IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags bible , buddhism , christianity , god , hinduism , islam , jesus

Reply
Old 13th June 2011, 06:20 AM   #481
Robin
Penultimate Amazing
 
Robin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 14,971
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
As for science, it is too clumsy to prove psi. Its a mistake to think that science can handle it.
Same old lame old excuses.
__________________
We all hate poverty, war, and injustice
Unlike the rest of you squares.

Tom Lehrer - Folk Song Army
Robin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 06:28 AM   #482
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by PixyMisa View Post
Yeps. And he's had the concept of infinity explained to him several different ways.
All to no avail. He couldn't even understand that the difference between a 'nearly infinite' number and infinity is infinity.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 06:29 AM   #483
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
You keep repeating yourself, I'm sure we understood "no" the first time you said it. You don't need to say it again.
You must try and understand why you keep getting no for an answer. Do you understand the concept of infinity now?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 06:30 AM   #484
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Robin View Post
Same old lame old excuses.
How many times have we seen that here? Psi,what a load of old pony.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 06:46 AM   #485
Limbo
Jedi Consular
 
Limbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,077
Originally Posted by Sawbones79 View Post
Any example of ANYONE, EVER, gaining any insight from such supernatural abilities you state?

The first link from the post you quote is a book about an example. Extraordinary Knowing. There are tons of examples out there, tons of evidence but somehow JREF skeptics seem to remain ignorant. If only they would get off their asses and read some frakking books, eh?

Quote:
Oh, and if something's not possible to verify by science, it's hardly science that's too clumsy....

This strikes me as an emotional response in the defense of something held to be sacred. Don't be so defensive! If you have a problem with science being described as too clumsy for psi, take it up with Freeman Dyson. He said it in the book I mention above. Extraordinary Knowing.
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

Last edited by Limbo; 13th June 2011 at 07:03 AM.
Limbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 06:58 AM   #486
PixyMisa
Persnickety Insect
 
PixyMisa's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sunny Munuvia
Posts: 16,343
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
The first link from the post you quote is a book about an example.
No, it's a book about confirmation bias. It's intended as a book about an example, but fails miserably.

Quote:
There are tons of examples out there but somehow JREF skeptics seem to remain ignorant.
No.

Quote:
If only they would get off the net and read some frakking books, eh?
We've read plenty of books. We're still waiting for the slightest shred of evidence.

Quote:
This strikes me as an emotional response in the defense of something held to be sacred.
Only because you don't understand science.
__________________
Free blogs for skeptics... And everyone else. mee.nu
What, in the Holy Name of Gzortch, are you people doing?!?!!? - TGHO
PixyMisa is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 07:04 AM   #487
Sawbones79
Critical Thinker
 
Sawbones79's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 317
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
The first link from the post you quote is a book about an example. There are tons of examples out there but somehow JREF skeptics seem to remain ignorant. If only they would get off the net and read some frakking books, eh?

This strikes me as an emotional response in the defense of something held to be sacred.
Actually, I used to be absolutely fascinated by PSI, ghosts, the great lake monster, prognostication, prophesy and what have you, lapping up a number of books such as those you mention.
Then I went to med school and had to take a long, hard look at one of my pet subjects, alternative medicine. Looking at it in broad daylight, I realised that homeopathy and hypnosis did nothing that couldn't be explained away either by placebo effects, pure wishful thinking or by mechanisms far better understood and utilised by science.
So I respectfully have to state that the emotional argument's all on your side, boiling down to wanting to believe in something accessible only by acceptance.
What I don't understand though, is why you so adamantly whish to put your mysticism beyond the reach of science? Wouldn't it be amazing to find out that PSI or similar exists, and explainnig the mechanisms behind it, rather than simply wishing for it?
Sawbones79 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 07:35 AM   #488
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
The first link from the post you quote is a book about an example. Extraordinary Knowing. There are tons of examples out there, tons of evidence but somehow JREF skeptics seem to remain ignorant. If only they would get off their asses and read some frakking books, eh?

