Many reports are on record of occult experiences, gotten by extrasensory perception, mystical visions, precognitive dreams and so on. Apparently even animals are tuned to occult experiences, as indicated by their panicked flight from an area hours before an earthquake strikes. Millions of people find all this to be very fascinating today. They look to the occult as a new frontier of knowledge. For millions of other people, occultism is fantasy. Real knowledge is the "hard data" of the senses, mind and intellect.

But the distinction people make between worldly and occult knowledge is misleading in a number of ways. Even worldly knowledge has occult origins. For example, our speech is full of phrases like, "A wonderful idea came into my head," "An inspiration struck me," "It occurred to me," "Suddenly it was clear to me." Since childhood we've grown accustomed to the popping of ideas, inspirations and intuitive hunches into our everyday field of experience. Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension. And, as a further irony, with these ideas that spring from an occult source, we try to understand and explain the "everyday" world around us!

Many reports are on record of occult experiences, gotten by extrasensory perception, mystical visions, precognitive dreams and so on.

Anecdotes, many of which collapse under the most basic scientific scrutiny.

Apparently even animals are tuned to occult experiences, as indicated by their panicked flight from an area hours before an earthquake strikes.

There is no evidence that animals display any kind of ESP with respect to earthquakes. Perhaps in some cases their ordinary senses can pick up things that humans are not aware of, but certainly there is no good evidence of any mystical powers.

But the distinction people make between worldly and occult knowledge is misleading in a number of ways. Even worldly knowledge has occult origins. For example, our speech is full of phrases like, "A wonderful idea came into my head," "An inspiration struck me," "It occurred to me," "Suddenly it was clear to me." Since childhood we've grown accustomed to the popping of ideas, inspirations and intuitive hunches into our everyday field of experience. Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension.

There is no evidence for that.

Much more likely is that our brains are constantly making new connections between fragments of knowledge and sense perceptions that we possess.

Nothing has ever been shown to come from an "unknown dimension".

JamesR

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Many reports are on record of occult experiences, gotten by extrasensory perception, mystical visions, precognitive dreams and so on.
”
Anecdotes, many of which collapse under the most basic scientific scrutiny.
and also there is many that don't

“
Apparently even animals are tuned to occult experiences, as indicated by their panicked flight from an area hours before an earthquake strikes.
”
There is no evidence that animals display any kind of ESP with respect to earthquakes. Perhaps in some cases their ordinary senses can pick up things that humans are not aware of, but certainly there is no good evidence of any mystical powers.
occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a mysterious origin

“
But the distinction people make between worldly and occult knowledge is misleading in a number of ways. Even worldly knowledge has occult origins. For example, our speech is full of phrases like, "A wonderful idea came into my head," "An inspiration struck me," "It occurred to me," "Suddenly it was clear to me." Since childhood we've grown accustomed to the popping of ideas, inspirations and intuitive hunches into our everyday field of experience. Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension.
”
There is no evidence for that.
yes, that's what makes it occult

Much more likely is that our brains are constantly making new connections between fragments of knowledge and sense perceptions that we possess.
and there is evidence for this or are you simply telling us an opinion or guessing?

Nothing has ever been shown to come from an "unknown dimension".
I guess if it had been it wouldn't be unknown -lol

but seriously, since the empirical can only indicate the relative, it seems that everything comes from the unknown - one infinite stretch at the macrocosm and another infinite stretch at the microcosm, and a few confident empiricists sharing their opinions in the middle ....

...and there is evidence for this or are you simply telling us an opinion or guessing?


Wilt thou allow him the academic freedom of encompassing in a single utterance the options of both guessing and telling us an opinion?

Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension.

And, as a further irony, with these ideas that spring from an occult source

An unknown dimension? Can you explain to me what that means? I always thought that anything that our minds/brains come up with come only from themselves not from an unknown dimension. If it were unknown then how did our minds/brains even locate it then extract something from an unknown source? Sounds as if you are trying to make up a story about what reality is. Our own thoughts come from ourselves not from the unknown.

An unknown dimension? Can you explain to me what that means? I always thought that anything that our minds/brains come up with come only from themselves not from an unknown dimension ... Our own thoughts come from ourselves not from the unknown.


That is a very interesting conjecture. How did you come up with that?

I thought about the statement and rationalized it in my brain/mind. After deducing the answer I then formed words and made my statement from my mind/brain.

I thought about the statement and rationalized it in my brain/mind ...


Very good, very good.
So the statement existed before you thought about it?

As I stated, I thought about what was said in my mind/brain and formed my opinion of what was said. I then extracted my own words from my own mind/brain and produced the statement from within myself, not from the unknown reaches of space and time.

