"I am you" nonsense

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2001  Postby Destroyer » Jan 09, 2019 9:44 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:The moment that Kafei made repeated claims about the research which were not in accord with the research, that is when he needed to be warned.


What moment was that? First of all, there was no research that Kafei was citing; all his arguments came from mouthpieces in youtube videos. Are you suggesting posters be warned when somebody complains that their ideas are not in accord with some other ideas? Kafei's not a blank slate. He's been kicked off other forums, and has had talk show hosts hang up on him.

It seems your idea of forum moderation is that it is acting in loco parentis and it also seems you think moderation is performing a designated task on your behalf. If you don't mind my saying so, both you and Kafei seem to have a similar problem with taking "No" for an answer as to whether anyone takes your opinion seriously.


If Kafei has not been making specific claims about the research into Psilocybin, which must surely be open to scrutiny, then why has his interlocutors constantly accused him of misrepresenting the research?
Destroyer
 
Name: Patrick Mills
Posts: 1768
Age: 60
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2002  Postby Cito di Pense » Jan 09, 2019 10:10 pm

Destroyer wrote:
Cito di Pense wrote:
Destroyer wrote:The moment that Kafei made repeated claims about the research which were not in accord with the research, that is when he needed to be warned.


What moment was that? First of all, there was no research that Kafei was citing; all his arguments came from mouthpieces in youtube videos. Are you suggesting posters be warned when somebody complains that their ideas are not in accord with some other ideas? Kafei's not a blank slate. He's been kicked off other forums, and has had talk show hosts hang up on him.

It seems your idea of forum moderation is that it is acting in loco parentis and it also seems you think moderation is performing a designated task on your behalf. If you don't mind my saying so, both you and Kafei seem to have a similar problem with taking "No" for an answer as to whether anyone takes your opinion seriously.


If Kafei has not been making specific claims about the research into Psilocybin, which must surely be open to scrutiny, then why has his interlocutors constantly accused him of misrepresenting the research?


If you want to conduct an inquest, do it in the feedback threads. This isn't the time or place to review moderation decisions.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Jan 09, 2019 10:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28349
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

"I am you" nonsense

#2003  Postby felltoearth » Jan 09, 2019 10:11 pm

That’s not what Cito wrote.

ETA replying to Destroyer
"Walla Walla Bonga!" — Witticism
User avatar
felltoearth
 
Posts: 11379
Age: 51

Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2004  Postby SpeedOfSound » Feb 12, 2019 12:24 am

Thommo wrote:Not sure he was genuinely a troll, rather than a deluded true believer, albeit one a bit short changed in the intelligence department and so lacking the capacity to actually think about what he was discussing, if I'm honest.

Not really sad to see him go though, there's only so much repetition one can take.


I just did a few hundred posts exchange with this guy on Freethought Blogs - Atheist Experience thread. He is a troll but he is not trolling. His belief is trolling him and he is just kind of shitting it back out. A sort of a helpless conduit. Guy is sincere and he reminds me of the somebody that I was in my twenties. Just before 16 dark years of insanity and drug and alcohol abuse.

It is not possible for them to say anything positive about what it is they believe in. It's all negatives and paradoxes. I couldn't even get him to tell me exactly what it was about his belief that was incompatible with strict naturalism. He just deflects and wiki-linked me untill I got tired and quit asking. Banning him was probably an act of kindness. Like blowing your pets head off when they have a cancer.

This guy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE1yPCeF1Cc&t=53m37s. Sounds like he really fucking knows something but I'm 48 minutes in on this video and have poked around in some of his others. All I'm getting is promises and lots of talk about how all the other guys are wrong. WTF.

Anyway. it reminded me of my acid/zen/Watts/buddhist youth. There I was having chronic emergency room level panic attacks, suicidal depression, and the liquor of black angst. All I fucking wanted was some practical tips on how to feel better enough so I could take another motherfucking breath. Same thing. The Oneness. The Knowedness of it all. It's no wonder I finally settled on blackout drunk as a religion.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32075
Age: 68
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2005  Postby SpeedOfSound » Feb 15, 2019 1:06 am

Discussion on the FreeThought blog. I find it all very interesting.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2019/0 ... /#comments
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32075
Age: 68
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2006  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 15, 2019 9:11 am

SpeedOfSound wrote:Discussion on the FreeThought blog. I find it all very interesting.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2019/0 ... /#comments

Quit telling that his first post asserts to explain mystical states of conciousnes, but it's only content is a video about 'cringy atheists'.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29973
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2007  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 15, 2019 9:23 am

He also admits he is a theist:
I’ve answered this, I’m an adherent of the Perennial philosophy which is quite obviously a theist stance.

