It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
We know that perfectly healthy minds hallucinate for many reasons.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Woodcarver
Can we know for sure that the "hallucination" was a misrepresentation of reality and not a glimpse into another form of reality?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Woodcarver
Furthermore, saying someone has a hallucination would seem to imply that we know what reality is. Do we?
Nope, but we do conclusively know that Hallucinations not only exist, but are relatively common.
Absolute knowledge? no, of course not. But thanks for yet again adding your empty diversionary tactics to the conversation.
Reality has a lot of evidence for it, but we also create it. A good example would be money. What is money, in reality? It's just a worthless piece of paper. We place value on it, and at a collectively we alter that reality to some degree. Money is basically make-believe, but it is a useful, sometimes destructive make-believe.
As for the physical realm of reality, read up on Quantum Physics.
Even if we have it all wrong, and the physical realm that we perceive to be reality were an illusion, it would not matter since we would live as if it were real.
TextNow, if you could actually provide some context to this discussion, rather than time and time again using diversionary tactics, we wouldn't need to explain useless things for no reason at all.
I think the idea of a third position is false.
Mixing one or the other into either side just causes confusion and serves no purpose.
You cannot equally answer Yes and No at the same time. Yes is Yes, No is No and I don't know or any other answer falls into the no spot too as it would be the default.
No is the default rather than yes
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Either we know there is no possibility what a person is seeing actually exists and hallucinations are real - or we don't know and have to accept the possibility that "hallucinations" are really occurrences of people receiving input from another dimension/reality/whatever term suits one best.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Empty? Such as making "conclusive" claims on something you admit to not actually knowing for certain?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
True. So would you argue that reality is subjective or objective?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
No argument here. Pointing out that hallucinations could be information gathering from a dimension unknown to us is not to say that hallucinations do not occur in the material world that we experience. Rather, the point is that if hallucination is thought of in terms of something not being present, then it could be an unfair application.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
I am not using any "diversionary tactics."
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Just don't claim something is "conclusive" or that you "know" something if that isn't the case.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
No knowledge is useless. Whether that be understanding the processes of the sensible world or inquiring into the possibility of other forms of reality
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
we (most of us, at least) cannot experience save through intuition.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
As for context, what do you want? Perhaps I'm not clear - for a hallucination to be real, it has to be created by the mind.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Unless we can say with absolute knowledge that what we perceive as hallucination is not really a person receiving input from another source undetectable to others (rather than produced in the mind), then we can not make the assertion that so and so had a "hallucination."
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
If we were to explore the possibility that "hallucinations" are events that occur as a result of an input rather than the mind creating it, we could perhaps gain more knowledge than what is available to the senses. Of course, it could lead to a useless dead end.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Personally, I think all possibilities are worth exploration and discussion.
No... they're not. Because all possibilities are not equal to the ones that we already have observed. Exploring every literal possibility is a waste of time until that possibility actually has some evidence that it exists in the first place.
If we test for an alternative dimension that is sending us brain signals, then we must also test that invisible unicorns that have hallucinogenic feces are pooping on our brain every once in a while.
You're not giving any knowledge to the conversation, your pointing out the obvious, and saying "well it could be [infinite amount of whatever garbage you want to place, here]". Your position is one of absolutely no worth.
Your like a creationist who wants to put creation in science class and forgets that their concept isn't the only unfalsifiable creation claim.
In almost every post I make in rebuttal to one of yours, I have to reexplain to you that I acknowledge that "anything could happen", but that using that as a primary argument is useless.
All you ever argue with is unfalsifiable claims. The very fact that those claims do not offer any substance to any topic mean that it is a diversionary tactic because I could easily make the same absurd, generic and infallible claims with different details and they would be just as valid as yours. It brings an otherwise reasonable discussion to a state that is absolutely pointless, hence the diversion.
we can see the neurological patterns that directly replicate that of normal functionality. Not only that but we can also now primitively project a persons visual thoughts/dreams into an externally viewable source. And what occurs in that test also confirms the same brain activity as we had seen before.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Alright, I'll leave you to your opinion.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Why does it have to be unicorns?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
More to the point - "testing." Not everything can be reduced to scientific explanation, but that doesn't mean those things are not worth exploration through other means, such as philosophy. Again, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
I didn't realize I was intending to give knowledge by asking a question. Is asking questions how you usually impart your wisdom?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You clearly do not understand my position. Ask me to clarify it, and I'll respond that I already have, many times. If it isn't clear yet, it never will be. Maybe it is that you are unable to think in wider terms than "this and that is observable" or that I am unable to adequately explain it.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You need explain nothing. If you acknowledge anything could happen, then you have no right to dismiss anything as false. Is there a reason that is not clear?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Even unfalsifiable claims could be proven illogical.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
However, I've yet to hear anyone answer if God could make a stone so heavy even He can't lift it.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
That question illustrates that it is illogical to believe in, for example, the Judeo-Christian God or Allah. Yes, the christian claim the god exists is unfalsifiable, but it can also be shown to be illogical.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
So, instead of griping about unfalsifiable claims - which is what philosophy is (and in case you didn't notice, this thread is in the theology section) - try to use reasoning to show a claim, even if unfalsifiable, is illogical.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
You consistently hide behind the mantra of if it's not observable, it's not worth discussing. If you wish to persist in that view, cease commenting on posts I make regarding philosophical views as it gets neither of us anywhere. No, I do not ignore the science - I just wish to move beyond it.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
Does this mean the neurological activity of a person having a hallucination is the same as one not having a hallucination?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Ghost147
are dreams considered a form of hallucination or are there different neurological processes taking place?
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369
Funny, I said pretty much that same thing in the OP
However, the atheist cannot work within the framework of theology, because theology presupposes that God exists, a notion which atheists reject as either untrue or - more commonly -absurd/improbable.
The problem isn't that agnostics don't have the cajones to admit to being atheist, it's that atheists deny existence of any deity (if they don't, then which deity do they not deny?), yet lack to conviction to commit to anti-theism. Furthermore, in order to do this, atheists tend to define themselves in almost agnostic terms.
I say almost because it is not the same, as I'm apparently having trouble helping you understand. If you lack belief based on claims, you have made a judgment call. Agnosticism makes no such judgment.
What change in definition? I've maintained the whole time that theists believe there is evidence for God (and thus believe), atheists believe there is no evidence for God (and thus do not believe), and agnostics don't hold that the evidence presented does not sway them one way or another.
The argument given that agnostics are atheists goes somewhat like this: agnostics do not have a positive belief in God, ergo, atheism. The problem with this is that agnostics do not have a belief either way. Also, keep in mind that I am aware of the definitions and that, technically speaking, every person on Earth is either a). agnostic b). full of it or c). seriously holding out on some major mind-blowing discovery. In the context of the OP, the question of agnostic vs. atheist is not about definitions, but about how words are actually used - and moreover, why agnostics don't commit to atheism.
It is interesting that you argue that agnostics are really atheists, yet don't mention anything about us really being theists.
Theists accept claims of God. Agnostics do not reject claims of God. If you do not reject something, it follows that you accept it, does it not? Ergo, agnostic=theism.
So, is agnostic=atheism, is it the same as theism - or is it just something on its own.
I've also seen the assertion that we are all born atheist. I reject that assertion and state that instead we are born agnostic (and we remain so). It comes down to labels. Both theists and atheists use rationale to defend the claim that there probably is or isn't a god. You can try to mince words and say that "disbelief" and "lack of belief" are different all you want. Do you believe in God? If you answer "no" then you do not believe - disbelief.
If I believed that evidence was tipped in the favor of not believing in God, I would certainly identify myself as atheist. The thing here is, I do not believe evidence is tipped in the direction of atheism or theism - it is firmly balanced. Yet, if you persist in saying that so long as I do not say "I believe in God" that I'm an atheist, and there's no middle ground - then sure, by your understanding of atheism, I am an atheist.
However, why label yourself atheist and not agnostic, if the two terms are interchangeable? Could it be that you place more importance on assumptions than knowledge?
Not my definition, but the commonly used and accepted definition.
Babies are born without a belief in a god making them atheists.
As I have said neither is mutually exclusive. You are an agnostic atheist, just like me.
You're not a theist are you? you must have rejected the claims...
Could you explain to me why you believe that any and all possibilities hold equal ground as what we've observed and tested?
There's no way to prove that it is not either of those things, or anything else we can imagine.
That is the point I'm trying to make.
The answer is that "being all powerful cannot exist."
You don't move anywhere by making unfalsifiable claims. Why? because there's nothing to go off of to begin with. Unfalsifiable claims are empty for a reason. It suggests nothing of value, it gives no substance to anything, it is adding with Zero.
Identical in it's totality, no. But specific parts of the brain do activate just like they normally would when responding to an event that uses any of these senses: visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, thermoceptive and chronoceptive.
Dreaming is essentially the same as hallucination, only the individual is unconscious.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369
Commonly used and accepted by whom - the atheist community? Yes, okay, the same community that took an already well-defined term and changed its meaning for some reason or another. Having no position on the matter of whether or not God exists is agnosticism. This is not atheism, which is the position that God does not exist.
I'll concede this point. Agnostic atheist, eh?
Not quite. I am agnostic in the truest sense. I have no beliefs one way or another. However, I would say that what makes the most sense to me is monism (at least from what I know of it). However, if I were shown science that shows monism to be utter horse crap, I'd go with the science. Still, I don't believe in monism. As far as God as presented in Christianity and other religions with a similar concept of God (minus the whole resurrection) thing - seems rather unlikely.
By your (and most of the atheist community's) understanding of "atheism" - then yes, I'm atheist. Born and raised, in fact. Still, I would label myself agnostic over atheist, because I find the evidence to support there being no god equally lacking.
To me, rejecting something can only be done with knowledge. If I "reject" the claim that there is a god, this is the same as saying I know there is no God.
This quote pretty much sums my own view up pretty well:
"Apathetic agnostics believe the question of the existence of God is irrelevant and unimportant." [citation]
Still, unimportant does not mean "not interesting"
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369
Is this your blog?
Or is the "stamps" argument a common one?
Here's the situation. We have a term "atheist," which means "without God." Originally this meant a belief that there was no God. Agnostics were the ones who "lacked belief."
The problem came with burden of proof. Theists make the positive claim - so they have burden of proof. However, if atheists say "there is no god" - they, too, have burden of proof. So, how do you get past this? - by making the definition of "atheist" broader so that it now includes agnostics.
Atheism, at its core, is the belief there is no God. The truth is, without changing the definition, atheism would be as untenable as theism. What before we called atheists and agnostics, today are called anti-theists and agnostic atheists.
originally posted by: scorpio84
a reply to: Prezbo369
Ah, I see...now it's me changing the definition?
At this point we are arguing about terminology and I have bigger fish to fry.
I prefer to be labeled agnostic not for fear of being called atheist (I proudly claimed that title from when I could start talking until I was in my 20s)- but simply that my focus is on not knowing. I am not concerned with theists proving that their god exists - the concern is with showing them how their belief is illogical.
Anyhow, this particular argument is over - it is serving no one.