• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Are all mediums con artists then?

Yes, I do. You're an evangelical idealist in search of justification for believing that you're not just a corpse after you die.

There's soo much more to it than this. I'm passionately concerned about what materialists are trying to tell people. That the self is an illusion (and sometimes even consciousness!), that peoples' free will is an illusion, that we live in an inherently purposeless Universe and the only meaning in our lives is the meaning we give it. In other words there is no meaning imposed from outside as it were. That there is no "God" and we're all alone. That everything we ever see, ever hear, ever smell, ever touch is not actually constitutive of reality itself but is simply an experience generated by physical processes in the brain caused by a wholly unknown and unknowable reality.

None of these beliefs are justified and indeed we have excellent reasons to doubt all of them. I shall continue to expose the fallcious reasoning leading to such absurdities until my last dying breath.

You're misinterpreting what most people here say. I have no metaphysical pony to show. I'm happy to hear your explanations of your metaphysic.

I'm not happy to do that. I'm more interested in attacking peoples' beliefs on here.

But you give such a poor description of it that I can't even tell why it's not dualism,

Dualists (of the traditional variety) believe in both substantial selves and believe in an existence of a physical world deemed to be ontologically independent of our perception of it.

what the hell free will is,

Allow me to quote from my forthcoming website:

We tend to think of our behaviour as being a result of our desires and intentions. Thus for example, in waking up in the morning, I might have the choice of having either porridge, or eggs and bacon for breakfast. I am immediately aware of having the power to choose which to have. I might choose eggs and bacon because I prefer the taste. Or I might choose porridge, maybe not because I prefer the taste, but because I am concerned with my weight or health. But whatever I choose it seems for all the world that it is my choice, and it is ultimately my choice even though I might be heavily influenced in making one choice or the other. Thus I may have no problems with my health and weight, have no ethical problems with eating meat, and vastly prefer the taste of eggs and bacon. Therefore it would seem I have no reason to choose to eat porridge for breakfast and every reason to eat eggs and bacon instead. Yet, notwithstanding all of this, I nevertheless still appear to have the power to choose to eat porridge. This power to choose between alternatives is what we refer to as free will.

However, if we are to consider ourselves as being the same characteristic type of thing as any other physical thing or process, then, on the face of it, we have a difficulty here. We intuitively suppose that the vast preponderance of physical processes in the Universe are not accompanied by any conscious awareness. Thus for example, we tend to suppose that a boulder rolling down a hill, the planets which orbit the Sun and so on, unlike us, do not have accompanying mental experiences. Hence there is no question of such physical processes having any free will. It merely requires the application of physical laws to completely understand their behaviour.

Take the example of the Earth orbiting the Sun. We suppose that the Sun’s gravitational field constrains the Earth to follow a circular path around the Sun. Indeed, in the absence of any other forces, we would consider it miraculous if it took any other path.

In contrast we appear to be in direct control of much of our behaviour. It might be extremely unusual indeed for me to make the choice to eat porridge for breakfast; indeed it might be unprecedented. But it would scarcely be considered to be miraculous! This underscores the notion that it seems that I am never compelled to behave or choose in a given manner. It seems I have the power to choose to eat porridge rather than eggs and bacon, even in the absence of any good reasons for so choosing, and even if inevitably I never do so.

or why continuing on after death gives you any sense of purpose at all.

It doesn't. But our lives are certainly purposeless if we cease to exist. WE may have a sense of purpose of course. And our lives may be meaningful, but it is a self-created meaning rather than a meaning imposed from outside.

But I daresay we do not feel anywhere near as alone and isolated as a man who thinks everyone else is mind numbingly stupid.

Oh don't you concern your pretty little head about me. I've always been out of step with the rest of the human race every since my first ever memories in this world. I shall always be until the day I die, and perhaps after that too.
 
Certainly since these conclusions are not based on any reasoning but are simply an expression of the prevailing western metaphysic.
Stolen concept fallacy. Since logic is part of the "prevailing western metaphysic," you cannot use its definitions of "conclusions" and "reasoning" to dismiss it.

Provide reasons for why you believe what you do! But none of you can can you? That's because you don't have any. You think you do, but what your ilk does all the time is simply beg the question all the time.
I think I can safely speak for all the other people on this board who have a working frontal lobe when I say this:

Because that is what the evidence points to as the best answer. NO ONE (not even you) has given one iota of credible evidence in ESP, reincarnation, or an afterlife. When examined in the full light of critical thought, it has all evaporated into guessing games and wishful thinking.
 
There's soo much more to it than this. I'm passionately concerned about what materialists are trying to tell people. That the self is an illusion (and sometimes even consciousness!), that peoples' free will is an illusion, that we live in an inherently purposeless Universe and the only meaning in our lives is the meaning we give it. In other words there is no meaning imposed from outside as it were. That there is no "God" and we're all alone. That everything we ever see, ever hear, ever smell, ever touch is not actually constitutive of reality itself but is simply an experience generated by physical processes in the brain caused by a wholly unknown and unknowable reality.

None of these beliefs are justified and indeed we have excellent reasons to doubt all of them. I shall continue to expose the fallcious reasoning leading to such absurdities until my last dying breath.

Prove that any of your claptrap is correct and not just philosophy autoeroticism.
 
Prove that any of your claptrap is correct and not just philosophy autoeroticism.

Well I could certainly advance reasons and I have done so many many times. Moreover I shall be setting out my position fully and as simplistically as possible in my forthcoming website. Stay tuned.

But I find it funny that it is always demanded of me to prove that you guys are wrong, and you're never required to justify your position. I wonder why that could be? :rolleyes:
 
Because we tend to have hard evidence backing up our views and not just verboseness.
 
First of all Blutoski...

Well, in one posting, you have responded to my civil questions by calling me a 'dick' a 'clown' and 'unbelievably stupid'.

I suspect your problems are not about skepticism, and you are not interested in debate: just trolling the internet for opportunities to throw insults.

I don't see any value in continuing with this.
 
~snip that peoples' free will is an illusion, that we live in an inherently purposeless universe ~snip~

Wow, thanks for sharing. I'm glad you can make statements like this buried into your posts and assume it has some sort meaning...

Maybe I missed your point... were you in fact responding to the idea that you have no evidence to back up your arguments and yet feel compelled to tell sceptics that they are wrong?
 
Well, in one posting, you have responded to my civil questions by calling me a 'dick' a 'clown' and 'unbelievably stupid'.

I suspect your problems are not about skepticism, and you are not interested in debate: just trolling the internet for opportunities to throw insults.

I don't see any value in continuing with this.

Just for the record, I've found your responses to Ian enlightening. Thank you.
 
There's soo much more to it than this. I'm passionately concerned about what materialists are trying to tell people. That the self is an illusion (and sometimes even consciousness!), that peoples' free will is an illusion, that we live in an inherently purposeless Universe and the only meaning in our lives is the meaning we give it. In other words there is no meaning imposed from outside as it were. That there is no "God" and we're all alone. That everything we ever see, ever hear, ever smell, ever touch is not actually constitutive of reality itself but is simply an experience generated by physical processes in the brain caused by a wholly unknown and unknowable reality.

I think you group a lot of people under your "materialists" banner.

I for one wouldn't claim the self is an illusion - I thought that was a Buddhist argument? I'm not sure the word illusion has any meaning to something like the concept of self. Seems to me that I think therefore I have a self.

I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with the idea that there is an external reality and that we experience it through our senses which both colour it, filter it and partially create it it. Would you claim that a bee experiences the same reality as a human? They can see ultraviolet, smell flowers from miles away and talk in dance. But the world they inhabit is the same as mine.

As for "meaning" - like what? Either you believe in a spirit/god or you don't. If you don't then of course there is no meaning in the sense of a plan created by a human-like 3rd party. But that doesnt mean my life has no meaning. It's just that I am responsible for it's meaning rather than delegating it to some god.

Free will is just too big a topic to cover IMO. It's been debated for centuries and nobody knows the answer. It seems many simpler organisms don't have any freewill at all and we appear to get more as we go up the intelligence ladder. But I'm aware than much of what I do is automatic. I personally don't see that it matters - I think I can make decisions and I do. I don't have a problem with it.

I'm with you on the idea that it would be great to believe in the afterlife, celestial justice and a grand plan but that doesn't make it true. I'm not even sure believing it makes people happy - there are a lot of very religious, very miserable people around. You yourself don't seem to be all that light-hearted to be frank.
 
Last edited:
I have an idea.Open a new thread entitled "Interesting Ian's evidence for the paranormal".See how long before it gets any replies!! :D
 
Well, in one posting, you have responded to my civil questions by calling me a 'dick' a 'clown' and 'unbelievably stupid'.

I'm just telling you how it is. If it weren't for the rules the insults would be much worse. Trust me on that.

I suspect your problems are not about skepticism, and you are not interested in debate: just trolling the internet for opportunities to throw insults.

I don't see any value in continuing with this.

I am interested in debate. But no longer on here. I gave up on that a long time ago. People on here are incorrigibly stupid and nothing I can say will alter that. So people on here just deserve to be insulted so far as I'm concerned.

I despise skeptics and I really feel ill-inclined to be polite to them.
 
Ian said:
Dualists (of the traditional variety) believe in both substantial selves and believe in an existence of a physical world deemed to be ontologically independent of our perception of it.
This is what it appears you believe, because you have never managed to explain the connection between mind and the external world with any coherency.

Ian said:
Take the example of the Earth orbiting the Sun. We suppose that the Sun’s gravitational field constrains the Earth to follow a circular path around the Sun. Indeed, in the absence of any other forces, we would consider it miraculous if it took any other path.

In contrast we appear to be in direct control of much of our behaviour. It might be extremely unusual indeed for me to make the choice to eat porridge for breakfast; indeed it might be unprecedented. But it would scarcely be considered to be miraculous! This underscores the notion that it seems that I am never compelled to behave or choose in a given manner. It seems I have the power to choose to eat porridge rather than eggs and bacon, even in the absence of any good reasons for so choosing, and even if inevitably I never do so.
Yee-ha! Let's compare the consistency of the physics of gravity with the consistency of Ian's breakfast choice. It seems you have the power to choose to eat porridge because you don't have the slightest notion of a Theory of Ian Breakfast Choice and whether it would allow for the occasional porridge selection without recourse to miracle. So, having no notion of a theory at all, you name this ability free will. A free will of the gaps argument if I've ever heard one.

It doesn't. But our lives are certainly purposeless if we cease to exist. WE may have a sense of purpose of course. And our lives may be meaningful, but it is a self-created meaning rather than a meaning imposed from outside.
How does an outside agent impose meaning on my life? What meaning? To what end? Why? How?

~~ Paul
 
Ian said:
I am interested in debate. But no longer on here. I gave up on that a long time ago. People on here are incorrigibly stupid and nothing I can say will alter that. So people on here just deserve to be insulted so far as I'm concerned.
Where do you go for debate with intelligent people?

~~ Paul
 
I think you group a lot of people under your "materialists" banner.

I for one wouldn't claim the self is an illusion - I thought that was a Buddhist argument?

I'm not sure they have an actual argument for it, but I might be mistaken. Reductive materialists are like Buddhists in this sense. Other types of materialists might argue for a Cartesian self, but not successfully I don't think.

I'm not sure the word illusion has any meaning to something like the concept of self. Seems to me that I think therefore I have a self.

I think you might be confusing a self with consciousness.

At a given moment we have certain experiences. I mean experiences in the most general sense like particular thoughts, maybe a feeling of pain, seeing things etc. Commonsense inclines us to suppose that all these various experiences are had by a unique self. Moreover this self endures through time. But what if there are just experiences by themselves? Experiences without an experiencer so to speak?


I'm not sure why you'd have a problem with the idea that there is an external reality and that we experience it through our senses which both colour it, filter it and partially create it it.

That would take some explaining. Might be ok for a thread in P & R.

Free will is just too big a topic to cover IMO. It's been debated for centuries and nobody knows the answer.

It seems many simpler organisms don't have any freewill at all and we appear to get more as we go up the intelligence ladder. But I'm aware than much of what I do is automatic. I personally don't see that it matters - I think I can make decisions and I do. I don't have a problem with it.

We do most things on "autopilot" yes. But that's not really the issue.

You yourself don't seem to be all that light-hearted to be frank.

I think you might be very surprised. I am very light-hearted. But not when it comes to the serious stuff. Skeptics are the enemy. The amount of misery they cause in the world can scarcely be underestimated. And yet they can muster no good arguments to justify their beliefs. This makes me very angry indeed.
 
At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

At the risk of sounding like a broken record...

Originally Posted by Ashles :
Ian, do you believe anyone has the ability to contact the dead or predict the future? If so who, and what are your reasons for believing that?

Why are you asking these questions??

Contact the dead? I don't know. Some mediums appear to be genuine in the sense they are acquiring information by non-normal means. Whether they are in genuine contact with dead people is a very difficult and involved question. I really don't know.

Predicting the future? You mean instantaneously rather than through dreams? I really don't know. I would guess not but I'm willing to be corrected.
 
Just for the record, I've found your responses to Ian enlightening. Thank you.

I can't say I did at all. It's good of course that other people did. The pertinent point though was that it was a complete non-sequitur to the post of mine he was responding to.
 
Why are you asking these questions??

Contact the dead? I don't know. Some mediums appear to be genuine in the sense they are acquiring information by non-normal means. Whether they are in genuine contact with dead people is a very difficult and involved question. I really don't know.
Well that's my point. If you have no reason to believe a thing exists, then why would you think it may?

I have no reason to think Leprechauns exist so I don't believe they do. I wouldn't say simply "I don't know" otherwise I have to say that to any made up concept anyone can possibly come up with. And that leads you down a route of logically doubting everything in existence. Which doesn't seem tremendously useful as an approach to learning anything.

But if you do have reason to think people might be in contact with the dead then I am wondering what your reasons are for thinking so. If you have been impressed with a particular person them it would be interesting to know who.
 
Wow, thanks for sharing. I'm glad you can make statements like this buried into your posts and assume it has some sort meaning...

Maybe I missed your point... were you in fact responding to the idea that you have no evidence to back up your arguments and yet feel compelled to tell sceptics that they are wrong?

One doesn't necessarily need evidence to back up arguments. The arguments alone suffice.

You need to be more specific. Are we talking about free will here? I've provided arguments many times in the past. I can't just keep pasting them in all the time, especially as this would be very much off-topic.
 

Back
Top Bottom