2012 Off topic thread(basketball,movies,etc whatever)

[MMA_scientist]

It has happened. Many times. You don't even have to look to NDEs for this.

This is something that at least some people can control to some degree in the form of remote viewing.

Remote viewing is something I absolutely think is bs. I am open to some things that are supernatural, but generally super powers is something I almost always immediately dismiss. There is just too much incentive to make it up and/or fool yourself. There are no super powered humans, of that, I am nearly certain. This goes for psychics, telekinesis, remote viewing, etc.

[MMA_scientist]

Yeah, I would say that one's own emotional experiences are essentially self-proving at least according to our own internal definitions. If I feel that I hate Juggalos then I hate Juggalos. We could fairly question whether my concept of "hate" is exactly the same as another persons, and maybe it isn't exactly, but there is obviously a shared concept here that people basically agree on (just like any other word).

As for *inherent* rightness, I would completely agree that a belief in such a thing would be just as dogmatic as any religion. I think the majority of non-theists believe in a personal moral code that sits somewhere alongside every other persons moral code. When looked at together, these moral beliefs would be largely overlapping, but not completely. Some people might be tempted to call those overlapping parts "universal", but I think they are a function of biology and the course of our species' behavioral evolution, and see no reason why they should be considered a deep property of the universe.

As for a feeling being self proving... I agree to the extent that is in accordance with a singular person's definition. But to me, I see no difference between an individual saying that they "felt the presence of God" and saying they know what it feels like to hate juggalos. Does this mean that an external God exists outside of the person's feeling? No... but as you say- if enough people agree that a concept exists, we just sort of accept it. You may say that the feeling is just an evolutionary remnant, or you are mistaken on what you feel... but the same can be said of almost any other feeling (you dont hate juggalos, it is just a chemical reaction in your brain, you actually have no feelings about juggalos at all). Maybe the difference is that most people do not think that love and hate are properties of the universe (some do though). Still, it is hard for me to understand why people can't accept that some people simply believe something just based on "gut", since we base a lot of our concepts on this very same thing.

As for universal right and wrong... I don't agree that most non-theists are moral relativists. Many of the things that we all pretty much deem "wrong" have nothing to do with the survival of the species, at least as far as I can tell. Other animals do things for no reason too, but I think it is just an easy cop out to say, well it is just part of our behavioral evolution to think murding babies, fertile men, handicapped is wrong. It is essentially saying, we do it because we do it... even from an evolutionary standpoint, there must need to be a reason for these feelings to exist. So somewhere along the line, these feelings developed, I don't see why it makes a difference if it was today or a million years ago. I see no reason why I, as the dominant male on the planet, should allow you people to live. I should kill (or maybe castrate you to keep you around for labor), club your baby human children, seed your women with my superior DNA, drown all but a few of my sons (you know, to ensure the survival of the species), and reign until I am usurped by my own genetically superior progeny.

As an aside, I am not saying there is a universal right and wrong. I actually don't think they are biological feelings though, more social. I don't think a truly isolated and feral person would have the same sense of right and wrong.

[Svino]

Remote viewing is something I absolutely think is bs.

Yeah, I've read some of the literature on remote viewing -- found it extremely unconvincing. Some people have been able to take advantage of the kinda-lax standards for statistical evidence that prevail in psychology and medical journals and sneak in some papers on ESP, but I see no reason for anyone to be impressed.

[SPX]

Remote viewing is something I absolutely think is bs. I am open to some things that are supernatural, but generally super powers is something I almost always immediately dismiss. There is just too much incentive to make it up and/or fool yourself. There are no super powered humans, of that, I am nearly certain. This goes for psychics, telekinesis, remote viewing, etc.

I think that before you should ever think "I absolutely think it is BS" then you should at least take some time to see what the claims are what the evidence are for those claims. If, after reviewing the evidence, you don't think there's anything to it then okay.

What I will say is that I don't think Project Stargate (the military remote viewing project) would have continued for ~25 years if there were not results that encouraged its continued development.

From all the information that I've collected, the problem was never that there wasn't hard evidence that some "sixth sense" kind of shit was going on, the problem was that it was just too difficult to control and use efficiently.

[Svino]

As for a feeling being self proving... I agree to the extent that is in accordance with a singular person's definition. But to me, I see no difference between an individual saying that they "felt the presence of God" and saying they know what it feels like to hate juggalos. Does this mean that an external God exists outside of the person's feeling? No...

Exactly. "No." A concept is one thing, an existential claim about an actual being is another.

As for universal right and wrong... I don't agree that most non-theists are moral relativists. Many of the things that we all pretty much deem "wrong" have nothing to do with the survival of the species, at least as far as I can tell.

Well, I'd avoid the term "moral relativism" because it so often gets attached to an extreme version of relativism. Also, be careful about the "survival of the species" trap: evolution does not act, in general, at the level of "the interests of the species". There are many evolved features (peacock's tail, etc.) that attest to that.

Other animals do things for no reason too, but I think it is just an easy cop out to say, well it is just part of our behavioral evolution to think murding babies, fertile men, handicapped is wrong. It is essentially saying, we do it because we do it... even from an evolutionary standpoint, there must need to be a reason for these feelings to exist. So somewhere along the line, these feelings developed, I don't see why it makes a difference if it was today or a million years ago.

It's not a cop-out, but obviously it's not a complete explanation either, and I'm not trying to claim it is. You could make a parallel situation with physiological evolution: "Why do we have 5 toes and not 4 or 6?" Well, we know we evolved that way, and it was probably adaptive, and probably involved natural selection. But I have no specific explanation to offer of why we evolved that way. Of course, tracing the evolution of behavioral traits can be even harder, because the fossil record is not very helpful. At the same time, it isn't hard to see how co-operative and pro-social behaviors can be adaptive.

I see no reason why I, as the dominant male on the planet, should allow you people to live... I actually don't think they are biological feelings though, more social. I don't think a truly isolated and feral person would have the same sense of right and wrong.

Well, I bet you do see a reason. If nothing else, you know how well that plan would work out if you tried it. And yes, certainly socialization does play a huge role, but what we see is the result of the interaction of our genes with our social environment. Humans are not moral "blank slates".

[Svino]

Related to remote viewing and military experiments, the short documentary series, "The Crazy Rulers of the World" is excellent; I highly recommend it. Much better than the Cloony movie it inspired:

http://www.mojvideo.com/video-crazy-rulers-of-the-world-1-4/3e200eeba2997534f0fb

[SPX]

I'll have to peep that.

[MMA_scientist]

Well, I bet you do see a reason. If nothing else, you know how well that plan would work out if you tried it. And yes, certainly socialization does play a huge role, but what we see is the result of the interaction of our genes with our social environment. Humans are not moral "blank slates".

This is the problem I mean to address. Our "genes" guiding us is just another way of saying "we are this way and we really dont' know why, but I accept it." This is what I mean, we accept things as being true all the time, even without having any actual evidence of these things. We know that we all have physical traits, but when you state with certainty that we are not moral blank slates... this can only be based on what people say, I don't know that we are not moral blank slates. In fact, people are taught to accept all sorts of things as good (suicide bomb the WTC) and bad (jerking off will make you go blind). All I do every day of my life is fight my nature. I feel like pretty much the whole modern human experience is spent resisting nature. As far as pro social behaviors being adaptive... sure I can see that. But by the same token, I don't readily accept that this is hard wired into us. Chimps are social beings as well, but they murder each other all the time. I just don't see the connection between some of the social adaptation and some of the things we "universally" agree are bad.

[MMA_scientist]

I think that before you should ever think "I absolutely think it is BS" then you should at least take some time to see what the claims are what the evidence are for those claims. If, after reviewing the evidence, you don't think there's anything to it then okay.

What I will say is that I don't think Project Stargate (the military remote viewing project) would have continued for ~25 years if there were not results that encouraged its continued development.

From all the information that I've collected, the problem was never that there wasn't hard evidence that some "sixth sense" kind of shit was going on, the problem was that it was just too difficult to control and use efficiently.

Well for me, the whole premise just seems too fantastical to be believed. I wouldn't believe it unless someone could clearly explain how it was happening to me or I experienced it myself. It would be the same thing as if you told me humans could fly. It just isn't possible in my mind, so I am not going to believe it unless something I know about the universe changes. It is the same as time travel to me (at least in the sci fi sense)... it flat out makes no sense and I know it is not possible. I don't even have to look at it to know it can't happen.

I may be wrong of course, but to me, it is so unlikely that it is not even worth investigating. The fact that the gov't spent money on it, means nothing. There are a ton of high ranking idiots.

[Luke]

dont worry about death........I live my life a quarter mile at a time

[Svino]

This is the problem I mean to address. Our "genes" guiding us is just another way of saying "we are this way and we really dont' know why, but I accept it." This is what I mean, we accept things as being true all the time, even without having any actual evidence of these things. We know that we all have physical traits, but when you state with certainty that we are not moral blank slates, this can only be based on what people say, I don't know that we are not moral blank slates.

Well, I'm not sure why you think there's no actual evidence -- a lot of psychological research has been done on this. Experiments with babies and with other mammals (esp. primates) show that these groups exhibit empathy and reciprocity (positive and negative) that are the basis for a moral system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

http://www.ted.com/talks/frans_de_waal_do_animals_have_morals.html

There is still plenty of controversy in this field, but I am fairly sure that any pure blank-slate stance is either dead or on it's last legs.

Chimps are social beings as well, but they murder each other all the time.

