Oxymoron

Clearly, it is possible to devise a scenario where people lie or cheat convincingly in a conspiracy (crop circles, for example). Independent external validation is a necessary, not a sufficient condition.

malookiemaloo

Sorry, Diana but I think you are confusing truth and rationality.

You say that belief plus evidence=rationality. Surely belief plus evidence=truth. In fact evidence on it's own without belief =truth.

At the end of the day you may disbelieve in the existance of a deity but you don't really know. If I say 'but there might be a God' may not be true but rational.

Have you read Jeffrey Jay Lowders thesis on the rationality of the resurrection? A real eye-opener for me.


malookiemaloo

Asha'man

Gee Albert, that sounds a little bit defensive. Actually, it sound very defensive. It is also extremely rude and absolutely uncalled-for. Based on that rudeness, I think we are not on a first syllable basis. I also feel that an apology is probably in order, but I will let your guilt, and your desire to set a good example of xian morality in action, be the judge of that.

To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a verifiable psychic experience. Every single one has failed the test, and there is literally a million dollar prize to encourage people to take the test. Since every single case has been either deliberate fraud or self-deception, I see no reason to believe that any exceptions exist. Furthermore, if there are no legitimate psychic experiences, it follows logically that there are no legitimate psychics. After all, by definition, a psychic is a person who has psychic experiences.

You utterly ignored the point of my post: the human mind is fallible. (How in the world can you miss the point of a two-sentence post??) Even when attempting to be honest, the brain makes mistakes. It can generate experiences that are not real and forge memories of events that did not happen. The confirmation bias is well known and well studied.

The only way to be confident of a purely personal experience is to find external confirmation. Oxymoron was dead on target when he mentioned independent external validation. Unless you provide some, everybody here is perfectly justified in doubting your claim of a psychic experience, as well as anybody else’s claim.

Hawkingfan

This happens to all of us. This is not a psychic "experience". Your mind had probably picked up on bits of information here and there, and concluded in a "vision" the effects of that information.

Albert Cipriani

Ashaman:
OK, so you see a tree fall in the forest. You collar your neighbor to come see for himself. He, too, sees the fallen tree, providing the external validation you so need to be confident of your purely personal experience. Thank God for neighbors! If we were without them, we could be confident of nothing.

Do you see the absurdity your position is leading us into? You're banished to a country that speaks a language foreign to you. Pantomime only goes so far. Ergo, every personal experience you have that does not lend itself to pantomime must be doubted. Suppose you’re marooned on a deserted island. Will you have no confidence that there really are coconuts there to eat cuz there is no way and never will be any way you can have your precious “independent external validation”?

This is just silly. Your independent external validation merely describes empirical experience, not ALL experience. You make it sound like personal experience has no validity unless it has the highest possible validity. I guess you don’t eat meat unless it’s fillet minguan?

Sorry to have offended you in my prior posts. – Sincerely, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Oxymoron

What if your neighbour denied the fallen tree was there?

Yeah, like we all work out everything we believe from first principles. No doubt you arrived at Catholicism just by observation. Yes, it really does follow from observation and inference that eating fish on Friday is the correct way to live.

No, not really.

Sorry, I don't understand a word of that ("Oh yes you do!" "Oh no I don't" etc )

Most people stranded on their own for protracted periods suffer nearly irreversable psychological damage. Social contact includes the validation and communication of personal belief.

Personal experience has personal value. When cross-referenced against the knowledge, experience and beliefs of others, it can be worse than useless. That you can spin your own web of lies and half-truths to make you feel good about yourself and the world is not in question. Feel free to do so (oh, you already have done ). Just don't assume that it has value to anyone else.

Scottyman

Albert,
Everything you said in your last post is just a bunch of double talk but no substance. You are going to have a serious problem convincing anyone on this forum that you have psychic ability using such an aproach. So far I have requested that you offer convincing proof of your abilities and all you've done is dodge the request. If you really think you're psychic, I suggest you take the test. I doubt that you will though since all purported examples of psychic ability have proven to be delusional or fraudulent. In fact the US government did extensive studies in the 50's and 60's with supposed psychics and gave up stating that the ability doesn't exist. Believe me, if there really were such a thing as psychic ability, our government would be using it as a tool and we would know about it. There's lots of material on the subject and I suggest you do some reading up on it.
Scottyman

Albert Cipriani

Oxymoron argues:
My position exactly. So whom are you debating here? Personal experience has personal value. Transference distributes its value to others. And all personal experience is at best only partially transferable, even the highly objective empirically sound personal experiences of scientists’ experiments.

Oxymoron:
Here you equivocate “value” with “usefulness.” Nice try. But the issue is a subjective one called value. We value our personal experiences MORE perhaps if they can be useful to others, but we are insane not to value them at all should they prove to be without utility to others.

Have you never experienced something that you could not communicate to another? I dare say every experience is more or less incommunicable. But if people like me are too ignorant, inexperienced and full of superstitions to appreciate your personal experiences, does that make them worse than useless? That’s what you said. Maybe in your case in reference to me, you are right. But in all other cases, I would disagree.

Oxymoron:
So if you could honestly believe a lie that made you feel good, you wouldn’t? I don’t understand you at all. Is your standard, then, to only believe lies that make you feel bad? That’s the acid test of truth? If it hurts it must be true. That’s gibberish. – Frustrated Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Albert Cipriani

Dear God,
Save me from myself.

I inhale deeply (not what would take the edge off this Scottyman-induced trauma, but the smoggy air). I exhale the pollution without perverting it into expletives. Place my brain back in its pickle jar, hold my nose and respond to Scottyman via my autonomous nervous system.

Scottyman:
Good! I had a psychic experience, which is not the same as to say, as you say, that I have psychic ability.

Scottyman:
It’s called ignoring your spurious off-topic incendiary taunt.

Scottyman:
I DON’T!

Scottyman:
I WON’T!

Scottyman:
DUH!

– Frustrated Beyond Bounds, Albert the Traditional Catholic
Albert's Rants

Oxymoron

What is transference?

The interchange of ideas between individuals requires more than A saying "I believe X" and B replying "that's nice, I believe Y". The meat of the discussion is assumptions, axioms, logic, and methodology. Ultimately, the relative merit of X or Y will be judged using these metrics.

I would never judge an individual thusly, if that's what you mean. Their beliefs, axioms, assumptions, methodologies and logic on a public debating forum, though, are seriously in the target zone.

Ah, the art of sophistry is not dead... The "function" of truth is not to make me feel good (or bad) about myself. It is simply there to be discovered by whatever tools are at my disposal. The only sensible and sane way of living in the world is by dealing with it as we find it, not projecting our own viewpoints and prejudices upon it. So no, I would never choose to believe something I knew was false for the benefit of feeling good about myself. This requires a certain vigilance regarding one's thought processes, but hey, no-one said it had to be easy.