"I am you" nonsense

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#421  Postby Kafei » Nov 08, 2018 9:00 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:
That's not self-refuting. The blogger got most of it right, but he doesn't understand that Katz' criticism has long since been refuted. The blogger offered no valid refutation. C'mon, man? You don't think I'm familiar with my own content that I post?


Sure, you only cherry pick the bits you like. You come back with a vague denial. "Katz' criticism has long since been refuted." but no word of refutation from you, no reference. Just an empty assertion.


Well, notice that Katz' refutation was made back in 2013. The more recently published paper speaks of an archetypal experience that can occur just prior or after a "complete" mystical experience. In other words, it's not uncommon to see an image of someone or something that is very important to you in your life just prior or after a "complete" mystical experience. For instance, if you're a devout Christian and you have this experience, you may witness Christ or even a vision of an angel just prior to undergoing a "complete" mystical experience or if you're Hindu, you might see a vision of Shiva, etc. In my own "complete" mystical experience, I witnessed very vivid imagery and even words from Terence McKenna and Bill Hicks. I suppose those two at the time were important in my own life, I wasn't religious, I was more agnostic than anything prior to my own "complete" mystical experience. However, at the very height of a "complete" mystical experience, that's where the unitive state of consciousness occurs. I simply don't think Katz understood these nuances that derived from these experiences or that there is such a thing as these archetypal experiences that can occur just prior or after a temporary state of "complete" unitive mystical consciousness.


Now you are attempting to shift goalposts. If you come away from an experience with a culturally inspired viison of a person I'd suggest it wasn't the "complete" ME. You aren't here preaching about the divinity of MxKenna & Hicks, are you?


No, what I'm saying is these mystical states of consciousness are profound in their many variances, they occur on a spectrum. Katz assumes that it must necessarily be unitive, and that's not the case at all. It's a safe bet Katz has not had such an experience and according to the more modern studies, his criticism is irrelevant.

GrahamH wrote:If you want to argue that CME is the core inspiration for all religion you would have to show that the essential elements of the "complete" experience are at the core, but they aren't in many cases.


The experiences of the founders of the major religions were definitely CMEs, but throughout history sages, mystics, theologians, philosophers, etc. have been having these experiences, and the many reports indicate that these mystical experiences do, indeed, occur on a spectrum that corresponds to how these experiences have been defined within the framework of the research.

GrahamH wrote:I'm fine with the idea that unusual experiences can seed ideas of a mystical reality that can sometimes lead to religions being established. It's your absolute claims and faith in "perennial philosophy metaphysics that are bullshit.


Only I'm not the one who's brought the Perennial philosophy into the discussion, that'd be the professionals involved in this research, and for good reasons, not bullshit.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 382

Country: United States
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#422  Postby GrahamH » Nov 08, 2018 9:07 pm

Kafei wrote:
No, what I'm saying is these mystical states of consciousness are profound in their many variances, they occur on a spectrum. Katz assumes that it must necessarily be unitive, and that's not the case at all. It's a safe bet Katz has not had such an experience and according to the more modern studies, his criticism is irrelevant.


:rofl:

So much for "complete" then, now it's "many variances", "spectrum" and "unity" is now optional.
See those goalpost move!
Last edited by GrahamH on Nov 08, 2018 10:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Why do you think that?
GrahamH
 
Posts: 18646

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#423  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 08, 2018 9:19 pm

I had written an extensive reply to Kafei's last post, but since I messed up the tags it's gone to the nethersphere.
So I'll just mention that Kafei continues to offer nothing but blind assertions, dishonest accusations and disingenuous goalpost shifting.

I'll also leave this here, so readers of this thread can see how disengenuous Kafei is, up to the point that he continues to dodge simple questions, without having to read this entire thread:

There's no point discussing with Kafei, he's so unwilling to consider the possibility that he's wrong, that he'll go to any dishonest means to avoid it. As well as making every increasing counterfactual and delusional claims that no-one's refuted his claims. :crazy:
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#424  Postby Thommo » Nov 08, 2018 10:09 pm

Jesus, what did I just watch? Stoner makes atheist angry with gibberish for half an hour?

Not Dillahunty's finest hour (from 20mins to 23mins ish) either mind you. Stuff is "partially true" or "undefined" on a regular basis. And he's certainly wrong to say that "true or not true" is simply not down to defintion (or convention). He should stay away from logic, it's an expert subject and he's not an expert. Even in classical logic a gibberish phrase would not map into either "true" or "not true", it would be semantically incorrect.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24580

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#425  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 08, 2018 10:34 pm

Thommo wrote:Jesus, what did I just watch? Stoner makes atheist angry with gibberish for half an hour?

Yes, which was my point.

Thommo wrote:Not Dillahunty's finest hour (from 20mins to 23mins ish) either mind you.

I posted the video as an example of Kafei dodging question and refusing to clearly state his position/claims.

Thommo wrote: Stuff is "partially true" or "undefined" on a regular basis.
And he's certainly wrong to say that "true or not true" is simply not down to defintion (or convention).[/quote]
Sure, he's overstating the case. What he means to get at it that with dichotomous statements (A vs not A) there are only 2 options.

Thommo wrote:He should stay away from logic, it's an expert subject and he's not an expert. Even in classical logic a gibberish phrase would not map into either "true" or "not true", it would be semantically incorrect.

I don't get your objection here? Isn't he just using a line of gibberish to deny Jimmy the chance to dodge by wibbling about definitions and semantic games?
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#426  Postby Thommo » Nov 08, 2018 10:40 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sure, he's overstating the case. What he means to get at it that with dichotomous statements (A vs not A) there are only 2 options.


Let me demonstrate. It will take a couple of posts back and forth though.

1) Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America.

True or not true?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24580

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#427  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 08, 2018 10:44 pm

Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:Sure, he's overstating the case. What he means to get at it that with dichotomous statements (A vs not A) there are only 2 options.


Let me demonstrate. It will take a couple of posts back and forth though.

1) Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America.

True or not true?

True.
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#428  Postby Thommo » Nov 08, 2018 10:53 pm

2) Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump.

True or not True?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24580

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#429  Postby Kafei » Nov 08, 2018 10:58 pm

GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:
No, what I'm saying is these mystical states of consciousness are profound in their many variances, they occur on a spectrum. Katz assumes that it must necessarily be unitive, and that's not the case at all. It's a safe bet Katz has not had such an experience and according to the more modern studies, his criticism is irrelevant.


:rofl:

So much for "complete" then, now it's "many variances", "spectrum" and "unity" is now optional.
See those goalpost move!


I'm not "moving goal posts." I'm reiterating precisely what these professionals have said.

