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

[maatorc]

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

I'm saying that the functional definition of "paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event" for Challenge purposes is just whatever you can get Randi and company to accept as a fit demonstration.
Let me put it another way for you.
As far as we currently know everything that is usually described as paranormal, supernatural, or occult is either total bunk or a trick. So it is true as far as we currently know to say things like "supernatural powers do not exist". The Challenge is to demonstrate that you can do something that is paranormal, supernatural, or occult as far as we currently know.
Once you have shown that it is not bunk or a trick, then we can worry about what to call this new phenomenon. Maybe we'll call it supernatural, maybe we'll call it something else.

As far as we currently know

That ... "bunk or trick"... characterise psi-esp claims does not and cannot actually tell us anything about the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality.

As to...as far as we currently know...phenomenological science does not currently know anything of psi-esp reality because it has no means of proving or disproving strictly mental, or noumenal, events.

There exists no phenomenological scientific rule, principle, law, proof, or demonstration that psi-esp is true or false; nor can there.

The statement..."As far as we currently know"...cannot be a principle or rule concerning psi-esp because it is a logical non sequitur arising from the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena: It cannot be put forward as the foundation premise, arising from..."bunk or trick"..., to determine what is or is not..."bunk or trick".

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

That ... "bunk or trick"... characterise psi-esp claims does not and cannot actually tell us anything about the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality.

As to...as far as we currently know...phenomenological science does not currently know anything of psi-esp reality because it has no means of proving or disproving strictly mental, or noumenal, events.

Surely if strictly mental or noumenal events do anything, then we can observe them indirectly? By which I mean, if by psi-esp means I can know something I could not otherwise know, then surely I could act on that knowledge?

If there is no way even in theory that a psi-esp event can have any observable effect on the observable world, what good is psi-esp?

There exists no phenomenological scientific rule, principle, law, proof, or demonstration that psi-esp is true or false; nor can there.

That seems like an unusual claim. Most believers in psi-esp think that you can at least in theory use psi-esp for something. If you can use it for something then you can demonstrate it. If you can demonstrate it then you can study it.

The statement..."As far as we currently know"...cannot be a principle or rule concerning psi-esp because it is a logical non sequitur arising from the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena: It cannot be put forward as the foundation premise, arising from..."bunk or trick"..., to determine what is or is not..."bunk or trick".

I think your philosophy is a bit confused on this point.

"Noumena" (by which I think you mean mental events) are, as far as science can tell, just a certain kind of "phenomena" (by which I think you mean physical stuff), involving nerves in the brain going about their business.

The idea that noumena exist prior to or apart from brain-phenomena has been advanced occasionally by philosophers and shot down in fairly short order every time as incoherent. I've seen it held as an article of faith by believers in the paranormal, who seem to need to believe it, but it's a view that is not in any way mainstream in academia.

 

[H3LL]

Just because someone can make up a name for something does not make it so.

If something cannot be seen, smelt, touched, heard or tasted and cannot be detected with any method currently known and has no known effect in or on the real world.

What is the difference between that and nothing at all?

.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Just a little heads-up.

Maatorc brings his points up regularly. He refuses to name sources or provide proof for his claims. While I find his ideas basically interesting, their solely theoretical nature seem to make him an educated troll.

To those who think they can prove the paranormal, #143

Raymond Edward Powell protocol, #44

Flaws In The Challenge

If you have anything new to add to especially the last thread, feel free to pick up where it has been left off.



Hypothetical, shmypothetical.

 

[steenkh]

Hi maatorc, you seem never to tire of your strawmen and misrepresentations, do you?

That ... "bunk or trick"... characterise psi-esp claims does not and cannot actually tell us anything about the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality.

Who cares? If the claimants can demonstrate what they claim to do, they get the million. There is nothing in the Challenge about "telling the truth or falsity of psi-esp reality".

As to...as far as we currently know...phenomenological science does not currently know anything of psi-esp reality because it has no means of proving or disproving strictly mental, or noumenal, events.

Perhaps you are right, but how is that related to the Challenge?

There exists no phenomenological scientific rule, principle, law, proof, or demonstration that psi-esp is true or false; nor can there.

OK, if you say so. It has no bearing on the Challenge which is about a demonstration of an ability according to a protocol.

The statement..."As far as we currently know"...cannot be a principle or rule concerning psi-esp because it is a logical non sequitur arising from the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena: It cannot be put forward as the foundation premise, arising from..."bunk or trick"..., to determine what is or is not..."bunk or trick".

There are people out there who claim they can read minds with no trouble at all. The MDC is about making such people demonstrate that they can do what they claim. You may believe that they are not performing ESP, but that is irrelevant for the MDC. What is relevant is that mind-reading is currently understood to be paranormal.

 

[maatorc]

Maatorc brings his points up regularly. He refuses to name sources or provide proof for his claims. While I find his ideas basically interesting, their solely theoretical nature seem to make him an educated troll.

You are probably not intending to be mindlessly insulting like some others here.
However, any male who wants to call me a 'troll' will likewise be named the male equivalent of it's female derivative 'trollop': A 'gigolo'.

As to me repeating my position: So what, everyone here, including you, does it.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

You are probably not intending to be mindlessly insulting like some others here.
However, any male who wants to call me a 'troll' will likewise be named the male equivalent of it's female derivative 'trollop': A 'gigolo'.

As to me repeating my position: So what, everyone here, including you, does it.

