Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them

Except that you said:

How about I give you a few examples of things that are in no way shape or form detectable by any known scientific instrument.

And then gave a list of emotions, which are mental states, i.e. neurological processes, well understood and readily detectable and identifiable.

We have no scientific understanding of what these things are.

They're neurological processes.

We have no scientific understanding of how these things happen.

They're neurological processes.

(…don’t bother disputing these conclusions….for every Dennet or Pinker I can produce an equally reputable counter opinion…so at the very least the issue is unresolved)

You don't get to dictate what we dispute; no you can't; and no, the issue is not unresolved. This is established scientific fact, and you're dead wrong.

We have no existing scientific instrument that can detect any of these things as they are known to exist by those who experience them….except, of course, the 'scientific instrument' that is those who experience them.

That's special pleading.

We have no scientific instrument that can measure an inch the way my ruler measures an inch - simply because anything else is not my ruler.

It's simply irrelevant.

All we have are the anecdotal accounts of people who insist that they do happen.

Nope. We have tons of physical evidence showing that these emotions happen, what is happening in the brain and the body when these emotions are experienced, and what causes these emotions.

….but we don’t accept anecdotes as evidence …

except, of course, in every single decision every single person makes every single second of every single minute of every single hour of every single day of every single week of every single month of every single year of their lives. So basically, anecdotal evidence is good enough to make a choice about a life partner, or whether to become president of the United States, or whether to bring another child into the world, or whether to order a big mac or a salad

Of course, none of this is true. None of these decisions are ever based purely on anecdotal evidence.

but when it comes to a claim of an experience that skeptics just can’t stomach, it’s pure fraud.

Ad hominem and strawman.

 

[annnnoid]

No, you've made a number of bare assertions. I suppose that is understandable, being credulous and all.

How’s this for a bare assertion:

If it exists, we should be able to detect it (simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many wonderful and elusive things that our scientific instruments can detect). Since we cannot detect it, we must conclude that it does not exist. Science at it’s most profound (personally, if I were a betting man, I’d say your odds of handling any kind of Nobel prize with this level of scientific reasoning has just plummeted to somewhere below absolute zero).

Tell me Resume, do you subscribe to this variety of scientific methodology? So who's the credulous one?

What was it Wolfgang Pauli said?...not even wrong.

…a similar argument:

Quite obviously since we have no scientific instrument that can detect anything that Pixy would recognize as Pixy, we must conclude that Pixy does not exist.

….or do you wake up in the morning and count synaptic functions while brushing your teeth?...hell, maybe you do. That would explain a lot.

 

[PixyMisa]

....no, an exaggeration and/or bare assertion is suggesting, as Pixy just did, that there is nothing that can occur that cannot be detected by some variety of existing scientific instrument.

Wrong.

Every one of those things in your list? We can detect them. Objectively. Scientifically.

As soon as you were challenged on this, you resorted to special pleading.

Being skeptics, it is perfectly understandable that you missed that one. I mean, suggesting that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything that occurs is plausible....to a skeptic I suppose.

Name something that exists that can't be detected by scientific instruments, then.

 

[PixyMisa]

How’s this for a bare assertion:

If it exists, we should be able to detect it

That's not a bare assertion, that's definitive.

(simply by virtue of the fact that there are so many wonderful and elusive things that our scientific instruments can detect).

Well, no.

Since we cannot detect it, we must conclude that it does not exist.

Correct.

 

[Resume]

How’s this for a bare assertion

You're quite adept at them, granted, but can you stop?

 

[Resume]

So who's the credulous one?
QUOTE]
Look up while brushing your teeth.

 

[Limbo]

Actually, no. The OP suggested that unless we had an experience ourselves, we should basically STFU because we had no basis to form an opinion or make a decision.

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

 

[The Norseman]

Name something that exists that can't be detected by scientific instruments, then.

Well, God, of course.

 

[The Norseman]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

I would say, if you can't or won't 'use the scientific method' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a rational decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of mystics like Swedenborg.

 

[Zanders]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'use the scientific method' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a rational decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of mystics like Swedenborg.

So, did you happen to mention Swedenborg because of me?

 

[Resume]

So, did you happen to mention Swedenborg because of me?

Yes Zanders it's all about you, well, and Swedenborg.

 

[carlitos]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

Why haven't we been reading a fascinating dialogue between you and the guy who said that he did build his own signal and cast spells?

 

[Hellbound]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

Heh.

Of course, if I did "build my own telescope" (in the regard you mean), the first thing I'd do is show all my friends exactly how it works, and let them look through it as well. Something that proponents of nonsense like Chaos Magic and spirits continually fail at. For some reason your telescope only works for you, and no one else can look through it...or see it...or detect it in any way except by taking your word for it that it's there.

In what way is an invisible, intangible, undetectable telescope different from no telescope?

Have any proof that you have a telescope at all, or even know what one is?

 

[dafydd]

This thread is degenerating into farce. I find the phrase "chaos magic" very chuckleworthy.

 

[annnnoid]

They're neurological processes.

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Except, of course, when it comes to Pixy. Pixy has the answer, it’s just that nobody believes him. What a shame, the world would be so much simpler if we all just took Pixy’s word for everything. We’d likely all be dead, but wouldn’t that be simpler?

You don't get to dictate what we dispute; no you can't; and no, the issue is not unresolved. This is established scientific fact, and you're dead wrong.

Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy. Why don’t we ask….Resume. Care to venture an opinion Resume?

We have no scientific instrument that can measure an inch the way my ruler measures an inch - simply because anything else is not my ruler.

It's simply irrelevant.

…what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it? I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.

Nope. We have tons of physical evidence showing that these emotions happen, what is happening in the brain and the body when these emotions are experienced, and what causes these emotions.

What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being (specifically, the human being in question) to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.

Of course, none of this is true. None of these decisions are ever based purely on anecdotal evidence.

Really….don’t know about you Pixy but everyone I know lives entirely within their own subjective consciousness. I know you’re a little out there Pixy, but that sounds almost, well, supernatural.

Wrong.
Every one of those things in your list? We can detect them. Objectively. Scientifically.

As soon as you were challenged on this, you resorted to special pleading.

Missed that did you Pixy. I quite obviously did not resort to anything. I had quite clearly stated exactly what my points were in the first post. Carlitos just as obviously failed to read them. I simply pointed out that obvious fact. Get your timing straight there Pixy.

Name something that exists that can't be detected by scientific instruments, then.

“I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+”

Find me the scientific instrument that can definitively spit out that exact condition (upon being 'plugged into' the human being experiencing it) and I will hand you next years Nobel Prize. IOW…said scientific instrument must conclude: “subject is experiencing …”I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” . You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not and it can easily be argued that “I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” or one of it’s infinite permutations and combination's is but one of those things that indisputably exist as a real experience for a human being. It exists. Detect it. Prove it.

Oh, but that’s not fair, that’s not a normal human experience. Oh…boo hoo!!!!!

…..yeah, and since when has existence been normal?

While you’re at it, I’ve got a few trillion more (the list actually goes on forever, and it’s different for every single human being). Care to have a go?

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

Why don’t we start a new thread: All resident skeptics can vote if they approve or disapprove of Pixy’s new theory. Anyone want to make any bets what the outcome will be? I know where I’ll put my money.

 

[Resume]

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Except, of course, when it comes to Pixy. Pixy has the answer, it’s just that nobody believes him. What a shame, the world would be so much simpler if we all just took Pixy’s word for everything. We’d likely all be dead, but wouldn’t that be simpler?



Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy. Why don’t we ask….Resume. Care to venture an opinion Resume?



…what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it? I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.



What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.



Really….don’t know about you Pixy but everyone I know lives entirely within their own subjective consciousness. I know you’re a little out there Pixy, but that sounds almost, well, supernatural.



Missed that did you Pixy. I quite obviously did not resort to anything. I had quite clearly stated exactly what my points were in the first post. Carlitos just as obviously failed to read them. I simply pointed out that obvious fact. Get your timing straight there Pixy.





“I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+”

Find me the scientific instrument that can definitively spit out that exact condition (upon being 'plugged into' the human being experiencing it) and I will hand you next years Nobel Prize. IOW…said scientific instrument must conclude: “subject is experiencing …”I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” . You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not and it can easily be argued that “I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” or one of it’s infinite permutations and combination's is but one of those things that indisputably exist as a real experience for a human being. It exists. Detect it. Prove it.

Oh, but that’s not fair, that’s not a normal human experience. Oh…boo hoo!!!!!

…..yeah, and since when has existence been normal?

While you’re at it, I’ve got a few trillion more (the list actually goes on forever, and it’s different for every single human being). Care to have a go?

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

Why don’t we start a new thread: All resident skeptics can vote if they approve or disapprove of Pixy’s new theory. Anyone want to make any bets what the outcome will be? I know where I’ll put my money.

There's a kegger on the quad and I hear freshmen are invited, well, tolerated. You seem to have abandoned your 101 in Philosophy anyway.

 

[annnnoid]

There's a kegger on the quad and I hear freshmen are invited, well, tolerated. You seem to have abandoned your 101 in Philosophy anyway.

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

I'll take that as 'I approve' then.

 

[Resume]

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

I'll take that as 'I approve' then.

Clean up the straw and get you to the kegger. You're not very good at this; maybe you'd be better at acting goofy for the co-eds.

 

[Zanders]

Yes Zanders it's all about you, well, and Swedenborg.

I was just wondering if he specifically mentioned his name because of my ranting about him in a thread of mine.

 

[Resume]

I was just wondering if he specifically mentioned his name because of my ranting about him in a thread of mine.

I was joking guy.