And I've called in more recently into The Atheist Experience, and I got Matt to admit he's unfamiliar with this research. Therefore, he has no valid criticism to offer.

User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 382

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#430  Postby Thommo » Nov 08, 2018 11:10 pm

Kafei wrote:And I've called in more recently into The Atheist Experience, and I got Matt to admit he's unfamiliar with this research. Therefore, he has no valid criticism to offer


Really?
Kafei wrote:I've been following this research quite diligently for about a decade now. I'm quite sure I'm interpreting precisely as it has been demonstrated.

Kafei wrote:I've been following this research quite diligently for a little over a decade now. You'd have an uphill battle arguing that I'm somehow misconstruing this research.

Kafei wrote:I'm reiterating precisely what these professionals have said.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKS4duj ... tu.be&t=36
"I think I said last time they're using intravenous psilocybin, but it was actually psilocybin in a pill form"
Kafei wrote:Although, they've also shown if an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, he/she will no longer identify as an atheist after this event.


Does that look like decade long precise familiarity? Is lack of familiarity to any degree (and we know that Dillahunty has some familiarity since Kafei has spoken at extreme length to him on the subject, and we've seen Jordan Peterson misrepresent aspects of it to him) all it takes to disqualify any and all criticism?

Does one have to be familiar with research to understand why assertions not present in that research don't follow from that research? To understand experimenter bias? Selection bias? Or are some criticisms valid even without precise familiarity?
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24580

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#431  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 09, 2018 7:20 am

Thommo wrote:2) Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump.

True or not True?

Unless you're talking about Jr. in the first place and senior in the latter, not true.
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#432  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 09, 2018 7:22 am

Kafei wrote:
GrahamH wrote:
Kafei wrote:
No, what I'm saying is these mystical states of consciousness are profound in their many variances, they occur on a spectrum. Katz assumes that it must necessarily be unitive, and that's not the case at all. It's a safe bet Katz has not had such an experience and according to the more modern studies, his criticism is irrelevant.


:rofl:

So much for "complete" then, now it's "many variances", "spectrum" and "unity" is now optional.
See those goalpost move!


I'm not "moving goal posts." I'm reiterating precisely what these professionals have said.

Making this counterfactual statement over and over again, won't magically make it true Kafei.


Kafei wrote:And I've called in more recently into The Atheist Experience, and I got Matt to admit he's unfamiliar with this research. Therefore, he has no valid criticism to offer.

That's a non-sequitur.
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#433  Postby Kafei » Nov 09, 2018 7:28 am

Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:And I've called in more recently into The Atheist Experience, and I got Matt to admit he's unfamiliar with this research. Therefore, he has no valid criticism to offer


Really?


Yes, really. And if I make a recommendation, we've discussed these things thus far for a while now, and yet like this research, these arguments are "on-going." I will leave these references, but these are links you may already be familiar with as I've posted some them throughout the "Ground of Being" thread. I recommend referring to the second half of my second to last encounter with Matt Dillahunty which I feel more accurately addresses these topics. Matt, in my opinion, went off into a tangent of semantics rather than addressing the more salient points I was attempting to emphasize.

Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:"I think I said last time they're using intravenous psilocybin, but it was actually psilocybin in a pill form"

Kafei wrote:Although, they've also shown if an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, he/she will no longer identify as an atheist after this event.


I am very familiar with the research, and I did make this mistake in my original call with Tracie and Russel back in 2016. I believe that was the very first time I had called in, and I don't really discuss this stuff in person with really anyone outside of my own friends, family, co-workers, etc. I mean, if I hadn't mentioned that, not even TAE would've sifted through their episodes to find that clip. They didn't publish it. Maybe it sounded like nails on chalkboard to them at the time, too? Who knows? I didn't discuss that with them. I was actually initially nervous on that call with Russell and Tracie and, to be honest, I was quite nervous on my first call with Matt (I was also on the clock looking out for my boss), and I confused Strassman's work with N,N-DMT (which was administered intravenously into his volunteers) with Dr. R. R. Griffiths research done with psilocybin, which I had knew perfectly was given to the participants via a single pill. So, that's why I addressed that immediately with my call with Matt and Tracie, and to this day, that second half of that video sounds like nails on a chalkboard. I don't like listening to it, because Matt got hung up on a semantic argument when I said the Perennialist view is neither atheism or theism which at that moment I didn't know how to address. What I should have said which would have avoided that silly semantic entirely is that Perennialism isn't necessarily mainstream theism or atheism. I mean, if you want to address anything in those clips, that's fine with me. I've repeated that one of the reasons I attend this forum is because I wish to sharpen my ability to speak on these topics, and so I don't run into that kind of nonsense with Matt. I appreciate the very fact that The Atheist Experience published these more particular clips in their YouTube channel at all, and in their entirety. You actually found a clip I wasn't aware of published March, 2017 by a different user I admit I was unfamiliar. You see, TAE published that same clip in Aug. of 2017. I've also called into the Talk Heathen show with Eric and Jamie, but somehow my call was dropped, and I believe the fault was on their end, because before they took the call they mentioned issues with their lines that day... and yes, I took Jamie's advice he offered after the dropped call. If you find any points there you'd like to address, please post them here.

All apologies for going on this tangent, but I will add that I would rather not comment on the on-going study involving the atheists until it's published. If you'd like to make that the focus of the discussion, I don't mind discussing it, but it's a study that's still in progress and while Griffiths has given lectures on the research as its progressed thus far, the results so far have been met with some confusion thus far among these threads between the survey study done over the internet vs. the psilocybin study. I do find it interesting that you'd even bring up these clips, and then couch them as me somehow being "dishonest." I was being as honest as possible with Matt. The next call I'd make was on Easter Sunday of 2017 with hosts Matt and Jenn, and I published the clip (and this is the link I recommended in my very first paragraph, if you're going to click any, click this one) as soon as I could a day after with Matt giving me the perfect title for it toward the end of the clip. The Atheist Experience wouldn't post their own clip 'til Jul. 2017, and titled it with either an accidental or intentional misspelling "Perrenial Philosophy & Not Atheist or Theist." If you caught my first encounter with Tracie and Russell, you can actually see Russell roll his eyes completely. Unfortunately, I could only hear them, and so I didn't notice that type of rejection. I believe that's why I told them, "You're missing the point." I mean, both Tracie and Russell gave booming laughs when they realized what was being discussed, and what's really funny is that this is practically everyone's initial reaction when they finally cognize what's being assessed here.


Thommo wrote:Does that look like decade long precise familiarity? Is lack of familiarity to any degree (and we know that Dillahunty has some familiarity since Kafei has spoken at extreme length to him on the subject, and we've seen Jordan Peterson misrepresent aspects of it to him) all it takes to disqualify any and all criticism?


You would think that were so, huh? I actually e-mailed Matt back in 2013 about this stuff and shared a very elaborate discussion with him about this stuff of which I believe I still have in my inbox somewhere. That's why it always surprised me that he'd act so ignorantly about it, especially in my more recent call. I didn't make my first call 'til 2016, like I said, with Tracie and Russell, but I didn't speak to Matt on TAE 'til 2017. I told Matt in my 2018 call, "I've spoken to you on this stuff before," He said, "Maybe I'll remember it," but at the clip said he was unfamiliar, so go figure. Perhaps it's an ego thing, because I get the impression from Matt that he cherry-picks his arguments. After all, it's his show, he's supposed to be the star, the magician on his stage performing his act, and if things don't go his way, he has his trigger on the hang-up button. These more interesting discussions never develop.

Thommo wrote:Does one have to be familiar with research to understand why assertions not present in that research don't follow from that research? To understand experimenter bias? Selection bias? Or are some criticisms valid even without precise familiarity?


Well, what in specific are you referring to? I'm up for the discussion or even debate, wherever this leads towards.
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 382

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#434  Postby Thommo » Nov 09, 2018 10:48 am

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:2) Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump.

True or not True?

Unless you're talking about Jr. in the first place and senior in the latter, not true.


I thought you agreed that "true" or "not true" was all that needed to be said? Already you're deviating from Matt's point that I was contesting.

3) was going to be:
3) "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump" means the same as "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and he is the son of Donald Trump".

In fairness I'm fresher this morning and I could probably just have used the liar sentence:
"This sentence is false" and asked if it's true or false, anyway.

A more practical example would be to ask why fact checking sites use scales with assessments like "mostly true" or "mostly false". Hopefully this will communicate some of the problems I was alluding to! :thumbup:
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24580

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#435  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 09, 2018 10:50 am

Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:And I've called in more recently into The Atheist Experience, and I got Matt to admit he's unfamiliar with this research. Therefore, he has no valid criticism to offer


Really?


Yes, really.

No, not really. That's a non-sequitur.

Kafei wrote: And if I make a recommendation, we've discussed these things thus far for a while now, and yet like this research, these arguments are "on-going." I will leave these references, but these are links you may already be familiar with as I've posted some them throughout the "Ground of Being" thread. I recommend referring to the second half of my second to last encounter with Matt Dillahunty which I feel more accurately addresses these topics. Matt, in my opinion, went off into a tangent of semantics rather than addressing the more salient points I was attempting to emphasize.

Matt was asking you to clarify because you keep using weasel words and shifting the goal posts.

Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:"I think I said last time they're using intravenous psilocybin, but it was actually psilocybin in a pill form"

Kafei wrote:Although, they've also shown if an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, he/she will no longer identify as an atheist after this event.


I am very familiar with the research,

Either that's true and you've repeatedly lied about the results and conclusions, or your statements show that you aren't familiar with the research at all.

Kafei wrote: and I did make this mistake in my original call with Tracie and Russel back in 2016. I believe that was the very first time I had called in, and I don't really discuss this stuff in person with really anyone outside of my own friends, family, co-workers, etc.

Completely irrelevant. No-one mentioned that first call, there's no point in bringing it up here.

Kafei wrote:
I mean, if I hadn't mentioned that, not even TAE would've sifted through their episodes to find that clip. They didn't publish it.

Stop lying Kafei. They upload every single episode and are continually on the look out for and restoring older episodes that were lost for a while.

Kafei wrote:
I don't like listening to it, because Matt got hung up on a semantic argument when I said the Perennialist view is neither atheism or theism which at that moment I didn't know how to address.

You called into an atheist show, not a 'I have an idea and want to discuss it' show.
If you call into an atheist show and try to assert that there is a third option between atheism and theism, you better be prepared to back that up.
You can't do that however, since theism/atheism is a true dichotomy.

Kafei wrote:
What I should have said which would have avoided that silly semantic entirely is that Perennialism isn't necessarily mainstream theism or atheism.

That's a completely different claim. So either you're once again shifting the goal posts or failing at precisely formulating your claims.

Kafei wrote:
I mean, if you want to address anything in those clips, that's fine with me. I've repeated that one of the reasons I attend this forum is because I wish to sharpen my ability to speak on these topics, and so I don't run into that kind of nonsense with Matt.

Again, it's no nonsense. It's to get you to stop dodging questions and shifting goal posts.

Kafei wrote:
I appreciate the very fact that The Atheist Experience published these more particular clips in their YouTube channel at all, and in their entirety.

Like I said, they do so with all their episodes, so that's to be expected.

Kafei wrote:
You actually found a clip I wasn't aware of published March, 2017 by a different user I admit I was unfamiliar. You see, TAE published that same clip in Aug. of 2017. I've also called into the Talk Heathen show with Eric and Jamie, but somehow my call was dropped, and I believe the fault was on their end, because before they took the call they mentioned issues with their lines that day... and yes, I took Jamie's advice he offered after the dropped call. If you find any points there you'd like to address, please post them here.

This is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion Kafei. I only posted that video because it provides clear examples of your disingenuous dodging behavior. It wasn't about the claims you made.

Kafei wrote:
All apologies for going on this tangent, but I will add that I would rather not comment on the on-going study involving the atheists until it's published.

Then stop making assertions based on it.

Kafei wrote:
If you'd like to make that the focus of the discussion, I don't mind discussing it, but it's a study that's still in progress and while Griffiths has given lectures on the research as its progressed thus far, the results so far have been met with some confusion thus far among these threads between the survey study done over the internet vs. the psilocybin study.

There is no confusion, there's you repeatedly conflating the studies to make claims that do not reflect what has actually been discovered or claimed.

Kafei wrote: I do find it interesting that you'd even bring up these clips, and then couch them as me somehow being "dishonest."

Dodging the question is dishonest behavior by definition.


Kafei wrote:
I was being as honest as possible with Matt.

Then you seem to be quite incapable of acting in an intellectually honest manner.

Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant drivel <snip>

Not the topic of the discussion Kafei.

Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:Does that look like decade long precise familiarity? Is lack of familiarity to any degree (and we know that Dillahunty has some familiarity since Kafei has spoken at extreme length to him on the subject, and we've seen Jordan Peterson misrepresent aspects of it to him) all it takes to disqualify any and all criticism?


You would think that were so, huh?

He knows it isn't, as do I, as does anyone with a basic understanding of logic.

Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant and dishonest attacks on TAE <snip>

Stop bullshitting Kafei.

Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:Does one have to be familiar with research to understand why assertions not present in that research don't follow from that research? To understand experimenter bias? Selection bias? Or are some criticisms valid even without precise familiarity?


Well, what in specific are you referring to? I'm up for the discussion or even debate, wherever this leads towards.

QED. Thommo asks you a very simple question and once again, as in the video I provided, you completely dodge the question with a non-sequitur response. :naughty:
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: "I am you" nonsense

#436  Postby Kafei » Nov 09, 2018 7:56 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:And I've called in more recently into The Atheist Experience, and I got Matt to admit he's unfamiliar with this research. Therefore, he has no valid criticism to offer


Really?


Yes, really.

No, not really. That's a non-sequitur.


Calling it a non-sequitur won't magically make it a non-sequitur.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote: And if I make a recommendation, we've discussed these things thus far for a while now, and yet like this research, these arguments are "on-going." I will leave these references, but these are links you may already be familiar with as I've posted some them throughout the "Ground of Being" thread. I recommend referring to the second half of my second to last encounter with Matt Dillahunty which I feel more accurately addresses these topics. Matt, in my opinion, went off into a tangent of semantics rather than addressing the more salient points I was attempting to emphasize.

Matt was asking you to clarify because you keep using weasel words and shifting the goal posts.


I wasn't using "weasel words" or "shifting goal posts." I was sincerely responding to Matt. Matt never showed any effort to understand this stuff. I mean, his reactions have been very much like your own. Matt even admitted he was unfamiliar with the study on my most recent call with him on The Atheist Experience, and then he asked me when was he supposed to familiarize himself with this research. Hmm. Gee. I don't know. Maybe when I attempted to e-mail about it in 2013 or with my call with him in 2017? Now, here he is in 2018 saying he was "unfamiliar with the study." Like I said, go figure.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Kafei wrote:"I think I said last time they're using intravenous psilocybin, but it was actually psilocybin in a pill form"

Kafei wrote:Although, they've also shown if an atheist undergoes a "complete" mystical experience, he/she will no longer identify as an atheist after this event.


I am very familiar with the research,

Either that's true and you've repeatedly lied about the results and conclusions, or your statements show that you aren't familiar with the research at all.


I never lied about anything. I made it quite clear that the study involving the self-confirmed atheists who volunteered into this psilocybin research is, in fact, on-going. Yes, Dr. Roland Griffiths has spoken on its status as of his lecture given 2017. Understand each one of these studies takes some time to complete. The initial pilot study done back in '99 wasn't published in 2006.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote: and I did make this mistake in my original call with Tracie and Russel back in 2016. I believe that was the very first time I had called in, and I don't really discuss this stuff in person with really anyone outside of my own friends, family, co-workers, etc.

Completely irrelevant. No-one mentioned that first call, there's no point in bringing it up here.


You're responding to a post that I left for him. He quoted me where said that I called in more recently, the point of these earlier mentions is that TAE had plenty of time to research this stuff, and they didn't. Like I said, my initial e-mail exchange with Matt on this stuff took place in 2013. If you ask me, there should be no excuse for him 2018 unless the reason why he's still unfamiliar is because he shares your own "genuine interest" in these topics.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I mean, if I hadn't mentioned that, not even TAE would've sifted through their episodes to find that clip. They didn't publish it.

Stop lying Kafei. They upload every single episode and are continually on the look out for and restoring older episodes that were lost for a while.


Maybe you need to read more carefully before just flat-out and falsely accusing people of lying. Like I said, you have knack for that. I didn't say episode. I understand they upload every single episode. I'm saying they didn't clip my first call when Tracie and Russell. However, they've clipped every single call of mine ever afterwards.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I don't like listening to it, because Matt got hung up on a semantic argument when I said the Perennialist view is neither atheism or theism which at that moment I didn't know how to address.

You called into an atheist show, not a 'I have an idea and want to discuss it' show.
If you call into an atheist show and try to assert that there is a third option between atheism and theism, you better be prepared to back that up.
You can't do that however, since theism/atheism is a true dichotomy.


Sure, you can say atheism/theism is a true dichotomy, but as I should said, what I should've told Matt so he wouldn't have gotten into that silly semantic argument that, in my opinion, simply wasted time is that the Perennial philosophy is not necessarily mainstream atheism or theism as ordinarily conceived of today. Now, if atheism and theism is a dichotomy, then obviously the Perennial philosophy, if we're going to have to categorize it in either "A" or "B," it is, indeed, a form of theism.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
What I should have said which would have avoided that silly semantic entirely is that Perennialism isn't necessarily mainstream theism or atheism.

That's a completely different claim. So either you're once again shifting the goal posts or failing at precisely formulating your claims.


No, it's actually what I meant to say. Like I said, I'm not a professional at this, I've only spoken to Matt a total of three times on The Atheist Experience, and I told Matt that, sure, atheism and theism is a dichotomy, but my point to Matt is that point is only relevant depending on how you define theism to which he agreed himself. So, I conceded at about the 4:45 point of that particular clip to refer to Perennialism as a theist position. But what was his response? "That's not a definition of God." After he just finished saying, "Pick any definition of God." He even told me "make one up." So, if you ask me, Matt Dillahunty contradicted himself in this instant.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I mean, if you want to address anything in those clips, that's fine with me. I've repeated that one of the reasons I attend this forum is because I wish to sharpen my ability to speak on these topics, and so I don't run into that kind of nonsense with Matt.

Again, it's no nonsense. It's to get you to stop dodging questions and shifting goal posts.


I've done no such thing.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I appreciate the very fact that The Atheist Experience published these more particular clips in their YouTube channel at all, and in their entirety.

Like I said, they do so with all their episodes, so that's to be expected.


With the exception of my first encounter on the show... That was never clipped, and I'm fine with that, it was my initial attempt, and certainly it was when I was probably less articulate on these topics.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
You actually found a clip I wasn't aware of published March, 2017 by a different user I admit I was unfamiliar. You see, TAE published that same clip in Aug. of 2017. I've also called into the Talk Heathen show with Eric and Jamie, but somehow my call was dropped, and I believe the fault was on their end, because before they took the call they mentioned issues with their lines that day... and yes, I took Jamie's advice he offered after the dropped call. If you find any points there you'd like to address, please post them here.

This is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion Kafei. I only posted that video because it provides clear examples of your disingenuous dodging behavior. It wasn't about the claims you made.


And yet they weren't clear examples of what you claimed. They're clear examples of what I've said, that I'm simply attempting to sharpen my ability on these topics.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
All apologies for going on this tangent, but I will add that I would rather not comment on the on-going study involving the atheists until it's published.