.
You may as well refer us to the Pope for a rational chat about Christianity. I have read all the books. When I was younger I believed in it all. Kundalini,Atlantis,ley lines,chakras,siddhis,pyramid energy,the lot. The more I read about these matters,the more I realized that there was not a shred of evidence. I wasn't got at by skeptics,I came to this realization all by myself. Don't assume things please,I will bet that have read more books about these subjects than you have. The head librarian of Antwerp City Library told me that over the last twenty years that I had borrowed the most books,very few of them fiction.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:06 AM   #489
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
You must try and understand why you keep getting no for an answer. Do you understand the concept of infinity now?
Yes I understand infinity, your comments ignore the point I'm making and descend into trolling.

Perhaps if you show me an infinite number of "no", I might at last understand it and become a no-ist.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:13 AM   #490
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes I understand infinity, your comments ignore the point I'm making and descend into trolling.

Perhaps if you show me an infinite number of "no", I might at last understand it and become a no-ist.
So you don't know what trolling is either. Are you ready to admit that there is no such thing as a 'nearly infinite' number? Please just answer a straight question,for once. Yes or no?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:22 AM   #491
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes I understand infinity, your comments ignore the point I'm making and descend into trolling.

Perhaps if you show me an infinite number of "no", I might at last understand it and become a no-ist.
I am hoping that you will become a thinker. A skeptic is not somebody who simply gainsays all claims and says no like a parrot. A skeptic goes with the evidence and arguments. You have consistently failed to present a coherent argument. When your mistakes are pointed out to you,you simply ignore it and then invent a new meaning for a word or phrase.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 09:58 AM   #492
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes I understand infinity, your comments ignore the point I'm making and descend into trolling.

Perhaps if you show me an infinite number of "no", I might at last understand it and become a no-ist.
I see that you are avoiding this on another thread. Demonstrate to us your understanding of infinity.

What would be the cardinality of a 'nearly infinite' number? Would Cantor's Theorem apply to it? Does your nearly infinite number consist of the real or the natural numbers? Real numbers have a higher order of infinity than the the natural numbers. Can one have a higher order of nearly infinite?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 12:02 PM   #493
Limbo
Jedi Consular
 
Limbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,077
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
What is it about science that makes it impossible to study psi? I am riveted.

I didn't say it is impossible to study psi. I said science is too clumsy to prove it.

"There are three possible positions one may take concerning the evidence for ESP. First, the position of orthodox scientists, who believe that ESP does not exist. Second, the position of true believers, who believe that ESP is real and can be proved to exist by scientific methods. Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science. These positions also imply different views concerning the proper scope of science. If one believes, as many of my scientific colleagues believe, that the scope of science is unlimited, then science can ultimately explain everything in the universe, and ESP must either be nonexistent or scientifically explainable.

If one believes, as I do, that ESP is real but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true. I claim only that it is consistent with the evidence and worthy of consideration." -Freeman Dyson
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

Last edited by Limbo; 13th June 2011 at 12:03 PM.
Limbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 12:15 PM   #494
Limbo
Jedi Consular
 
Limbo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,077
Originally Posted by Sawbones79 View Post
What I don't understand though, is why you so adamantly whish to put your mysticism beyond the reach of science? Wouldn't it be amazing to find out that PSI or similar exists, and explaining the mechanisms behind it, rather than simply wishing for it?

Why do you assume its what I wish? Just because I believe something doesn't mean I like it. :/

I would like it if science could prove psi. But it can't. It's up to the individual truth-seeker to determine for himself whether psi is real or not. Fortunately, the individual can go where science can't.
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."

Last edited by Limbo; 13th June 2011 at 12:27 PM.
Limbo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 12:49 PM   #495
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
I see that you are avoiding this on another thread. Demonstrate to us your understanding of infinity.

