Refractor

I mentioned that I am not postulating a formal theory. I simply suggested the possibility that the frontal lobe may have some association to a spiritual reality. The fact that you refuse to concede that as a possibility simply reveals you for the naturalist idealogue that you are.

If I was intending to make a scientific case for this possibility being factual, I would go through the trouble of concocting detailed explanations that answer those questions. But as said before, I am not profferring a formal argument or theory. I simply said it was one of many possibilities.


No, it is merely your opinion that it's "fantastical". As of now, ALL ideas about what the frontal lobe does or doesn't do are "unsupported, and wildly speculative", including whatever theory you adopt.

You're also an iconoclast and I can smell one from a mile away. Iconoclasts, such as yourself, are philosophically predisposed to dismiss or reject all supernatural explanations at face value. Furthermore, there is no form of physical evidence for the supernatural that they would ever accept .

Naturalists crack me up because "supernatural", by definition, is not natural, yet, you demand that it manifest itself with NATURAL evidence...............but the moment it manifests itself physically, the evidence is inherently natural, not supernatural. Its an oxymoron. There can no such thing as physical-supernatural evidence so your demand for a supernatural-physical evidence is as absurd as suggesting that in a proverbial supernatural realm, the physical realm would have to prove itself via supernatural evidence.

I'll tell you what.....I'll give you an explanation of how a physical realm could prove itself to be physical, via supernatural "evidence", as soon as you give me an explanation for how a supernatural realm could prove itself to be supernatural - via physical "evidence".

Who said it was a "scientific" claim? It was a logical/philosophical claim, yes, but not a "scientific" claim. Perhaps you are confusing me with someone who adheres to Scientism, which is the philosophical assumption that claims "science" is the only path to truth and understanding. I am not a "Scientism-ist". (sp?) I believe that philosophy, collective testimony, legal evidence, and logical reasoning are also vehicles that can lead to truth and understanding.



Sounds like a plan! So for starters, please provide me with an explanation of what you predict "conclusive evidence" for the "supernatural" would look like. After all, since you are so confident that you haven't already seen such evidence, surely you know what it would look like or else you wouldn't know you haven't already seen it.

As soon as I get your predicted evidence for the supernatural, I'll stop chuckling and start looking for it. Deal?

Refractor

Fiach

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Mageth
How is receiving a spiritual signal a "biological" function? How does that work, "biological hardware" receiving a spiritual signal? You can't even venture a guess, right? No evidence, no theory to support the "idea"?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spiritual is a subjective concept totally without evidence that it exists. The biological hardware of the Fronto-temporal-parietal circuitry has "mystical experiences" and these can be mapped in brain SPECT imaging studies. But there is more evidence the experiences are internally generated by meditation, prayer, head trauma, brain hypoxia, shock (low blood flow), and EPILEPSY. There is no evidence of any kind of waves or particle beams entering the patient's brain. Spirits are less than hypothetical, they are somewhere between imaginary and hypothetical with no evidence.



I mentioned that I am not postulating a formal theory. I simply suggested the possibility that the frontal lobe may have some association to a spiritual reality. The fact that you refuse to concede that as a possibility simply reveals you for the naturalist idealogue that you are.

Spirit by definition is not of the matter-energy universe. It is not matter nor energy. By such definitions of being outside of matter-energy, the proposal that spirit can interact in any way with matter is unsupported.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How would such "biological hardware" work to interface with the spiritual, and why would it need to?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rhetorical question that has no answer, eh?



[i]If I was intending to make a scientific case for this possibility being factual, I would go through the trouble of concocting detailed explanations that answer those questions. But as said before, I am not profferring a formal argument or theory. I simply said it was one of many possibilities.[/B]

It fits into the common idea "anything is possible". Purple intelligent spiders living on Mars that can sing over 20 octaves is possible as are spirits. But what evidence is there for either?



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is a fantastical, unsupported, and wildly speculative claim,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What? Is it the singing Martian purple spiders or spirits signally the brain?



No, it is merely your opinion that it's "fantastical". As of now, ALL ideas about what the frontal lobe does or doesn't do are "unsupported, and wildly speculative", including whatever theory you adopt.

That is a lie. I have seen the spect images of mystical experiences and the parts of the brain that are hypermetabolic and hypometabolic. The interconnecting circuits are clearly known now. You ignorance of neuroscience is not your fault, but making such a foolish statement leaves you open to rebuke. People like you are sending your country toward third world status. Please take the time to move out of the 15th century by reading this site.

http://www.bio.utk.edu/Neils.nsf/b4f...5?OpenDocument



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not "anti-supernaturalist", BTW. I'm a naturalist. I have yet to see one iota of evidence in support of any supernatural claim that stands up in the face of reasonable examination.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.



You're also an iconoclast and I can smell one from a mile away. Iconoclasts, such as yourself, are philosophically predisposed to dismiss or reject all supernatural explanations at face value. Furthermore, there is no form of physical evidence for the supernatural that they would ever accept .

No, he is not the one to whom you are referring. I am that lad. I reject out of hand anything supernatural until someone shows me some reason to belief it to be other than bullshit.

Naturalists crack me up because "supernatural", by definition, is not natural, yet, you demand that it manifest itself with NATURAL evidence...............but the moment it manifests itself physically, the evidence is inherently natural, not supernatural.

That is my point as well. If it can't be measured, seen, arrived at by mathematical processes then I reserve the right to not believe it. I require some evidence. All we know exists is the natural universe. You claim a magic universe of spirit. Its your claim. You prove it.

[i]Its an oxymoron. There can no such thing as physical-supernatural evidence so your demand for a supernatural-physical evidence is as absurd as suggesting that in a proverbial supernatural realm, the physical realm would have to prove itself via supernatural evidence. [/B]

What is the difference between Spiritual and Imaginary? None.

I'll tell you what.....I'll give you an explanation of how a physical realm could prove itself to be physical, via supernatural "evidence", as soon as you give me an explanation for how a supernatural realm could prove itself to be supernatural - via physical "evidence".

Supernatural for me is an oxymoron. It is equivalent to saying non-natural = supernatural. Natural = exists and can be proven. Supernatural or unnatural means there is no evidence for its existence, no way to measure it, it can't hurt us, so why fear it. It is equivalent to imaginary.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spiritual "scientific" claims are pseudoscientific. Supernatural "scientific" claims of any sort are pseudoscientific. A "scientific" claim that proposes a part of the brain as an interface to the spiritual/supernatural is pseudoscientific.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spiritual is in the same class as astral projection, distant viewing, mind reading, psychokinesis, and fortelling the future. It is all shown to be unsupported and when "demonstrated" found to be fake.



Who said it was a "scientific" claim? It was a logical/philosophical claim, yes, but not a "scientific" claim.

What is logical about it? I challenge you. Philosophical is any bollocks you want to claim, including some of the craziest pipe dreams in history.

Perhaps you are confusing me with someone who adheres to Scientism, which is the philosophical assumption that claims "science" is the only path to truth and understanding. I am not a "Scientism-ist". (sp?) I believe that philosophy, collective testimony, legal evidence, and logical reasoning are also vehicles that can lead to truth and understanding.

Knowledge is arrived at through observation, testing, explaining based on observation and testing, critical analysis, and postulating tests to falsify the theory. Only then is it knowledge. Science isn't the only method of knowledge but 90% of what we know. Our observation of how an ant colony functions by merely observing an ant farm is science. Other knowledge can come from mathematics, geometry theorums from obviously true axioms, calculus and differential equations. Philosophy is a mixed bag of unsupported suppositions with some factual observation. "I think, therefore I am" is philosophical but logically correct as well.



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You naturalist idealogues crack me up.

Instead of laughing at us naturalists, perhaps you should be working on finding evidence to support your pseudoscientific claims, to scientifically support the existence of "spirit", "god", or "the supernatural" as anything but ideas, and then working on a theory on how "biological hardware" is supposed to interface with the "spiritual", "god", or the "supernatural". Lotsa luck on that. We'll be the ones chuckling from the sidelines.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not going to laugh at you...............yet.




Sounds like a plan! So for starters, please provide me with an explanation of what you predict "conclusive evidence" for the "supernatural" would look like. After all, since you are so confident that you haven't already seen such evidence, surely you know what it would look like or else you wouldn't know you haven't already seen it.

I can't explain something that I doubt is real. That is your job.

As soon as I get your predicted evidence for the supernatural, I'll stop chuckling and start looking for it. Deal?

Again, that is your job. It is your claim, your assumption, not mine.

Fiach

sandlewood

On a side note:

According to A Concise Introduction to Logic by Patrick Hurley, the fallacy is actually known as Appeal to Unqualified Authority. By contrast, argument from authority is a valid form of inductive argument.

Fiach

Then you must define what is unqualified versus qualified authority. That may be subjective. The Christian thinks the Bible is qualified authority as the word or inspiration of God, and I don't. An inductive argument from an unqualified authority is not very worthwhile.

Fiach

sandlewood

Well, you can argue with Hurley then. About argument from authority, he says, “such arguments are essentially probabilistic.” I don’t think that arguing from authority is a fallacy in general. You cannot claim that anyone who cites an authority at all is committing a fallacy. You need to show that the authority is unqualified. There may be a dispute about what is qualified. But there is no fallacy if no one disputes the qualifications.
People who posit the supernatural crack me up. They define “supernatural” as something that can’t be detected, claim it exists, and then fold their arms and demand that we prove it doesn’t exist.

