New PSI forum

[UndercoverElephant]

CFLarsen :

In other words: Yes, you are looking for answers, but since you are not happy with the answers you get, the questions must be wrong.

Your reading comprehension in this thread has been seriously lacking, Claus. Every post you make you misrepresent and misquote me. NO, that is not what I said and not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Quite often when you cannot seem to find an answer AT ALL it is because you have framed the question incorrectly. Why have you turned that into "you didn't like the answers?"

You either aren't listening, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

I will repeat myself :

There is no sensible answer AT ALL to "what happened before the big bang" because the question itself results from a flawed understanding of cosmology. In my opinion, there is also no sensible answer to "Does God exist?" because the question is similarly flawed, for numerous reasons, some more obvious than others.

I'm sorry, but you are not all that clear at times.

Really? It's only yourself who seems to having problems reading my posts. The previous poster just described me as "lucid". That means "easily understood, intelligable".

The problem is not that I am unclear. The problem is that you keep misquoting me and erecting strawmen because that is easier than responding to what I actually post.

I am a skeptic. No, I am not a "foundationalist". I believe that knowledge can also be about love, poetry, literature - something that is outside the boundaries of science.

If this discussion is actually going to go anywhere, you need to get a better grasp of what foundationalism and antifoundationalism are.

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/foundation.html

The Four Categories Of Foundationalism

Rationalism, Platonism, Positivism, Sciencism.

[snip]

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/antifoundation.html

Antifoundationalism is the position of many philosophers, such as Gorgias. Antifoundationalism is commonly divided into three main catagories: Sophism, Pragmatism, and Skepticism.

Antifoundationalism is the rejection of the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimatley interrelated. The existence of what we call knowledge only exists because we have created it. If posed with the question, "if a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around, would it make a sound?" the antifoundationalist may doubt whether the tree even fell in the first place, after all,nobody saw the tree fall in the first place. In essence results don’t necessarily define the means. (Edwards 381-385)
An antifoundationalist believes that life is defined by personal experiences. Therefore a person's view of life is an "ongoing self-corrective process" in which "knowlege changes with time." (see inquiry.) In this respect knowlege is transient, existing only until something better comes along to replace it. (Edwards 381-385)

To an antifoundationalist, learning is only something which man uses to comprehend what society thinks. An antifoundationalist believes that everything exists only because we believe it is there. Therefore reality only exists for the individual, because everything we perceive is from the individual. (Petraglia-Bahri)

This field of thought was highly popular in the ancient Greek and Roman culture, but it is still a widely held view. Antifoundationalists claim that truth only exists in statements, not in facts. We (as a general populous) must then be convinced that these statements are true. If we are convinced... then it is true. If not... then it’s false. Scientists must consciously attempt to convince people of their hypotheses, otherwise they are not accepted. Isaac Newton’s paper on the structure of light rays is one example of this attempt to convince. Instead of coming right out and stating that light rays are made of particles he says that light behaves "as if" it were made of particles. He does this in order to persuade the skeptic that Newton may be onto something. Later in the paper he gives his complete hypothesis that light is made up of small particles. This is meant to clench his point. It is obvious that Newton doesn’t intend for everybody to just believe his latest discovery simply on the merit of a good idea. Instead he hopes that they will give it a chance and maybe accept it as possible. (Gross 569-574)

One line in this is rather confusing : "Antifoundationalism is the rejection of the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimatley interrelated."

That is not actually a particularly helpful description, but the rest of the article is quite good.

In fact, if you were a real skeptic then you would indeed be an anti-foundationalist, but I do not think you are that. I think you are a positivist or a sciencist, both forms of foundationalism. A true skeptic is skeptical of everything, and you are not so.

Please read these two short pieces and then tell me where you think you belong. I think it would help this discussion immensely if you did that.

Give us your best shot. Surely, you must have some idea.

No, Claus. I am not going to pronounce judgement on my own ability as a philosopher. You sound like a schoolboy, urging another schoolboy to run out in front of a bus in a game of "chicken".

Precisely how is it relevant whether or not I think I am doing a good job in helping others to understand these issues. You really should ask yourself why you are asking me the question. Does it have anything to do with the subject we have been discussing, or are you just trying to cause trouble?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Without philosophy, you can't even define "real" properly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, I can.

(hits you on the head with a hammer).

That's real.

No. That is called "man-in-the-street" realism, and it is the baseline position of most people who know nothing at all about metaphysics. It is Samuel Johnsons materialism, still famous for its total failure to dent the arguments of George Berkeley.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by JustGeoff
Anecdotal evidence can only ever be a clue.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Of what?

Of what people have experienced. After all, it is peoples experiences we are discussing.

Yes, it is! And you know what? Rocks are real.

Dr Johnson would have been proud of you.

How do you know what I know about what they wrote? Aren't you floccipaucinihilipilificating now?

Had you read the book, you would not have accused me of not understanding QM based on what I posted. If I don't understand QM based on what I posted, then neither do the people who invented it. I think if you read the book you would find yourself accusing Schroedinger and Heisenburg of not understanding their own theories. Even for you, this might be an irrational leap too far.

Then put them on ignore! Come on, you are stalling.....

No, Claus. I am not playing your game of chicken.

Answer the question, OK?

You mean the question about what is the difference between me and Napoleon?

You haven't had your Weetabix this morning, have you?

 

[Lucianarchy]

'Gremlins'

"Most of us have noticed things missing from places where we're certain we last saw them. Lost socks, missing keys, wallets, and tools often seem to have a mind of their own... disappearing from the places we know we put them and sometimes reappearing unexpectedly. Mechanics are so familiar with this phenomenon that they refer to "gremlins" who must be responsible for moving their tools around.

We also notice synchronicities and coincidences in our lives... times when the events happening around us seem orchestrated to bring together ideas, people, and situations.

Take a moment now to consider the possibility that your thoughts and feelings are responsible for creating your experience of reality... that the very way you observe the universe is affecting what you are observing. Just as the most fundamental building blocks of matter and energy are non-locally connected across time and space so that they change their spin simultaneously when they are observed, so too can we notice such "spooky action at a distance" when we make wishes or prayers that come true.[...]

http://realityshifters.com/pages/intro.html

 

[TheBoyPaj]

"Scanners"

Darryl Revok is the most powerful of all the scanners, and is the head of the underground scanner movement for world domination. Scanners have great psychic power, strong enough to control minds; they can inflict enormous pain/damage on their victims. Doctor Paul Ruth finds a scanner that Revok hasn't, and converts him to their cause - to destroy the underground movement.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0081455/plotsummary

 

[Lucianarchy]

Yes, I know it's funny, but 'non-commutative gremlins' is one explanation for the eventual actions of sub-atomic particles in the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory.

 

[Interesting Ian]

Your reading comprehension in this thread has been seriously lacking, Claus. Every post you make you misrepresent and misquote me.

Yes he has a habit of doing that. He even chased this poster Clancie off the board by such tactics. And I personally am not very impressed with either his knowledge or understanding. What baffles me is that other Skeptics hold him in such high regard.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your reading comprehension in this thread has been seriously lacking, Claus. Every post you make you misrepresent and misquote me. NO, that is not what I said and not what I meant. I meant exactly what I said. Quite often when you cannot seem to find an answer AT ALL it is because you have framed the question incorrectly. Why have you turned that into "you didn't like the answers?"

You either aren't listening, or you are being deliberately dishonest.

I will repeat myself :

There is no sensible answer AT ALL to "what happened before the big bang" because the question itself results from a flawed understanding of cosmology. In my opinion, there is also no sensible answer to "Does God exist?" because the question is similarly flawed, for numerous reasons, some more obvious than others.

Repeating something that you complain I didn't understand? That's not explaining, that's preaching. If you cannot explain it further, then how do you expect me to understand? Teachers who merely repeat the same phrases endlessly are extremely poor teachers.

Really? It's only yourself who seems to having problems reading my posts. The previous poster just described me as "lucid". That means "easily understood, intelligable".

Aussie Thinker was referring to when you are talking about your experience.

The problem is not that I am unclear. The problem is that you keep misquoting me and erecting strawmen because that is easier than responding to what I actually post.

No, I find it easy to respond to what you actually post.

If this discussion is actually going to go anywhere, you need to get a better grasp of what foundationalism and antifoundationalism are.

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/foundation.html

http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/rhetoric/terms/antifoundation.html

Thank you for the links.

One line in this is rather confusing : "Antifoundationalism is the rejection of the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimatley interrelated."

That is not actually a particularly helpful description, but the rest of the article is quite good.

Yeps, I was right: I don't believe in the idea of a single unified whole in which everything is ultimately interrelated.

In fact, if you were a real skeptic then you would indeed be an anti-foundationalist, but I do not think you are that. I think you are a positivist or a sciencist, both forms of foundationalism. A true skeptic is skeptical of everything, and you are not so.

Please read these two short pieces and then tell me where you think you belong. I think it would help this discussion immensely if you did that.

I am a skeptic. Does it make you comfortable to label people, before you discuss with them?

No, Claus. I am not going to pronounce judgement on my own ability as a philosopher. You sound like a schoolboy, urging another schoolboy to run out in front of a bus in a game of "chicken".

That wasn't what I asked you. You are misreading what I wrote: I asked how well you thought you had explained yourself here.

Precisely how is it relevant whether or not I think I am doing a good job in helping others to understand these issues. You really should ask yourself why you are asking me the question. Does it have anything to do with the subject we have been discussing, or are you just trying to cause trouble?