Then stop making assertions based on it.


I wasn't making assertions. I was quoting what's been established thus far in that study as Griffiths has given the status of that particular study in his 2017 lecture.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
If you'd like to make that the focus of the discussion, I don't mind discussing it, but it's a study that's still in progress and while Griffiths has given lectures on the research as its progressed thus far, the results so far have been met with some confusion thus far among these threads between the survey study done over the internet vs. the psilocybin study.

There is no confusion, there's you repeatedly conflating the studies to make claims that do not reflect what has actually been discovered or claimed.


Like what in particular? Why make an accusation, if you can't back it up?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote: I do find it interesting that you'd even bring up these clips, and then couch them as me somehow being "dishonest."

Dodging the question is dishonest behavior by definition.


I didn't dodge anything. It was Matt that got hung up on semantics, and in fact, I had an original question prepared for my encounter with him when he had his co-host Jen, and I didn't even get to ask it because Matt went off on that tangent, and our discussion went off on a tear from there, then he hung up on me and made some comments that completely mischaracterized the research I mentioned. He obviously knew nothing about it. Fortunately, the screener wrote out my question and so Matt was able to read it off his laptop screen. It's a question that was posed to Richard Dawkins by Graham Hancock.


Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I was being as honest as possible with Matt.

Then you seem to be quite incapable of acting in an intellectually honest manner.


I could say the same to you as all of your posts have been these negative rebuttals with no evidence to back up your accusations. You just seething nonsense to spew. You come off as a very negative person. Do you have friends irl?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant drivel <snip>

Not the topic of the discussion Kafei.


Your entire post is off topic and irrelevant. I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this post when I my original reply was left to Thommo. You hijacked it, and just started spewing your seething nonsense of which you seem to do with all your posts here.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:Does that look like decade long precise familiarity? Is lack of familiarity to any degree (and we know that Dillahunty has some familiarity since Kafei has spoken at extreme length to him on the subject, and we've seen Jordan Peterson misrepresent aspects of it to him) all it takes to disqualify any and all criticism?


You would think that were so, huh?

He knows it isn't, as do I, as does anyone with a basic understanding of logic.


It isn't what? You were vague here.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant and dishonest attacks on TAE <snip>

Stop bullshitting Kafei.


I'm not bullshitting. Like I said, I've been quite sincere. If anyone here is bullshitting, it's you, especially with these content-free posts filled with nothing but baseless insults.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:Does one have to be familiar with research to understand why assertions not present in that research don't follow from that research? To understand experimenter bias? Selection bias? Or are some criticisms valid even without precise familiarity?


Well, what in specific are you referring to? I'm up for the discussion or even debate, wherever this leads towards.

QED. Thommo asks you a very simple question and once again, as in the video I provided, you completely dodge the question with a non-sequitur response. :naughty:


What assertions? I don't know how you could think Matt had any valid criticism at all when he's not even familiar with this research, and he hung up before the dialogue got to any meaningful clarification of these terms involved in the study. When I first mentioned it to Matt and Jen, they let out a booming laugh. When I said there's been "peer-reviewed studies," Matt's response was, "No, there fuckin' hasn't." Well, guess what? There has!
User avatar
Kafei
 
Posts: 382

Country: United States
Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#437  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 09, 2018 8:46 pm

Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:2) Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump.

True or not True?

Unless you're talking about Jr. in the first place and senior in the latter, not true.


I thought you agreed that "true" or "not true" was all that needed to be said? Already you're deviating from Matt's point that I was contesting.

Not really, both Matt and I are assuming we employ the same definition of X and Y, so first we'd need to clear that up.
So either the dichotomy is Donald Trump Jr. is or is not the son of Donald Trump Sr.
or
Donald Trump Sr. is or is not the son of Donald Trump Sr.

Thommo wrote:
3) was going to be:
3) "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump" means the same as "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and he is the son of Donald Trump".

In fairness I'm fresher this morning and I could probably just have used the liar sentence:
"This sentence is false" and asked if it's true or false, anyway.

I think you would agree that it cannot be both true and false at the same time though, right?

Thommo wrote:A more practical example would be to ask why fact checking sites use scales with assessments like "mostly true" or "mostly false". Hopefully this will communicate some of the problems I was alluding to! :thumbup:

It does and I agree that depending on the claim made, there might be gradations of truth. But when we're talking about X existing, I don't see how you can have gradations of truth. Either X exists or it doesn't, right?
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#438  Postby Thommo » Nov 09, 2018 9:04 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:2) Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump.

True or not True?

Unless you're talking about Jr. in the first place and senior in the latter, not true.


I thought you agreed that "true" or "not true" was all that needed to be said? Already you're deviating from Matt's point that I was contesting.

Not really, both Matt and I are assuming we employ the same definition of X and Y, so first we'd need to clear that up.


Right, but you didn't. You said it was true, then went back and revised and qualified that statement when it proved inadedquate, which is exactly the kind of problem with his dichotomy.

I hasten to add that this isn't really criticism, it's the only practical way to deal with these things if you don't want to be insufferably pedantic, and I would also go back and qualify if it became necessary.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:So either the dichotomy is Donald Trump Jr. is or is not the son of Donald Trump Sr.
or
Donald Trump Sr. is or is not the son of Donald Trump Sr.

Thommo wrote:
3) was going to be:
3) "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump" means the same as "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and he is the son of Donald Trump".

In fairness I'm fresher this morning and I could probably just have used the liar sentence:
"This sentence is false" and asked if it's true or false, anyway.

I think you would agree that it cannot be both true and false at the same time though, right?


It depends. You can variously say it's both, neither or undefined. There are different approaches in the study of logic.

The single approach that does not work is that you HAVE to say it's true or false, which is Matt's assertion. This also applies to gibberish (another example he gave) - in formal logic you only map what are know as "well formed formulae" or "wff"s to truth values, the same is probably wise in English.

From the other side there are all sorts of examples as well where although you think of something as being "correct" or "true" you can't actually prove it true or not true.

Further, various precise treatments of logic which don't respect Matt's dichotomy can be found in rigorous areas like fuzzy logics and multivalent logics.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:A more practical example would be to ask why fact checking sites use scales with assessments like "mostly true" or "mostly false". Hopefully this will communicate some of the problems I was alluding to! :thumbup:

It does and I agree that depending on the claim made, there might be gradations of truth. But when we're talking about X existing, I don't see how you can have gradations of truth. Either X exists or it doesn't, right?


Well, within classical logics, that is the case, and by convention people often use those. But logics, like scientific theories are just models, so what's true in the model isn't necessarily true of the world we inhabit. That's the realm of metaphysics.

Matt did ask a good question, which was something like "if it's not true or false, then what else is it?". That's good enough for both formal situations and informal ones. In informal situations equivocation is a genuine risk, and that's why the strictly binary "true or false" approach can go wrong. English is not a complete and consistent logic, it's a language which allows contradiction, insisting that things are always either "A or not A" is a pretty obvious example of black or white thinking. We tend to talk that way due to convention and definition. If you want to see how you can run into problems with this I'm sure you could watch Dillahunty talk about his response to TAG (transcendental argument for god), on his show, which I know he has. I'm sure you'll see that in fact he says these things are not in fact features of the universe.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 24580

Print view this post

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#439  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 09, 2018 9:34 pm

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:

Really?


Yes, really.

No, not really. That's a non-sequitur.


Calling it a non-sequitur won't magically make it a non-sequitur.

The fact that your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise does though.
Just because someone is unfamiliar with something doesn't mean they cannot offer any valid criticism whatsoever.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote: And if I make a recommendation, we've discussed these things thus far for a while now, and yet like this research, these arguments are "on-going." I will leave these references, but these are links you may already be familiar with as I've posted some them throughout the "Ground of Being" thread. I recommend referring to the second half of my second to last encounter with Matt Dillahunty which I feel more accurately addresses these topics. Matt, in my opinion, went off into a tangent of semantics rather than addressing the more salient points I was attempting to emphasize.

Matt was asking you to clarify because you keep using weasel words and shifting the goal posts.


I wasn't using "weasel words" or "shifting goal posts.

Counterfactual horseshit. You might actually deluded yourself due to your intense bigotry on this subject, but you did in fact keep changing your claims and/or subject whenever Matt tried to get you to commit to something.

Kafei wrote: I was sincerely responding to Matt.

Another counterfactual assertion.

Kafei wrote:
Matt never showed any effort to understand this stuff.

And there's your typical MO again of baselessly accusing your interlocutors of ignorance and disinterest.
Just becauses someone disagrees with you Jimmy, doesn't mean they dont understand or don't want to understand.

Kafei wrote:
I mean, his reactions have been very much like your own.

And rather than even considering the possibility that Matt, myself and many others make the same points, because you are wrong, instead of all those other people, you must stick to the notion that everyone else is wrong and does not understand. :naughty:

Again Jimmy, you have not, in the slightest, demonstrated that I don't understand or am not interested. You just declare it over and over in a desperate attempt to discredit me.

Kafei wrote: Matt even admitted he was unfamiliar with the study on my most recent call with him on The Atheist Experience, and then he asked me when was he supposed to familiarize himself with this research. Hmm. Gee. I don't know. Maybe when I attempted to e-mail about it in 2013 or with my call with him in 2017? Now, here he is in 2018 saying he was "unfamiliar with the study." Like I said, go figure.

I don't what's worse, your incessant need to make shit up about your interlocutor or your inability to process what your interlocutors post.
I never denied that Matt said he's not familiar with the research. Yet you keep bringing it up as if that's supposed to prove something. It does not.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:


I am very familiar with the research,

Either that's true and you've repeatedly lied about the results and conclusions, or your statements show that you aren't familiar with the research at all.


I never lied about anything.

Then you are not familiar with the research at all as you keep making claims that are not supported by said research.

Kafei wrote:
I made it quite clear that the study involving the self-confirmed atheists who volunteered into this psilocybin research is, in fact, on-going. Yes, Dr. Roland Griffiths has spoken on its status as of his lecture given 2017. Understand each one of these studies takes some time to complete. The initial pilot study done back in '99 wasn't published in 2006.

Jimmy, you cannot argue at the same time, that you dont want to discuss the study because it is not finished yet, while also appealing to it constantly. Even more so when what you claim isn't reflected in the sources you cite.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote: and I did make this mistake in my original call with Tracie and Russel back in 2016. I believe that was the very first time I had called in, and I don't really discuss this stuff in person with really anyone outside of my own friends, family, co-workers, etc.

Completely irrelevant. No-one mentioned that first call, there's no point in bringing it up here.


You're responding to a post that I left for him.

Also irrelevant.

Kafei wrote: He quoted me where said that I called in more recently, the point of these earlier mentions is that TAE had plenty of time to research this stuff, and they didn't.

Such astonding arrogance. Do you think the people at TAE have nothing to do besides the show?
Are you that selfabsorbed that you don't realise these people have jobs, other callers and question they want to answer?
That your complete failure to present a coherent and sound argument did nothing to provide an incentive to look up what you were citing?
:crazy:

Kafei wrote: Like I said, my initial e-mail exchange with Matt on this stuff took place in 2013.

Like I said, the world doesn't revolve around you and your interests.

Kafei wrote: If you ask me, there should be no excuse for him 2018 unless the reason why he's still unfamiliar is because he shares your own "genuine interest" in these topics.

Get your head out of your ass Jimmy.
It's clear to anyone who reads this thread and the one I linked to that you're either incredibly dishonest or delusional. Or worse, both.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I mean, if I hadn't mentioned that, not even TAE would've sifted through their episodes to find that clip. They didn't publish it.

Stop lying Kafei. They upload every single episode and are continually on the look out for and restoring older episodes that were lost for a while.


Maybe you need to read more carefully before just flat-out and falsely accusing people of lying.

Nope, because my point is in direct response to what you posted.

Kafei wrote:Like I said, you have knack for that.

You know fuck all about me, so this is yet another desperate and dishonest accusation.

Kafei wrote: I didn't say episode.

QED more semantic dishonesty.

Kafei wrote: I understand they upload every single episode. I'm saying they didn't clip my first call when Tracie and Russell. However, they've clipped every single call of mine ever afterwards.

FFS, Kafei this is what you actually posted:
I mean, if I hadn't mentioned that, not even TAE would've sifted through their episodes to find that clip. They didn't publish it.



Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I don't like listening to it, because Matt got hung up on a semantic argument when I said the Perennialist view is neither atheism or theism which at that moment I didn't know how to address.

You called into an atheist show, not a 'I have an idea and want to discuss it' show.
If you call into an atheist show and try to assert that there is a third option between atheism and theism, you better be prepared to back that up.
You can't do that however, since theism/atheism is a true dichotomy.


Sure, you can say atheism/theism is a true dichotomy,

It isn't just me saying so, it's what those words describe and how the english language works.

Kafei wrote:
but as I should said, what I should've told Matt so he wouldn't have gotten into that silly semantic argument that, in my opinion, simply wasted time is that the Perennial philosophy is not necessarily mainstream atheism or theism as ordinarily conceived of today.

And like I said that is a completely different point/claim, once again demonstrating your tendency to tap-dance.

Kafei wrote:
Now, if atheism and theism is a dichotomy,

They are.

Kafei wrote: then obviously the Perennial philosophy, if we're going to have to categorize it in either "A" or "B," it is, indeed, a form of theism.

Yes, which is why we keep asking you why you think the drugs study demonstrates something supernatural.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
What I should have said which would have avoided that silly semantic entirely is that Perennialism isn't necessarily mainstream theism or atheism.

That's a completely different claim. So either you're once again shifting the goal posts or failing at precisely formulating your claims.


No, it's actually what I meant to say.

Again then you are incredibly bad at experessing yourself as what you actually said is not something similar but a completely different claim.



Kafei wrote: Like I said, I'm not a professional at this,

Irrelevant, neither am I, but when I misspeak it's at least something similar to what I intended to say, not a completely different point.

Kafei wrote: I've only spoken to Matt a total of three times on The Atheist Experience, and I told Matt that, sure, atheism and theism is a dichotomy, but my point to Matt is that point is only relevant depending on how you define theism

No it isnt. Not in relation to atheism, which is the dichotomy that is the point of the discussion and your initial statement.

Kafei wrote: But what was his response? "That's not a definition of God."

Which is correct and which he pointed out to make it clear to you that, not only is perrenialism in the same category as (a)theism, it is a hypothesis about theism.

Kafei wrote:
He even told me "make one up." After he just finished saying, "Pick any definition of God."

To which you responded by waffling about a hypothesis for the origin of theistic beliefs, rather than answering the question.
Which is why he objected to your answer not being a definition of god.

Kafei wrote: So, if you ask me, Matt Dillahunty contradicted himself in this instant.

And given your abysmal record in responding to the actual points being raised, and misrepresenting constantly, I have long since given up on taking your word for something.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I mean, if you want to address anything in those clips, that's fine with me. I've repeated that one of the reasons I attend this forum is because I wish to sharpen my ability to speak on these topics, and so I don't run into that kind of nonsense with Matt.

Again, it's no nonsense. It's to get you to stop dodging questions and shifting goal posts.


I've done no such thing.

Like I said, delusional or dishonest. :coffee:

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I appreciate the very fact that The Atheist Experience published these more particular clips in their YouTube channel at all, and in their entirety.

Like I said, they do so with all their episodes, so that's to be expected.


With the exception of my first encounter on the show...

More rectally extracted bullshit.

Kafei wrote:
That was never clipped, and I'm fine with that, it was my initial attempt, and certainly it was when I was probably less articulate on these topics.

You're making this up Jimmy. They've always taped their entire episode, so if your first appearance has indeed been recorded and hasn't been recovered yet, or something must have gone wrong with the recording equipment at the time.
In either case, it wasn't a concious decision on their part, which you keep asserting.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
You actually found a clip I wasn't aware of published March, 2017 by a different user I admit I was unfamiliar. You see, TAE published that same clip in Aug. of 2017. I've also called into the Talk Heathen show with Eric and Jamie, but somehow my call was dropped, and I believe the fault was on their end, because before they took the call they mentioned issues with their lines that day... and yes, I took Jamie's advice he offered after the dropped call. If you find any points there you'd like to address, please post them here.

This is completely irrelevant to the ongoing discussion Kafei. I only posted that video because it provides clear examples of your disingenuous dodging behavior. It wasn't about the claims you made.


And yet they weren't clear examples of what you claimed.

Reality fortunately does not operate based on your blind counterfactual assertions.

Kafei wrote: They're clear examples of what I've said, that I'm simply attempting to sharpen my ability on these topics.

You kept doging very straightforward, simple questions, you kept playing word games to avoid making a coherent claim which could then be criticised.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
All apologies for going on this tangent, but I will add that I would rather not comment on the on-going study involving the atheists until it's published.

Then stop making assertions based on it.


I wasn't making assertions.

Except Thommo has already demonstrated otherwise, your delusional assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Kafei wrote: I was quoting what's been established thus far in that study as Griffiths has given the status of that particular study in his 2017 lecture.

Bullshit.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
If you'd like to make that the focus of the discussion, I don't mind discussing it, but it's a study that's still in progress and while Griffiths has given lectures on the research as its progressed thus far, the results so far have been met with some confusion thus far among these threads between the survey study done over the internet vs. the psilocybin study.

There is no confusion, there's you repeatedly conflating the studies to make claims that do not reflect what has actually been discovered or claimed.


Like what in particular? Why make an accusation, if you can't back it up?

You still haven't answered the question Jimmy, would you keep presenting evidence and arguments if your interlocutor keeps ignoring them or disimissing them out of hand so they can pretend you haven't presented any? :naughty:

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote: I do find it interesting that you'd even bring up these clips, and then couch them as me somehow being "dishonest."

Dodging the question is dishonest behavior by definition.


I didn't dodge anything.

Blind counterfactual assertion #156344623

Kafei wrote: It was Matt that got hung up on semantics,

I've already corrected you on this earlier in this post, so I won't bother again, as you're just going to pretend it didn't happen.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
I was being as honest as possible with Matt.

Then you seem to be quite incapable of acting in an intellectually honest manner.


I could say the same to you as all of your posts have been these negative rebuttals with no evidence to back up your accusations.

Of course someone who incessantly lies, misrepresents and acts dishonest will reply with 'No, you!'.
It won't work Jimmy, my detailed rebuttals and demonstrations of your dishonesty are still present in this thread.
No ammount of ignoring and pretending they don't exist will magically erase them out of existence.

Kafei wrote: You just seething nonsense to spew.

Another baseless and personalised accusation and a demonstration of a failure at basic English as well.

Kafei wrote: You come off as a very negative person. Do you have friends irl?

Again, since you know fuck all about me, your assesment of me is both irrational and dishonest. As is your inflammatory question.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant drivel <snip>

Not the topic of the discussion Kafei.


Your entire post is off topic and irrelevant.

QED more unsupported accusations.

Kafei wrote: I'm not even sure why I'm responding to this post when I my original reply was left to Thommo.

This is not your personal blog Jimmy, it's an open forum and you don't get to dictate who responds to your posts or how.

Kafei wrote: You hijacked it,

Bullshit, I pointed out that you were once again engaging in irrelevant attempts to change the topic.

Kafei wrote: and just started spewing your seething nonsense of which you seem to do with all your posts here.