What would be the cardinality of a 'nearly infinite' number? Would Cantor's Theorem apply to it? Does your nearly infinite number consist of the real or the natural numbers? Real numbers have a higher order of infinity than the the natural numbers. Can one have a higher order of nearly infinite?
These are mathematical theorems considering endless (infinite) sequences of numbers.

I am not talking of an infinite quantity of gods, rather an unimaginably large number. Which for practical purposes can be regarded as equivalent or approximately infinite.

So rather than state an unimaginably large number of gods, I put a nearly infinite number.

I am not talking of an infinity.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 01:12 PM   #496
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
These are mathematical theorems considering endless (infinite) sequences of numbers.

I am not talking of an infinite quantity of gods, rather an unimaginably large number. Which for practical purposes can be regarded as equivalent or approximately infinite.

So rather than state an unimaginably large number of gods, I put a nearly infinite number.

I am not talking of an infinity.
But there is no such thing as a nearly infinite number. It is better that you do not talk about infinity.
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 03:51 PM   #497
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
But there is no such thing as a nearly infinite number. It is better that you do not talk about infinity.
Ai aiai. That's a very complex thing.

Punshhh: wiki Googolplex.

When I first understood the meaning of the word, it was so far above what I'd imagined that I was awestruck. It's soooooooooooo big, the entire space of our entire universe cannot hold a Googolplex of anything, so long as that anything is at least the smallest measurable space we can observe; one Planck volume.

I'll admit I've used the analogy of, "near infinity," as a number; but it's more fun to just say, Googolplex to the power of a Googolplex, as this concept is unimaginable to humans, and can be considered to contrast with, "nearly infinite."

[eta]
But it still doesn't come close to the concept of it; nor does it even register as, "1," in the scale of infinity. Meaning, if our understanding of Googolplex^Googolplex has the intrinsic value of, "1," to infinity, then the concept of infinity would be Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googol plex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^G oogolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolp lex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Go ogolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolpl ex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Googolplex^Goo golplex^Googolplex and so on and so forth to eternity.

Which could then be condensed to, "1," compared to infinity, and repeated, and you would still never understand the size of infinity beyond the definition of, "infinite." [/eta]

Last edited by Larechar; 13th June 2011 at 04:05 PM.
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 03:58 PM   #498
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes I understand infinity, your comments ignore the point I'm making and descend into trolling.

Perhaps if you show me an infinite number of "no", I might at last understand it and become a no-ist.
It's impossible to show you an infinite number of anything if you wish to reach infinity.

Definitively, I could show you an infinite amount of anything until you died, and you would have witnessed infinity until you died. The act of death, however, means that I've ceased to show you, and is hence just another finite number.
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:13 PM   #499
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
I don't understand. And what does spiritual consciousness mean? Awareness of your imagination?
I am referring to this comment in your last post(I should have bolded it)

"Your brain gets used to processing information in a certain way, and if you pay attention to facts and a scientific way of looking at the world your "intuition" becomes quite useful."
This process is operating in a spiritual life likewise through the practice of contemplation.

Quote:
A lot of things put naturalistically sound exactly how some kind of spiritual tradition does things because reality is natural and they have found patterns etc through trial and error. If only they knew the naturalistic reality or science they could have continued to refine and expand but they became trapped in the mystical tradition. I think this has to do with how the reward system of the brain. Many "spiritual" experiences cause you to push all of the reward buttons and you stop looking for answers. Wouldn't it be nice? Natural philosophy demands all of your brain power and more, it is a greater burden to live with partial answers and no answers than to engage in some kind of mysticism. Maybe that's why it evolved. We're full of examples of how tiny lies and distortions are helpful to survival. If you think about it, human beings are remarkably delusional about everyday events, but just enough to maintain a semblance of reality to the conscious mind.
I agree with your comments (bolded), true mysticism should only be embarked upon after an initial process of knowing yourself, stabilising and recognising the nature of the ego and personality. Alongside a process of clearing the emotions of trauma and negative conditioning and establishing an independent intellectual posture.
Unless this has been attended to sufficiently it is likely to unsuccessful in some way resulting in the abandoning of the practice, or the subject might go down a blind or confining alley.

Quote:
A rational mysticism: personal experience is not a claim about nature. If you don't process the experiences as facts but as experiences, it can't be said that you're delusional any more than dreaming makes you a schizophrenic. Once you make a claim about these experiences or accept something within them as inherently meaningful you have crossed a line into the territory of natural philosophy because we have ways of finding the truth of such claims. Some people say that we don't for some reason, it's not impossible, I'd just like to know why. People will tell you science can't explain love, or God, but why? They usually aren't so sure on the details, is all I'm saying.
Humility, and an acceptance that one may be incorrect in ones assumptions as an ongoing revision of ones thinking(keeping an intellectual clean house) is important in identifying delusions and side alleys.

Quote:
It's a great analogy to art because art is also something that can be true in a sense that does not encroach on natural philosophy.
I think of it as more accurate, more loving, more creative awareness in your biological brain states. The trouble I have is with the more nebulous, seemingly incoherent ideas like "God is Love" and "Everything happens for a reason" "a spiritual dimension" Not only is there no evidence, there isn't really much of a coherent way to even talk about what this spiritual reality supposedly is. Materialism doesn't have that problem of coherence, and it's all we have evidence for, plus we don't need anything else to explain everything we see. So why even invent the need for the idea of a divine nature at all?
Quote:
Ok but a materialist could engage in all of that.
Yes I agree, mysticism is to me the same thing as materialism( I have no argument with materialism). However I differ in that I don't adopt the same conclusions regarding that which we don't know or are not aware of.
I also adopt a spiritual interpretation of reality which does not conflict with anything in science that I have come across. It is concerned with other things than the materialist universe.

Quote:
Besides that there are many ideas as to what that is, I'm a naturalist because I don't see any patterns or anything special in the universe. Things just are. There is no framework that nature is built on, it is unbeholden to anyone or anything. The idea a divine nature supposes that there is some kind of eternal goodness or properness written in the fabric of the universe, or that this property emerges continuously out of nothingness just because. No, I do not see any way of articulating a case or providing evidence for such an idea, but by all means, convince me.
I don't subscribe to the goodness or properness view on divinity. The issue of always coming out of nothingness applies to all explanations of existence. I regard the issue of existence itself as not an aspect of divinity in the way it impinges on the spiritual life. It is something which we may not be able to understand.
To me divinity is a natural process present in nature, with no supernatural qualities. Although these qualities may appear supernatural from humanities limited understanding.

Last edited by punshhh; 13th June 2011 at 04:22 PM.
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:20 PM   #500
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
It's impossible to show you an infinite number of anything if you wish to reach infinity.

Definitively, I could show you an infinite amount of anything until you died, and you would have witnessed infinity until you died. The act of death, however, means that I've ceased to show you, and is hence just another finite number.
Yes I agree, have you considered an infinite spacetime? Infinite in both time and space.
Do you think it could exist?
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:29 PM   #501
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Googolplex=GP

Quote:
GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP
= 1

Round 2 after condensing:

Quote:
GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP
= 1

and again:

Quote:
GPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGPGP
= 1

and all of that equals 1, and there are infinite numbers after "1."

Hey that was fun
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:33 PM   #502
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Yes I agree, have you considered an infinite spacetime? Infinite in both time and space.
Do you think it could exist?
No. I'm not good at space stuff, but from what I've heard the Universe is expanding; [which is infinite so long as it keeps going] but will eventually implode, then explode again.

If this is so, then the time could be infinite [if it were linear], but the space would always have a set amount.

If this is false, then, yes, theoretically, that could be so.

But I really don't have any formal knowledge of the matter, so someone else on this thread would be better suited to answer your conjecture.
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:45 PM   #503
dafydd
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
It's impossible to show you an infinite number of anything if you wish to reach infinity.

