Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

joobz said:
No evasion on this end. Just demonstrating your failure to actually read my posts.

ETA: you asked for the posts, and I provided them. You call this evasions?
Click to expand...

What if he read them, but didn't understand them, at least not in the way you intended them to be understood?
 
Type I error: "rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true".
Type II error: "accepting the null hypothesis when it is false".
Type III error: "correctly rejecting the null hypothesis for the wrong reason".
 
yy2bggggs said:
You do realize that "unconscious cues" is not an alternative to such explanations, but rather subsumes it, don't you?
Click to expand...
Yes I know this, I took an open minded approach.

If the unconscious cue explanation is correct, it simply means your agency was presented the emotion, and you weren't aware of the cause; the only question is how you mind assembled cues. Psychic screaming through walls is a possibility. Uncharacteristic inactivity is another.
Click to expand...
Yes, the fact that I was not aware of the cause means that I was unconscious of it.

Given that you haven't ruled out understood processes, why would you even bother to entertain extraordinary processes?
Click to expand...

I just couldn't see evidence of any understood processes. Some kind of emotional empathy with the other members of my family seems reasonable to me. Even though such a thing has not been discovered and tested by science.

I realise that the scientific world can only describe aspects of life of which its current point of understanding has reached and that there are likely phenomena which it does not yet describe or recognise.
 
tsig said:
So your knowledge comes from personal experience and can't be replicated?
Click to expand...

Yes this appears to be the problem.

Never mind yet another anecdotal unexplained phenomena to be tossed into the void of what science does not yet understand.
 
punshhh said:
I realise that the scientific world can only describe aspects of life of which its current point of understanding has reached and that there are likely phenomena which it does not yet describe or recognise.
Click to expand...

Nonsense; it's quite possible to describe things which are not yet understood. You have yet to demonstrate there a phenomenon to be explored. The fallibility of memory is known, and without more evidence than your recollections, all you have is an anecdote. I have a couple myself of unexplained incidents, but I am aware that what I remember now is almost certainly not what actually happened at the time. There is extensive research into how our brains process information, and how unreliable memory is even of something that happened a very short time ago; I suggest you do a little research into that area (and then hope you are never in court depending on eye-witness testimony!).
 
zooterkin said:
Nonsense; it's quite possible to describe things which are not yet understood. You have yet to demonstrate there a phenomenon to be explored. The fallibility of memory is known, and without more evidence than your recollections, all you have is an anecdote. I have a couple myself of unexplained incidents, but I am aware that what I remember now is almost certainly not what actually happened at the time. There is extensive research into how our brains process information, and how unreliable memory is even of something that happened a very short time ago; I suggest you do a little research into that area (and then hope you are never in court depending on eye-witness testimony!).
Click to expand...

Yes I am only too aware of the unreliable nature of memory. However you have side stepped my point that I carefully investigated the situation immediately after it happened, so no memory was involved. Also the circumstances were very simple and can be reduced to a simple event.

I was somehow experiencing a feeling an emotion of shock and sadness out of the blue. While my whole family were feeling a similar emotion in the knowledge of the death of the cat symultaniously.

The facts of these circumstances were clearly observable at the time.

1, I was on my own by the car on the front drive.
2, my family were in the kitchen, approx 25m away behind 2 brick walls and 2 partly opened doors, approx 10m appart.
3,My family were given the information about the cat.
4, I was not given the information about the cat.
5,I experienced a sudden emotion of shock and sadness, for which I had no explanation.
6, my family also experienced a sudden emotion of shock and sadness at approximately the same time.
7, I consciously questioned what I was experiencing and was entirely unaware of why I was feeling the emotions before I entered the house.

These facts were well established by me in person only a few minutes after the event.

Perhaps I should have had a lawyer and some impartial observers present as I considered the situation.
 
There are some naturalistic explanation that your investigation CANNOT have eliminated (non exhaustive list) : 1) simply accidental misgiving misfiring of neurons 2) infrasound (which IIRC can also provocate such reaction).
 
marplots said:
To revisit the computer analogy, it would be as if outside input were reshaping the hardware in the computer.
Click to expand...
Yes, exactly. But as you say, that reshaping happens internally as part of the adaptive code. I think we are in much greater agreement than otherwise.
 
mike3 said:
What if he read them, but didn't understand them, at least not in the way you intended them to be understood?
Click to expand...
than it is for him to say so. What you say may be true, but instead of internalizing the problem and correcting it properly, Malerin has externalized the problem claiming it is my fault for his equivocations. I do not accept this.


