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

[steenkh]

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

I am sure you will give us the evidence for this. Otherwise we might easily think you just made it up!

 

[JoeEllison]

Note that maatorc is studiously ignoring my questions. He cannot honestly and safely answer those without jeopardizing his entire argument, so he flat out ignores them.

Trust me, we've seen it before. There is simply no greater intellectual coward on this site than maatorc. He avoids pretty much every attempt to get a simple, clear answer out of him. It is obvious at this point that any useful answer from him would in some way topple the entire house of cards than makes up his belief system.

You will note, surely, how often he replaces the word "evidence" with "proof"... because he knows that while he can hide behind the "no one can prove anything 100%" idea, he CANNOT hide from the fact that there must be evidence in order to convince people.

Here's the simple truth: if you lock me in a closed room, you lock a claimed "remote viewer" in a closed room 1000 miles away, you remove all known forms of cheating, and he can reproduce the randoms words and images I jot down on a piece of paper, then that is absolutely solid evidence of remote viewing. It isn't proof of what the process is, but it is evidence that some sort of process exists.

And, of course, it would win the remote viewer $1,000,000 dollars... bhut that's just a tiny, insignificant point.

 

[steenkh]

Maatorc also hides behind the false logic that because we cannot observe psi/esp directly then we cannot tell if it exists or not (but somehow he can!). We also cannot observe the decay of radioactive molecules directly, but by observing the decay products, we can nevertheless confidently say that radioactive decay is real.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Note that maatorc is studiously ignoring my question. He cannot honestly and safely answer it without jeopardizing his entire worldview, so he flat out ignores it.

 

[Darat]

maatroc has been suspended for ignoring the warning regarding his/her derails of MDC threads however to other participants in this thread: remember your Membership Agreement. Especially Rule 12 - "Attack the argument, not the arguer." .

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

 

[AkuManiMani]

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

I am sure you will give us the evidence for this. Otherwise we might easily think you just made it up!

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.


Edit:
Also, it seems rather ridiculous to ask for evidence on a web forum where any "evidence" presented is categorically anecdotal. Even if they do cite what could be considered a credible source one is still left with taking anothers word on a subject. In short, you can't prove an empirical phenomenon on a web forum -- if one could there would be no need for experiment.

 

[JoeEllison]

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.


Edit:
Also, it seems rather ridiculous to ask for evidence on a web forum where any "evidence" presented is categorically anecdotal. Even if they do cite what could be considered a credible source one is still left with taking anothers word on a subject. In short, you can prove an empirical phenomenon on a web forum -- if one could there would be no need for experiment.

I don't see where the problem lies. Clearly, people present evidence every day in the form of research papers and such. They don't have to conduct the experiment in front of each person individually. They can present charts, graphs, and photographs. They can also cite other references, and make all of their research available if necessary.

Somehow, science has managed to muddle along successfully for many decades by the standards we're holding maatorc to... so where is the real problem?

 

[AkuManiMani]

I don't see where the problem lies. Clearly, people present evidence every day in the form of research papers and such. They don't have to conduct the experiment in front of each person individually. They can present charts, graphs, and photographs. They can also cite other references, and make all of their research available if necessary.

Citing/linking a study on a web forum may technically count as evidence, but if maatorc did decide to cite studies which appeared to support his assertion they could easily, and I would bet inevitably, have their validity disputed.

Somehow, science has managed to muddle along successfully for many decades by the standards we're holding maatorc to... so where is the real problem?

The fact that he just got suspended by one of the moderators, ironically, for "derailing" his own thread and the ad hominen attacks made against him.

 

[JoeEllison]

Citing/linking a study on a web forum may technically count as evidence, but if maatorc did decide to cite studies which appeared to support his assertion they could easily, and I would bet inevitably, have their validity disputed.

So what? There's no problem with that either. That's how science moves forward, after all. You obviously don't mind using the products of science, since we're discussing this on the Internet by way of computers. So, since science is a proven method of exploring the world, and the evidence of the effectiveness of science is all around us, what is your problem with it?

The fact that he just got suspended by one of the moderators, ironically, for "derailing" his own thread and the ad hominen attacks made against him.

That's not a problem with science, or even with this website.

Look, if you value fantasy over reality, more power to you. You just can't expect to be taken seriously by rational adults.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Citing/linking a study on a web forum may technically count as evidence, but if maatorc did decide to cite studies which appeared to support his assertion they could easily, and I would bet inevitably, have their validity disputed.

So what? There's no problem with that either. That's how science moves forward, after all. You obviously don't mind using the products of science, since we're discussing this on the Internet by way of computers. So, since science is a proven method of exploring the world, and the evidence of the effectiveness of science is all around us, what is your problem with it?

Science does not move forward by armchair discussions on a web forum. The point of my statement is that, unless one is dealing with mathematical/logical proofs, a web forum discussion cannot establish the truth of a claim. It is purely anecdotal and the discussion, depending on the patience of the persons involved, will continue ad infinitum (or ad nauseum) without any establishment of truth beyond the fact that proponents on either side are willing to argue their points based subjective measures of whose references are more valid. While there is nothing wrong with such a discussion it will not establish "proof" for either party. My willingness to use the products of science is a complete red herring in this discussion.

Somehow, science has managed to muddle along successfully for many decades by the standards we're holding maatorc to... so where is the real problem?

The fact that he just got suspended by one of the moderators, ironically, for "derailing" his own thread and the ad hominen attacks made against him.

JoeEllison's response:

That's not a problem with science, or even with this website.

My point being that that standards you are holding maatarc to (demanding anecdotal/text evidence) are not those of science and that the problem is, infact, behavior of individuals on this web forum.

Look, if you value fantasy over reality, more power to you. You just can't expect to be taken seriously by rational adults.

[I'm assuming that you're using "you" in the more general sense of the word and not specifically referring to me.]

I wouldn't necessarily consider many of the responders to this thread "rational adults" after watching them gang up on and attack the integrity of someone for not immediately addressing a challenge to provide "evidence" and then suspending said individual's ability to respond. You are right; the problem here is not one of science. The problem concerns the integrity and maturity of participants in this web forum.

I suggest that you provide a clear and concise definition of what you will accept as evidence from maatarc -- that is assuming he should be capable of responding anytime soon.

 

[Gr8wight]

maatroc has been suspended for ignoring the warning regarding his/her derails of MDC threads however to other participants in this thread: remember your Membership Agreement. Especially Rule 12 - "Attack the argument, not the arguer." .

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Damn. And here we were thinking he was avoiding us. Delusions of grandeur?

 

[arthwollipot]

My point being that that standards you are holding maatarc to (demanding anecdotal/text evidence) are not those of science and that the problem is, infact, behavior of individuals on this web forum.

Heck, I'd be happy if maatorc provided any kind of evidence whatsoever for his assertions.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
My point being that that standards you are holding maatarc to (demanding anecdotal/text evidence) are not those of science and that the problem is, infact, behavior of individuals on this web forum.
...

Viewed in front of maatorc's posting history, how would you suggest to ask maatorc for documentation, AkuManiMani?

And how do you rate his ability to answer a simple question? (Keeping in mind that this is a forum for critical thinking.)

 

[steenkh]

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.

Maatorc is presenting his conjectures as facts, not as made up. And in what sense do you deem his conjecture plausible? For something to be plausible, it should be based on some kind of evidence, even if erroneous, and it should not contradict established facts. Did you actually read what he claimed:

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

"Universal energy embracing", my foot! This concept is in itself implausible and contradicts everythying we know about physics! He also claims that consciousness is not a function of material brain chemistry, which certainly contradicts known physics, but could of course be plausible, if there was anything that suggested that it is so. Unfortunately for his conjecture, the slightest alteration of brain chemistry changes consciousness, and there is not the slightest evidence of consciousness existing without material brain chemistry.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Viewed in front of maatorc's posting history, how would you suggest to ask maatorc for documentation, AkuManiMani?

I would personally ask him to provide links to studies supporting his postulations.

And how do you rate his ability to answer a simple question? (Keeping in mind that this is a forum for critical thinking.)

Seeing as how he just got suspended on what I would view as questionable grounds I would rate the question of his ability to answer anything as nil.

As far as we know its plausible conjecture that, at present, cannot be tested. Conjectures are, by definition, made up but are not necessarily wrong.

Maatorc is presenting his conjectures as facts, not as made up. And in what sense do you deem his conjecture plausible? For something to be plausible, it should be based on some kind of evidence, even if erroneous, and it should not contradict established facts. Did you actually read what he claimed:

That consciousness is a universal energy embracing phenomenal and noumenal reality, and not merely a function of material brain chemistry.

"Universal energy embracing", my foot! This concept is in itself implausible and contradicts everythying we know about physics! He also claims that consciousness is not a function of material brain chemistry, which certainly contradicts known physics, but could of course be plausible, if there was anything that suggested that it is so. Unfortunately for his conjecture, the slightest alteration of brain chemistry changes consciousness, and there is not the slightest evidence of consciousness existing without material brain chemistry.

Considering that "consciousness" itself is poorly defined, and even the full implications of our current (and incomplete) theoretical models of of physics and neurobiology aren't fully articulated its more that a little premature to say that his view of consciousness as a vague "Universal energy embracing phenomenon" is a contradiction of anything

This discussion has devolved into nothing more than one person (maatorc) using vague "woo-woo" terminology in a community with a predisposition to have a negative emotional reaction to anything that triggers their "woo-woo" detection algorithms.

In short, I don't think any of you in this discussion knows wtf you're even talking about yet you're willing to throw hissy-fits and sling mud at each other. Chill out, grow up, and articulate yourselves like adults FFS.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

maatroc has been suspended for ignoring the warning regarding his/her derails of MDC threads however to other participants in this thread: remember your Membership Agreement. Especially Rule 12 - "Attack the argument, not the arguer." .

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Darat

Well, now that was unexpected (ironic tone).


I predict he will reincarnate under a different Nickname.

That is if he's not already here.... among us.....

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

I would personally ask him to provide links to studies supporting his postulations.

You haven't been paying much attention to the threads, have you?

Seeing as how he just got suspended on what I would view as questionable grounds I would rate the question of his ability to answer anything as nil.

Hmmm...

You haven't been paying much attention to the threads, have you?

Considering that "consciousness" itself is poorly defined, and even the full implications of our current (and incomplete) theoretical models of of physics and neurobiology aren't fully articulated its more that a little premature to say that his view of consciousness as a vague "Universal energy embracing phenomenon" is a contradiction of anything

Ok.....

We're talking about evidence of a phenomena, though. That's what we're stressing here: The controlled test of an unexplained phenomena. Wether we fully grasp the concept of consciouness or not.

This discussion has devolved into nothing more than one person (maatorc) using vague "woo-woo" terminology in a community with a predisposition to have a negative emotional reaction to anything that triggers their "woo-woo" detection algorithms.

Well.... go figure! This is a James Randi forum for skeptical people. Who would have thought people have a problem with vague irrational claims with no base and no evidence of any kind other than the person's personal experience?? Frankly, I'm shocked that things turned out that way. Very shocked.

In short, I don't think any of you in this discussion knows wtf you're even talking about yet you're willing to throw hissy-fits and sling mud at each other. Chill out, grow up, and articulate yourselves like adults FFS.

I think some people in this discussion do know "wtf" they're talking about. I think a lot of people here have a lot of experience and an amazing sense of articulation of their ideas and a willingness to open up and exchange their thoughts in a rational mature and civilized way..... but lets just say I respect your opinion.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Being new to these forums I'm am only going off of what I've observed in THIS particular thread. And what I observed was maatorc using terminology that enrages many of the responders and they, in turn, resorted to ad hominem and account suspension.

Well, hopefully, maatorc is reading our responses in his absence and will grace us with links to studies supporting his assertions (what ever they happen to be) as soon as his suspension expires. And hopefully, the rest of us can suspend our knee-jerk aversion to "woo-woo" terminology long enough to not participate in character assassination and get to the core of what maatorc is trying to say.

 

[JoeEllison]

Being new to these forums I'm am only going off of what I've observed in THIS particular thread. And what I observed was maatorc using terminology that enrages many of the responders and they, in turn, resorted to ad hominem and account suspension.

Well, hopefully, maatorc is reading our responses in his absence and will grace us with links to studies supporting his assertions (what ever they happen to be) as soon as his suspension expires. And hopefully, the rest of us can suspend our knee-jerk aversion to "woo-woo" terminology long enough to not participate in character assassination and get to the core of what maatorc is trying to say.

You're new, so you get a pass.

Mostly, what maatorc has tended to present is unfounded assertions, and when pressed he makes vague claims about "inner schools" of people with psychic powers, that convene with world leaders and the United Nations.

 

[AkuManiMani]

You're new, so you get a pass.

Oki

Mostly, what maatorc has tended to present is unfounded assertions, and when pressed he makes vague claims about "inner schools" of people with psychic powers, that convene with world leaders and the United Nations.

LOL!

But seriously... If thats the case then its only a matter of time before our world is revolutionized by this secret elite