Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

First, the designation of "hallucination" is an added interpretation attributed to my account of hearing a 'voice'

Actually, that's not the key part of your story here, though "hearing" "voices" is a common enough form of hallucination.

This is the big red flag:

Just a few moments after she had fallen asleep I felt what could best be described as a 'spark'-like sensation at the crown of my head [accompanied by that high pitched ringing sound like the one you often hear when a monitor or some other electrical device is turned on] and I felt a presence come over me (ya, I know it sounds sappy, but thats the best way I can describe it).

As to what the relevance of the hypothetical, I was simply drawing a parallel between the reactions of the 19^th century scientists in the scenario to what [at the time] would be a seemingly supernatural claim

Except that it wouldn't, as I illustrated.

 

[I Am The Scum]

I'm saying that I've uncertainty regarding the claims of your experience. Now, if I proceeded to tell you that I KNOW the nature of your account and fabricated an explanation without any first hand experience of what you're claiming I'd be behaving as a presumptuous ass.

Given the fact that you do accept your belief as true (obviously), and my account conflicts with yours, wouldn't you have to accept that my account is flawed? We can't possibly both be correct.

It is only natural that one would seek an explanation for this disparity. There's a very simple one that you have not bothered to mention: I am the one making all of this up, as a means to test your reasoning abilities. Do you find that to be a fair explanation of our exchange?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I said, in relation to this:

I can recall my own experiences, but I fully expect my recollections to be inexact.

Then you later said:

Oh, and I'm still curious about the content of those hallucinations, PixyMisa. While your memory may be shoddy and your integrity seriously questionable, I'd still like to hear you out

Which is clearly an ad hominem attack.

Theres no ad hominem argment being made in that post. I was expressing curiosity about the contents of your hallucinations, and acknowledging the uncertainty regarding the reliability of the account you'd give

 

[sadhatter]

This all boils down to one simple premise.

Aku, would you accept with only the person claiming it's word that they experienced something supernatural?

If the answer is yes, well your entirely too gullible, your beliefs and bias have made you ripe for any number of people looking to screw with you or take your money.

If the answer is no, then your demanding we accept your story with less evidence than you yourself would require.

Either way , your either gullible to the point where it calls into question how well you looked into your own experience. Or your putting us on. Which is it?

 

[PixyMisa]

Theres no ad hominem argment being made in that post. I was expressing curiosity about the contents of your hallucinations, and acknowledging the uncertainty regarding the reliability of the account you'd give

Nope. Read it again.

 

[PixyMisa]

This all boils down to one simple premise.

Aku, would you accept with only the person claiming it's word that they experienced something supernatural?

Never mind that, would he accept every such claim simultaneously?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I'm saying that I've uncertainty regarding the claims of your experience. Now, if I proceeded to tell you that I KNOW the nature of your account and fabricated an explanation without any first hand experience of what you're claiming I'd be behaving as a presumptuous ass.

Given the fact that you do accept your belief as true (obviously), and my account conflicts with yours, wouldn't you have to accept that my account is flawed? We can't possibly both be correct.

If your claim was that whatever you call "god" says that I'm making things up, then the only thing about your account that I'd be certain of is the inaccuracy of your "god's" alleged claim. Anything beyond that, from my POV, is hypothetical.

It is only natural that one would seek an explanation for this disparity. There's a very simple one that you have not bothered to mention: I am the one making all of this up, as a means to test your reasoning abilities. Do you find that to be a fair explanation of our exchange?

That is a fair explanation. I suspected from the get go that the purpose of your rhetorical question was to test out just what kind of individual you were dealing with. However, only -you- know for certain what your motivations were. The only things I could do in response would be to A) take your word on some degree of good faith B) assume you're lying about your motives [requiring some degree of bad faith] or C) suspend judgement.

 

[AkuManiMani]

This all boils down to one simple premise.

Aku, would you accept with only the person claiming it's word that they experienced something supernatural?

I'm not claiming anything supernatural occured. As a matter of fact I've already explained to Sceptic Tank that I do not 'believe in' the supernatural, as I think its merely a relative term.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Never mind that, would he accept every such claim simultaneously?

I don't uncritically accept every claim, nor am I asking anyone here to do otherwise. Theres just so much of a frenzy here to chase the scent of 'woo' that no one is even bothering to understand what my position is

 

[AkuManiMani]

Nope. Read it again.

Read it again. You're still wrong

ETA: And do you care to share the contents of your hallucinations, as you recall them?

 

[PixyMisa]

I don't uncritically accept every claim, nor am I asking anyone here to do otherwise. Theres just so much of a frenzy here to chase the scent of 'woo' that no one is even bothering to understand what my position is

Really?

What then is your position?

Read it again. You're still wrong

Nope. It still says what it said when you posted it.

ETA: And do you care to share the contents of your hallucinations, as you recall them?

Sure.

The moment you indicate you have grasped the problems with human memory in general and confabulation in particular - and that these apply to your account of your experience.

 

[AkuManiMani]

I don't uncritically accept every claim, nor am I asking anyone here to do otherwise. Theres just so much of a frenzy here to chase the scent of 'woo' that no one is even bothering to understand what my position is

Really?