I do not at all want to act insulting, hence hinted my interest in your position.

I simply tried to point out my view of your - repeated - behaviour in this particular subforum. And upon review would have to agree with your assessment that almost everyone in here tries to bang their points home, including moi.

Those who achieve it, maatorc, present evidence. They let the others have part in their sources, share their influences, back up their claims. Substantially. Repeatably. Obviously.

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
There are no scientific trials capable of detecting psi-esp.

What sort of trial is capable of detecting psi-esp, then?

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true, and someone so capable, for example in the technique of visual and/or aural projection, is realised visually and aurally by you while you are in a fully awake conscious state, the experience and realization will be true and real to you but you will not be able to prove it happened to anyone else who did not simultaneously realise and experience the presence of the person you saw and the message imparted to you.

Science and the JREF MDC possess no means to simultaneously observe, measure, and record such an event. Phenomenological statistical techniques can at best infer but not prove a psi-esp event did or did not occur.

In short, there is no trial available to material science or the JREF MDC capable of detecting psi-esp.

There is nothing to criticise in the desire of the JREF MDC to seek to understand the psi-esp question. However, the direction it has taken is a logical and operational cul-de-sac.

 

[ChristineR]

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true, and someone so capable, for example in the technique of visual and/or aural projection, is realised visually and aurally by you while you are in a fully awake conscious state, the experience and realization will be true and real to you but you will not be able to prove it happened to anyone else who did not simultaneously realise and experience the presence of the person you saw and the message imparted to you.

Science and the JREF MDC possess no means to simultaneously observe, measure, and record such an event. Phenomenological statistical techniques can at best infer but not prove a psi-esp event did or did not occur.

In short, there is no trial available to material science or the JREF MDC capable of detecting psi-esp.

There is nothing to criticise in the desire of the JREF MDC to seek to understand the psi-esp question. However, the direction it has taken is a logical and operational cul-de-sac.

Nonsense. All you have to do to win the JREF challenge is transmit information by some previously unknown means. The challenge is not concerned with whether or not psi is present or how it is measured.

If and when someone transmits information by unknown means, the scientists will move and and try and figure out what happened. As we have no idea what psi is or might be I see no reason to assume that there is no way a scientist could build a device to measure it. The first obvious step would be to put someone in an MRI machine while they are sending or receiving images.

 

[maatorc]

.......If and when someone transmits information by unknown means, the scientists will move and and try and figure out what happened. As we have no idea what psi is or might be I see no reason to assume that there is no way a scientist could build a device to measure it. The first obvious step would be to put someone in an MRI machine while they are sending or receiving images.

Psi-esp is noumenal reality.

Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.

The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Psi-esp is noumenal reality.

Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.

The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

Well, if you really could send someone an image then we could test it perfecty well, and win the million very easily.

You send me images, and I try to guess what you are sending me. If I do significantly better than chance, we win the million. What's the problem?

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post
Psi-esp is noumenal reality.
Normal physical consciousness is phenomenal reality.
The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

..............
1... If you can send thoughts to another person, that is a phenomena. Certainly it is observable and measurable.
2... That is, if I send you a thought of a blue beach ball, you can observe and measure the blue beach ball.

1... A strictly mental event is noumenal by definition.
2... The noumenal observation cannot be phenomenologically proven.

 

[maatorc]

Well, if you really could send someone an image then we could test it perfecty well, and win the million very easily.
You send me images, and I try to guess what you are sending me. If I do significantly better than chance, we win the million. What's the problem?

The statistical result would be inference but not proof.

 

[Darat]

maatorc I have yet again had to move your philosophical posts that have nothing to do with the actual Million Dollar Challenge to this thread in the appropriate section. As per your Membership Agreement please ensure you post about the appropriate subject in the appropriate section.

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

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true, and someone so capable, for example in the technique of visual and/or aural projection, is realised visually and aurally by you while you are in a fully awake conscious state, the experience and realization will be true and real to you but you will not be able to prove it happened to anyone else who did not simultaneously realise and experience the presence of the person you saw and the message imparted to you.

Didn't we already go through this? Why can't you just tell me the message and then let me verify it? Are all such messages impossible to put into words?

A strictly mental event is noumenal by definition.

Let me just check the definition of noumenon:

: a posited object or event as it appears in itself independent of perception by the senses

I swear your statement is an oxymoron. Maybe you could restate your thesis without using big words?

The reason material science and the JREF MDC cannot measure psi-esp is the incommensurability of phenomena and noumena.

If this is the case, then no one can measure or detect psi phenomena and therefore there never would have been any stated evidence for its existence.

~~ Paul

 

[Complexity]

Taking the hypothetical position that psi-esp is true...

No. Why would anyone waste their time doing that?

 

[arthwollipot]

No. Why would anyone waste their time doing that?

For the purposes of reasoned discussion, perhaps?

 

[JoeEllison]

So, basically, maatorc is saying that ESP is real, and that he's completely making it up, at the exact same time.

 

[Robin]

1... A strictly mental event is noumenal by definition.
2... The noumenal observation cannot be phenomenologically proven.

Surely the noumen is the thing in itself, not as it is observed. So even if you are talking about some observation that takes place independently of the sensory realm you are not talking about the noumen, you are just positing an alternate phenomenal realm.

 

[Complexity]

For the purposes of reasoned discussion, perhaps?

I don't think so.

As the basis for a fantasy plot, perhaps, but nothing involving the real.