@Captain Scarlet- I was in no way saying my experiences are valid and yours weren't. I'm having problems with your concept of experiencing nothing. Feel free to explain further , I still don't see how that's possible. To experience is to intake information. Nothing is just that no thing, therefore not informative in any way. "Experiencing Nothing" I'm still maintaining is an oxymoron unless you can better clarify.
@Min- Of course it shouldn't be exculpatory. It should be evidence though, at the least to mindset of the perpetrator, which it was in this case. You of course also don't know if I'm rational, sane, poe or even a man FTM. In a trial the "right" in question would be the "right" of the whole, not the individual. You know I'm a big fan of personal accountability and while the individual may have felt justified it was apparent from public opinion that he was delusional.
I do not have the time tonight to properly engage each question so for that I apologize in advance. For brevity I'll adress the whole with certain points:
1- I believe in Evolution and believe humans developed from animals gaining different survival tools through natural selection and most animals diverged from common ancestry similarly.
2- (I've seen your post of it before Eil and it is a good video) I did not label anything as supernatural Eil did and thus is more likely to misinterpret evidence, create flawed causal connections and eliminate alternative as I will attempt again to better explain.
3- I was in fact attempting to label them natural as opposed to supernatural. If different species have developed differing coping tools (and we've identified some here that have been scientifically measured) do you deny that they have senses just because you do not posses them? No that would be fallicious. Limiting your world to the 5 materialistic senses is in just as much denial and is just as fallicious.
4- Of course some things listed are illusory and selection biased, but there are more senses than 5. We've tested some and found them to be fanciful illusions becuase they exhibit no more truthfullness than chance. The senses we use for input are very important and need to be tested and verified. Skepticism and most science typically though only deal in the material. Perhaps better tests are needed. Perhaps less brain washing is also needed. But rejecting all possibility of a potential sensory input solely on the basis of it's immaterial nature I believe is fallicious.
5- If a species of fish can sense electro-magnetic fields as testable and verifiable, isn't it at least plausable that maybe a few times, when someone says they see auras or ghost, they're actually seeing one? Since an almost entirety of our day is spent using only our 5 basest more materialistic senses it seems plauable to me that if we had the ability to sense electromagnetic fields (which would probably be emergent and very underdeveloped) that the mind would extrapolate a visual illusion to help our brains digest the information. Trying to hunt for ghosts at that point would be much more rationalization than expeditioary.
@Min- Of course it shouldn't be exculpatory. It should be evidence though, at the least to mindset of the perpetrator, which it was in this case. You of course also don't know if I'm rational, sane, poe or even a man FTM. In a trial the "right" in question would be the "right" of the whole, not the individual. You know I'm a big fan of personal accountability and while the individual may have felt justified it was apparent from public opinion that he was delusional.
I do not have the time tonight to properly engage each question so for that I apologize in advance. For brevity I'll adress the whole with certain points:
1- I believe in Evolution and believe humans developed from animals gaining different survival tools through natural selection and most animals diverged from common ancestry similarly.
2- (I've seen your post of it before Eil and it is a good video) I did not label anything as supernatural Eil did and thus is more likely to misinterpret evidence, create flawed causal connections and eliminate alternative as I will attempt again to better explain.
3- I was in fact attempting to label them natural as opposed to supernatural. If different species have developed differing coping tools (and we've identified some here that have been scientifically measured) do you deny that they have senses just because you do not posses them? No that would be fallicious. Limiting your world to the 5 materialistic senses is in just as much denial and is just as fallicious.
4- Of course some things listed are illusory and selection biased, but there are more senses than 5. We've tested some and found them to be fanciful illusions becuase they exhibit no more truthfullness than chance. The senses we use for input are very important and need to be tested and verified. Skepticism and most science typically though only deal in the material. Perhaps better tests are needed. Perhaps less brain washing is also needed. But rejecting all possibility of a potential sensory input solely on the basis of it's immaterial nature I believe is fallicious.
5- If a species of fish can sense electro-magnetic fields as testable and verifiable, isn't it at least plausable that maybe a few times, when someone says they see auras or ghost, they're actually seeing one? Since an almost entirety of our day is spent using only our 5 basest more materialistic senses it seems plauable to me that if we had the ability to sense electromagnetic fields (which would probably be emergent and very underdeveloped) that the mind would extrapolate a visual illusion to help our brains digest the information. Trying to hunt for ghosts at that point would be much more rationalization than expeditioary.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
