MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Ghostbusters (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Oh my....

You are most certainly back-tracking here:

I don't know of any other meaning of 'proof' than 'collation of evidence'.

Where does that come from? You said "...one occasion when evidence is left then that will be proof...", I don't know where 'collation' comes from. I can't see it in your posts. It is a later addition of course. I see the word 'one' a few times. I have also told you there is no proof of either side. You disagreed.

You said there was proof. Nothing metaphysical here. Just a simple request to support what you said.

The fact that you follow it up with metaphysical and philosophical arguments (after pleading for these to be left outside) about sheep instead of supplying the proof you claim exists...makes me really wonder how much you regret making the claim in the first place. But I guess getting you to admit even the slightest slip is beyond us low-brows.

Will you ever supply that proof I asked for? You will win this little discussion if you can. Find some or take it back or keep going.

If you find some, I tip my hat to you.

If you take it back, I tip my hat to you.

If you keep going with this, I'm off to work on my masonic thread instead.

By the way, I personally think you know better than most the difference between evidence and proof. You made a careless remark and instead of saying so, you are just digging a pit for us both to fall into (and both of us are buggering up this thread as a consequence). I for one am jumping out right now. I won't spend much more time dealing with your commonplace orthodox beliefs in this matter (you ain't unique you disbeliever you).

I do not want to talk about sheep sir no matter how inclined you are to do so. Proof relating to the supernatural excites me. Sheep, thankfully, only excite folk from Aberdeen.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Collation-of-evidence doesn't refer to the number of times. You only have to leave evidence of one murder and you're goin' da-a-rn.

You keep asking for proof and I keep telling you that millions of episodes leaving no physical evidence is proof that nothing physical is happening. You are free to claim that millions of eye-witness testimonies is also evidence (which it is) but unfortunately, since we can reproduce the same effect in the laboratory, we know that every last one of these witnesses is mistaken...sorry, that should read 'we have reason to downgrade the eye-witness statements to virtual nullity'.

Since my entire life is based on lecturing people about the difference between evidence and proof it is unlikely I have fallen into any of the more obvious traps. However I am always lecturing people that many traps lurk hereabouts so if you have spotted one, please let me know. (Though preferably not merely by saying generally that I have done so.)
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

Back (for a millisecond)

Mick Harper wrote:
I am always lecturing people that many traps lurk hereabouts so if you have spotted one, please let me know. (Though preferably not merely by saying generally that I have done so.)

I quoted you. Can't do better than that.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Roughly translated this is the standard 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence' argument. In fact, this is almost exactly what you just said.

I'll return to this since it is arises so frequently in archaeology. Normally, this is true in a 'so what?' sort of way, but where you have millions of occurrences and an absence of something (ie forensic evidence of physical visitation) which ought to be there then the 'absence of evidence' becomes not merely evidence in itself, but clinching proof.

Of course proponents of the Old Hag theory are free to take the matter on to the next level and claim that Old Hags are specifically designed not to leave evidence but that would be an extraordinary claim and would require extraordinary evidence.
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

If the brain is somehow able to perceive things that aren't physically real there would be no physical evidence. The focus on physicality is misplaced on a thread dealing with ghosts.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Of course, of course. So you keep saying. But saying it is not enough. Not on this site.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

There is - as yet - no proof which negates the theory that the mind can perceive things which aren't physically real. This was my one argument and I will stick by it.

In that case, best stick to talking to teenagers.
Send private message
AJMorton



View user's profile
Reply with quote

In that case, best stick to talking to teenagers.

It seems like I am sometimes, Mick.

AJ-Out
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The focus on physicality is misplaced on a thread dealing with ghosts.

That's begging the question. Hysteron proteron, as the pretentious like to say.

Hysteron proteron.

There is - as yet - no proof which negates the theory that the mind can perceive things which aren't physically real. This was my one argument and I will stick by it.

You should stand aside or risk being caught in the crossfire.

A theory isn't a theory just because someone says it is. What does "the mind can perceive things which aren't physically real" mean?

What does perceiving mean in this context? (Not just any old mental episode.)

What kind of a thing can be in a certain place and be like something and be doing something and be dependent on the physical arrangement of physical objects* and interact with our physical cognitive apparatus... and yet not be physical?

* I take it, for example, that, though you might say a ghost walking through a door is perceived directly in the brain with the illusion of coming via the eyes, you actually have to be looking towards the right door; perhaps at the right time, perhaps with the lights off.

And what does proof mean in this context? What have evidence, objectivity and logic -- associated with proof in every other context -- got to do with what by-definition-subjective-minds have to say about their own contents?

It is all natural and all will be either proven wrong or proven to be natural

Then why are you arguing with Mick, who says, in effect, that it is already proven wrong by not conforming to anything natural?
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

AJMorton wrote:
Harper has many of you fooled (too harsh? I apologise) into thinking that his view is new and original.

You know Mort. You really are a bit of a blow-hard, aren't you. You don't know anything about us. You haven't even read Mick's book. Yet you storm in here and demand everyone's rapt attention. No one is more convinced of the value of their opinions and with so little of substance to show for it.

Here are some Net etiquette tips for you.

When joining a new message board, it is customary to..
    1) NOT post one's personal biography.
    2) Read what others post for some weeks and get a feel for the local culture before posting anything.
    3) Show respect for the established membership.
    4) Post very little of your own material until you've gained a certain level of comfort with the group as a whole.
Send private message
Ishmael


In: Toronto
View user's profile
Reply with quote

AJMorton wrote:
Why does the fact I haven't read Mick's book automatically mean I know nothing of, say, Hatty or Bronwyn or you Ish?

Well...that's why you should take your time and understand the culture before acting on presumptions. You can see there is a close association between this group and the themes and methods discussed in Mick's book simply by noting the presence of this page...

http://www.applied-epistemology.com/foundation.html

As for begging to read a book...I've never heard of such a thing. Now available in paperback, it can be purchased for a most modest sum.

Like him or not, Mick is part of the *establishment* here and you, at this point, still are not. You are new. It takes time and effort to connect with any social group -- even an online one. We all value your enthusiastic and studied contributions but please do show some deference to the existing culture. It will help us all warm to you -- gradually. ;-)
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Nobody here has objected to you being rude to Mick. Though of course you do so at your own risk. If you can tell me why it is better for one of my very valuable THOBR's to act as a Deutsche doorstop rather than one of Messrs Amazon's, I would happily send you one.

Pip! Pip!
Send private message
DPCrisp


In: Bedfordshire
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Light is not physical. Neither are aroma molecules. Come to think of it, neither is sound. Yet we perceive them.

Sorry, AJ, it seems we may be at cross purposes due to our different educational backgrounds: you see, I went to school on Earth. Light, molecules, sound, radio waves and other forms of radiation are evidently different things where you come from.

I understand from what you have told me here that to insult Mick is to insult the community.

Nah, fukkim.

How do you recommend I deal with Mick's insults?

See above.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mr Crisp is suspended sine die for lèse majesté.
Send private message
GrouchoMarxthespot



View user's profile
Reply with quote

I came across an article in the Sunday Telegragh, (we Marxists must keep with the enemy!), 31st July 2011:

'GRIEF AND GHOSTLY VISIONS

A recently bereaved widow once confided how every morning she would wake to hear her late husband's footsteps on the landing outside her bedroom.'

The article does on:

'These 'Hallucinations of Widowhood', as they are known, are surprisingly common....'

Cognitive habit I would suggest.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3

Jump to:  
Page 3 of 3

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group