occult is simply used in the sense that it comes from a "mysterious" origin - of course we are apt to speculate on the nature of mystery (guessing is the occupation of the rationalist ), but that doesn't help us any in discerning where things come from (thus its commonly seen for one person's guess to be at odds with another)
The occult background of worldly knowledge
- Thread starter lightgigantic
- Start date
And yet in your OP you state:
So in fact all you are saying is "We don't know with 100% certainty where thoughts come from".
Yet you dress it up with words which you use with a different meaning: "occult" to mean "mysterious", and "mysterious" to mean "unknown".
By doing this you provoke arguments purely due to your usage of words that differs to everyone elses.
If you intend words to mean things other than the normal usage then state it up front, so that we know that what you really are saying is actually quite straightforward, and we can quickly cut through the swathes of verbosity that accompanies it.
Thanks.
Sarkus
:shrug:
oc·cult / Ñ J'kVlt; Ñ 'QkVlt; NAmE Ñ 'A;k-/ adjective 1[only before noun] connected with magic powers and things that cannot be explained by reason or science
erm - there's also the bit about how we use such thoughts in the pursuit of worldly knowledge, hence the chasm between occult and worldly knowledge is not quite so siignificant
If a person said that "occult" means "unknown" that wouldn't strike me as controversial
:shrug:
oc·cult / Ñ J'kVlt; Ñ 'QkVlt; NAmE Ñ 'A;k-/ adjective 1[only before noun] connected with magic powers and things that cannot be explained by reason or science
Okay - you're saying that we don't know with 100% certainty where thoughts originate, and we use thoughts in our pursuit of worldly knowledge, and thus so the chasm between the unknown and worldly knowledge is not quite so significant...
Doesn't really add anything to what is already known... i.e. that we don't know everything.
You're stating the obvious and trying to dress it up as something profound through usage of words that ignore their implications.
That is but one element of the word, and ignores everything else it is connected with - i.e. the implications of the word.
If you want to avoid the implications just use the word "unknown" - it does it so much simpler and without controversy compared to "magic" and "occult".
Further, even using your particular usage, your claim is wrong:
There is no evidence to support that such things are "occult" - in that they defy rational explanation. You are making the standard mistake of assuming that lack of current scientific understanding is evidence to support your claims.
I apologize for a typo in my original post (it should have said DO not DON'T) and I do understand how you're using the word occult (although it may not be the best word since it has connotations today with the supernatural). I don't think anyone can argue that there are mental processes that we don't fully understand, which is not to say there is anything supernatural or paranormal about them, just that from a psychological perspective we don't understand why a person believes he/she can read someone else's mind. I suspect that may have to do with being able to pick up subtle communications via body language that aren't registering consciouslly but I don't know.
There was an interesting experiment done recently with "virtual reality" technology in which researchers induced an "out of body" experience showing that people can be "tricked" into believing that their body was somewhere "they" weren't. So that one previously occult experience that now be considered the product of a cognitive distortion.
Maxq
To work out whether these guesses are true or completely left of third base requires direct perception, and that is something that rationalism cannot deliver.
IOW rationalism is commonly taken as a crutch to navigate past the narrow aperture of empiricism, but it is in no way authoritative since it is completely unable to arrive at a consensus – even in a million years
the problem is that rationalism cannot deliver anything conclusive - for instance there may be one suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with virtual reality - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with chemicals in the brain - there may be another suggestion on what an out of body experience constitutes with behavior of culture and society.
To work out whether these guesses are true or completely left of third base requires direct perception, and that is something that rationalism cannot deliver.
IOW rationalism is commonly taken as a crutch to navigate past the narrow aperture of empiricism, but it is in no way authoritative since it is completely unable to arrive at a consensus – even in a million years
JamesR
It can't be empiricism, since empiricism cannot even properly come to terms with an "in body experience" what to speak of an "out of body" one
apart from rationalism, what other tools do you think they have to determine such "objective inquiries"?
and what is that "objective inquiry"?
It can't be empiricism, since empiricism cannot even properly come to terms with an "in body experience" what to speak of an "out of body" one
apart from rationalism, what other tools do you think they have to determine such "objective inquiries"?
It can indeed be "empiricism" in all but one of your three possibilities:
1. out-of-body experiences are a type of "virtual reality".
2. out-of-body experiences are due to chemicals in the brain.
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.
In case 2, for example, all we need to do is to compare the brains of people who have out-of-body experiences with those who do not, and see if there are any chemical differences.
In case 3, we compare one culture with another and see if we can discern differences in the frequency or features of the out-of-body experiences that people claim to have.
It is difficult to see how we could investigate case 1 scientifically, since if we are all living in a virtual world, nothing we could do could prove that. (I'm assuming that's what you're asserting.)
1. out-of-body experiences are a type of "virtual reality".
2. out-of-body experiences are due to chemicals in the brain.
3. out-of-body experiences have cultural or societal features.
In case 2, for example, all we need to do is to compare the brains of people who have out-of-body experiences with those who do not, and see if there are any chemical differences.
In case 3, we compare one culture with another and see if we can discern differences in the frequency or features of the out-of-body experiences that people claim to have.
It is difficult to see how we could investigate case 1 scientifically, since if we are all living in a virtual world, nothing we could do could prove that. (I'm assuming that's what you're asserting.)
Isn't case 1 is merely a cause for case 2.
Case 2 will be able to tell the neurological / chemical interactions within the brain - but not necessarily the cause.
So I don't actually see the 3 cases as being mutually exclusive.
If anything, 1 and 3 are possibly exclusive, but what needs to be tested is only case 2.
After that you merely need to find the cause.
James R
(given current empirical understandings of how the consciousness is situated even in this body)
its the nature of soft sciences to never be able to come to a consensus (how many differing models of psychological analysis are there?
and how would that eliminate the possibility that the chemical is the effect and not the cause of an out of body experience?
(given current empirical understandings of how the consciousness is situated even in this body)
empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation - there are too many factors already in operation (and in the process of operating) that make any attempt of an objective control group or stance of objective analysis futile - that is why a greater part of psychology is termed "soft science"
its the nature of soft sciences to never be able to come to a consensus (how many differing models of psychological analysis are there?
empiricism and rationalism has no scope to penetrate behind the screen of a virtual world - BTW its interesting to note that in all these fictions about persons battling their way out of a virtual world, they owe their success to someone or something that is not entangled in that virtuality (as opposed to relying on their own powers of rationalism and empiricism)....
You would need to replicate the chemical changes / imbalances / whatnot - and see if this invokes an "out of body experience". The fact that this can not be done yet is irrelevant.
Drivel - it goes on all the time.
We have observations of death rates, health rates etc through statistics.
We review the social, environmental differences etc.
We establish theory (e.g. Olive oil is healthier than other oils - or red wine, in moderation, is good for you) and then use that theory for prediction (e.g. further sub-theories of the "why" which are borne out by further studies).
Moved to the appropriate forum.
Dan Dennett's Beard
Registered Member
Nothing can be treated with greater contempt than that which is the credulous naivety of the mystic or woo-woo.
Nothing lies outside of the scientific consensus, and if you think otherwise im afraid youve misunderstood the process of scientific enquiry altogether.
Nothing lies outside of the scientific consensus, and if you think otherwise im afraid youve misunderstood the process of scientific enquiry altogether.
heliocentric
Registered Senior Member
Dennett is all hot air.
lightgigantic:
If the only physical correlate of an out-of-body experience is chemical changes in the brain, Occam's razor suggests we should account for the former as a result of the latter, and not vice versa.
I can't imagine what all those sociologists, economists, psychologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists etc. etc. do all day.
Perhaps you should inform them that empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation. They are obviously all wasting their time.
And neither does anything else.
If the only physical correlate of an out-of-body experience is chemical changes in the brain, Occam's razor suggests we should account for the former as a result of the latter, and not vice versa.
I can't imagine what all those sociologists, economists, psychologists, linguists, historians, anthropologists etc. etc. do all day.
Perhaps you should inform them that empiricism has no entrance into cultural observation. They are obviously all wasting their time.
And neither does anything else.
Sarkus
the fact that it cannot be done indicates the fact that it cannot be done
thus things like death and health are noted through aspects of biological observation as opposed to culture
but without a control group, such social positing cannot deliver anything but relative information
all through the agency of empirical analysis of matter and not culture
lol - which is where the whole thing becomes more messy than a football stadium full of people firing off their own personal fire crackers
JamesR
for instance a person may smile every time when they see the sun in the morning
does that mean every time they smile they are seeing the sun?
the only way you could answer that is if you had clear perception of both the person smiling and the sun - two ended evidence - both the cause and the effect are visible
In this case, you have one ended evidence since the nature of an out of body experience cannot be properly ascertained any differently from an everyday in body experience
IOW how would you test whether there is any difference between a person dreaming that they had an out of body experience and a person having an actual out of body experience (unless you want to presuppose that all out of body experiences are dreams, which would make it a type I error)
the basis of soft science is rationalism and empiricism is secondary
in hard science, its the opposite
emiricism is limited by what we can see
rationalism is limited by what we deem as logical
not necessarily
for instance a person may smile every time when they see the sun in the morning
does that mean every time they smile they are seeing the sun?
the only way you could answer that is if you had clear perception of both the person smiling and the sun - two ended evidence - both the cause and the effect are visible
In this case, you have one ended evidence since the nature of an out of body experience cannot be properly ascertained any differently from an everyday in body experience
IOW how would you test whether there is any difference between a person dreaming that they had an out of body experience and a person having an actual out of body experience (unless you want to presuppose that all out of body experiences are dreams, which would make it a type I error)
the basis of soft science is rationalism and empiricism is secondary
in hard science, its the opposite
emiricism is limited by what we can see
rationalism is limited by what we deem as logical
for one who views their mind ans senses as the worshipable absolute, most certainly