Chaos Magic

[PixyMisa]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision.

Of course we have a basis to form an opinion: We examine the evidence.

There isn't any.

Therefore your "Chaos Magic" doesn't exist.

 

[dafydd]

Of course we have a basis to form an opinion: We examine the evidence.

There isn't any.

Therefore your "Chaos Magic" doesn't exist.

We have already discovered that.

 

[Zanders]

I made a thread where people shared their mystical and spiritual backgrounds and why they gave up on them. Not everyone who has "built their own telescope" has seen anything with it.

I've linked to it numerous times earlier in this thread, so I don't feel the need to do it again.

 

[PixyMisa]

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus.

Wrong.

Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”

Chomsky's a linguist.

….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy.

Actually, Chomsky's Universal Grammar is widely regarded as pseudoscience that has set the field of linguistics back thirty years.

Be that as it may, all you have done is pick an irrelevant quote from a famous - or infamous - name in an irrelevant field. This does not in any way refute the past fifty years of neuroscience.

what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it?

To whether we can detect emotions or not, yes.

We can.

I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.

Name one who would disagree with the statement in context.

What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening.

Yep. There you go. Argument over. But at least you admitted that you were wrong.

 

[Resume]

Chomsky's a linguist.

Yes, but a cunning linguist.

Sorry.

 

[PixyMisa]

We have already discovered that.

I think he might have missed the thousand or so previous posts pointing that out.

 

[Zanders]

I've never heard anyone refer to "neurological" as a big word. I find that rather funny.

 

[PixyMisa]

The red herring catch is short this season, he has to work with what he can get.

 

[Hokulele]

I would say, if you can't or won't 'build your own telescope' then yes, perhaps you should STFU because you have no basis to form an opinion or make a decision. But you can always lap up the superficial opinions of debunkers like Randi.

This from the person who wanted to lecture us about comparative religion when he hadn't even read the Tao de Ching?

Priceless.

 

[Zanders]

This from the person who wanted to lecture us about comparative religion when he hadn't even read the Tao de Ching?

Priceless.

He told me that he has not read the Quran either, but he's read some books on the subject of comparative religion. I know for a fact he has mentioned Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung many times.

I would think that reading the original source materiel and seeing for yourself if the interpretations work is a good thing, instead of being told what they say.

 

[The Norseman]

So, did you happen to mention Swedenborg because of me?

Sorry, no; I wasn't taking a crack at you or anything. I did a quick Google search for "mystic famous woo" or something similar, came across a Wiki page with him, Blavatsky, and one or two other big names. His was the first name, so I chose it.

Limbo's original post didn't have anyone's name in it; as I hit "respond", I had to look closely again and noticed he added Randi's name at the end, so since I was doing a near verbatim copy of his post, I had to now go and find some mystic's name.

 

[AkuManiMani]

[BTW, I tested out your claim that your earlier color/font mishap was an artifact of "transferring" text from Word. I conducted an experiment of my own which produced negative results. Should I conclude that you're full of it?]

You can conclude whatever you want. I have no idea whay it appeared different to you. It looks normal on my browser. The transferrence was the only thing I did differently in that post...if that wasn't the case, then I have no idea.

So does the negative result of my experiment render your claim untrue or necessarily implausible?

Actually, I specifically seached for a short wiki article on the subject as I'd already read much about that specific topic, non-locality, and entanglement phenomena in general. The point was to demonstrate that, even within the confines of known physical theory, non-local distal influence akin to telepathy is considered possible. Its a bit silly and disparaging for you to automatically assume that disagreement with you on this topic implies incomprehension.

But it is NOT silly to understand that believing entanglement is a possibility to expalin telepathy on a macro-level is non-sensical and shows a lack of understanding of what entanglement is, or how difficult it is to create and/or maintain. Let's put it this way: while not technically impossible for two individuals to be entangled to some degree that allows communication, the odds of this happening are similar to the odds of a person quantum tunneling through a solid wall. You'd have to wait longer than the lifetime of the universe for a single instance to occur.

A number of studies have demonstrated not only macroscale entanglement, but also entanglement being utilized in biological systems. Again, the assessment of "its not possible" is more than a little premature, to say the least.

Okay, consider this:

I personally know a synesthete who experiences sounds visually. In his awareness, each human voice is a dynamic and unique array of shapes and colors. One person's voice is experienced as warm, pulsating orange ovals, another as purple circles, and mine he experiences as "red spinnie squares". There are many other synesthetes who have different subjective experiences of the world which can vary widely, yet they receive veridical information from their senses none the less -- some of which, their "normal" peers may not have access to.

