My dreams are about future real life events?

[Jirh]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

"Common sense" does not qualify as an argument in a discussion about epistemology/philosophy.

Why is causality important but not convergence of different sensory streams?

Smart enough to not default to "common sense" (whatever that is) in a discussion about philosophy.

Not defaulting to "common sense" in a discussion about philosophy, definitely "faulty reasoning". Expecting someone else to default to it, definitely "not" faulty reasoning.

Common sense and rationality are requirements for any serious discussion. Philosophical or otherwise. Because the only way to get to post-rationality is through rationality, not without it.

Rationality is not an obstacle towards post-rationality. The lack of it is. Post-rationality is just rationality taken to its logical conclusion, which is self-destruction.

Refusing to accept common sense will produce pre/trans effects.

Edited 8 hours ago by Jirh

[Inliytened1]

7 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Why are you talking about other people? I'm talking about my ideas about psychic phenomena.

 

Well, you're not really engaging with the points about why it can be rational (multiple converging sensory streams). You're invoking "common sense" and calling me "too smart to not know". Could call that pre-rational as well.

Why are multiple converging sensory streams not a valid epistemic tool for you (or are they)? It's in fact also common sense that it is.

 

Except in studies like those done by Rupert Sheldrake and others.

Still, again, you default to the best explanation without using controlled experiments all the time.

 

Yep, that's another thing to factor into the calculation. But people also believed in psychic phenomena 500 years ago. And for that, you will go to some other point which we will also have to factor into the calculation. But again, we're still just factoring things into the calculation. We're sharpening the level of credence we're giving to each hypothesis.

 

Red herring / equivocating on "reproduce"? But ok.

Yes, because most people agree that this is a good explanation. It's harder when you have to challenge their metaphysical assumptions and they start pulling up unfalsifiable auxiliary hypotheses like law of big numbers, selection bias, etc. (which can also be used to "doubt" your car explanation as you remember).

 

And that's why it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it can be used by sophists to defend the biggest of turds (the law of the truly big turds). You can defend your turds with unfalsfiable hypotheses or you can start to measure one turd up against another, through ideas like converging sensory streams.

 

Using post-Popperian philosophy to defend one's view, is that pre-rational? What did Popper call himself? 🤔 What is "post-Popperian"? 🤔

The idea of measuring turds and basing our survival around how big a turd i can spit out seems disturbing. Maybe it's me.

[Natasha Tori Maru]

2 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine I'm looking out from a window and I say I can see a balloon. Another guy looking out their own window say they can also see a balloon, in the same place, at the same time. Now, when the second person says they also see the balloon, we think that adds credence to the fact that the balloon I'm seeing is real (i.e. I'm not just hallucinating it).

Meanwhile, when I dream about them seeing the balloon in the same place at the same time, I'm supposedly just dreaming something random and it's just a coincidence. I'm supposedly not accessing the actual reality. The fact that the person also saw the balloon in real life does not somehow add credence to the fact that the balloon I saw in the dream could be real. Because, I guess "sensory organs"? Ok.

Couple onto this some more madness - all those who experience witnessing the balloon are never truly experiencing the same balloon. Each set of eyes only see the separate photons that reflect of that part of the balloon. Each set of hands could only ever feel one part of the balloon - never the same part at the same time. The smell of the gas burning - each particle can never ever be simultaneously hitting both receptions of both noses. 

And all of these raw sensations are actually only perceived inside us. Behind the eyes. The nose. The skin. So is the balloon experience occuring somewhere out there? Or do we only experience all that is external in material reality through our senses - internally? Is the external all within? 

Do we each experience a tiny fragment of the balloon... And we each participate in the shared projection of the balloon? Only made real through a million minds all rendering a slightly different part of that balloon.

So that we experience - reality.

[Jirh]

4 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Imagine I'm looking out from a window and I say I can see a balloon. Another guy looking out their own window say they can also see a balloon, in the same place, at the same time. Now, when the second person says they also see the balloon, we think that adds credence to the fact that the balloon I'm seeing is real (i.e. I'm not just hallucinating it).

Meanwhile, when I dream about them seeing the balloon in the same place at the same time, I'm supposedly just dreaming something random and it's just a coincidence. I'm supposedly not accessing the actual reality. The fact that the person also saw the balloon in real life does not somehow add credence to the fact that the balloon I saw in the dream could be real. Because, I guess "sensory organs"? Ok.

Consistency is the keyword here. Credibility is created through consistency.

The matching dream is a rare, one-off occurrence in a lifetime, if at all. While other waking people's reports are consistent every single time. That's why your dream is not credible and other waking people's perceptions are.

If you could find a way to extend the matching dreams beyond rare singular occurrences, then maybe you'd have a chance at gathering consensus.

[Elliott]

3 hours ago, Jirh said:

Common sense and rationality are requirements for any serious discussion. Philosophical or otherwise. Because the only way to get to post-rationality is through rationality, not without it.

Rationality is not an obstacle towards post-rationality. The lack of it is. Post-rationality is just rationality taken to its logical conclusion, which is self-destruction.

Refusing to accept common sense will produce pre/trans effects.

That's not what common sense means, it means lacking information. Common sense is the information that every random person on the street knows, it does not mean rationality, it's just lack of expert knowledge, lack.

Suggesting someone is not using common sense is literaly saying they're being mentally retarded, common sense means the type of sense making that is common.

Edited 5 hours ago by Elliott

[Jirh]

1 minute ago, Elliott said:

That's not what common sense means, it means lacking information.

Here's the AI summary from the first Google search of the exact term:

Common sense is the basic, practical judgment and everyday reasoning that people use to navigate life safely and efficiently. It relies on fundamental cause-and-effect understanding and social awareness rather than specialized training. It is the foundation of sound decision-making in daily situations.

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

Here's the AI summary from the first Google search of the exact term:

Common sense is the basic, practical judgment and everyday reasoning that people use to navigate life safely and efficiently. It relies on fundamental cause-and-effect understanding and social awareness rather than specialized training. It is the foundation of sound decision-making in daily situations.

Yes, you don't understand what its saying there

 

Edited 5 hours ago by Elliott

[Jirh]

7 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Yes, you don't understand what its saying there

Help me understand. I'm stupid.

[Jirh]

Quote

Well, you're not really engaging with the points about why it can be rational (multiple converging sensory streams). You're invoking "common sense" and calling me "too smart to not know". Could call that pre-rational as well.

Why are multiple converging sensory streams not a valid epistemic tool for you (or are they)? It's in fact also common sense that it is.

Already addressed above.

Quote

Except in studies like those done by Rupert Sheldrake and others.

Still, again, you default to the best explanation without using controlled experiments all the time.

What do you have of him that you think is credible enough to make a conclusion?

I read about him on Wikipedia. His work is mostly classified as pseudo-science.

Quote

Yep, that's another thing to factor into the calculation. But people also believed in psychic phenomena 500 years ago. And for that, you will go to some other point which we will also have to factor into the calculation. But again, we're still just factoring things into the calculation. We're sharpening the level of credence we're giving to each hypothesis.

It's the biggest factor. Without technology, you wouldn't have possibly known that the tornado occurred at all. All the other pieces of information are completely meaningless without that specific knowledge. Even if you believe in precognition, and even if everyone around you believes in your precognition, you will not possibly have any chance to prove your insight without technology. Of course, the point here is not to appreciate technology, but to dismantle the silly reasoning that ignores the elephant in the room.

Quote

Red herring / equivocating on "reproduce"? But ok.

Yes, because most people agree that this is a good explanation. It's harder when you have to challenge their metaphysical assumptions and they start pulling up unfalsifiable auxiliary hypotheses like law of big numbers, selection bias, etc. (which again, can also be used to "doubt" your car explanation).

And that's why it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis and it can be used by sophists to defend the biggest of turds (the law of the truly big turds). You can defend your turds with unfalsfiable hypotheses or you can start to measure one turd up against another, through ideas like converging sensory streams. Perhaps start exploring that discussion tree rather than repeating the unfalsifiable one

The law of truly large numbers is not an unfalsifiable hypothesis. It's actually more in alignment with reality than your precious precognition.

The law of truly large numbers says that everything is possible with enough time and attempts. Things vary in likelihood of occurrence, but nothing is impossibly unlikely like you suggested. When unlikely things happen, the law doesn't panic, because it's already accounted for it. It just doesn't give it the meaning or importance that you want.

Quote

Using post-Popperian philosophy (and cognitive science) to defend one's view, is that pre-rational? What did Popper call himself? 🤔

🙄🤷‍♂️

Edited 4 hours ago by Jirh

[Elliott]

15 minutes ago, Jirh said:

Help me understand. I'm stupid.

 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Jirh]

@Elliott A general video won't help. Use your own words to explain how I used the term out of context.

Note that Carl himself said he doesn't agree with common sense.

[Elliott]

2 minutes ago, Jirh said:

@Elliott A general video won't help. Use your own words to explain how I used the term out of context.

Note that Carl himself said he doesn't agree with common sense.

Common sense means the level of reasoning by the common person you find on the street, an idiot. Quote being lazy watch the minute video.

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Jirh]

Just now, Elliott said:

Common sense means the level of reasoning by the common person you find on the street, an idiot.

Yeah, and Carl does not have that. He did not deny it when I said it.

[Elliott]

1 minute ago, Jirh said:

Yeah, and Carl does not have that. He did not deny it when I said it.

Ya you still don't understand what common sense is, common sense is what everyone has Carl has knowledge above common sense, what the fuck do you think the common in common sense means. You're being lazy

Edited 4 hours ago by Elliott

[Jirh]

36 minutes ago, Elliott said:

Ya you still don't understand what common sense is, common sense is what everyone has Carl has knowledge above common sense, what the fuck do you think the common in common sense means. You're being lazy

You're misreading the context. I'm not saying Carl has no sense at all. I'm saying he's lacking it here when he's thinking about paranormal phenomenon. And he confirmed that he is openly against common sense in this particular area.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread any further.

[Elliott]

Just now, Jirh said:

You're misreading the context. I'm not saying Carl has no sense at all. I'm saying he's lacking it here when he's thinking about paranormal phenomenon. And he confirmed that he is openly against common sense in this particular area.

Anyway, let's not derail the thread any further.

Ya you don't understand, you're being lazy, watch the 2 minute video

[Human Mint]

Supernatural doesn't mean "less rational". That is a dumb assumption.

[Human Mint]

3 hours ago, Elliott said:

Common sense means the level of reasoning by the common person you find on the street, an idiot

I think the definition of an idiot is lacking common sense. But hey, you can believe what you want.

Edited 1 hour ago by Human Mint

[Elliott]

5 minutes ago, Human Mint said:

I think the definition of an idiot is lacking common sense. But hey, you can believe what you want.

If you believe 'smart' is common, then certainly, I believe 'idiot' is what is common though, depends on your definition of idiot.

Edited 1 hour ago by Elliott

[Human Mint]

13 minutes ago, Elliott said:

If you believe 'smart' is common, then certainly, I believe 'idiot' is what is common though, depends on your definition of idiot.

Well then it is worth understanding what common sense is more. It is definitely tied up with survival intelligence.

And what about being so rational that you loose common sense? That's a real thing too.