• 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.

Existence vs Awareness

Iacchus said:
And what argument, pray tell, would you use against solipsism? Because it's popular to believe otherwise? :confused:
Click to expand...

*sigh*

Ok Iacchus. I'll give you a single argument against solipsism. One of many.

A solipsist is unable to explain why his experiences are the same, time and again.

Also, please note Iacchus that the "common experience" argument against solipsism is simply an argument against solipsism and for multiple experiencing minds. It is not an argument saying that the particular experience, or any, is actually true.
 
Iacchus said:
A solipsist is one who claims he is the only one who exists. Everything else is just a figment of his perception.
Click to expand...

Or, more accurately, everything else is a figment of his mind.

And, while I grant the evidence I speak of is not incisive (except perhaps for those who have experienced it), it is evidence nonetheless, and there's no excuse for someone to come along and claim there is no evidence. This is all that I'm really arguing against. I'm not asking anyone to accept anything beyond the fact that evidence does exist.
Click to expand...

Personal experience is not evidence, Iacchus.
 
Iacchus said:
It is more than enough evidence to leave the door open to the possibility that they did.
Click to expand...

No it isn't, Iacchus. The 'door' is never 'closed' to any possibility. However, due to the evidence (or in this case, lack there of) we can reasonably assume that said paranormal does not exist. You are more then welcome to provide evidence to refute this claim.
 
Iacchus said:
I'm not asking you to change your mind, just not dismiss it outright as if there was no evidence.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, Iacchus, but we don't "dismiss it outright". Firstly, there is no evidence, at least none that you've ever produced. Secondly, we don't "dismiss things", if by that you mean "say it is false". We simply "do not say it's true".
 
Iacchus said:
And, if none of these people were "lying, deluded, or wrong?" how could you tell? The claim still remains, and can't be dismissed entirely because of this.
Click to expand...

No, but it can be dismissed becuase no evidence has ever been produced that shows that these "supernatural" experiences are, in fact, supernatural.
 
Iacchus said:
And, if none of these people were "lying, deluded, or wrong?" how could you tell? The claim still remains, and can't be dismissed entirely because of this.
Click to expand...
This is why it behooves us to study human perception and social cognition. If we give your experience the attention it deserves, we must look at other explanations. And the history of social cognition is rife with tales of simpler explanations for incredible experiences. Oh...except...these tales are backed up with data gathered from systematic observation under controlled conditions. If there is something there, this is the way to find it.

So...not only do we not dismiss claims like yours, we actually do investigate them. Thus far, the explanation with the fewest assumptions, the simplest explanation accounting for all the evidence, is that the natural operation of our senses, perceptual systems, and memory, are plenty to account for even the sort of experience that might lead someone to write an entire online book detailing his mystical experience. Until someone comes up with some evidence that cannot be explained by this explanation, it is our best. The burden of proof is on someone claiming any sort of supernatural "something". This is not a default position because of a priori assumptions; it is, at the moment, a conclusion based on over a century of investigation of mystical claims.

Any researcher in the field would be eager to see evidence which would challenge this stance; what they will not do is ignore what they know about sensation, perception, and memory in order to give bad evidence more weight than it deserves.
 
Taffer said:
Then why bring up "people throughout human history" at all, if your argument rests on your own experience?
Click to expand...
To demonstrate that it's not an isolated instance and, that a person would be less inclined to be making it up. That it wasn't purely a by-product of a deluded mind in other words.
 
Mercutio said:
This is why it behooves us to study human perception and social cognition. If we give your experience the attention it deserves, we must look at other explanations. And the history of social cognition is rife with tales of simpler explanations for incredible experiences. Oh...except...these tales are backed up with data gathered from systematic observation under controlled conditions. If there is something there, this is the way to find it.
Click to expand...
If there is something there, many have already found out. ;)

So...not only do we not dismiss claims like yours, we actually do investigate them. Thus far, the explanation with the fewest assumptions, the simplest explanation accounting for all the evidence, is that the natural operation of our senses, perceptual systems, and memory, are plenty to account for even the sort of experience that might lead someone to write an entire online book detailing his mystical experience. Until someone comes up with some evidence that cannot be explained by this explanation, it is our best. The burden of proof is on someone claiming any sort of supernatural "something". This is not a default position because of a priori assumptions; it is, at the moment, a conclusion based on over a century of investigation of mystical claims.
Click to expand...
So, in the meantime, materialism will just have to do.

Any researcher in the field would be eager to see evidence which would challenge this stance; what they will not do is ignore what they know about sensation, perception, and memory in order to give bad evidence more weight than it deserves.
Click to expand...
Perhaps they should begin studying up on mysticism, and try practicing some of the techniques, and see if they can't learn to entertain a different idea about it?
 
Last edited:
Iacchus said:
If there is something there, many have already found out. ;)

So, in the meantime, materialism will just have to do.

Perhaps they should begin studying up on mysticism, and try practicing some of the techniques, and see if they can't learn to entertain a different idea about it?
Click to expand...
Iacchus, what makes you think these people have not studied mysticism? Is it just because they disagree with you? Perhaps if you actually critically examined the things you believe on faith, you will find that they know more than you do about it.
 
Iacchus said:
To demonstrate that it's not an isolated instance and, that a person would be less inclined to be making it up. That it wasn't purely a by-product of a deluded mind in other words.
Click to expand...

And do you have any evidence that any of the other 'instances' were, in fact, true?
 
Iacchus said:
There was a time when I didn't believe in any of these things either but, since I have nothing more than my own personal experience to offer on the matter, I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. ;)
Click to expand...

Once more, Iacchus: personnal experience IS. NOT. GOOD. EVIDENCE.

It is evidence of the weakest kind, because your perceptions can be wrong, which is why, as I said before, science relies on consistency of observation between individuals.

Iacchus said:
To demonstrate that it's not an isolated instance and, that a person would be less inclined to be making it up.
Click to expand...

Actually, they might be MORE inclined to make it up, because due to the idea's popularity, they may EXPECT it to happen, and fill the gaps accordingly. For example, look at UFO buffs who think they've been abducted by aliens: their testimonies are relatively similar to one another, presumably because they EXPECT the aliens to do this and that and to appear like they do.
 
Mercutio said:
Iacchus, what makes you think these people have not studied mysticism? Is it just because they disagree with you? Perhaps if you actually critically examined the things you believe on faith, you will find that they know more than you do about it.
Click to expand...
It is possible that they've missed the boat.
 
:D
Iacchus said:
It is possible that they've missed the boat.
Click to expand...
Yes, it is possible that the people who have systematically examined the subject, have dedicated years of research to it, have shared with other interested parties...have all missed the thing that you alone have seen. It is possible.

It is also possible that I will win Megabucks without buying a ticket, just by finding the winning one lying on the ground on my way home from work.

They can admit they could be wrong. You might want to borrow that...
 
Iacchus said:
Hey, I could be right.
Click to expand...

So could the Pope. So could Fred Phelps. So could the crazy guy wandering down the street muttering semi-coherently about Wal-Mart being in league with the Freemasons and reading his thoughts. So could lots of people. :con2:

The trick is, if you want to be believed, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide a reason for people to do so. In the form of evidence for your claims. Sorry, but that's just life.
 
Nyarlathotep said:
So could the Pope. So could Fred Phelps. So could the crazy guy wandering down the street muttering semi-coherently about Wal-Mart being in league with the Freemasons and reading his thoughts. So could lots of people. :con2:
Click to expand...
Yep, the same dilemma I was in before I found out.

The trick is, if you want to be believed, if you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide a reason for people to do so. In the form of evidence for your claims. Sorry, but that's just life.
Click to expand...
And, if it requires that I become someone other than the person who went through the experience, then the answer is no.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom