I wrap myself in metaphor
A garment made of light
And wonder then forever more
Why my arguments are shite

Cito di Pense wrote:

Shrunk wrote:
To be fair, ......................

I like to hear these words said by a psychiatrist because from what I have seen on the net too many psychiatrists don't seem to care.

Cito di Pense wrote:OK, sure, but Kyrani's always stopping short of the money shot, which is the long essay on why we should care if anything is conscious, which in her case probably has to do with World Without End Amen. That's her case to make if she's so hot on the trail of the paranormal, which is like Consciousnessness++. I just found the fricking wikipedia page on Anti-humanism today. Didn't know it had a short name.

First I don't have anything to do with World Without End Amen. That is Catholic propaganda. Any relics I have of Greek Orthodoxy make me a heretic. And eternal life restricted on this planet sounds like a nightmare.

Why should we care if anything is conscious?
1. Out so sheer scientific curiosity, to discover as much as we can about who we are and what we are made of.
2. Consciousness is a quality of being/ existence. IMO it is what we end up with that matters, i.e., do we gain eternal life or only an external existence?

Arnold Layne wrote:
You can tell that, once a person has an experience, they then trawl through the internet searching for similar experiences with which to confirm their own experiences. The confirmation bias can be astonishing, as in the case we are now witnessing.

When it comes to the paranormal, any confirmation from a comparison with others becomes confirmation bias, dirty words.

But scientists do this too. If they make a discovery they want to see if others have come up with the same findings, to confirm their own or that they be confirmed by other in other experiments. Call this confirmation bias too. If it is good for one it's good for the other.

Agrippina wrote:If you live long enough, and experience enough of the world, including adversity, and wonder, you will notice patterns in the way things happen in your world. This is not paranormal, or some extra-terrestrial pulling strings to control your life, the common denominator in all the events in your life is: you. You control what happens and how things happen, and even inadvertently, you affect the way things turn out. For example. My second and third husbands share a birthday, two years apart. If I was a believer in a string-pulling superpower, I would say that the common birthday is a sign. My favourite sister who also died, and my best friend, who I met after her death, also share a birthday, again, coincidence? Or is some higher power sending me a message that these two people were meant to be in my life? Of course not. People are born on the same day all the time, and they're not even similar enough for me to say that there might be a validity in the idea of astrology.

The two who died were completely different people from the two who share their birthdays, and the birthdays are mere coincidence. I have other family members who share birthdays, lots of them, and in-laws too, I won't bore anyone with the details except to say that it's nonsense to think that there's any more coincidence between two of my husbands sharing a birthday, than there is between my mother and another sister, and an aunt and her daughter, sharing theirs. It's just coincidence. People have birthdays, they meet other people, and those people like more about them than the date of their birth.

I would not call any of this paranormal.

kyrani99 wrote:But scientists do this too. If they make a discovery they want to see if others have come up with the same findings, to confirm their own or that they be confirmed by other in other experiments. Call this confirmation bias too. If it is good for one it's good for the other.

Again, no, you're wrong. And at this point, either it is because you're not paying attention or you're wilfully ignoring what others are saying because it suits your argument.

Scientists compare findings, yes. The important thing here is that the findings are verifiable and replicable. Scientists quite rightly ignore results that, whilst they might match what they are doing, don't actually have any evidence to back them up or where replication of the methodology fails to yield the same results.

The main reason scientists look to see what others are doing, is to work out if they either a) they can collaborate on research b) they are about to get "scooped" in publishing findings by another research team or c) if there are existing results which contradict whatever they are trying to research.

The whole purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate confirmation bias wherever possible. Each experiment stands and fails on its own evidence. It is simply not enough in science to be able to point at someone else's results as being correct, as justification that your own results are.

kyrani99 wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:
You can tell that, once a person has an experience, they then trawl through the internet searching for similar experiences with which to confirm their own experiences. The confirmation bias can be astonishing, as in the case we are now witnessing.

When it comes to the paranormal, any confirmation from a comparison with others becomes confirmation bias, dirty words.

But scientists do this too. If they make a discovery they want to see if others have come up with the same findings, to confirm their own or that they be confirmed by other in other experiments. Call this confirmation bias too. If it is good for one it's good for the other.

No, the idea of science it to test an idea by working out what would happen if it were true then looking to see that happens or not. If not the idea is wrong. If it happens the idea might be right. It is vital to count the cases which contradict the idea.

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote: The universe that is talked of as "all that there is is only "the observable universe". All we have at present is "reality by definition is blah blah blah" and your blah blah blah is as good or bad as mine.

Nope.
You're talking about your personal experiences which have not been objectively verified. In so far as anyone else should be concerned, they are not experiences that are congruent with anyone else's experience of reality.

In so far as the "universe" is concerned, those of us with a rational scientific mindset are only interested in that which can be objectively verified. There is no equivalence between this mindset and your personal fantasises.

No I am not talking about my personal experiences.
What can be objectively observed changes every day with the advance of science. And those with a rational mind use reason to put forth ideas that may subsequently be verified. Not all of them are verified. Einstein never did any objective science when he formulated his theories of relativity. He did subjective observations in his mind. He used philosophy and mathematics. And the theories he came up with were then verified. If he was to say to himself I better not use my insight because it is not objective and others will scream about my method not being objective we would not have his theories today. The theories of relativity were Einstein's fantasies and yes they need to be verified objectively but that was a subsequent process. He needed to put them forth first.

kyrani99 wrote: So it is worth discussion because that enable new ideas to be aired and considered and thus accepted or rejected. But even though we may accept something for now and reject others that can turn around in the future.

Sendraks wrote:New ideas get accepted or rejected on the basis of whether there is evidence to support them or not. Just because you have had an "idea" doesn't mean it has any worth to science. Which does not mean that it lacks any worth at all, indeed the field of fiction laps up stories of a paranormal or supernatural nature.

You make a very narrow minded argument. New ideas are not accepted or rejected immediately on the basis of evidence. For example there were 5 string theories and the arguments were that they could not all be right but they were all accepted as possibilities. None were thrown away for lack of evidence. Physicists thought that sooner or later some would be weeded out until the right one was left.

Then along comes the brilliance of Dr Edward Witten. He gave a spectacular lecture showing a whole new interpretation where all of the 5 theories were just specialized versions of a grand superstring theory that was called M theory. So you see it pays to allow all ideas on the table because you don't know what may be fruitful and what not.

If all you are interested in, is all you can observe and for which you have scientific evidence, then you can never move forward. There can be no progress because we'd be boxed in. Mathematical physics produces heaps of theories and none of them have scientific evidence. None of them get thrown out for lack of evidence. In time experimental physics shows evidence for some of them.

In Ancient Greece where knowledge flourished, all ideas were welcomed, no matter how bizarre, because they ensured that those that would be fruitful would freely arise among them. If you stifle the intellectual environment then sure you will not have some ideas that may lead no where but you will also lose those that may not seem reasonable until some one comes along and proves them.

Cito di Pense wrote:Is a mushroom conscious?

Only certain mushrooms. E.g., Amanita Muscaria:

Literature is abound with descriptions of how this mushroom transfers its consciousness into that of the user...

kyrani99 wrote:What can be objectively observed changes every day with the advance of science.

Yes and where new evidence means we have to re-evaluate our existing understanding, we do so. We don't remain wedded to ideas that are evidentially, no longer correct.

kyrani99 wrote:And those with a rational mind use reason to put forth ideas that may subsequently be verified. Not all of them are verified. Einstein never did any objective science when he formulated his theories of relativity. He did subjective observations in his mind. He used philosophy and mathematics. And the theories he came up with were then verified. If he was to say to himself I better not use my insight because it is not objective and others will scream about my method not being objective we would not have his theories today. The theories of relativity were Einstein's fantasies and yes they need to be verified objectively but that was a subsequent process. He needed to put them forth first.

The point being that Einstein set out ideas that could be verified and indeed, were intended to be verified through the processes of methodological naturalism. He didn't just "think" things up, chucked them out in the world and hoped they'd stick.

kyrani99 wrote: You make a very narrow minded argument. New ideas are not accepted or rejected immediately on the basis of evidence. For example there were 5 string theories and the arguments were that they could not all be right but they were all accepted as possibilities. None were thrown away for lack of evidence. Physicists thought that sooner or later some would be weeded out until the right one was left.

Again you're confusing "thinking things up" with "people having ideas that have a foundation in science."

kyrani99 wrote: If all you are interested in, is all you can observe and for which you have scientific evidence, then you can never move forward. There can be no progress because we'd be boxed in. Mathematical physics produces heaps of theories and none of them have scientific evidence. None of them get thrown out for lack of evidence. In time experimental physics shows evidence for some of them. .

If you do not have evidence, than your ideas cannot move forwards, because they have no practical application and cannot be applied to the world around us. When scientist have ideas and set out hypothesis, they include means by which the hypothesis may be verified and also falsified, in recognition that these things are necessary for an idea to be applied.

It is one of the more staggeringly dishonest things woo-peddlars say, when they think it is sufficient to have "an idea" and then just hide behind the line of expecting the evidence to prove them right will one day come to light. And no matter how many times methodological naturalism demonstrates their idea to be utter bollocks, they just keep hiding behind the lie that the evidence will come to light "one day."

Your ideas are worth jack, unless you have some proposal for demonstrating how they might one day be considered fact. If you don't have that, you have fuck all.

kyrani99 wrote:You have to have a point of view in order to make a judgement.

Utter twaddle!
A judgement is made on evidence presented where a 'point of view' has no place - unless, of course, you would wish to ignore the evidence to favour your 'point of view'.

kyrani99 wrote:
Why should we care if anything is conscious?

Your commentary on 'consciousness' is mired in the 19th Century (or before). The only reason you suspect anything is conscious is because it tells you anecdotes about being conscious. If that's what you want to base your theories on, so be it. You already don't know whether anything replying to you here is 'conscious' or not, except that it 'seems that way' to you.

Now tell me again, why should I care what you think? What's at stake? You've sworn off World Without End. How about spoon-bending?

kyrani99 wrote:2. Consciousness is a quality of being/ existence.

Like, you know, a rock or a mushroom. Think before you type. Show that you're conscious.

kyrani99 wrote:And the theories he came up with were then verified.

Let us know when you get to that part with, you know, rocks and mushrooms.

kyrani99 wrote:Brain activity does not equal functioning. For example in a seizure, there is an enormous amount of brain activity, but can that be called functioning? No.

Yes, actually. Unless, of course, you want to define functioning as "working completely perfectly," whatever the fuck that is.

I'm an epileptic, so know quite a lot about seizures. Does my brain and body stop functioning completely when I'm having a seizure? Of course it doesn't. That would be a stupid thing to say.

By the way, why did you snip my last post to take out my reference to a belief in pixies?

Sendraks wrote:
The whole purpose of the scientific method is to eliminate confirmation bias wherever possible. Each experiment stands and fails on its own evidence. It is simply not enough in science to be able to point at someone else's results as being correct, as justification that your own results are.

Confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, beliefs and hypothesis, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternatives, leading to statistical errors.

This is NOT the case in people comparing experiences. These are not beliefs, nor preconceptions, nor hypothesis. These are experiences. You find others that have the same experience confirms that your experience belongs to some common experiences. It is not about giving some less consideration to any alternatives, which are only made up by skeptics.

For example a person may suddenly remembers a friend or relative in another city and becomes concerned that she or he may die. Then in the same time frame they get information that that person is in grave danger or did die. Did they have some direct mental perception owing to relational entanglement? They are justified in finding others with similar experiences and saying yes this experience is paranormal, others have had the same.

The alternatives that skeptics want to put forwards are that it is just coincidences and they scream confirmation bias. This is BS. The statistical probability of someone in 30, 40 or 50 years or whatever having a unique occasion where they become concerned about another related person and that person has at the same time had an accident or died suddenly, is in the billions or trillions. One chance in a trillion is not "just a coincidence". And their search to find if others have experienced the same thing is not confirmation bias.

We do the same for countless physical experiences. "Did you go to Dr X and he nearly poisoned you? Yeah he's bad news he nearly did this to me too." When we compare our experiences with others and find the same experience we don't say "just a coincidence" and "confirmation bias". Hey Dr X just happened to poison half his patients. Just a coincidence.

GrahamH wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:

Arnold Layne wrote:
You can tell that, once a person has an experience, they then trawl through the internet searching for similar experiences with which to confirm their own experiences. The confirmation bias can be astonishing, as in the case we are now witnessing.

When it comes to the paranormal, any confirmation from a comparison with others becomes confirmation bias, dirty words.

But scientists do this too. If they make a discovery they want to see if others have come up with the same findings, to confirm their own or that they be confirmed by other in other experiments. Call this confirmation bias too. If it is good for one it's good for the other.

No, the idea of science it to test an idea by working out what would happen if it were true then looking to see that happens or not. If not the idea is wrong. If it happens the idea might be right. It is vital to count the cases which contradict the idea.

It is also vital to get confirmation from repeated experiments. One reason we have great confidence in quantum theory is precisely because we see repeatedly that the theory holds under experimental challenge.

@ kyrani99
I asked this question in post 593:
"What you must do now is to prove (or show evidence of) the existence of an interface between a non-physical God (or gods) and a physical universe (or even a physical human being will do). You must then describe the precise nature of the interface: how it is implemented, what 'connections' are used and the translation 'mechanism' across the interface. Bearing in mind, of course, that one side of the interface must be entirely non-physical such that no physical measuring device can detect its presence and that the other side must exist solely in the physical universe."

of Blue Triangle. I didn't get a reply. We’re still waiting…

Perhaps you could have a go?

kyrani99 wrote:
Confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, beliefs and hypothesis, while giving disproportionately less consideration to alternatives, leading to statistical errors.

This is NOT the case in people comparing experiences.

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so.
And ALL you are doing here, is saying so.

I'm floating on the high of having drunk too much champagne celebrating the final volume in my book. So all I can add to this discussion today is to say that I embrace every post that goes against the belief in nonsense that I can't test and experience.

Live high and live well!

Scar wrote::crazy:

Drinking the wine in the tavern of ruin. Drunk every day. Drunk every night.

Alan B wrote:

Cito di Pense wrote:Is a mushroom conscious?

Only certain mushrooms. E.g., Amanita Muscaria:

Literature is abound with descriptions of how this mushroom transfers its consciousness into that of the user...

Even the rocks are made with consciousness.

Sendraks wrote:

kyrani99 wrote:And those with a rational mind use reason to put forth ideas that may subsequently be verified. Not all of them are verified. Einstein never did any objective science when he formulated his theories of relativity. He did subjective observations in his mind. He used philosophy and mathematics. And the theories he came up with were then verified. If he was to say to himself I better not use my insight because it is not objective and others will scream about my method not being objective we would not have his theories today. The theories of relativity were Einstein's fantasies and yes they need to be verified objectively but that was a subsequent process. He needed to put them forth first.

Sendraks wrote:The point being that Einstein set out ideas that could be verified and indeed, were intended to be verified through the processes of methodological naturalism. He didn't just "think" things up, chucked them out in the world and hoped they'd stick.

That is exactly what he did. He had not ideas that he knew would stick. He had ideas. Then they were tested. And when they did stick they become part of the foundations of physics. But there was no guarantee that they'd stick.

kyrani99 wrote: You make a very narrow minded argument. New ideas are not accepted or rejected immediately on the basis of evidence. For example there were 5 string theories and the arguments were that they could not all be right but they were all accepted as possibilities. None were thrown away for lack of evidence. Physicists thought that sooner or later some would be weeded out until the right one was left.

Sendraks wrote:Again you're confusing "thinking things up" with "people having ideas that have a foundation in science."

Mathematical physics is not 'foundation in science'. Mathematics is not science, it is philosophy.

kyrani99 wrote: If all you are interested in, is all you can observe and for which you have scientific evidence, then you can never move forward. There can be no progress because we'd be boxed in. Mathematical physics produces heaps of theories and none of them have scientific evidence. None of them get thrown out for lack of evidence. In time experimental physics shows evidence for some of them. .

Sendraks wrote:If you do not have evidence, than your ideas cannot move forwards, because they have no practical application and cannot be applied to the world around us. When scientist have ideas and set out hypothesis, they include means by which the hypothesis may be verified and also falsified, in recognition that these things are necessary for an idea to be applied.

It is one of the more staggeringly dishonest things woo-peddlars say, when they think it is sufficient to have "an idea" and then just hide behind the line of expecting the evidence to prove them right will one day come to light. And no matter how many times methodological naturalism demonstrates their idea to be utter bollocks, they just keep hiding behind the lie that the evidence will come to light "one day."

You have only to look through some of those prestigious medical journals to find a mountain of theories/ ideas put forward, especially in correlations as supposed causation and they are all BOLLOCKS! And they don't hide. They are in full view. And the light never comes.

Sendraks wrote:Your ideas are worth jack, unless you have some proposal for demonstrating how they might one day be considered fact. If you don't have that, you have fuck all.

My theories are still in the developmental stage. I will be putting them to the test. You seem to think that another person's theories are worthless if they can't immediately be tested or if the means to be tested are not yet conceived of. That is bollocks. Science is a work in progress.