Definitively, I could show you an infinite amount of anything until you died, and you would have witnessed infinity until you died. The act of death, however, means that I've ceased to show you, and is hence just another finite number.
Contradict yourself much?
dafydd is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:47 PM   #504
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Contradict yourself much?
Alas, it's the only way sometimes.
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:47 PM   #505
punshhh
Philosopher
 
punshhh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 5,295
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
Googolplex=GP

= 1

Round 2 after condensing:

= 1

and again:

= 1

and all of that equals 1, and there are infinite numbers after "1."

Hey that was fun
Hey man thats deep, might be closer to an infinite number than the number of fingers on my right hand
punshhh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 04:51 PM   #506
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
Hey man thats deep, might be closer to an infinite number than the number of fingers on my right hand
I would hope the concept of infinity was closer to infinity than, "equal to or <5."
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 05:07 PM   #507
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
I didn't say it is impossible to study psi. I said science is too clumsy to prove it.

"There are three possible positions one may take concerning the evidence for ESP. First, the position of orthodox scientists, who believe that ESP does not exist. Second, the position of true believers, who believe that ESP is real and can be proved to exist by scientific methods. Third, my own position, that ESP is real, as the anecdotal evidence suggests, but cannot be tested with the clumsy tools of science. These positions also imply different views concerning the proper scope of science. If one believes, as many of my scientific colleagues believe, that the scope of science is unlimited, then science can ultimately explain everything in the universe, and ESP must either be nonexistent or scientifically explainable.

If one believes, as I do, that ESP is real but is scientifically untestable, one must believe that the scope of science is limited. I put forward, as a working hypothesis, that ESP is real but belongs to a mental universe that is too fluid and evanescent to fit within the rigid protocols of controlled scientific testing. I do not claim that this hypothesis is true. I claim only that it is consistent with the evidence and worthy of consideration." -Freeman Dyson
Which is what?

What's clumsy about "science"?

Why can't you prove it to me? Can't you teach me to prove it to myself?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 05:13 PM   #508
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Which is what?

What's clumsy about "science"?

Why can't you prove it to me? Can't you teach me to prove it to myself?
Yes; stare at the sun for an hour without blinking. You'll have officially transcended the need for skepticsim, and can now see, "The Light."
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 05:26 PM   #509
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
I am referring to this comment in your last post(I should have bolded it)

"Your brain gets used to processing information in a certain way, and if you pay attention to facts and a scientific way of looking at the world your "intuition" becomes quite useful."
This process is operating in a spiritual life likewise through the practice of contemplation.
Exactly, and some "spirtual" conclusions you come to might be useful or mesh with the natural reality you live in. But how do you know if your conclusions are real? In natural philosophy you can find out. In mysticism you don't have the same reality feedback
Quote:
I agree with your comments (bolded), true mysticism should only be embarked upon after an initial process of knowing yourself, stabilising and recognising the nature of the ego and personality. Alongside a process of clearing the emotions of trauma and negative conditioning and establishing an independent intellectual posture.
Unless this has been attended to sufficiently it is likely to unsuccessful in some way resulting in the abandoning of the practice, or the subject might go down a blind or confining alley.
Sure, I would just add that if you have a grasp on nature you can experience anything you like and return with some kind of benefit from the experience, just like you do when you go to sleep and dream. The difference is that you are conscious and are playing with the juxtaposition of your lifetime experience of physical input and your imagine, plus your ancestral memory. I think ancestral memory is kind of an illusion and kind of real but it's a common enough experience in shamanism or psychedelics and I think it's an interesting evolutionary psychology theory. The point is that you have to keep a grip on the natural world because that's an integral part of your biology. Like I said, why ruin the fun by pretending the internal stuff is real? Coming back to the reality of nature is what keeps you sane and able to enjoy those experiences.
Quote:
Humility, and an acceptance that one may be incorrect in ones assumptions as an ongoing revision of ones thinking(keeping an intellectual clean house) is important in identifying delusions and side alleys.
I would argue that the next greatest virtue is what we call peer review or community involvement. I can't claim any kind of special knowledge or ability at this point, too much of what I think and know came from the efforts of other people, but we all share in it at the same time. I know I'm right, it's not an argument from authority, but the greatest strength we have in knowledge is each other.
Quote:
Yes I agree, mysticism is to me the same thing as materialism( I have no argument with materialism). However I differ in that I don't adopt the same conclusions regarding that which we don't know or are not aware of.
I'm not aware of any sane materialist philosophers who make any claims regarding what we don't know or are not aware of
Quote:
I also adopt a spiritual interpretation of reality which does not conflict with anything in science that I have come across. It is concerned with other things than the materialist universe.
Can you say that it's anything other than artful descriptions or interpretations or experiences that can also be equally as accurately described by natural philosophy?


Quote:
I don't subscribe to the goodness or properness view on divinity. The issue of always coming out of nothingness applies to all explanations of existence. I regard the issue of existence itself as not an aspect of divinity in the way it impinges on the spiritual life. It is something which we may not be able to understand.
To me divinity is a natural process present in nature, with no supernatural qualities. Although these qualities may appear supernatural from humanities limited understanding.
Can you articulate a description of your vision of this naturalistic divinity beyond "Good things are good" and "Better things are better" and "things that are so good it transcends my understanding of good are divine? Because if things just happen and m-theory is correct yadda yadda, there is no natural process in nature, things just happen because they can, and that doesn't give much to aspire to. How do we then know if we are in alignment with it?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 05:31 PM   #510
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
Yes; stare at the sun for an hour without blinking. You'll have officially transcended the need for skepticsim, and can now see, "The Light."
Reminds me of the sun gazing documentary (funny clip) where this idiot thinks he'll be able to go without food and absorb energy from the sun but really he burns a hole in the back of his eyes but he just keeps doing it because he thinks he's getting enlightened. It's so stupid, you will facepalm, lol
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 05:33 PM   #511
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Reminds me of the sun gazing documentary (funny clip) where this idiot thinks he'll be able to go without food and absorb energy from the sun but really he burns a hole in the back of his eyes but he just keeps doing it because he thinks he's getting enlightened. It's so stupid, you will facepalm, lol
I don't have access to vids at work, but I'll take your word for it haha. Sounds hilarious.

What is that relevant to? I forget the term... Prahna or something? The concept of when people don't eat, and instead retrieve sustanence from energy?
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 06:51 PM   #512
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
His guru, HRM, claims to have gone years without eating. There probably is something to absorbing those wavelengths at that time for some kind of health benefit, there are lots of studies on the effect of light (and it's lack, night shift etc) on health. Just another abuse of a normal human function for some bizarre mystical reason. Yeah it's a cult. You've got yer moonies, and then you've got yet sunnies
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 06:58 PM   #513
Pup
Philosopher
 
Pup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
However I differ in that I don't adopt the same conclusions regarding that which we don't know or are not aware of.
It's impossible to adopt conclusions about what you truly don't know or aren't aware of, unless you're using "conclusions" in a very unusual way.
Pup is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 07:11 PM   #514
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
His guru, HRM, claims to have gone years without eating. There probably is something to absorbing those wavelengths at that time for some kind of health benefit, there are lots of studies on the effect of light (and it's lack, night shift etc) on health. Just another abuse of a normal human function for some bizarre mystical reason. Yeah it's a cult. You've got yer moonies, and then you've got yet sunnies
Well, I thought humans needed food, according to science? If he's actually gone years without it, then shouldn't that open new windows? Or am I wrong about not actually needing food.

I'd be interested to see his health records nowadays; I can't imagine they'd be very good.
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 07:34 PM   #515
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
Well, I thought humans needed food, according to science? If he's actually gone years without it, then shouldn't that open new windows? Or am I wrong about not actually needing food.

