http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1226759.html
Are you excited, non materialists?
My precognition says, “fake”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/embed/video/1226759.html
Are you excited, non materialists?
My precognition says, “fake”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Do you accept fmm’s version?
Right.
Or maybe it’s another word, not exactly “imagination”, but close to that — and not close to what normal people mean by “experience”.
And “shared” imagination/mental event is a pretty doubtful concept in any case – which could be why fifthmonarchyman is eager to call it “shared experience”. He wants – illegitimately – to imply that imagining ideal circles (alongside someone else) is the same sort of shared action as playing a game of catch or eating a meal (alongside someone else). The latter two are legitimate shared experiences.
But what could it possibly mean to claim that we both “share” having a mental image of the ideal game of catch or the perfect meal?
Not a materialist, but I’m not excited about it.
As I pointed out here:
Why publicize this stuff. If someone can do it, they should utilize the gift to read peoples minds and annihilate people in poker games and retire billionaires since they can get all the inside information they need to trade securities.
No need for things like the James Randi challenge. If this were are phenomenon we could leverage at will, there would not be any need for publicity, in fact, one might want to be quiet about having such secret weapons in ones arsenal.
Exactly! Let’s wait and see if anything develops. Parlour trick or Earth-shattering discovery?
Is imagining an object an experience? I would think so. What would preclude it from being such?
peace
So you would say that objectivity is an illusion? If not why not?
peace
I would consider it a kind experience.
As in “nice”?
peace
Sorry. That should have been “kind of” rather than “kind”. Typo.
NEWS: Neither does “science.”
Oh please. I explicitly created a thread on materialism so that this “excuse” could be seen for what it is.
Reminds me of Neil Rickert, who doesn’t know what a ‘real code’ is.
Man-Child
Mung,
I provided evidence that at least some scientists do.
Apparently, any quote of anyone constitutes a quote mine. And quote-mining is bad. And accusations of quote-mining are equivalent to accusations of dishonesty.
In support of his allegation of quote-mining, petrushka offers but a bare assertion. No evidence. Just assertion.
Apparently that’s what it means to be a “skeptic” at the skeptical zone.
petrushka
Well gee then, I guess that absolves you of any responsibility for your allegation that I have quote-mined my sources.
I’m pretty sure this site has a Complaints department. Or maybe I’m thinking of the Whine Cellar. Request away, Mr. “I don’t know what a real code is” Mathematician.
Could you kindly decode this for me? I can’t make sense of it.
I don’t think the translation system is a code either, if that’s what you are saying.
Excellent example! So it’s not my imagination after all.
Calling Richardthughes!
Mung,
I have no clue – But WJM has advanced here and at UD “Non materialistic science”. Infact the Wedgies have major butthurt over materialism:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=site%3A%20uncommondescent.com%20materialism
I just thought this might help them out, as there’s (non thought) experiments.
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2015-11-scientists-human-thoughts-material.html