As I stated, I thought about what was said in my mind/brain and formed my opinion of what was said. I then extracted my own words from my own mind/brain and produced the statement from within myself, not from the unknown reaches of space and time.
its not clear why experiencing a thought through the medium of the mind makes the mind the absolute cause

its not clear why experiencing a thought through the medium of the mind makes the mind the absolute cause

Well, in my humble opinion I think so.

lightgigantic:

Anecdotes, many of which collapse under the most basic scientific scrutiny.

and also there is many that don't

Yes, some require some more advanced scientific investigation. :)


occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a mysterious origin

That's not how the term is usually used.

Much more likely is that our brains are constantly making new connections between fragments of knowledge and sense perceptions that we possess.

and there is evidence for this or are you simply telling us an opinion or guessing?

There is some evidence from neuroscience. In comparison, there is no evidence at all that thoughts and ideas come from "another dimension".

but seriously, since the empirical can only indicate the relative, it seems that everything comes from the unknown - one infinite stretch at the macrocosm and another infinite stretch at the microcosm, and a few confident empiricists sharing their opinions in the middle ....

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

There is no evidence that animals display any kind of ESP with respect to earthquakes. Perhaps in some cases their ordinary senses can pick up things that humans are not aware of, but certainly there is no good evidence of any mystical powers.



There is a lot of evidence that they know in advance: the recent tsunami, for example. We don't know how they do this; scientists do not have a clear explanation based on the known senses or why the animals would draw conclusions from these senses. Have tsunamis really been frequent enough to have trained the animals to immediately react to single instances in their lifetimes?

The questions raised do not prove ESP. My belief is that ESP is a natural phenomenon but an unknown one to scientists.

I feel like your reaction is to say that it doesn't exist or it is one of these phenomena that we already have reduced in scientific studies. But the history of science shows that new phenomena working via processes hitherto unknown can be at play.

You see. To me you are making an effort to close a door and there is no scientific reason to, nevertheless it is habit of many who defend science.

Rattlesnakes sensing prey with their heat sensors.
Elephants communicating with ultrasound.

Patterns were noticed by both indigenous peoples and then later by scientists that made them wonder if a NEW sense or form of communication was involved.
The indigenous peoples were not irrational for believing in what could easily have been called esp and poo pooed.
And it was not simply hearing, feeling vibrations etc. ie. senses already well chartered.

I am not fond of the term ESP and I can see how this adds to the problem here, but I feel both sides have some responsibility on the issue.

What ends up happening is a denial of the real, which I believe is a lot bigger than what scientists tend to assume it is. Or more complex. Hell, I lack an adjective.

Well, in my humble opinion I think so.

primitive tribespeople are also apt to think that because a radio transmission is received through an amplifier, that the amplifier is the ultimate cause of the noise

JamesR

“

“
Anecdotes, many of which collapse under the most basic scientific scrutiny.
”
and also there is many that don't
”
Yes, some require some more advanced scientific investigation.
given the foundation of such inquiries (ie the senses) there appears to be a glass ceiling on such advancements (How do you propose to investigate the mind with your sense of sight?)



“
occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a mysterious origin
”
That's not how the term is usually used.
it was precisely the word used in reaction to Newton's proposals on the nature of gravity by the scientific community at the time

“

“
Much more likely is that our brains are constantly making new connections between fragments of knowledge and sense perceptions that we possess.
”
and there is evidence for this or are you simply telling us an opinion or guessing?
”
There is some evidence from neuroscience.
what does that mean?
10% evidence and 90% guessing?

In comparison, there is no evidence at all that thoughts and ideas come from "another dimension".
in the absence of evidence, I guess that leaves us with a "mysterious origin"

“
but seriously, since the empirical can only indicate the relative, it seems that everything comes from the unknown - one infinite stretch at the macrocosm and another infinite stretch at the microcosm, and a few confident empiricists sharing their opinions in the middle ....
”
I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
empiricism can (hope) to draw connections between two objects that are physical (revealed by the senses) - for instance one can observe the relationship between water poured on fire.

But if one follows cause and effect far enough, empiricism pitters out - IOW one can indicate anything by the senses and never get a concise answer on what it is or where it came from. Thus empiricists are sharing (or more realistically, debunking each other to assert themselves) opinions between one infinite point at the macrocosm and another identically infinite point at the microcosm of which they have no entrance

primitive tribespeople are also apt to think that because a radio transmission is received through an amplifier, that the amplifier is the ultimate cause of the noise

Hmmmm. Are you labeling the members of this august forum "primitive"?

Examples from language only reflect what may well be ancient superstitions. People use the words that are given them.

However, yes, we do know of the Paranormal.

Back during the Vietnam War, the best Sergeants did not appoint their Point Men turn for turn, as each man's turn came up. That would get everybody killed. I knew one Sergeant who would put his platoon on break and then sneak up on them, remaining hidden in the bush (a dangerous thing to do, considering all the snakes, but he was brave ). The troops that would make good 'point men' would sense that they were being observed, and would actually turn and look into the brush, sometimes directly in his direction. But some of the troops would continue as usual. These are the guys that could never sense an ambush.

