RE: Indoctrination

RE: Indoctrination (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/9/2012 7:24:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Edwynn quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: I am a bit more troubled by the congress inviting into the discussion of birth control all those priests, reverends, rabbis, etc. into the very halls of our democracy. THAT was a clear and unmistakable violation of the constitution. The First Amendment prohibits interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances. This extends to the religious as well as the secular. They were not peaceably assembling nor petitioning. They were giving testimony at the behest of the US Congress, as part of a direct process of law-making, an entirely different matter. There is no religious test in Constitutional Law for who can speak before a congressional committee. Your venture down that path is absurd.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/9/2012 5:13:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Bullshit. The evidence for a supraphysical reality is not falsifiable. It is anecdotal. Therefore, highly unreliable at best. Bullshit backatcha. But rather than argue your claim in a vacuum, how about you support it? quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML When your major premises and conclusions are weak you are not able to resist a smartass personal attack. A sure sign that you realise you are on shaky ground. How funny. I'm laughing too. That wasn't a personal attack. But since you took it as one, I accept your confession. K.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 7:02:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Bullshit backatcha. But rather than argue your claim in a vacuum, how about you support it? [:D] No vacuum. This is what you wrote in #538: "The evidence for a supraphysical reality is the same as the evidence for a physical reality: it is the evidence of experience. Is it replicable? Sure. Countless people have had these experiences." Here is my claim: There is no equivalency between evidence for supraphysical reality and evidence for physical reality; the latter can be falsified, the former cannot be falsified. "Countless" people? WTF does that mean? I warrant an insignificant, self-selected subset of the whole set of people living today. Maybe little more or less than the subset of those who claim to have been abducted by space aliens. You also said: "People who have had religious experiences, which they almost uniformly describe as being more real even than that train, or people who have actually personally experienced finding themselves outside their body, cannot simply be dismissed as believing in something "without the evidence of experience." For the first part, there is no measurement available for the "realness" of the self-reported religious experience, since it is only their subjective "experience." Psychotic schizophrenics self-report "real" subjective experiences also. Why should we believe the one and not the other? For the second part, out of body delusion has been induced by brain probes. So, not really very unique. Conclusion: self-reported evidence for supraphysical reality is anecdotal and unreliable at best.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 7:14:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML For the second part, out of body delusion has been induced by brain probes. So, not really very unique. It is known exactly which part of the brain requires stimulation to produce a religious experience. The fact that relgious experience can be induced, sort of proves your point, without objective evidence to the contrary, religious experience can be put down to an hallucigenic experience.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 7:24:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Conclusion: self-reported evidence for supraphysical reality is anecdotal and unreliable at best. People who tell us that there is something greater (loosely defined) seem to fall into two categories. One category is those who believe it because that's what people they respect believe, or because almost everyone they know does. The other category is those who believe it on the basis of a religious or other anomalous (e.g., out of body) experience. People who tell us that there isn't also fall into two categories. One category is those who believe it because that's what people they respect believe, or because almost everyone they know does. The other category is those who believe it because they've never experienced anything else, so they think anyone who claims to must be either crazy or lying. You do the math. Ignoring the first category because it's hearsay, we find one claim supported by a record of experience while the other reflects nothing but an exceedingly self-centered ego. K.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 8:10:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Conclusion: self-reported evidence for supraphysical reality is anecdotal and unreliable at best. People who tell us that there is something greater (loosely defined) seem to fall into two categories. One category is those who believe it because that's what people they respect believe, or because almost everyone they know does. The other category is those who believe it on the basis of a religious or other anomalous (e.g., out of body) experience. People who tell us that there isn't also fall into two categories. One category is those who believe it because that's what people they respect believe, or because almost everyone they know does. The other category is those who believe it because they've never experienced anything else, so they think anyone who claims to must be either crazy or lying. You do the math. Ignoring the first category because it's hearsay, we find one claim supported by a record of experience while the other reflects nothing but an exceedingly self-centered ego. K. It is a well known psychological condition that the human brain projects intent onto experience and that there are side affects to this condition, for eg. one might mistake a shadow for a burglar but one will never mistake a burglar for a shadow. It's a survival issue which allows people to react without wasting precious time to work out whether it really is a lion chasing them or not. Self deception appears to be an worthwhile payoff for the evolutionary positives of applying intent. It's like those dudes who name their cars, we are predisposed to anthropomorphise inanimate objects.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 10:11:05 AM)
Firstly, it only take one black swan to disprove a claim that all swans are white. Secondly, we can't prove that any experience is actually "real". And thirdly, while stimulation of the superior temporal gyrus disturbs our ability locate ourselves in space, out of the body experiences have been reported when medical monitors showed that the brain was flat-lined. What else ya got? K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 12:12:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver It is a well known psychological condition that the human brain projects intent onto experience and that there are side affects to this condition, for eg. one might mistake a shadow for a burglar but one will never mistake a burglar for a shadow. It's a survival issue which allows people to react without wasting precious time to work out whether it really is a lion chasing them or not. Self deception appears to be an worthwhile payoff for the evolutionary positives of applying intent. It's like those dudes who name their cars, we are predisposed to anthropomorphise inanimate objects. Well that's true, of course, and it likely explains how people came up with notions of corn goddesses and thunder gods. But as a point to raise in a debate about the possibility of a supraphysical reality, it's a non-starter. I'll remind you of quote posted earlier in this thread (emphasis added): Everything we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time... ~Henry Stapp This is a serious matter for our understanding of the universe. These anomalous events may be rare, and difficult to study because we can't seem to get them to pop up like a Jack-in-the-Box on command, but dismissing them as delusions because they can't be explained by our current paradigm seems an unproductive approach to advancing our knowledge. K.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 12:19:08 PM)
quote: People who tell us that there isn't also fall into two categories. One category is those who believe it because that's what people they respect believe, or because almost everyone they know does. The other category is those who believe it because they've never experienced anything else, so they think anyone who claims to must be either crazy or lying. There is a third category: those who know the evidence sucks. The difference between positivism and falsifiability. You did not read Popper with comprehension. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, open your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirmed instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. Thus its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refuse to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analyzed" and crying aloud for treatment. The most characteristic element in this situation seemed to me the incessant stream of confirmations, of observations which "verified" the theories in question; http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/popper_falsification.html quote: Firstly, it only take one black swan to disprove a claim that all swans are white. Secondly, we can't prove that any experience is actually "real". And thirdly, while stimulation of the superior temporal gyrus disturbs our ability locate ourselves in space, out of the body experiences have been reported when medical monitors showed that the brain was flat-lined. Firstly, the existence of the black swan is falsification of the larger category. What falsification is offered to test the existence of soul? The soul in your analogy is equivalent to the flock of white swans. Secondly, you keep repeating we cannot prove that any experience is "real" when manifestly we can, as you agreed in the instance of landing vehicles on the moon. The moon really is! We have been over this several times. You are using it as a crutch in a desperate attempt to justify the bogus "reality" of subjective experiences. Thirdly, let me know when the NDE subject makes his report during the flatline and not afterwards. It is a common enough experience that people dream at the moment of waking. Is this the best you can do?

crazyml -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 12:27:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Conclusion: self-reported evidence for supraphysical reality is anecdotal and unreliable at best. People who tell us that there is something greater (loosely defined) seem to fall into two categories. One category is those who believe it because that's what people they respect believe, or because almost everyone they know does. The other category is those who believe it on the basis of a religious or other anomalous (e.g., out of body) experience. People who tell us that there isn't also fall into two categories. One category is those who believe it because that's what people they respect believe, or because almost everyone they know does. The other category is those who believe it because they've never experienced anything else, so they think anyone who claims to must be either crazy or lying. You do the math. Ignoring the first category because it's hearsay, we find one claim supported by a record of experience while the other reflects nothing but an exceedingly self-centered ego. K. Oh for goodness sake. I could just as well create a couple of specious categories myself that would place believers in the position you've placed non believers. There are all sorts of reasons I may not believe in the idea of there being "something greater". Now... as for anyone who believes that your nifty classification covers it... well they must be either crazy or lying.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 1:00:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML There is a third category: those who know the evidence sucks... That you even imagine yourself capable of considering the research with an open mind is laughable. Your comments demonstrate a degree of misrepresentation and prejudgment that borders on religious fervor. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML What falsification is offered to test the existence of soul? The soul in your analogy is equivalent to the flock of white swans. The soul in my analogy? I never said anything about "the soul". I don't even know what the hell you mean by "the soul," but when you descend into these crazy religious rants I feel highly motivated not to ask. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML let me know when the NDE subject makes his report during the flatline As is ever the case, when your non-sequiturs are pointed out to you you respond with nonsense. If not for the fact that you expect to be taken seriously, it would be sad. Instead it's just funny. K.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 1:06:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml I could just as well create a couple of specious categories myself that would place believers in the position you've placed non believers. Well create a couple, and we'll compare them to see which are more specious. quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml There are all sorts of reasons I may not believe in the idea of there being "something greater". Let's hear them. I'd like to see how far off they are from fitting into my "specious" categories. quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml as for anyone who believes that your nifty classification covers it... well they must be either crazy or lying. Yes I see, you're telling us you're sane. It's a shame you feel you need to, but I see your point. K.

GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 3:07:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Dude, you're saying "he" and "his" when I asked you about "me", which makes it a bit unclear what you're referring to. I'm referring to a pattern I've noticed among a number of people advancing conspiracy theories. From the circular reasoning to the rants about being a super genius, it's pretty stereotypical. That's all I'm saying. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad As for the cycle you're proposing, it's not my theory. That said, should you like to argue with that particular theory to which I do not subscribe, I would suggest you take it up with Niklas Boström at Oxford who actually does subscribe to it, and is probably far better suited to arguing his theories than I, seeing as he's actually spent time on that, which I haven't. We're admittedly talking about the Circle of Reason, so it doesn't matter what name you can point at. Furthermore you most certainly have been advocating solipsism as credible for multiple pages. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Just in passing, you do realize that establishing circular reasoning doesn't assign a truth value to the propositions involved, right? It demonstrates that the reasoning involved fails to establish anything new by virtue of its conclusion being present in the premise, no more and no less. Agreed, establishing circular reasoning doesn't discredit the premise but it's a very good reason to roll ones eyes at the conspiracy theorist pushing said circular reasoning. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad The sketch you provided is a simplistic reduction of an argument I haven't made. Sure, it wasn't overly verbose, didn't contain rambling anecdotes or rants about being a super genius but otherwise isn't that solipsism in a nutshell, a position which you've been advocating as credible, if not why so?

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 3:15:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Everything we know about Nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of Nature lies outside space-time... ~Henry Stapp This is a serious matter for our understanding of the universe. These anomalous events may be rare, and difficult to study because we can't seem to get them to pop up like a Jack-in-the-Box on command, but dismissing them as delusions because they can't be explained by our current paradigm seems an unproductive approach to advancing our knowledge. K. Great minds likened our consciousness to electrical circuits when electrical circuits were new, then to computers and now to the latest theories in quantum mechanics. Theories make for good intellectual exercises but they are still theories without objective evidence. The truth is we don't know much but we do understand the probablities of events in our litle niche in the universe, the part we perceive and can measure. Maybe Stapp is onto something or maybe he is completely wrong like most good minds who thought the secrets of the universe were within the grasp of thei generation.

Kirata -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 4:03:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Maybe Stapp is onto something or maybe he is completely wrong like most good minds who thought the secrets of the universe were within the grasp of their generation. Fair enough. A "maybe" is all I'm arguing for. My beef is with closed minds. Few attitudes have been more destructive to the advancement of science than the stubborn conviction that we already "know" something (e.g., that planets move in circles, that the Earth is flat). Unfortunately, what I see happening today is many otherwise rational people taking the role of the church, refusing even to credit anomalous phenomena as something worth studying. Show us the studies, they say, but nobody is willing to risk ridicule by actually doing one. So, what little research goes on is conducted outside the mainstream, and then gets indicted for that cause. I've looked at quite a few studies. They are not methodologically inferior. But merely mention them, and they are dismissed as bunk on the basis of their findings. This kind of nonsense is the handiwork of priests. K.

Aswad -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 4:41:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel That's all I'm saying. You still didn't disambiguate your use of third person. quote: We're admittedly talking about the Circle of Reason, so it doesn't matter what name you can point at. Never pointed at it. Just said if you care to pursue it, there's someone better to take it up with. quote: Furthermore you most certainly have been advocating solipsism as credible for multiple pages. Credible? Yes. Absolutely. Probable? How the hell should I know? quote: Sure, it wasn't overly verbose, didn't contain rambling anecdotes or rants about being a super genius but otherwise isn't that solipsism in a nutshell, a position which you've been advocating as credible, if not why so? No. IWYW, — Aswad. P.S.: Checking out of the long debates. It's been fun.

GotSteel -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 5:45:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Never pointed at it. Just said if you care to pursue it, there's someone better to take it up with. [8\|] quote: Furthermore you most certainly have been advocating solipsism as credible for multiple pages. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Credible? Yes. Absolutely. That's what I'm saying. quote: if not why so? quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad No. How so?

crazyml -> RE: Indoctrination (12/10/2012 11:15:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml I could just as well create a couple of specious categories myself that would place believers in the position you've placed non believers. Well create a couple, and we'll compare them to see which are more specious. I'm not sure that would help very much. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml There are all sorts of reasons I may not believe in the idea of there being "something greater". Let's hear them. I'd like to see how far off they are from fitting into my "specious" categories. Well let's try this... Having considered the evidence, and listened carefully to many people that I respect who both believe and disbelieve I've come to the conclusion that the belief position doesn't work for me. quote: quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml as for anyone who believes that your nifty classification covers it... well they must be either crazy or lying. Yes I see, you're telling us you're sane. It's a shame you feel you need to, but I see your point. K. No, poppet, I was doing it as kind of joke, but you surprised me by getting sniffy. Bless your heart - I wonder if you're taking this topic, and yourself, just a wee bit too seriously? [ED TO ADD..] PS... Oh and yeah... people that claim to be Alien Abductees... On the balance of evidence, I will be going with either lying or deluded until better evidence shows up.

meatcleaver -> RE: Indoctrination (12/11/2012 12:42:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver Maybe Stapp is onto something or maybe he is completely wrong like most good minds who thought the secrets of the universe were within the grasp of their generation. Fair enough. A "maybe" is all I'm arguing for. My beef is with closed minds. We know what we know and no more. Evolution has designed us to perceive but a fragment of our universe, enough only, it seems, for us to survive or at least have a chance of surviving. Most of the mysteries of our universe will probably never be known to us and will remain a mystery. It is not surprising we sense something beyond ourselves when we only perceive around 1.5% of the electromagnetic spectrum. Still, inventing god or gods to fill the gaps in our knowledge doesn't seem a very intelligent thing to do, it just adds to our ignorance. Let's consider the loving god, we have all considered this I am sure. Why has this loving god created a world where psychological and physical pain and misery are an integral part? Needless to say this omnipresent, omnipotent god is a contradiction in terms. Theologians tie themselves in some right knots trying to explain such inconvenient observations away. But any supranatural phenomenon you care to choose, none stand up to a modicum of examination when compared to the predictable universe we perceive. Yes, there might be a god or a supranatural or supranatural entities and then there might not be but from where I am standing, they either don't know we exist or don't care if we exist or not. In that sense, they are pretty irrelevant, if they exist at all that is.

vincentML -> RE: Indoctrination (12/11/2012 12:23:11 PM)
quote: That you even imagine yourself capable of considering the research with an open mind is laughable. Your comments demonstrate a degree of misrepresentation and prejudgment that borders on religious fervor. I laid out a case for why the evidence sucks. What you presented is based upon anecdote and specious verifications. Why are you unable to respond except in an ad hominem manner? quote: The soul in my analogy? I never said anything about "the soul". I don't even know what the hell you mean by "the soul," but when you descend into these crazy religious rants I feel highly motivated not to ask. In #538 you equated supraphysical reality with religious experience: "And this is where we come up against belief in the existence of some kind of supraphysical reality. People who have had religious experiences, which they almost uniformly describe as being more real even than that train," Now you dodge and weave the connection. quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML let me know when the NDE subject makes his report during the flatline quote: As is ever the case, when your non-sequiturs are pointed out to you you respond with nonsense. If not for the fact that you expect to be taken seriously, it would be sad. Instead it's just funny. Non-sequitur? How so? In #547 you said this: "out of the body experiences have been reported when medical monitors showed that the brain was flat-lined". So, how is my comment a non-sec? It was right in line with your statement. A reasonable person would realize that a flat-lined comatose person would show brain activity on the monitor before or as he was awakening. It is also reasonable to assume that any NDE or out of body experience would have had to occur during that period of brain activity, lacking any other indication -- which you did not provide. So, again when you have no answer you resort to personal attack. In #542 you laid down this challenge: "Bullshit backatcha. But rather than argue your claim in a vacuum, how about you support it?" My conclusion was: "self-reported evidence for supraphysical reality is anecdotal and unreliable at best." And I gave support to my position. Never a direct response from you. The sad fact is that when you have no substantial rebuttal you turn to personal attacks. It is so transparent, and so predictable and boring. You may think it gives you a superior position but really your discourse technique is a pathetic joke. Perhaps no one has told you before now. Talk to me when you have something of substance instead of just arrogant and slanderous personal comments.

Page: << < prev 26 27 [28] 29 30 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875