Argue Against Tower of Babel
Thomas Clarke
What is your response to the religionist argument that
languages originated as in the Tower of Babel story
in the Bible?
Tom Clarke
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Dave Odden
> What is your response to the religionist argument that
> languages originated as in the Tower of Babel story
> in the Bible?
Derisive laughter. Actually, we have fundamentalist religionist missionary
grad students who recognise that it isn't true (though some fundies would
say that by definition that kicks them out of the moron club).
Scientifically speaking, it has the disadvantage of being completely
untestable, arbitrary, and either contrary to known fact or needing
additional undocumented divine intervention. Actually, I'm not sure what the
full details of the claim are, so if you can cite chapter & verse that would
help. The main inconvenience is when the supposed event took place, and also
exactly what the event was.
Here's my attempt to interpret the Tower of Babel incident, which is
maximally compatible with what we know and not (AFAIK) in violation of The
Holey Word of Gawd. Man was created and originally spoke Proto-Semitic. They
continued to speak exactly the same language, and reproduced it precisely
from generation to generation with no transmission errors. This requires
constant divine intervention to maintain the same language over time, or
else god changed man's cognitive nature at the time of the Tower event. One
possibility is that language used to be fully specified in man's genetic
code, which precluded the possibility of learning something that was not
exactly The Language. On Tower of Babel night, god decides that he is tired
of this and changed man's cognitive nature. His motivation was probably
two-fold. First, he wanted them to spread out more so he gave them a
motivation. Secondly, the genetically predetermined nature of language is
limiting, because under the yoke of purely genetically determined language,
you can't learn new words. Which is not a big deal if you don't have new
concepts. But once they started to build tools, it got to be really
inconvent for people to say "Could you hand me that stick with a big wad of
metal tied on to the end, which has been beaten into a cylindrical shape and
has a flat end, which we use for hitting thin pointed cylinders of metal
into pieces of tree". People were just aching for words like "hammer"; so
once man had progressed technologically to this point that they were making
hammers and opened their first Home Depot, god decided in his infinite and
unfalsifiable wisdom that man could handle this business of changing
language by adding new words. So he opened the floodgates and changed this
annoying property of human genetics.
We do have to deal with those people in Patagonia and Australia who do not
speak Hebrew or anything like it, so we need to assume that the Tower event
took place many years ago, before the dispersal of mankind from its original
homeland (we can assume that Eden was in East Africa, without running afoul
of scripture). It's an interesting problem that we have yet to find the
remains of the construction site (or anything like a construction site), but
that's a detail. Another possibility is that the dispersal was very ancient
and that the Tower incident was global. The former interpretation is a
notational variant of what really happened.
Thomas Clarke
> "Thomas Clarke" wrote:
> > What is your response to the religionist argument that
> > languages originated as in the Tower of Babel story
> > in the Bible?
> Scientifically speaking, it has the disadvantage of being completely
> untestable,
untestable? would you consider any synonyms?
> arbitrary, and either contrary to known fact or needing
> additional undocumented divine intervention.
Occam's razor type considerations
> Actually, I'm not sure what the
> full details of the claim are, so if you can cite chapter & verse that would
> help. The main inconvenience is when the supposed event took place, and also
> exactly what the event was.
It's actually not that long Genesis 11
1. Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
2. As men moved eastward, they found a plain in Shinar and settled
there.
3. They said to each other, "Come, let's make bricks and bake them
thoroughly."
They used brick instead of stone, and tar for mortar.
4. Then they said, "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower
that
reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves and
not be scattered over the face of the whole earth."
5. But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower that the
men were building.
6. The LORD said, "If as one people speaking the same language
they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be
impossible
for them.
7. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will
not understand each other."
8. So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and
they stopped building the city.
9. That is why it was called Babel -because there the LORD confused
the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered
them over the face of the whole earth.
.......
> We do have to deal with those people in Patagonia and Australia who do not
> speak Hebrew or anything like it, so we need to assume that the Tower event
> took place many years ago, before the dispersal of mankind from its original
> homeland (we can assume that Eden was in East Africa, without running afoul
> of scripture).
No problem, God is omniscient.
> It's an interesting problem that we have yet to find the
> remains of the construction site (or anything like a construction site), but
> that's a detail. Another possibility is that the dispersal was very ancient
> and that the Tower incident was global. The former interpretation is a
> notational variant of what really happened.
God just created the world in 4004 BCE so that it looked as if all this
stuff was very ancient. We are too dumb to know why God did it
this way. Perhaps to test our faith.
Dave Odden
> untestable? would you consider any synonyms?
Well, balderdash and poppycock come to mind, but I think that untestable is
quite adequate as a description.
> > arbitrary, and either contrary to known fact or needing
> > additional undocumented divine intervention.
> Occam's razor type considerations
When there are two explanations that fit most of the facts equally well,
then the remaining facts become very important. The problem with the god
theory of language is not that it's more complicated, but that it's based on
an arbitrary assertion, that god exists. Whereas we know independently that
all of the machinery needed for the ungodly account exists (is frequently
replicated, well attested).
[putative word of god snipped]
Okay, that's sufficiently unspecific that it doesn't contradict a 50,000
year ago scenario.
> God just created the world in 4004 BCE so that it looked as if all this
> stuff was very ancient.
Well, that's a human interpretation which is not compelled by their rule
book. If it took place 40,000 years ago, give or take a dozen millenia, that
would be consistent with what's know about human migration and the actual
evolution of languages. So the main weakness in the theory is that it's
based on the unsupported existence of god.
Thomas Clarke
> > untestable? would you consider any synonyms?
> Well, balderdash[?] and poppycock[?] come to mind, but I think that
> untestable is quite adequate as a description.
I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to supply the obvious
synonym.
Hint: you might find this word on the GRE, but not on Dave Odden's
web site.
> > > arbitrary, and either contrary to known fact or needing
> > > additional undocumented divine intervention.
> > Occam's razor type considerations
> When there are two explanations that fit most of the facts equally well,
> then the remaining facts become very important. The problem with the god
> theory of language is not that it's more complicated, but that it's based on
> an arbitrary assertion, that god exists.
Arbitrary to you! But not to many, if not a majority of, people!
> Whereas we know independently that
> all of the machinery needed for the ungodly account exists (is frequently
> replicated, well attested).
Then why do academics fight so about the details?
> [putative word of god snipped] Genesis 11:1-9
> Okay, that's sufficiently unspecific that it doesn't contradict a 50,000
> year ago scenario.
Years were different in those days. Viz Methusaleh.
> > God just created the world in 4004 BCE so that it looked as if all this
> > stuff was very ancient.
> Well, that's a human interpretation which is not compelled by their rule
> book.
You challenge the Bishop Usher's tabulation of the geneology of the
generations as set forth in the Bible? Apparently John Lightfoot refined
this to September 17, 4004 BCE at 9:00AM
>If it took place 40,000 years ago, give or take a dozen millenia, that
> would be consistent with what's know about human migration and the actual
> evolution of languages. So the main weakness in the theory is that it's
> based on the unsupported existence of god.
I think modern "creationists" favor a 10,000 year old world.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Thomas Clarke" <tcl...@ist.ucf.edu>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2004 10:01 AM
Subject: Argue Against Tower of Babel
> [Mostly address to Dave Odden who is linguist]
>
> What is your response to the religionist argument that
> languages originated as in the Tower of Babel story
> in the Bible?
The Tower of Babel is a myth. It means that man's efforts to achieve perfect
objectivity (to build a tower that reaches to the heavens) will be thwarted
by his own constitutional subjectivity (symbolized by failure of
communication). "The Lord said..." simply stands for the laws of nature.
This anticipates psychology, philosophy and even Objectivism!
This is an excellent example of why The Bible is such a wonderful source of
true wisdom.
Don Matt
Acar wrote:
> > [Mostly address to Dave Odden who is linguist]
> >
> > What is your response to the religionist argument that
> > languages originated as in the Tower of Babel story
> > in the Bible?
>
> The Tower of Babel is a myth.
One of the most common mistakes that both religious and atheist people do
is considering all what is written on the bible as really factual. In fact,
probably many atheist are atheists because they never thought that the
personal God maybe a symbol.
> It means that man's efforts to achieve perfect
> objectivity (to build a tower that reaches to the heavens)
I惴 not sure if the symbol "tower" is always equal to "perfect
objectivity". And I recall the mith as if people wanted not to reach
"heavens" that somehow means paradise but I recall it as "reach the sky",
meaning the place where is God, and then there is a subtle difference. The
sky, I think, is related with an elevated position that maybe intelectual
but not always. I would say that everything that disconects with the whole,
and claims supperiority above everything, becomes that symbolic tower.
will be thwarted
> by his own constitutional subjectivity (symbolized by failure of
> communication).