Now, ambushes are almost EASY to sense. You have a dozen really nervous guys aiming guns and getting ready to kill. Now who COULDN'T sense that?

I realized then that most people are psychic at least to that extent. Nowadays when I have to meet somebody at the airport, I don't bother with hand scribbled signs. I simply look for who I am looking for, and they turn around and look back. We both sense it when we find each other.

I could suggest staring at anybody, and that would make them turn around. But it doesn't always work. Especially with beautiful women. They are so used to being watched, they learn to ignore it. But if you are on speaking terms with any beautiful woman, ask her if she knows when she is being watched. The answer is "of course". They know they are being watched and they know by whom. They simply never turn around and look back... why should they? Looking back would be to return a flirt, and that is seldom what they want to do.

Oh, almost 50 years ago, when I was getting my flying licence, without knowing why, I looked back over my shoulder, just in time to dive out of the way of a Jet Liner barreling down at me.

Oh, when I was in College, decades ago, I slept through only a few classes. it turned out that each time the class had been cancelled. Somehow my sleeping self knew that I could sleep in.

Yes, there is a great deal of the paranormal that every single one of us must know about... well, except for those few guys that didn't sense the Sergeant off in the bushes. Oh, wait, maybe some guys could sense that if they did not turn around, they could get themselves out of some of the most dangerous duty of the War... going out in front to detect ambushes and land mines. yeah, these guys HAD TO BE Psychic, or they got killed.

primitive tribespeople are also apt to think that because a radio transmission is received through an amplifier, that the amplifier is the ultimate cause of the noise

So now you use this to try and establish a fact for your case, I think you had better give it up if this is the best analogy that you can think of.

But the distinction people make between worldly and occult knowledge is misleading in a number of ways. Even worldly knowledge has occult origins. For example, our speech is full of phrases like, "A wonderful idea came into my head," "An inspiration struck me," "It occurred to me," "Suddenly it was clear to me." Since childhood we've grown accustomed to the popping of ideas, inspirations and intuitive hunches into our everyday field of experience. Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension. And, as a further irony, with these ideas that spring from an occult source, we try to understand and explain the "everyday" world around us!

I DO think these experiences merely represent some kind of "intuitive" knowledge (by which I mean ideas worked out in the subconscious/unconcious that then rise to our conscious perception). They may appear "occult" in the sense that we don't currently understand how they work but there is a lot about mental activity that we don't understand. I certainly don't think there's anything supernatural about them.

So now you use this to try and establish a fact for your case, I think you had better give it up if this is the best analogy that you can think of.
I use it try and establish skepticism of your case actually

I don't think these experiences merely represent some kind of "intuitive" knowledge (by which I mean ideas worked out in the subconscious/unconcious that then rise to our conscious perception). They may appear "occult" in the sense that we don't currently understand how they work but there is a lot about mental activity that we don't understand. I certainly don't think there's anything supernatural about them.
occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a "mysterious" origin - of course we are apt to speculate on the nature of mystery (guessing is the occupation of the rationalist ), but that doesn't help us any in discerning where things come from (thus its commonly seen for one person's guess to be at odds with another)

occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a "mysterious" origin - of course we are apt to speculate on the nature of mystery (guessing is the occupation of the rationalist ), but that doesn't help us any in discerning where things come from (thus its commonly seen for one person's guess to be at odds with another)
And yet in your OP you state:
But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension. And, as a further irony, with these ideas that spring from an occult source, we try to understand and explain the "everyday" world around us!

So in fact all you are saying is "We don't know with 100% certainty where thoughts come from".

Yet you dress it up with words which you use with a different meaning: "occult" to mean "mysterious", and "mysterious" to mean "unknown".

By doing this you provoke arguments purely due to your usage of words that differs to everyone elses.
If you intend words to mean things other than the normal usage then state it up front, so that we know that what you really are saying is actually quite straightforward, and we can quickly cut through the swathes of verbosity that accompanies it.

Thanks.

