Chaos Magic

[AkuManiMani]

Quite. Although I'm not sure that admitting to making mean-spirited posts is anything to be proud of...

So cowardly hiding behind a facade of polite passive-aggression and maintaining an implicit double standard is more honorable?

 

[Hokulele]

In my opinion, being polite in spite of others' behavior is more honorable.

 

[AkuManiMani]

This ain't an academic or work setting; its a web forum on an open internet with common access to an ocean of informational resources. I am not obliged to dispel you of your glaring prejudices. All I'm here to "prove" is that you're enthrall to such biases. Its your prerogative whether you choose overcome them enough to honestly seek out the information you're demanding I retrieve for you.

So, while you accused another poster of "vehemently dismissing" something based on what you perceive as his bias, you are unable or unwilling to provide evidence for that assertion. That's dishonest. I'm asking you for evidence to prove your claim.

Just to clarify, I mused about your dishonesty and your unwillingness to provide evidence, and how that works for you at school or work. A student or employee of mine wouldn't last long with your type of schtick.

HAH!

You wanna talk about "schticks" and "dishonesty"? I've just had a gaggle of posters insist that my recollections of my own experiences are less reliable than their bald presumptions concerning them. They then turn around and demand that I recall more even though they insist that my recollections are fundamentally unreliable. To add to the hilarity, they also insist that the events I recall are not significant while simultaneously claiming that if they're accurate it would somehow upend the foundations of science.

I'm going to venture a little hypothesis of my own: You, and many of your cohorts, are far more interested in indulging your addictions to being smug, derisive, and dismissive than you are in actually ascertaining the truth. I think your braying insistence for "evidence, evidence, evidence" is a thin cover for your desire to have some silly schmuck on the other-side of the internet present information for you to validate so you can imperiously brush it aside and boost your petty little ego. If you actually had some genuine interest in getting at the truth you would be doing your own research instead of sitting up on your stinking high-horse demanding to be waited upon.

 

[AkuManiMani]

In my opinion, being polite in spite of others' behavior is more honorable.

I can definitely respect that. However, that is not the path I've chosen

 

[Hokulele]

This is not meant to be snarky, but what is the success rate of your path?

 

[Nonpareil]

If my memory is presumed to be so faulty and inadmissible that I'm not a reliable witness to my own damn experiences why the repeated demands that I recall more details?

Who has said that? Certainly not me. I don't particularly care how many details you think you can remember. It doesn't make your memory any more reliable. You can't verify the details any more than you can verify the rest.

Hell, why even the presumption that my recollection of the events in question must be faulty?

"Must"? Who said anything about "must"? Stop strawmanning.

No one said that you must be wrong. It's just that we - and you - have no way to know that you aren't. And as we already know the memories are unreliable, your anecdote can't be used as evidence in and of itself. If you had some way to prove that your story is true, then it might constitute some form of evidence. But you don't, so all you have is an unsupported story which you can't even verify to yourself.

The point in my previous post that you explicitly addressed and disputed. Don't play coy, Argent.

I'm not "playing coy". Your "point" was invalid. I was wondering if you were referring to another one, since that one was such an obvious straw man.

Ostensibly, almost every poster has claimed that they dismiss studies/claims with positive reports on the basis of 'unreliable' methodology or some other presumably rational reason.

Yes. And that is the reason. If you wish to show that the methodology in the studies providing evidence for psi (which you still haven't presented) is not flawed, you are entirely free to do so.

Yes, our reasons are presumably rational. They also are rational.

From where I'm sitting, it appears that you're willfully blind to your own biases and that of your cohorts.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like you're trying to play armchair psychologist with no supporting evidence.

I can honestly say I'm not biased against psi. I would love to find out that psi is real. How freaking awesome would that be?

But I'm also unable to lie to myself. I have never seen any concrete evidence for psi. Not a single iota. This isn't my bias speaking, even if I have one. It's simply fact. None of the studies presented to me, or the anecdotes told to me, have ever been valid as evidence, and only a few minutes' research is necessary to show that.

Of course, I don't pretend to think that I've seen every piece of "evidence" out there, so you are of course free to prove that there is valid evidence of psi, rather than simply insinuating that I'm ignoring it due to willful blindness. You haven't presented any evidence, so how can I dismiss it due to cognitive bias?

Really? Then it should be rather easy for you to look up and provide the answers to some questions I have:

What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience?

I don't know. I'm not a neuroscientist. You would have to ask someone who knows more about the field than I do.

What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences?

Ditto.

How is this process expressed thru the biochemistry of neurons?

And ditto again.

What part of the system actually has the experience(s)

Depends on the experience. Different areas of the brain process different things.

and what are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?

Again, depends.

You still seem to be missing my point. We've made great leaps towards understanding consciousness. So far, there hasn't even been a single hint, let alone an actual piece of evidence, that consciousness arises from anything other than chemical interactions in the brain. That I myself am unable to answer these questions doesn't matter. Even if the leading experts in the field can't answer it, it doesn't even begin to prove that consciousness resides anywhere other than the brain, and there's no reason to think that we won't gain a more complete understanding of it in future.

Our eyes don't "perceive" a damn thing.

If you want to be pointlessly pedantic in the hopes of "scoring points", go right ahead. I'll just wait here until you're done.

<snip insults and repetition>

Are you quite finished?

So being a skeptical independent thinker means uncritically acquiescing to the opinions and views of others? I'm sorry, Mirror, but having un-met strangers insist that their bald presumptions of what I experienced are more reliable than my firsthand recollections isn't pointing out where I'm wrong. Such behavior is unspeakably arrogant no matter how many individuals are in agreement on it. Truth is not a democratic process.

Apparently not.

Mirrorglass didn't say that you shouldn't believe in psi simply because we don't. Honestly, it's quite astonishing that you're able to build such straw men with a straight face.

I haven't insulted or rebuked anyone who didn't first lay an insult themselves.

*cough*

You wanna talk about "schticks" and "dishonesty"? I've just had a gaggle of posters insist that my recollections of my own experiences are less reliable than their bald presumptions concerning them.

No, you haven't. That you think so shows that you don't understand what has been said to you.

We haven't been saying that our possible explanations of what happened to you are any more reliable than your own. They are simply more likely to be correct given what we know about your situation and the way the universe works. We are not stating with one hundred percent certainty that this is what happened. We are just saying that these are possibilities that you cannot rule out, and that thus your leap to "paranormal" is unjustified.

<snip straw men>

Again, are you quite finished with your armchair psychologist routine? You're not very good at it. Please stop.

 

[dlorde]

So cowardly hiding behind a facade of polite passive-aggression and maintaining an implicit double standard is more honorable?

Sounds like a rather provocative loaded question. Ouch

 

[annnnoid]

So I am now unsuspended. And now shall descend my wrath upon those who...I mean...look...flowers!

…and just for you Argent...since you have yet to respond.

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?

So far you’ve proved yourself incapable of providing a response…and since I doubt this will change, I’ll just leave you with a timely quote from Pixy (who, by the way, has yet to produce any proof of his own claims, but why quibble)

.

And yes, when people follow through with excuses rather than evidence, it's time to quit.

And for all you skeptics who might actually have some interest in upward mobility, a few links from my vast library.

http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_15_2_keen.pdf

http://www.skeptiko.com/randi-prize-exposed-in-new-book/

http://www.closertotruth.com/search_results.php?search=braude&x=47&y=13

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/GrossmanLetter.pdf

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-12060925/BEYOND-SCIENTISM-PERSONAL-EXPERIENCE-IN.html

http://www1.psychology.lu.se/Personal/e_cardena/Cercap/CERCAP.htm

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

http://mindmatter.de/

http://science-spirituality.blogspot.com/2009/10/watershed-event-neuroscience.html

http://anti-matters.org/0/about.htm

http://www.quantumbrain.org/QBLandscape.pdf

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Review of Trevor Hall on Home.pdf

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Review of The Other World.pdf

http://jcer.com/

http://www.quantumbrain.org/QBLandscape.pdf

http://www.ctr4process.org/publications/Biblio/Thematic/Consciousness.html

http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2005.11.549?journalCode=acm

http://www.neuroquantology.com/journal/index.php/nq/article/viewFile/85/85

http://www.imprint.co.uk/pdf/15_8_Freiburg.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_n4_v56/ai_14558016/

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2320/is_2_65/ai_76737823/

http://www.trashotron.com/agony/reviews/2004/sullivan-miracle_detective.htm

http://www.powells.com/review/2004_05_07

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Review of Irreducible Mind opt2 sm.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Irreducible-Mind-hard-find-contemporary/dp/0742547922

A brilliant, heroic and astonishing revival of late 19th century ideas about cosmic consciousness, individual mental powers and the spiritual or soulful nature of human beings. -- Richard A. Shweder, William Claude Reavis Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Comparative Human Development, University of Chicago

This book is required--and fascinating!--reading. -- Charles T. Tart, Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Davis campus of the University of California and Professor at the Institute of Transpersonal Psychology

This is an extraordinary book. In the arena of neuroscience of mind, it is the most exciting reading to have crossed my path in years. -- David Presti, Professor of Neurobiology, University of California-Berkeley

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Commentary on Woodhouse.pdf

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Conceptual Unity of Dissociation.pdf

http://www.parapsychology.org/

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Death By Observation.pdf

http://www.deanradin.com/book.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Fear of Psi.pdf

http://www.near-death.com/evidence.html

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/doubtsregood.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Holographic Analysis.pdf

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/delanoy/delanoy.html

http://www.paranormalia.com/

http://www.skeptiko.com/randi-prize-exposed-in-new-book/

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence01.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--In Conversation With Stephen Braude.pdf

http://www.parapsych.org/faq_file1.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Mediumship and Multiple Personality.pdf

http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy1.html

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html

http://www.noetic.org/blog/absent-minded-science-part-iv-the-c-word-and-emerg/

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Peirce on the Paranormal.pdf

http://www.dina.kvl.dk/~abraham/psy2.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Personal Identity and Postmortem Survival.pdf

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/tucson.html

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Psi and our Picture of the World.pdf

http://www.iands.org/

http://www.medicine.virginia.edu/clinical/departments/psychiatry/sections/cspp/dops#NDE

http://www.harbornet.com/folks/theedrich/hive/ND_Dream.htm

http://www.paradigm-sys.com/end-of-materialism/index.cfm

http://www.meta-religion.com/Paranormale/NDE/university_of_southampton_research.htm

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Psi and the Nature of Abilities.pdf

http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Radical Provincialism.pdf

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/papers/bell.html

http://www.integral-review.org/documents/Padelford, Consciousness in Evolution, Vol. 5, No. 2.pdf

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Replies to Cook.pdf

http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/psi/martian.html

http://www.amazon.com/Authors-Impossible-Paranormal-Jeffrey-Kripal/dp/0226453863

“This is an excellent book. As well as being carefully researched and theoretically interesting, it is also engaging, witty, and thoughtful. Writing in an easy, contemplative style, Kripal is never less than rigorous and wide-ranging; he doesn''t get mired in statistics or parapsychological analysis, but instead, drawing on religious studies and cultural analysis, he explores key ideas and thinkers in their respective contexts. In the process, the reader is introduced to the largely rejected knowledge of the psychical, the sacred is resurrected in the paranormal, and lazy skepticism is challenged. Authors of the Impossible will contribute significantly to the intelligent, open-minded study of the sacred, while Kripal will, I suspect, become a key figure in the development of new trajectories in the study of religion.”—Christopher Partridge, Lancaster University

“Jeffrey Kripal’s new book represents a serious intellectual challenge to the epistemological assumptions that govern the work of scientists and religion scholars alike. He demands nothing short of a paradigm shift in order to make sense of the odd, the anomalous, and the inexplicable. All of this he calls the impossible—the paranormal situations in which thought forms are said to become physical realities and the future to morph into the present and past. Kripal is no fluffy believer; he argues incisively and in detail in ways that seek to shake our materialist and rational foundations at their base, so that our defensive walls come tumbling down.”—Catherine L. Albanese, University of California, Santa Barbara

http://authorsoftheimpossible.blogspot.com/

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Some Thoughts on Parapsychology and Religion.pdf

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Telepathy.pdf

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude--Toward a Theory of Recurrence.pdf

http://www.scientificexploration.org/

http://www.noetic.org/noetic/issue-7-february/getting-the-facts-straight-dean-radin-responds-to/

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/braude-Fear of PSI-D2-Braude.pdf

http://userpages.umbc.edu/~braude/pdfs_pubd/nunn-review-braude-gll.pdf

http://web.archive.org/web/20041023082635/www.alternativescience.com/

http://web.archive.org/web/20041011215324/www.alternativescience.com/skeptics.htm

http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html

http://sites.google.com/site/chs4o8pt/skeptical_fallacies#skeptical_fallacies_no_evidence

http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Contents.htm

http://web.me.com/dandrasin/Dansworld/zen.html

http://www.sheldrake.org/D&C/controversies/Carter_Wiseman.pdf

http://www.siib.org/news/1034-SIIB/...ta/data/Nonlocality paper gallies Explore.pdf

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion/browse_thread/thread/3892fda7654089d3


"There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force… We
must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind
is the matrix of all matter." Max Planck….a complete idiot!

True belief is a decision. It's also a gift. Accept the gift and you will make the decision

 

[Nonpareil]

…and just for you Argent...since you have yet to respond.

On the contrary. I have already responded.

Pay attention.

 

[annnnoid]

On the contrary. I have already responded.

Pay attention.

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

Prove….it!

What was that line you so love to throw at the believers:
EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE!

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?

Shall we expect Argent to man-up? Or shall we expect the usual….evasion and, what was that other word for people who refuse to admit they’ve screwed up? Once again, Pixy has the answer:

And yes, when people follow through with excuses rather than evidence, it's time to quit.

 

[Nonpareil]

Prove….it!

Again, are you incapable of using Google? Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse? I've even linked you to a Google search. You can do the rest yourself. You're a big boy.

 

[carlitos]

Hi annnnoid,

I asked you this before your break from the forum. How about just responding to the highlighted part. If not, no biggie. And no rush! I'm hitting the town, so won't be checking back for a while.

annnnoid, have you seen the IBM Watson project? They programmed a computer to understand slang, analogies, trick questions, etc. It beat human contestants in a test run of the game show "Jeopardy."

http://money.cnn.com/2011/01/13/technology/ibm_jeopardy_watson/index.htm

The real event will be televised in the middle of February.

I really don't understand your points. You seem to be saying that machines (or rulers) can't experience emotions like humans can. I agree with this, but I realize you have a broader point, something to do with consciousness. Would you consider succinctly stating your point, so that I might understand your position more clearly? If it's not related to 'chaos magic' maybe you could put it someplace else and link it?

 

[PixyMisa]

So cowardly hiding behind a facade of polite passive-aggression and maintaining an implicit double standard is more honorable?

No, you should stop doing that as well.

 

[annnnoid]

Again, are you incapable of using Google? Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse? I've even linked you to a Google search. You can do the rest yourself. You're a big boy.

‘Google it’ qualifies as evidence of nothing…except the fact that you’re too afraid to admit that you don’t have any.

So we have two possibilities:
1) How many skeptics would agree that ‘google it’ is entirely sufficient to support an extraordinary claim?
2) How many skeptics would agree that ‘google it’ is nothing but an excuse?

Or we could look at it another way:
When incapable of finding evidence to support your own argument, blame your opponent for not finding it for you.

Full points for evasion.

Why don’t we ask some of your fellow skeptics what it’s called when someone posts claims that they refuse to back-up…..ever?....and then accuses someone of being staggeringly ignorant for challenging them?

I think Pixy has the answer once again.

And yes, when people follow through with excuses rather than evidence……..

 

[PixyMisa]

I thought that might tickle your fancy

Looked at another way...
[piffle snipped]

You take far too much for granted in your conception of the world

No, I don't. You do.

We walked on the Moon. Yes, the one up in the sky.

Did stone-age beliefs in disembodied spirits get us there?

(Hint: No.)

in this, you're not the first and hardly the last.

Indeed, it's not true at all.

Like so many others before you, you've become so enamored and intoxicated by your vaunted understanding of the reality that you unwittingly mistake it for reality itself.

No. This is a strawman, and it's one that's already been addressed dozens of times. If you have no rational defense of your position simply say so, rather than making dishonest attacks against what is actually known.

You have become so fat and contented with the presumed sufficiency of your "knowledge" that you're blind to the manifold mysteries staring you right in the face.

As soon as you present this slightest shred of evidence that any of these purportedly manifold mysteries actually exists, I take notice and perhaps even manifest some interest.

Until then... Not so much.

Oh, on the contrary.

Well, no. Not on the contrary. The point stands.

A tributary point of mine is that the majority of your own position is based upon these very same fallacies:

- Your insistence in lending credence only to studies and claims that confirm your own biases, while vehemently dismissing any and all that don't, is itself a form of special pleading.

This is entirely untrue in general and in every particular.

I give credence to studies that present evidence. I do not give credence to studies that do not present evidence.

I do not accept simple stories as fact.

This is not bias; it is the application of a methodology that has been established to work. To work where nothing else does.

- Your bald claim that the mind/consciousness must in principle be confined to brains, based purely off of the fact that you know of no mechanism that would allow otherwise, is an argument from ignorance.

No, since I never said any such thing, nor anything remotely resembling that.

What I said was that mind and consciousness are confined to brains in fact. It's not any principle that assures us of this, it is hard reality. It's not that I know of no other mechanism that can generate minds, it's that I know that no other mechanism is possible.

As I said before, this is where our worldviews depart in opposite directions.

I note that we know certain things, and that the unknown is bounded by the known.

You note that the unknown is infinite, which is true enough, if the Universe is infinite; and unbounded, with the known a "subset" of the unknown.

That's a mathematical absurdity. What you mean to say is that the known and unknown are both subsets of all facts. If we depict these subsets as contiguous areas, then the unknown is necessarily bounded by the known.

And this is, in fact, the case.

Do we know, without looking at every rock in the Universe, that none of them talk?

Yes. Yes we do. Rocks don't talk.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Not at all. As we have seen, not only are your arguments in support of your own position entire fallacious, but your arguments against others' positions are also entirely fallacious. The cookware discolouration appears to be correlated closely with the location of your kitchen.

[* Theres that "we", again. Methinks someone takes way too much comfort in the security of group enforcement and social consensus. Whats the deal? 'Fraid to stand alone...?]

Ad hominem, appeal to motive.

Facts are stubborn things, AkuManiMani. We did go to the Moon. (Still the one up in the sky, yes.) No matter how much you want to protest, it was science that took us there, the same science that tells us that your interpretation of your memories of your experience is unfounded and absurd.

There is nothing in the laws of physics as we know them that models or defines the mind/consciousness and its contents -- let alone describes what it's properties are.

As I've said again since, this betrays a comphrenesive lack of understanding of the science involved at every possible level.

There is no physics of consciousness any more than there is a physics of cheese. The physics doesn't change. The arrangement of matter changes.

Studying the patterns of behaviour of complex arrangements of matter is not something study as physics, in general. This is why there are scientific fields that are not called "physics".

Such a scientific discovery would be, at the very least, worthy of a Nobel prize. I'm sorry, but you're going to have to provide some very hard evidence of such knowledge.

There's no such thing. You are trying to impose your personal magical beliefs - that consciousness is somehow special - on science, when we already know it's not.

I'll take that as an implicit "no".

It's not a no, it's mu, "unasking" the question. Your question cannot be addressed because it is based on multiple layers of false assumptions.

But in all seriousness, I also agree with Mr. Moore's assessment, to an extent.

What Moore is saying here is that magic is imaginary.

However, I'd add that the subjective contents of the mind are just as real, in their own right

In their own right?

as the external objects of our senses.

An experiment:

We take two subjects, A and B.

A imagines hitting B over the head with a hammer.
B hits A over the head with a hammer.

The experiment ends when A or B concludes that the other's method is more effective.

Oh, wait, the experiment has been run already; the results are in. And the answer is:

We walked on the Moon.

(Yes, still the one up in the sky.)

I'd further posit that the external "physical" world of our common experience is quite possibly a more tightly constrained, coherent, and higher res version of what our individual consciousness produce when we dream.

Did we fly to the Moon on rockets, AkuManiMani, or on the wings of dreams?

I'll play some helpful thinking-time music while you consider that.

doodle-doodle-doodle-doodle-doodle-dee-doo-doodle-doodle-doodle...

 

[PixyMisa]

Full points for evasion.

Why don’t we ask some of your fellow skeptics what it’s called when someone posts claims that they refuse to back-up…..ever?....and then accuses someone of being staggeringly ignorant for challenging them?

I think Pixy has the answer once again.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what Pure Argent has posted. He has already answered your question. If you want more details, then follow the links he's provided.

 

[annnnoid]

Hi annnnoid,

I asked you this before your break from the forum. How about just responding to the highlighted part. If not, no biggie. And no rush! I'm hitting the town, so won't be checking back for a while.

This all began when Pixy asserted or implied that we have the technical ability to detect any phenomenon. He suggested this to support his claim re: psi that if these things happen we would be able to detect them (because we have the technical ability to evaluate electro-bio-chemical patterns across a wide range of realities).

I countered that there are a vast range of phenomenon that we cannot detect….and I provided a list of them. Essentially, there does not exist any consensus about what consciousness even is, let alone how to detect it or the infinite variety of ways in which we experience it. The very very very obvious point being that detecting any variety of neural activity is vastly different than detecting subjective consciousness itself or the very explicit and substantial phenomenon that is our experience of any of the words on that list.

Argent then countered with his B.S. that we can detect every item on that list (which he repeated, then retracted, then altered, then retracted, then altered, then repeated, etc. etc.). He has yet to provide a shred of evidence to support either the simple claim: that it’s possible to detect every item on that list…or the much more advanced claim which includes the explicit qualification that I clearly specified: as they are known to exist by those who experience them. We’re still waiting Argent. ‘Google it’ does not an argument make (except to a bar of soap).

Unlike Argent, I have no problem finding evidence for my positions. Go through that list if you want. I haven’t actually read ‘Irreducible Mind’ but that would likely shatter just about every skeptic bone in your body. Or you could just look for the truth in David Fincher’s brilliant little insight: “ You’re in charge, you’re not in control. Anyone who thinks they’re in control is nuts.” As in…why are we not in control?...what is it we’re not in control of?...and what, then, is in control of us? Personally, I think it has something to do with Shakespeare: ‘…all the world’s a stage…and all the men and women merely players…’

This is a blatant misrepresentation of what Pure Argent has posted. He has already answered your question. If you want more details, then follow the links he's provided.

‘google it’….this is an answer?!?!?!?!?!?

Tell me Pixy, if you insisted someone provide evidence for some kind of extraordinary claim, and they said….’google it’….what word would you apply to them?

Yeah, thought so. Shall I quote you again, or can you come up with the word ‘excuse’ all by yourself this time.

 

[PixyMisa]

This all began when Pixy asserted or implied that we have the technical ability to detect any phenomenon.

I never asserted or implied anything of the sort.

 

[PixyMisa]

Actually, I went further than never asserting or implying anything of the sort, I specifically said that there are phenomena that we know must occur but which we cannot observe, and even gave an example.

Which in no way should be taken to mitigate any of the multitude of fallacies in your posts. But, I predict, will be.

 

[annnnoid]

Actually, I went further than never asserting or implying anything of the sort, I specifically said that there are phenomena that we know must occur but which we cannot observe, and even gave an example.

....which was?