|
chunder
marker
Registered: 08/11/02
Posts: 966
Loc: The City
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Rhizoid]
#1873827 - 09/02/03 10:26 AM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
And then I come along and argue that the information about Runki and his leg was there all the time, and it was transmitted to the medium through a physical channel, but the exact details of this are still unknown.
Rhizoid knows what the fuck he's talking about. No petty bickering or presumptious retorts needed. Peace.
--------------------
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874112 - 09/02/03 12:57 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Before it gets thicker in here... Just out of curiosity, how many here have had an experience that they can not explain without using tha hallucination or coincidence explanations? I've had several experiences that qualify. I can't explain them, but I'm okay with that. I also haven't jumped to some erroneous metaphysical conclusion. One of these experiences does not fall under ANY metaphysical doctrine that I've ever read about (sorry, I won't elaborate - I don't want a contrived explanation). Time and time again a scenario like this is brought up to dispute anything paranormal. You miss the real point. The experiences are unexplained. If you mean to tell me that all spontaneous events of paranormality are the product of parlor tricks then you are making sweeping assumptions. Not all cases of paranormality have been solved even under intense scrutiny by investigators and magicians alike. Still you ignore this fact. I have ignored nothing (see above). And I think you missed my point, here it is again: "You don't have to be lying or hallucinating to jump to conclusions based on an observational error." Swami is unaware of the existence (to help you along) of the unkown. (sorry for butting in, Swami) Unaware of what he does not know? Doubtful... the Oracle of Delphi would disagree, too. Unaware of some vague metaphysical "unknown" you're hinting at? No, he's well aware of such perceptions, but has no reason to adopt such ideas without evidence. I say this because he consistently fails to aknowledge this. He is an empiricist as you appear to be. Empiricists do not believe in that which they can not see, taste, smell, hear, or touch. I completely recognize that there are limits to my own knowledge. empiricism - 3. (Metaph.) The philosophical theory which attributes the origin of all our knowledge to experience. Knowledge that cannot be derived from experience DOES NOT EXIST. Show me a person with no sensory experience, and I'll show you a useless lump of living flesh. One can throw around ideas like "a priori" all day long, but until one can explain how this works without relying on a metaphysical assumption like god or whatever (it would be an assumption for me as I have no evidence of god - objective or subjective), then they're only wasting their time. Sclorch: Sometimes a baby just isn't in every tub of crud. Yet more assumptions. My use of the word sometimes negates any assumption... unless you've looked in EVERY tub of crud and have found a baby in it. Sclorch: 4. On experts and academic authority: All assertion and no hard evidence undermines one's educational status in my book. I've got no use for quacking clerics. Well apparently you are the authority. When's the book coming out? I don't see the need for the personal attack, I haven't attacked you. Oh, I get it... it's the Dubya Theory of the preemptive strike... It should be noted that most theories on the fringes of science do not come prepackaged with hard evidence to support them. I doubt you would be so quick to dispute these beliefs though. Prepackaged, no. Hard evidence (not necessarily proof, just evidence) is necessary to be considered a valid theory. I have no beliefs... only quasi-beliefs (do a search for my definition of this). And this is relevant to the argument how? I merely brought this up as an example of how beliefs change with experience, not to argue about global warming. I just found it interesting. Sorry I strayed from the Mindtrap-approved content for a few sentences there. Sclorch: I'm not hitting everything... but the Yawn Factor is creeping up on me. Well isn't that cute. Responding to these weak arguements was pretty damn boring to me as well. This is amusing. A perfect example of jumping to conclusions. The "Yawn Factor" was referring to my need for sleep (I typed that post at like 5 in the morning) NOT my level of boredom. Especially considering you offered nothing new to the debate. Thanks. Wait... is this another personal attack? If all you have to offer is arrogant assumptions and condescending rhetoric then please don't bore me either. Show me in detail where my first post employed these "arrogant assumptions and condescending rhetoric". NOTE: your words here are actually assumption (of my intentions and character) AND condescending attempted rhetoric. I say attempted, because I don't think you're "using language effectively or persuasively." You have done little if anything to counter my arguments. No, your reading comprehension problem has done much to skew your understanding of my counters. Relegating all anecdotal evidence to the looney category is simple minded. True. Who's doing this?
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
MindTrap
Disembodiedvoice
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 349
Loc: It's all in your head...
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Sclorch]
#1874608 - 09/02/03 03:20 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Far too much for a line by line so I'll just summarize.
Minus all of the personal attacks (I do realize this makes you uncomfortable) and endless sarcasm, I am left to understand that the current arguement lies in the fact that humans are incapable of making accurate observations without extensive verification.
Let me ask you again. Have you ever experienced something which you could not explain by ordinary means?
If so then I suggest you have had a spiritual experience. Chances are most people here have had them.
If you choose to ignore those experiences for no other reason than that they do not conveniently fit into your empirical world view then you are also making a concious decision to ignore your spirituality. If you want proof of your sprituality in addition to those 'fireflies in the dark' (that you yourself agree exist) then you will look for it. Spirituality is a personal experience after all.
Do you really believe that your experiences were observational error?
Well I can tell you with certainty that I have experienced events of a paranormal nature that were striking in resemblence to others' experiences. Events that were verified by other parties present. This is my proof. The fact that other recorded events confirm my experiences through similarities is my proof.
As Sclorch humbly pointed out, I am an empiricist to. Really, the only thing which seperates you and I is our decision to accept or ignore our potential spirituality.
It is far easier to shout "occam's razor" and "observational error" without any effort given toward understanding the context and complexity of the cases involved.
Like I said prior, I can't argue with ignorance. Or for that matter I can't argue with those that ignore their own personal experiences.
To ease Sclorch's heartfelt concern for my reading comprehension problem, I assure you that my reading comprehension is just fine. A matter of fact, every time my reading comprehension has been tested I have scored within the top 5%. But really now. What does this have to do with the debate? I understand that you have been well educated and all but this hardly gives you the right to break my arguments down into attacks on my use of the English language. Your entire reply was a series of mindless attacks and really served no purpose other then to spin the context of my original message. Why even bother?
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874699 - 09/02/03 03:43 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MindTrap said: Let me ask you again. Have you ever experienced something which you could not explain by ordinary means?
If so then I suggest you have had a spiritual experience. Chances are most people here have had them.
I have been steering VERY clear from this arguement, and have simply been in lurk mode, but it is time to jump on the stage, so, without further adeu:
I don't think that EVERYTHING that one experiences without being able to explain it within ordinary means equates into being a spiritual experience. Let's say you meet a man that is acting very irrationally. By any normal means, I wouldn't be able to pinpoint what exactly is making him behave in this manner, but it isn't a spiritual experience.
The trouble comes when we don't have any way of knowing on our own what is causing this man to rant, rave, and jump around, is when we start making assumptions (basically, assumptions are the CURSE of MANKIND).
Perhaps he has had too much to drink. Maybe he is tripping and is not perceiving a world that is not this world to him. Maybe he is mentally retarded. Possibly, he has escaped from a mental institution. I guess that he might have had something happen to him that either made him so happy or so broken up that he is only able to carry on in this matter.
Those are different possibilites we might come up with to explain his behaviour. We will say we don't know the man, and no one else is around. There is no way really to find out what the cause of his actions are (as asking him isn't really possible).
The trouble is when we take one of these numerous explanations and accept one as the Truth with no evidence of knowing if it is really True. Some stuffy, old women might be like "Drugs! He's on drugs! Oh, don't they always ruin your mind like that!" Clearly, she has no way of knowing.
Also, to question the structure itself that this debate is in, it all depends on your own senses, how that input is delivered to your brain, and how your own "operating system" categorizes and analyzes the input that has been put in. (haha, the input that has been put in).
Some people live in certain delusions that someone loves them when, in fact, the person of his or her affection doesn't even know them. He has made an ASSUMPTION, that she loves him.
It seems that our entire perspective on life, experiences, and sensory input is proportionally "muddier" by how many assumptions we make in our head. It is basically safe to ASSUME that scientific data that has continouslly been tested by many people over many years is correct. The evidence is there. When we get into trouble is when we start to ASSUME things that have no evidence to actually tell us what is really going on.
So, until some people from the psyciatric ward and some police officers come and pick the man up from the street, and they tell you that he had escaped and is suffering from a lot of documented disorders, don't ASSUME that he is on drugs, is drunk, is extremely happy or sad, or has escaped from the mental instituition and is suffering from numerous mental disorders. And, of course, one must start to QUESTION if the people from the ward and the officers are actually who they claim to be, and the fact that he actually suffers from these things, and whether or not we are all living in an illusion cast... Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
|
Make no assumptions and find no truths, and then you will find out what is really True and what is only an illusion.. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874722 - 09/02/03 03:49 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Go here, then come back and argue with this "empiricist".
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
MindTrap
Disembodiedvoice
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 349
Loc: It's all in your head...
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
|
I'm not sure why everyone apparently thinks I am talking about a belief or beliefs in particular. I consider the fraud hypothesis as well.
Whether or not an experience is spiritual in nature would certainly depend on your description of "spritual" and the experience itself.
Obviously I am not talking about irrantional man. Although I understand your point I don't think it is very relevant to the debate.
The debate is about the whether or not main stream spiritual beliefs are based on cultural myths or independant verfication. I have suggested that these beliefs are alive and well because of independant verification.
I am not making any concrete assumptions as to the cause of these events what so ever.
|
Sclorch
Clyster
Registered: 07/12/99
Posts: 4,805
Loc: On the Brink of Madness
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874749 - 09/02/03 03:58 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
The debate is about the whether or not main stream spiritual beliefs are based on cultural myths or independant verfication. I have suggested that these beliefs are alive and well because of independant verification. What about "personal myths"? What about "finding" patterns that do not exist? What about the possibility of a person projecting their desires into their perception? You see, I find all these other alternative explanations to be equally as fascinating. I'm not dismissing a damn thing... I want to explore them all and find REAL evidence for a proper conclusion.
I am not making any concrete assumptions as to the cause of these events what so ever. No, you DID rule out the possibility that people can fool themselves. I'm not saying that every person who has such an experience is merely fooling themselves... I'm just saying that this possibility should not be dismissed.
-------------------- Note: In desperate need of a cure...
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874780 - 09/02/03 04:06 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
To ease Sclorch's heartfelt concern for my reading comprehension problem, I assure you that my reading comprehension is just fine. Apparently not. You have attributed at least three statements to me that I did not make. I call that deficient reading comprehension. Or do you have a more accurate name for it?
Do you really believe that your experiences were observational error? This has been answered QUITE CLEARLY so many times; yet you claim no reading deficiency? Fireworks_God, Sclorch and I all gave a concise answer. It is not the obseravtion that is in question ("I saw a weird light in the sky."), but the conclusion ("therefore it was an alien probe.")
This simple fact seems beyond your grasp.
Well I can tell you with certainty that I have experienced events of a paranormal nature that were striking in resemblence to others' experiences. And how did you KNOW they were paranormal? That is the real question.
Events that were verified by other parties present. This is my proof. The fact that other recorded events confirm my experiences through similarities is my proof. We have been through this already...
It is far easier to shout "occam's razor" and "observational error" without any effort given toward understanding the context and complexity of the cases involved. False assumption about the research done by any of the posters. I have been to Gulf Breeze, Sedona, Marfa, Area 51, Phoenix; etc. as well as talking to witnesses there to see if there was any substance to their claims.
Like I said prior, I can't argue with ignorance. But you can certainly display it.
Or for that matter I can't argue with those that ignore their own personal experiences. Who is doing that?
Your entire reply was a series of mindless attacks and really served no purpose other then to spin the context of my original message. Why even bother? Unlike the feeble psychological profiling that you think you excel at. Your faith in your incorrect analysis makes ALL of your conclusions to witnessed events highly suspect. You "know" you are correct even when incorrect. How then are we to take anything you say as trustworthy?
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
MindTrap
Disembodiedvoice
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 349
Loc: It's all in your head...
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: Sclorch]
#1874817 - 09/02/03 04:16 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Sclorch said: Go here, then come back and argue with this "empiricist".
I have no reason to argue this opinion. I happen to think that this belief has a high degree of probability. I would only disagree with your assumption that metaphysical explanations are incompatible with your belief.
I suggest that there are anecdotal cases which provide evidence for external events which can not be explained simply within the confines of the individual mind. Events which have been observed by multiple withnesses.
|
MindTrap
Disembodiedvoice
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 349
Loc: It's all in your head...
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874834 - 09/02/03 04:21 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
And how did you KNOW they were paranormal? That is the real question.
par?a?nor?mal ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-n?rml) adj. Beyond the range of normal experience or scientific explanation
The rest of your post was the typical mindless garbage. There really isn't anything for me to respond to. Perhaps that's the intention.
Your personal ego is not relevant to this debate.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874846 - 09/02/03 04:25 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MindTrap said: Obviously I am not talking about irrantional man. Although I understand your point I don't think it is very relevant to the debate.
Obviously not. However, the analogy is a correct one. The irrational-acting man is a little more tangible, that is why it helps solidify things; it is very relevant.
Observing the man is the same thing as experiencing a paranormal experience. There isn't a real way right now to find tested, objective evidence towards what is really making the man rave (or the object move, the image appear, etc.). The experience is REAL. The man is really there. However, whatever we ASSUME from the experience without actual proof (finding out from a source or several why he is raving and ranting, and, of course, the source itself comes into question, and so on..) is just an ASSUMPTION. It isn't the TRUTH.
The man is ranting and raving, but until someone comes along and proves he is ranting and raving and jumping about because of whatever reason (hell, maybe he is doing it to get a reaction from people or because he just thinks it is fun, as I myself occasionally do), it doesn't make any sense to take any possible idea of what is causing this experience to happen and elevate it to TRUTH status. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
MindTrap
Disembodiedvoice
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 349
Loc: It's all in your head...
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874852 - 09/02/03 04:26 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
No, you DID rule out the possibility that people can fool themselves
This is blatantly untrue. People fool themselves all the time. This is obvious. I have even deluded myself at times. Please show me where I completely ruled that option out.
|
MindTrap
Disembodiedvoice
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 349
Loc: It's all in your head...
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874859 - 09/02/03 04:28 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Observing the man is the same thing as experiencing a paranormal experience. There isn't a real way right now to find tested, objective evidence towards what is really making the man rave (or the object move, the image appear, etc.). The experience is REAL. The man is really there. However, whatever we ASSUME from the experience without actual proof (finding out from a source or several why he is raving and ranting, and, of course, the source itself comes into question, and so on..) is just an ASSUMPTION. It isn't the TRUTH.
I agree whole heartedly. But where does that leave us when we experience something "paranormal"? We can choose to ignore it or explore possible explanations regardless of how unpopular they are.
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
it doesn't make any sense to take any possible idea of what is causing this experience to happen and elevate it to TRUTH status. Peace.
It is obvious the man is demon possessed,geez.
-------------------- I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest ----------- I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874887 - 09/02/03 04:36 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
MindTrap said: I agree whole heartedly. But where does that leave us when we experience something "paranormal"? We can choose to ignore it or explore possible explanations regardless of how unpopular they are.
There really isn't a difference. It is just how you judge the experience itself. Someone might have had weird occurences since he was a child, and there would be nothing "paranormal" about it for him, it would be normal for him.
I was just using the analogy to apply the same concepts to something that can be visualized a little easier.
And, Sirreal, I don't think he was demon possessed, because he was coming out of a CATHOLIC church! This was all before he stole my wallet, too...
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
MindTrap
Disembodiedvoice
Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 349
Loc: It's all in your head...
Last seen: 19 years, 2 months
|
|
If this irrational man were to walk around shooting fireballs out of his ass I assure you it would be very paranormal indeed. This is ragardless of whether or not this irrational man thought so.
|
sirreal
devoid
Registered: 01/11/03
Posts: 1,775
Loc: In the borderlands
Last seen: 16 years, 10 months
|
|
Quote:
And, Sirreal, I don't think he was demon possessed, because he was coming out of a CATHOLIC church! This was all before he stole my wallet, too...
Now you are painting a fuller picture.
He was filled with the holy ghost and collecting money for the kingdom of God.
Uh-oh, I think I blasphemed the holy ghost in my last post! The unforgivable sin.
-------------------- I may not always tell the truth, but atleast I'm honest ----------- I see what everyone is saying. It is so hard to form an opinion when you see both sides so clearly!
|
Swami
Eggshell Walker
Registered: 01/18/00
Posts: 15,413
Loc: In the hen house
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: MindTrap]
#1874910 - 09/02/03 04:42 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
I agree whole heartedly. But where does that leave us when we experience something "paranormal"? We can choose to ignore it or explore possible explanations regardless of how unpopular they are.
It has nothing to do with unpopularity.
According to your world-view; occams's razor has little place in these discussions, only the observation and number of reliable witnesses.
"I was in an old deserted house and 10 witnesses with me heard a creeking noise, yet no one was there and there was no wind."
I would "popularly" assume it was the house settling and NOT a ghost that made the "paranormal" noise unless more solid evidence for poltergeist activity was presented.
You have yet to asnwer how you know your personal experience was of a paranormal nature rather then merely an unknown nature. There IS a significant difference.
-------------------- The proof is in the pudding.
|
fireworks_god
Sexy.Butt.McDanger
Registered: 03/12/02
Posts: 24,855
Loc: Pandurn
Last seen: 1 year, 2 months
|
Re: Independent Verification [Re: sirreal]
#1874918 - 09/02/03 04:45 PM (20 years, 6 months ago) |
|
|
Yeah, you're going to Hell for sure, now..
Perhaps the man was shooting fireballs out of his ass because he just escaped from Hell?
Of course, it would make you think a lot more, as no one ever experiences that happening, but no matter how shocking, unexpected, or otherwise profound something is, it should still apply to the same rules. Assumptions are assumptions. This is how people are tricked into buying products they don't need.. they get dazzled or impressed and automatically pull out the credit card.. not the perfect analogy, but good nonetheless... What I am saying is to not let the magic trick you into a belief that isn't supported. Peace.
-------------------- If I should die this very moment I wouldn't fear For I've never known completeness Like being here Wrapped in the warmth of you Loving every breath of you
|
|