As likely did earlier humans. Considering all the possible reasons to benefit from killing another chimp/human, the fact that it happens does not mean there is no moral nature present, perhaps only that it failed to win out in the decision-making process in that case. Also, there is another moral human universal reflected in the chimp behavior here: the creation of in-group / out-group distinctions. Violence on the out-group may be entirely encouraged while prohibited for the in-group. Who gets included in the "in-group" is enormously socially-determined.

[SPX]

Well for me, the whole premise just seems too fantastical to be believed. I wouldn't believe it unless someone could clearly explain how it was happening to me or I experienced it myself. It would be the same thing as if you told me humans could fly. It just isn't possible in my mind, so I am not going to believe it unless something I know about the universe changes. It is the same as time travel to me (at least in the sci fi sense)... it flat out makes no sense and I know it is not possible. I don't even have to look at it to know it can't happen.

I've never had an experience that I would call psychic in any sort of sense, but people close to me have. My dad in particular--who's a "Christian man" in the best sense of the word and honest to a fault--has had some experiences that there is really is no rational, scientific explanation for in terms of our current understanding of how the brain works. My step-dad and two other friends also have things that have happened to them for which the only sensible explanation is that we have an ability that goes mostly untapped but that does occasionally exhibit itself.

So really, there are only two conclusions that I can come to: a) they are lying, or b) humans are capable of doing things that science doesn't understand. Because I have already eliminated the possibility of self-delusion or coincidence to my own satisfaction.

Really, I don't think that these experiences are that uncommon. If the subject comes up it seems that a fairly high percentage of people have a story to relate.

I may be wrong of course, but to me, it is so unlikely that it is not even worth investigating. The fact that the gov't spent money on it, means nothing. There are a ton of high ranking idiots.

Well after the program was de-classified a lot of the participants wrote books about their experiences in the program. Many of the stories they relate definitely involve things that we would classify as "psychic." And these stories have been corroborated by others in the program. So either it all happened, or there's a conspiracy where everyone involved got together and agreed to perpetrate a vast hoax on the public for the purpose of making money writing books. Considering the fact that not a single person involved has come forward saying these things DIDN'T happen, I have to feel like it's most logical to conclude that they did.

[MMA_scientist]

Well, I'm not sure why you think there's no actual evidence -- a lot of psychological research has been done on this. Experiments with babies and with other mammals (esp. primates) show that these groups exhibit empathy and reciprocity (positive and negative) that are the basis for a moral system.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1275574/Babies-know-difference-good-evil-months-study-reveals.html

There is still plenty of controversy in this field, but I am fairly sure that any pure blank-slate stance is either dead or on it's last legs.

I don't think that is accurate (the the stance is on its last legs). That stuy seems pretty flawed, as is pointed out at the end by another psychologist. The babies were 6 months old, and thus had 6 months of conditioning about what is good and bad. Also, the examples of "good" seemed pretty much neutral to me.

As for chimps, all animals have their own "morality", even birds protect their babies. My bone is that our modern moral code is somehow tied to an evolutionary remnant. Maybe it is, but to me, that seems like a straight up guess. Of course, as you mention, the fossil record doesn't help here, so we are stuck either saying "well, it must be this way" or just saying screw it... because there is no way to know.

[Svino]

I don't think that is accurate (the the stance is on its last legs). That stuy seems pretty flawed, as is pointed out at the end by another psychologist. The babies were 6 months old, and thus had 6 months of conditioning about what is good and bad. Also, the examples of "good" seemed pretty much neutral to me.

As for chimps, all animals have their own "morality", even birds protect their babies. My bone is that our modern moral code is somehow tied to an evolutionary remnant. Maybe it is, but to me, that seems like a straight up guess. Of course, as you mention, the fossil record doesn't help here, so we are stuck either saying "well, it must be this way" or just saying screw it... because there is no way to know.

Well, it is hard to prove, so there will always be some people arguing against it, but when a behavioral trait:

1) Is found universally across humans including small groups studied by anthropologists that have minimal contact with others.

2) Is found to some degree in infants.

3) Is observed our non-human primates relatives.

and 4) Has highly plausible arguments for being an adaptive trait.

It is widely believed by psychologists to be a phenomenon with a significant genetic contribution. I think maintaining otherwise is fighting Occam's Razor pretty hard. I have seen very few people do this who didn't have some blatant political motivations (i.e. feminists who want to believe that minds are blank at birth and therefore male and female brains must be completely identical... Left wing sociologists who are afraid that an innate ability to arrange in a social hierarchy will justify exploitation... etc.) Steven Pinker is maybe the psychologist trying most publicly to nail this particular coffin shut, but there are others:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Blank-Slate-Modern-Denial/dp/0670031518

[poopoo333]

Dana White just announced that Ross Pearson and George Sotiropoulos will be the coaches on The Ultimate Figher: UK VS Australia.

...