I'd be interested to see his health records nowadays; I can't imagine they'd be very good.
Naw the last dude that supposedly passed the no eating test was an obvious fraud you just can't go that long without food you die it's insane, and hilarious that americans believe this guy. Not as hilarious as this dude who stares at people who state at him and they get all these positve engery sensations and get healings, it's totally opening up a channel to divinity or something. But it's literally a dude and a crowd staring at each other. Ladies and Gentleman, Braco

So really, staring at stuff seems to be a really epic thing to do. Maybe the act of staring gives you a buzz or something. Yeah I could see how staring at something for long enough could alter your consciousness.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:08 PM   #516
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by dafydd View Post
Parapsychology is nothing but pseudoscience mumbo-jumbo and there is no evidence. Yadda yadda is the right level for discussing the paranormal
Odd how they always have to add the prefixes to words like psychology, science and normal in order to even have a vocabulary.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:13 PM   #517
Larechar
Thinker
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 171
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Naw the last dude that supposedly passed the no eating test was an obvious fraud you just can't go that long without food you die it's insane, and hilarious that americans believe this guy. Not as hilarious as this dude who stares at people who state at him and they get all these positve engery sensations and get healings, it's totally opening up a channel to divinity or something. But it's literally a dude and a crowd staring at each other. Ladies and Gentleman, Braco

So really, staring at stuff seems to be a really epic thing to do. Maybe the act of staring gives you a buzz or something. Yeah I could see how staring at something for long enough could alter your consciousness.
Mmmmmm, that reminds me of the staring contest with Derren Brown that's up on youtube. I've always wondered what the stimuli for that hypnosis was, because it's never discussed. Any conjecture?
Larechar is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:13 PM   #518
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by Limbo View Post
The first link from the post you quote is a book about an example. Extraordinary Knowing. There are tons of examples out there, tons of evidence but somehow JREF skeptics seem to remain ignorant. If only they would get off their asses and read some frakking books, eh?




This strikes me as an emotional response in the defense of something held to be sacred. Don't be so defensive! If you have a problem with science being described as too clumsy for psi, take it up with Freeman Dyson. He said it in the book I mention above. Extraordinary Knowing.
Don't be defensive, in your own words what does this book say?
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:18 PM   #519
leonAzul
Illuminator
 
leonAzul's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: noWhereLand
Posts: 4,362
Originally Posted by Larechar View Post
It's untestable; science gets along and understands most of how the Universe works without the idea of a, "Divine Nature," so, naturally, most scientists and skeptics will side with the null hypothesis and claim it's nonexistent.

I'm sure minds will change when you can offer evidence.
This depends on what is connoted by "Divine Nature". In the sense of "The Ineffable", that is spot on: science doesn't give an eff for that which is "in-effable".

Yet in an abstract sense, science relies a great deal on identifying ideally perfect values towards which empirically observed values trend asymptotically, or around which they are distributed statistically.

Reality may not rely on Divinity for its ontology, yet, historically, perception of reality often relies on the notion of infinite continuity, aka Divinity, in order to make testable hypotheses.

And there is the difference. The superstitious ones consistently mistake the map for the territory. They consistently mistake analogy for tautology. They consistently misconstrue elegant symbols as rigid dogma. They consistently mistake the abstract metaphysical for the literal para- or super-normal.
__________________
"Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits."
- Satchel Paige

"No man should have to clean up after another man's dog."
- Gerald Ford
leonAzul is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th June 2011, 08:23 PM   #520
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by punshhh View Post
These are mathematical theorems considering endless (infinite) sequences of numbers.

I am not talking of an infinite quantity of gods, rather an unimaginably large number. Which for practical purposes can be regarded as equivalent or approximately infinite.

So rather than state an unimaginably large number of gods, I put a nearly infinite number.

I am not talking of an infinity.
You can't prove there's one god let alone a nearly infinite number.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.