[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] brainwaves (WAS: to concept or not to concept, is th

To: Duane Nickull <dnickull@xxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:58:49 -0600
Message-id: <p06230908c385db9a2606@[]>
>On 12/10/07 8:35 AM, "Christopher Menzel" <cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>  Well, I obviously can't deny that you *experience* something, but
>>  until you can come up with some reasonably hard data rather than
>>  feelings and anecdotes, I don't think you've got any real
>>  justification for your belief that there's anything more than
>>  coincidence involved.
>Which leads us into ....
>Probability and statistics!
>I am surprised this group has never had a discussion on this topic or had
>someone present on P&S (irony - there is a chance I might be wrong).  For
>some scientific axioms, tenets, etc. there seem to be a search for proof by
>verifying that the one universal truth is not mere coincidence.  For
>example, if I state here are 10 random numbers and give you these:
>You really don't know if they are truly random.  Knowing how they are
>generated helps ( for example - knowing how the Java.Math.Random class works
>and the core algorithm is written and run on the metal) but other than that,
>there  is no verification that these are truly random.  The chance they are
>random is equal with every other possible 10 random numbers.
>So what does a scientist do?  Observe until they are reasonably satisfied
>there is a norm or baseline then look for statistical anomalies?  Isn't this
>somewhat flawed too since we can never really be 100% sure we have truly
>tested everything?  I got into an argument with a friend last weekend over
>the existence of god.  He stated that since there is no positive evidence
>god exists, it proves there is no god.  His inference takes a quantum leap
>in logic obviously as what it really means is that god's existence cannot be
>scientifically verified.  God may exist or may not exist was my position.
>So how does this conflict with the topic of the thread.  The experience that
>you think of someone and they call you?  Statistically, unless it had been
>studied (I am sure it has    (01)

indeed it has, extensively and rigorously. And 
no, repeat, NO, claims of telekinesis or 
telepathy have ever survived experimental test. 
That is, the claimed phenomena are either 
undetectable or are no more probable than chance.    (02)

So, as you say, back to the topic of this thread. 
Chris did not say that there was any PROOF that 
some humans are not superhuman in some way. What 
he said, and he is absolutely correct, is that 
there is no REAL JUSTIFICATION for such a belief. 
One can believe anything, and protect that belief 
with a suitable irrational explanation. (The 
reason you can't see the little green men pushing 
the protons around is that they hide before you 
can shine a light on them. The reason there are 
fossils is that God put them there to test our 
faith. Etc.) The resulting system of beliefs is 
probably impossible to refute, but that does not 
make it any more rational to believe it, or 
provide any justification for not rejecting it as 
irrational.    (03)

>), there is a small but real probability than some
>human beings have capabilities beyond our perceptions.    (04)

And the reason they have never shown up is that 
they are so rare that nobody has captured one yet 
to put them into a laboratory? Or do their 
capabilities mean that they can see the white 
coats coming and avoid them?    (05)

>  Just like my friend
>stating "it proves god does not exist", the correct statement is probably
>more along the lines of "telekinesis has not been scientifically resolved to
>a point where it can be satisfactorily quantified"    (06)

Er...no. The correct statement is that 
telekinesis has never been reliably observed: as 
far as anyone can tell, there is no such thing as 
telekinesis.    (07)

>.  It does not mean it
>does not exist or is not real.    (08)

It strongly suggests it is not real. On what 
basis would anyone insist it was real, if there 
is no evidence for it, and repeated attempts to 
find such evidence have failed? At what point 
will one conclude that this search seems to be a 
waste of further time?    (09)

Pat    (010)

>"Speaking only for myself"
>Blog - http://technoracle.blogspot.com
>Community Music - http://www.mix2r.com
>My Band - http://www.myspace.com/22ndcentury
>Adobe MAX 2008 - http://technoracle.blogspot.com/2007/08/adobe-max-2008.html
>Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ 
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ 
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
>To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>    (011)

IHMC            (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.    (850)202 4416   office
Pensacola                       (850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502                        (850)291 0667    cell
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us       http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes    (012)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (013)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>