Evidence of miracles.

Mountainmike · Jan 4, 2022

Ophiolite said:
But seriously, science provides a model of reality. How do you propose getting closer to an understanding of reality than that.

Easy. Just note that science is an observation model in our sensor space. It models what we observe the universe normally does. Not what it actually IS. The distinction is *huge*. Not only that. U.K. our observations are also limited to our senses. So only a shadow ( in platos terms), not the universe itself.

The observation model cannot rule out occasional discrepancy of the universe from the model. But the culture of assuming the model is what the universe *is* not what it normally *does* constrains the universe to only doing what the model predicts. The universe has no such constraint.

Nor is there a philosophical imperative that it is even possible to model the universe with a single deterministic model. Even hawking - him Of the “ model of everything “ ultimately accepted that with “ model dependent reality”. Few noticed the * massive* fundamental philosophical change in his belief. He finally got it. It took him a career.

Scientific realism - the false philosophy the model IS the universe is now spreading like wildfire amongst those taught science increasingly badly by teachers who in essence don’t understand it.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 4, 2022

AV1611VET said:
No, the dragon in your garage is not a miracle; nor is it an example of one.

Even Carl Sagan didn't call it a miracle.

He said his was a made-up story, as an example of skeptical thinking.

I was talking about the miraculous dragon in my garage.

Astrid · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Easy. Just note that science is an observation model in our sensor space. It models what we observe the universe normally does. Not what it actually IS. The distinction is *huge*.

The observation model cannot rule out occasional discrepancy of the universe from the model. But the culture of assuming the model is what the universe *is* not what it normally *does* constrains the universe to only doing what the model predicts. The universe has no such constraint.

Nor is there a philosophical imperative that it is even possible to model the universe with a single deterministic model. Even hawking - him Of the “ model of everything “ ultimately accepted that with “ model dependent reality”. Few noticed the * massive* fundamental philosophical change in his belief. He finally got it. It took him a career.

Scientific realism - the false philosophy the model IS the universe is now spreading like wildfire amongst those taught science increasingly badly by teachers who in essence don’t understand it.

Speaking of those who dont understand science.

Many would- be critics of science like to talk about
" philosophy", for lo, it provideth a rabbit hole down which
their nonsense can never be successfully pursued.

Astrid · Jan 4, 2022

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
I was talking about the miraculous dragon in my garage.

Euro or Chinese?

Mountainmike · Jan 4, 2022

You haven’t seen evidence , of that I am sure.
Because you refuse to even let yourself look.
So you have no idea what it contains or the many medical professors who validated it.

You didn’t follow up either this case , or those who ran the process.
So you won’t know how tough the process is. Or the criteria it must pass.

The X-ray before and after should at least have made you wonder.

If you had studied you would have found it reviewed in CMA the equivalent of lancet in Canada.

If you refuse to look - Your opinions can only be apriori prejudice.
“ Common sense “ as Einstein said is a net sum ot prejudice.
Typical (faith based) a priori sceptic.

Estrid said:
We've not seen any evidence, supernatural or
otherwise that you've a clue about science.

Many would be critics of science like to talk about
" philosophy", for lo, provideth a rabbit hole down which
their nonsense can never be successfully pursued.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
Only when you dictate the form of the paranormal.

Consciousness is experiential. It is how you account and rationalise experience.

There are many experiences occurring between twins, or indeed NDE
That are hard to explain, hard to discount.

Take twins sensing /a catastrophe in each other’s lives , later confirmed.

Take the emergency ward experience that got Greyson into analysing NDE.

How did a patient with a non functioning cortex describe a mark on his tie, or his conversation with another in a different part of the building?

These don’t fit the “ on demand pattern” needed for lab repeats.
The fact some “ on demand tests” don’t show repeatable results or that evidence for others is experiential / anecdotal does not invalidate the evidence of out of body consciousness.

If the experiences are inexplicable for guess by random chance and the OBE occurs with a non functioning cortex, it clearly challenges consciousness as a chemical brain function.

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.

When there are a number of mundane potential explanations for anecdotal phenomena, credence for an extraordinary claim should be low - until more reliable confirming or disconfirming evidence becomes available.

The point of the increasingly rigorous controls and blinds in scientific experimental methodologies is that humans are extremely susceptible to cognitive biases that can distort all stages of the work. The effects of these biases have been particularly well demonstrated for autobiographical recall, and the distortions become worse with every recalling or retelling.

I've already posted links to a number of articles describing these effects, with examples - see #58.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 4, 2022

Estrid said:
Euro or Chinese?

African.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 4, 2022

Estrid said:
Speaking of those who dont understand science.

Many would- be critics of science like to talk about
" philosophy", for lo, it provideth a rabbit hole down which
their nonsense can never be successfully pursued.

More often than not, the philosophy of science itself contradicts them.

Clizby WampusCat · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
I’ve explained the philosophical limits of what it is possible for science to state. Its a limitation of science not the universe. Science is a blunt tool based on things that repeat not exceptions. Science has little to say until and if it repeats.

And I have agreed that science has limitations. But you cannot use those limitations as sufficient evidence that miracles do happen.

You Suggest a change to the model that:
1/ keeps deterministic, causal , objective , forward time arrow
2/ That also allows prediction of precise weather six months ahead,exact time / date?
3/ A weather pattern unknown to science , not repeated since
Occurring at the time prophesied was stated so “ all will believe”

Or state how it was fraudulent?

I don't need to do anything. You are the one claiming that miracles happen. I just don't think your evidences are sufficient because of the flaws I have already stated in them. I am not stating the miracles cannot happen, just that there is not sufficient evidence to believe that they do happen.

Hans Blaster · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
As a guy who passed a 4 sigma IQ test, I despair of the lack of critical thinking on this forum and sceptics generally.

IQ test, whatever.

Must not have had a spelling/grammar/punctuation section.

Mountainmike · Jan 4, 2022

But what if the phenomenon itself is not under subject control? No amount of repeat blind testing will find it.

Anecdotal evidence is harder to verify, unless it contains exact details that the subject cannot have known.

The entire phenomenon of consciousness is the fact of experiencing the environment or universe. That is what it means

Therefore the entire documentation of consciousness is recording anecdotal experience however unsatisfactory that is.

It is also subjective. It is no longer testing the ( repeatable ) behaviour of an object, it is recording the experience of a subject.

With an inactive brain cortex ( nde) clearly that cannot be controlled or influenced.

The science of repeat testing is based on “things” not “ beings” , so a new science is needed for consciousness that thinks differently about evidence.

If someone can claim a unique experience of a remote time or place, with enough detail , and it can be Demonstrated that physically they can’t have been there, and none can have related it to them, that’s evidence of consciousness there -
Not simply a dismissible anecdote. The evidence is more compelling the more others experience similar.

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'.

When there are a number of mundane potential explanations for anecdotal phenomena, credence for an extraordinary claim should be low - until more reliable confirming or disconfirming evidence becomes available.

The point of the increasingly rigorous controls and blinds in scientific experimental methodologies is that humans are extremely susceptible to cognitive biases that can distort all stages of the work. The effects of these biases have been particularly well demonstrated for autobiographical recall, and the distortions become worse with every recalling or retelling.

I've already posted links to a number of articles describing these effects, with examples - see #58.

Mountainmike · Jan 4, 2022

Clizby WampusCat said:
just that there is not sufficient evidence to believe that they do happen.

That’s a clever conclusion, since you clearly are not studying evidence!

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
But what if the phenomenon itself is not under subject control? No amount of repeat blind testing will find it.

Anecdotal evidence is harder to verify, unless it contains exact details that the subject cannot have known.

The entire phenomenon of consciousness is the fact of experiencing the environment or universe. That is what it means

Therefore the entire documentation of consciousness is recording anecdotal experience however unsatisfactory that is.

It is also subjective. It is no longer testing the behaviour of an object, it is recording the experience of a subject. With an inactive brain cortex ( nde) clearly that cannot be controlled or influenced.

The science of repeat testing is based on “things” not “ beings” , so a new science is needed that thinks differently.

If someone can claim a unique experience of a remote time or place, with enough detail , and it can be Demonstrated that physically they can’t have been there, and none can have related it to them, that’s evidence of consciousness there -
Not simply a dismissible anecdote. The evidence is more compelling the more others experience similar.

