Consider a different sequence — Banno

Why? Why not deal with the one he presented, and either help him work out the defects, or understand what he's trying to say (you can't be sure, regardless of your hubris)?

Correct! — YiRu Li

Then I think you are taking a misguided, and ultimately dangerous position. Given that you live in Seattle (iirc) that is probably not a great position to be in. I would recommend understanding 'medicine' proper. It is not particular to a system - it is a set of aims, for which a system must be adequate. Western medicine at least goes a long way toward.. TCM gets barely off the starting block imo.

However, when we opt for Chinese medicine, Chinese doctors emphasize the importance of thinking and communicating strictly within the framework of Chinese medicine theory for optimal utilization. — YiRu Li

Can you not see that this is a serious, empirically verifiable, problem? This is the reason TCM has never been integrated. It doesn't work, and this attitude means that any aspects which are helpful in some way (all systems have these, basically) cannot be utilised outside the context of an ineffective, superstitious and scientifically semi-literate system.

I have no problem calling this nonsense.

as the two theories are fundamentally different — YiRu Li

Yes: One is based in reality; one is based in fancy (more or less) as has been illustrated by every post you have made around the topic.

It's essential to identify the origin of the pain to determine whether acupuncture, herbs, Qigong, philosophy or a combination of everything would be the most effective approach. — YiRu Li

Can you please outline whether you are actually serious in your approach throughout these exchanges?

It seems you are utterly incapable of considering anything but an ideological view point unsupported by any evidence. Your only citations are shoddy youtubers, spiritual texts, and anecdotes.

Ok Gotcha. Makes the wait a little more exciting :)

I shall await.

In the meantime, while I appreciate the game you're playing, I'm specifically asking - do you feel that inconclusive evidence is incoherent as a concept?

Those dreaming of ethnic cleansing are in control. — ssu

I thought this was given - it's just also assumed that Netanyahu is representative of a religious right-wing, and not Israel in general.

Apparently, that doesn't apply to Palestinians, in any case though, so ... oh well.

I think that's a little misleading from Mr. Watchel. It is true that the majority of 'illegal' gun crime isn't committed with guns stolen by that criminal but guns stolen by another criminal, whos crime is to sell the stolen gun/s.

So, it's a two-layer claim that most guns used in crime are stolen - and it seems to be pretty much an infallible conclusion. Where else are they coming from? Are all these gang-bangers previously license holders that let it lapse and now illegally carry?

Hunter Biden is inarguably a crack addict, though?

Hmm. Only in a situation where determining premises is difficult, I think.

Moving from shaky premises is acceptable (read: reasonable) when we can't be sure one way or the other. Like when there's, for instance, disputed facts, the subsequent argument tends to get back-engineered to determine the reasonability of hte premises. This is why lawyers can get a superbly well-founded rep. for massaging the facts.

But if you can show (as tends to be the case in cross-exam.) that the premises are unlikely enough to make the subsequent story inherently unlikely(eg. claiming one felt a certain level of threat that is implausible to support a self-defense argument), that story tends to be reject as unreasonable.

Can you be a little clearer about what appears to be a bit of a corner you're drawing up.... What's the relevance of inconclusive evidence, and why does it appear that you're unsure it exists?

I guess I shouldn't be surprised - But i am. I wouldn't think someone like yourself would put stock in a culturally, geographically biased outlet with a Controversies Wiki page longer than it's actual page (that might be jest - but its not far off).

For thousands of years, people in Korea, China, Japan, Vietnam, and Taiwan have been utilizing these acupuncture points to treat various ailments, and this practice continues to thrive today. The only way to refute its efficacy is to examine your body and confirm the absence of inherent acupuncture points. — YiRu Li

This may explain quite a lot. For some reason, you are rejecting all Western medical notions, by the sound of it. I, as noted, have no problem being a Western Chauvinist about medicine. I simply reject that what you've said here is sensible. There is no reliable or effective way for me to assess that particular claim on myself. I imagine it is this technique, coupled with culture-wide pareidolia that has resulted in a total lack of sufficient verification of the practice. As noted elsewhere, Acupuncture doesn't work for almost anything other than mild pain (and, given its prevalence in media, placebo).

Acupuncture is effective — YiRu Li

It is not.

individuals in various environments require distinct treatments. The practice of using 'Poison' to treat patients indeed originated from the West. — YiRu Li

This is nonsensical. Obviously, every instance of an illness is unique - but illnesses themselves respond to certain treatment fairly universally. Pretending that each and every instance is somehow metaphysically distinct in such a way that medicine and biomechanics vary is... left wanting, lets say.

Err, the concept of using drugs to treat illnesses is what your 'herbs' are doing, with far higher efficacy and targeting. I have no idea why you've scare quoted 'Poison', particualrly in a place it makes no sense. If you have an axe to grind against Western medicine, this wont go all that well i don't think.

Therefore, the wise healer combines various methods of treatment, tailoring each to its suitability. The diverse methods of treatment all lead to recovery because understanding the condition of the illness is the key to effective treatment. — YiRu Li

Which is not found in any of the pseudo-spiritual quotes you've put forward. The technique you've just described is Western diagnosis.

I do apologise, But i am beginning to lose respect for your position on this.

Cheers, I actually found the document pretty quickly here

That is wild my dude. Absolutely wild. Quite wild also, that its nearly double the number of Dems v Cons. It has never, across three continents, been my experience that it's a 'left wing' position to either take a-historical positions, or to be anti-Jewish (i don't say anti-Semitic as this could, conceivably, be a result of bad education or indoctrination rather than some ethnic axe grinding exercise - but, that's optimistic).

Though, I also note, its significantly more Black and Hispanic Americans. Could there be something going on there? Stats demand weird questions...

1 in 5 in Gen Z believe the holocaust to be a myth. — BitconnectCarlos

Not trying to be facetious - but do you have a source for this? My children are gen Z and this seems laughable to me... Would like to know if something so ridiculous was really going on :)

Ever read Al Jazeera? — Banno

Can’t be serious can you?

But mostly, it's just an assumption about 'the way things are', with science being held up as the arbiter of judgement about such matters. — Wayfarer

:ok: I feel this is accurate. Though, it doesn't really go to my rejection of Physicalism per se as my point is that i accept the evidence, and its not good. But still..

Fair enough. You've not presented anything to justify that position ... on my position. I can't even see you understanding what i'm saying in this exchange, if that's your conclusion because those things have patently not happened as I am not confused, my position is consistent and It's really easy to understand :P

I have literally, and repeatedly corrected your erroneous attempt at enumerating my position. It is wrong. Therefore your conclusions have nothing to do with my position. Note:

But I don't own the claim you're trying to make for me — AmadeusD

That claim is:

Since your assumption is based on the assumption or inference that you have access to your sense organs — Janus

It is wrong and is not described in my posts. The single, only thing I have posited I have access to is sense data. Not sense organs. Not external objects. Sense data. That is it. 100% of the position rests here. I am necessarily ignorant as to the process from Sense Organ to data-in-mind because I do not posit i have access to the organs and so am precluding from knowing/understanding that.

I reject that assumption you made entirely, and my position doesn't require it. If you could please point out exactly where you're not getting it, I'm always more than happy to clarify if you are willing to stick to what i have said, rather than your version of it.

The scientific evidence is rather overwhelming. But then most people don't put a lot of effort into apprising themselves of the scientific evidence. — wonderer1

I know the evidence and disagree its particularly convincing. As do millions of others. If you're partial to/leaning to/prefer physicalism as an explanation, then that will colour your reading. As will my neutrality on it (its always going to be more interesting if physicalism does not obtain). If you could, perhaps, put forward some element of 'the evidence' you either find convincing, or more particularly, you assume i must have missed.. More than happy to 'appraise'.

At risk of sounding salty, as a general comment, I do not appreciate seeing or receiving assumptions about education based on differing conclusions. There are millions of people, including professional philosophers, who hold my position in light of the evidence. I could be wrong, sure, but this assertion is.. bad faith, to my mind.

What does this have to do with the previous conflict in our views?

Most of the listings you've put out are just tenets of TCM. They are not 'facts' to be discussed as such.

They also posit an intelligent designer, whcih I can't take seriously at this stage.

I did not make those claims. Are you thinking you're responding to a different poster?

Since your assumption is based on the assumption or inference that you have access to your sense organs — Janus

Unsure how you're inferring that claim you just made from my position that sense data exists, and we have no access to any external objects. — AmadeusD

:) Not trying to be 'cute'. But this is just a restating of the same misguided response from earlier. But I don't own the claim you're trying to make for me, so the follow-on doesn't seem relevant as it's not my position to defend.

I am certain I do not have access to external objects. There isn't a way for that to be the case, as best i can tell. Though, that's not a metaphysical claim.

I ran a charity that funded psychedelic research for some years - and technically I still run the Psychedelics New Zealand Facebook community :)

It was a good decade lol

Yeah, it might, but i've explained pretty clearly why its not even a claim. I don't have access to those organs. I have access to their work product. Unsure how you're inferring that claim you just made from my position that sense data exists, and we have no access to any external objects. I assume the organs of sense are producing the sense data. Thats it. I do not have access, and this doesn't infer I do.

Cannot grasp what conversation you think we're having - But that makes no sense to me lol

Seems a pretty good solution.

Don't push the fat man. Jump.

This is a fun thread.

I can't understand my experience under other circumstances. I don't know that it's open to me to do so, so 'Descartes Demon' and all that. So, the inference is strong enough for me to rest on it. I can't know for sure. I thought that was a given... lol

Then I certainly either misunderstood or misconstrued the line. Apologies for dragging you through that, then lol.

evidence for X can sometimes be compatible with not-x — flannel jesus

Of course I agree here. Evidence for X can obviously be compatible with not-X unless its totally conclusive. This goes to hte heart of why 'indirect' evidence is such a shaky claim.

It doesn't really put paid to anything. I thought of an example... You're tracking animal prints. There are four Big Cats it could be in your area.

You have a cast of only one paw from the four possibilities.

You come across a print. The cast does not fit. It is not the animal from which the cast came.

It is not evidence for any of the other three being the culprit. You could say "it's evidence for all of them" but thats not sensible imo. It isn't evidence for any of them. It increases their likelihood given we have only four possibilities. But it provides nothing by way of evidence for any of them.

It's part and parcel of why I expect there to be 'actual' external objects.

I don't understand that we could have experience without sense data. It is a perfect explanation for experience. It could be delusional, but its data from our senses. Our sense organs need not be of any particular kind, other than capable of relaying something to our brain/mind.

Sincere good luck @Bob Ross

I am sure you feel that that is the case... :halo:

And, I don't agree with is conclusions, best I could tell. I feel he got my point that information which reduces the possibility of other outcomes, isn't evidence for any of the remaining outcomes. I wouldn't go so far as to say a piece of information can't be multiply inferential.

that AT LEAST there's a weak correlation — flannel jesus

To me, its not this. Maybe that's the issue. It indicates we're not going to get a 1:1. It counts against the physicalist expectation. But that's more fact-specific, and may be hte underlying bias i'm expressing in the reasoning. But i also can't quite grasp how my point isn't fairly clear....

You're making it out like the evidence in question has nothing to do with the claim, and that just seems entirely unfair to me. Like, really far off base. — flannel jesus

To me, it is essentially the only way to read it parsimoniously.

The correlation being AT LEAST weak is not like grammas panties, let's get real. — flannel jesus

Facts-wise, I think it's worse :snicker: But you're not losing me, either. I hear you.

Once you rule out one option, it changes the odds for the remaining options - there's nothing even controversial about stating that. — flannel jesus

Agreed. But its not evidence for them. Not sure what's not getting across there - to be clear, it's something about which we can just plum disagree and there's no implication. I think its a bad use of the concept of 'evidence'. It's supposed to make something evident.

The dude was basically saying, there's no such thing as evidence for one statement that can be compatible with a contrary statement. — flannel jesus

Compatible? Sure. That's why i'm accepting a weak correlation or some other similar statement about it. I don't think its evidence beyond the 'propensity' type. That's where i felt MU got my point.

(not meant in any way to come across rude). In Court there's a concept that you can present 'propensity evidence'.

Well, in the Court context, it means that the evidence being presented isn't actually about the matter at hand, but is incidental to it, and goes to 'propensity'. Is it more likely, in light of this unrelated evidence, that the other thing is the case?

The answer could be yes (in fact, for the most part propensity evidence isn't even admitted unless it goes to show something reasonably helpful to the judge or jury), but that isn't evidence for the thing itself having happened. It evidence that makes it less likely something else happened.

I see the inference from weak neural correlation to be similar. It isn't evidence for physicalism, but incidentally, it removes other possibilities. It just makes no sense to me to read over from "This piece of evidence precludes X" to "This piece of evidence goes to proving Y" unless it actually does, and incidentally precludes X. Tricky, but i suppose parsing different types or relevance is part of my job.

"even if". I don't quite accept that it is. But to me 'evidence' isn't incidental or inferential unless i'm in court.

That's right. I don't think it can be taken as such, anyway, even if, on technical lines, it 'is'.

If there's 100 positions.
We find a piece of 'evidence' which precludes one of them.

I cannot bring myself to pretend that's evidence for the other 99. Seems really misleading and silly to me.

:lol: Appreciate the humour here!

I think its a pretty near-and-dear type of take. I don't think its accurate, basically.

I think we would, if Physicalism were any more likely than other positions that aren't Absolute Idealism. If a 1:1 match can't be found, that, to me, is a direct knock to physicalisms probablitily.

Yeah, I don't disagree witht his methodology - But I return to my actual gripe(edited for spelling):

Though, i guess my position is that I think Physicalists are wrong for making the claim you're making. — AmadeusD

Every (other) option being more probable because of preclusive evidence in another position, isn't evidence for any of them, imo. It's just a position - there's no real argument to be had here I don't think.

as a fun hobby with family and friends — YiRu Li

This sounds right. And there's nothing wrong with this, and the heavy effect of Placebo on spirituality-derived healing.

An easier way: Listening to the doctor on YouTube how they explain the spirit and mind issue for each disease. e.g. anger, high blood pressure. Then link it to the prophet books or modern psychology therapy that you are familiar with. — YiRu Li

How would this be a good idea? Looking at unreliable spiritual chat on the Internet and linking it to unreliable historical, poetics masquerading as medicine seems a sure-fire way to preclude yourself from gaining any understanding of the issues you're facing.

It makes sense from a Computer science view. Maybe the Law field also has a similar concept? — YiRu Li

It doesn't make sense for either point of view imo. This is networking disparate, unreliable poetic passages with unreliable internet (Youtube, even!) 'medical' advice and pretending that the arbitrary connect-the-dots game is a legitimate practice of synthesizing medical information.

All the disease and corresponding acupuncture points are all taught in the YouTube videos. — YiRu Li

And not in any medical texts, or anything that can be taken particularly seriously.

I guess it opens up avenues of discussion and research that aren't open to the anti-deist. That's all it does, really, and for a non-Deist like yourself (or myself) it appears paltry at best. But for someone taking it seriously,. questions around the nature of a Deistic intelligence is pretty interesting.

Not In light of other positions, no.

As i say, the quote would only serve to preclude certain other positions. The idea that mind states are 'closely linked' with brain activity obviously goes toward physicalism in some way - But again, only in the way the Raffle example works. Its incidental, imo. Though, i guess my position is taht i think Physicalists are wrong for making the cliam you're making.

It isn't anything specific to Physicalism. A 1:1 would have me agreeing with your sentiment above. If We have 'direct' correlates, I'd say that's exactly what Physicalism would predict. Not weak, likely indirect correlation. This seems to me to put a tiny amount of daylight between the facts and physicalism. If its not 1:1, its highly unlikely the mind state arises from the neural activity, imo.

@JanusJust going to step in here noting that I have professionally trip-sat in the past and observed clinical psychedelic trials.

Get. A. Sober. Sitter. That is all. Bad trips are pretty easy to mitigate and bring back around with certain techniques - but an informed sitter is required to ensure you can get through the rivers of fire. All imo.

Some being created the world and fucked off… it leaves us with nothing to do but get on with it. — Tom Storm

I largely agree, though when I do consider Deism seriously, I think its the metaphysical implications that catch any interest from me at all. If there are 'entities' larger and more encompassing than we've ever recognized then that's a pretty extreme bit of ontology to take on. Also, if It doesn't care about us what might it be interested in? What are missing in our cosmology?