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

[JoeEllison]

More of this nonsense? Really?

Again: if you can't show that it exists, then from a practical standpoint it doesn't exist. If you can show that something exists from a practical standpoint, all the nonsensical objections that maatorc brings up are completely meaningless. His fake objections are just smokescreen for the fact that he knows his beliefs aren't worth half a damn.

 

[Gr8wight]

And how would you 'determine' there is a process?
Even should you accept there is a process, you cannot phenomenally measure it.

Ah... Here we have the delightful woo tactic known as 'quote mining.' Your question has already been answered by my previous post. It was answered by the part you failed to quote. One would determine that there is a process by seeing a demonstrable result. Without a result, any discussion of the existence of a process is moot, and meaningless.

Let me turn this around and ask you this: how would you determine whether or not the "psychic projector" is mistaken in the belief his ability?

 

[Gr8wight]

So what do you think actually caused this?

Oh, no no no no. I'm not letting you turn this around. I'm asking the questions here. You have. as yet, failed to answer my original question. How would the psychic projector and the receiver determine whether or not the correct message had been received?

 

[JoeEllison]

Ah... Here we have the delightful woo tactic known as 'quote mining.' Your question has already been answered by my previous post. It was answered by the part you failed to quote. One would determine that there is a process by seeing a demonstrable result. Without a result, any discussion of the existence of a process is moot, and meaningless.

Take it one step further: do we even care about "process" on any level, without a result to start with? If we can show an event, with or without the process, then no one can deny the event. So, it pretty much stands to reason that maatorc's evasions are completely meaningless, because he makes excuses for the lack of "process" while ignoring the total and complete lack of result.

 

[maatorc]

.....How would the psychic projector and the receiver determine whether or not the correct message had been received?

The real question here is does psychic projection occur?
The living-conscious television transmission-reception analogy applies.
If you experience what you understand as a psychic projection, then deal with the impression you receive.

 

[maatorc]

Keeping in mind that this forum is a place to discuss "skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" and this subforum is dedicated specifically to the MDC:
What is your point in doing what you do, maatorc, if you refuse to provide evidence for your claims? (I assume you understand why most people here insist on more than words.)

That the whole basis of and underlying principle of the JREF-MDC is the false and unprovable reductionist presumption that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function.

 

[Gr8wight]

The real question here is does psychic projection occur?

Wait, isn't that the question we've been asking from the very beginning?

The living-conscious television transmission-reception analogy applies.
If you experience what you understand as a psychic projection, then deal with the impression you receive.

So...what you're saying is, "believe whatever you want..." Yes? So the answer to your question would be, "if you believe that psychic projection takes place, then it does." Right?

So, if you believe that the sun revolves around the earth, then it does, right? And if you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then it is, right? And if you believe that pure water can cure cancer then it will, right?

Man, it would be nice if the world worked the way you wish it did. Unfortunately, I would have to walk over to the psychic projector, and ask, "so, did you send 'green'?"

 

[maatorc]

...So...what you're saying is, "believe whatever you want..." Yes? So the answer to your question would be, "if you believe that psychic projection takes place, then it does." Right?...So, if you believe that the sun revolves around the earth, then it does, right? And if you believe that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, then it is, right? And if you believe that pure water can cure cancer then it will, right?...Man, it would be nice if the world worked the way you wish it did. Unfortunately, I would have to walk over to the psychic projector, and ask, "so, did you send 'green'?"

No, that is not what I am saying.
It is clear you do not know what I am saying.

 

[JoeEllison]

N, that is not what I am saying.
It is clear you do not know what I am saying.

It is clear that the flaw lies with you. When one person doesn't know what you are saying, it could go either way. When you say that a whole lot of people misunderstand you, it means that you aren't getting your own point across, or there is a fundamental flaw in your point. As your history on this site makes clear, the fault is in you, not in everyone else.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

Keeping in mind that this forum is a place to discuss "skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science" and this subforum is dedicated specifically to the MDC:
What is your point in doing what you do, maatorc, if you refuse to provide evidence for your claims? (I assume you understand why most people here insist on more than words.)

That the whole basis of and underlying principle of the JREF-MDC is the false and unprovable reductionist presumption that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function.

Are you assuming we will take your word for it? (Rhetorical question. Duh.)

And to demonstrate your hypothesis, to provide documentation "that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function" you will do what?




(To get this moving I ignored the fact that your hypothesis is irrelevant for the purpose of the MDC. I also ignored its major flaw which is the assumption of a presumption.
Lastly, I would like to remind everybody that you have been asked similar questions before. Apart from simply repeating your hypothesis you responded with either evasion, ignorance or dropping from the discussion completely.)

 

[maatorc]

Are you assuming we will take your word for it? (Rhetorical question. Duh.)
And to demonstrate your hypothesis, to provide documentation "that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function" you will do what?

(To get this moving I ignored the fact that your hypothesis is irrelevant for the purpose of the MDC. I also ignored its major flaw which is the assumption of a presumption.
Lastly, I would like to remind everybody that you have been asked similar questions before. Apart from simply repeating your hypothesis you responded with either evasion, ignorance or dropping from the discussion completely.)

I am saying it is a JREF hypothesis.
Are you therefore saying mind is not a material brain function?

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I am saying it is a JREF hypothesis.

You have been informed - repeatedly - that the JREF does not say that. You are simply wrong.

Are you therefore saying mind is not a material brain function?

You are evading. Again. You say your point is:

That the whole basis of and underlying principle of the JREF-MDC is the false and unprovable reductionist presumption that all mental reality is exclusively a material brain function.

Since you have been proven wrong, the discussion should be considered over. What is your point in repeating yourself when you have been proven wrong?

The only thing which could keep this a sensible discussion would be you providing evidence or documentation for this:

...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

You have been asked to - repeatedly - to provide said documentation. You failed to do so on every occasion.

Again: What is your point, maatorc?

 

[Gr8wight]

No, that is not what I am saying.
It is clear you do not know what I am saying.

I am trying to understand what you are saying. I think it would help if you actually, you know, answered my questions.

 

[steenkh]

I am saying it is a JREF hypothesis.
Are you therefore saying mind is not a material brain function?

The JREF does not care for the explanations. Just give a demonstration that psi/esp is real. Then we can care about whether or not it is a material function of the brain.

 

[maatorc]

......Again: What is your point, maatorc?

I need to get something straight with you.
Although the JREF says: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event", are you in fact saying, notwithstanding comments by Messrs Randi and Shermer, who effectively are the JREF, that psychic events are fraud and cheating, etc., that the JREF accepts that consciousness is not nothing more than brain chemistry, in contradiction to the reductionist position?
It cannot simultaneously be 'fraud and cheating' and 'reductionist'.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

I need to get something straight with you.
Although the JREF says: "At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event", are you in fact saying, notwithstanding comments by Messrs Randi and Shermer, who effectively are the JREF, that psychic events are fraud and cheating, etc., that the JREF accepts that consciousness is not nothing more than brain chemistry, in contradiction to the reductionist position?
It cannot simultaneously be 'fraud and cheating' and 'reductionist'.

You are evading. Again. What I could be saying would be irrelevant in this regard. We know the JREF's position concerning the MDC. This is relevant.

You said:

...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

 

[maatorc]

1...You are evading. Again....
2...Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

1...No, you are evading. The terminology of the MDC is a word-game: Reductionism cannot determine the possibility of that which, by definition of its very nature and character, it denies.

2...It can only be demonstrated and experienced at its own level: Something outside the scope of the MDC.

 

[GzuzKryzt]

...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.
...

...
2...It can only be demonstrated and experienced at its own level: Something outside the scope of the MDC.

It's a very simple question, maatorc: Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

 

[maatorc]

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post...
If the transmitter and receiver are attuned to each other it does not matter where they are.
Further, the transmitter does not have to 'go' anywhere for the receiver to register the character of the transmission, or for the transmitter to register the reception of its transmission.

Originally Posted by maatorc View Post...
It can only be demonstrated and experienced at its own level: Something outside the scope of the MDC.

It's a very simple question, maatorc: Can you, will you back this up with anything? No or yes?

The process of demonstrating this is deemed to be impossible and characterized as fraud and deception by the JREF.

 

[jimtron]

Maatorc: any thoughts on post #48?