Sarkus


Originally Posted by lightgigantic
occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a "mysterious" origin - of course we are apt to speculate on the nature of mystery (guessing is the occupation of the rationalist ), but that doesn't help us any in discerning where things come from (thus its commonly seen for one person's guess to be at odds with another)
”
And yet in your OP you state:
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension. And, as a further irony, with these ideas that spring from an occult source, we try to understand and explain the "everyday" world around us!
”
So in fact all you are saying is "We don't know with 100% certainty where thoughts come from".
erm - there's also the bit about how we use such thoughts in the pursuit of worldly knowledge, hence the chasm between occult and worldly knowledge is not quite so siignificant

Yet you dress it up with words which you use with a different meaning: "occult" to mean "mysterious", and "mysterious" to mean "unknown".
If a person said that "occult" means "unknown" that wouldn't strike me as controversial
:shrug:

oc·cult / Ñ J'kVlt; Ñ 'QkVlt; NAmE Ñ 'A;k-/ adjective 1[only before noun] connected with magic powers and things that cannot be explained by reason or science

erm - there's also the bit about how we use such thoughts in the pursuit of worldly knowledge, hence the chasm between occult and worldly knowledge is not quite so siignificantOkay - you're saying that we don't know with 100% certainty where thoughts originate, and we use thoughts in our pursuit of worldly knowledge, and thus so the chasm between the unknown and worldly knowledge is not quite so significant...

Doesn't really add anything to what is already known... i.e. that we don't know everything.

You're stating the obvious and trying to dress it up as something profound through usage of words that ignore their implications.

If a person said that "occult" means "unknown" that wouldn't strike me as controversialThat is but one element of the word, and ignores everything else it is connected with - i.e. the implications of the word.

If you want to avoid the implications just use the word "unknown" - it does it so much simpler and without controversy compared to "magic" and "occult".

Further, even using your particular usage, your claim is wrong:
There is no evidence to support that such things are "occult" - in that they defy rational explanation. You are making the standard mistake of assuming that lack of current scientific understanding is evidence to support your claims.

occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a "mysterious" origin - of course we are apt to speculate on the nature of mystery (guessing is the occupation of the rationalist ), but that doesn't help us any in discerning where things come from (thus its commonly seen for one person's guess to be at odds with another)

I apologize for a typo in my original post (it should have said DO not DON'T) and I do understand how you're using the word occult (although it may not be the best word since it has connotations today with the supernatural). I don't think anyone can argue that there are mental processes that we don't fully understand, which is not to say there is anything supernatural or paranormal about them, just that from a psychological perspective we don't understand why a person believes he/she can read someone else's mind. I suspect that may have to do with being able to pick up subtle communications via body language that aren't registering consciouslly but I don't know.

There was an interesting experiment done recently with "virtual reality" technology in which researchers induced an "out of body" experience showing that people can be "tricked" into believing that their body was somewhere "they" weren't. So that one previously occult experience that now be considered the product of a cognitive distortion.

Maxq

I apologize for a typo in my original post (it should have said DO not DON'T) and I do understand how you're using the word occult (although it may not be the best word since it has connotations today with the supernatural). I don't think anyone can argue that there are mental processes that we don't fully understand, which is not to say there is anything supernatural or paranormal about them, just that from a psychological perspective we don't understand why a person believes he/she can read someone else's mind. I suspect that may have to do with being able to pick up subtle communications via body language that aren't registering consciouslly but I don't know.

There was an interesting experiment done recently with "virtual reality" technology in which researchers induced an "out of body" experience showing that people can be "tricked" into believing that their body was somewhere "they" weren't. So that one previously occult experience that now be considered the product of a cognitive distortion.
the problem is that rationalism cannot deliver anything conclusive - for instance there may be one suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with virtual reality - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with chemicals in the brain - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with behavior of culture and society.
To work out whether these guesses are true or completely left of third base requires direct perception, and that is something that rationalism cannot deliver.
IOW rationalism is commonly taken as a crutch to navigate past the narrow aperture of empiricism, but it is in no way authoritative since it is completely unable to arrive at a consensus – even in a million years

for instance there may be one suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with virtual reality - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with chemicals in the brain - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with behavior of culture and society.
To work out whether these guesses are true or completely left of third base requires direct perception, and that is something that rationalism cannot deliver.

In this instance, determining which of these "guesses", as you put it, is true is determinable by objective inquiry, and does not require the subjective "direct perception" you think it does.

JamesR

“
for instance there may be one suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with virtual reality - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with chemicals in the brain - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with behavior of culture and society.
To work out whether these guesses are true or completely left of third base requires direct perception, and that is something that rationalism cannot deliver.
”
In this instance, determining which of these "guesses", as you put it, is true is determinable by objective inquiry, and does not require the subjective "direct perception" you think it does.
and what is that "objective inquiry"?
It can't be empiricism, since empiricism cannot even properly come to terms with an "in body experience" what to speak of an "out of body" one
apart from rationalism, what other tools do you think they have to determine such "objective inquiries"?

It can indeed be "empiricism" in all but one of your three possibilities:

1. out-of-body experiences are a type of "virtual reality".
2. out-of-body experiences are due to chemicals in the brain.
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.

In case 2, for example, all we need to do is to compare the brains of people who have out-of-body experiences with those who do not, and see if there are any chemical differences.

In case 3, we compare one culture with another and see if we can discern differences in the frequency or features of the out-of-body experiences that people claim to have.

It is difficult to see how we could investigate case 1 scientifically, since if we are all living in a virtual world, nothing we could do could prove that. (I'm assuming that's what you're asserting.)

1. out-of-body experiences are a type of "virtual reality".
2. out-of-body experiences are due to chemicals in the brain.
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.

...

It is difficult to see how we could investigate case 1 scientifically, since if we are all living in a virtual world, nothing we could do could prove that. (I'm assuming that's what you're asserting.)Isn't case 1 is merely a cause for case 2.
Case 2 will be able to tell the neurological / chemical interactions within the brain - but not necessarily the cause.

So I don't actually see the 3 cases as being mutually exclusive.
If anything, 1 and 3 are possibly exclusive, but what needs to be tested is only case 2.
After that you merely need to find the cause.

James R

It can indeed be "empiricism" in all but one of your three possibilities:

1. out-of-body experiences are a type of "virtual reality".
2. out-of-body experiences are due to chemicals in the brain.
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.

In case 2, for example, all we need to do is to compare the brains of people who have out-of-body experiences with those who do not, and see if there are any chemical differences.
and how would that eliminate the possibility that the chemical is the effect and not the cause of an out of body experience?
(given current empirical understandings of how the consciousness is situated even in this body)

In case 3, we compare one culture with another and see if we can discern differences in the frequency or features of the out-of-body experiences that people claim to have.
empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation - there are too many factors already in operation (and in the process of operating) that make any attempt of an objective control group or stance of objective analysis futile - that is why a greater part of psychology is termed "soft science"
its the nature of soft sciences to never be able to come to a consensus (how many differing models of psychological analysis are there?

It is difficult to see how we could investigate case 1 scientifically, since if we are all living in a virtual world, nothing we could do could prove that. (I'm assuming that's what you're asserting.)
empiricism and rationalism has no scope to penetrate behind the screen of a virtual world - BTW its interesting to note that in all these fictions about persons battling their way out of a virtual world, they owe their success to someone or something that is not entangled in that virtuality (as opposed to relying on their own powers of rationalism and empiricism)....

and how would that eliminate the possibility that the chemical is the effect and not the cause of an out of body experience?
(given current empirical understandings of how the consciousness is situated even in this body)You would need to replicate the chemical changes / imbalances / whatnot - and see if this invokes an "out of body experience". The fact that this can not be done yet is irrelevant.

empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation - there are too many factors already in operation Drivel - it goes on all the time.
We have observations of death rates, health rates etc through statistics.
We review the social, environmental differences etc.
We establish theory (e.g. Olive oil is healthier than other oils - or red wine, in moderation, is good for you) and then use that theory for prediction (e.g. further sub-theories of the "why" which are borne out by further studies).

Moved to the appropriate forum.

I know i am usually pro-psychophysics, but i think that out of body experiences are just an illusion of the mind with a lack of air.

Nothing can be treated with greater contempt than that which is the credulous naivety of the mystic or woo-woo.
Nothing lies outside of the scientific consensus, and if you think otherwise im afraid youve misunderstood the process of scientific enquiry altogether.

Thats simply not true. Physics displays many strange paradoxes concerning consciousness. It is also known to defy all known quantum physical laws.

Dennett is all hot air.

lightgigantic:

and how would that eliminate the possibility that the chemical is the effect and not the cause of an out of body experience?

If the only physical correlate of an out-of-body experience is chemical changes in the brain, Occam's razor suggests we should account for the former as a result of the latter, and not vice versa.

empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation - there are too many factors already in operation (and in the process of operating) that make any attempt of an objective control group or stance of objective analysis futile - that is why a greater part of psychology is termed "soft science"
its the nature of soft sciences to never be able to come to a consensus (how many differing models of psychological analysis are there?

I can't imagine what all those sociologists, economists, psychologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists etc. etc. do all day.

Perhaps you should inform them that empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation. They are obviously all wasting their time.

empiricism and rationalism has no scope to penetrate behind the screen of a virtual world

And neither does anything else.

Sarkus

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and how would that eliminate the possibility that the chemical is the effect and not the cause of an out of body experience?
(given current empirical understandings of how the consciousness is situated even in this body)
”
You would need to replicate the chemical changes / imbalances / whatnot - and see if this invokes an "out of body experience". The fact that this can not be done yet is irrelevant.
the fact that it cannot be done indicates the fact that it cannot be done

“
empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation - there are too many factors already in operation
”
Drivel - it goes on all the time.
We have observations of death rates, health rates etc through statistics.
thus things like death and health are noted through aspects of biological observation as opposed to culture

We review the social, environmental differences etc.
but without a control group, such social positing cannot deliver anything but relative information

We establish theory (e.g. Olive oil is healthier than other oils - or red wine, in moderation, is good for you)
all through the agency of empirical analysis of matter and not culture

and then use that theory for prediction (e.g. further sub-theories of the "why" which are borne out by further studies).
lol - which is where the whole thing becomes more messy than a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackers

JamesR

“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
and how would that eliminate the possibility that the chemical is the effect and not the cause of an out of body experience?
”
If the only physical correlate of an out-of-body experience is chemical changes in the brain, Occam's razor suggests we should account for the former as a result of the latter, and not vice versa.
not necessarily
for instance a person may smile every time when they see the sun in the morning
does that mean every time they smile they are seeing the sun?

the only way you could answer that is if you had clear perception of both the person smiling and the sun - two ended evidence - both the cause and the effect are visible

In this case, you have one ended evidence since the nature of an out of body experience cannot be properly ascertained any differently from an everyday in body experience

IOW how would you test whether there is any difference between a person dreaming that they had an out of body experience and a person having an actual out of body experience (unless you want to presuppose that all out of body experiences are dreams, which would make it a type I error)

“
empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation - there are too many factors already in operation (and in the process of operating) that make any attempt of an objective control group or stance of objective analysis futile - that is why a greater part of psychology is termed "soft science"
its the nature of soft sciences to never be able to come to a consensus (how many differing models of psychological analysis are there?
”
I can't imagine what all those sociologists, economists, psychologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists etc. etc. do all day.


Perhaps you should inform them that empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation. They are obviously all wasting their time.

the basis of soft science is rationalism and empiricism is secondary
in hard science, its the opposite

emiricism is limited by what we can see
rationalism is limited by what we deem as logical

“
empiricism and rationalism has no scope to penetrate behind the screen of a virtual world
”
And neither does anything else.
for one who views their mind ans senses as the worshipable absolute, most certainly

the fact that it cannot be done indicates the fact that it cannot be doneStrawman fallacy.
I said, quite clearly, "the fact that it can nod be done YET" (important word empahsised by me because you obviously missed it).
Or are you saying that current inability to do something means that it cannot be done? :eek:

but without a control group, such social positing cannot deliver anything but relative informationAnd why is relative information irrelevant?
Further - please indicate where it is possible to get a "control group" - i.e. untouched by culture of any sort (and I don't mean the Americans :D).
It is for this reason I suggest you look at system engineering, the changing of multiple variables and how mere "relative information" can be used to pinpoint key drivers, linked effects and far more.

all through the agency of empirical analysis of matter and not culture:rolleyes:
Please indicate a "cultural observation" that is NOT an observation of matter. Maybe we can then progress.

lol - which is where the whole thing becomes more messy than a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackersMessy for who? For you, obviously, as you clearly fail to understand science. But to who else? To those doing the studies?

And why is a football stadium (as described) "messy"?

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
the fact that it cannot be done indicates the fact that it cannot be done
”
Strawman fallacy.
I said, quite clearly, "the fact that it can nod be done YET" (important word empahsised by me because you obviously missed it).
Or are you saying that current inability to do something means that it cannot be done?
I am saying that positing post dated checks is not an ethical practice of either commerce or intelligent discussion (outside of discussions of fiction)

“
but without a control group, such social positing cannot deliver anything but relative information
”
And why is relative information irrelevant?
because dying involves issues outside of such irrelevancy

Further - please indicate where it is possible to get a "control group" - i.e. untouched by culture of any sort (and I don't mean the Americans ).
that is precisely the problem for persons such as yourself who want to advocate

3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.

It is for this reason I suggest you look at system engineering, the changing of multiple variables and how mere "relative information" can be used to pinpoint key drivers, linked effects and far more.
taking something relative to a region that is slightly less relative still makes it relative I am afraid

“
all through the agency of empirical analysis of matter and not culture
”

Please indicate a "cultural observation" that is NOT an observation of matter. Maybe we can then progress.
decisions on social policy rarely involve discussions of atoms and protons

“
lol - which is where the whole thing becomes more messy than a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackers
”
Messy for who?
anyone watching, and provided the persons involved are not completely enthralled by their activities, also the participants

For you, obviously, as you clearly fail to understand science. But to who else? To those doing the studies?
there are many examples
For instance try resolving whether the big bang theory should be reworked or axed in favour of something else in the association of astronomers ....


And why is a football stadium (as described) "messy"?
its not so much the stadium but the people in in "letting rip" with their "explosive devices"
:D

I am saying that positing post dated checks is not an ethical practice of either commerce or intelligent discussion (outside of discussions of fiction)Eh? You have something to learn of rationality.
Repeat after me...
"If something is not possible YET, it does not mean that it is absolutely not possible."
Until you learn this you will seemingly get tangled in irrationalities.

because dying involves issues outside of such irrelevancy
...
that is precisely the problem for persons such as yourself who want to advocate.
...
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.[/I]
...
taking something relative to a region that is slightly less relative still makes it relative I am afraidAnd I again suggest you go and study up on engineering process analysis.
Until you can adequately demonstrate that you have done there is little point in you discussing such things, as you are clearly unwilling to accept even the possibility that you are wrong.

decisions on social policy rarely involve discussions of atoms and protonsStrawman fallacy. :rolleyes:
To make observations of the material one rarely needs to discuss atoms and protons. You know this. You are thus being deliberately pathetic.
Or do you discuss molecules, atoms, protons etc every time you open your eyes?

Decisions on social policy are ALL about the material. Please feel free to try to come up with a social policy that is not.

anyone watching, and provided the persons involved are not completely enthralled by their activities, also the participantsReally? You asked them all? Wow.

there are many examples
For instance try resolving whether the big bang theory should be reworked or axed in favour of something else in the association of astronomers ....How is that messy?
It is merely two (or more) branches looking at the same observations and trying to come up with reasonable hypotheses.
There is no "mess" at all.

All you seem to be doing is projecting your own preconceptions and interpretations onto subjects you really don't have a clue about.


its not so much the stadium but the people in in "letting rip" with their "explosive devices"Again... why "messy"? You have not yet explained WHY it is messy - only clarified what you think is messy.

Looks like we are talking about Psychology and clinical Psychology. So why is this in Pseudoscience?

[QUOTE=lightgigantic;1551642] Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension. [QUOTE]

They "pop" out of our own minds/brains. If we weren't thinking about something then nothing would "pop".

sarkus
“
Originally Posted by lightgigantic
I am saying that positing post dated checks is not an ethical practice of either commerce or intelligent discussion (outside of discussions of fiction)
”
Eh? You have something to learn of rationality.
Repeat after me...
"If something is not possible YET, it does not mean that it is absolutely not possible."
Until you learn this you will seemingly get tangled in irrationalities.
so I guess it must also be equally tenable that you may possibly come to the understanding in the future that it is not possible
(or is it only you who has the authority to dish out post dated checks to your whim?)

“
because dying involves issues outside of such irrelevancy
...
that is precisely the problem for persons such as yourself who want to advocate.
...
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.[/i]
...
taking something relative to a region that is slightly less relative still makes it relative I am afraid
”
And I again suggest you go and study up on engineering process analysis.
Until you can adequately demonstrate that you have done there is little point in you discussing such things, as you are clearly unwilling to accept even the possibility that you are wrong.
and until you can explain why psychological investigations of culture still remain a soft science, even in the light of engineering, it appears you are just throwing in red herrings

“
decisions on social policy rarely involve discussions of atoms and protons
”
Strawman fallacy.
To make observations of the material one rarely needs to discuss atoms and protons. You know this. You are thus being deliberately pathetic.
Or do you discuss molecules, atoms, protons etc every time you open your eyes?

Decisions on social policy are ALL about the material. Please feel free to try to come up with a social policy that is not.
I can show you a rubber ball
I can also show you a tea spoon
Can you show me a justice?
:D

“
anyone watching, and provided the persons involved are not completely enthralled by their activities, also the participants
”
Really? You asked them all? Wow.
I guess I just interpreted the lack of consensus
:D

“
there are many examples
For instance try resolving whether the big bang theory should be reworked or axed in favour of something else in the association of astronomers ....
”
How is that messy?
It is merely two (or more) branches looking at the same observations and trying to come up with reasonable hypotheses.
There is no "mess" at all.
I guess it depends whether you hold contradiction within two or more hypothesis's as an obstacle in the pursuit of the reasonable ...

All you seem to be doing is projecting your own preconceptions and interpretations onto subjects you really don't have a clue about.
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htm

or even more closer to home (http://www.google.com.au/search?as_q=plasma+%22big+bang%22&hl=en&num=10&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=sciforums.com&as_rights=&safe=images)

:shrug:


“
its not so much the stadium but the people in in "letting rip" with their "explosive devices"
”
Again... why "messy"? You have not yet explained WHY it is messy - only clarified what you think is messy.
if ten different people have ten different opinions and change their minds on ten different occasions each, we have a mess

Thus we take it for granted. But the plain fact is that they pop up out of an unknown dimension.

They "pop" out of our own minds/brains. If we weren't thinking about something then nothing would "pop".
I guess the occult mystery is arrived at when trying to bridge the "before" and "after" of such states

Looks like we are talking about Psychology and clinical Psychology. So why is this in Pseudoscience?
Originally it was posted in one of the other forums but some mod who shall remain anonymous decided that the use of the word occult is an instant indication where such a thread should be directed

so I guess it must also be equally tenable that you may possibly come to the understanding in the future that it is not possible
(or is it only you who has the authority to dish out post dated checks to your whim?)Absolutely - but until it is known FOR CERTAIN that it is not possible, it remains a possibility.
You appear to take current inability as absolute inability - a logical fallacy that I will continue to point out to you for as long as I spot you doing it.

and until you can explain why psychological investigations of culture still remain a soft science, even in the light of engineering, it appears you are just throwing in red herringsWho said anything about psychological investigations. I'm talking about observations of societies. One can delve into the psychological whys and wherefores to one's heart's content - but the observations are STILL evidence of the material and can subject to the same scientific method.

I can show you a rubber ball
I can also show you a tea spoon
Can you show me a justice?If you first define it - and to do so would require material.

I guess it depends whether you hold contradiction within two or more hypothesis's as an obstacle in the pursuit of the reasonable ...Where's the contradiction of which you speak?
There may well be a contradiction in interpretation - that further study will help remove, but not in the underlying facts, observations and evidence.

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/bigbang.htmAgain, you happily confuse scientists with the scientific method.
Scientists have their own agenda (e.g. funding sources, egos etc) that often inhibit the scientific method from being used correctly.

So, there is competing theories... so what?
None of it disputes the known evidence - only questions the earlier moments than we can trace back to.
I'm sorry, LG, but your examples just do not support your arguments.

:shrug:


if ten different people have ten different opinions and change their minds on ten different occasions each, we have a messPlease don't change the analogy, or further clarify what you mean by "messy". You mentioned the football stadium with firecrackers - now please explain why you think this is "messy"?

Or is this just another "throw in a seemingly-clever analogy and hope noone questions it and realises it's actually pretty rubbish" attempt by you?
:shrug:

Sarkus

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
so I guess it must also be equally tenable that you may possibly come to the understanding in the future that it is not possible
(or is it only you who has the authority to dish out post dated checks to your whim?)
”
Absolutely - but until it is known FOR CERTAIN that it is not possible, it remains a possibility.
the problem is that your favoured method of knowledge (empiricism and rationalism) has no scope for certain knowledge - thus if you want to open the game to post dated checks we can say anything - eg - in the future we may come to know that the moon is actually made of cheese


You appear to take current inability as absolute inability - a logical fallacy that I will continue to point out to you for as long as I spot you doing it.
and your fallacy is you assume
- empiricism/rationalism is a medium that can approach absolute knowledge
- there is no methodology to ascertaining theistic claims

“
and until you can explain why psychological investigations of culture still remain a soft science, even in the light of engineering, it appears you are just throwing in red herrings
”
Who said anything about psychological investigations.
if not psychology what else?
geology?

I'm talking about observations of societies.
and more specifically, the cultural norms or values that under ride their function

One can delve into the psychological whys and wherefores to one's heart's content - but the observations are STILL evidence of the material and can subject to the same scientific method.
its not clear what observations you are talking about to determine the extent of cultural influences on near death experiences

“
I can show you a rubber ball
I can also show you a tea spoon
Can you show me a justice?
”
If you first define it - and to do so would require material.

The administration of law; the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments

good luck in showing what it is through arrangements of dull matter


“
I guess it depends whether you hold contradiction within two or more hypothesis's as an obstacle in the pursuit of the reasonable ...
”
Where's the contradiction of which you speak?
the big bang theory and plasma cosmology are two different theories on the origins of the universe

There may well be a contradiction in interpretation - that further study will help remove, but not in the underlying facts, observations and evidence.
and in the meantime, we have contention - namely should the big bang theory be reworked or should it be scrapped in favour of an alternative suggestion

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.o...es/bigbang.htmAgain, you happily confuse scientists with the scientific method.
Scientists have their own agenda (e.g. funding sources, egos etc) that often inhibit the scientific method from being used correctly.

So, there is competing theories... so what?
so what?
so if I tell you that I was born in ireland and later tell you I was born in japan and some time later tell you I was born in Nepal, it doesn't raise issues about what the hell I am talking about?
You wouldn't begin to think that i was talking nonsense or had no real clear idea where I was born?

None of it disputes the known evidence - only questions the earlier moments than we can trace back to.
I'm sorry, LG, but your examples just do not support your arguments.
the whole issue about speculative theories of science is that they are not actual observations of evidence but rather interpretations of evidence
This only becomes messy when persons such as yourself artificially give such speculations the status of empirical facts


“
if ten different people have ten different opinions and change their minds on ten different occasions each, we have a mess
”
Please don't change the analogy, or further clarify what you mean by "messy". You mentioned the football stadium with firecrackers - now please explain why you think this is "messy"?

Or is this just another "throw in a seemingly-clever analogy and hope noone questions it and realises it's actually pretty rubbish" attempt by you?
I guess it requires a bit of imagination
I can't say that I have seen a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackers
probably due to the extremely cacophonous nature of such an event .....
:D