Ian Rowland and Mind Power (?)

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

OK. Two opposing viewpoints. Let's see the evidence, eh?

I freely admit that my agreement is based solely on personal experience and personal observation and has no valid evidentiary basis. I am no position to debate its merits.

 

[!Xx+-Rational-+xX!]

get it right, towlie...there is no "material mind"....but then, you are under no obligation to make sense.

The mind (and everything else) is reducible to material matter and has been explained by physical laws! You are obligated to accept this truth unless if you want to be labeled an irrational kooky believer!

Materialism is not to be questioned!!!!!!!!

 

[Darat]

The mind (and everything else) is reducible to material matter and has been explained by physical laws! You are obligated to accept this truth unless if you want to be labeled an irrational kooky believer!

Materialism is not to be questioned!!!!!!!!

You may not have noticed but Mercutio has stated several times that he is not a materialist... and by the way sceptic does not equal materialist.

 

[CFLarsen]

Those are two that I can actually do pretty darn well.

Turn back time? How??

Oh, the horrors of morality! Would that I could but prey upon the vulnerable and shed this nagging concern for my fellows.

Hey, I didn't say that I now believe Rowland has magic powers!

 

[Garrette]

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

Turn back time? How??

I was actually referring to the torn-and-restored newspaper and the interlocking rings, but since you insist:

http://www.penguinmagic.com/product.php?ID=274

The description is more along the lines of moving time forward, but you can go the other way, too.

Well worth the price, btw.

Originally posted by CFLarsen:

Hey, I didn't say that I now believe Rowland has magic powers!

You're exactly where we want you; you don't even realize you're falling into our clutches. You're darn near a full-blown woo and just don't know it yet. Hah.

 

[CFLarsen]

I was actually referring to the torn-and-restored newspaper and the interlocking rings

Only, I wasn't. Rowland took one sheet of newspaper, and cut it into two interlocking paper rings.

Replicate that, magic-boy.

http://www.penguinmagic.com/product.php?ID=274

The description is more along the lines of moving time forward, but you can go the other way, too.

I'd like to see you do that with a digital watch...

You're exactly where we want you; you don't even realize you're falling into our clutches. You're darn near a full-blown woo and just don't know it yet. Hah.

Heard that one before: "You are not a magician, you really have woo woo powers, you just don't know it!"

 

[Interesting Ian]

You may not have noticed but Mercutio has stated several times that he is not a materialist... and by the way sceptic does not equal materialist.

Where has he stated this? What is he then? A dualist?

 

[Garrette]

CFLarsen:

Only, I wasn't. Rowland took one sheet of newspaper, and cut it into two interlocking paper rings.

Well, now, I do know one way to do it. I'd have to see Ian's performance to know if we're doing the same thing.

 

[Jeff Corey]

You may not have noticed but Mercutio has stated several times that he is not a materialist... and by the way sceptic does not equal materialist.

Well, he is a radical behaviorist, which is certainly not a dualist or idealist.

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, now, I do know one way to do it. I'd have to see Ian's performance to know if we're doing the same thing.

That's Dinonychus to the right, BTW.

 

[Garrette]

Ahah! World conquest is within my grasp! I can do that!

Now I need minions.

 

[Darat]

Where has he stated this? What is he then? A dualist?

Er in debates with you and in direct reply to you.

You had said:


I said with appropriate instruments and also mentioned indirect observations.

I must admit I'm a bit perplexed by Mercutio's stance here though

Doesn't seem like materialism to me!


And he replied as the next post on that thread straight back to you with:

You got me, Ian! I am not a materialist, but a pragmatist. I came into this argument simply to correct your use of vocabulary--if I ended up defending materialism, it was only a by-product.
...snip...


And you even quoted that back to him in your response!

Incredible.

 

[Toastrider]

Turn back time? How??

First, you have to be Cher. Then...

(sorry, I had to say it )

--Toasty

 

[Interesting Ian]

Er in debates with you and in direct reply to you.

You had said:


I said with appropriate instruments and also mentioned indirect observations.

I must admit I'm a bit perplexed by Mercutio's stance here though

Doesn't seem like materialism to me!


And he replied as the next post on that thread straight back to you with:

You got me, Ian! I am not a materialist, but a pragmatist. I came into this argument simply to correct your use of vocabulary--if I ended up defending materialism, it was only a by-product.
...snip...


And you even quoted that back to him in your response!

Incredible.

If he's not a materialist, then why does he defend materialism?

 

[Darat]

If he's not a materialist, then why does he defend materialism?

Apart from a "why ask me?" it seems strange that you are questioning it, I thought you believed it was good to argue for a view you don't hold? Have you changed your mind about that?

 

[Interesting Ian]

Apart from a "why ask me?" it seems strange that you are questioning it, I thought you believed it was good to argue for a view you don't hold? Have you changed your mind about that?

You haven't told me what he is yet. An idealist, dualist, neutral monist?? A pragmatist is not an ontological position!!

 

[Mercutio]

You haven't told me what he is yet. An idealist, dualist, neutral monist?? A pragmatist is not an ontological position!!

First, why does it matter what I am?

Second, when I am shown a practical difference that shows me that idealism is superior to materialism, or vice versa, then perhaps--just perhaps--there will be an ontological position worth calling "mine". As Paul C. Ana*cough*ous has repeatedly tried to show you, there is no practical difference between them. And the question you ask ("if he is not a materialist, then why does he defend materialism?") is answered in the quote just above your question ("if I ended up defending materialism, it was only a by-product [of correcting your use of vocabulary]")

Thirdly, Darat! Wow! I had no idea anyone was following, let alone paying attention to, our happy little thread! You seriously get a gold star sticker on your forehead for this one!

 

[Darat]

You haven't told me what he is yet. An idealist, dualist, neutral monist?? A pragmatist is not an ontological position!!

I see the source himself has answered.

But may I just enquire why you seem to be indicating that you expect everyone must take a "ontological position"?

 

[Darat]

First, why does it matter what I am?

...snip...

Thirdly, Darat! Wow! I had no idea anyone was following, let alone paying attention to, our happy little thread! You seriously get a gold star sticker on your forehead for this one!

Have to be careful sticking that on, it might rub the "A" of my Ameth away!

 

[Interesting Ian]

I see the source himself has answered.

But may I just enquire why you seem to be indicating that you expect everyone must take a "ontological position"?

Yes, otherwise it's not a actually position they have and they therefore are scarcely in the position to argue against my views on the matter.