Two Selves

[Outrider]

No...they are not valid because you have no basis on which you can comment or pass a judgement.

You mean I don't have access to the masses of well-established science that shows human senses are fallible, human memory is fallible and human interpretation of sensory inputs has any number of well-established flaws. You mean apart from that I don't have a basis?

How about just the fact that hallucinations are a demonstrable fact?   

Merely dubbing some experience as delusion or imagination  is not a valid argument.

You're right, which is just one of the reasons I'm not doing it. I'm saying that, because you don't have any means to demonstrate that your experiences are an accurate interpretation of what actually happened, I don't have a solid basis to assume that your claim overrides the established science.

It is just an opinion which is neither here nor there.

Which is exactly the point - your commentary is, equally, 'just an opinion', but the difference is that your opinion is at odds with the established take of the single most successful methodology for examining the real world that humanity has produced, whilst mine is not.

Which is the long version of 'I don't accept your claims of woo'.

O.
[/quote]

[Sriram]

I am having an opinion about my own experience, not someone else's.  You are passing a judgement on my experiences with no clue at all about what it is.



 

[ekim]

I am having an opinion about my own experience, not someone else's.  You are passing a judgement on my experiences with no clue at all about what it is.

That's the problem with sharing uncommon experiences.  If you want to express an opinion in words to somebody who has not had that experience, you will probably have to use an analogy, hoping that they will understand the analogy and have experienced its content.  The alternative is to give them a method to enable them to have the same experience.  Even then, you cannot be sure that their opinion will be identical to yours.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

I am having an opinion about my own experience, not someone else's.  You are passing a judgement on my experiences with no clue at all about what it is.

Why are you still failing to understand the very simple point that’s being explained to you here? Once again: no-one is “passing judgement” on your experiences. No-one much cares about your experiences.   

What people are actually “passing judgment” on though (ie, critiqueing) is the reasoning you attempt to explain those experiences.

As, predictably, you just ignored the analogy I gave you let’s try it again shall we? My friend’s doctor didn’t pass judgement on his account of severe chest pain either. What he did though pass judgement on was my friend’s diagnosis of its cause (ie, a heart attack) because that doctor had more robust tools at his disposal to diagnose it accurately.

Please tell me that you understand now the difference between an experience and the reasoning attempted to explain it.

Please?
 
 

[Sriram]

That's the problem with sharing uncommon experiences.  If you want to express an opinion in words to somebody who has not had that experience, you will probably have to use an analogy, hoping that they will understand the analogy and have experienced its content.  The alternative is to give them a method to enable them to have the same experience.  Even then, you cannot be sure that their opinion will be identical to yours.

The problem is that I am trying to communicate with people who have had similar experiences and are able to understand what I am talking about.....but responses are always from people who have no clue about any of this but nevertheless  want to pass judgement.

But it helps pass time.... so it is ok...

[Sriram]

Sriram,

Why are you still failing to understand the very simple point that’s being explained to you here? Once again: no-one is “passing judgement” on your experiences. No-one much cares about your experiences.   

What people are actually “passing judgment” on though (ie, critiqueing) is the reasoning you attempt to explain those experiences.

As, predictably, you just ignored the analogy I gave you let’s try it again shall we? My friend’s doctor didn’t pass judgement on his account of severe chest pain either. What he did though pass judgement on was my friend’s diagnosis of its cause (ie, a heart attack) because that doctor had more robust tools at his disposal to diagnose it accurately.

Please tell me that you understand now the difference between an experience and the reasoning attempted to explain it.

Please?
 
 

Blue...how the heck would you know whether I am having a heart attack or a digestion problem?!  How do you think you are competent to tell me what it really is and what it isn't?

[Aruntraveller]

Blue...how the heck would you know whether I am having a heart attack or a digestion problem?!  How do you think you are competent to tell me what it really is and what it isn't?

I don't think Blue was saying anything of the kind. I suggest you read his post again. The doctor used the tools at his disposal to diagnose the cause of the chest pain, rather than relying on the assumption made by the patient.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Blue...how the heck would you know whether I am having a heart attack or a digestion problem?!  How do you think you are competent to tell me what it really is and what it isn't?

I said no such thing. What I said was that a doctor was able to look at my friend’s reasoning that led him to conclude that he’d had a heart attack and thereby to find that reasoning to be false (and the doctor's reasoning to the correct diagnosis to be not false). Similarly I can look at your reasoning that leads you to reach the conclusions you reach and find that reasoning to be false too (because it relies on various fallacies).

You’re still failing here to grasp that an experience and the reasoning attempted to explain it are two different matters.

Why?   

[Sriram]

Ha.Ha!

And you consider yourself as some kind of a doctor (expert) who is able to deduce from what I am saying as to what experience I actually had?!! 

I am basing my ideas on a lifetime of experiences, not one occasion of good feeling. You really are presumptuous!

[Maeght]

People have experiences. they interpret them based on their world view. It doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct.

[Outrider]

I am having an opinion about my own experience, not someone else's.  You are passing a judgement on my experiences with no clue at all about what it is.

The only 'judgement' I'm passing on your experience is that you are exactly as human as anyone else, and therefore if you've experienced something that defies conventional understanding then you need to be at least open to the possibility that your experience is not accurate, and more importantly you have to accept that all the protestations you can muster won't stop us at least considering it.

However, you're not merely stating an opinion, you're castigating an entire field of eminent scientists and their body of work, you're making claims about the nature of reality that aren't substantiated and then expecting everyone to just accept your claim because we shouldn't be listening to experts we should be listening to your 'opinion'...

O.

[Sriram]

The only 'judgement' I'm passing on your experience is that you are exactly as human as anyone else, and therefore if you've experienced something that defies conventional understanding then you need to be at least open to the possibility that your experience is not accurate, and more importantly you have to accept that all the protestations you can muster won't stop us at least considering it.

However, you're not merely stating an opinion, you're castigating an entire field of eminent scientists and their body of work, you're making claims about the nature of reality that aren't substantiated and then expecting everyone to just accept your claim because we shouldn't be listening to experts we should be listening to your 'opinion'...

O.

Not at all. I am not castigating any scientist or his understanding of his field of inquiry. In fact I am not questioning any established scientific theory at all.

In fact, you people are questioning my experiences and my ideas about them, with absolutely no clue as to what i am talking about ....even though it does not contradict any established theory of science.

It shows a deep insecurity and fear (the God phobia) born of anti religious sentiment.....even though what I say has nothing to do with religions.

But I don't blame you. These ideas take several generations to be understood and accepted. You people still seem to be  in the 'science vs religion' stage of cultural development. Your grandchildren would probably understand.

[Sriram]

People have experiences. they interpret them based on their world view. It doesn't mean that their interpretation is correct.

 

You have been beating the 'interpretation' drum for many years now Maeght.  And you seem to think that your interpretation should be the one acceptable to all.... 

[Aruntraveller]

 

You have been beating the 'interpretation' drum for many years now Maeght.  And you seem to think that your interpretation should be the one acceptable to all.... 

Again, not what the poster said.

Why d you insist on misrepresenting others instead of explaining your position more clearly.

Cue the "if you don't have the kind of mind to understand it, you'll never understand it" card being played.

Which as well as being patronising, gets the discussion absolutely nowhere.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Ha.Ha!

And you consider yourself as some kind of a doctor (expert) who is able to deduce from what I am saying as to what experience I actually had?!!

Why do you insist on misrepresenting what’s actually being said to you?

First, yes I am the “doctor” in this analogy inasmuch only that I can spot (and explain to you) the fallacies you rely on when you try to rationalise your way from your experience to its explanation.

Second, the “experience you actually had” is one thing but the explanation for it that you attempt is another thing entirely. I (and others here) have commented only on the latter, which you consistently base on false resoning.   

I am basing my ideas on a lifetime of experiences, not one occasion of good feeling. You really are presumptuous!

If ever I commented on your experiences and didn’t confine myself just to the lousy reasoning you try to explain them I probably would be, yes – just a the doctor would have been if he’d dismissed my friend’s account of chest pain. Fortunately for me I haven’t done that though (just a the doctor didn’t), so your charge is wrong. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

You have been beating the 'interpretation' drum for many years now Maeght.  And you seem to think that your interpretation should be the one acceptable to all....   

Wrong again. All Maeght and others explain to you is that the interpretation that rests on cogent reasoning is more likely sound than the interpretation that rests of wrong reasoning.

Try to understand this.   

[Maeght]

 

You have been beating the 'interpretation' drum for many years now Maeght.  And you seem to think that your interpretation should be the one acceptable to all.... 

Nope.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Not at all. I am not castigating any scientist or his understanding of his field of inquiry. In fact I am not questioning any established scientific theory at all.

Yes you are – the Theory of Evolution for starters.

In fact, you people are questioning my experiences and my ideas about them, with absolutely no clue as to what i am talking about ....even though it does not contradict any established theory of science.

What your “ideas about them” “contradict” is reason and logic, for the reasons that keep being shown to you and you routinely ignore.

It shows a deep insecurity and fear (the God phobia) born of anti religious sentiment.....even though what I say has nothing to do with religions.

Paranoid nonsense. What it actually shows is just that some people are better able to construct logically cogent arguments than you are.

But I don't blame you. These ideas take several generations to be understood and accepted. You people still seem to be  in the 'science vs religion' stage of cultural development. Your grandchildren would probably understand.

Utter bullshit. “We people” understand your “ideas”, but don’t accept them because they're wrong.

How do we know they’re wrong? We know they’re wrong because the reasoning you attempt to justify them is wrong. Simple really.   

[Sriram]

 

This is funny. You have no idea of my experiences. You admit to that and you say that you are not commenting on them. OK fine.

You nevertheless keep  saying that my ideas are wrong.  My ideas are however based on my experiences (over a life time).  Now....how the heck could you or anyone else possibly know that my ideas (or interpretations) are wrong when you have no clue about my experiences?

If my ideas contradicted some established theory of science, you might perhaps have a case. But when that is not the case, how can you possibly know that my ideas are wrong? It is obviously wishful thinking on your part born of a deep rooted fear of religious teachings and of what you call the supernatural.

i am quite clear on that.

Get used to it guys. There is lots more to life than just the physical world.  Nothing to fear!  Its all great fun actually....really. And you don't even need religions.

[Bramble]

Its all great fun actually....really.

Yes, you sound like you're having a ball, Sriram.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

This is funny. You have no idea of my experiences. You admit to that and you say that you are not commenting on them. OK fine.

Could that be the first hint of progress here?

You nevertheless keep  saying that my ideas are wrong.

Yes.

My ideas are however based on my experiences (over a life time).

“…based on” – yes, just as my friend’s idea of a heart attack was based on his experience too. Keep going…   

Now....how the heck could you or anyone else possibly know that my ideas (or interpretations) are wrong when you have no clue about my experiences?

Aw no – you were doing so well for a while there too. We know that your ideas are wrong when you attempt to reason them out and the reasons are false – as they always are. That’s why the doctor came up with a more accurate diagnosis than my friend – the experience of chest pain wasn’t challenged, but the reasoning my friend used to justify his idea “heart attack” was demonstrated to be wrong. 

If my ideas contradicted some established theory of science, you might perhaps have a case. But when that is not the case, how can you possibly know that my ideas are wrong?

Actually they do often contradict the science, but you have a more serious problem than that to address (not that you ever will though) – namely that they “contradict" reason and logic too. 

It is obviously wishful thinking on your part...

You're accusing someone else of wishful thinking? The irony!

...born of a deep rooted fear of religious teachings and of what you call the supernatural.

Your paranoia is showing here. It’s no such thing. What it actually is is just the simple matter of identifying the various fallacies on which your reasoning to explain your experiences relies.

i am quite clear on that.

You are quite clearly wrong on that.

Get used to it guys. There is lots more to life than just the physical world.

Can you justify that statement without relying on various fallacious arguments?

Nothing to fear!

Nothing to take seriously.

Its all great fun actually....really. And you don't even need religions.

Why do you find being lost in a world of irrationality to be “great fun”?

[Sriram]

Oh ...my...my! Is this so difficult?!

When you don't even know whether I am having chest pain or a headache or a pain in my leg....how the heck can you deduce what it is? 

You should at least know what experiences I have had.....   

Really....Blue!!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Oh ...my...my! Is this so difficult?!

For you? Apparently yes.

When you don't even know whether I am having chest pain or a headache or a pain in my leg....how the heck can you deduce what it is?

Easily because I can examine the reasoning you try to diagnose the cause and find it to be either sound or not sound. Just as the doctor did with my friend. 

You should at least know what experiences I have had.....       

No need. All I actually need to know is whether or not your reasoning to explain your experiences is sound or not sound. So far none of it has been sound (because it always relies on one or several fallacious arguments).   

Really....Blue!!

Right back acha.

[Sriram]

Ok...I give up. Have fun!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sriram,

Ok...I give up. Have fun!

Yes, as ever you just bail out when you run out of road rather than try at least to engage with what's actually explained to you. Why do you behave like this?

For what it's worth, your problem here is still that you're unable it seems to distinguish between an experience and an explanation for it.

There's a saying: "the map is not the terrain". Does that help you at all?

Anything?