I wrote
My argument has been all along that who we are, what allows us to self-identify as us, is our brain. Meaning, our brain/brain algorithms.
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7314708#post7314708

Malerin than later claims:
Which post did you make the distinction that "you" refers to "conscious self"?
Click to expand...
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=7315111#post7315111

These posts are separated by only 3 exchanges.
 
punshhh said:
Perhaps I should have had a lawyer and some impartial observers present as I considered the situation.
Click to expand...

No need to get sarky. Your tale is just another campfire story. Am I supposed to believe in esp and telepathy just because you tell me a story about a cat? That is not the way it works.
 
punshhh said:
Yes I am only too aware of the unreliable nature of memory. However you have side stepped my point that I carefully investigated the situation immediately after it happened, so no memory was involved. Also the circumstances were very simple and can be reduced to a simple event.

I was somehow experiencing a feeling an emotion of shock and sadness out of the blue. While my whole family were feeling a similar emotion in the knowledge of the death of the cat symultaniously.

The facts of these circumstances were clearly observable at the time.

1, I was on my own by the car on the front drive.
2, my family were in the kitchen, approx 25m away behind 2 brick walls and 2 partly opened doors, approx 10m appart.
3,My family were given the information about the cat.
4, I was not given the information about the cat.
5,I experienced a sudden emotion of shock and sadness, for which I had no explanation.
6, my family also experienced a sudden emotion of shock and sadness at approximately the same time.
7, I consciously questioned what I was experiencing and was entirely unaware of why I was feeling the emotions before I entered the house.

These facts were well established by me in person only a few minutes after the event.

Perhaps I should have had a lawyer and some impartial observers present as I considered the situation.
Click to expand...

Sorry, if it is not on PubMed it never happened. :p

Feelings or 'currents of emotion' such as you describe are quite common.
In some social situations I have been the origin, projecting the emotion I was feeling on people. It caught immediately and so fast that I could not see it was me spreading it.

After the happening, people discuss the events together and commonly accepted truths emerge. A myth takes form. What makes a myth more powerful than a story? Its human form which as time goes by pays no respect to what really happened. Once the story follows the human logic it is easy to relate to, it becomes the Truth.
 
dafydd said:
Who was the nutcase who weighed a body then cremated it and weighed the ashes and concluded that the soul weighed twenty two grams? I read it somewhere.
Click to expand...

Why not read it again?
Probably you are joking but if you weigh a body before the cremation and after you'd get something substantially more than 22 g.

wiki says: The determination of the soul weighing 21 grams was based on the average loss of mass in the six patients within minutes or hours after death. Experiments on mice and other animals took place. Most notably the weighing upon death of sheep seemed to create mass for a few minutes which later disappeared. The hypothesis was made that a soul portal formed upon death which then whisked the soul away.


Unfortunately, the methods he used were so primitive, his margin of fault easily swallowing up the 22 grams he proposed and the material size way too small with this margin of error.

I hope you were joking the before and after cremation stuff. Ok, I give it a ha-ha.
 
dafydd said:
No need to get sarky. Your tale is just another campfire story. Am I supposed to believe in esp and telepathy just because you tell me a story about a cat? That is not the way it works.
Click to expand...

No I would not expect anyone to believe anything I said, as I hold no beliefs myself.
I have related an experience which appears to me to suggest that phenomena happen in consciousness which cannot be explained with the current scientific understanding.

The assumption that humanity's current scientifically based knowledge and understanding is the whole picture is an astonishingly short sited position to take.
 
punshhh said:
The assumption that humanity's current scientifically based knowledge and understanding is the whole picture is an astonishingly short sited position to take.
Click to expand...

Indeed, so it's a good job no-one here is taking that position.
 
punshhh said:
No I would not expect anyone to believe anything I said, as I hold no beliefs myself.
.
Click to expand...

You have made statements in other threads about beliefs that you have. Do you want me to dig out the quotes? Stop being so disingenuous.
 
punshhh said:
No I would not expect anyone to believe anything I said, as I hold no beliefs myself.
I have related an experience which appears to me to suggest that phenomena happen in consciousness which cannot be explained with the current scientific understanding.

The assumption that humanity's current scientifically based knowledge and understanding is the whole picture is an astonishingly short sited position to take.
Click to expand...

You have expressed a belief in your leap of logic from "I can't explain it with current scientific knowledge" to "some unknown extra sensory phenomena is at work". This is all based on an unjustifiable belief that your memory and perceptions of the events you describe are flawless.

You second paragraph is a strawman. I wouldn't be going out on a limb to say that no one in this thread believes that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom