Phenomenology?! You were talking about speculation about UFO's. Quit trying to give this conspiracy theory bullshit a visage of credibility.

I don't care, and have no reason to care, because I'm not a gullible fool.

It doesn't matter one way or the other! That's precisely the point. Speculation like that counts for little-to-nothing. I thought I had made that clear enough.

Because it's meaningless, i.e. counts for nothing, to anyone who i) isn't that person, and ii) has their wits about them.

You mean that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify? Big deal. That just means that they've encountered flying objects that they've been unable to identify, and nothing else.

That's not a claim that I've made, and is therefore irrelevant. I am not Terrapin Station.

I'm going to ignore the nonsense about psychopathy, besides this brief mention of it.

"It's evidence for them" is so lame a response as to be laughable, and noting the number of accounts is a fallacious appeal to the masses. Lots of people claim to have seen a ghost, too.

What's "my model"? I haven't made the same claims as Terrapin,by the way. Although I did somewhat rhetorically raise the question of whether there's any credible evidence of consciousness without a functioning brain. That link definitely counts for something, and it can indeed be verified.

If there's no means of verification, then it counts for nothing. You accept that, then? Because I was under the impression that you wanted to count it as evidence. But it can't be counted as evidence, because it could be fabricated or mistaken.

No, it's not my interpretation, it's my reasonable conclusion. Do you have a way of verifying their "report"? Yes or no? If yes, explain. If no, then it counts for nothing, as opposed to evidence in favour of one possibility over others.

Oops, replied to the wrong comment above. Nevermind.

No, the first-person "reports" are just what they say after the event, which could be entirely fabricated or otherwise mistaken, with no possible way of checking, so it counts for nothing.

What's dumb is failing to grasp the point. There's a million more analogies that I could come up with. The point is that what you're saying is indistinguishable from bullshit, so it counts for nothing.

It’s not fantasizing exactly. I cannot communicate to you all of my subjective experiences. — Noah Te Stroete

How very... convenient. Kind of like, "I can do a backflip", "Go on then", "I can't do it whilst you're watching".

When we say that someone is soul-less, then that person is a psychopath. I was talking about S. — Noah Te Stroete

That's what it stands for.

I don’t know how to communicate with you.
— Noah Te Stroete

Hmm, okay. — Terrapin Station

Perhaps you could try speaking in tongues. He's a religious fanatic, so it might just work. I've seen it before. What you do is you make loud, frenzied gibberish noises and behave kind of like you're having a seizure. Maybe fall to the ground. Then afterwards, your cancer is cured.

Oh yeah, by the way, you have cancer.

If you need a shoulder to cry on, look elsewhere, because I'm a psychopath, apparently.

Like I said, there’s no evidence of that. — Noah Te Stroete

That's not true. There's a difference between understanding the emotions of others, and choosing to act with disregard for them.

Showing empathy would just be evidence that I have the ability to understand the emotions and experiences of others. No need for religious Mumbo-Jumbo.

I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. — Noah Te Stroete

:snicker:

I very much doubt that you have a soul. — Noah Te Stroete

Because they don't exist.

As a follower of scientism, where the believers have no beliefs outside of accepted mainstream science, I’m afraid you are doomed to live a life without an original thought. — Noah Te Stroete

Will you pray for my soul?

I was speculating. I admitted that. I entertain all kinds of beliefs to see how they could fit into the big picture. I don’t dismiss things because they may sound outlandish to an atheist. I have subjective experiences that I cannot communicate. I’m trying to figure them out. I’m sorry that you’re too pig-headed to wander outside of the corral that Hume, Hitchens, and Dawkins set for you. — Noah Te Stroete

Oh! You were speculating! And that suddenly makes this a worthwhile philosophical activity? I've already stated my disagreement with that suggestion. Whatever next? Can pigs fly? Is the moon made of cheese? What if fish could ride bikes? How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

I am influenced by many things. — Noah Te Stroete

Right. And I suppose it was your love of stamp collecting which influenced your talk of spirit and God. Religion had nothing to do with it.

I don’t rule things out because they may sound outlandish to some. — Noah Te Stroete

You're still missing the point, it seems. There's an important difference between ruling out and what I call taking seriously.

I am not religious. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, you know what? Since you didn't hesitate to call me an advocate of scientism, I'm going to call you religious from now on.

Both of you worship science, but scientists are open-minded like me. — Noah Te Stroete

Can you please be transparent enough to stop hiding behind the term "open-minded" when you really mean "accepting of nonsense"?

I’m not religious. That is a misrepresentation. — Noah Te Stroete

One: can't you read? Two: are you seriously going to deny that your talk of spirit and God is religiously influenced?

...you anti-science buffoon. — Noah Te Stroete

Also, make your mind up, lol. One minute I'm an ardent advocate of scientism, the next I'm anti-science!

There’s no evidence that there is a multiverse, but it is a widely held speculation among cosmology physicists, you anti-science buffoon. — Noah Te Stroete

The key word being speculation. And that's what it'll remain, pending sufficient evidence. And it's more promising than the religiously influenced fantasies that you're peddling.

The answer is that they're not.

Precluding possibilities is only relevant to proofs.

Empirical claims are not provable. Precluding possibilities is irrelevant to them. So that we haven't precluded a possibility in the context of an empirical claim is a red herring. It has nothing to do with support for an empirical claim, nothing to do with reasons to believe one claim over another, etc. — Terrapin Station

Yeah, it's a red herring, and quite predictable. It's not uncommon to fall back on, "But you haven't shown that it's impossible!", as a distraction from the fact that there's no evidence in support of it. And if your epistemic standard allows for serious consideration of possibilities absent any supporting evidence, then that's an epistemic standard not worth it's salt.

That sounds like an argument from incredulity. — Noah Te Stroete

Haha. No. There's nothing fallacious about what I just said, and Hume put it well: a wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. I trust you can work out the implications.

How have we precluded all possibilities? What is the justification for that? — Noah Te Stroete

Even if it's possible, absent any evidence, it's a possibility that only fools would take seriously. So you're fighting a losing battle here.

Excluding possibilities would amount to proving something, right? — Terrapin Station

I'll give you the correct answer: yes. It would, obviously and at the very least, prove those things impossible, and narrow down the possibilities.

I would guess you might be an example. — Noah Te Stroete

Well, if so, then that would at least finally prove, contrary to all prior evidence, that you're not entirely full of crap.

That's not at all the case. Consciousness is very clearly a subset of brain function. — Terrapin Station

Mmm. Is there any credible evidence of anything conscious without a functional brain?

I definitely do not choose any stance because I like it. In fact, I'd often prefer that other things were true. I choose stances based on what's the case. — Terrapin Station

And that's the right approach. The wrong approach would be, "Ooh, doesn't spirit sound nice? Yeah, I'll go with that. Everything is spirit".

And @Wallows says I have nothing to teach.

And it's only partly my opinion. It's partly Kant's own opinion..................... man.

Like, that's your opinion, man.

Kant made mince-meat out of Hume. — Noah Te Stroete

Hardly. It was he who awoke him from his dogmatic slumber. Kant is indebted to Hume, and developed his groundbreaking thinking. But Hume wins hands down on ethics and philosophy of religion.

...and that the 17th and 18th century philosophers did nothing of note — Noah Te Stroete

You must not have seen my profile. I've probably referenced Hume more than any other philosopher. 1711 - 1776, by the way.

And what do you know about truth. You’re no better than a nihilist. — Noah Te Stroete

I know, at least, that one has a better chance of obtaining it through a means other than those known to be faulty, such as wishful thinking and confirmation bias. You want there to be a God, and, lo and behold, you interpret the science so as to lead to God. That's not the approach of a seeker of truth, that's the approach of someone who is out to indulge in self-satisfying deception, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Thank you for the kind words. — Noah Te Stroete

Would you rather hear kind words or harsh truths?

Anyway, if, unlikely though it may seem, your speculation leads to some genuinely valuable insight, as opposed to flights of the imagination, then you will have peaked my interest. Until then, I'm satisfied with my response.

As for confusion, what do you think I'm confused about?
— S

Then what are you here for? — Wallows

That doesn't answer my question. And it was a question, not a statement, as you seem to have taken it.