Of Skeptics and Bannings

You know, I did my own homework on this about 10 years ago when I was a proponent, and the answer then was basically "They don't."
I was honestly hoping something had changed between then and now. Oh, well.
Apparently you got an F on that homework assignment. That's utter nonsense.
 
What would be the differences between a simulated OBE and a "real" OBE?
If you want to know you'll have to do your own work . . .the case reports are there.

Are you saying "primary consciousness" is "no thing" (I guess in terms of what can be detected by physical instruments?) and something in the brain converts that into electricity/magnetism in the brain's matter?
Yes .on the "no thing." And yes that's what I stated about the brain - though it's a simplification. And your re-wording makes it a little inaccurate. There is a conversion to electricity/magnetism - the brain is an interface for processing those "boundary signals."

Your writing seems to indicate that your inquires are based in looking for some physical cause that gives rise to primary consciousness. That's backwards.
 
C

chuck.drake

So, there's aren't any significant differences.
Why are you posting on this forum if you make a response like this? If you really want to know the difference then you will need to do the research. No one need feel compelled to spoon feed someone who makes zero effort and who has shown themselves to be dedicated to debunking.

This forum is the introductions forum. So evidently since you are banned from posting in the other forums, you bring your poisonous attitude into this forum?
 
S

Stephen Timmis

Sceptics that wish to discuss scepticism and the invalidity of any positive findings in the realm of parapsychological research can do it very well at the JREF forum or other places. I find that many of their posts are not constructive. I can understand that a person considers materialism so persuasive that it closes the door on all else as far as they are concerned, but, once you have said that, you have said it. To keep saying that over and over is not constructive.

I can understand a sceptic saying, "you people are so crazy that you are not worth the effort of my time", and then walking away. However, the sceptics do not walk away, they simply say their same few sentences over and over again. Eventually they get frustrated and start being sarcastic and offensive; this leads to sarcastic and offensive retorts, all of which help no one.

Eventually you find it hard to follow an interesting thread because they are padded with the same few negative statements (you have read a thousand times before on every other thread), and then padded again by the trades of sarcasm and abuse. All sense of the original topic is lost, and newcomers have to wade through a 60 page thread of negativity, sarcasm and abuse to get one or two posts of genuine interest.

I consider that such posts are known to kill forums, and I get suspicious that there can be no other objective in the mind of people, who disagree so strongly with the essential raison d'etre of a particular forum, than to be so disruptive that the forum has to close. I have witnessed such tactics used at other forums I have been part of, though more political in nature, where trolling can so disrupt a forum that people have to go elsewhere.
 
I'm not saying there aren't generalities and non-constructive posts that get thrown about but there are also a lot of substantive comments that get made by skeptics on this forum. These tend to get less attention than the throwaway lines of course.

But do people really want to give up on skeptics and proponents working together to discuss these issues? Do we really want to send everyone off to their own corners - never interacting? Does that sound like progress? Has segregation like that ever really worked? Do you think it will benefit either side to lose that engagement? Don't we benefit from having our positions challenged, and requiring ourselves to answer challenges?

I get that there are many who aren't interested in that. I don't have a problem with that. It's not for everyone. But surely there are some who see the value in continuing to dialogue in a collegial way, probing these studies, analysing them together, trading ideas? I know there are since people have commented on this in the past. And certainly that's where Skeptiko started.

I used to see Skeptiko as a bridge. I know it once had that potential Maybe its a pipe dream, that's quickly fading away, but I still think its worth salvaging. It doesn't have to be all of the forum - but why not make it part of it? Come to think of it: maybe that should be the name for the current CD forum: "The Bridge: a place for skeptics and proponents to come together to discuss parapsychology and related issues in an effort to further mutual understanding, challenge pre-conceived notions, and generate new ideas."
 
Come to think of it: maybe that should be the name for the current CD forum: "The Bridge: a place for skeptics and proponents to come together to discuss parapsychology and related issues in an effort to further mutual understanding, challenge pre-conceived notions, and generate new ideas."
That's actually a very positive name for the CD forum. I quite like it.

Arouet, while I'm not personally interested in the CD forum, I don't think there is any shortage of proponents interested in engaging with discussions there. Interesting threads will attract people, wherever they happen to be posted. So don't be discouraged.
 
S

Stephen Timmis

I'm not saying there aren't generalities and non-constructive posts that get thrown about but there are also a lot of substantive comments that get made by skeptics on this forum. These tend to get less attention than the throwaway lines of course.

But do people really want to give up on skeptics and proponents working together to discuss these issues? Do we really want to send everyone off to their own corners - never interacting? Does that sound like progress? Has segregation like that ever really worked? Do you think it will benefit either side to lose that engagement? Don't we benefit from having our positions challenged, and requiring ourselves to answer challenges?

I get that there are many who aren't interested in that. I don't have a problem with that. It's not for everyone. But surely there are some who see the value in continuing to dialogue in a collegial way, probing these studies, analysing them together, trading ideas? I know there are since people have commented on this in the past. And certainly that's where Skeptiko started.

I used to see Skeptiko as a bridge. I know it once had that potential Maybe its a pipe dream, that's quickly fading away, but I still think its worth salvaging. It doesn't have to be all of the forum - but why not make it part of it? Come to think of it: maybe that should be the name for the current CD forum: "The Bridge: a place for skeptics and proponents to come together to discuss parapsychology and related issues in an effort to further mutual understanding, challenge pre-conceived notions, and generate new ideas."
There are not a few posts, there are a majority. Whole threads have to be trudged through in order to find the one or two good posts. The debate is always the same. 1) I think such and such. 2) Not possible, ha ha ha! Actually, that is not a debate at all, but a stand-off. Certain people keep saying certain things are not possible. Any evidence that suggests that view is wrong must be ridiculed, dismissed or the goalposts shifted. Things will not change, because, to quote the essence of another thread, certain people have a World View that no such things are possible, and an agenda to prevent proper publication and discussion of such matters. People with this World view start threads that ask questions like, "Why do 'certain types' NEED to believe in such stuff?" - It is the type of question that is loaded by a worldview and an agenda, and is not a challenge to a point of view, but an ad hominem attack on a whole group of people, and dismissive of any perception that a debate may be necessary.
 
Top