No-one is dismissing anecdotes - they are simply the weakest form of evidence. If extraordinary anecdotal claims cannot be tested or supported by more reliable evidence, they must remain unsubstantiated claims. As I mentioned previously, if there are potential mundane explanations for such claims, they will be preferred, for obvious reasons.

The problems of subjectivity you describe above are part of the reason that gold-standard scientific methodology includes controls, blinding, and independent replication.

E.T.A. As to descriptions of unique remote times and/or places that could not be obtained by known means, I've yet to see unequivocal and well-documented evidence of such reports. From dowsing to prophesy, telepathy, NDEs/OBEs, and remote viewing, most of what I've seen involves questionable interpretations and poorly controlled and blinded experimental contexts. I became skeptical of such claims well before I learned of the science that contradicts them.

Clizby WampusCat · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
That’s a clever conclusion, since you clearly are not studying evidence!

I have given you my reasons that I think your evidence is insufficient and flawed. You are not responding to my objections, instead you just tell me I am not studying the evidence. You seem to think that unless I come to the same conclusion as you then I am not studying the evidence, that is flawed thinking in itself.

Astrid · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
You haven’t seen evidence , of that I am sure.
Because you refuse to even let yourself look.
So you have no idea what it contains or the many medical professors who validated it.

You didn’t follow up either this case , or those who ran the process.
So you won’t know how tough the process is. Or the criteria it must pass.

The X-ray before and after should at least have made you wonder.

If you had studied you would have found it reviewed in CMA the equivalent of lancet in Canada.

If you refuse to look - Your opinions can only be apriori prejudice.
“ Common sense “ as Einstein said is a net sum ot prejudice.
Typical (faith based) a priori sceptic.

As if i could be goaded into answering such nonsense

Clizby WampusCat · Jan 4, 2022

Estrid said:
As if i could be goaded into answering such nonsense

You are a stronger person than I. I get sucked in.

Astrid · Jan 4, 2022

Clizby WampusCat said:
You are a stronger person than I. I get sucked in.

Im ok with giving a person one chance

SelfSim · Jan 4, 2022

Mountainmike said:
.. Anecdotal evidence is harder to verify, unless it contains exact details that the subject cannot have known.

The entire phenomenon of consciousness is the fact of experiencing the environment or universe. That is what it means.

Therefore the entire documentation of consciousness is recording anecdotal experience however unsatisfactory that is.

We all experience what we mean by consciousness, the environment and the universe. That's what makes them objective.

Mountainmike said:
It is also subjective. It is no longer testing the behaviour of an object, it is recording the experience of a subject.

The in-common experiences of many subjects is the very basis for how we assign the meaning of the word: 'objective'.

Mountainmike said:
The science of repeat testing is based on “things” not “ beings” , so a new science is needed that thinks differently.

.. and that new 'thinking' you refer to there, leads us to the exact same conclusion and process you're arguing against ..

Mountainmike · Jan 4, 2022

Estrid said:
As if i could be goaded into answering such nonsense

Hardly nonsense. It is the only viable conclusion from your stated refusal to study the evidence!

Mountainmike · Jan 4, 2022

SelfSim said:
We all experience what we mean by consciousness, the environment and the universe. That's what makes them objective.

The in-common experiences of many subjects is the very basis for how we assign the meaning of the word: 'objective'.

.. and that new 'thinking' you refer to there, leads us to the exact same conclusion and process you're arguing against ..

We are hopping between issues.

The cure I introduced stands or falls on medical evidence, the criteria imposed which are almost impassable , the robust process of investigation ,and the authority of the many medical professors who signed off the case. No votes against. People would be amazed if they studied that process as I urge them to do. That is test of evidence which can be objective.

Frumious and I have previously locked horns on consciousness itself. That is the experience of a subject. In order to determine whether consciousness is confined to the brain, or an NDE or OBE or for example whether twins sense catastrophic events in each others lives the ONLY possible evidence is anecdotal. These experiences cannot be assumed to be possible to be conducted “ on demand”, for a double blind trial.

Evidence of miracles.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Raised by bees

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency