In article <157 at homostudy.win-uk.net>,
G K GRAY <gord at homostudy.win-uk.net> wrote:
>>In article <4q7ohmbmrsc.fsf at hp>, ??? (oszarazi at hp.cuug.ab.ca) writes:
>>>> > What are these beliefs then? I'm referring to a very narrow range of
>> > beliefs. Please let me know what your beliefs are in detail, then I might
>> > be able to tell you if I still feel that they're odd.
>>>>Interestingly, that last comment itself is "odd." Personal _feeling_
>>as to whether or not something is "odd" might not be all that useful
>>for any purpose, except perhaps for the observer. Or more aptly, any
>>oddity is, and can only be "odd" in reference to some arbitrary
>>personal norm.
Let me clear this up for you: people who believe that they can
move objects with the power of their minds alone, that they have
been abducted by aliens, and that they can command discarnate entities
to do their bidding are, so far as anyone can tell, off their rockers
at some level. I was being charitable in calling these beliefs odd.
And my characterization of these beliefs as odd is certainly not arbitrary;
nor am I alone in characterizing these beliefs as odd (or are you completely
and utterly out of touch with reality? Maybe you're watching too much
Sally Jessie Raphael and co. these days).
The burden of proof is on the people with the wild claims. The most
economical explanation of these peoples' experiences is that they are
fantasy prone, experience hypnogogic and hypnopompic hallucinations, etc.
Though I'm willing to look at evidence to the contrary. But that's their
job if they seek legitimation.
I was trying to get some clarification from the australian gent on
his beliefs about these things. Hopefully, his whole routine about
"I hope you have the guts to respond" was merely a troll. It was
kinda funny, yet sad as well.
>>Ultimately, the notation of it conveys no information whatsoever to
>>anyone, except perhaps to the noter of the oddity -- i.e. his
>>notation of "oddity" helps to refine his own definition of reality
>>.... in some sense it permits a truer localization of his own
>>"reality". A refinement of his own hallucination.
Sounds like po-mo bullshit if ever I heard it. Are you headed
for a long and fruitless career in continental philosophy or
new age publishing? You seem to be "gifted" with the ability
to seize-upon side remarks and make irrelevant comments about
them.
>Why should consciousness *not* belong to this newsgroup? After
>all, it is being studied piecemeal by neuroscientists in
>collaboration with experimental psychologists, physicists &c.
>>Gord
Of course it belongs in this newsgroup. I'm interested in the physical
substrates of consciousness, and here is as good a place as any to
discuss these things.
That being said, I wonder if there is something _physiologically_ different
about fantasy-prone people. Why do some people have eidetic imaginations
and not others? (sorry for the flames... I'd really rather stick to what
I asked about originally and discuss it... not argue with believers)
- Xochi
--
| Xochi Zen "William James used to preach the 'will to believe.' For |
|x at apocalypse.org my part, I should wish to preach the 'will to doubt.' ... |
| What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the wish to|
| find out, which is the exact opposite" - Bertrand Russell |
