Peanut Gallery

{BTW mods, although I've read on RAZDs posts that participants in GBs have been asked to keep of the peanut gallery, it isn't actually true in my case - no-one has asked me - so, please don't consider this an infringement until I am asked. }

Could the performers from the Is My Hypothesis Valid??? thread take their discussion back to that thread? The peanut gallery is intended for onlookers, not participants. I know it's fun when actors roam out into the audience, but there's a limit. Thanks!

The "Peanut Gallery" topic is intended for side discussion for members not part of a one-on-one "Great Debate".

Those wishing to comment on the Great Debate between RAZD and Petrophysics taking place in the Evidence (RAZD and Petrophysics only) thread should post their messages here.The participants in the Evidence (RAZD and Petrophysics only) Great Debate thread, RAZD and Petrophysics, are specifically excluded from posting here.

** analemma is a word i made up to capture the essence of a lemma with the nuance of an analogue with undertones of antagonism meant in a friendly way. True, it is also the figure-8 shape of something like the sun photographed around a whole year from the same spot in a backyard by many amateur astronomers. This is a good coincidence, because it resonates with the circularity of this whole subject of supernaturalness. We go around in repetition all the time with these things. Think of a mobius Yin/Yang snake-eating-its-tail Klein Bottle thingy.

Message 1220: Any objective scientific evidence of any phenomena will be always explained as a natural process and never be explained as a supernatural process. The only known scientific explanation of any phenomenon is a natural explanation.
...
By inductive reasoning, this analemma predicts that any future verified scientific explanation accepted by the scientific community will always be a natural explanation. There will never be a supernatural explanation.Message 1222: This means your theory cannot be falsified. Message 1226: Here is your own opening statement in Message 167: This will NEVER happen according to my analemma, which you, yourself, have concluded is a "strong" theory (unlike me in my modest persona).

Why don't you just participate in the actual Great debate in question? And if you don't want to but Xong thinks he has a case why doesn't he take over?

Given that RAZ has abandoned the thread ...

This will NEVER happen according to my analemma, which you, yourself, have concluded is a "strong" theory (unlike me in my modest persona).

Basically bluegenes is taking a philosophical approach to the whole supernatural thing BUT he is asking that it be falsified by a real SB. Rather convienient isn't it?

Of course bluegenes has not even come close to this process but expects for doubters of his "theory" to produce a real god(s) to falsify this thingy he calls a theory.

The theory that supernatural phenomena are the result of human imagination and invention has been evidenced to a great extent by both indirect (the lack of obvious supernatural causation) and direct (in psychology, neuroscience, etc.) evidence.

* If the only means of communication between humans (or any intelligent organism, we don't have to be the "chosen" species) is via religious experiences, where the experience occurs within the mind, then can you suggest some means to test whether this is actually happening or being imagined?Can we test for imagination versus actual religious experiences?

It isn't eliminated.

Can you explain why such a vague claim needs to be eliminated by the skeptics rather than supported by its proposers?

Pseudoskepticism and logic msg 1: Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Pseudoskepticism

​

The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]

​

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:

​

In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

​

— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987

---

Why should anyone assume there are supernatural effects on the mind?

One piece of evidence that impacts this discussion is this:The Orientation/Association area in the brain appears to be a controlling site for deep religious experiences, out-of-body experiences and "voices" from "beyond". Decrease the blood flow to the OAA and religious euphoria, out-of-body views and "voices" are reported by the patients as observed results. Increase the blood flow to this area and those feelings cease.Overview article in Psychology TodayDeep meditation or prayer can cause such a change in blood flow to this area. This shows a direct relationship between at least some "supernatural" experiences and blood flow to areas of the brain. All naturally occurring, like an on/off switch, under personal and medical intervention control.One test, as Newberg, et al. show, is to medically intervene in a religious experience by increasing the blood flow to the OAA thus shutting down the experience.

If you are going to posit some woo-woo entity that sticks its finger in the blood vessels ...

It would be nice if you could provide a link to the previous thread so that we can check the veracity of your statement.

But why would anyone give any of them serious rational consideration?

No. It is the most evidenced conclusion.

This adds support to BG's theory.
Thanks for providing it.

If you are having trouble remembering what you are talking about, you can scroll up and read the previous posts.

No, it is theorised to be imagination.