Contradicting his claim on this site that Perrenialism is somehow a third option.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29973
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2008  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Feb 15, 2019 9:31 am

Referring to being banned here:
I was banned from the RationalSkepticism forum because there were people there like yourself who are hell bent to dismiss things like this, to attempt to declare this as “not science” when it so obviously is. Jordan Peterson has commented on this sort of attitude, that atheists cringe whenever they intuit something that offends them, even if it’s legitimate science that’s taking place here. If you actually examine those posts there, you’ll find quite clearly that I did nothing wrong. It was simply a bunch of atheists that cried to the MODs to get me to leave. That was simply it. Nothing more, nothing less.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2019/01/06/open-thread-for-episode-23-01-matt-phil/#comments
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 29973
Age: 30
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2009  Postby GrahamH » Feb 15, 2019 9:45 am

Did he really misunderstand the conversation here so completely, or is he just lying through his teeth now?
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19754

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2010  Postby Fenrir » Feb 15, 2019 9:48 am

GrahamH wrote:Did he really misunderstand the conversation here so completely, or is he just lying through his teeth now?


Image
Religion: it only fails when you test it.-Thunderf00t.
User avatar
Fenrir
 
Posts: 3313
Male

Country: Australia
South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (gs)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2011  Postby Thommo » Feb 15, 2019 11:00 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Referring to being banned here:
I was banned from the RationalSkepticism forum because there were people there like yourself who are hell bent to dismiss things like this, to attempt to declare this as “not science” when it so obviously is. Jordan Peterson has commented on this sort of attitude, that atheists cringe whenever they intuit something that offends them, even if it’s legitimate science that’s taking place here. If you actually examine those posts there, you’ll find quite clearly that I did nothing wrong. It was simply a bunch of atheists that cried to the MODs to get me to leave. That was simply it. Nothing more, nothing less.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2019/01/06/open-thread-for-episode-23-01-matt-phil/#comments


I don't really think that's accurate of him, but on the other hand I don't really care. He displayed such a wilful disregard for truth when he was here and such incredible intellectual dishonesty with his quote mine regarding "conversion experience for atheists" and the statistics surrounding it that it's hard to give a fig what he thinks. He has no more credibility with me than a flat Earther does.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 25949

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2012  Postby SpeedOfSound » Feb 17, 2019 12:33 pm

It's very hard to get him to say anything tangible from which I could determine his theist stance. He never figured out that this is what gets him banned and abused. He is blind to this personal defect. Damndest thing when you just can't get through to someone with words no matter how many millions of words you are willing to pile on.

Though, Having been released from two marriage contracts, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised about the failure of words.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32075
Age: 68
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2013  Postby SpeedOfSound » Feb 17, 2019 12:37 pm

GrahamH wrote:Did he really misunderstand the conversation here so completely, or is he just lying through his teeth now?


He is not capable of listening. When I try to tell him he is not capable of listening of course he does not listen to that either.
He is a theist. He believes in a divine conscious nature of the universe. The New-age conscicle people keep it all so vague and paradoxical that it remains forever beyond reason. Hell, they are proud of being outside of reason.

(EDIT)

Kafei has denied that he is a theist. Also that he believes in a divine conscious nature of the universe. I apparently misrepresented him.
Last edited by SpeedOfSound on Feb 17, 2019 11:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Daddy, why did god make YEC's?"
User avatar
SpeedOfSound
RS Donator
 
Posts: 32075
Age: 68
Male

Kyrgyzstan (kg)
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2014  Postby GrahamH » Feb 17, 2019 4:12 pm

:nod:
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 19754

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2015  Postby Hermit » Apr 13, 2019 10:15 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Referring to being banned here:
I was banned from the RationalSkepticism forum because there were people there like yourself who are hell bent to dismiss things like this, to attempt to declare this as “not science” when it so obviously is. Jordan Peterson has commented on this sort of attitude, that atheists cringe whenever they intuit something that offends them, even if it’s legitimate science that’s taking place here. If you actually examine those posts there, you’ll find quite clearly that I did nothing wrong. It was simply a bunch of atheists that cried to the MODs to get me to leave. That was simply it. Nothing more, nothing less.

https://freethoughtblogs.com/axp/2019/01/06/open-thread-for-episode-23-01-matt-phil/#comments

You must give Kaf 10/10 for energy and persistence, though. Between the 6th of January and the 12th of February he contributed 10s of thousands of words in the course of writing 300 posts.

Personally, I would not describe him as a troll. He did not post in order to provoke or upset other forum members. He was an utter raving, mad lunatic, though, utterly incapable of participating in actual discussion in any meaningful way, and displaying zero interest in anything other than riding his own particular hobby-horse.

The latter is made obvious by the fact that all of his posts are made in the Debunking section. and all but two of them are limited to contributing to two threads. The two exceptions were posted in the Climate Change Denial thread, and neither of them are actually about climate change. One argues that scepticism is inimical to actually doing anything. The other argues that morals without god are not moral.
God is the mysterious veil under which we hide our ignorance of the cause. - Léo Errera


God created the universe
God just exists
User avatar
Hermit
 
Posts: 2329
Age: 66
Male

Country: Australia
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2016  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 14, 2019 2:52 am

If you are me then can you bloody well hurry up and do the washing up please, you've been putting it off all day!
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23920
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2017  Postby Sakon » Apr 27, 2019 7:35 pm

Hermit wrote:The latter is made obvious by the fact that all of his posts are made in the Debunking section. and all but two of them are limited to contributing to two threads. The two exceptions were posted in the Climate Change Denial thread, and neither of them are actually about climate change. One argues that scepticism is inimical to actually doing anything. The other argues that morals without god are not moral.


Those posts didn't start out in the debunking section. They were moved there by administrative users. I believe they started in the theist thread, a different area of the board index. I've been following Kafei's stuff for a while. I just don't know enough about the topics to say anything. In retrospect, I even made this profile to post here only to realize Kafei was banned. Which is fine, of course, but the research he referenced was recently published April 23rd, 2019. Has anyone taken a look at it? If Kafei were here, here's one thing I'd like to highlight taken from the discussion portion of the study and one thing I don't think has sunk in for Kafei:

Can psychedelic drugs occasion genuine God encounter experiences?
Although some scholars of religion have argued on conceptual grounds that drug-occasioned experiences are not genuine religious experiences [32–34], Stace [4] and Smith [35,51] counter with the Principal of Causal Indifference, which asserts that if two experiences are phenomenologically indistinguishable, it cannot be concluded that one is genuine but the other is not. Although there are both similarities and differences in the God encounter experiences described by the Non-Drug and Psychedelic groups, the most robust generality across a wide range of questions is that the descriptive details, interpretation, and consequences of these experiences are markedly similar. The findings that the preferred descriptor of that which was encountered was "God" in the Non-Drug Group, but "Ultimate Reality" in the Psychedelic Group suggest that such labels may reflect differences in semantics and conceptual interpretation rather than phenomenological or functional differences in the experience.

It should be noted that neither descriptive studies of such experiences, no matter how detailed, nor the emerging science of neurotheology, no matter how strong the associations demonstrated between brain processes and religious experience, can definitively address ontological claims about the existence of God [5,52,53, 54]. We acknowledge that contentious issues arise from attempting to draw ontological conclusions about participants’ phenomenological experiences of "God" or "Ultimate Reality," which some believe to be beyond ordinary material reality/consciousness [55–56]. Such conceptual issues have been discussed at length by scholars of the psychology of religion who routinely use empirical methods in the study of religious, spiritual, and mystical experiences [6].
User avatar
Sakon
Banned Sockpuppet
 
Posts: 1

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2018  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2019 4:56 am

When it comes to science, there are things you can research about the world, and there are things you can research about what humans think and feel. These are distinct and of wholly different provenance. That's why they're in two separate categories, and why specialization in the latter nets you an Arts degree, not a science one.

Through anonymous online surveys, 3,476 people reported supernatural encounters that they had while on psilocybin (magic mushrooms), LSD, ayahuasca, or DMT. An additional 809 people reported they had non-drug encounters with supernatural or divine forces, but the survey did not gather information on what, if anything, apparently sparked their experiences.


Anonymous online surveys are qualitative, not quantitative. All they tell us is that people answered surveys.

Look further at the methodology:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/artic ... ne.0214377

Participant recruitment

Participants were recruited primarily via internet advertisements, email invitations, and online social networks. Two different participant groups were recruited corresponding to two versions of the questionnaire. The purpose of both was stated as: "In this survey, we want to characterize various experiences of encounters with something that someone might call: God (e.g., the God of your understanding), Higher Power, Ultimate Reality, or an Aspect or Emissary of God (e.g., an angel)." However, one group (the Psychedelic Group) completed the questionnaire based on an experience of encountering something that occurred after taking a classic hallucinogen (e.g., psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, DMT, etc.). The other group (the Non-Drug Group) completed the questionnaire based on an experience that occurred in absence of taking a psychoactive drug.


The advertisements were self-selecting. If we conducted a survey about the existence of aliens and wanted specifically to find out whether humans were being abducted, we would get a self-selected group of people who believe that aliens abduct humans, whereas there's little reason for someone who doesn't believe in aliens abducting humans to participate. That could still provide some interesting aspects of the beliefs of people who believe in abducting aliens, but not a very well grounded survey in terms of divining percentages of people comparative to those who don't as per the magazine you cited.


As for what it means: the human mind on mind-altering drugs creates experiences that are atypical for the experiencer. Does it tell us that the subject of those experiences are real? Of course not. If I take ayahuasca and see a dancing umbrella, you don't assume that therefore dancing umbrellas must exist. You assume, rightly so, that my drug-addled brain made some unusual connections based on its past experiences and crafted a scenario mentally that I then experienced. If 100 people see a dancing umbrella, you don't think that dancing umbrellas exist, you think there's something else going on under the hood that make people who have taken those drugs more likely to have this experience.

This was explained in spades to Kafei many times, either in this thread or others, so if you've been following Kafei's career here, then I must assume you already know the response?

So what's the conclusion drawn by the survey?

Conclusions

This is the first study to provide a detailed comparison of naturally occurring (non-drug) and psychedelic-occasioned experiences that participants frequently interpreted as an encounter with God or Ultimate Reality. Although there are interesting differences between non-drug and psychedelic experiences, as well as between experiences associated with four different psychedelic drugs (psilocybin, LSD, ayahuasca, and DMT), the similarities among these groups are striking. Participants reported vivid memories of these encounter experiences which frequently involved communication with something most often described as God or Ultimate Reality and having the attributes of being conscious, benevolent, intelligent, sacred, eternal, and all-knowing. The encounter experience fulfilled a priori criteria for being a complete mystical experience in about half of the participants. Similar to mystical-type experiences, which are often defined without reference encountering a sentient other, these experiences were rated as among the most personally meaningful and spiritually significant lifetime experiences, with persisting moderate to strong positive changes in attitudes about self, life satisfaction, life purpose, and life meaning that participants attributed to these experiences. Future exploration of biological and psychological predisposing factors and the phenomenological and neural correlates of both the acute and persisting effects of such experiences may provide a deeper understanding of religious and spiritual beliefs that have been integral to shaping human cultures since time immemorial.


The paper's conclusion is that biological and psychological factors predispose humans towards mystical experiences. Not that the god things exist which is Kafei's contention.
Last edited by Spearthrower on Apr 28, 2019 5:03 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23920
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2019  Postby Spearthrower » Apr 28, 2019 5:02 am

Those posts didn't start out in the debunking section. They were moved there by administrative users.


For clarity, few users actually post their notions in the debunking section, they essentially always start in other forums and then get moved here when it becomes clear that there's nothing of substance or merit to the claims made.


I believe they started in the theist thread, a different area of the board index.


I believe that it is unlikely that someone who was just passing by would have noted this and you've probably just generated suspicion that you are a sockpuppet for Kafei.
I'm not an atheist; I just don't believe in gods :- that which I don't belong to isn't a group!
Religion: Mass Stockholm Syndrome

Learn Stuff. Stuff good. https://www.coursera.org/
User avatar
Spearthrower
 
Posts: 23920
Age: 43
Male

Country: Thailand
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#2020  Postby Cito di Pense » Apr 28, 2019 6:42 am

Banned after but one post? I think this must be the minimum.

Hermit wrote:Personally, I would not describe him as a troll.


But wait, there's more! Now what would you pay for this multi-purpose Ginsu knife set? Never needs sharpening!

Hermit wrote:He did not post in order to provoke or upset other forum members...


It's not out of order to do that occasionally. Making a lifetime project of it requires special handling. Running through all of Kafei's posting is an issue he has with atheism, and that's one obvious reason why he made so many posts with the term 'atheist' in them. You can do a search, and see what I mean.

We could come up with a new member category with its own avatar which indicates users with a one-track approach to discourse. Maybe we could make a cartoon of the trolley problem.
Last edited by Cito di Pense on Apr 28, 2019 6:57 am, edited 1 time in total.
Хлопнут без некролога. -- Серге́й Па́влович Королёв

Translation by Elbert Hubbard: Do not take life too seriously. You're not going to get out of it alive.
User avatar
Cito di Pense
 
Name: Amir Bagatelle
Posts: 28349
Age: 22
Male

Country: The Heartland
Mongolia (mn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest