Chaos Magic

[Mirrorglass]

Dunning-Krueger, Aku. I suggest you look it up. "Brutal honesty" isn't worth much if it isn't combined with a measure of humility and self-criticism.

It might also be useful to wonder how accurate you likely are when you point out that you're actually one of the humblest people alive.

 

[carlitos]

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

Weren't you going to post some studies that prove psi or something here? If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Dunning-Krueger, Aku. I suggest you look it up. "Brutal honesty" isn't worth much if it isn't combined with a measure of humility and self-criticism.

This is very true. Are you suggesting that I've failed to do so?

It might also be useful to wonder how accurate you likely are when you point out that you're actually one of the humblest people alive.

I'd wonder the same thing if I ever made such an assertion...

 

[AkuManiMani]

Weren't you going to post some studies that prove psi or something here? If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

Like I told HellBound, I'm not doing your legwork for you. Just because one is incurious, self-satisfied, and intellectually lazy doesn't oblige me to convince them of something they have a vested interest in not seeing. I've said repeatedly that I ain't here to play the "prove it" game with you. Do you your own damn research with open honestly and due diligence.

 

[Nonpareil]

You take far too much for granted in your conception of the world; in this, you're not the first and hardly the last. Like so many others before you, you've become so enamored and intoxicated by your vaunted understanding of the reality that you unwittingly mistake it for reality itself. You have become so fat and contented with the presumed sufficiency of your "knowledge" that you're blind to the manifold mysteries staring you right in the face.

This accusation only has merit if you can show that there is a mystery here which is beyond our understanding. You can't just give us an anecdote and say "explain that - oh, you can't? You must not understand reality", because, again, we don't know that the anecdote is even true. Not in the sense that we think you're lying, but in the sense that we have no way to verify that the anecdote is an accurate representation of what happened. Even if it is, we don't have enough data to come up with a solution.

But this doesn't mean that the anecdote constitutes proof of "manifold mysteries" beyond our understanding. It just means that we can't give an explanation for it without more information.

You need actual evidence that our worldview is incorrect before you can make this claim.

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

Do you have any examples of this?

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

This is a straw man. We know that consciousness is based in the brain. Damage the brain, damage the mind. Remove the brain, remove the mind.

If you think that the brain gets the property of containing consciousness from some outside force, that's fine; just present some evidence supporting that claim. But we know that the brain is the seat of consciousness.

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

That's like saying that there's nothing in the laws of physics that models the color blue as we know it. There very much is; blue is simply the name we give to a certain wavelength of light.

There very much are fields of science which have made great leaps in understanding consciousness. Your claim that there has been no Nobel prize given out for it is a red herring - cognitive sciences encompass several fields of study. This doesn't mean that we don't understand it.

 

[Resume]

Like I told HellBound, I'm not doing your legwork for you. Just because one is incurious, self-satisfied, and intellectually lazy doesn't oblige me to convince them of something they have a vested interest in not seeing. I've said repeatedly that I ain't here to play the "prove it" game with you. Do you your own damn research with open honestly and due diligence.

It is unclear just who that (the highlighted) might be here. Though I'm leaning in a certain direction.

 

[carlitos]

Like I told HellBound, I'm not doing your legwork for you. Just because one is incurious, self-satisfied, and intellectually lazy doesn't oblige me to convince them of something they have a vested interest in not seeing. I've said repeatedly that I ain't here to play the "prove it" game with you. Do you your own damn research with open honestly and due diligence.

You accused someone of this:

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

What, specifically, is that poster "vehemently dismissing?"

Why can't any of you psi proponents just state something clearly, rather than whining that I have to find it myself? How can these people function in an academic or work setting?

Again, feel free to prove me wrong by suggesting something I can actually read and respond to.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You take far too much for granted in your conception of the world; in this, you're not the first and hardly the last. Like so many others before you, you've become so enamored and intoxicated by your vaunted understanding of the reality that you unwittingly mistake it for reality itself. You have become so fat and contented with the presumed sufficiency of your "knowledge" that you're blind to the manifold mysteries staring you right in the face.

This accusation only has merit if you can show that there is a mystery here which is beyond our understanding. You can't just give us an anecdote and say "explain that - oh, you can't? You must not understand reality", because, again, we don't know that the anecdote is even true. Not in the sense that we think you're lying, but in the sense that we have no way to verify that the anecdote is an accurate representation of what happened. Even if it is, we don't have enough data to come up with a solution.