The word “supernatural” is silly. If we could in any way detect that something exists, it would not be supernatural. It would be natural. If we could detect it, we would classify it as part of the natural universe.

I’ve never heard anyone who supports the idea of the supernatural say exactly what the supernatural is. It just some magic that is the explanation of things we can’t explain by other means. For example, when a book moves from a bookshelf to a table by itself, it was caused by the supernatural. Well, that can’t be true because you said that the supernatural does not manifest with natural evidence. And a book moving from place to place would be natural evidence. So the supernatural could not affect the physical world at all. This would rule out the possibility that a physical part of the brain works as a receiver for supernatural signals. It would have to affect that part of the brain, and thereby count as natural evidence.

If the supernatural does not affect the physical world, then there is no way that anyone could know it exists. Why would you suggest that a part of the brain is affected by the supernatural and then turn around and say there can be no natural evidence?
Collective testimony? Are you talking about the same type of collective testimony where 85% of the United States believe they sense that a god exists, so that counts for something? (bandwagon argument) I find that interesting given that you also avoided the “Appeal to Authority”.

Volker.Doormann

http://www.psiexplorer.com/jessicautts.htm

There is a a lot of stuff available beyond the belief system of S. Hawking and the believers of the Fantasy of Skeptizism etc, who never have proven by verfication and proof that they are exist beyond physical forces as - what?

One should be very skeptical to people, who can't show anything of evidence beyond physical forces.

All people of any label of believing (Sketpticism >>> Real Christ) can't show by proof and verification, that the created ideas and created Ism's beyond physical forces are more than fantasy.

Volker

Hawkingfan

The above URL is just a list of books written by Parapsychologists and psuedoscientists. Since it is just a list of books, I do not know if they say the 6th sense might be in the lobe as I asked. It doesn't say if they are for or against belief in the 6th sense. As Randi points out, crackpots, quacks, and psuedoscientists, generally allow for sensory leakage in their tests because they want positive results. Therefore, one MUST be skeptical toward any information they claim to "provide".

According to sci.skeptic, in a recent National Research Council report, there is a 130 year history of scientific research, albeit with NO CLEAR EVIDENCE that the classical psi effects, telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, precognition, HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

Mageth

If the supernatural does not affect the physical world, then there is no way that anyone could know it exists. Why would you suggest that a part of the brain is affected by the supernatural and then turn around and say there can be no natural evidence?

You stole the words right out of my mouth!

Fiach took care of the rest of it.

Mageth

One should be very skeptical to people, who can't show anything of evidence beyond physical forces.

Umm, that would be everybody.

Volker.Doormann

Originally posted by Hawkingfan

http://www.psiexplorer.com/jessicautts.htm

The above URL is just a list of books written by Parapsychologists and psuedoscientists.

The above URL is a list of publications containing the scientific published papers of

»Appointment Professor B.A. M.A. Ph. D. JESSICS UTTS of the Academic Unit or Department of Statistics of the University of California.« The B.A. in mathematics and Psychology she has received from the State University of New York at Binghamton, and an M.A. and Ph.D. in Statistics from Penn State University. She has written a book called "Seeing Through Statistics".

She has published papers about the statistical significance of paranormal experiments. She has written papers together with Professor BRIAN D. JOSEPHSON, Great Britain, Cambridge University, Cambridge, winner of the noble price in 1974 in Physics for his theoretical predictions of the properties of a supercurrent through a tunnel barrier, in particular those phenomena which are generally known as the Josephson effects.

Since it is just a list of books, I do not know if they say the 6th sense might be in the lobe as I asked.

I think it is a common practice in science to give references instead of plain text.

It doesn't say if they are for or against belief in the 6th sense.

Because the stuff is written by scientists, belief is no point of discussion. Without reading the origin papers you never will know what there is proved about the '6th sense' with what statistical significance.

As Randi points out, crackpots, quacks, and psuedoscientists, generally allow for sensory leakage in their tests because they want positive results. Therefore, one MUST be skeptical toward any information they claim to "provide".

As I have written, Skeptics and other pseudo-scientists generally allow for sensory leakage in their arguing because they want negative results. Therefore, one MUST be skeptical toward any desinformation they try to "provide".

According to sci.skeptic, in a recent National Research Council report, there is a 130 year history of scientific research, albeit with NO CLEAR EVIDENCE that the classical psi effects, telepathy, clairvoyance, psychokinesis, precognition, HAVE BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

What is clear evidence? To whom? To ignorants? To skeptics? Who decides what is clear evidence?

Skepticism is not a science, it is a belief system, until skeptics are able to DEMONSTRATE BY CLEAR EVIDENCE scientifically correct the existence of Skepticism.

Volker