Explain better "constitutional subjcetivity".
> "The Lord said..." simply stands for the laws of nature.
This part of the history, as in many others in the Ancient Testment, God
reveals his bad side. This is also a very interesting example of what
differs between eastern mythologies and western. On a western mythology God
is always separated from the ego when in a eastern myth this kind of God is
absurd.
Anyway, pay attention how the "summum bonum", God, is a tricky element in
this story.
> This anticipates psychology, philosophy and even Objectivism!
Also Marxism, catholicism (in dark ages), nazism and so on...
But I have studied in some detail the tower symbolism, mostly because
9/11, and have convinced myself that the Twin Towers have some relation with
this old tower that appears on the babel myth. It愀 an opinion of mine, I
have posted it to Jungian groups and there was some agreement but also some
disagreement about it.
It愀 just that, on the 9/11 event, the Twin Towers represented the maximum
symbol of capitalism, that was unnafected on theory and supremacy. The whole
world was astonished by such a power that could reach the skies and lie
unaffected above the crowdy reality on the floor.
> This is an excellent example of why The Bible is such a wonderful source
of
> true wisdom.
When correctly read.
Don.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Matt" <dma...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Your analysis is much more technical than mine. I simply tried to extract
the instinctive primitive raw wisdom that would lead the ancients to express
their concepts that way. I used the word objectivity because that is a
concept that captures reality in this group. If I had been writing to a
scientific group I might have said technology.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"The validity of the senses is established by consensus."
One of my finest quotes.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
..
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
Mark N
>>>untestable? would you consider any synonyms?
>
>>Well, balderdash[?] and poppycock[?] come to mind, but I think that
>>untestable is quite adequate as a description.
>
> I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to supply the obvious
> synonym.
> Hint: you might find this word on the GRE, but not on Dave Odden's
> web site.
Unfalsifiable?
Mark
Mark N
>>Well, that's a human interpretation which is not compelled by their rule
>>book.
>
>
> You challenge the Bishop Usher's tabulation of the geneology of the
> generations as set forth in the Bible? Apparently John Lightfoot refined
> this to September 17, 4004 BCE at 9:00AM
Is that Eastern Standard Time?
Mark
robert j. kolker
Mark N wrote:
>
> Is that Eastern Standard Time?
Lightfoot was a Brit. He -obviously- meant GMT.
Bob Kolker
Tom Clarke
@trndny06>...
We have a winner!
I find it interesting that an Objectivist scientist first mentions
lack of testability or falsifiability when asked about a religious
theory.
Tom Clarke
Randroid Terminator
<tcl...@ist.ucf.edu> wrote:
>[Mostly address to Dave Odden who is linguist]
>
>What is your response to the religionist argument that
>languages originated as in the Tower of Babel story
>in the Bible?
>
>Tom Clarke
An Objectivist wouldn't argue against The Tower of Babel story. What's
there to argue against? However, a philosopher worth his salt (i.e., a
non-Objectivist) would take the story for what it's worth and find
some philosophical meaning behind the myth.
--
robert j. kolker
Tom Clarke wrote:
> We have a winner!
>
> I find it interesting that an Objectivist scientist first mentions
> lack of testability or falsifiability when asked about a religious
> theory.
But never a scientific theory. That is because all scientific theories
are true in their "context" (oh that magic word!). This includes
Ptolemaic cosmology, caloric, phlogiston, vital essence and aether.
By the way vital essence is Ayn Rand's self generating life force. It
was proven to be bogus when all so-called organic compunds were shown to
be made of the same stuff as inorganic compounds. There was no magic
vital essence mixed with ordinary atoms.
If Rand were not a scietific dunce should would have been an aether
loving scientific crank. And her ventriloquist dummy Leonard Peikoff, ditto.
Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> An Objectivist wouldn't argue against The Tower of Babel story. What's
> there to argue against? However, a philosopher worth his salt (i.e., a
> non-Objectivist) would take the story for what it's worth and find
> some philosophical meaning behind the myth.
It is a "just so" story to explain the multiplicity of languages.
Mankind split into tribes and nations and spread all over the earth
without any urging from G-D.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
That's an example of an Objectivist skeptical interpretation, in this
case coming from a materialist. Not that there's much difference
between the two.
--
Don Matt
> Your analysis is much more technical than mine. I simply tried to extract
> the instinctive primitive raw wisdom that would lead the ancients to
express
> their concepts that way.
I liked it anyway. But it´s pretty hard to discuss a so important event
that created the many different languages around the world.
But from Dave I´m curious what´s his opinion about the possibility that all
the languages may have a common origin; I think I read this somewhere as a
scientific data and would like to know if ii is really true.
> "The validity of the senses is established by consensus."
> One of my finest quotes.
Who said this quote?
Don.
robert j. kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> That's an example of an Objectivist skeptical interpretation, in this
> case coming from a materialist. Not that there's much difference
> between the two.
It is an interpretation that can be evaluated empirically. If it ain't
empirical it is either math, philosophy, religion or nonsense.
With the exception of mathematics, empirical good, non-empirical bad.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
That's what you always and eternally say. But repeating a lie again
and again and again on usenet won't make it come true.
--
robert j. kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
>
> That's what you always and eternally say. But repeating a lie again
> and again and again on usenet won't make it come true.
It is a true lie. Empirics made technology which is about the best thing
the human race has every done. Philosophical mush and woo woo got us
nowhere for 3000 years. Empirically based science transformed the world
in under 500 years. Science, math and technology are the best things
about the human race. Everything else fades in comparison.
Bob Kolker
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Matt" <dma...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2004 10:04 PM
Subject: Re: Argue Against Tower of Babel
>
> > "The validity of the senses is established by consensus."
> > One of my finest quotes.
>
> Who said this quote?
I did. :-)
Sorry to disappoint you.
Randroid Terminator
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
>> That's what you always and eternally say. But repeating a lie again
>> and again and again on usenet won't make it come true.
>It is a true lie. Empirics made technology which is about the best thing
>the human race has every done.
Contingent on the fact that it hasn't destroyed us, yet.
> Philosophical mush and woo woo got us nowhere for 3000 years.
You don't know anything about it. Aren't you the guy who wishes all
Germans and Japanese had been slaughtered during WWII? Why should
anybody take anything a skinhead like you says seriously?
> Empirically based science transformed the world
>in under 500 years. Science, math and technology are the best things
>about the human race. Everything else fades in comparison.
Since you have no soul, then it's no wonder you favor such physical
objects over the minds that produced them.
--
robert j. kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> Since you have no soul, then it's no wonder you favor such physical
> objects over the minds that produced them.
Bloody fucking right. I am meat right down to the molecular level.
Bob Kolker
Dave Odden
> But from Dave I´m curious what´s his opinion about the possibility that
all
> the languages may have a common origin; I think I read this somewhere as a
> scientific data and would like to know if ii is really true.
It's likely to be true. The idea of origin of language refers to the change
from hominids not having language to having language. Language is so
fundamental to man's existence and so tightly connected with his other
general cognitive faculties, that it's inconceivable that evolutionarily
modern man sat around for 20,000 years with no systematized means of
organising and expressing concepts. This pushes the origin of language back
to somewhere around the evolution of modern man. And that does not mean just
Cro-Magnon. There are some indications that Neanderthal might have been
cognatively "slow", but evidence has been found of their use of symbols (and
the ability to abstract and represent is the fundamental breakthrough needed
for language), so the development of language is probably very ancient.
[There was a brief period when a certain guy held that Neanderthal did not
have language, but that argument has been thoroughly discredited though the
originator apparently clings doggedly to his old views.] The only reasonable
chance that the multi-genesis theory of language has is if modern man
himself evolved more than once from animals lacking language. There isn't a
huge amount of evidence bearing on that, but what there is does not
indicate, for example, that Northern Europeans descended from apes around
100,000 years ago and Asians separately descended from apes around 75,000
years ago. That's what would be needed for languages to not all have the
same origin.
The question is not really answerable in a hard scientific manner, since we
can't travel back in time. I favor the monogenesis theory because the
alternative multiple independent development theory is unlikely, but it's
not directly testable. Debate on this topic suffers from a bizarre
metaphorical view that language is "genetic", in the way that incisor shape
is. Of course that's completely false, but that view even as a recognised
metaphor tends to elude people who work in the area of the "source" of a
language.
Don Matt
"Acar" wrote:
> > > "The validity of the senses is established by consensus."
> > > One of my finest quotes.
> >
> > Who said this quote?
>
> I did. :-)
> Sorry to disappoint you.
Acar, let me see if I understand you. I have pretty much an example that
illustrates your quote. Here in Brazil there is (as I´ve said some times
here) a spiritual movement called "spiritism". It is based on the action of
some people named "mediums", who are able to conect with the "spiritual"
world. The interesting thing on my view is that Brazil is much a capitalist,
industrial, country; with a tradition different from India in many aspects
but this movement is epidemic. We have people on the lower, middle and high
classes who claim to be mediums and I guarantee that, except for their trend
to charity you´d not recognize these individuals. When these people are
together it is rather normal for them to conect with a dead loved one and
literally hear a message, some of them also have visual abilities and so on.
My point is that an individual like this, on a different environment, could
end on a psychiatryc hospital.
I had an argument once, with a very rational friend of mine asking what
would he do if he started conecting with data that only few people are able
to conect. "I am a doctor Don, *I know it is not right*, I would ask for
medical treatment." So, Acar´s thesis is proven: "The validity of the
senses is established by consensus." Is that what you meant? Anyway, if you
are right, we should ask what are the proper means to achieve consensus.
Don.
Randroid Terminator
At least you're only speaking for yourself, meathead.
--
Don Matt
There isn't a
> huge amount of evidence bearing on that, but what there is does not
> indicate, for example, that Northern Europeans descended from apes around
> 100,000 years ago and Asians separately descended from apes around 75,000
> years ago. That's what would be needed for languages to not all have the
> same origin.
Thanks Dave. I was not aware of the theories about language evolution. On
the biologycal level is quite difficult to believe that two indepentend
humanoid breeds developed the same genetic "language factor". This would be
very unlikely, almost impossible in fact.
But I´ve read, on the mythologycal field, some debate very simmilar. As was
found many simmilarities between ancient american myths, middle east myths
and eastern myths some people have postulated that myth could come from a
genetical level. It would be a behaviour just the same way birs or turtles
have the behavior of travelling guided by genetics. I do not agree. I think
there was a initial ancient culture that spread a simmilar mythology all
over the globe.
> The question is not really answerable in a hard scientific manner, since
we
> can't travel back in time. I favor the monogenesis theory because the
> alternative multiple independent development theory is unlikely, but it's
> not directly testable.
But is there any indirect evidence, like for example, a simmilar word basis
strucuture between distant (eastern and western) languages? I mean, if the
languages are really from a same origin, is there evidence of it?
Don.
Charles Novins
> > > > "The validity of the senses is established by consensus."
YOUR TRANSLATOR:
Don wants to handle this.
ACAR:
> > > > One of my finest quotes.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Oi. May be.
"Don Matt" <dma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgna9d$mkl$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Acar, let me see if I understand you.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Bon voyage.
DON MATT:
I have pretty much an example that illustrates your quote. Here in Brazil
there is (as I扉e said some times here) a spiritual movement called
"spiritism". It is based on the action of some people named "mediums", who
are able to conect with the "spiritual" world. The interesting thing on my
view is that Brazil is much a capitalist,
industrial, country; with a tradition different from India in many aspects
but this movement is epidemic.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I've been to Brazil many times as tourist (usually Rio) and I read the
newspapers. Thus I'm a bit curious about calling it "capitalist,"
especially on HPO and without qualification. It's clearly a mixed economy,
but since you live there, I definitely would like to hear what you say.
DON MATT:
We have people on the lower, middle and high classes who claim to be mediums
and I guarantee that, except for their trend to charity you悲 not recognize
these individuals. When these people are together it is rather normal for
them to conect with a dead loved one and literally hear a message, some of
them also have visual abilities and so on.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I believe Acar connects with the dead, hears messages, and has visual
abilities.
DON MATT:
> My point is that an individual like this, on a different environment,
could end on a psychiatryc hospital. I had an argument once, with a very
rational friend of mine asking what would he do if he started conecting with
data that only few people are able to conect. "I am a doctor Don, *I know it
is not right*, I would ask for medical treatment."
CHARLES NOVINS:
Well, you can appreciate his frank answer, but it obviously assumes some
sort of containment. Once you go schizo, it's a little like the classic
problem where you've misplaced your glasses. It's just as likely your
friend would begin sharing his newfound knowledge with everyone...via
posting to Usenet.
DON MATT:
So, Acar愀 thesis is proven: "The validity of the senses is established by
consensus." Is that what you meant? Anyway, if you are right, we should ask
what are the proper means to achieve consensus.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Well, I can't really tell if you're just trying to pull Acar's leg just as I
often do, but he's not actually saying that any time five schizophrenics
agree, they've identified truth. Acar's problem is poor philosophy, not
psych pathology, and that's why we all consent to treat him here on HPO.
Incidentally, I've grown to love the Brazilian people over the course of my
many visits, even though the thuggery there is a bit world class (in
government, as everywhere, and on the street, in the form of an amazingly
high crime rate.)
Dave Odden
> But is there any indirect evidence, like for example, a simmilar word
basis
> strucuture between distant (eastern and western) languages? I mean, if the
> languages are really from a same origin, is there evidence of it?
There are rampant similarities between all languages of the world, and
finding and explaining them is what a number of us do for a living (me in
particular). There are three explanations for universal properties. One is
that they reflect accidental properties retained from whatever that oiginal
language would have been, since languages tend to preserve properties over
time. That isn't a widely believed theory, but it's also not discredited --
it's more ignored (a bad decision, I think). A second is that they reflect a
genetically determined language ability which pre-specifies certain things
about human language (not things like "nouns come before adjectives" or what
any specific words are, but a specification of what things words can be made
of, i.e. the tools). This is -- I think -- the most popular view, though
there hasn't been a poll taken. The third view, the next runner up, is a
variant of the preceding, only it isn't limited to language, i.e. it says
that human language is the way it is (and therefore there are major
similarities between all languages in these ways) because language is part
of human cognition and the human mind does have a specific nature (which is
connected to brain structure, which is subject to genetic determination).
This third view, which denies that there is anything special about language,
is on the ascent; I think it's wrong in some cases or at least it's got a
lot of explaining to do, but it has been demonstrably right in a number of
cases where the language-prewiring people have grotesquely overstated the
case.
If you hold the strongest form of this third view, then you could say that
human cognition evolved to a certain point and yet language had not emerged;
members of the newly developed species H. sapiens migrated to different
parts of the planet alingually; and eventually, language emerged
independently from some shared language precursors (something that does not
constitute language as we have it) plus this shared general cognitive
capacity.
robert j. kolker
Randroid Terminator wrote:
> At least you're only speaking for yourself, meathead.
Who else could I possibly speak for, idiot.
Bob Kolker
Mark Sieving
illfile.org>...
> Here in Brazil there is (as I´ve said some times
> here) a spiritual movement called "spiritism". It is based on the action of
> some people named "mediums", who are able to conect with the "spiritual"
> world. The interesting thing on my view is that Brazil is much a capitalist,
> industrial, country; with a tradition different from India in many aspects
> but this movement is epidemic.
Spiritism or spiritualism was very popular in the UK and the US in the
late 19th century and early 20th century. Arthur Conan Doyle, who
wrote the Sherlock Holmes stories, was heavily into the subject. And
you can find mediums in just about any town in the US these days.
There were recently a couple of popular TV shows in the US by people
who claimed to communicatte with the dead. I don't know if the shows
are still running; it's not a subject that I have much interest in,
myself.
Charles Novins
news:b459d829.0408...@posting.google.com...
> There were recently a couple of popular TV shows in the US by people
> who claimed to communicatte with the dead. I don't know if the shows
> are still running;
CHARLES NOVINS:
"Hannity and Combs" is still on the air. "McNeil/Lehrer" continues, albeit
with only half the personnel.
The trend began with one John McLaughlin, who revolutionized both political
commentary and afterlife communication by speaking loudly enough to wake the
dead up from their rest..
Don Matt
> DON MATT:
> I have pretty much an example that illustrates your quote. Here in Brazil
> there is (as I扉e said some times here) a spiritual movement called
> "spiritism". It is based on the action of some people named "mediums", who
> are able to conect with the "spiritual" world. The interesting thing on my
> view is that Brazil is much a capitalist,
> industrial, country; with a tradition different from India in many aspects
> but this movement is epidemic.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> I've been to Brazil many times as tourist (usually Rio) and I read the
> newspapers. Thus I'm a bit curious about calling it "capitalist,"
> especially on HPO and without qualification. It's clearly a mixed
economy,
> but since you live there, I definitely would like to hear what you say.
Uh, and how long have you been here? Where have you gonne? To Rio de
Janeiro. Have drunk some beer and watched some "mulatas" dancing and now
you扉e decided that you can talk about brazilian economy. eheh.
I know Brazil is a mixed economy and that愀 why I said "much a capitalist,
industrial" and so on". Accord to your thesis only Mars will be possible a
capitalist place because you consider yourself a tax slave in the USA.
Anyway, probably you missed the point that is saying that there is an
epidemic movement, even between people that have had a good education.
> DON MATT:
> We have people on the lower, middle and high classes who claim to be
mediums
> and I guarantee that, except for their trend to charity you悲 not
recognize
> these individuals. When these people are together it is rather normal for
> them to conect with a dead loved one and literally hear a message, some of
> them also have visual abilities and so on.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> I believe Acar connects with the dead, hears messages, and has visual
> abilities.
Acar insists to conect with dead brains on usenet, that is true.,
> DON MATT:
> > My point is that an individual like this, on a different environment,
> could end on a psychiatryc hospital. I had an argument once, with a very
> rational friend of mine asking what would he do if he started conecting
with
> data that only few people are able to conect. "I am a doctor Don, *I know
it
> is not right*, I would ask for medical treatment."
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Well, you can appreciate his frank answer, but it obviously assumes some
> sort of containment. Once you go schizo, it's a little like the classic
> problem where you've misplaced your glasses. It's just as likely your
> friend would begin sharing his newfound knowledge with everyone...via
> posting to Usenet.
Let me take seriously this point. There is a difference between a schizo
and these people that I talk about. A schizo has no notion that what he/she
sees is "not part of other people愀 reality". Schizos see a man with a dak
suit and they start screaming all over the place that someone wants to kill
him. They lack that inner sense that tells them "hey, this kind of
information is not the usual thing, nobody else sees it." These people I
talk about are different. They can be on a crowdy room and then see or hear
something but they rather keep calm or simply say nothing. Those who have
learned how to use these kind of abilities claim to be able to close the
door that conects them with this "spiritual" world.
As a scientist I惴 not eager to take any conclusion about this. But no
one ca deny it is a phenomena. There is something going on. Is it collective
madness? Or is there some reality behind these facts? I say facts because it
has been documented that some of these individuals are able to sign exactly
as a dead individual who they claim to have never know or seen they sign.
"Oh, but these people are a fraud and only want money." No, not true. Most
of them do it for free. Only those who have not studied correctly do charge
for their "abilities".
But all this was just to talk about Acar愀 quote. And no, I personally do
not have these abilities but I am eager to understand this phenomena.
> DON MATT:
> So, Acar愀 thesis is proven: "The validity of the senses is established by
> consensus." Is that what you meant? Anyway, if you are right, we should
ask
> what are the proper means to achieve consensus.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Well, I can't really tell if you're just trying to pull Acar's leg just as
I
> often do, but he's not actually saying that any time five schizophrenics
> agree, they've identified truth.
As I扉e said these individuals are not schizos. By the way, do you know what
is a psychosis and what is a neurosis?
> Acar's problem is poor philosophy, not
> psych pathology, and that's why we all consent to treat him here on HPO.
You are so kind...
> Incidentally, I've grown to love the Brazilian people
Do not confuse brazilian people with "mulatas". I also love them.
> over the course of my
> many visits, even though the thuggery there is a bit world class (in
> government, as everywhere, and on the street, in the form of an amazingly
> high crime rate.)
I do not love a lot of what happens in Brasil. I fight everyday to change
it. But I simply can愒 accept that an individual that doesn愒 know the
difference between Brasil愀 South, Southeast, Northeast, Middle West and
also the untouched Rain Forest, how an individual like this dares to discuss
about it with me.
Don.
Don Matt
"Dave Odden" <od...@ling.ohio-state.edu> escreveu na mensagem
news:KdKXc.10396$0J6....@fe1.columbus.rr.com...
> "Don Matt" wrote:
>
> > But is there any indirect evidence, like for example, a simmilar word
> basis
> > strucuture between distant (eastern and western) languages? I mean, if
the
> > languages are really from a same origin, is there evidence of it?
>
> There are rampant similarities between all languages of the world, and
> finding and explaining them is what a number of us do for a living (me in
> particular). There are three explanations for universal properties.
Thanks Dave again for nice explanation. But if you permit, let me make just
one more question. Do you know if ancient american languages are simmilar to
Easten languages or they are simmilar to some other place on Earth. I think
this could explain a lot how these indiviuduals came to America at first
place.
At this moment I´m thinking that there was really a initial developed
civilization that has spread myths and a basic language structuture to the
world.
Don.
Don Matt
If you cared to read about the issue you would discover that presentations
on TV shows are not accepted by the real mediums, who follow the basic
rules. I“d say these individuals are mostly a fraud and are one more
attraction between the many different that exist on TV shows.
Don.
Randroid Terminator
>Randroid Terminator wrote:
Only yourself, meathead, only yourself...
--
Dave Odden
> Do you know if ancient american languages are simmilar to
> Easten languages or they are simmilar to some other place on Earth. I
think
> this could explain a lot how these indiviuduals came to America at first
> place.
They are no more similar to East Asian languages of any type than to, say,
African languages. This is one of those problems with the Greenberg /
Cavalli-Sforza theory, that if the claim were true, you should find more
linguisitic similarities with languages of Eastern Siberia. Now that does
exclude the relation between Eskimo and the so-called Paleoasiatic languages
which do have a lot of structural similarities, but remember that the
Eskimos migration was fairly recent, about contemporary with Indo-European
expansion, and actual contact has been maintained up to the present (which
enhances these similarities).
> At this moment I´m thinking that there was really a initial developed
> civilization that has spread myths and a basic language structuture to the
> world.
I doubt that very much. The earliest civilizations for which there is any
physical evidence are from about 4,000 BC, and we know that man had spread
into the New World by 10,000 BC or earlier (I'm not up on the newest finds
but I know that it has pushed it back quite a lot)
Charles Novins
> > I've been to Brazil many times as tourist (usually Rio) and I read the
> > newspapers. Thus I'm a bit curious about calling it "capitalist,"
> > especially on HPO and without qualification. It's clearly a mixed
> economy,
> > but since you live there, I definitely would like to hear what you say.
"Don Matt" <dma...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cgoisu$735$1...@victor.killfile.org...
> Uh, and how long have you been here? Where have you gonne? To Rio de
> Janeiro. Have drunk some beer and watched some "mulatas" dancing and now
> you´ve decided that you can talk about brazilian economy. eheh.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Oh, come now. I was hoping you wouldn't resort to the bit about how no one
but a resident can know the "truth."
Well, I've never so much as visited Russia, but still I have a whole lot of
information about it, a dictatorship that lasted 70 years, widespread
poverty, etc. And I heard they weren't capitalist. But I guess no one who
didn't live there can know. Do I have you right?
What do I do and where do I go in Rio? All I will say is that I do not
engage in the usual scene to which you refer; regular HPO'ers know I don't
care for alcohol, for example.
DON MATT:
> I know Brazil is a mixed economy and that´s why I said "much a
capitalist,
> industrial" and so on". Accord to your thesis only Mars will be possible a
> capitalist place because you consider yourself a tax slave in the USA.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Yes, half or more of my property taken from me on pain of violence, yeah,
I'm pissed. Elsewhere, including Brazil, I assume it's worse. If you
consider such conditions acceptable, fine, let's just say one of us is
extremely divorced from common sense, and we could leave it there.
>
> > DON MATT:
>Let me take seriously this point. There is a difference between a schizo
> and these people that I talk about. A schizo has no notion that what
he/she
> sees is "not part of other people´s reality". Schizos see a man with a dak
> suit and they start screaming all over the place that someone wants to
kill
> him. They lack that inner sense that tells them "hey, this kind of
> information is not the usual thing, nobody else sees it." These people I
> talk about are different. They can be on a crowdy room and then see or
hear
> something but they rather keep calm or simply say nothing. Those who have
> learned how to use these kind of abilities claim to be able to close the
> door that conects them with this "spiritual" world.
> As a scientist I´m not eager to take any conclusion about this. But no
> one ca deny it is a phenomena.
CHARLES NOVINS:
A psychological phenomenon? Obviously. Equally obviously, it is false as
any other kind of phenomenon.
DON MATT:
>There is something going on. Is it collective madness?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Obviously culture and myth. Collective madness or schizo are not the sole
choices, nor are they even likely alternatives.
DON MATT:
Or is there some reality behind these facts? I say facts because it
> has been documented that some of these individuals are able to sign
exactly
> as a dead individual who they claim to have never know or seen they sign.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Nonsense. C'mon, Don.
DON MATT:
> "Oh, but these people are a fraud and only want money." No, not true. Most
> of them do it for free. Only those who have not studied correctly do
charge
> for their "abilities".
> But all this was just to talk about Acar´s quote. And no, I personally
do
> not have these abilities but I am eager to understand this phenomena.
CHARLES NOVINS:
No one has such "abilities." You are reiterating silliness for reasons I
cannot begin to fathom.
This actually demonstrates the precise reasons why Acar's quote is
misguided.
>
> > DON MATT:
> As I´ve said these individuals are not schizos.
CHARLES NOVINS:
You have no way of knowing which of them are, but as I said, common sense
suggests it's cultural in any event, and psychological in all events.
DON MATT:
By the way, do you know what is a psychosis and what is a neurosis?
CHARLES NOVINS:
I studied psychology formally and retained interest in it afterward. I know
as much or more than laymen, less than professionals. It's not relevant to
what we're talking about anyway.
There's no psychic "phenomena" and there's no communication with the dead,
that's zero, in case I'm not clear.
Such things would merit automatic dismissal for arbitrariness except for the
fact that there has been sufficient interest and wishful thinking to
actually generate research, all of which has dis-proved it. So the evidence
isn't merely zero, it's negative.
Common sense ought to do the job, however. How many police departments are
solving crimes with psychics? Guess what? Zero. What psychics are
tracking down Osama? Guess what? Zero. Statistically valid predictions of
stuff like 9/11? Guess what?
Every time you look into any of these things seriously, they turn up stupid.
Assuming they are true means no one is secure, no secret can be kept, etc.
You want to sign on to these claims?
DON MATT:
> I do not love a lot of what happens in Brasil. I fight everyday to change
> it. But I simply can´t accept that an individual that doesn´t know the
> difference between Brasil´s South, Southeast, Northeast, Middle West and
> also the untouched Rain Forest, how an individual like this dares to
discuss
> about it with me.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Yes, I realize the facts of Brazil's economy, culture, etc. are
hermetically-sealed secrets hidden from the world. Don't discuss it with me
'cause I'll tell.
Don Matt
> > > DON MATT:
> >Let me take seriously this point. There is a difference between a schizo
> > and these people that I talk about. A schizo has no notion that what
> he/she
dak
> > suit and they start screaming all over the place that someone wants to
> kill
> > him. They lack that inner sense that tells them "hey, this kind of
> > information is not the usual thing, nobody else sees it." These people
I
> > talk about are different. They can be on a crowdy room and then see or
> hear
> > something but they rather keep calm or simply say nothing. Those who
have
> > learned how to use these kind of abilities claim to be able to close the
> > door that conects them with this "spiritual" world.
no
> > one ca deny it is a phenomena.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> A psychological phenomenon? Obviously. Equally obviously, it is false as
> any other kind of phenomenon.
Have you really investigated it? By what means can you say the these
phenomenon are false?
> DON MATT:
> >There is something going on. Is it collective madness?
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Obviously culture and myth. Collective madness or schizo are not the sole
> choices, nor are they even likely alternatives.
The real question is if these phenomenom are the result of previous
individual愀 memories, based on culture and myth as you扉e said or if these
phenomenom are the result of a different kind of perception.
> DON MATT:
> Or is there some reality behind these facts? I say facts because it
> > has been documented that some of these individuals are able to sign
> exactly
> > as a dead individual who they claim to have never know or seen they
sign.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Nonsense. C'mon, Don.
Seems you are uninformed about the issue. It has some time that Rhine
conducted interesting experiments about the paranormal phenomena.
> DON MATT:
> > "Oh, but these people are a fraud and only want money." No, not true.
Most
> > of them do it for free. Only those who have not studied correctly do
> charge
> > for their "abilities".
> > But all this was just to talk about Acar愀 quote. And no, I personally
> do
> > not have these abilities but I am eager to understand this phenomena.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> No one has such "abilities." You are reiterating silliness for reasons I
> cannot begin to fathom.
Because it seems not to be silliness. You are probably confused by the many
different talk shows and frauds that are only interested in taking money.
I惻l repeat that I know very intelligent, rational and exptremelly predent
individuals who claim to have such abilities. I扉e found a resume about
Rhine愀 experiments, take a look:
http://tinyurl.com/47wyo
What are you going to say about it?
But these reproduceble experiments are extremelly important evidence that
there is really some kind of perception not limited by the regular senses.
Now, let愀 go again to your point that there is the myth and culture going
on. Consider the idea (and as my link shows it is a very probable idea) that
somehow people may conect with each other in a point to predict thinking.
Now consider that somehow some people have this inner ability more developed
and are able to percept the fears and needs, this including the memories of
a decieved love one. It愀 easy that a pure phenomena becomes mixed with
culture and than our discussion begins to complicate ad infinitum.
> This actually demonstrates the precise reasons why Acar's quote is
> misguided.
Reconsider this opinion.
> > > DON MATT:
> > As I扉e said these individuals are not schizos.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> You have no way of knowing which of them are, but as I said, common sense
> suggests it's cultural in any event, and psychological in all events.
Frankly I believe that more than a half of the so called mediums are in
fact mental sick people. But there is the other half...
> DON MATT:
> By the way, do you know what is a psychosis and what is a neurosis?
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> I studied psychology formally and retained interest in it afterward. I
know
> as much or more than laymen, less than professionals. It's not relevant
to
> what we're talking about anyway.
>
> There's no psychic "phenomena" and there's no communication with the dead,
> that's zero, in case I'm not clear.
> Such things would merit automatic dismissal for arbitrariness except for
the
> fact that there has been sufficient interest and wishful thinking to
> actually generate research, all of which has dis-proved it. So the
evidence
> isn't merely zero, it's negative.
> Common sense ought to do the job, however. How many police departments
are
> solving crimes with psychics? Guess what? Zero. What psychics are
> tracking down Osama? Guess what? Zero. Statistically valid predictions
of
> stuff like 9/11? Guess what?
I think it愀 because there are few people on the world with ability enough
to be in a police department. Anyway I watched I think that two years ago a
Discovery show with people who worked in a project using paranormal
individuals to spy the soviets. But I do not have the source right now
perhaps I惴 sure about the documentary.
> Every time you look into any of these things seriously, they turn up
stupid.
> Assuming they are true means no one is secure, no secret can be kept, etc.
> You want to sign on to these claims?
You want to read the scientifical material? Feel free to take your time, no
sarcasm intended.
Don.
Mark Sieving
>> CHARLES NOVINS:
>> A psychological phenomenon? Obviously. Equally obviously, it is false as
>> any other kind of phenomenon.
>
> Have you really investigated it? By what means can you say the these
>phenomenon are false?
Several years ago I read an interesting book called Persuasions
of the Witch's Craft, by T. M. Luhrmann. The author is a
cultural anthropologist who spent several months (a couple of
years, I think) living with and studying ritual magic users
(i.e., neopagans and Wiccans) in the United Kingdom. She was
curious why intelligent, well educated, emotionally stable people
believed in magic.
The book has interesting things to say about the nature of
belief, and why people believe as they do. One thing she notes,
as Popper did, is that when you are looking for evidence to
confirm what you belief, you are almost sure to find it. The
trick is, will you be able to see the evidence against your
belief? In general, not unless you're looking for it.
Mark Sieving
Charles Novins
> Have you really investigated it? By what means can you say the these
> phenomenon are false?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Personally investigated it, as a scientist? Of course not. I have to
presume you neither, or you would have mentioned it by now.
Have I looked into what others have done? Yes. I too was mesmerized by
such claims in my youth. At that time, my attitude was "where there's
smoke, there's fire." An awful lot of claims are made, so why not?
Later on I discovered that if you systematically look into each and every
claim, they all fall apart, every single one.
As our Distinguished Professor Of Bullshit Detection, Robert Kolker (and his
esteemed Algorithm) will explain, I was unable to investigate *every*
instance, so I resorted to [*gasp*] induction. I induce that all such
claims are false.
> > DON MATT:
>The real question is if these phenomenom are the result of previous
> individual´s memories, based on culture and myth as you´ve said or if
these
> phenomenom are the result of a different kind of perception.
CHARLES NOVINS:
And that is the *real* question because...????? (OK, I read ahead to Rhine,
so keep reading.)
>
> > DON MATT:
> Seems you are uninformed about the issue. It has some time that Rhine
> conducted interesting experiments about the paranormal phenomena.
[....]
> ... it seems not to be silliness. You are probably confused by the many
> different talk shows and frauds that are only interested in taking money.
> I´ll repeat that I know very intelligent, rational and exptremelly predent
> individuals who claim to have such abilities. I´ve found a resume about
> Rhine´s experiments, take a look:
> http://tinyurl.com/47wyo
>
> What are you going to say about it?
CHARLES NOVINS:
Rhine is the PRIME offender here, because he has the ability to suck in
someone like yourself who is otherwise immune to the carnival approach that
keeps 99% of everyone either collectivist, spiritualist, and usually both.
Now I could conjure up Google & Co. and quickly direct you to plenty of
criticism of Rhine which directly refutes the "research" that your web cite
accepts uncritically. Do I really need to do this? I am bored already.
I explained clearly in the last post some very sensible facts that cannot be
answered by you, but the biggest one, the summation of them all, is why is
the "technology" we are discussing never, ever, ever, ever (got the picture
yet?) utilized?
I chased down the Rhine thing years ago and found irrefutable arguments as
to the poor experimental controls, poor interpretations, and so on. I was
also intrigued by claims of reincarnation, and tracked those down, too.
Each one came to a dead end. Uri Geller was a "laboratory" product, later
crudely exposed by Johnny Carson, of all people
DON MATT:
> But these reproduceble experiments
CHARLES NOVINS:
Nobody is repeating Rhine's work, no one is building upon it, nada. No one
is exploring the technology, which would be world-altering, if true.
Each of us, you and I, relies upon secondary sources, even though mine (re
this topic) are astonishingly better in every way, quantity, quality, and so
on.
But common sense plays a role, and you are simply forfeiting yours openly.
I want to hear why you believe this "discovery" or this "phenomenon" has had
absolutely no application, no widespread acceptance (Hey! It's Acar! At
least we're still on-topic), no nothing.
If Rhine's work were flawless, it would still need to be repeated many times
before anyone should take a second look. The reasons for this are quite
simple, and the slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
is more than sufficient.
Let's approach it this way: Do you understand the reasons why I am
skeptical? IOW, even if you think I'm wrong, do you understand the
*logical*, not emotional, reasons why I am skeptical?
DON MATT:
[Rhine's experiments] are extremelly important evidence that
> there is really some kind of perception not limited by the regular senses.
> Now, let´s go again to your point that there is the myth and culture going
> on. Consider the idea (and as my link shows it is a very probable idea)
that
> somehow people may conect with each other in a point to predict thinking.
> Now consider that somehow some people have this inner ability more
developed
> and are able to percept the fears and needs, this including the memories
of
> a decieved love one. It´s easy that a pure phenomena becomes mixed with
> culture and than our discussion begins to complicate ad infinitum.
CHARLES NOVINS:
You're saying that if it was true, the admixture of culture could make proof
hard to tease apart. Sure, but irrelevant, because there's no evidence it's
true. Worse, you are suggesting that the claims are inherently hard to
investigate. But they are not.
>
> > > > DON MATT:
> Frankly I believe that more than a half of the so called mediums are in
> fact mental sick people. But there is the other half...
CHARLES NOVINS:
I'd guess that far less are psychotic than you suggest. But that sort of
"off the cuff estimation" is where your error lies. Lots and lots of sane
folks making these claims, many of them not-for (explicit or obvious)
profit, they can't be ALL wrong, not every one, right?
That is the point where "common sense" seems to be on your side, but the
problem is, it isn't.
> > ...How many police departments are solving crimes with psychics? Guess
what? Zero. What psychics are tracking down Osama? Guess what? Zero.
Statistically valid predictions of stuff like 9/11? Guess what?
DON MATT:
> I think it´s because there are few people on the world with ability
enough
> to be in a police department.
CHARLES NOVINS:
But Don, NO ONE is doing this, in any police department, anywhere. I can
guarantee that.
I can't guarantee the CIA isn't using psychics, but then look where this
conversation winds up, we're wearing tin-foil skullcaps, and you get the
idea.
Think. Not one, not anywhere. Do you find this omission significant?
DON MATT:
Anyway I watched I think that two years ago a
> Discovery show with people who worked in a project using paranormal
> individuals to spy the soviets. But I do not have the source right now
> perhaps I´m sure about the documentary.
CHARLES NOVINS:
You will either never find that source, or be sorely disappointed and
disillusioned when you do.
I often remark that while major media is wildly biased they almost never
lie. But "almost never," while accurate, still implies many lies, and you
will invariably find some whenever you dig deep.
>
> > Every time you look into any of these things seriously, they turn up
stupid. Assuming they are true means no one is secure, no secret can be
kept, etc. You want to sign on to these claims?
DON MATT:
> http://tinyurl.com/47wyo
> You want to read the scientifical material? Feel free to take your time,
no
> sarcasm intended.
CHARLES NOVINS:
No disrespect intended, but you are skirting so close to the "utterly
meritless" that I don't know if I've incentive enough to bother getting one
of the endless refutations of Rhine's work which your web site (I read it)
cites.
I'd like to hear your response to the aspect I've addressed regarding the
complete and universal dismissal of this as either science or technology.
Things like the million dollar reward offered by Randi, but also the endless
millions more awaiting anyone who could patent, publish, use or even abuse
any of it. Then, if you'd really like, I'll direct you to the various
refutations of Rhine's work.
-------------------------------
Here's a nice exercise for you or anyone reading along. A TV show called
"Beyond Belief: Fact Or Fiction" runs in syndicated reruns most everywhere.
They purport to dramatize three or four "true" paranormal stories each week
(out of six, and you have to guess which are false.) It's fun television,
and my Significant Other watches, so I watch. At the end of the show, they
tell you which tales are "true," and they give you sufficient information
(such as the name of the person involved) so that you can do a quick Google
search about the incident. So you can run down these "documented" tales in,
as it were, real-time.
By the ninth or tenth one, we should all be on the same page.
Fred Weiss
7$8_6.68146@attbi_s04>...
> ... Philosophical mush and woo woo got us
> nowhere for 3000 years. Empirically based science transformed the world
> in under 500 years. Science, math and technology are the best things
> about the human race. Everything else fades in comparison.
The "philosophical mush and woo woo" got us the Golden Age of Greece,
the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment, which made your "empirically
based science" possible. It also got us the American Constitution and
the British equivalent, which enfused Western culture with pro-reason
ideas and which provided the freedom which scientists needed to do
their work.
The only mush and woo woo around here is in your own self-described
brain ooze.
Putz.
Fred Weiss
robert j. kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> The "philosophical mush and woo woo" got us the Golden Age of Greece,
> the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment,
The Golden Age of Greece was the rise of a commercial state which live
on 5/6 slave or indentured labor. In addition to which it mismanagement
lead to the Polopensian war. This "Golden State" was wracked by three
pro-Spartan fascist coups detat and a swift decline. The golden age
lasted under 200 years and its best years less than 100.
If you want Golden Ages, look to Rome, a thug state which outlasted
Glorious Athens 5:1.
As to Renaissance, that was the age in which Aristotelean crapdoodle was
purged from science. Aristotelian thinking decline and neo-Platonic
thinking rose. Science progressed more rapidly along a neo-Platonic
Pythagorean track. It was in the environment that mathematics was
ascendent. In ancient times it was during the Helenistic Alexandrian era
that mathematics flourished (250 b.c.e - 100 b.c.e.) after which rapid
decline and decadence (pushed along by Roman conquest).
Aristotelean science, such as it was, was centered around qualities and
essences. Pythagorean science around quantitative relations. It was the
neo-Platonic mishuggana Kepler that made the break through in planetary
motion (not Copernicus and Galileo who were still hung up on
Aristotelean circular oribts with uniform speed). Newton dropped any
Aristotelean inclinations he might have had from the rear-guard at
Cambridge when plauge closed the school and Newton escaped back to
Woolsthorpe (the family farm) for two years. It was during those two
years the Newton flourished as a mathematicians and got the idea for the
law of gravitation which, warts and all, was several parsecs ahead of
anything that Aristotle ever thought of.
> which made your "empirically
> based science" possible. It also got us the American Constitution and
> the British equivalent, which enfused Western culture with pro-reason
> ideas and which provided the freedom which scientists needed to do
> their work.
John Locke had more to do with it than Aristotle. Good old British
Empiricism. The greatest damage ever done by British Empiricism was the
philosophy of Hume which drove Kant around the bend. Kant want nutsy
fagin and the results are history.
Bob Kolker
Randroid Terminator
<now...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>philosophy of Hume which drove Kant around the bend. Kant want nutsy
>fagin and the results are history.
Why must you totally destroy your own credibility by ending that way?
--
Fred Weiss
4$TI1.52458@attbi_s52>...
> Fred Weiss wrote:
> >
> > The "philosophical mush and woo woo" got us the Golden Age of Greece,
> > the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment,
>
The Age of Pericles, Plato, Aristotle, and an outpouring of creative
genius in all fields unparalled in history up till that time. It's
root and foundation were the pro-reason ideas which predominated in
Greek culture at the time.
> As to Renaissance,...
...it was a direct result of the transmission of Aristotle by Aquinas
into European thought which at the time was under the stranglehold of
Christian mysticism
> John Locke had more to do with it than Aristotle.
Err...John Locke was a "mush and woo woo" philosopher who profoundly
influenced the American Founders.
You're a moron.
Fred Weiss
Don Matt
> > Have you really investigated it? By what means can you say the these
> > phenomenon are false?
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Personally investigated it, as a scientist? Of course not. I have to
> presume you neither, or you would have mentioned it by now.
At this very moment I am pretty enthusiastic about starting an experiment
here in my hometown. As I扉e said I have all the elements: I know people who
claim to have abilities, I know about scientific experiments and it is
really not necessary to have any expansive machine except relatively cheap
Zener cards. Maybe I can have some problems trying to convince the "mediums"
because they say such experiments are of a "low level of consciousness" and
then it may attract lower forms of "vibration"...
Another problem is that I悲 have to keep it as a secret otherwise my
medical carreer could be in trouble...
> Have I looked into what others have done? Yes. I too was mesmerized by
> such claims in my youth. At that time, my attitude was "where there's
> smoke, there's fire." An awful lot of claims are made, so why not?
>
> Later on I discovered that if you systematically look into each and every
> claim, they all fall apart, every single one.
But you扉e just said that you never really directlly tested it. So you扉e
decided it is a flaw mostly on a theoretical level.
> As our Distinguished Professor Of Bullshit Detection, Robert Kolker (and
his
> esteemed Algorithm) will explain, I was unable to investigate *every*
> instance, so I resorted to [*gasp*] induction. I induce that all such
> claims are false.
You do not need to investigate every claim, only the best designed one, the
more rational, that is (as far as I know) Rhine愀 thesis.
> > > DON MATT:
> >The real question is if these phenomenom are the result of previous
> > individual愀 memories, based on culture and myth as you扉e said or if
> these
> > phenomenom are the result of a different kind of perception.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> And that is the *real* question because...????? (OK, I read ahead to
Rhine,
> so keep reading.)
> >
> > > DON MATT:
> > Seems you are uninformed about the issue. It has some time that Rhine
> > conducted interesting experiments about the paranormal phenomena.
> [....]
> > ... it seems not to be silliness. You are probably confused by the many
> > different talk shows and frauds that are only interested in taking
money.
> > I惻l repeat that I know very intelligent, rational and exptremelly
predent
> > individuals who claim to have such abilities. I扉e found a resume about
> > Rhine愀 experiments, take a look:
> > http://tinyurl.com/47wyo
> >
> > What are you going to say about it?
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Rhine is the PRIME offender here, because he has the ability to suck in
> someone like yourself who is otherwise immune to the carnival approach
that
> keeps 99% of everyone either collectivist, spiritualist, and usually both.
>
> Now I could conjure up Google & Co. and quickly direct you to plenty of
> criticism of Rhine which directly refutes the "research" that your web
cite
> accepts uncritically. Do I really need to do this? I am bored already.
I am curious to know what Google & Co has to offer me. Come on, give me the
best you have.
(snipped).
> DON MATT:
> > But these reproduceble experiments
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Nobody is repeating Rhine's work, no one is building upon it, nada. No
one
> is exploring the technology, which would be world-altering, if true.
>
> Each of us, you and I, relies upon secondary sources, even though mine (re
> this topic) are astonishingly better in every way, quantity, quality, and
so
> on.
This is untrue.
> But common sense plays a role, and you are simply forfeiting yours openly.
> I want to hear why you believe this "discovery" or this "phenomenon" has
had
> absolutely no application, no widespread acceptance (Hey! It's Acar! At
> least we're still on-topic), no nothing.
On a country where people are either materialist or religious fanatical
(USA, not everyone of course) there is no ground for the application of a
source of knowledge as unusual as we are talking about. But, as you扉e said,
here in Brazil there is a cultural background that allows the application of
such abilities in a way that people feel better about their lifes. I
understand what you mean but "absolutely no application" is a wrong term.
> If Rhine's work were flawless, it would still need to be repeated many
times
> before anyone should take a second look. The reasons for this are quite
> simple, and the slogan "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence"
> is more than sufficient.
As far as I know it was tested many times and the resullts were almost all
positive for ESP.
> Let's approach it this way: Do you understand the reasons why I am
> skeptical?
Of course. You think there is not evidence but the problem is that I think
there is plenty. (Acar again!! ; )
> IOW, even if you think I'm wrong, do you understand the
> *logical*, not emotional, reasons why I am skeptical?
The logic is a wrong one : )
> DON MATT:
> [Rhine's experiments] are extremelly important evidence that
> > there is really some kind of perception not limited by the regular
senses.
> > Now, let愀 go again to your point that there is the myth and culture
going
> > on. Consider the idea (and as my link shows it is a very probable idea)
> that
> > somehow people may conect with each other in a point to predict
thinking.
> > Now consider that somehow some people have this inner ability more
> developed
> > and are able to percept the fears and needs, this including the memories
> of
> > a decieved love one. It愀 easy that a pure phenomena becomes mixed with
> > culture and than our discussion begins to complicate ad infinitum.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> You're saying that if it was true, the admixture of culture could make
proof
> hard to tease apart. Sure, but irrelevant, because there's no evidence
it's
> true. Worse, you are suggesting that the claims are inherently hard to
> investigate. But they are not.
I惴 not saying that it is hard to investigate I惴 only saying that maybe
some cultural conditions here in Brazil may lead people to call as a spirit
a manifiestation that a psychologyst would claim to be ESP. Let愀 admit
(just for a moment) there is a fact: a individual A distant from another (B)
is able to know what card individual B is watching on a certain moment. Here
in Brazil some people would say that individual B may know this because a
spirit is able to pass such information.
> > > > > DON MATT:
> > Frankly I believe that more than a half of the so called mediums are in
> > fact mental sick people. But there is the other half...
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> I'd guess that far less are psychotic than you suggest. But that sort of
> "off the cuff estimation" is where your error lies. Lots and lots of sane
> folks making these claims, many of them not-for (explicit or obvious)
> profit, they can't be ALL wrong, not every one, right?
>
> That is the point where "common sense" seems to be on your side, but the
> problem is, it isn't.
>
> > > ...How many police departments are solving crimes with psychics?
Guess
> what? Zero. What psychics are tracking down Osama? Guess what? Zero.
> Statistically valid predictions of stuff like 9/11? Guess what?
>
> DON MATT:
> > I think it愀 because there are few people on the world with ability
> enough
> > to be in a police department.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> But Don, NO ONE is doing this, in any police department, anywhere. I can
> guarantee that.
> I can't guarantee the CIA isn't using psychics, but then look where this
> conversation winds up, we're wearing tin-foil skullcaps, and you get the
> idea.
> Think. Not one, not anywhere. Do you find this omission significant?
As I扉e said seems this is not true. I扉e watched, one year ago, a story
like this one:
> I often remark that while major media is wildly biased they almost never
> lie. But "almost never," while accurate, still implies many lies, and you
> will invariably find some whenever you dig deep.
Maybe.
> > > Every time you look into any of these things seriously, they turn up
> stupid. Assuming they are true means no one is secure, no secret can be
> kept, etc. You want to sign on to these claims?
> DON MATT:
> > http://tinyurl.com/47wyo
> > You want to read the scientifical material? Feel free to take your
time,
> no
> > sarcasm intended.
>
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> I'd like to hear your response to the aspect I've addressed regarding the
> complete and universal dismissal of this as either science or technology
We are not discussing if the ESP is a industrial tool or has any direct
application to our life. We are not discussing that it has a perfect
reproducibility. We are just discussing if there is a rational basis for
accepting its existence. If there was one well documented case, which is
beyond doubt, there would be a high probability that it is true. But if
there are many and many different cases all around the globe, some
espontaneous, other under lab conditions than there is a even higher
probability of existing something. But these information are still not well
understood to be used on a techno capitalist mode. I clearly remember right
now that Galileo tryed to measure light speed by using two syncronized
clocks and covering lamps at a precise time. A distant individual was
supposed to measure the difference of time between the cover and the visual
stimulus.
I believe there is a different, unusual kind of perception that we are so
ignorant about it that we still do not know how to use it.
> Things like the million dollar reward offered by Randi, but also the
endless
> millions more awaiting anyone who could patent, publish, use or even abuse
> any of it. Then, if you'd really like, I'll direct you to the various
> refutations of Rhine's work.
As I扉e said, give me the refutations.
Don.
Ralph Hertle
[clip]
> If Rand were not a scietific dunce should would have been an aether
> loving scientific crank. And her ventriloquist dummy Leonard Peikoff,
> ditto.
>
> Bob Kolker
robert j. kolker,
(using your mimicking of German lower-case type formatting),
are you the sole poseur and authority of Pragmatic Skirvinian moral
propriety? You appear to have recognized that Tim Skirvin endorses no
particular morality in his administration of HPO, and that now you have
a forum for any Pragmatist remarks that you care to make.
BTW, it is a huge puzzle for many of us Objectivists why he conducts the
administration of HPO at all, for any worldly purposes, or for any reasons.
Neither Ayn Rand or Dr. Peikoff have had any opinion regarding your
concept of "aether". You are an anticipatory prevaricationist. There are
no facts of that "aether" in their opinions, and, you are again a liar.
Nor has Dr. Peikoff ever mimicked or parroted Ayn Rand or otherwise
presented her ideas without a specific factual and rational quotation
and reason for speaking.
Dr. Peikoff explains his ideas regarding space and ether, and Ayn
Rand's, in his recent CD course on induction and physics.
Remember, "robert", that identified facts govern, and that your Kantian
subjectivist pragmatist projections and anticipations do not.
For a while there I thought that Fred Weiss was getting a little off the
wall in his comments, however, recently, I see that he saw a hideous
malevolent streak in your comments that you do not.
BTW, your spelling checker program seems to not have been used. Using
your own sci-moral admonitions, you may want to adhere to your own rules
of intellectual craftsmanship, "Check your work." Are you starting a new
Pragmatist science dictionary with the word, "scientific"?
Are you beginning a shift to Kantian anti-morality. Kant was Jewish,
wasn't he, and were not his ideas the basis of the ideas of Adolph
Hitler (his mother's surname)? Schikelgruber was the surname of his
father, who, like Kant, was of Jewish genealogical parentage. Recall
that Adolph (Schikelgruber) Hitler shot himself in the Kantian foot.
Your Jewish-Nazi "Tower" of moral babel has collapsed.
BTW, I am am opposed to either Jewish or Nazi racism, Nazism, Platonism,
Hegelianism, Marxism, Kantianism, Christian Platonism, Pragmatism of the
German or American types, German or Israeli state religions, or of any
type of genealogical or religious paranoia.
Ralph Hertle
robert j. kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
>> Are you beginning a shift to Kantian anti-morality. Kant was Jewish,
He was a Peitist of Scots and German descent. His father had ancestors
from Scotland.
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
I did some search 'motor' work regarding Kant's genealogy, and I found
nothing.
What are some sources?
Nor am I a physical or intellectual racist of any type.
Ralph Hertle
Charles Novins
> Another problem is that I悲 have to keep it as a secret otherwise my
> medical carreer could be in trouble...
CHARLES NOVINS:
Well, you seem to be conceding the Acar-point regarding consensus. And if
Brazil culture accepts such stuff, why would there be a problem?
>
DON MATT:
> But you扉e just said that you never really directlly tested it. So
you扉e
> decided it is a flaw mostly on a theoretical level.
CHARLES NOVINS:
I can't imagine what your point is. I accept endless things, such as the
existence of molecules, without looking directly into the matters. And so
do you.
DON MATT:
> You do not need to investigate every claim, only the best designed one,
the
> more rational, that is (as far as I know) Rhine愀 thesis.
> >
> > CHARLES NOVINS:
> > Now I could conjure up Google & Co. and quickly direct you to plenty of
> > criticism of Rhine which directly refutes the "research" that your web
> cite
> > accepts uncritically. Do I really need to do this? I am bored already.
DON MATT:
> I am curious to know what Google & Co has to offer me. Come on, give me
the
> best you have.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Well, it isn't like you don't have access to search engines, so I do this
reluctantly, kind of feeling like I'm engaging in an exercise...but oh,
well.
No offense, but here's a psych 101 prof who utilizes Rhine as an exercise in
finding simple experimental flaws:
http://tinylink.com/?U4kRhDmAPP
http://www.sciencecases.org/esp/esp_notes.asp
Fact sheet from skeptic organization:
http://tinylink.com/?sWGq9FIh0S
http://www.ntskeptics.org/factsheets/esp.htm
An up-to-date assessment of the field:
http://tinylink.com/?oIAPYdjK6z
http://www.csicop.org/si/9911/lilienfeld.html
Typical example of how the classic debate goes:
http://tinylink.com/?2d5nDyEds4
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26096
A government assessment of their own efforts apparently concluded that all
the psi-silliness hadn't benefited U.S. intelligence work even one time:
http://tinylink.com/?2iFUF5hBzY
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/stargate.htm
>
> > DON MATT:
> On a country where people are either materialist or religious fanatical
> (USA, not everyone of course) there is no ground for the application of a
> source of knowledge as unusual as we are talking about.
CHARLES NOVINS:
That's sheer evasion. Here's two words for you: Catch Osama. It's
probably the highest ranked political goal in America. Practically half of
America certainly wants psychic stuff to be real, which is another reason
why any evidence has to be checked to death before even being worthy of a
second look.
DON MATT:
But, as you扉e said,
> here in Brazil there is a cultural background that allows the application
of
> such abilities in a way that people feel better about their lifes. I
> understand what you mean but "absolutely no application" is a wrong term.
CHARLES NOVINS:
None, absolutely none. What can I say? Not government, not private, nada.
>
DON MATT:
> As far as I know it was tested many times and the resullts were almost
all
> positive for ESP.
CHARLES NOVINS:
That's just in-credible. I assume you can use Google as well as I, so we'd
have to leave it there.
[...]
DON MATT:
> I惴 not saying that it is hard to investigate
CHARLES NOVINS:
Right. So there's little excuse for having found so utterly zilch.
DON MATT:
>I惴 only saying that maybe
> some cultural conditions here in Brazil may lead people to call as a
spirit
> a manifiestation that a psychologyst would claim to be ESP. Let愀 admit
> (just for a moment) there is a fact: a individual A distant from another
(B)
> is able to know what card individual B is watching on a certain moment.
Here
> in Brazil some people would say that individual B may know this because a
> spirit is able to pass such information.
> > CHARLES NOVINS:
> > I'd like to hear your response to the aspect I've addressed regarding
the
> > complete and universal dismissal of this as either science or technology
DON MATT:
> We are not discussing if the ESP is a industrial tool or has any direct
> application to our life. We are not discussing that it has a perfect
> reproducibility. We are just discussing if there is a rational basis for
> accepting its existence.
CHARLES NOVINS:
You're dodging.
DON MATT:
If there was one well documented case, which is
> beyond doubt, there would be a high probability that it is true. But if
> there are many and many different cases all around the globe, some
> espontaneous, other under lab conditions than there is a even higher
> probability of existing something. But these information are still not
well
> understood to be used on a techno capitalist mode. I clearly remember
right
> now that Galileo tryed to measure light speed by using two syncronized
> clocks and covering lamps at a precise time. A distant individual was
> supposed to measure the difference of time between the cover and the
visual
> stimulus.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Dodging. "Techno capitalist mode" is meaningless. Markets may be twisted,
warped beyond recognition, but they still exist and pay princely sums for
certain things. This would be one of them. But there's no takers, except
the carny frauds. Period.
Got to start work week, and I have only pursued this as far as I did because
I sense you're sincere. But we have to end it here, except that you're
welcome to respond, of course.
robert j. kolker
Ralph Hertle wrote:
>
>
> I did some search 'motor' work regarding Kant's genealogy, and I found
> nothing.
>
> What are some sources?
>
>
> Nor am I a physical or intellectual racist of any type.
Life
Immanuel Kant was born in Königsberg in the East Prussia in 1724. Kant's
grandfather immigrated from Scotland to East Prussia and even his father
spelled their family name, "Cant." Kant's father was the saddle-maker
(craftsman) and Kant was no way able to go to study at the University.
Both Kant's parents belonged to the so-called Pietism, a rigorous, pious
Christian sect and Immanuel was strongly influenced by this thoughts.
After graduating from the University in 1746, Immanuel Kant had to be an
tutor to children of the wealthy families for nine years.
Source: http://www.csudh.edu/phenom_studies/western/lect_9.html
Bob Kolker
Ralph Hertle
Thank you for taking the extra time to research the correct information.
I now understand that Immanuel Kant was not Jewish and was a Pietist.
My apologies for the error.
Ralph Hertle
Don Matt
> Got to start work week, and I have only pursued this as far as I did
because
> I sense you're sincere.
I thought it was because you were still on doubt about it. Anyway, even if
I consider you completelly wrong I can say that it愀 always a chance to
check if my premisses and the facts are correct. So, be happy because I惻l
take into account your view perhaps I惻l send you a copy of the results of
the experiment I惻l probably develop very soon (but will never publish).
I also do not have time, probably this week and the another coming to
answer a long post, so we are OK.
>But we have to end it here, except that you're
> welcome to respond, of course.
Let me end this dicussion messing with Acar愀 quote because I扉e just
invented a nicer one:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"The consensus is stupid"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
: ) My brand new quote!
Don.