Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Poll

Pick somepm.

Ghosts.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Monsters.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Practical magic.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Mythological creatures (unicorns etc.).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Deities.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Demons (Devil's included).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Spirits of The Dead (not the same as #1).
[ 0 ] (0%)
Reincarnation, karma, that sort...
[ 0 ] (0%)
Type of scientological stuff like astrobodies.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Universal Superintelligence, Manas, Mano-dhatu.
[ 0 ] (0%)
Something Must Be there!... :faint: ..
[ 0 ] (0%)
A bit of "superstitions" - "salt, cats, whatnot :insane:".
[ 0 ] (0%)
Hobbits, snurves, dwarves, elves? ???
[ 1 ] (20%)
Vegetables are alive. :yikes:
[ 1 ] (20%)
I believe I'm alive. :beer: :coffee: :hat: :cheers:
[ 3 ] (60%)

Total Members Voted: 3

Topic: Do you believe in "supernatural"? (Read 28608 times)

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #50 –
Quote from: Josh on

Quote from: ersi on
... say anything about the ontological status or nature of images and ideas?
They are here proposed constructs - which ones I, the proposer, has directly defined here.
These two concepts - or VERY similar ones - are QUITE MUCH used in general linguistics and cognitology -- but please note that I DIDN'T try to employ any "ready-made" concepts from those nor any other discipline -- including physics - which I prefer to apply to everything usually.:sherlock:
I don't try -- not that: I TRY NOT TO drag ANYTHING developed outside THIS DISCUSSION, "ready-made" here to use ingenuously. "Frankensteins" are no-good.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #51 –
Quote from: Mandi on
If I am understanding Ensbb3 correctly, he is simply saying that no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation. When there is some kind of an emotional attachment toward a particular observation it will obscure your perception. It's easier to make a more accurate observation when your feelings aren't a thing.
That's WHY there are (if) "real objects", there are perceptions, and there are images --- all that separately.
Feelings and emotions are complex movements involving such other complex movements/systems as our body chemistry, our psyche, etc.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #52 –
Josh hijacked his own thread!  :jester:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #55 –



Quote from: Mandi on
If I am understanding Ensbb3 correctly, he is simply saying that no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation. When there is some kind of an emotional attachment toward a particular observation it will obscure your perception. It's easier to make a more accurate observation when your feelings aren't a thing.  [controlled]


Yes ma'am. What ersi see's is that those emotions/feelings are precognitive. So they come first and sometimes seemingly without provocation. Or at least a perceived reason, depending on the perspective you have and tendencies in reasoning. So in other words, if you believe the feelings have a valuable meaning, you find one for it - if the reason [your reasoning] isn't apparent, you search for it. The farther from the event the more memory factors come into play. Fabrication of details is a trick of memory too... especially the more the memory is based on perceived emotional stimulus. These are also the feeling that are used to condition believers. There's no basis for what could cause them to be supernatural unless you're trained/taught/reason/accept that's what they are there. This is why ersi's psycho babble sounds religious to me. Only he's adopted a perception of 'one' rather than safety in numbers. The tactics remain the same; Hook, redirect questions that undermine, use suggestive language to evoke feeling and confuse the rest. It's a loop tactic that avoids anything they're unwilling to accept. Before he'll engage a question he can't answer he'll call you too dumb to understand and quit responding in an attempt to hold superiority. (From his perspective. Which is all that matters to him and the fundamental fault in his reasoning.) And also why everything is "this or that" or "His side vs the opposition". Spending too much time debunking theories the wrong way requires a distaste for science you don't wanna understand. The perception is that it's false so unworthy. But, theories are meant to be debated over and can be debunked in the same way they came to be. You just prove beyond your perception that you are right... Thus ersi's problem.

So, why are emotions precognitive and at times faulty? They are the basis for instinct and the driving force for beings without the higher reasoning to react otherwise. Not only does this become apparent in animals but also in human mental disorders. This 'non-material' soul is affected adversely by defects to the cognitive centers of the brain and usually falls back to the more primitive functions for perceiving the environment. And another thing that can affect mental awareness is electromagnetic or gravimetric... hell any force. (Why do you think there's more than one pilot on a commercial airliner?) Some of the feelings generated by these exterior forces can be perceived in the cognitive context that some social stimulus has replaced. Why do more people die in a tsunami than wild animals? The animals may not of replaced the emotional response generated by the change in force created. People may feel it too but associate it as part of common stress. Now consider a simple misfire of emotion. People can shiver without a breeze. Mere thoughts can alter moods. Day dreams. Chemicals... The variables are so many when considering the higher cognitive responses and things that affect it, that a convergence of false readings can materialize and even perpetuate thru coincidence and depending on a case by case measure these feelings are either justified or reasoned away.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #56 –
 ::)

Such sheer hypocrisy from the OP.


/Gripes at me in my thread about Scotland's Independence, claiming that the "What's going on in the UK" thread was enough

/OP turns around and creates another thread about Gods/Demons/Spirits, etc



The troll is strong with the OP.   :troll:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #57 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Quote from: Mandi on
If I am understanding Ensbb3 correctly, he is simply saying that no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation. When there is some kind of an emotional attachment toward a particular observation it will obscure your perception. It's easier to make a more accurate observation when your feelings aren't a thing.

Yes ma'am. What ersi see's is that those emotions/feelings are precognitive. So they come first and sometimes seemingly without provocation. Or at least a perceived reason, depending on the perspective you have and tendencies in reasoning. So in other words, if you believe the feelings have a valuable meaning, you find one for it - if the reason [your reasoning] isn't apparent, you search for it. The farther from the event the more memory factors come into play. Fabrication of details is a trick of memory too... especially the more the memory is based on perceived emotional stimulus. These are also the feeling that are used to condition believers. There's no basis for what could cause them to be supernatural unless you're trained/taught/reason/accept that's what they are there.

You are generally on the right track. Where you go off track is that you are completely missing the vital distinction of thoughts from feelings, of intellectual activity from emotional content.

You see, when you analyse the meaning of perceptions the way you skillfully do here, you are engaged in intellectual activity, not emotional. And - get this - this is the same thing that I do. I do not decide or conclude anything on perceptions. I analyse the perceptions, then decide. Exactly the way you do. This is important so that nobody can use any feeling or emotional stimulus to sway me towards any religion or supernatural.

When we got this clear - that there's intellectual activity in addition to emotional stimulus and you individually choose your priority among the two and follow that - what remains is the way we express our conclusions. You think I am deceived and deceiving. If so, the deception can be pointed out - intellectually as a logical argument, not emotionally as a plain statement that, without context around it, without premises and ordered facts, can be true or false with equal success.

What I would like you to do is this:

Quote from: ensbb3 on

...theories are meant to be debated over and can be debunked in the same way they came to be. You just prove beyond your perception that you are right...


However, my hope for a reasoned discussion is not very realistic, because I see you answered affirmatively to Mandi, according to whom you believe that "no one on this planet can remove their emotions/feelings out of every observation." If this is so, then the distinction of intellect and emotions is pretty much impossible and what you are doing in your entire post is emotional outpouring, not a reasoned argument for anything. If you take the quoted belief too radically, then you are hopeless.

One point in the rest of your post that I noted:

Quote from: ensbb3 on

This 'non-material' soul is affected adversely by defects to the cognitive centers of the brain and usually falls back to the more primitive functions for perceiving the environment.
Interesting qualification there - "usually falls back to the more primitive functions", i.e. not always. As we both know, removing parts of brain *usually* relocates the cognitive functions, even though often imperfectly and slowly, so there's usually some damage anyway, and when you remove too much, it will be beyond repair. However, the fact that cognitive functions relocate this way indicates that the there are no true cognitive centres. This fact implies that any particular cognition can, in principle, be centred anywhere in the brain. If particular cognitions were hard-wired to their cognitive centres in the brain, the relocation should not happen.

Note that I am not calling the relocating cognition "soul". The more appropriate term is the mind. And I am not calling it non-material either. But it's definitely not material in the atomic sense. These are some direct conclusions from facts beyond perception.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #58 –
Quote from: ersi on
You are generally on the right track. Where you go off track is that you are completely missing the vital distinction of thoughts from feelings...
Ah, you seem to discuss something entirely different from what I thought/introduced, so...
(Smiley, you have lots of duplicates and lack some vital things.)

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #59 –
Quote from: Josh on
Ah, you seem to discuss something entirely different from what I thought/introduced, so...
In the opening post you wanted to define nature. You have had several opportunities now to do it with your distinction of image and ideas and whatever other people have contributed, but instead you keep joshing your own thread.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #61 –
 You seem, guys, just "spiritualising" on everything - while I tried to deduce "nature" to some "atomic" elements to proceed developing our understanding up back again.  You won't seem to... :zzz: 

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #62 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

Yes ma'am. What ersi see's is that those emotions/feelings are precognitive. So they come first and sometimes seemingly without provocation. Or at least a perceived reason, depending on the perspective you have and tendencies in reasoning. So in other words, if you believe the feelings have a valuable meaning, you find one for it - if the reason [your reasoning] isn't apparent, you search for it. The farther from the event the more memory factors come into play. Fabrication of details is a trick of memory too... especially the more the memory is based on perceived emotional stimulus. These are also the feeling that are used to condition believers. There's no basis for what could cause them to be supernatural unless you're trained/taught/reason/accept that's what they are there. This is why ersi's psycho babble sounds religious to me. Only he's adopted a perception of 'one' rather than safety in numbers. The tactics remain the same; Hook, redirect questions that undermine, use suggestive language to evoke feeling and confuse the rest. It's a loop tactic that avoids anything they're unwilling to accept. Before he'll engage a question he can't answer he'll call you too dumb to understand and quit responding in an attempt to hold superiority. (From his perspective. Which is all that matters to him and the fundamental fault in his reasoning.) And also why everything is "this or that" or "His side vs the opposition". Spending too much time debunking theories the wrong way requires a distaste for science you don't wanna understand. The perception is that it's false so unworthy. But, theories are meant to be debated over and can be debunked in the same way they came to be. You just prove beyond your perception that you are right... Thus ersi's problem.

So, why are emotions precognitive and at times faulty? They are the basis for instinct and the driving force for beings without the higher reasoning to react otherwise. Not only does this become apparent in animals but also in human mental disorders. This 'non-material' soul is affected adversely by defects to the cognitive centers of the brain and usually falls back to the more primitive functions for perceiving the environment. And another thing that can affect mental awareness is electromagnetic or gravimetric... hell any force. (Why do you think there's more than one pilot on a commercial airliner?) Some of the feelings generated by these exterior forces can be perceived in the cognitive context that some social stimulus has replaced. Why do more people die in a tsunami than wild animals? The animals may not of replaced the emotional response generated by the change in force created. People may feel it too but associate it as part of common stress. Now consider a simple misfire of emotion. People can shiver without a breeze. Mere thoughts can alter moods. Day dreams. Chemicals... The variables are so many when considering the higher cognitive responses and things that affect it, that a convergence of false readings can materialize and even perpetuate thru coincidence and depending on a case by case measure these feelings are either justified or reasoned away.


I will take your word for it. You are better at observation than I. Plus, I didn't read every post in this thread. :whistle:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #63 –
Quote from: ersi on
you keep joshing your own thread

I josh - Eu josho
You josh - Tu joshas
He joshes - Ele josha
We josh - Nós joshamos
You josh - Vós joshais
They josh - Eles josham
...
A matter of attitude.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #66 –



Quote from: ersi on
However, my hope for a reasoned discussion is not very realistic



You see, paragraph one was geared toward emotion while paragraph two was meant to be more cognitive. Curious you chose to try and remove emotional inflection from very emotionally motivated quotes. I'll admit the word "primitive" was a slip on my part. I know it's antagonistic, especially to people who's feelings are of a spiritual nature, but it's part of my perception.


Tact is a poor guise for fairness. We do not reason the same and you continue to consider my reasoning invalid as shown by my quote. This negates everything you said before it. So now it's emotionally driven and unreasonable, from my perspective. I'll assume yours differs?


There's points about delusion and labeling I meant to conclude with but I've lost motivation for the word count. You skip around the meat of my posts anyway. And watching you denounce a neurologist's paper, in another thread, as if you just walked out of the operating room with the evidence that disproves conventional neurology gives me little hope you can see past your perspective on reasoning.


Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #67 –
Quote from: ensbb3 on

And watching you denounce a neurologist's paper, in another thread, as if you just walked out of the operating room with the evidence that disproves conventional neurology gives...
Neurologist who thinks he is disproving basic psychological notions is not doing conventional neurology. And this applies even stronger with neurologists who set forth illogical metaphysical propositions. Such neurology is far from uncontroversial.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #68 –
I'm going to do a small statuette representing a DnD member. Then, I'll stick needles into it, one by one until the last one, right into the heart.
Voodoo stuff. Then we'll see.

He he, so... who am I going to chose?  :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #69 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

I'm going to do a small statuette representing a DnD member. Then, I'll stick needles into it, one by one until the last one, right into the heart.
Voodoo stuff. Then we'll see.

He he, so... who am I going to chose?  :)

May I suggest a Protestant, pro-Unionist, Scot, who also is a proud member of the Orange Order?   :right:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #70 –
Quote from: Belfrager on

I'm going to do a small statuette representing a DnD member. Then, I'll stick needles into it, one by one until the last one, right into the heart.
Voodoo stuff. Then we'll see.

He he, so... who am I going to chose?  :)


How about someone who actually believes that this could work :right:

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #71 –
Who-ho - an excellent suggestion there Colonel. As Romanism is mixed up with all sorts of Paganism and imported spiritual stuff from elsewhere I am sure that a Unionist Scot, great Protestant and embulliant Orangeman to boot can withstand any such machinations. Being a son of the Reformation he would laugh it off. Just imagine if such a person was say, me for thre sake of discussion, it would be warded off with no bother at all. After he got his fingers sore with the stabbing and stopped for a breather I would give him a replay of the Battle of the Boyne, battle of Enniskillen, Battle of Aughrim, Siege of Londonderry  and a picture of Martin Luther. He'd give up.  :hat: :D
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #72 –
Why did they name it "supernatural", anyway? Super- means "above", "upper"; so did they think there was up and down in the Universal? And the Nature lay below ghosts&Co.? ??? 

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #73 –
Quote from: Macallan on
How about someone who actually believes that this could work

Your voice is feeling strange Macallan...
Difficulty to breathe? a little cough lately? feeling tired? maybe a small pain in the chest?
Good, don't worry just using small needles. :)
A matter of attitude.

Re: Do you believe in "supernatural"?

Reply #74 –
Quote from: Josh on

Why did they name it "supernatural", anyway? Super- means "above", "upper"; so did they think there was up and down in the Universal? And the Nature lay below ghosts&Co.? ???

su·pra·na·tion·al  (so̅o̅′prə-năsh′ə-nəl, -năsh′nəl)
adj.
Extending beyond or transcending established borders or spheres of influence held by separate nations: a supranational economy; supranational federations.