What then is your position?

Part of my position is that you have no grounds whatsoever to speak with certainty regarding the veracity of my claims. IMO, by just giving a simple account of my odd experiences I've just gotten the real skeptics and the wannabes to reveal themselves. Guess which category you're in

Read it again. You're still wrong

Nope. It still says what it said when you posted it.

</snicker>

Okay, s'long as we're in agreement that you're wrong

ETA: And do you care to share the contents of your hallucinations, as you recall them?

Sure.

The moment you indicate you have grasped the problems with human memory in general and confabulation in particular - and that these apply to your account of your experience.

I especially liked the part where you didn't actually share the contents of your hallucinations

 

[PixyMisa]

Part of my position is that you have no grounds whatsoever to speak with certainty regarding the veracity of my claims.

Well, it's a good thing that no-one did that, isn't it?

Do you grasp what confabulation is, AkuManiMani? What memory plasticity is? Do you grasp that they're to do with accuracy, not veracity?

Do you grasp that these apply to everyone?

Do you grasp that you are - by your own word - only providing an incomplete account of your personal recollections of a subjective experience?

Do you grasp that given this assembly of facts, we do arrive at a certainty: Your report cannot by itself be taken as reliable. Never mind your interpretation, this applies to your report.

IMO, by just giving a simple account of my odd experiences I've just gotten the real skeptics and the wannabes to reveal themselves.

Not remotely.

Okay, s'long as we're in agreement that you're wrong

Not remotely.

I especially liked the part where you didn't actually share the contents of your hallucinations

Sorry, I don't see where you have acknowledged that your report of your experience is intrinsically unreliable and highly likely to be significantly inaccurate. If you could point out that particular post to me, we can proceed.

 

[tsig]

Yes,let's see a trick. Do something Limbo,work your magic on us.

Yes if the magic works we should all be supporting Limbo.

 

[PixyMisa]

Yes if the magic works we should all be supporting Limbo.

That's what it comes down to, doesn't it?

I can do magic.
Okay, go right ahead.
I can do magic.
Whenever you're ready.
I can do magic.
I'm beginning to suspect that you can't.
I've put you on ignore! I can do magic!

 

[Tinyal]

The answer to your question is quite simple Aku - the reason is because any individual's 'first hand experiences' aren't evidence of anything other than the fact that particular person claims to have had that particular experience.

Personal experiences and anecdotes are useless as evidence, as they cannot be tested or repeated. Therefore, your claim is useless for anything requiring evidence & people are trying to get you to see that.

Quite simple, really.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The answer to your question is quite simple Aku - the reason is because any individual's 'first hand experiences' aren't evidence of anything other than the fact that particular person claims to have had that particular experience.

Personal experiences and anecdotes are useless as evidence, as they cannot be tested or repeated. Therefore, your claim is useless for anything requiring evidence & people are trying to get you to see that.


Quite simple, really.

And its only when a large number of credentialed people start having similar experiences and form a consensus about them does it become 'evidence'. Birlliant!

 

[tsig]

So, having established a hypothetical that intrinsically contradicts current scientific understanding, you criticise the scientists for expressing a certainty you never previously mentioned regarding an account you haven't properly described.

Do I have that right?

I think that somewhere you may have included a truth in the words you have posted.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Part of my position is that you have no grounds whatsoever to speak with certainty regarding the veracity of my claims.

Well, it's a good thing that no-one did that, isn't it?

Do you grasp what confabulation is, AkuManiMani? What memory plasticity is? Do you grasp that they're to do with accuracy, not veracity?

Do you grasp that these apply to everyone?

Do you grasp that you are - by your own word - only providing an incomplete account of your personal recollections of a subjective experience?

Do you grasp that given this assembly of facts, we do arrive at a certainty: Your report cannot by itself be taken as reliable. Never mind your interpretation, this applies to your report.

IMO, by just giving a simple account of my odd experiences I've just gotten the real skeptics and the wannabes to reveal themselves.

Not remotely.

Okay, s'long as we're in agreement that you're wrong

Not remotely.

I especially liked the part where you didn't actually share the contents of your hallucinations

Sorry, I don't see where you have acknowledged that your report of your experience is intrinsically unreliable and highly likely to be significantly inaccurate. If you could point out that particular post to me, we can proceed.

You know what PixyMisa, you're right. I humbly submit that my senses and faculties are hopelessly faulty, and I unconditionally bow down to the inerrant infallibility of your declarations

ETA: So what did you hallucinate? Give us the goods!

ETA2: I also commend you on mixing things up a bit with your new mantra: "Not remotely". Your "Wrong" and "No" responses were starting to get a bit stale.

 

[sadhatter]

I'm not claiming anything supernatural occured. As a matter of fact I've already explained to Sceptic Tank that I do not 'believe in' the supernatural, as I think its merely a relative term.

Calling it a different name doesn't change the facts. Answer the question.

I can't just call violence " overly effective conflict resolution" and then claim i am not a violent person when i commit acts of violence. Just as you can't just say " its not supernatural." then hand wave away any natural explanation.

It is kinda obvious your just putting us on at this point, why can't you just admit that, go back to another account, and try again? The game is played out my friend.