Supernatural can never be "proved" to exist (Split from Hypothetical Million...)

[dafydd]

Less sense. I've read Blavatsky.

Making less sense that Blavatsky is a hard thing to do,congrats to Maadorc.

 

[dafydd]

Most of the respondents on this forum are cognitively incapable of applying critical thinking to their own critical thought. Real epistemology is a concept utterly alien to them. They can only parrot logical rule-of-thumb algorithms conditioned into them by authority figures. For the most part, our efforts here are probably futile

You really are funny.

 

[maatorc]

More like four years....

Originally Posted by maatorc
"There is no way phenomenological science can study the paranormal.
So-called 'paranormal phenomena' are in fact not 'phenomena' atall, but are by definition noumena, i.e., exclusively mental events and reality, which, also by definition, are incommensurable with phenomena.
Orthodox, material, phenomenalogical science lacks the means of measuring noumenal reality and events. This is the fatal flaw of the million dollar challenge."

1... OK so can I take it that you would agree that people can't make objects levitate, can't transmit messages via telepathy, can't locate water by dowsing and so on?
2... These are the type of things the challenge deals with - it doesn't deal with things that aren't detectable.

1... I am not, here, arguing they can or cannot.
2... I am saying these things are undetectable through the challenge.

 

[maatorc]

What nonsense. Any claimant agrees a protocol by which the result of their 'mental event' can be observed, and evidenced as not resulting from any other known phenomena.

Observing an effect called the result is not observing the actual mental event.

 

[Sledge]

Life must be hell for you.

Mrs maatorc: We'd better pull over at the next garage and refill the petrol tank, dear.
maartorc: Whatever makes you say that?
Mrs maartorc: We're nearly out of petrol.
maartorc: Pish posh!
Mrs maartorc: But the petrol gauge...
maartorc: The petrol gauge is merely observing the effect of being out of petrol, it is not observing us actually being out of petrol.
<twenty miles later, on a deserted country road. The car has spluttered to a halt>
Mrs maartorc: I'm divorcing you.

 

[maatorc]

Life must be hell for you.

Mrs maatorc: We'd better pull over at the next garage and refill the petrol tank, dear.
maartorc: Whatever makes you say that?
Mrs maartorc: We're nearly out of petrol.
maartorc: Pish posh!
Mrs maartorc: But the petrol gauge...
maartorc: The petrol gauge is merely observing the effect of being out of petrol, it is not observing us actually being out of petrol.
<twenty miles later, on a deserted country road. The car has spluttered to a halt>
Mrs maartorc: I'm divorcing you.

Not everyone thinks a diminishing petrol content indicated by a gauge is a mental event, but if you do, as seems to be the case, well good luck!

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Originally Posted by maatorc
"There is no way phenomenological science can study the paranormal.
So-called 'paranormal phenomena' are in fact not 'phenomena' atall, but are by definition noumena,

Most supernatural claims are not noumena-by-definition.

Those that are noumena-by-definition and are thus are not susceptible to scientific analysis are the least interesting "supernatural" claims. If a supposed supernatural phenomenon cannot even in theory be used for something that achieves not-purely-noumenal results then I see no reason to care whether it exists or not.

Orthodox, material, phenomenalogical science lacks the means of measuring noumenal reality and events. This is the fatal flaw of the million dollar challenge.

You misunderstand the challenge then. The challenge is exclusively aimed at people who are making testable supernatural claims. Complaining that it lacks the means to test untestable claims is like complaining that your screwdriver can't wake up a colourless green dream that is sleeping furiously.

If you want to offer a million dollars to people making untestable claims, get your own million dollars.

 

[maatorc]

...... The challenge is exclusively aimed at people who are making testable supernatural claims. ......

There are no - phenomenally - testable supernatural claims.

There are no supernatural events or conditions because everything that is or exists is natural.

Call it Universe, Being, God, what you will, it makes no difference, it is natural, it is all that is.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

There are no - phenomenally - testable supernatural claims.

There are no supernatural events or conditions because everything that is or exists is natural.

I understand the point you are making, and I'm not arguing that the term "supernatural" marks out a philosophically defensible boundary.

However "supernatural" as used by laypeople does refer to things like ghosts, telekinesis, mind reading and whatnot and such claims can be and are investigated empirically. Those are the claims which the challenge deals with, whether they are philosophically coherent claims or not.

 

[maatorc]

I understand the point you are making, and I'm not arguing that the term "supernatural" marks out a philosophically defensible boundary.
However "supernatural" as used by laypeople does refer to things like ghosts, telekinesis, mind reading and whatnot and such claims can be and are investigated empirically. Those are the claims which the challenge deals with, whether they are philosophically coherent claims or not.

My point is that our objective phenomenal perceptions cannot physically and directly measure strictly mental noumenal realizations.
Hence the objectively phenomenal protocols of the MDC cannot directly and experientially measure or demonstrate such events as remote viewing/psychic projection and telepathy, because material consciousness and strictly mental realizations are incommensurable.

The concept of phenomena and noumena being incommensurable is interestingly discussed by P. D. Ouspensky in "Tertium Organum" as shown at - http://www.gurdjieff.org/pentland2.htm and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Ouspensky.

 

[dafydd]

My point is that our objective phenomenal perceptions cannot physically and directly measure strictly mental noumenal realizations.
Hence the objectively phenomenal protocols of the MDC cannot directly and experientially measure or demonstrate such events as remote viewing/psychic projection and telepathy, because material consciousness and strictly mental realizations are incommensurable.

The concept of phenomena and noumena being incommensurable is interestingly discussed by P. D. Ouspensky in "Tertium Organum" as shown at - http://www.gurdjieff.org/pentland2.htm and - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P._D._Ouspensky.

Gurdijeff and Ouspensky are not the most reliable guides in these matters.Woo merchants,just like Blavatsky.Are you a Theosophist?

 

[chillzero]

Observing an effect called the result is not observing the actual mental event.

Life must be hell for you.

Mrs maatorc: We'd better pull over at the next garage and refill the petrol tank, dear.
maartorc: Whatever makes you say that?
Mrs maartorc: We're nearly out of petrol.
maartorc: Pish posh!
Mrs maartorc: But the petrol gauge...
maartorc: The petrol gauge is merely observing the effect of being out of petrol, it is not observing us actually being out of petrol.
<twenty miles later, on a deserted country road. The car has spluttered to a halt>
Mrs maartorc: I'm divorcing you.

Not everyone thinks a diminishing petrol content indicated by a gauge is a mental event, but if you do, as seems to be the case, well good luck!

It's a fair analogy though.


If you observed a man shuffling about in the middle of the road, grasping at his head and crying out ... who suddenly keeled over unconcious, would you call an ambulance? If so, why?

 

[Belz...]

Observing an effect called the result is not observing the actual mental event.

A mental event ? What did I miss ?

 

[Czarcasm]

That you cannot comprehend a straight-forward sentence in simple English does not mean others have a problem: Look in the mirror.

I took your advice, and you are absolutely right-your posts do make much more sense when reversed.
Thank you.

 

[Dancing David]

You are right: There is no supernatural; nothing super beyond the natural.

And so the natural evidence is lacking as well of these phenomena.

 

[Dancing David]

Making less sense that Blavatsky is a hard thing to do,congrats to Maadorc.

Truly awe inspiring.

 

[Dancing David]

There are no - phenomenally - testable supernatural claims.

There are no supernatural events or conditions because everything that is or exists is natural.

Call it Universe, Being, God, what you will, it makes no difference, it is natural, it is all that is.

Natural, supernatural, you still can't produce evidence.

 

[drkitten]

Natural, supernatural, you still can't produce evidence.

I think that's his point. By denying the possibility of evidence existing, he's freed from the burden of producing it.

Of course, he's also freed from the burden of being taken seriously.

 

[Sledge]

Not everyone thinks a diminishing petrol content indicated by a gauge is a mental event, but if you do, as seems to be the case, well good luck!

So you don't use this particular brand of twisted logic in your day to day life? Why is that?

 

[maatorc]

Gurdijeff and Ouspensky are not the most reliable guides in these matters.Woo merchants,just like Blavatsky.Are you a Theosophist?

You have fallen for the 'condemnation by association' trap.
Is Albert Einstein 'woo' because he admitted to 'mystical' viewpoints?
It is a very common tack taken by ignorant tunnel-visioned cultists claiming to be experts on subjects they know little about.
Some people see Ouspensky as you suggest. Certain highly placed circles regard "Tertium Organum" as a classic. It was written well before he met Gurdjieff; and with whom he later very strongly disagreed.
Some see Gurdjieff as an idiot, while to others he was a genius: It all depends who is looking. Will one's seemingly anti-Theosophist view deprive one of an intelligent independently minded understanding of a given text?