Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

[Einherjar86]

The more individuals perceive an event/object/etc., the more likely it becomes that we will receive disparate accounts. Through these disparate accounts (ideally written down as soon as possible, or recorded in some way), investigators can arrive at a more concrete notion of what transpired. You're right that no one person's memory is necessarily more "correct" than another's; but this is not the point of desiring more witnesses. No one perception/recollection is more relevant or useful; but a collections of recollections, taken together, can yield more beneficial results.

I think it's highly probable that your and your brother's memories have congealed, so to speak, over time. I think your recollection of events now are relatively the same simply due to your collective sharing and indulging in the experience over time. I'm not asserting that this is true; but I definitely think it's possible, and it wouldn't be something you would be able to tell. It could have been an incredibly convincing illusion of physical light that struck you both as powerful (just as murmurations strike observers as unique and moving, but this does not make it anything more than a large collection of birds in flight), and a religious upbringing and acculturation might have contributed to a kind of communal creation of this memory.

 

[Dak]

You mean believing it wasn't possible made it more believable?

 

[Einherjar86]

You were taught that ghosts/spirits don't exist, but that there is in fact a life after death. Isn't there a strange paradox implicit in this belief that might engender some fantasy of spiritual manifestation?

 

[Dak]

You were taught that ghosts/spirits don't exist, but that there is in fact a life after death. Isn't there a strange paradox implicit in this belief that might engender some fantasy of spiritual manifestation?

I don't see why. All the spirits are safely stored in heaven or hell, as per US Baptist fundamentalism. That is why they can't possibly appear on earth, not because they don't "exist" per se.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm sure you believed that at that age; "believed" in the sense that, if asked, you would have expressed that sentiment in so many words.

Imaginations, on the other hand, don't work that way.

 

[Dak]

I'm sure you believed that at that age; "believed" in the sense that, if asked, you would have expressed that sentiment in so many words.

Imaginations, on the other hand, don't work that way.

I will pray a poltergeist on you.

 

[Einherjar86]

If so, I'll reconsider your testimony.

 

[Dak]

Prayer and poltergeist seem somewhat paradoxical, in the fundamentalist sense.

Anyway, you have kind of created a problem for yourself though. Let us imagine for amount, that tomorrow evening you witness some sort of seemingly "paranormal" phenomena. I don't believe you would reconsider anything. You would merely dismiss it as being tired/indirect glance/overactive imagination as a result of this discussion/etc.

It's like "I'll be inclined to believe 'x' when someone credible comes forward about it". Then if someone does, they are automatically discounted, for if they were credible they wouldn't come forward about it.

Do you see the problem with this?

 

[Einherjar86]

I don't see how I "created" the problem for myself. It's certainly the case that someone, even with respectable credentials, will likely be dismissed by many and doubted by many more if he/she brings forth information on supernatural energies. This isn't something I've created; it's just the way things are.

This is the case, however, with any new form of knowledge, which is what Thomas Kuhn all but proved in his book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. No one scientist inaugurated a new form of knowledge; even Galileo was forced to recant under threat of torture ("Eppur si muove"). That's not to say that I'm entirely dismissive of your claim, and no one should be. Skepticism is merely the best method of protecting ourselves against irrational, dogmatic beliefs. Since far more material explanations abound that have been scientifically substantiated, I tend to think that such explanations are more likely. This does not mean that ghosts or supernatural essences are impossible; it merely means that many so-called supernatural experiences have been disproved, shown to be hoaxes, or re-explained as material phenomena.

You're right in saying that science may, someday, undergo a paradigm shift by which it can assess what was previously held to be "supernatural." In all likelihood, however, such things won't be shown to be truly supernatural, but merely material phenomena that our instruments were previously incapable of measuring.

 

[Dak]

In all likelihood, however, such things won't be shown to be truly supernatural, but merely material phenomena that our instruments were previously incapable of measuring.

I don't really see the difference, if we assume that everything considered "supernatural" has always merely been outside of our current realm of knowledge. The existence and movements of the celestial bodies used to be "supernatural".

 

[Einherjar86]

The difference is that most people (not implying you as well) equate the supernatural with something human beings can't possibly know (hence the old adage "There are some place humanity wasn't meant to go", "...some thing humanity wasn't meant to know", etc.).

The assumption implicit in such statements is a qualitative one; people make an evaluative leap when they believe that essences exist separately of matter. Saying that something is supernatural because it is a material phenomenon that hasn't been properly explained merely constructs a semantic boundary; in truth, it's nothing more than a material phenomenon. It isn't supernatural at all. Using the term "supernatural" implies something more dogmatic. It implies that purely evaluative concepts (i.e. good, evil, love, hatred, justice, etc.) can exist apart from matter. I don't deny that these concepts subsist within matter; they emerge due to certain specific material circumstances. But the appeal to the supernatural suggests that these values/ideals inhabit some unseen, inexplicable realm and intervene on human behalf, as they do in The Castle of Otranto. Hence people begin to place values on "forbidden" knowledge.

I don't think you've done this at all. I do think that surrendering to the conclusion that we cannot know something invites dogmatism; Meillassoux actually talks significantly about this in After Finitude. Admitting that we cannot know something is no better than claiming that it doesn't exist separately of our perception of it.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

http://www.aeonmagazine.com/world-views/steven-poole-teleology/

Good stuff here "(Just think of the vast numbers of creatures who have suffered and died horribly over billions of years of evolution on Earth.) If it is the purpose of the universe to produce such a horrifying asymmetry of value, that might seem like a bad cosmic joke, if not worse."

 

[Dak]

Specific to humans, how much of it gets self-imposed, whether on and individual or species bases?

 

[Dak]

American Exceptionalism

A defense (but not exactly)

I love how in this defense, Mr Cooke claims he does not hold the beliefs that Greenwald charges, and yet spends most of the article explaining that he actually very much does so.

It's the equivalent of me going "I don't believe Dodge Rams are the best pickup ever. But they do last longer, look better, pull more, go faster, etc than anything ever. But no, I don't think they are the best ever, and to suggest that is unfair!"

 

[Einherjar86]

Great point; I know you've talked a lot about cognitive dissonance in the past (and that Orwell quote that Greenwald mentions is perfect for that discussion), but I actually think it's even more complicated than just that. Quite simply, Orwell nailed cognitive dissonance with his neologism "doublethink"; but I believe that language plays an important role in this phenomenon that sometimes gets overlooked.

It's imperative, in my opinion, that Cooke be able to write/speak his argument and simultaneously refrain from making the Greenwaldian leap of American exceptionalism. In fact, he is making that leap in the very act of his argument (as you're saying, David); but the admission and formulation of his argument in language allows him to separate it from an unspoken, "private", perhaps "unconscious", yet implicit rationale that essentially amounts to him claiming America is the greatest country in world history.

Basically, he does all but make that claim in his response to Greenwald; the claim, however, is implicit in the argument. It's a fascinating sleight of hand that allows him to verbally denounce America's unfettered access to actions that are denied other countries, yet also provide ample rationalization/justification for such action. Greenwald is exposing the inseparability of the two, while Cooke is attempting to establish in imaginary line between them.

 

[Dak]

Of course, diversification of the language is absolutely necessary. A key giveaway is where he attempts to head off mentions of Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Not only does he already know this accusation would be coming, he dismisses it with pure personal opinion. On what grounds was it "right"? Because we're America and they were Japan. Duh.

 

[Dak]

http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/02/18/reuters-tv-japan-presents-the-incredible-shrinking?videoId=241182419&videoChannel=118065

Thank you market.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

CISPA is back! yay

Who's ready for Darknet!?

http://www.savetheinternet.com/blog/2013/02/15/meet-new-cispa-same-old-cispa

 

[Dak]

You know its going to keep coming up, just like gun control. The money is behind it.

 

[Mort Divine]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/19/massachusetts-education-d_n_2717446.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/21/mass-moves-unisex-restrooms-transgender-students/

Good on you Massachusetts