Materialism (championed by Darwinists) makes reason Impossible.

[dafydd]

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.

Punshhh believes in unknown unknowns.

 

[Lord Muck oGentry]

"misevaluate" assumes an evaluation, (a wrong one). What you should have said was

It would be like a vat of liquid not doing an evaluation.

Your claim is equivalent to claiming what's it like for a rock to misquote Shakespeare?. That doesn't entail that the proposition "rocks can quote Shakespeare" is gibberish. It's obviously false. Just like "a vat of hydrocloric acid can evaluate" is also false.

Missing the point I was driving at. If it made sense to talk of chemicals evaluating theories, we ought to able to talk intelligibly of their getting it right or wrong. But we can't, so it doesn't.

Suppose I remark We can extract square roots by hand but not with a garden fork. I'm hardly deploring the design, manufacture or use of garden tools, am I? What does a garden fork get up to that counts as extracting — or not extracting — square roots?

 

[Lowpro]

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...not fully understood does NOT mean it isn't out of the reach of science. We don't fully understand oligodendroctye's role in Alzheimer's but we at least know there is a relationship substantiated by research.

We don't know what the particulars are of an NDE or emotional change such as the one you experienced, but we do know they are localized to the brain and nothing outside of it other than the sensory input you get from your body will effect that.

You believe it does but it's a purely unsubstantiated belief. If what you actually believe is true that there are forces we have yet to understand/measure that can effect our brain the way you think they do, then the repercussions could actually be disastrous to life and endanger biochemistry in a way that is incomprehensible because it actually cannot exist in reality.

I cannot suspend my belief in reality to afford credit to your beliefs, and to beg us to try is ridiculous.

 

[marplots]

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.

I think so too. Bummer. It kills conversation.
In the interest of passionate discourse, you should claim something whacky so I can look reasonable by arguing the opposite.

How are you on morphic fields?

 

[eerok]

I'm disappointed that I read to the end of this thread and saw no tenable argument for the existence of a soul. I saw some semantic drama, some bad analogies, some eye-rolling anecdotes, but nothing at all to counter the simple observation that the physical brain is the locus of our identity and, in all important senses, our existence.

I think brain death means utter death. Any objective evidence to the contrary? Keep in mind that NDEs fail to fill the bill in the same way that near-pregnancy experiences fail to fill a pram.

 

[punshhh]

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.

I should explain to avoid appearing misleading. My way of thinking about things does not entail holding beliefs, as such I don't use the word other than in reference to other peoples beliefs, discussing the word itself, or explaining that I don't believe in things.

I don't hold a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, I assume it will from the available evidence.

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.

Some folk are doing a very good impression of taking that posture, even if they don't believe it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I should explain to avoid appearing misleading. My way of thinking about things does not entail holding beliefs, as such I don't use the word other than in reference to other peoples beliefs, discussing the word itself, or explaining that I don't believe in things.

I don't hold a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, I assume it will from the available evidence.

Based on your interpretations of these words, what is the distinction between "believing" the sun will come up and "assuming" it will? Why does it matter in this conversation?

Some folk are doing a very good impression of taking that posture, even if they don't believe it.

Can you give examples from this thread?

 

[eerok]

I don't hold a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, I assume it will from the available evidence.

Belief is more or less ridiculous on its face. I'm a minimal-believist.

But quit backpedalling. It was you who contributed a pile of silly, magical anecdotes to this thread. Are you intending to defend all that baloney or disown it?

There's nothing wrong with subjective experiences that inform the story of your life. Go for it; do it. You are the master of your life and what it means. But there is something wrong with generalizing your private crapola into universals that apply to others. So please avoid that or face the ensuing righteous flak.

 

[Akhenaten]

I don't hold a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, I assume it will from the available evidence.

Semantic drivel.

 

[dafydd]

I should explain to avoid appearing misleading. My way of thinking about things does not entail holding beliefs, as such I don't use the word other than in reference to other peoples beliefs, discussing the word itself, or explaining that I don't believe in things.

I don't hold a belief that the sun will rise tomorrow, I assume it will from the available evidence.


Some folk are doing a very good impression of taking that posture, even if they don't believe it.

You do not believe your own magical anecdotes? No fairies in the foliage? You believed that.

 

[dafydd]

Semantic drivel.

As always.

 

[punshhh]

Punshhh...not fully understood does NOT mean it isn't out of the reach of science. We don't fully understand oligodendroctye's role in Alzheimer's but we at least know there is a relationship substantiated by research.

Yes I agree

We don't know what the particulars are of an NDE or emotional change such as the one you experienced, but we do know they are localized to the brain and nothing outside of it other than the sensory input you get from your body will effect that.

Yes I agree

You believe it does but it's a purely unsubstantiated belief. If what you actually believe is true that there are forces we have yet to understand/measure that can effect our brain the way you think they do, then the repercussions could actually be disastrous to life and endanger biochemistry in a way that is incomprehensible because it actually cannot exist in reality.

I don't hold a belief that some or other form of esp took place. I just could not find any commonly understood explanation.

I cannot suspend my belief in reality to afford credit to your beliefs, and to beg us to try is ridiculous.

I only related my experience because someone asked for evidence of something which can not be explained by science.

I have come to understand what constitutes evidence on this forum and it comes closer to a proof than to a form of evidence.

 

[punshhh]

Based on your interpretations of these words, what is the distinction between "believing" the sun will come up and "assuming" it will? Why does it matter in this conversation?

Well when belief is used in reference to a God or a spirituality it is generally understood to mean that one is holding a belief, ie one has nailed ones flag to the mast of this particular doctrine and one does not any more question the validity of it.

This implies a negation of reason and taints the word belief with irrational connotations.

It continually surprises me when skeptics and atheists on this forum use the word belief in reference to the opinions they hold. One can hold an opinion accept an idea as fundamental or even irrefutable, without holding a belief in its validity.

 

[punshhh]

Belief is more or less ridiculous on its face. I'm a minimal-believist.

But quit backpedalling. It was you who contributed a pile of silly, magical anecdotes to this thread. Are you intending to defend all that baloney or disown it?

There's nothing wrong with subjective experiences that inform the story of your life. Go for it; do it. You are the master of your life and what it means. But there is something wrong with generalizing your private crapola into universals that apply to others. So please avoid that or face the ensuing righteous flak.

I have no intention to assert that my experience was attributable to any kind of esp. I merely assert that in full possession of my senses and wits, I could find no other way which would explain the phenomena which I experienced.

Please feel free to offer an alternative explanation.

 

[Sideroxylon]

Well when belief is used in reference to a God or a spirituality it is generally understood to mean that one is holding a belief, ie one has nailed ones flag to the mast of this particular doctrine and one does not any more question the validity of it.

This implies a negation of reason and taints the word belief with irrational connotations.

It continually surprises me when skeptics and atheists on this forum use the word belief in reference to the opinions they hold. One can hold an opinion accept an idea as fundamental or even irrefutable, without holding a belief in its validity.

In the words of the philosopher Robert Plant, "''Cause you know sometimes words have two [or more commonly accepted] meanings [dependant on context]."

 

[tsig]

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.

Throwing out humanity's current scientifically based knowledge and understanding seems astonishingly short sighted. Saying we don't know everything doesn't give you the right to ignore what we do know.

 

[dafydd]

Science does not know everything but that does not mean that science knows nothing. Science knows enough to enable punshhh to post here which is more than mysticism ever did.

 

[Akhenaten]

I have no intention to assert that my experience was attributable to any kind of esp. I merely assert that in full possession of my senses and wits, I could find no other way which would explain the phenomena which I experienced.

Please feel free to offer an alternative explanation.

A bustle in your hedgerow, most likely.

 

[dafydd]

I doubt that punshhh is a Zep fan.

 

[Akhenaten]

I doubt that punshhh is a Zep fan.

It doesn't seem terribly likely, does it?

Although there's still time to change the road he's on.