But this doesn't mean that the anecdote constitutes proof of "manifold mysteries" beyond our understanding. It just means that we can't give an explanation for it without more information.

You need actual evidence that our worldview is incorrect before you can make this claim.

Lets assume that what I experienced was purely a neurological artifact. The events still had features that require better explication than "'Tis but a seizure..." or "Hmph! Merely hallucination and confabulated recollections!". The fact that you even need "convincing" to see this obvious fact only proves my point.

Even in the thread linked earlier There was very little in the way of expressing fascination or curiosity as to the nature of the "voices" the OP spoke of. What the OP mostly got was a torrent of dismissive hand-waves, along with admonitions to assume the proper paradigm and seek professional help.

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

Do you have any examples of this?

Well you see, theres this thread I know titled "Chaos Magic"...

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

This is a straw man. We know that consciousness is based in the brain. Damage the brain, damage the mind. Remove the brain, remove the mind.

If you think that the brain gets the property of containing consciousness from some outside force, that's fine; just present some evidence supporting that claim. But we know that the brain is the seat of consciousness.

What we -know- is that individual consciousness is -correlated- with the brain. The truth is we currently have no scientific understanding as to why this is the case or the physics of consciousness qua consciousness.

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

That's like saying that there's nothing in the laws of physics that models the color blue as we know it. There very much is; blue is simply the name we give to a certain wavelength of light.

"Blue" is the name we give to our [presumably] common subjective experiences of a certain wave-length of EM stimuli. And yes, there really is nothing in the laws of physics as we know them that models, or otherwise explicates, the color "blue" or any other subjective experience.

There very much are fields of science which have made great leaps in understanding consciousness. Your claim that there has been no Nobel prize given out for it is a red herring - cognitive sciences encompass several fields of study. This doesn't mean that we don't understand it.

Our abstracted understanding of cognitive patterns does not translate into a scientific understanding of the physics of the subjective [i.e. consciousness]. What you're calling a "red-herring" is the baby in the bath water.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Like I told HellBound, I'm not doing your legwork for you. Just because one is incurious, self-satisfied, and intellectually lazy doesn't oblige me to convince them of something they have a vested interest in not seeing. I've said repeatedly that I ain't here to play the "prove it" game with you. Do you your own damn research with open honesty and due diligence.

You accused someone of this:

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

What, specifically, is that poster "vehemently dismissing?"

Why can't any of you psi proponents just state something clearly, rather than whining that I have to find it myself? How can these people function in an academic or work setting?

Again, feel free to prove me wrong by suggesting something I can actually read and respond to.

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

 

[Nonpareil]

Lets assume that what I experienced was purely a neurological artifact.

Why? I never said it was.

It might have been a seizure or other neurological thing, but I think a much more likely explanation is that you are simply misremembering.

The events still had features that require better explication than "'Tis but a seizure..." or "Hmph! Merely hallucination and confabulated recollections!".

Why? You can't even verify that your recollection is correct. How do you know that it requires any other explanation?

The fact that you even need "convincing" to see this obvious fact only proves my point.

Your point that what, exactly?

Well you see, theres this thread I know titled "Chaos Magic"...

That's not an answer. Which poster vehemently dismissed which study for no reason other than that it contradicted their beliefs? When?

What we -know- is that individual consciousness is -correlated- with the brain. The truth is we currently have no scientific understanding as to why this is the case or the physics of consciousness qua consciousness.

Well, no. This isn't the case. Again, neuroscience has made huge leaps in this field.

"Blue" is the name we give to our [presumably] common subjective experiences of a certain wave-length of EM stimuli. And yes, there really is nothing in the laws of physics as we know them that models, or otherwise explicates, the color "blue" or any other subjective experience.

Except that our eyes perceive certain wavelengths of light.

This is starting to get rather silly.

Our abstracted understanding of cognitive patterns does not translate into a scientific understanding of the physics of the subjective [i.e. consciousness].

Actually, it does. We know that certain chemicals in certain areas cause certain emotions. We understand that consciousness is regulated by chemical interactions in the brain.

What you're calling a "red-herring" is the baby in the bath water.

No, it isn't.

 

[carlitos]

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

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

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

 

[PixyMisa]

Lets assume that what I experienced was purely a neurological artifact. The events still had features that require better explication than "'Tis but a seizure..." or "Hmph! Merely hallucination and confabulated recollections!".

Nope.

What we -know- is that individual consciousness is -correlated- with the brain.

Yes. And we know that consciousness is generated by the brain. We've studied extensively how consciousness changes as the brain changes, and it's unmistakable and unavoidable that this is causation and not just correlation that we're looking at.

The truth is we currently have no scientific understanding as to why this is the case or the physics of consciousness qua consciousness.

That's because there's no "physics of consciousness". The physics is the same as always; the patterns of activity are different simply because the matter involved is arranged in specific ways. And that's all that's needed.

"Blue" is the name we give to our [presumably] common subjective experiences of a certain wave-length of EM stimuli. And yes, there really is nothing in the laws of physics as we know them that models, or otherwise explicates, the color "blue" or any other subjective experience.

Sorry, you're talking tripe. It's just computation, and that is explicitly modeled in the laws of physics.

Our abstracted understanding of cognitive patterns does not translate into a scientific understanding of the physics of the subjective [i.e. consciousness]. What you're calling a "red-herring" is the baby in the bath water.

No, it's baloney. There is no physics of consciousness. Consciousness is nothing special; it's just another computational process.

There's no magic.

 

[Mirrorglass]

This is very true. Are you suggesting that I've failed to do so?

Oh yes. Most of your posts clearly implicate that you are certain that you know better than most posters here - and that no matter how many point out to you that you're wrong about something, that won't change your mind. In particular, this shows in your persistent personalizing of the argument, as if you were justified in insulting other posters, though this is not the only thing.

Well, that really only holds true if we assume that you truly are being honest. It's also conceivable that you are intentionally deceiving people by acting arrogant - although that would speak of a kind of arrogance, as well.

I'd wonder the same thing if I ever made such an assertion...

The implication is pretty clear in the post I responded to. Well, to be more accurate, you were implying that you were more prone to self-reflection than most posters here. If you're going to say you didn't use the exact words, so you can't be called on it, I'd suggest rethinking the whole "brutal honesty" bit.

Well, maybe I'm a bit out of line. Still, you are acting extremely rudely, and giving a very bad impression of yourself. And since you're also personalizing arguments and insulting others, it's not even your prerogative. So please, stop it.

 

[The Norseman]

Weren't you going to post some studies that prove psi or something here? If you did and I missed it, I apologize.

He posted several links that I happened to have read because they seemed interesting.

He claimed they were "pros" and "cons" of psi. I asked for the actual "con" website but was ignored. I'm fairly used to that because I tend to make (theoretically) comedic posts and not often contribute much of substance, but still.

 

[Nonpareil]

He posted several links that I happened to have read because they seemed interesting.

He claimed they were "pros" and "cons" of psi. I asked for the actual "con" website but was ignored. I'm fairly used to that because I tend to make (theoretically) comedic posts and not often contribute much of substance, but still.

Truth be told, they weren't really "pros", either.

 

[The Norseman]

Truth be told, they weren't really "pros", either.

Oh, that's funny. I totally missed the connection between the links and your refutation.

 

[dlorde]

Ask yourself how many others here would be willing to make such an admission
...
We humans are facinating creatures, no?

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

 

[carlitos]

Truth be told, they weren't really "pros", either.

Oh my. I forgot about those. He linked "skeptiko" as the cons, and some links to OBEs. That's disappointing, but I'll still go back and read them.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Lets assume that what I experienced was purely a neurological artifact.

Why? I never said it was.

It might have been a seizure or other neurological thing, but I think a much more likely explanation is that you are simply misremembering.

The events still had features that require better explication than "'Tis but a seizure..." or "Hmph! Merely hallucination and confabulated recollections!".

Why? You can't even verify that your recollection is correct. How do you know that it requires any other explanation?

If my memory is presumed to be so faulty and inadmissible that I'm not a reliable witness to my own damn experiences why the repeated demands that I recall more details? Hell, why even the presumption that my recollection of the events in question must be faulty?

The fact that you even need "convincing" to see this obvious fact only proves my point.

Your point that what, exactly?

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

Well you see, theres this thread I know titled "Chaos Magic"...

That's not an answer. Which poster vehemently dismissed which study for no reason other than that it contradicted their beliefs? When?

Ostensibly, almost every poster has claimed that they dismiss studies/claims with positive reports on the basis of 'unreliable' methodology or some other presumably rational reason. Only one poster so far has had the guts to explicitly admit that they're operating from a bias. Due to the inherent inconsistencies in the demands and counter-claims being made by many here, I'm inclined to suspect that theres something considerably more irrational in their underlying motivations. From where I'm sitting, it appears that you're willfully blind to your own biases and that of your cohorts. Again, I'm just here to point them out; its up to you whether or not you choose to face and examine them. Use your own eyes to honestly examine the discussion; I can't cure you of your willful blindness and severely lopsided cognitive biases.

What we -know- is that individual consciousness is -correlated- with the brain. The truth is we currently have no scientific understanding as to why this is the case or the physics of consciousness qua consciousness.

Well, no. This isn't the case. Again, neuroscience has made huge leaps in this field.

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

What is it about particular neural processes that causes some sensory input to be felt as a particular sensation or experience? What physical property differentiates the quality of these experiences? How is this process expressed thru the biochemistry of neurons? What part of the system actually has the experience(s) and what are the relevant physical properties of this portion of the system that causes it to be subjectively sensible?

"Blue" is the name we give to our [presumably] common subjective experiences of a certain wave-length of EM stimuli. And yes, there really is nothing in the laws of physics as we know them that models, or otherwise explicates, the color "blue" or any other subjective experience.

Except that our eyes perceive certain wavelengths of light.

Our eyes don't "perceive" a damn thing. The eyes simply function as complex sensory receptors; perception only occurs within the awareness of a conscious subject. Within awareness the raw data received thru our various sensory channels are interpreted as subjective experiences such as "blue". The color "blue" is not a property of the external stimulus but an interpretation of the individual subject. Two subjects could just as easily have completely different subjective experiences of the same external stimuli. What is lacking is a scientific understanding of the nature of the subjective/consciousness IAOI and how it integrates with our physical model of the world.

This is starting to get rather silly.

Indeed it is. The lengths to which you'll go to contort and evade an obvious point is breathtaking, to say the least. There is no way that you're honestly this obtuse.

Our abstracted understanding of cognitive patterns does not translate into a scientific understanding of the physics of the subjective [i.e. consciousness].

Actually, it does. We know that certain chemicals in certain areas cause certain emotions. We understand that consciousness is regulated by chemical interactions in the brain.

See above questions.

What you're calling a "red-herring" is the baby in the bath water.

No, it isn't.

Well gee, if you say so...

 

[AkuManiMani]

This is very true. Are you suggesting that I've failed to do so?

Oh yes. Most of your posts clearly implicate that you are certain that you know better than most posters here - and that no matter how many point out to you that you're wrong about something, that won't change your mind.

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

In particular, this shows in your persistent personalizing of the argument, as if you were justified in insulting other posters, though this is not the only thing.

I haven't insulted or rebuked anyone who didn't first lay an insult themselves. I don't rebuke these people because they disagree with me; I rebuke them because they're behaving disagreeably. The fact that you're perfectly willing to overlook the behavior of these individuals is, in itself, very telling of your own biases in this matter.

Well, that really only holds true if we assume that you truly are being honest. It's also conceivable that you are intentionally deceiving people by acting arrogant - although that would speak of a kind of arrogance, as well.

I've explicitly stated numerous times what my purpose is, why I'm doing it, and by what methods. The 'deception' is an artifact of the willful blindness being exhibited by many a poster here. If me contemptuously rubbing their willful self-deception in their faces is "arrogant" then I'm guilty as charged.

I'd wonder the same thing if I ever made such an assertion...

The implication is pretty clear in the post I responded to. Well, to be more accurate, you were implying that you were more prone to self-reflection than most posters here. If you're going to say you didn't use the exact words, so you can't be called on it, I'd suggest rethinking the whole "brutal honesty" bit.

Well, maybe I'm a bit out of line. Still, you are acting extremely rudely, and giving a very bad impression of yourself. And since you're also personalizing arguments and insulting others, it's not even your prerogative. So please, stop it.

It should be abundantly clear by now that garnering popularity isn't exactly a priority of mine. Quite frankly, after seeing some the rampant abuse and derision being indulged in here I couldn't care less whether the same people consider my behavior "rude". They deserve caustic rebukes for their inexcusably shameful behavior. That they wanna cry foul when under fire themselves just reveals them as the contemptible cowards they are. Your admonitions to be polite hold absolutely no weight with me if you are unwilling to address the flagrant abuses of so many others here. You can be damn certain that I will not be cowed by the double standards of others.