BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Authors of the Impossible, Food for thought? Or thoughts to eat, then sh*t?
Hey Hey
post Mar 06, 2010, 04:06 PM
Post #1


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



http://www.authorsoftheimpossible.com/

http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/0226453863/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_J._Kripal
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Joesus
post Mar 06, 2010, 07:44 PM
Post #2


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 3891
Joined: Sep 26, 2003
From: nowhere and everywhere
Member No.: 601



Looks like interesting stuff..
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 06, 2010, 10:30 PM
Post #3


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



In the about section:
QUOTE(http://www.authorsoftheimpossible.com/about.html)
In Authors of the Impossible, a documentary film examining the paranormal and popular culture, historian of comparative religion Jeffrey J. Kripal teams up with XL Films to trace the history of psychical phenomena through the last two centuries of Western thought, illustrating in the process how psychical and paranormal events once considered mystical, spiritual, or occult are manifesting in our own modern, scientific culture.
Any bets that they skip the historical fact that the standard seances common in the early 20th century went away really fast as soon as we had the technology to see how they were doing it? To be replaced by Forer effects, reconstructive memories through weasel words, selection bias, etc.

QUOTE(http://www.authorsoftheimpossible.com/about.html)
The film makes the bold assertions that many of the anomalous events denied and discarded by today's rationalistic mindset are, in fact, true, and that our present dismissals of these universally experienced realities reveal a broad cultural naiveté regarding our own consciousness and being.
Nope, I'm not seeing any motivation to point out the holes in their claim.

The issues on which the thesis is predicated, where the break occurs between an act of physical law and an act of volition occurs, is indeed a ripe area for new insight. I even think the authors got the connection right between physical state and meaning as a distinguishing dichotomy. Yet, instead of offering insights beyond this, they simply threw the whole thing in a black hole named paranormal. Thus rather than insight we are offered Pandora's box in place of comprehension.

One thing I would like to point out: Even the physical laws which we use to assign "objective" physical states is dependent on definitional predicates on how we partition the space in which these laws are defined. Thus even the so called "objective" states are not objectively clear of our volition. Ironically this does not make such "objective" physical laws wrong, or even suspect, because if we change our definitional predicates the change it induces on the laws will be an isomorph of the original law. This holds even when said isomorphic laws may 'seem' mutually exclusive to our prejudicial sensibilities of truth. Thus the claim that law [L] and the equivalent law isomorph [L]' is dichotomous, therefore isomorph [L]' is "paranormal" is simply not valid. It's an implicit claim that only one isomorph [L]' can be a valid truth statement, therefore [L] and isomorph [L]' must be separate objects, which is false. Isomorph [L]' and [L] is in fact exactly the same claim under different predicates, not a dichotomous or separate claim, nor a separate 'object'.

If anyone wants a more concrete examples of such equivalency in dichotomous claims I'll offer several ranging from simplistic to complex ones.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 07, 2010, 01:24 AM
Post #4


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



QUOTE(explorerultra @ Mar 07, 2010, 03:34 AM) *

I have noted that is quite notorious that when Mr. Hey Hey writes about things like that it is not considered as a rubbish, when e.g. Mr. Enki was writing about that it was considered as rubbish and was deleted.
And what has Hey Hey written about here? The only thing I see is bringing to our attention what someone else wrote. I have observed Hey Hey's willingness to listen to weird ideas. This is quiet distinct from making bare assertions or evidentiary claims that are unsupportable on the evidence.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
wan
post Mar 07, 2010, 05:17 AM
Post #5


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 44
Joined: Mar 03, 2010
Member No.: 32643



With the complaint about no link rights I looked at your history here a bit closer.

[1] In so far as quotes lacking original context are meaningless,
[2] In so far as you simply repeat, without response to replies, the same bare claim,
[3] In so far as by pretending said response doesn't exist (aka) Enki has been defended on false grounds,
[4] In so far as your series of post themselves are tantamount to spam,
[5] In so far as quotes from 1870 are pasted without regard for the history and present work,
[6] In so far as the obfuscated links are themselves off topic spam,
[7] In so far as I can predict that my own automobile will malfunction,
[8] In so far as you accidentally proved your own link claim false,
[9] In so far as you have failed to make a single post with a shred of comprehension at any level,
[10] In so far as I doubt you got the relevance of a word of this,

I don't care to read or respond to anymore of your assertions. I'm tempted to point you to a forum where they would be more than happy to chew on you.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Hey Hey
post Mar 07, 2010, 12:57 PM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 7763
Joined: Dec 31, 2003
Member No.: 845



Enki is banned. As explorerultra is Enki I will delete his posts as they appear. Changing his IP address as he has done regularly to avoid being banned does not help his case. Whatever, I am not prepared to discuss this time-wasting issue any further. Too much time has already gone down the pan on it. Shawn, the forum 'owner' is well aware of the problem and himself took the decisions mentioned. Let's continue with the topic in question.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 19th April 2014 - 09:43 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright © BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog