Your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc?

[Sanoy]

OK. I think we've reached an impasse.

The impasse is determinism, your belief in that undercuts your ability to express true meaning to others, and sadly to those that you love privately as well. But you can change your belief, because determinism is false.

 

[pitabread]

What is your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc? I realize that many people think these topics are laughable, but there are probably others who have experienced them (whatever they are). So what do you think is the explanation for this stuff?

I think in many cases they represent real experiences which are misattributed to the wrong thing (e.g. ghosts, aliens, etc). Rather, I think the experiences themselves have more mundane explanations.

I believe that hypnagogic and hypnopompic hallucinations among other sleep-related phenomena account for quite a number of these experiences.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The impasse is determinism, your belief in that undercuts your ability to express true meaning to others, and sadly to those that you love privately as well.

No, I don't think so; and lol! thanks for the psychoanalysis

But you can change your belief, because determinism is false.

Sure; if the evidence changes, if what I observe does not appear to be consistent with determinism (quantum uncertainty apart), I'd be happy to change my opinion of what is the most likely explanation. We can all be mistaken, even about the most fundamental aspects of our lives.

I suspect that you, on the other hand, are certain in your belief. Good luck with that

 

[Sanoy]

No, I don't think so; and lol! thanks for the psychoanalysis

Sure; if the evidence changes, if what I observe does not appear to be consistent with determinism (quantum uncertainty apart), I'd be happy to change my opinion of what is the most likely explanation. We can all be mistaken, even about the most fundamental aspects of our lives.

I suspect that you, on the other hand, are certain in your belief. Good luck with that

Well I have been asking you to justify the things you have said under determinism and you have not been able to do so. The best you came up with was ""If determinism is true, and I hold the opinion that it is probably true, then my opinion is correct.". Can't really do much with that.

You say that "I'd be happy to change my opinion". That should be some trick under determinism! Or is this another example of the what you said earlier... "I know the world is deterministic, but I continue to live as if it isn't." If so I continue to find no meaning in anything you say.

 

[Sanoy]

That wasn't an attempt to justify determinism, it was pointing out a flaw in the point it responded to.

That seems to be what you're failing to grasp - what I think is the best explanation can change, whether determinism is true or not; it just takes the appearance of evidence I find compelling. That's the point - subjective experience is the same, determinism or no.

That's a non-sequitur. My opinions don't, in themselves, make my comments or arguments more or less logical or valid.

Well if that wasn't an attempt to justify determinism, which is what I have been asking you for, then I guess we are down to 0 Justification. So I'll ask you again. What is your justification for determinsim? And be consistent with your "belief" in it when you respond. If you have no justification then I don't really know what to do with anything you say.

The problem with the statement "I'd be happy to change my opinion" is that "I" which is inconsistent with determinism. You don't change your opinion, the ingredients that make up your body and the environment do. You have lived such an inconsistent life in respect to the things you claim that you can't quite remember what you can and can't do.

The problem with your opinions is that they have no justification to be valid. They are no different than watching a game of pool at a Billiard. On top of that you don't live your life consistently with determinism and often use the language from my world view. So I can't sort out anything you say, and even if I could, it wouldn't have any value towards knowledge of anything. So yeah, it follows quite well that I can find no meaning in your words. You could begin to fix that by providing a justification, but at this point I think you know that doesn't exist. Which makes it odd that you remain commited to determinsim, well at least within this conversation. I have hopes you will consider living a consistent life by rejecting determism privately though.

 

[RealityCheck01]

What is your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc? I realize that many people think these topics are laughable, but there are probably others who have experienced them (whatever they are). So what do you think is the explanation for this stuff?

They are mostly illusion, a few delusions and some fakes. We want to give causes to unknown events and so we see Venus and call it a UFO, hear a house settling and we have a ghost, etc.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well if that wasn't an attempt to justify determinism, which is what I have been asking you for, then I guess we are down to 0 Justification. So I'll ask you again. What is your justification for determinsim? And be consistent with your "belief" in it when you respond. If you have no justification then I don't really know what to do with anything you say.

I don't know what more to tell you - I'm not a strict determinist, as I said, our semi-classical macro world is emergent from stochastic quantum uncertainty, but it is clearly effectively deterministic; if there was a significant amount of randomness, matter would be unstable, there would be no reliable laws of physics to derive, and complex systems (e.g. life) would be impossible. Even the minimal influence of the hypothetical 'spirit' you propose is a causal influence.

The problem with the statement "I'd be happy to change my opinion" is that "I" which is inconsistent with determinism. You don't change your opinion, the ingredients that make up your body and the environment do.

The ingredients that make up my body and the processes they support, structured by their interactions with the environment, are what makes me - and my opinions. That's not a problem.

... you don't live your life consistently with determinism and often use the language from my world view.

I've already explained this. Everyone lives a life consistent with determinism in as much as it is deterministic, they just don't exclusively use that framework to describe their experiences, especially their sense of agency.

I fail to see how more randomness makes a worldview any more acceptable.

 

[Sanoy]

I don't know what more to tell you - I'm not a strict determinist, as I said, our semi-classical macro world is emergent from stochastic quantum uncertainty, but it is clearly effectively deterministic; if there was a significant amount of randomness, matter would be unstable, there would be no reliable laws of physics to derive, and complex systems (e.g. life) would be impossible. Even the minimal influence of the hypothetical 'spirit' you propose is a causal influence.

The ingredients that make up my body and the processes they support, structured by their interactions with the environment, are what makes me - and my opinions. That's not a problem.

I've already explained this. Everyone lives a life consistent with determinism in as much as it is deterministic, they just don't exclusively use that framework to describe their experiences, especially their sense of agency.

I fail to see how more randomness makes a worldview any more acceptable.

What you can tell me is whether or not you have any justification from which the statements you make can pertain to knowledge. It's only been what I have asked you for through the last two pages. You could of course do that if it were possible. And without it I fail to see how your statements have any meaning in regards to knowledge.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What you can tell me is whether or not you have any justification from which the statements you make can pertain to knowledge. It's only been what I have asked you for through the last two pages. You could of course do that if it were possible.

Lol! If you think I should be able to do anything that's possible, you have a higher opinion of my capabilities than I do.

I explained the definition of knowledge I was using - it's not an unusual one. If you can't see how applies to my statements, tell me which statements you had in mind, and I'll try to explain.

 

[Sanoy]

Lol! If you think I should be able to do anything that's possible, you have a higher opinion of my capabilities than I do.

I explained the definition of knowledge I was using - it's not an unusual one. If you can't see how applies to my statements, tell me which statements you had in mind, and I'll try to explain.

Justification that makes your statements meaningful in regards to knowledge pertaining to what is true is what I'm looking for. Do you have that or not. If you do, type it. It's fine if you want to redefine knowledge, but making the word meaningless in regards to truth doesn't fix the problem.

I suppose I should gather from your expression of doubt over accomplishing what is possible as an indication you have severe doubts that you will be able to provide a justification for your statements in regards to knowledge that pertains to the truth. If that's the case just say you don't have any justification. If you're determined what difference does it make if you have any justification anyway. Why not just be consistent in this one instance and express that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Justification that makes your statements meaningful in regards to knowledge pertaining to what is true is what I'm looking for. Do you have that or not. If you do, type it. It's fine if you want to redefine knowledge, but making the word meaningless in regards to truth doesn't fix the problem.

I haven't redefined knowledge - as I said, it's a common definition. Either something fits the definition or it doesn't; as for truth, it can never be certain about states of affairs in the world. Certainty and proof is for formal systems.

I suppose I should gather from your expression of doubt over accomplishing what is possible as an indication you have severe doubts that you will be able to provide a justification for your statements in regards to knowledge that pertains to the truth.

Seriously? Did you really not understand my comment?

If you're determined what difference does it make if you have any justification anyway.

I've tried to explain, but it just hasn't sunk in. Perhaps your obsession with having justification is the problem, I don't know. Whatever, we don't seem to be communicating effectively.

 

[Sanoy]

I haven't redefined knowledge - as I said, it's a common definition. Either something fits the definition or it doesn't; as for truth, it can never be certain about states of affairs in the world. Certainty and proof is for formal systems.

Seriously? Did you really not understand my comment?

I've tried to explain, but it just hasn't sunk in. Perhaps your obsession with having justification is the problem, I don't know. Whatever, we don't seem to be communicating effectively.

Please give the justification below, and include your definition of knowledge such that it pertains to the truth (your prior presented one does not). There, now you have no fluff to reply with. I should see these answers and nothing else.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Please give the justification below, and include your definition of knowledge such that it pertains to the truth (your prior presented one does not). There, now you have no fluff to reply with. I should see these answers and nothing else.

I've already explained the reasons for my opinion. The definition of knowledge I used assumes, like most, that the information involved is factual.

Now I'd like to hear your justification and definition.

 

[Sanoy]

I've already explained the reasons for my opinion. The definition of knowledge I used assumes, like most, that the information involved is factual.

Now I'd like to hear your justification and definition.

Then it should be no problem to repeat it.

Knowledge = assuming the information is factual. That is quite the definition of knowledge you have there.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then it should be no problem to repeat it.

It's still there to be read.

Knowledge = assuming the information is factual. That is quite the definition of knowledge you have there.

That isn't the definition, nor is it what I said.

Now I'd like to hear your justification and definition.

 

[Sanoy]

It's still there to be read.

That isn't the definition, nor is it what I said.

Now I'd like to hear your justification and definition.

I'd love to give you mine as I'm quite proud of the faculties we have all received and the richness of life they employ, but I have no interest in that if you are just here to play games, which is evident by your continued refusal to respond with what I have asked. So if you truly have any earnesty in this conversation you can express that with the cessation of these ongoing games.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'd love to give you mine as I'm quite proud of the faculties we have all received and the richness of life they employ, but I have no interest in that if you are just here to play games, which is evident by your continued refusal to respond with what I have asked. So if you truly have any earnesty in this conversation you can express that with the cessation of these ongoing games.

As I said, I've given you my explanation and definition. If you're not prepared to reciprocate there's no point continuing.

I have ignored your impolite passive-aggressive attitude until now, but I've had enough of it. A discussion is more than unilateral demands, straw men, and insults.

 

[Sanoy]

As I said, I've given you my explanation and definition. If you're not prepared to reciprocate there's no point continuing.

I have ignored your impolite passive-aggressive attitude until now, but I've had enough of it. A discussion is more than unilateral demands, straw men, and insults.

If you truly posted a viable justification all you have to do is highlight it, copy, and paste it. That simple. You won't do that simple task, despite reply after reply, because you know it fails to work. That much is crystal clear. I am eager to give my justification and reembark on an earnest conversation with you, but you need to give some clue you are interested in it. That clue can come in 2 forms.

1. The presentation of the justification
2. Admitting there is no justification under determinism.

I will take your failure to do either of these simple requests as an indication of your insincerity toward this ontological discussion. As far as I can tell your claim of determism undercuts any epistemological claim you could make. So I cannot see any meaning to what you are saying. For a discussion on truth I can't see how you could be a legitimate participant under determinism. So the discussion is flatly stalemated without a response to this question. Hell would freeze over before you gave me 2, and you can't give me 1. So it doesn't take a miracle for me to know what kind of reply is coming next.

 

[DaveDavids]

What is your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc? I realize that many people think these topics are laughable, but there are probably others who have experienced them (whatever they are). So what do you think is the explanation for this stuff?

I had several experiences that left no doubt they are real

The universe is full of mysteries

 

[AV1611VET]

What is your opinion of UFOs, ESP, poltergeists, etc? I realize that many people think these topics are laughable, but there are probably others who have experienced them (whatever they are). So what do you think is the explanation for this stuff?

At best: results of an overactive imagination.

At worst: results of demonic activity.

In this dispensation, one of the duties of the Holy Spirit is to keep demonic activity in check.

But for those who beacon the spirit world ... either outright (seances, sacrifices, etc.) ... or innocently (Ouija boards, D&D, etc.), about 1% can end up experiencing something they'll regret.