For the true disbelievers, nothing would ever be enough.

[gabriel]

Why are you here ?

Perhaps the most unfathomable question of all. Expect to be referred back to an old post, referring to an even older one, all the way down. None will contain an answer worth a dime.

 

[Arouet]

I have never expressed an opinion on your genuiness. Fls invited the comment - you did not. Are you asking me now?

Of course you did! You said none of the banned of seven are genuine. I'm in the banned of seven! Ergo: you don't think I'm genuine!

Doesn't that tell you something?

Yes, but I'm betting I reach a different conclusion on that than you do! But I've talked about this before.

I think dishonesty is too strong a word. I would describe it as ulterior motive. This is a form of dishonesty I suppose but I'd categorise it more as a lack of openness mostly. It is more to do with whether a person is really seeking the truth or to reinforce their own ideas.

And that's what I suspected above. You are confusing bias with genuineness. Someone can really seek the truth while also tending to reinforce their own ideas. In fact, the overwhelming odds are that this is the case.

We all all biased. We all have a natural tendency to reinforce our own ideas. No matter what our views are, no matter which side of the fence we are on. It is not easy to overcome this. Even harder when we don't recognise that we have this problem in the first place.

 

[Saiko]

You say materialist like it's a perjorative while implying immaterialist is the superior philosophy. Both are two
philosophies among a multitude. Calling me a materialist is something I don't call myself. I don't subscribe to any philosophical position and I subscribe to all of them.

Once again. What does it mean to move beyond materialism? Now can you answer the question while avoiding a snarky remark?

Avoid snark? How cruel. Well as long as I don't have to avoid both snark and sarc . .I'll deal. lol.

While I don't consider materialist a slur, I do consider its advocates - for the most part - as staunch believers awash in limited and pedestrian think That would also apply to 'immaterialist". As for what it mean to "move beyond" - ??? Are you saying that you are unaware that materialism is the default paradigm of the current status quo?

 

[tim]

Perhaps the most unfathomable question of all. Expect to be referred back to an old post, referring to an even older one, all the way down. None will contain an answer worth a dime.

That's very good, Gabriel :-)

 

[Obiwan]

Of course you did! You said none of the banned of seven are genuine. I'm in the banned of seven! Ergo: you don't think I'm genuine!

In the sense that they are not really here to explore ideas and learn. Yes. That is my impression. I didn't realise you were one of the seven I don't know who they all are (or care).

Yes, but I'm betting I reach a different conclusion on that than you do! But I've talked about this before.

Yes I'd be wondering why some people attracted constant suspicion of not being genuine from some members. You'd be seeing it as some form of persecution I suppose.

And that's what I suspected above. You are confusing bias with genuineness. Someone can really seek the truth while also tending to reinforce their own ideas. In fact, the overwhelming odds are that this is the case.

We all all biased. We all have a natural tendency to reinforce our own ideas. No matter what our views are, no matter which side of the fence we are on. It is not easy to overcome this. Even harder when we don't recognise that we have this problem in the first place.

I'm not confused about anything. I am saying how it looks.

 

[anonymous]

That's just silly. Materialists do not recognise the metaphysical nature of their pursuit. They believe their project cuts across philosophy and appeals to a goal in which metaphysics has no place. The desire for multiple-blind experimentation and statistical absolutes underlines their faith in materialist dogma. In thousands of posts you have never diverted from the skeptical toolkit as a way of examining reality.

There is some truth here. I will make it more gooey by saying that the lens of the skeptics here originates in the head only. To understand the true nature of reality one should explore lenses that originate from the heart and from the body, as well as the head. That is a hard step to make, an illogical one. It is hard to see when using only the head how any real truth could come of it. It is much harder for some people to approach this exercise than others. It would be nicer if the skeptic could say, "You may have something there, but from my viewpoint I can't see it. At least currently." And I think that is what most of the skeptics here are trying to say in one way or another.

 

[Saiko]

In the sense that they are not really hear to explore ideas and learn. Yes. That is my impression.

I agree. Of course they claim otherwise and some may really think otherwise. But if they really looked at their approach they'd see that they are very often simply reciting their beliefs.

Now it could be said that those who have moved beyond, or are at least open to moving beyond, materialism are just as closed minded. But I hold that, with the exception of those who are against all aspects of modern materialist science, such is not the case. IOW one can be "beyond materialism" while still appreciating the value of materialist science to humanity. I don't see how the converse can be true.

 

[Arouet]

In the sense that they are not really hear to explore ideas and learn. Yes. That is my impression. I didn't realise you were one of the seven I don't know who they all are (or care).

Ok, fair enough - though I might suggest not making blanket statements in such a case.

Yes I'd be wondering why some people attracted constant suspicion of not being genuine from some members. You'd be seeing it as some form of persecution I suppose.

No, I've posted this before. I know why we attract constant suspicion. I get it and don't even blame them for being suspicious. There's nothing wrong with that suspicion. The question then becomes what to do about it. I made a long, draining campaign to change attitudes in part to help us move past that suspicion. It was a colossal fairlure, and took too much of a toll on me. Unfortunately I had to resort to putting certain posters on ignore. Not an ideal solution, and not one I liked taking, but it has made it much more enjoyable to post here and causes me much less stress. Even with these people, I get where they are coming from. My preference would have been to resolve things. Maybe another time.

I'm not confusing anything. I am saying how it looks.

I'm not following: are you agreeing with me that someone can genuinely be looking for the truth, while also tending to reinforce prior beliefs?

 

[Obiwan]

I'm not following: are you agreeing with me that someone can genuinely be looking for the truth, while also tending to reinforce prior beliefs?

Of course.

 

[Iyace]

Can we all admit that the banned of seven thing is really stupid?

 

[Arouet]

Can we all admit that the banned of seven thing is really stupid?

The term or the fact that we've been banned from certain parts of the forum? I like the former (credit for the pun goes to Paul!) - agree with the latter.

 

[steve001]

Avoid snark? How cruel. Well as long as I don't have to avoid both snark and sarc . .I'll deal. lol.

While I don't consider materialist a slur, I do consider its advocates - for the most part - as staunch believers awash in limited and pedestrian think That would also apply to 'immaterialist". As for what it mean to "move beyond" - ??? Are you saying that you are unaware that materialism is the default paradigm of the current status quo?

I'm asking what it means to you? Do you wake up to a world everyday that is substantially different then I do? Do you see and experience things everyday I do not?

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I agree. Of course they claim otherwise and some may really think otherwise. But if they really looked at their approach they'd see that they are very often simply reciting their beliefs.

Now it could be said that those who have moved beyond, or are at least open to moving beyond, materialism are just as closed minded. But I hold that, with the exception of those who are against all aspects of modern materialist science, such is not the case. IOW one can be "beyond materialism" while still appreciating the value of materialist science to humanity. I don't see how the converse can be true.

Nothing in science proves materialism though. Kastrup noted that in his article The Fairytale of Materialism*:

In this article, I will argue that, at the root of all this, is the fact that the intellectual establishment completely misinterprets and misrepresents what science is about. The fundamentalist hysteria we see in the culture today is the inevitable result of the consistent and outrageous abuse science has suffered, often at the hands of those who were supposed to be its guardians. These abusers – among which I count some of the biggest names in science today – have hijacked science for the benefit of their own philosophical and psychological needs, biases, prejudices, and interests. And you, dear reader, are on the receiving end of this charade. Allow me to elaborate.

*Not endorsing/refuting anything else on New Dawn.

 

[Saiko]

Do you wake up to a world everyday that is substantially different then I do? Do you see and experience things everyday I do not?

Making an assumption based solely on your posts in this forum, I'd guess yes and very much yes.

 

[Iyace]

I'm asking what it means to you? Do you wake up to a world everyday that is substantially different then (sic) I do? Do you see and experience things everyday I do not?

I'm pretty sure everyone's experiences are different.

 

[steve001]

Making an assumption based solely on your posts in this forum, I'd guess yes and very much yes.

What do you see and experience in your day to day life?

 

[billw]

Most (probably "all") of us have stated specifically that we aren't disbelievers. It's not Banned of Seven Disbelievers. It's more like Banned of Seven Doubters, under conditions where doubt is portrayed as obstinacy. I still belong.

Linda

It is reasonable to doubt whether or not psi actually occurred in any given situation. But when contemplating the totality of the data, you either have enough information to reach a conclusion, or you don't. You specifically stated that you agree with J.E. Kennedy's conclusion regarding psi. He specifically says conclusion--indicating that he has had enough information to arrive at one. He said:

Paranormal phenomena beyond current scientific understanding sometimes actually occur.

Either you agree with this, or you do not. You said you did, so I would take that as an indication that you do not doubt the phenomena actually occurs sometimes, and would thus consider you a proponent. If I got that wrong, just say so.

Cheers,
Bill

 

[Sciborg_S_Patel]

I though Kennedy's assertion was based on his personal experiences, rather than lab data?

That said, I'm looking forward to Jack Hunter of Paranthopology fame coming on Skeptiko. The history of anthropology of the paranormal - which is where I think the meat of the paranormal-in-academia lies right now - is a fascinating one.

 

[Iyace]

The term or the fact that we've been banned from certain parts of the forum? I like the former (credit for the pun goes to Paul!) - agree with the latter.

But it just sounds really stupid. It makes you sound more important than you really are. The more accurate title would be something like ' The ignored of seven ' or ' The irritating of seven '. Even the ' contained of seven ' works.

 

[billw]

I though Kennedy's assertion was based on his personal experiences, rather than lab data?

Yes, exactly. And that will probably continue to be a major contributor to the pool of data until such time that we learn how to make the "lab" more conducive to it.

Cheers,
Bill