folks who believe that our model of reality is reality. On the contrary, our model of reality is merely that which our minds are capable of comprehending. Who's to say that we're even capable of sensing all that there is to be sensed (directly or indirectly), let alone being capable of understanding all there is to be understood.

Of course, one should always be skeptical of others' claims, to avoid many of the negatives associated with organized religions and such. However, this cuts both ways. One should always be skeptical of one's own claims as well. More often than not, if you believe you have something figured out; in reality, you truly don't.

Science is our attempt, our tool, to try and figure out what reality really is. Perhaps reality can be comprehended entirely by logical, mathematical laws; perhaps not. Science, logic, and mathematics seem to be quite good tools nevertheless. They seem to encompass that which can be described in an objective sense. However, I've yet to see a convincing explanation of quite a few things; namely, subjective experience, the elementary properties of nature (what are electrons and why do they behave as they do for instance), and existence itself, in terms of science and mathematics.

It is my personal belief that, no matter how much empirical evidence we gather, we will never be able to describe such things in an objective sense. Much like how in mathematics there must always be some undefined terms, I believe there will always be undefined terms in physicality.

The only evidence I have to support such a belief is the evidence brought about by physicality itself. If indeed we are solely a product of evolution, then I believe that our brains (minds) have evolved to a point where we can comprehend only the information obtained from our sensory organs. After all, why would we evolve a trait in our minds to comprehend all of reality, when we do not necessarily need such a trait to survive. I believe that our model of reality (anything describable within the context of mathematical language) is simply a result of our evolution. Reality is much deeper and more complicated than a simple human could ever understand.

AkuManiMani, I am quite skeptical of your "supernatural" story. I do believe that it is possible that you experienced a seizure or that you are currently experiencing false memories. Nevertheless, I have a much deeper respect for you than I do those who cling on to prevailing scientific opinion as their interpretation of all that which they experience. As much as I believe it is possible that your experience falls within the framework of an "objective explanation", I also believe it is possible that your experience falls outside such an explanation as well.

Either way, I shall not fall prey to the delusion that my interpretation of the sum total of all my experiences is the correct and complete interpretation of that which is "reality". In my mind, scientific fanatics are just as bad as religious fanatics.

Irrational, illogical belief plays just as much a part in the entire scheme of humanity as rational, logical belief plays. Indeed, there are a great many sound, rational theories that we now have at our disposal which would have not come about had their pioneers not been subject to "belief" at some level. Calculus, for example, was not set on firm foundations until the late 19th century. Nevertheless, its pioneers discovered a great many true facts about it much earlier.

Well, I have no idea if the lengthy post I have just written will make a lick of sense to anyone. I expect it will draw quite a great deal of criticism from those who firmly believe in the infallibility of scientific theory. I guess there can be no communication between me and such people. But, if I have communicated anything at all, all I wish to say is that I respect your philosophy AkuManiMani. People like you and me could very well end up being dead wrong in the end. However, it is not the "rightness" or "wrongness" of one's stance which stimulates me; it is the manner and depth in which they argue it. For your subtle assertion that you do not believe you know "all there is to know", I give you praise.

HatRack is hereby awarded the position of Herald of Mysteries.

His/Her addition of "There are things we will never know!" to the "Science doesn't know everything!" cry won the job.

This singular position is now filled.

There are, however, still many openings for those interested in finding objective answers to stuff.

 

[dlorde]

I hilited where you went off the rails. Science attempts to find out how things work.

This.

 

[Bad vibe]

There are some great skeptics out there, James Randi actually goes in to debunk people, Joe Nickell actually goes in to investigate and Susan Blackmore spent 20 years involved with the "paranormal". Most skeptics I find online are just dismissive of anything they don't want to accept.

Oh, and PixyMisa, there have been people who have tested out these things and it takes trying them out and playing by their rules. You just would throw out any research done by somebody the goes against your view of how the world works. There are many connections and patters in these events, such as the buzzing sound, bright lights and the very similar messages given. This type of thing really opens up a can of worms, because everything I have brought up on this forum has only been answered with excuses like "that's impossible, something else must have happened". Also, if these events only happened a couple of years ago, not a long time, why do you assume his memories are twisted up?

If a whole group of people came forward to testify to such an event, they would be labeled as crazy or liars and dismissed, so how can we prove such a thing?

when people have a specific illness the symptoms are often the same or similar why would you expect the brain to be any different? Sounds, smells and voices even physical sensations are all possible with irregular brain function

 

[dlorde]

... Something like chaos magic is the right tool even though its difficult for people with certain temperaments.

Cool - can we see it working?

 

[dlorde]

I have been reading this thread and while it has been interesting there are a number of things that we seem missed.
...
<snip>
...

Yup, good summation - although we didn't all miss those points, they've all been made previously in the thread; without noticeable effect.