Answering a question with a question, of such generic quality that it will effectively put a stop to this discussion. Sorry, won't work. If you don't want to answer a question, just say so. Don't evade, don't talk around yourself, don't stall, don't come up with excuses. Just say no.

No. That is called "man-in-the-street" realism, and it is the baseline position of most people who know nothing at all about metaphysics. It is Samuel Johnsons materialism, still famous for its total failure to dent the arguments of George Berkeley.

Whatever.

Of what people have experienced. After all, it is peoples experiences we are discussing.

Yes. And you reject those, right?

Dr Johnson would have been proud of you.

Whatever.

Had you read the book, you would not have accused me of not understanding QM based on what I posted. If I don't understand QM based on what I posted, then neither do the people who invented it. I think if you read the book you would find yourself accusing Schroedinger and Heisenburg of not understanding their own theories. Even for you, this might be an irrational leap too far.

Don't resort to "Well, read the book, and you'll see the light". Present your own arguments on QM.

No, Claus. I am not playing your game of chicken.

You want to discuss from an experience you won't tell us about. That way, you can at any time declare us wrong, without ever giving any reasons.

Clever. Won't work, though.

You mean the question about what is the difference between me and Napoleon?

You haven't had your Weetabix this morning, have you?

OK, so you don't want to tell us how we distinguish between a madman and someone with a real paranormal experience.

With each post, you stand weaker.

 

[Interesting Ian]

The Four Categories Of Foundationalism

Rationalism, Platonism, Positivism, Sciencism.

Looking at the link I'm very much a Platonist.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.lcc.gatech.edu/gallery/r...foundation.html


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Antifoundationalism is the position of many philosophers, such as Gorgias. Antifoundationalism is commonly divided into three main catagories: Sophism, Pragmatism, and Skepticism.

There is a confusion here. The word "skepticism" has shifted in meaning in recent times. See here . The way "skeptic" is now applied, they are most certainly not anti-foundationalists. They are positivists or subscribe to scientism. This is certainly true for most of those who nowadays proclaim themselves to be skeptics.

 

[Lucianarchy]

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/

Here's a new-wave of true, open-minded, progressive sceptics:

"WE INVESTIGATE TWO ASPECTS OF SKEPTICISM
Positive skeptical investigations
and an open-minded spirit.

And secondly...

People who call themselves skeptics, many of whom are not skeptics at all, but dogmatists
seeking to defend an ideology or world view."

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/

 

[CFLarsen]

Here's a new-wave of true, open-minded, progressive sceptics:

Yeah. Puthoff, Radin, Jahn, Schlitz, Schwartz, Sheldrake, Stevenson, Targ, Tart....

"WE INVESTIGATE TWO ASPECTS OF SKEPTICISM
Positive skeptical investigations

They admit that they are biased from the get-go? Not smart.

and an open-minded spirit.

Ad hominem. Those that disagree with them are merely dismissed as closed-minded.

And secondly...

People who call themselves skeptics, many of whom are not skeptics at all, but dogmatists
seeking to defend an ideology or world view."

Perhaps. Who are these bad people?

 

[hammegk]

Who are these bad people?

You would make a suitable poster boy for "them".


That is, from the viewpoint of geology, you furnish the type-section.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Claus,

I think we have been repeating ourselves for a while now, so I hope you don't mind if I give it a break.

Ian

Looking at the link I'm very much a Platonist.

That doesn't surpise me.

There is a confusion here. The word "skepticism" has shifted in meaning in recent times.

The way "skeptic" is now applied, they are most certainly not anti-foundationalists. They are positivists or subscribe to scientism. This is certainly true for most of those who nowadays proclaim themselves to be skeptics.

OK. There are (at least) two different kinds of skepticism. The first is scientific skepticism, which is what Claus is, and which comes under the category of sciencism in the links I provided. The second is philosophical skepticism, which is anti-foundationalist and which Claus well and truly is not. I mean, does this sound like Claus?

An antifoundationalist believes that life is defined by personal experiences.

http://www.fact-index.com/p/ph/philosophical_skepticism.html

Philosophical skepticism is the philosophical school of thought in which one critically examines whether the knowledge and perceptions one has are true, and whether or not one can ever be said to have true knowledge.

This article does not deal with Scientific skepticism, which is a practical position in which one does not accept the veracity of claims until solid evidence is produced in accordance with the scientific method.

Personally, these days I would put myself in the anti-foundationalist sub-category of pragmatism.

http://www.philosophynow.org/issue43/43pfeiffer.htm

So what then best characterizes American pragmatism? Consider six characteristics.

1) Questions of the meaning of language are best resolved by studying the practical consequences of the ideas and statements in question.

2) The extent to which an idea fulfills important human goals clarifies the idea and also provides important evidence for and against the likelihood of its truth.

3) There is no real need for and little to be gained from pursuit of a First Philosophy in Descartes’ sense, or of a foundation of our knowledge, or of the foundation of reality, or of the foundation of all value, or of some set of basic truths that will answer the great philosophical questions.

4) Sharp, fixed distinctions of thought and reality are not reflected in nature, where one thing fades off into the next, one flows into another and the complexity of our thought is clarified only by theories that give tentative illumination to reality.

5) Enlightenment by some form of a priori knowledge is illusory. Even the definitions of our terms may be changed later, as inquiry proceeds.

6) Whatever promotes reasoned dialogue, inquiry and further understanding is good, and what stifles it is bad.

Can one be a strict pragmatist? It seems unlikely if one is to steer clear of dualisms, recognize the tentative nature of concepts and theories and avoid commitment to a supposed First Philosophy. Pragmatism does not merely reach out in all directions to all forms of thought: it is self-conscious and self-reflective and self-critical. That is, it is prone to examine its own ideas as tentative. We may one day need to reformulate parts of some of our thinking about ourselves. And finally, no parts of our thinking are immune to the weight of evidence that might come in future experience.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus,

I think we have been repeating ourselves for a while now, so I hope you don't mind if I give it a break.

I can understand that. When you repeatedly refuse to even tell us what your experience was, as well as refuse to answer the tough questions, then there isn't much point in going on.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

double post

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I can understand that. When you repeatedly refuse to even tell us what your experience was, as well as refuse to answer the tough questions, then there isn't much point in going on.

I have explained very clearly to you why there is no point in me providing personal testimony to you. You want me to describe the details of my own experiences so this debate will return to the familiar territory for you. I joined this thread with a comment about how many skeptics would be unable to believe their own eyes when presented with genuine evidence of PSI. My personal experiences have f*** all to do with that claim, and everyone here knows perfectly well that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what I say happened to me, you will think of one way or another of fitting it into your picture of reality. If you can't find a naturalistic interpretation, then you will either accuse me of experiencing hallucinations or inventing things in order to make me happy or just plain telling lies in order to gain attention. This is just like the way you invoke occams razor to discount scientific evidence on the grounds that experimental error or fraud is so much more likely than PSI.

It's boring, predicatable and nobody is interested in reading it, Claus.

And if you think "What is the difference between you and Napoleon?" is a tough question then I'd love to know what an easy one would sound like.

 

[CFLarsen]

I have explained very clearly to you why there is no point in me providing personal testimony to you. You want me to describe the details of my own experiences so this debate will return to the familiar territory for you. I joined this thread with a comment about how many skeptics would be unable to believe their own eyes when presented with genuine evidence of PSI. My personal experiences have f*** all to do with that claim, and everyone here knows perfectly well that it doesn't make a blind bit of difference what I say happened to me, you will think of one way or another of fitting it into your picture of reality. If you can't find a naturalistic interpretation, then you will either accuse me of experiencing hallucinations or inventing things in order to make me happy or just plain telling lies in order to gain attention. This is just like the way you invoke occams razor to discount scientific evidence on the grounds that experimental error or fraud is so much more likely than PSI. Why you can't see that your conclusion is built into your thought-process I don't know.

It's boring, predicatable and nobody is interested in reading it, Claus.

And if you think "What is the difference between you and Napoleon?" is a tough question then I'd love to know what an easy one would sound like.

Handwaving. Excuses. Evasions. Crying-to-mom. Same old manure.

 

[Lucianarchy]

Handwaving. Excuses. Evasions. Crying-to-mom. Same old manure.

Projection noted.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Handwaving. Excuses. Evasions. Crying-to-mom. Same old manure.

Bitterness. Seething resentment. Anger. Derision. Intolerance. Attempts to undermine the status of others. I mean "Crying-to-mom?"

Shall I try it?

It's alright Claus, the Big Bad Geoff is going to go away again soon.

 

[CFLarsen]

Bitterness. Seething resentment. Anger. Derision. Intolerance. Attempts to undermine the status of others. I mean "Crying-to-mom?"

Shall I try it?

It's alright Claus, the Big Bad Geoff is going to go away again soon.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I am none of the things you list, and I am not wishing for anyone to go away.

Why else do you think I am encouraging you to participate in the debate?

 

[Lucianarchy]

You really need to work on your reading comprehension. I am none of the things you list, and I am not wishing for anyone to go away.

Why else do you think I am encouraging you to participate in the debate?

You have a strange way of showing it.

Your uncivil, and frankly, nasty behaviour to anyone who has a different belief system to you, is stifling debate. Worse, I believe that is actually what you want.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have a strange way of showing it.

Your uncivil, and frankly, nasty behaviour to anyone who has a different belief system to you, is stifling debate. Worse, I believe that is actually what you want.

Then, report me to the moderators.

Otherwise, let's discuss paranormal issues.