• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Chaos Magic

That song was pretty big in the states, too. I played it (on piano) at a party last year, and most in attendance were able to shout out the chorus. I never knew that they were Australian.
 
I had to move a few posts off to AAH, so I thought I'd take this time to remind you all to remain civil. Address the topic, not the other posters. Be kind.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: kmortis
 
annnnoid said:
Perhaps you might like to suggest an alternative definition that doesn’t fundamentally contradict this rather novel claim?...as in, if telepathy doesn’t have anything to do with consciousness…what does it pertain to?
Click to expand...
Telepathy:
... the transfer of information on thoughts or feelings between individuals by means other than the "five classic senses".
Click to expand...
The Wikipedia definition, which seems reasonable to me, leaves (hypothetical) room for the unconscious or subconscious operation of telepathy. Also, ISTR some anecdotes of claimed telepathy where the claimant only became aware of 'what must have been telepathy' some time later. So it seems consciousness as in 'conscious awareness' wouldn't necessarily have to be involved - if telepathy was possible in the first place. But it's angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff really.
 
PixyMisa said:
There's one big difference, though - if you had a Near Death Experience, that means you Nearly Died.
Click to expand...
Does nearly getting run over count? I was a little shocked afterwards, but not injured.

That's a life-changing event even if it's not accompanied by vivid dreams.
Click to expand...
Well I'm much more careful crossing the road now, so it did change my life... a bit. Not as much as the mushrooms ;)
 
annnnoid said:
...perhaps dlorde could volunteer his opinion on the difference in emotional/intellectual impact between an afternoon spent on magic mushrooms/LSD and an afternoon spent being dead….and then discovering that you’re not.
Click to expand...

Thank you for sparing me another indigestible incoherency ;)

The difference in impact between an afternoon tripping and and afternoon thinking you were dead? Well, I can't speak from any experience of thinking I was dead, but I imagine a trip is far more interesting.
 
punshhh said:
You want wisdom? its free, to those who can accept it.

To a wise man there are three sets here;

(reality,( those who are open to all experiences( those who are skeptics))).
Click to expand...


And, by implication, you're a wise man?




annnnoid said:
How about an example dlorde…an analogy to give you a bit of perspective (and perhaps inspire a response to my invitation for an opinion on the subject).

It would be something like the difference between looking at a picture of someone standing at the top of mount Everest…and actually being there after having begun at the bottom.

…like I said…the difference between spending an afternoon on LSD/mushrooms…or spending an afternoon being dead, then discovering that you’re not.

Perspective….it specifically relates to the point which you complained about. I hope that makes it a little clearer.
Click to expand...


So you've had a NDE yourself?

You seem to think that you're unique in being a member here who has had a NDE. But I suppose for those who have had NDE's who do not reach the same conclusions you do, then what? They weren't as "dead" as you? More special pleading?
 
annnnoid said:
...
It would be something like the difference between looking at a picture of someone standing at the top of mount Everest…and actually being there after having begun at the bottom.
…
like I said…the difference between spending an afternoon on LSD/mushrooms…or spending an afternoon being dead, then discovering that you’re not.
Click to expand...

Really? have you experienced both an NDE and the effects of LSD or psilocybin? There is a reason they used to call it 'God in a pill' ;)

Perspective….it specifically relates to the point which you complained about. I hope that makes it a little clearer.
Click to expand...
I don't recall complaining - although I did point out the redundancy of a paranormal explanation for NDEs - was that what you meant?
 
dafydd said:
...
What does ''even absent my own posts'' mean?
Click to expand...
Absent == without.

It reads like an explicit acknowledgement that his own posts are mean spirited...

To paraphrase:
"Even without my own posts, its painfully obvious that a good portion of the participants here are mean spirited".

A courageous admission, but hardly news.
 
PixyMisa said:
You presented a list of emotions, which you claimed we can't detect. In fact, we can detect all of them. You were wrong, and your responses are growing increasingly irrelevant and inflammatory.
Click to expand...


…and exactly how is it that I’m the one who’s being accused of stirring the septic material????? I don’t know if you noticed Pixy, but it was your lapdog who accused me of ‘staggering ignorance’ based entirely on a blatant and gross misrepresentation of a fundamental point.

IOW…he not only moved the goalposts off the field, he moved them to another planet entirely, and then proceeded to level an explicit accusation based on this gross misrepresentation.

…and then he goes on ad-infinitum defending the factual basis of this misrepresentation (while at the same time trying to constantly pretend that it never even took place) while failing to produce a shred of substantiating evidence for even this misrepresented position…

…and then when I not only explicitly expose this fraud but provide specific and substantial evidence to refute even his misrepresented position…AND I clearly document the whole amusing process…

…you somehow come to the conclusion that I am the one who is responsible for this mess????

Quote: All is jaundiced to the jaundiced eye.

BTW…we await the revelation of this miracle process that can, as you (and your pet) claimed, detect every word on that list.

As for me, I now have more substantial matters to attend to.

ETA: …but hang on a sec, I spoke to soon, the un-named one seems to have once again modified his position (if it could so generously be described as such a thing). He now presents us with this riveting insight:

Pure Argent said:
Yes, we can detect all those things. Can we figure out exactly which chemical reaction is that specific emotion? No. Our instruments aren't fine enough. But we can detect it all the same.
Click to expand...


Let’s break this down shall we: “Yes, we can detect all those things.” A statement which most any reader could quite understandably be expected to interpret to mean: “Yes, we can detect all those things.” …but once again, not a shred of evidence to back up this claim. Oh well, maybe Pixy will come through.

…and then we have: “Can we figure out exactly which chemical reaction is that specific emotion? No.” So it appears we can detect a torrent of things but we cannot distinguish any of them…or only some of them…or something. So basically, according to the first sentence, we can detect all these things…but according to the second, we don’t actually know if we’re detecting all these things since we can’t actually specifically identify what it is that we’re detecting. A claim to be detecting ‘all these things’ when we can’t specifically identify what it is that we are detecting is a contradiction to all but advanced intelligence….obviously. Still no evidence. Yawn.

…and then: “Our instruments aren't fine enough. But we can detect it all the same.” Ah, finally, clarity (or is it septic material…you be the judge). We can (once again) detect everything on that list, except our instruments aren’t fine enough to specifically tell us what it is we are detecting…but there is nothing at all inconsistent with this and still claiming that we can detect everything on that list. I’m just not sure about that….maybe I’ll try a different approach: We can detect it, but we can’t determine what it is that we’re detecting (because our instruments aren’t fine enough), but somehow we can definitively conclude that we are, in fact, detecting exactly that thing which we do not have the capacity to identify. dlorde….your parsing abilities are required here. Still no evidence.

Basically, Argent, your revelation boils down to this: We can detect that there is activity occurring in the brain (“yep…this dude is alive”)…all the items on that list theoretically occur in various parts of the brain…therefore we can confidently say that we have detected every single one of them.

Congratulations. Staggering Ignorance Insight.

Explanation: Mail-order diploma.

Thanks for clearing that up Argent.

Need I point out that your theory contradicts Pixy’s assessment. You say we can’t detect everything in detail (although, in fairness, your position seems somewhat vague at times). Pixy says we can. Who’s actually right I wonder?
 
annnnoid said:
I don’t know if you noticed Pixy, but it was your lapdog who accused me of ‘staggering ignorance’ based entirely on a blatant and gross misrepresentation of a fundamental point.
Click to expand...

I've misrepresented nothing. You've misunderstood it.

<snip straw man irrelevancy>

Let’s break this down shall we: “Yes, we can detect all those things.” A statement which most any reader could quite understandably be expected to interpret to mean: “Yes, we can detect all those things.” …but once again, not a shred of evidence to back up this claim.
Click to expand...

If you want evidence, go to Google. This stuff has been known for years. I don't care enough to do it for you.

…and then we have: “Can we figure out exactly which chemical reaction is that specific emotion? No.” So it appears we can detect a torrent of things but we cannot distinguish any of them…or only some of them…or something. So basically, according to the first sentence, we can detect all these things…but according to the second, we don’t actually know if we’re detecting all these things since we can’t actually specifically identify what it is that we’re detecting.
Click to expand...

See previous statements about computers and sound waves. You can ignore them all you want; it doesn't make you any less wrong.

<snip irrelevancy>

Basically, Argent, your revelation boils down to this: We can detect that there is activity occurring in the brain (“yep…this dude is alive”)…all the items on that list theoretically occur in various parts of the brain…therefore we can confidently say that we have detected every single one of them.
Click to expand...

Nope. Of course, I don't expect you to admit that, since you simply ignore anyone who explains it to you, myself included.

Need I point out that your theory contradicts Pixy’s assessment. You say we can’t detect everything in detail (although, in fairness, your position seems somewhat vague at times). Pixy says we can. Who’s actually right I wonder?
Click to expand...

Probably Pixy. I haven't done much reading on the subject in a while, and I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if such machines had been invented since I last checked.
 
annnnoid said:
...
dlorde….your parsing abilities are required here.
Click to expand...

Don't look at me, I'm the one that can't make sense of you say...

Well, OK - I think the gist of it is that all the stuff on the list is distinguishable/identifiable by scientific means; AIUI various forms of MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging) are particularly useful. It does have its limitations, but it's a major advance.
 
Pure Argent said:
I've misrepresented nothing. You've misunderstood it.
Click to expand...


How, exactly, is it possible to ‘misunderstand’ the following.

Pure Argent said:
Everything you listed can be and has been detected by a myriad of scientific instruments.

Your ignorance is staggering.
Click to expand...


Blatant misrepresentation: Intentionally ignored explicitly stated qualification

annnnoid said:
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.
Click to expand...


So there’s only two possibilities Sherlock…either you noted the qualification but insist that I am wrong anyway…that we can in fact test for these things in that explicit way that I described (which you continue to blatantly contradict with your endless variations)…in which case you'll be expected to prove it. Meaning….evidence; as in: if you’re going to accuse someone of being staggeringly ignorant you’d better be prepared to back up your claim with something more than endless bald f’ing assertions. And if you can't prove it, then you'll be expected to withdraw the accusation.

…or you deliberately ignored the qualification and misrepresented the whole thing….but decided that you could just throw around accusations of “staggering ignorance” anyway because that’s what lapdogs do. In which case it will become crystal clear who the 'ignorant' one actually is.

So which is it?...or can we expect you to once again try and ‘strawman’ your way out of this one? Which…is…it?

…but let’s give you the benefit of the doubt just for a moment. We’ll buy this nonsense that you’re not quite up to speed on the state-of-the-art in neurological testing procedures. How long do we actually have to wait before we can conclude that Pixy is not going to show up with an answer to your prayers? Actually…the answer is ‘till the cows come home’, because there is no such thing. Evidence presented below.

Either:
a) We can detect all these things and annnnoid is staggeringly ignorant for suggesting that we cannot.

Or

b) We cannot detect these things as they are explicitly known to those who experience them (do you even have a clue what that means Argent?).

Evidence for my claim (besides the idiot Chomsky)…the indisputable fact that we have yet to develop even the ability to accurately adjudicate the existence of one of the most basic of human subjective conditions: a lie. Oh, and the additional indisputable fact that if we had the ability to detect subjective states of consciousness as they are known to those who experience them it would radically transform the entire psychological profession (no more multi-year therapy sessions…the ‘tests’ can tell us all we need to know about what is going on in patient xyz), the entire legal profession (….accurate lie detectors…woo hoo!...we could all finally find out if O.J. done it!) and almost invariably the entirety of civilization itself (but that’s a rather big argument, not least of all because it would finally represent the ability to ‘illuminate’ the condition of consciousness itself ).

Evidence from Argent?....Argent does not feel it necessary to actually support his claim with anything as inconvenient as evidence (typically Argent's claims would be regarded as a bald assertion, but this is a skeptics forum and Argent is a skeptic so different rules apply).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom