Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[annnnoid]

Your personal experiences are anecdotes, claims for which you must provide evidence or admit they are nothing more than claims. Yes, you are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. As has been suggested myriad times, a protocol could likely be devised to test your claims, but you never seem to be interested in that; rather you invoke all manner of special pleading in avoidance. This, like it or not, says much about your claims.

If I recall, Limbo did not insist that his conclusions were facts (I guess I won’t bother pointing out that he / she is, in fact, entitled to his / her own facts):

I acknowledge that there can be no scientific proof. But there can be evidence. There is plenty of evidence in favor of psi but there is no proof.

Actually, there is no scientific proof of anything, there are only degrees of certainty. This delusion that ‘science’ = what science represents is exactly that, a delusion. Science is a vast and complex vocabulary that represents, with varying degrees of accuracy, what is ‘out there’. It is not what actually is, out there. The only place it (science) does exist is in our heads. Metaphysics anyone?

What is absolutely hilarious is this constant outright dismissal of the credibility of anecdotal claims…as if they are mere trivialities, especially in comparison to scientific claims. Anecdotal claims, in case you haven’t noticed, are the foundation of the life of each and every one of us. We all live with, in, and through a legitimate variety of epistemology that provides all of us with the understanding necessary to live our lives (or not, as the case may be). Thus, we make choices based on entirely unsubstantiated evidence of any kind what-so-ever…..except the evidence subjectively available to us that we adjudicate based on our own ability to ‘know ourself’ (aka: anecdotal claims). Entirely anecdotal. Entirely exclusive of the slightest scientific scrutiny of any kind.

So on the one hand…the process of anecdotal evidence is sufficient to choose your wife, or to decide to have a kid, or to understand that you love your family, or to merely (yawn) live your life…but when it comes to psi the very same process of anecdotal evidence all of a sudden lacks all credibility and must be discarded.

 

[Resume]

If I recall, Limbo did not insist that his conclusions were facts (I guess I won’t bother pointing out that he / she is, in fact, entitled to his / her own facts):

Then you recall incorrectly.

 

[Resume]

What is absolutely hilarious is this constant outright dismissal of the credibility of anecdotal claims….

Provide reliable evidence for anecdotal claims and one is helpless but to accept them.

Gosh, this seems almost remedial.

 

[annnnoid]

If you have a way to tell what is going on with ontology then you aren't discussing a monism. I guess this bears repeating.

......and back to the subject at hand (which, I'm hoping, will return by necessarily circuitous routes to the original Piggy-centric discussion surrounding how we can know that God does not exist [or not])....could you explain this statement...briefly if necessary. I have an inkling of the argument but cannot quite seem to make the connection.

 

[annnnoid]

Provide reliable evidence for anecdotal claims and one is helpless but to accept them.

Gosh, this seems almost remedial.

What evidence do you have for your own personal anecdotal claims?...absolutely nothing but the anecdotal claims themselves (or do you submit to an fMRI to adjudicate whether or not you love your wife?). Same as everybody else. Case closed.

 

[Resume]

What evidence do you have for your own personal anecdotal claims?...absolutely nothing but the anecdotal claims themselves (or do you submit to an fMRI to adjudicate whether or not you love your wife?). Same as everybody else. Case closed.

I think you are confused. I might say I love my wife, yet understand the word I use has a chemical or neurological function that is explanatory. Or if you wish this might be akin to say a D.H. Lawrence theme that posits love may be an illusion (chemical, neurological) but it is a sustaining illusion. Of course none of this has any supernatural or paranormal component; it is apparent that social bonding is a quite common biological phenomenon, one we see quite often.

As opposed to psi, as just one example.

Again, this seems remedial.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

What evidence do you have for your own personal anecdotal claims?...absolutely nothing but the anecdotal claims themselves (or do you submit to an fMRI to adjudicate whether or not you love your wife?). Same as everybody else. Case closed.

While personal experience is indeed fallible, are you seriously suggesting that I should give others' anecdotal claims as much credence as my own? My senses and awareness might be imperfect, but I am going to trust them more than yours, or anyone else. Of course anecdotal claims are treated as evidence- we do it everyday in courts of law- but without any corroborating evidence, one person's claims are usually treated with skepticism. Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea, and that personal claims should just be taken at face value? Limbo's claims are not taken seriously by many of us because EVERYTHING else we know points towards him being wrong- only his personal experiences support any of his claims. Of course we're going to treat these stories with doubt and incredulity.

 

[annnnoid]

I think you are confused. I might say I love my wife, yet understand the word I use has a chemical or neurological function that is explanatory.

Really…how so? Do you get a blood test to check your ‘chemicals’ before saying ‘I love you’?

So love is an illusion…of what?

And do you want to know what is also very common….reports of psi experiences (which, since they happen to people, would – I suppose – have to be categorized as biological phenomenon). Surveys have indicated as much as 80% of the population report psi experiences of one kind or another (far beyond epidemic proportions of any equivalent neurosis or psychosis….if that’s what they are). So may I now conclude that they are legitimate based on your 'common biological phenomenon' argument?

While personal experience is indeed fallible, are you seriously suggesting that I should give others' anecdotal claims as much credence as my own? My senses and awareness might be imperfect, but I am going to trust them more than yours, or anyone else. Of course anecdotal claims are treated as evidence- we do it everyday in courts of law- but without any corroborating evidence, one person's claims are usually treated with skepticism. Are you actually suggesting that this is a bad idea, and that personal claims should just be taken at face value? Limbo's claims are not taken seriously by many of us because EVERYTHING else we know points towards him being wrong- only his personal experiences support any of his claims. Of course we're going to treat these stories with doubt and incredulity.

All I’m saying is don’t use the argument of ‘anecdotal claims’ to dismiss an experience or observation. Happens at JREF a lot.

 

[Resume]

Really…how so? Do you get a blood test to check your ‘chemicals’ before saying ‘I love you’?

Don't have to because I understand this chemical/neurological function in fact exists, and that social bonding is demonstrable. I would allow the same, be helpless to so do, of psi if it were so demonstrated. I don't need a huge ontology of gathered navel lint, but a carefully controlled experiment. Not interested in claims of the paranormal but the demonstrable merits of same. There are many on this board who claim an ability to produce some sort of psi effect yet there is never, not ever, any product.

 

[Resume]

So may I now conclude that they are legitimate based on your 'common biological phenomenon' argument?

From what I've read, and remember from your previous visits, you will conclude whatever will allow you to type more stuff. If I had to guess, finals are anon but not yet pressing.

 

[The Norseman]

Really…how so? Do you get a blood test to check your ‘chemicals’ before saying ‘I love you’?

Why would he do any such thing?

So love is an illusion…of what?

He was paraphrasing DH Lawrence; perhaps you can ask him. I've seen some JREFers who claim to speak to the spirit world so maybe it's possible.

And do you want to know what is also very common….reports of psi experiences (which, since they happen to people, would – I suppose – have to be categorized as biological phenomenon). Surveys have indicated as much as 80% of the population report psi experiences of one kind or another (far beyond epidemic proportions of any equivalent neurosis or psychosis….if that’s what they are). So may I now conclude that they are legitimate based on your 'common biological phenomenon' argument?

All I’m saying is don’t use the argument of ‘anecdotal claims’ to dismiss an experience or observation. Happens at JREF a lot.

Surveys? Not studies? What are these surveys so that we all may take a look?

 

[Resume]

All I’m saying is don’t use the argument of ‘anecdotal claims’ to dismiss an experience or observation. Happens at JREF a lot.

Who might you be to lecture?

 

[punshhh]

What are they? Why are these coincidences "ridiculous?"

Well an event happened yesterday.

I was driving along in my van and noticed on the pavement, on the other side of the road, a woman walking in the same direction I was facing. She was wearing a style of clothing which denoted she was from a social grouping which I have an affinity with. This made me take a second glance.

At the same moment she turned her head and looked straight at me( she was still about 40 yards ahead of me and had to turn her head right around to see me). There was an instantaneous recognition and a smile exchanged between us in which I had a deep understanding of "where she's at" and from the manner of her smile it was clear that she had a similar understanding about me.

This entire event took less than a second, the meeting of eyes and mutual understanding less perhaps a quarter of a second.
As I drove up the street I looked in the rear view mirror and could see a spring in her step from the experience, which I also felt although I was sitting down.

Anyone care to give a materialist explanation of why she turned her head and on doing so looked straight at me rather than just looking in my general direction and then homing in on my face?


Regarding farcical coincidence.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Aldeburgh with a group of six friends, we happened to visit a charity shop. We spent probably 20 minuites there milling about, some would be in the shop browsing, others outside chatting. I must have gone in looked at various things and come out again four or five times, along with the others we were sort of circulating randomly.

Anyway I did buy something at one point(a nice pea green Harris Tweed jacket) and proceeded to stand outside talking to a friend who was admiring the jacket. Why I stood in that exact place was to a large extent random.

A few seconds later a large H shaped ariel fell off the roof and framed me perfectly. The two prongs on one half of the H fell either side of me front and back and the middle section just brushed my coat at the side. Other than this it didn't touch me. I stepped back wondering what had happened( I thought someone had touched me with a stick or cane (or wand)). Only to see my precise location framed by one half of the ariel. I looked at my friend, an athiest and he was totally gobsmacked and speechless. In fact the whole group, all athiests, where too when they heard what had happened. If you had taken a picture of each face you could have illustrated a hagiography of bemused expressions.

I was the only one who wasn't bowled over. A policeman walked over to see what was going on and a scene remeniscent of a Hogarth comedy ensued.

 

[slingblade]

Really…how so? Do you get a blood test to check your ‘chemicals’ before saying ‘I love you’?

It's silly to argue this way, you know, when the studies have been done, and the science of it is out there. Besides, you have your own observations to inform you of the physical changes emotions produce.

So love is an illusion…of what?

Love is not an illusion. Love is an abstraction; a word used to describe an immaterial but very real concept.

Abstractions are paired with concretions: the physical manifestations of an abstraction. They are the symbols, images, things, actions, reactions...the real things that represent the reality of the abstraction.

And do you want to know what is also very common….reports of psi experiences (which, since they happen to people, would – I suppose – have to be categorized as biological phenomenon).

Please look: the term "psi experiences" is so vague, and contains so many permutations of manifestation, so many widely varied and assorted "experiences" that could qualify as "psi," that the term ends up being utterly meaningless. After your next quote below, I'll tell you why**.

Surveys have indicated as much as 80% of the population report psi experiences of one kind or another (far beyond epidemic proportions of any equivalent neurosis or psychosis….if that’s what they are). So may I now conclude that they are legitimate based on your 'common biological phenomenon' argument?

No, you can't.

The first reason is very simple: you do not get to say "surveys show," unless you also show surveys. So...?

The second reason: Argumentum ad Populam. I don't give a rat's fat behind how many people you claim have experienced something; the sheer number of them doesn't render their claims true. The vast majority of people might very well claim to have has a "psi experience." The vast majority of us also think we're generally more moral than our neighbors.

The third reason is that within that 80% that so far you've only claimed, but haven't substantiated, we're going to have to do some sorting. We can't just accept every single claim as real and substantial, can we? So how many do you think we end up with as "real" claims, after we've sorted out for liars (oh, and how do we tell who's lying, if all we have are their stories?), the mentally ill, the mentally incompetent, and the simply mistaken? How many are left, and how do you know? All you have are their anecdotes.

How do you weigh mere stories?

Do we give the same weight of soundness to the claims of an unmedicated paranoid schizophrenic as we might, say, to you?

The fourth reason: 80% of the population of what? One nation, the world, what?

The fifth reason: **what, specifically, constitutes a "psi experience," and how is it determined? There's no way to begin to decide legitimacy, until we've defined our terms and know just what we're looking for, or looking at.

To recap:

So may I now conclude that they are legitimate based on your 'common biological phenomenon' argument?

No, you may not.

All I’m saying is don’t use the argument of ‘anecdotal claims’ to dismiss an experience or observation. Happens at JREF a lot.

It "happens" because those of us who point it out to you are using proper logical argumentation. Anecdotes do occasionally serve a limited purpose, but for the most part, since they are unverifiable, they cannot serve as evidence. Dismissing your anecdotes is the only thing anyone trying to verify your claims with evidence can do. They don't count as evidence. They do not meet evidentiary standards.

Evidence must be:

1) Universally observable: everyone who can see must be able to see what you have claimed to see at the time you claim to see it. Otherwise, how can we possibly know you weren't just lying? It's not good enough that you know; we must know too. So, in order for your evidence to function, it can't just be a one-off experience that happened while you were alone, and conveniently never happens again, or never when anyone else is around. It has to be observable, and it must be...

2) Replicable. You must be able to reproduce this event, especially in the presence of others, to satisfy #1. Others must also be able to replicate the event, if they use the same methods you used. If it's observable, and it's replicable, then it ought to satisfy the third requirement, which is...

3) Testable. Having observed, and then replicated the event, I can now test it for soundness, for validity, and thus can experience this "psi event" for myself, and come to understand how it works.

 

[dafydd]

Well an event happened yesterday.

I was driving along in my van and noticed on the pavement, on the other side of the road, a woman walking in the same direction I was facing. She was wearing a style of clothing which denoted she was from a social grouping which I have an affinity with. This made me take a second glance.

At the same moment she turned her head and looked straight at me( she was still about 40 yards ahead of me and had to turn her head right around to see me). There was an instantaneous recognition and a smile exchanged between us in which I had a deep understanding of "where she's at" and from the manner of her smile it was clear that she had a similar understanding about me.

This entire event took less than a second, the meeting of eyes and mutual understanding less perhaps a quarter of a second.
As I drove up the street I looked in the rear view mirror and could see a spring in her step from the experience, which I also felt although I was sitting down.

Anyone care to give a materialist explanation of why she turned her head and on doing so looked straight at me rather than just looking in my general direction and then homing in on my face?


Regarding farcical coincidence.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Aldeburgh with a group of six friends, we happened to visit a charity shop. We spent probably 20 minuites there milling about, some would be in the shop browsing, others outside chatting. I must have gone in looked at various things and come out again four or five times, along with the others we were sort of circulating randomly.

Anyway I did buy something at one point(a nice pea green Harris Tweed jacket) and proceeded to stand outside talking to a friend who was admiring the jacket. Why I stood in that exact place was to a large extent random.

A few seconds later a large H shaped ariel fell off the roof and framed me perfectly. The two prongs on one half of the H fell either side of me front and back and the middle section just brushed my coat at the side. Other than this it didn't touch me. I stepped back wondering what had happened( I thought someone had touched me with a stick or cane (or wand)). Only to see my precise location framed by one half of the ariel. I looked at my friend, an athiest and he was totally gobsmacked and speechless. In fact the whole group, all athiests, where too when they heard what had happened. If you had taken a picture of each face you could have illustrated a hagiography of bemused expressions.

I was the only one who wasn't bowled over. A policeman walked over to see what was going on and a scene remeniscent of a Hogarth comedy ensued.

Once again,sigh. Things fall off roofs every day all over the world. Nothing spooky here. What does this have to do with agnostics being welcome here? Can we stick to the topic of the thread please.

 

[Leumas]

Well an event happened yesterday.

I was driving along in my van and noticed on the pavement, on the other side of the road, a woman walking in the same direction I was facing. She was wearing a style of clothing which denoted she was from a social grouping which I have an affinity with. This made me take a second glance.

At the same moment she turned her head and looked straight at me( she was still about 40 yards ahead of me and had to turn her head right around to see me). There was an instantaneous recognition and a smile exchanged between us in which I had a deep understanding of "where she's at" and from the manner of her smile it was clear that she had a similar understanding about me.

This entire event took less than a second, the meeting of eyes and mutual understanding less perhaps a quarter of a second.
As I drove up the street I looked in the rear view mirror and could see a spring in her step from the experience, which I also felt although I was sitting down.

Anyone care to give a materialist explanation of why she turned her head and on doing so looked straight at me rather than just looking in my general direction and then homing in on my face?

This story confirms confirmation bias....


It could have been that she noticed a van following her with a guy OGLING her and so looked more carefully to see what freak is stalking her.

Or it could be that she happened to look around and noticed a guy in van driving at the pace of her walking and at the same time ogling her and consequently wanted to make sure it was not one of those drive buy muggings.

Do you know how many guys I have seen in Strip Bars who give a dollar to a stripper and then get all hot and bothered about her smiling at them and then later when they are auto-gratifying have it in their brain that she is in LOVE with them?


What makes a guy who pays a girl to give a lap dance think that the girl is in love with him? WHAT brain malfunction is going on in his cranium to enable him to perceive and confirm that the girl actually gave him a second thought after she got her money and went on to the next mug?

What process of self deception is so instinctive so as to be able to accept fully and without a second reconsideration that a stripper in a bar is actually in love with them?


Is it some kind of confirmation bias perhaps???? Combined with utter inability to REASON???

Regarding farcical coincidence.

A couple of weeks ago I was in Aldeburgh with a group of six friends, we happened to visit a charity shop. We spent probably 20 minuites there milling about, some would be in the shop browsing, others outside chatting. I must have gone in looked at various things and come out again four or five times, along with the others we were sort of circulating randomly.

Anyway I did buy something at one point(a nice pea green Harris Tweed jacket) and proceeded to stand outside talking to a friend who was admiring the jacket. Why I stood in that exact place was to a large extent random.

A few seconds later a large H shaped ariel fell off the roof and framed me perfectly. The two prongs on one half of the H fell either side of me front and back and the middle section just brushed my coat at the side. Other than this it didn't touch me. I stepped back wondering what had happened( I thought someone had touched me with a stick or cane (or wand)). Only to see my precise location framed by one half of the ariel. I looked at my friend, an athiest and he was totally gobsmacked and speechless. In fact the whole group, all athiests, where too when they heard what had happened. If you had taken a picture of each face you could have illustrated a hagiography of bemused expressions.

I was the only one who wasn't bowled over. A policeman walked over to see what was going on and a scene remeniscent of a Hogarth comedy ensued.

I am sorry.... I just cannot believe your story.... I am sorry…… I think it is a made up one.....

NOT because of the antenna falling and missing you.....no....it is not because of that.....that happens billions of times a year (not necessarily with antennas)....no... that part is believable and MUNDANE.

What I have a hard time believing however is that a group of guys hang together SHOPPING.......SHOPPING as a guys' group activity ..... now THAT is just unheard of....just too impossible to believe.

You are obviously fibbing....I am sorry man... I just cannot swallow your obvious fabrication..... you need a different backdrop PLOT.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

When I have a vivid vision of an unforeseeable dramatic event that comes to pass before my eyes several moments later, I regard that as verified subjective evidence in favor of psi. I appreciate if you have a different opinion on the matter. But I would say that you can't even begin to imagine what it would be like for you to walk a mile in my shoes. In terms of subjective evidence alone I have plenty of personal reasons to reject any belief-system or philosophy that isn't compatible with psi. You could too.

No I doubt that I couldn't imagine it. And I do not doubt your experiences as experiences. The controversy surrounds interpretation of the experiences only. I have no problem with people's personal beliefs; you are perfectly free to believe as you wish and accept the personal evidence that you have for yourself. Hearsay evidence (what your personal experiences amount to for everyone else), however, is not going to sway others to your cause.

When the body of parapsychological evidence is examined impartially, a reasonable observer could conclude that there is sufficient evidence to accept psi. Not necessarily that psi is "proven true". That same observer could then go home and learn techniques of eliciting and testing his own psi. You could too.

I would need to see that evidence. What I have seen of it doesn't sway me toward parapsychology. Like most every teenager, when I was much younger, I wanted to believe in parapsychology but I never saw enough evidence to support it even then.

If psi is real we should see a wide variation in abilities, like with virtually all other human abilities. That is something we don't see. Where is the Einstein of psi, the man or woman who can tell us every single card every single time? Such a person should exist if this phenomenon were real. So far, all I have seen are the vagaries that occur statistically with any investigation. If we never saw a study that showed statistical significance I would worry that there was an effort to disprove parapsychology; but that is not what we see. Just as with all other endeavors there is the rare case where a study 'peeks over the edge' of statistical significance -- as is predicted by statistics.


And none of this has anything to do with psi resulting from idealism. If idealism is true, then psi should look like any other natural phenomenon; and there should be a natural explanation. There is simply no way out of that.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

......and back to the subject at hand (which, I'm hoping, will return by necessarily circuitous routes to the original Piggy-centric discussion surrounding how we can know that God does not exist [or not])....could you explain this statement...briefly if necessary. I have an inkling of the argument but cannot quite seem to make the connection.

We are creatures and we are made of some substance. If there is one substance, then we are determined by the rules that govern that one substance. Determinism is a necessary component of any monism. God thinking reality would produce the same effect from our perspective as no-God vibrating strings bouncing around. Our seeing vibrating strings of energy bouncing would simply be our model of what occurs through god's thinking to create reality if idealism were true.

We must end up with exactly the same perspective on philosophical quandries -- human free will, etc. -- with idealism as with any monism. There is no free lunch. We cannot derive magic out of idealism any more than we could out of neutral monism or materialism. The reason behind this is because what we call mechanism is just the means of interaction of the single substance, whatever its ultimate nature. It has to look exactly the same to us no matter what it actually *is*.

Every attempt to appeal to 'magic' (a fundamentally unexplainable interaction, such as a true miracle) means that two substances are entertained. So, for instance, if we wanted to appeal to libertarian human free will in idealism, that would require some form of different substance than God's mind or we would see an entirely different type of world. If the original substance is god's mind and everything else is action within god's mind (reality) it necessarily follows that god's thoughts function in exactly the same way that material substance function. Determinism necessarily holds. Belief that every individual is a truly independently free entity not determined by whatever substance comprises them, requires another type of substance or God's mind in us. Granted it's easy to confuse the two because we call both 'thought', but they can't be the same thing. God's thoughts produce what we call reality. If we have independent free will, like many idealist's view god to have, then there is a part of us that is not the action of god's thoughts, but actually is the mind substance that does the thinking. If that were the case, then we would also create reality; but we don't do that. When we think, we think, and that is it. It also makes no sense to speak of God communicating with 'us' because that would simply be god talking to himself; actually it would be more like us speaking to the 14,369th cell to the left the edge of my big toe. There is also no way to have separate god substance/mind interact with an action of the original mind, so the whole attempt to put free will in humans doesn't make any sense anyway.

So, there is no way to get libertarian free will out of idealism (in humans) just as we can't find it in materialism. We also cannot derive truly independent creatures out of idealism, creatures that god would talk to in a way that he was not simply talking to himself. The only way to derive an independent creature is to posit a second substance.

 

[dafydd]

All I’m saying is don’t use the argument of ‘anecdotal claims’ to dismiss an experience or observation. Happens at JREF a lot.

I just saw a green luminous alien in my garden then he got into his space ship and flew away. Do you believe me? Do you believe pushhh's and Limbo's anecdotes?

 

[Complexity]

PZ Myers has a good post today which addresses the OP writer's hopes and dreams...

A glimpse into the vague and blurry mind of a proud None

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...to-the-vague-and-blurry-mind-of-a-proud-none/