Do you consider the senses of synesthetes faulty?

Yes. They are mis-routings of sense data. Sounds do NOT have color. If they tell me my voice is green, that is not correct. I would agree that they experience it as green, based on their say-so (we know synesthasia exists, and "seeing" sounds is not an unusual form).

Light does NOT have color either. Color is a subjective interpretation most humans presumably have of light. Sound itself is also a subjective interpretation. Sounds, tastes, colors, and the like, are not external physical attributes but internal subjective states that may be evoked in a conscious being by certain stimuli. How physical stimuli are ultimately coupled with particular perceptions/qualia may ultimately turn out to be as arbitrary as the semiotic link between symbol and meaning.

If so, would you submit that they are not qualified to make valid scientific observations?

No, but I would say that their observations are only valid by understanding the limitations of their senses. Because they see a voice as a purple oval doesn't give the voice a shape or color. Personal perception is only valid to the individual.

What makes you think that the perceptions of a non-synesthete more valid than those of a synesthete?

If a given synesthete [with his/her own unique subjective makeup] has a perception that differs from what a well established scientific theory predicts they should is their perception "false", or is it indicative of a limitation in the theory?

It's an indication that their perception is altered. It would depend on the specific example. If a person detects bass notes as green, for example, then when they "see" a "green" sound I'd believe it was a bass note. I would not believe there was actually a green sound. And this is exactly the point we've been attempting to make. You're simply brushing aside the documented and solid evidence of the falliability of memory as if it doesn't apply. In any case, even by your own argument, your evidence only applies to you, andwe should not, in any way shape or form, accept it based on your word (as you stated, we have no direct experience of your consciousness).

There is no "green", there is no "sound" -- there is no perception of anything as anything beyond the awareness of conscious subjects. Metaphorically speaking, consciousness is the singularity at which epistemology and metaphysics ultimately converge. As of now, science has only the barest superficial understanding of consciousness, and none with regard to how the subjective figures in to physics as we know it.

Hold the phone. On what basis are you designating which studies were "well controlled"? Is this based upon reports you've received concerning the studies in question or did you actually participate in them yourself? How do you know that your conclusion isn't an artifact of your admitted bias?

Because scientific studies detail the experimental controls used and the methodology. You can examine this to find where opportunities for problems appeared. In various stories (as opposed to controlled conditions) and such, there simply isn't enough information available to know if there was no chance for non-paranormal inforation exchange or other possibilities. I'm not saying they are all false. I'm saying the studies have yet to provide positive proof and eliminate all non-paranormal explanations, and therefore can't be accepted as evidence of the paranormal. Disbelief is the default position; it's not on us to disprove the paranormal or experiences like yours (whether you want to call it paranormal or not). There should be positive evidence for it...yet that hasn't appeared.

Answer me this:

Assuming we were living 120 years ago [before the advent of quantum theory] would you consider the results like those of the double-slit experiment [and other phenomena which violate the assumptions of classical physics] to be "paranormal" or "mundane", and would your willingness to accept the validity of such reported findings be affected by designations?

You interjected in a point you knew I was making to another individual and requested that I elaborate on it. When I did so you claimed that the point it was addressing wasn't your argument and accused me of making a straw-man. I'm seeing a trend here...

I'll review and see if this is the case, and if so, I apologize. With days between posts and the speed of the thread, I do lose track.

Alright, I'll try giving you the benefit of the doubt on this.

Okay, this is genuinely getting sad -- you're actually trying to make a weasel argument by technicality. Are you really trying to argue that Issac Newton [as in the father of classical physics] didn't formulate any physical theory, none whatsoever?

I'm saying that, as far as I am aware, Newton had no Theory of Gravity (using theory in the scientific sense). Wiki is, well, wrong. What Newton had was a Law of Gravity. And understanding the difference between teh two will tell you why it does not support your arguments.

"Well you see, Newton only formulated physical laws. I specifically asked you for a well established theory that had been over turned in science."

What was that you were saying earlier about dishonesty, Hellbound?

And Newton wasn't overturned, just found not to be complete. In other words, GR did NOT suddenly invalidate the results of Newton's laws, except in the case of high speeds or large masses.

Like I said before, modern findings eventually demonstrated that there are inaccuracies and limitations to Newtonian mechanics; a physical model which had been the bedrock of western physics for centuries. The theories of Relativity and Quantum mechanics eventually superseded Newton's physical model. Any and all theories that can be formulated are inherently incomplete and tentative because our knowledge and understanding are inherently limited. At no point did I argue that our current scientific understanding is wrong; I've only ever argued that it must be expanded to accommodate anomalous phenomena described in accounts like mine. In any case, the known is a bounded subset of the unbounded unknown -- not vis versa.

Ding-ding-ding! I think hes got it! Yes, theories are conceptual tools that are inferred from firsthand observations. Your inability to see how this logically ties into my point is... [how shall I put this?] ...not my failure.

Well, this is actually going pretty well for me. Your claim is that, essentially, personal observation is the ultimate authority for that individual. That if you personally experience something then that trumps whatever theories or studies are out there.

In science a theory is a description of and explanation for phenomena. It gives both a way to model an interaction and an explanation for how that occurs. GR, for example, explains gravitational force as a curvature of space and time, and makes specifc predictions based on this (such as gravitational lensing).

In science a Law (such as Newton's Gravity or his Laws of Motion) is a description of phenomena based on observation. It simply states "if you do this, that will happen".

Newton never offerred a theory of gravity. Newton's Law of Gravity, which you have said was found to be wrong, was based on his personal, direct experience. It's a good example to show why an individual's experience, even your own, is not to be taken as truth if it can't be examined.

NASA's own website refers to Newton's Theory of gravitation as well as numerous other sources. Semantic hair-splitting aside, your designating the physical model he laid down as "laws" rather than "theory" doesn't change the fact that it is, like all other scientific models, inherently incomplete. This necessarily implies that no theory we devise is fundamental or inviolable.

Oh, heavens forbid such a thing! Tell me, would you considered the widly successful Standard Model of particle physics as an infallible and complete model of reality?

No, we know it isn't complete. Science tells us that.

Correction: logic tells us that.

Would introducing entities not included in said model [like say -- I don't know -- maybe financial instruments, or pain] require "extraordinary" evidence?

It depends on iof they contradict what's already there and known to be true. There ARE known limitations to what can be added to the Standard Model, and for it to still give us the correct results that it does.

Even better -- Lets expand that little example to include all scientific models, theories, and principles. Would entities existing outside of said models render all of them null and void? Would science as a whole be invalidated?

If the current theories predict that nothing should be there, and having something there would change the results calculated using those theories, the results that have been experimentally verified, then yes.

There are numerous known entities that are not described or accounted for by any of our physical models and the vast majority of them have to do directly with consciousness. The only thing we scientifically understand about consciousness is that our own conscious experiences are correlated with living nervous systems. The physical 'whys' and 'hows' of this correlation are not understood, let alone integrated into -any- of our current physical models. To claim knowledge of what is and is not physically possible with regard to consciousness is grossly premature and scientifically unfounded.

HB: "Formulate a theory I'm willing to accept or its not real."

AMM: "Roger, that."

How about just formulate a theory? So far, that hasn't been done to any meaningful degree in paranormal research. But that isn't precisely what my comemnt stated. To have a theory accepted, it should have more evidence for it than the theory (or theories) it will be invalidating.

The necessary requisite for such a theory would be a workable [meta]physical theory that fully integrates consciousness with it's explanatory frame.

...Oh-ho! You really had me going there. I almost thought you were open to honest investigation. Had me fooled for a sec

I am open to honest investigation.

If thats true, you've succeeded in fooling me otherwise.

There are no studies that I am aware of that meat the criteria I listed. That was a challenge to you to put your money where your mouth is. The studies you posted to Pure Argent, which you mentioned earlier, have already been adddressed by him. These are simply retellings, collections of stories, and there were no controls in place to eliminate more normal explanations.

There's simply a lack of sufficient explanations for the phenomena in question -- "normal", "paranormal", or otherwise; the designations and qualifiers are irrelevant. With regard to consciousness [and, by extension, alleged 'psi' phenomena] we're possibly as much out of our theoretical depth as bronze age humans with regard to electromagnetism.

Yea, yea. I get it, I get it. You have all the answers and there is absolutely no evidence for me to present to the contrary because you just KNOW there isn't any. I'll leave ya to it then.

Where did I say anythign remotely like what you are implying?

The moment you flatly stated that there is no evidence. Such a statement demonstrates to me that you are not genuinely open to the possibility that your beliefs concerning this subject are mistaken. It also indicates that that, despite your apparently modest calls for "evidence", what you're really doing is challenging me to provide definitive proof and compel you to believe what I'm claiming. Me engaging you in such a silly exercise would be a waste of both our time.

I've mentioned several times that there are none I'm aware of. You've yet to present any, I've yet to be made aware of any. I know I don't have all the answers, which is why I am so passionate about science. I believ it to be the best way to find the answers without getting dragged into a bunch of nonsense. It's not perfect, I think everyone here will admit that, but so far we've found nothing better.

If you're that passionate about ascertaining the truth of the matter you should take the initiative to investigate for yourself without me doing all your legwork. All you've shown me is that you're content to only seek out and lend credence to sources which confirm your biases while demanding that others overcome those biases for you. As I've said multiple times, thats not not my prerogative. All I can do [ especially within the scope of a forum discussion] is provide arguments highlighting some of the faults in your assumptions and belief system. In the end, no one can compel you to believe or convince you of anything but yourself.

How about this; instead of details, let's focus on something that might actually get somewhere, and clarify arguments on both sides (because I stil fail to see how solipsism is not the logical end-point of your views, as expressed here).

Solipsism isn't part of, nor does it necessarily follow from, my position. However, if what I'm suggesting is true [at least with regard to the nature of consciousness] then it should be possible for distinct conscious entities to have direct mental contact -- i.e. some form of telepathy. Without a possible mechanism for such connection(s) ascertaining the reality of consciousness beyond one's own mental confines would, in principle, only be tentatively inferable; thus, implying epistemological solipsism.

Now that I think about it, there is some overlap between solipsism and my thesis in that it places consciousness at the ontological root of knowledge. Solipsism would be akin to a "geocentric" version of what I'm proposing in that one's own person is the privileged frame of reference. However, in the view I'm putting forward, there definitely are autonomous conscious entities beyond one's individual person. Each autonomous conscious unit [i.e. being] is a different subjective frame of reference in the manifold we call reality. I guess you could call my philosophical position Simulipsism [yes, I made up a word! ]

You calim that science needs to include the subjective. What specific changes should be made to do this? What do you mean by this? What should be accepted as evidence (and evidence for what) under your method as opposed to what is done now? You've spent a lot of time arguing about how scienc is missing out on something, yet then seem to change your argument to scientists being biased and ignoring proof that is already there. Can you calrify this a bit? Are you arguing that scientists are biased, or that the method needs to be changed?

To clarify, I don't think that all scientists are biased on this issue. There are actually a number of scientists who appear to be investigating phenomena like the ones we've been discussing with skeptical and open minds. However, the problem lies in the fact that we currently lack a metaphysical framework sufficient to coherently integrate consciousness [i.e. the 'internal' subjective/phenomenal aspect of existence] with our understanding of what we call physics. Physical theory has a gaping hole where we, the observing subjects, should be. Whenever consciousness is even addressed at all within our scientific framework, it's gracelessly shoe-horned in as a hand-waving supposition. Figuratively speaking, we're continually constructing a general working model for the rules of The Game but with no real understanding of what the players/users are or how they figure into the picture, exactly.

Ironically enough, consciousness is the sine qua non of science, yet our current body of scientific knowledge has scarcely anything to tell us about it and provides virtually nothing in the way of explaining it. To date, the thrust of western scientific pursuit has been "outward" into the world, as presented to our "external" senses. In order to begin gaining a meaningful understanding of consciousness, scientific inquiry must also expand "inward" and integrate knowledge from both aspects of our reality into one coherent framework [deep introspective observation would be an indispensable part of such an endeavor]. Such a paradigm would essentially subsume into the scientific framework what has hitherto been considered the sole domain of mysticism and the occult. It would be a powerful and unholy perversion of Science as we know it -- MWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

</*ahem*>

... I mean it would be the most fundamental paradigm shift in human culture since the Enlightenment [and it would also be full of epic win ]

 

[dlorde]

…ooooooohhh, we have a big word. N e u r o l o g i c a l. That must mean we know what the word means. But hang on a sec, lets take a look at the 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 pages that have been recorded at JREF pertaining to explaining consciousness. Strange, the only consensus seems to be that there is no consensus. Except, of course, when it comes to Pixy. Pixy has the answer, it’s just that nobody believes him. What a shame, the world would be so much simpler if we all just took Pixy’s word for everything. We’d likely all be dead, but wouldn’t that be simpler?

Noam Chomsky: “Our understanding of human nature is thin and likely to remain so.”
….hmmm, who has more credibility….a linguistics professor who’s one of the most distinguished cognitive scientists in the world (and an atheist, although he refuses to acknowledge the word)…or Pixy. Why don’t we ask….Resume. Care to venture an opinion Resume?

…what goes on inside the subjective consciousness of another human being is simply irrelevant is it? I rather suspect that the majority of the world’s cognitive scientists would disagree with you on that one Pixy.

What we have are all sorts of instruments that tell us that “thing’s” are happening. It takes a human being (specifically, the human being in question) to tell you what that ‘thing’ actually is. You might want to ask yourself Pixy why you fail to recognize this very obvious and very fundamental distinction.

Really….don’t know about you Pixy but everyone I know lives entirely within their own subjective consciousness. I know you’re a little out there Pixy, but that sounds almost, well, supernatural.

Missed that did you Pixy. I quite obviously did not resort to anything. I had quite clearly stated exactly what my points were in the first post. Carlitos just as obviously failed to read them. I simply pointed out that obvious fact. Get your timing straight there Pixy.

“I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+”

Find me the scientific instrument that can definitively spit out that exact condition (upon being 'plugged into' the human being experiencing it) and I will hand you next years Nobel Prize. IOW…said scientific instrument must conclude: “subject is experiencing …”I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” . You did, after all, insist that we have scientific instruments that can detect everything did you not and it can easily be argued that “I scintillate!...!!!?..*!*@#+” or one of it’s infinite permutations and combination's is but one of those things that indisputably exist as a real experience for a human being. It exists. Detect it. Prove it.

Oh, but that’s not fair, that’s not a normal human experience. Oh…boo hoo!!!!!

…..yeah, and since when has existence been normal?

While you’re at it, I’ve got a few trillion more (the list actually goes on forever, and it’s different for every single human being). Care to have a go?

By the way Resume….I’ve yet to hear your opinion of Pixy’s new scientific theory. It seems to go something like this: Since we can measure so many things, we can conclude that we have the ability to measure everything. If there is something that we cannot detect, we may conclude that it does not exist (by virtue of the fact that we already have the ability to detect everything….because we can obviously already detect so many things…obviously).

Why don’t we start a new thread: All resident skeptics can vote if they approve or disapprove of Pixy’s new theory. Anyone want to make any bets what the outcome will be? I know where I’ll put my money.

Is this a novel debating technique - when faced with confidence, descend into incoherence?

"since when has existence been normal?" - what does that even mean?

 

[tsig]

Is this a novel debating technique - when faced with confidence, descend into incoherence?

"since when has existence been normal?" - what does that even mean?

I think it's call the "throwing multiple toys out of the pram" technique. The idea is that if you make a big enough mess no one will notice you had no point at all.

 

[Limbo]

He told me that he has not read the Quran either, but he's read some books on the subject of comparative religion. I know for a fact he has mentioned Joseph Campbell and Carl Jung many times.

I've read much of it actually, just not all of it cover to cover. Its hard for me to stomach so much anger as is found in it. So I skip around it but I am easily disgusted with it. On a related note I am easily disgusted with JREF.

I would think that reading the original source materiel and seeing for yourself if the interpretations work is a good thing, instead of being told what they say.

Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Part of that is many original source materials. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison. Until then, STFU. Sir.

 

[Filippo Lippi]

How to "build your own telescope"

1. Take lots of drugs
2. Deny that the drugs are responsible for your experience whilst under their influence

Do I have that right?

 

[PixyMisa]

Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison.

So, no actual evidence then?

Until then, STFU. Sir.

Shan't.

 

[tsig]

I've read much of it actually, just not all of it cover to cover. Its hard for me to stomach so much anger as is found in it. So I skip around it but I am easily disgusted with it. On a related note I am easily disgusted with JREF.




Oh, gimme a break! Lets see if you sing a different tune after you have spent several years deeply studying comparative religion, comparative mythology, and comparative mysticism 24/7 as I have. Part of that is many original source materials. Campbell and Jung are just the tip of the iceberg! Oh, and after experiencing for yourself a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal experiences, so that you actually have a strong experiential basis for reference and comparison. Until then, STFU. Sir.

Several years? I'm 66 years old an I entered a Catholic minor seminary at the age of 15 and a Trappist Abbey at 18. (didn't last long). I've studied religions all my life and have experienced a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal events.

And it was all a vanity of vanities, a tale told by a madman full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

We are now, the past exists only in memory and the future is speculation.

 

[AkuManiMani]

So, no actual evidence then?


Shan't.

Pixy, sometimes I wonder if you have any friends IRL other than the voices in your head...

 

[AkuManiMani]

Several years? I'm 66 years old an I entered a Catholic minor seminary at the age of 15 and a Trappist Abbey at 18. (didn't last long). I've studied religions all my life and have experienced a WIDE variety of mystical and paranormal events.

And it was all a vanity of vanities, a tale told by a madman full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

We are now, the past exists only in memory and the future is speculation.

This is one of the few posts I've seen you make with any interesting and substantive content. Keep this up and I might be motivated to bother replying to you more often, pops