Again, nothing but personalised invective that is based on fuck all.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:Does that look like decade long precise familiarity? Is lack of familiarity to any degree (and we know that Dillahunty has some familiarity since Kafei has spoken at extreme length to him on the subject, and we've seen Jordan Peterson misrepresent aspects of it to him) all it takes to disqualify any and all criticism?


You would think that were so, huh?

He knows it isn't, as do I, as does anyone with a basic understanding of logic.


It isn't what? You were vague here.

It's a direct answer to your question. If you can't figure it out, don't ask it. :roll:

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
<snip> more irrelevant and dishonest attacks on TAE <snip>

Stop bullshitting Kafei.


I'm not bullshitting.

Blind counterfactual assertion #482521

Kafei wrote: Like I said, I've been quite sincere.

The only way this is true if you're dealing with a fantastical version of this thread. Because you keep misrepresenting what other people post, making shit up about the studies you cite, and generally performing all manner of mental gymnastics to avoid admitting being wrong about anyting.

Kafei wrote: If anyone here is bullshitting, it's you, especially with these content-free posts filled with nothing but baseless insults.

That's a 1000 hypocrisy meters you owe me now Jimmy.

Kafei wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Kafei wrote:
Thommo wrote:Does one have to be familiar with research to understand why assertions not present in that research don't follow from that research? To understand experimenter bias? Selection bias? Or are some criticisms valid even without precise familiarity?


Well, what in specific are you referring to? I'm up for the discussion or even debate, wherever this leads towards.

QED. Thommo asks you a very simple question and once again, as in the video I provided, you completely dodge the question with a non-sequitur response. :naughty:


What assertions?

Once again you either completely miss the point or focussing on the wrong aspect to avoid answering the question.
Thommo and I are asking you about your assertion that someone has to be familiar with something to offer valid criticism on it.
You keep dodging this question Jimmy.
It is irrelevant what assertions, what matters is the general question of whether someone needs to be familiar with something to offer valid criticism.
Do they Jimmy, or do they not?

Kafei wrote: I don't know how you could think Matt had any valid criticism at all when he's not even familiar with this research, and he hung up before the dialogue got to any meaningful clarification of these terms involved in the study. When I first mentioned it to Matt and Jen, they let out a booming laugh. When I said there's been "peer-reviewed studies," Matt's response was, "No, there fuckin' hasn't." Well, guess what? There has!

Bullshit. Matt was referring to peer-reviewed studies that prove that mystical experiences actually map to a supernatural experience. There are none.
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

Re: "I am you" nonsense

#440  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Nov 09, 2018 9:45 pm

Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Unless you're talking about Jr. in the first place and senior in the latter, not true.


I thought you agreed that "true" or "not true" was all that needed to be said? Already you're deviating from Matt's point that I was contesting.

Not really, both Matt and I are assuming we employ the same definition of X and Y, so first we'd need to clear that up.


Right, but you didn't. You said it was true, then went back and revised and qualified that statement when it proved inadedquate, which is exactly the kind of problem with his dichotomy.

I'm sorry but that's not what I did, I immediately qualified the statement after which I said it was true if my qualification was correct.

Thommo wrote:
I hasten to add that this isn't really criticism, it's the only practical way to deal with these things if you don't want to be insufferably pedantic, and I would also go back and qualify if it became necessary.

No problem, I'm perfectly fine with being corrected on mistakes. The only way I can correct myself after all. I appreciate that you're taking the time to lay this out for me. :cheers:

Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:So either the dichotomy is Donald Trump Jr. is or is not the son of Donald Trump Sr.
or
Donald Trump Sr. is or is not the son of Donald Trump Sr.

Thommo wrote:
3) was going to be:
3) "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and Donald Trump is the son of Donald Trump" means the same as "Donald Trump is the president of the United States of America and he is the son of Donald Trump".

In fairness I'm fresher this morning and I could probably just have used the liar sentence:
"This sentence is false" and asked if it's true or false, anyway.

I think you would agree that it cannot be both true and false at the same time though, right?


It depends. You can variously say it's both, neither or undefined. There are different approaches in the study of logic.

While I understand that there are different approaches, I don't get how you can say that, for example, that the Christian god as described in the bible, both exists and not exists. Could you elaborate? :ask:

Thommo wrote:The single approach that does not work is that you HAVE to say it's true or false, which is Matt's assertion. This also applies to gibberish (another example he gave) - in formal logic you only map what are know as "well formed formulae" or "wff"s to truth values, the same is probably wise in English.

I agree with you that gibberish cannot have a truth value, but like I said, I think Matt used giberrish to pre-empt Jimmy's
attempt to play semantic games.

Thommo wrote:
From the other side there are all sorts of examples as well where although you think of something as being "correct" or "true" you can't actually prove it true or not true.

Of course, but the question isn't about what can be proven, but what is actually the case, even if it's only a hypothetical sense.
We might never be able to demonstrate that a god does or does not exist, but that, presumably, doesn't change what is actually the case; that it does or does not exist. If you catch my drift.

Thommo wrote:
Further, various precise treatments of logic which don't respect Matt's dichotomy can be found in rigorous areas like fuzzy logics and multivalent logics.

Sounds kinda contradicting fuzzy logics being a rigourous and precise treatment/area of logic. :lol: ;)

Thommo wrote:
Thomas Eshuis wrote:
Thommo wrote:A more practical example would be to ask why fact checking sites use scales with assessments like "mostly true" or "mostly false". Hopefully this will communicate some of the problems I was alluding to! :thumbup:

It does and I agree that depending on the claim made, there might be gradations of truth. But when we're talking about X existing, I don't see how you can have gradations of truth. Either X exists or it doesn't, right?


Well, within classical logics, that is the case, and by convention people often use those. But logics, like scientific theories are just models, so what's true in the model isn't necessarily true of the world we inhabit. That's the realm of metaphysics.

I see.

Thommo wrote:
Matt did ask a good question, which was something like "if it's not true or false, then what else is it?". That's good enough for both formal situations and informal ones. In informal situations equivocation is a genuine risk, and that's why the strictly binary "true or false" approach can go wrong. English is not a complete and consistent logic, it's a language which allows contradiction, insisting that things are always either "A or not A" is a pretty obvious example of black or white thinking. We tend to talk that way due to convention and definition. If you want to see how you can run into problems with this I'm sure you could watch Dillahunty talk about his response to TAG (transcendental argument for god), on his show, which I know he has. I'm sure you'll see that in fact he says these things are not in fact features of the universe.

I get what you mean. Thanks for the elucidation. :thumbup: :cheers:
"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: 29066
Age: 29
Male

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

PreviousNext

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests