Re: Magic 110 i have met the enemy, and my he does go on

[jorn@chinet.chi.il.us (Jorn Barger)]

Lazlo Nibble dribbles:
> Your experiences are not "evidence" of a phenomena any more than Billy
> Graham's faith is "evidence" of God's existance or my dreams about k.d.lang
> last night are "evidence" of her heterosexuality.

Hmm... "experience = faith = dream"  paradoxical!  nay, *Wildean*!!!

> *Scientists* might experience all sorts of things that *might be
> interpreted* as paranormal events, but (unlike you) will not proclaim them
> to be so until some evidence has been uncovered.

quote me my proclamation, please?


Larry Spence perseverates:
> [...] thinking you can imprint vibes onto a
> mag tape isn't _that_ far removed from Ouija boards... it's tempting to
> just _deny_ the phenomenon of the Ouija board, isn't it, Jorn?

I don't think I can unpack this logic-snarl, but here's my best try:

LS thinks if JB doubts Ouija, then JB is commiting error-of-denial.
LS thinks if JB approves vibes-imprint, then JB approves Ouija?

So, your trick here is supposed to be digging away the middle ground?

> "What we feel in our hearts" is notoriously unreliable a lot of the time.
> Sometimes it's dead-on, other times a blind alley.  I wouldn't want my
> employer or the leader of a major country to run things based solely on his
> perception of "vibes." 

Gee, I bet there's a name for the rhetorical tactic of insinuating terms like 
"solely" and "exactly" into paraphrases of your opponent's arguments, to make 
them sound less credible... isn't there?

How 'bout, would you want your Alpha Dog to be in complete denial about vibes, 
and claim no feelings in his heart?

> Experiences that can't be validated by consensus
> -- "general agreement" -- are in general useful only to the person who
> experienced them, unless you're into blind faith (there's a Mr. Koresh
> holding for you on line 2, Jorn).

Wow, you got my number there, right on.  Good thing you stopped this thing, 
because my next move, I swear, was to hole up with my Mary Coughlan tape and 
start a shootout with the feds...

Let's look briefly at the notion of the "usefulness of experiences".  You seem 
to want a society where people don't discuss experiences unless they're 
"useful", and this implies, for you, that they can be "validated by 
consensus".  Apparently you fear that if people discuss other sorts of 
experiences, there's a clear and present danger of imminent fanaticism?

> >(Asimov was a shameless egotist-- did everyone run across Jack Sarfatti's
>
> Check your ad hominems at the door, please.

Nice try, near miss.  This is an argument that's inherently ad hominem.  My 
whole *point* is that selfishness makes one a bad scientist.  It's hard to 
adduce evidence for that if I'm not allowed to name names.

> Nova, Asimov, Sarfatti ... no wonder you have a dim view of science. %)

Oooh, so the great Larry Spence thinks Nova is beneath him?  Sheesh, talk 
about yer phony elitist poses....

> [...] If someone comes along and says, "er, Larry, you
> haven't had your caffeine yet, there's a very simple physical mechanism
> at work here," should I rail at them that they're science-obsessed boors
> who haven't an ounce of spirituality?

If you try to use Occam's razor to prove that my *experience* is delusional, 
you're just a science-mugger.

> [...] the idea that psychic imprinting
> can selectively record on tracks 1&2 versus 3&4 seems pretty contrived IMHO.

Oh, sorry.  In the future, if my experiences threaten to tax your prejudices, 
just feel free to heap me with abuse, instead.  (Truth?  *Not to worry*...)

> [...] For example, analogous to your saliva example, some people, as
> soon as they discover that someone who they've been talking to in email is
> a female rather than a male, will alter their tone of writing, word choice,
> etc.  Do we need a new scientific theory to explain this?

(Yeah, the male-female-email hypothesis ;^)

But, truth to tell, you *don't have* a scientific theory to "explain" this, 
because you can't build a model that successfully simulates it.  So your 
explanation is really just a neurotic *explaining away*.  (Note to hyenas:  
there's a complicated argument behind this, so take a deep breath before 
commiting yourselves.)  ((And then, preferably, *commit* yourselves, *instead* 
;^))

> [...] Our immediate experience is often massively deceptive and self-
> contradictory.  For example, there are still plenty of people who feel, deep
> down in their heartofheartofhearts, that African-Americans are inferior, 
that
> Arabs are evil, etc. ad nauseam.  Should they ignore objective information
> (IQ tests, medical evidence, comparative religion, etc.) and go with what
> their emotions tell them? 

Gee, what a thoughtful parallel to the current topic!

> Hey, I'm _all for_ newer and more all-encompas-
> sing models of reality; if the old ones don't work, throw 'em out. 

I point to the current state of the world as evidence that consensus reality 
*sucks*.

> But
> until you test a model against something that other people can reproduce,
> why should anyone but you believe it? 

1) Maybe the world is constructed so that certain sorts of experience *do not 
submit* to the reproducibility regime.
2) Maybe others *share* similar-but-also-non-reproducible experiences
3) Maybe it's just fun to think about
4) When did I ever ask anyone to *believe* me? (You can show respectful 
attention without submitting to *belief*.)

> I'm not _telling_ others not to
> believe it,

You are brandishing a threat of scornful dismissal towards those who might 
otherwise listen with respect.  It works out just the same.

> I'm asking why shouldn't we be skeptical? 

Well, no, you haven't been asking that-- this is a brandnew question.  My 
sense is that there's healthy skepticism and toxic skepticism.  "It's all in 
your mind" (see below) is *always* toxic, it seems to me, because it alienates 
people from trusting their perceptions, making it easier for the liars to pick 
their pockets.

Yes, people do hallucinate, but you should deal with that by encouraging them 
to *look more closely* at their experiencing, not by encouraging denial.  
Phony rationalism says "*Think about this*.  Doesn't this *argument* convince 
you that what you experience must be a hallucination?"  This is exactly the 
mechanism of denial: to supplant direct experience with *thoughts*.

> I'm claiming that if you took two identical tapes, but played one in your
> room while experiencing some trauma, while the other was ten miles away,
> then later tried to pick the "traumatized" tape (assuming nice double-
> blind conditions, etc.), that you couldn't do it by just listening to it,
> at least not more often than by chance.  If you consistently picked the
> right tape even 5% more often than predicted by chance, I would be floored.

So you're making claims about an experiment that's never been tried?  Very 
scientific!

> This is going to sound like a rehash to anyone who reads rec.audio, but...
> why do you automatically discount the possibility of self-deception? 

Look, Lar, it's you who's automatically *assuming* self-deception in me.  You 
have absolutely no grounds for impugning my perspicacity regarding evidence, 
and it *ain't nice*.

> [...] You know that you are predisposed to look for a spiritual
> mechanism (because we need more of that sort of thing).  So why are you so
> sure that despite clear bias and heavy cues, that you've cut through all 
that
> and have detected emotional imprinting?  Because you're biased?

Ohmigosh!  I'm enlightened, now!  Dear Goddess, *bless* you!

(Careful with those "so sure"s, btw.  For the 999th time, all I ask is a 
little room for the imagination to roam, hyena-free...)

> Please... you're not dealing with some robotic scientist in a white lab
> coat, believe me.

*Show* me.  You talk like one who's swallowed the conventional viewpoint, 
h-l-and-s.

[...]
> Bingo!  Given what you just wrote, can you see why I claim that your 
"detect-
> ing" an imprint is occuring primarily or entirely inside your head, as 
opposed
> to being "received" from the tape?

No, it sounds to me like you've got a neurotic preconception of what 
experiences you can allow me to experience, and anything beyond that you feel 
authorized to insult me by denigrating.  (How the fuck can you call it 
science, to make longdistance judgments of my perceptual abilities?)

> Yo, Jorn, I am _not_ "just denying" them!  I am trying to argue logically. 

So, you're trying to *deny them* 'logically'.  That puts you barely half-a-
notch above various others...

> If there is some shared basis other than logic and experiment that you would 
> like to use to determine who's right, please tell us exactly what it is.

Well, let's start by relaxing a tad about this being a fight of Jorn-is-right 
vs Jorn-is-wrong.  Maybe just start by extending to me the *gentlemanly* 
benefit of the doubt, for the sake of good science?  (Note, all, that this 
ought to be reasonable scientific procedure, but, in the contrary case of 
neurotic denial mechanisms, would be severely threatening, because they depend 
on closing out consideration of the phenomena-denied.)

*Then*, Mr Impersonating-Momentarily-a-Nice-Guy, instead of "arguing 
logically" that since my experiences 'can' be explained away, they *should* be 
explained away, how about inquiring what might be gained or lost by keeping an 
open mind on the subject?

> Again, lots of (not all!) things that appear to jibe with "daily 
experiencing"
> are b.s. -- people used to think the earth was the center of the universe.

Yeah, I heard about that.  And somewhere along the line, this became a 
globally-applied argument used to alienate people from their direct, 
impassioned sense of reality, and the consequence was our current planetful-
o'-apathetic-conformist-drones...

> As far as "what 'Known Science' should allow" -- just because it _could_
> happen (via some undescribed mechanism) doesn't make it any more probable
> than other things that _could_ happen, except by force of your biases.

My, you sure do have a thing about my "biases", don't ya?  Truth to tell, I 
quite resent the prejudice this implies, in *you*.  So how 'bout we show some 
respect for the bottomline final arbiter of direct experience (hold the 
"repeatable")?

> So, anything that anyone suggests should be _assumed true_ until proven
> otherwise? 

To the extent of not abusing them for their 'heresy', definitely!!!

(Forgve my french, Larry, you're a *worm*.)

> And BTW, people have been trying to demonstrate such effects
> for many years -- it's not like you're the first person to come up with
> this sort of hypothesis. 

So now you're insinuating *lust-for-primacy* as another of my sins?!?  My, you 
are a loving fellow...

> I'm not saying "proven impossible," but rather
> "shown highly improbable until reproducible evidence to the contrary is
> discovered."

How do you "show" something to be highly improbable?

> Please, the bit about how we've all been cowed by Big Bad Science into
> burying all our subtle perceptions is a strawman.

Oh, yeah?  I notice you assert this without any followup argument...

> > [Jorn:] Notice, all, how these self-appointed enforcers are all
> >roused to venomous defense of their denial-systems, and show *no* sign of
> >giving the tiniest thought to my arguments, or even reading them
> >carefully...)
> 
> You must have missed a lot of postings that our site got just fine. 

1)  You still aren't distinguishing arguments from prejudgments
2)  Look at the first halfdozen replies, and quote me their "arguments"

> At any rate, I'm glad you haven't been "roused to venomous defense" like 
> those cold, unfeeling scientists.

This is just sloppy and self-serving.  I made an argument.  I got brutally 
flamed by a bunch of jerks who thought they knew shit from shinola.  I gave 
them back their asses.  Which step was the one you have a problem with???

> Perhaps the point is to _expand_ consensus reality to encompass things 
which,
> unlike the "traumatized tape" phenomenon, are not explainable by current
> science.  Excursions outside consensus reality only serve a useful purpose
> if they can be demonstrated to others..

Thank you Mr Reality-Policeman.  In the future I will try to be a better 
conformist.  Artists, take note: no more 'risky' themes unless you check with 
Larry first...

>. I would think that you'd be anxious
> to show us evidence that this isn't just "all in your head." 

(Jesus Fucking Shithole!  I await your men-in-white-coats...)

I'm anxious to show you evidence that you have all the humanity of a Siberian 
concentration-camp psychiatrist...

> Just guessing,
> but does it bother you when "mysterious" things turn out to have mundane
> explanations?

("Just making an insulting prejudgment...")

Gimme a break.  I've enjoyed plenty of good laughs at my own expense.  The 
argument you seem to want to make here is that I'm a pathetic wishful-thinker 
and self-deluder.  Thanks for your kind thoughts, given the context of the 
incredible threat I posed with my fanatical attempt to blahblahblahblah...

> >And the rampant
> >Denialism in the world is more than likely the major villain behind her
> >recent timidity about publishing.
> 
> Do you have any more evidence for that theory than for your claim about
> magical recording tape? 

TWW booklet: "Please be kind to my mistakes, because I'm not."
KateCon: [story about panic-attacks in the grocery store]
Cathy-in-front-of-the-TV story

"magical recording tape" is insulting to me, btw.  It's a sleazy attempt to 
caricature my argument.

>  Again, you seem to believe something based solely
> upon the fact that it's what you'd _like to believe_.

1) I said "more than likely"
2) your prejudices gleam like eyeteeth
3) stop fucking diminishing my *experiences*!!!
4) stop fucking judging my motivations!

(Hopeless-attempt-to-nip-a-kneejerk-comeback-in-the-bud, #329:  If I say I 
experienced something, and you say it was wishful thinking, that's an inhumane 
judgment, because you can't know anything about my experience.  If you put 
that judgment into writing, *it's right there for all to behold*, and if I 
condemn you for it, you can't say that I'm judging you just as prejudicially 
and inhumanely as you've judged me, because everyone can *see* your prejudice, 
but you had no way of *seeing* what you claimed was mine.)

> >I can't think of a likelier group than the 'Hounds to appreciate what I'm
> >saying.
> 
> Another gross generalization.  I can't think of a likelier group than
> the 'Hounds to _discuss_ what you're saying.  Are we all supposed to go,
> "oh, that sounds like something that Kate would agree with! [insert quoted
> lyrics here] oh, yes!"

You are one deficient reasoner, bud...

Denialist classic (#1 of a series): If B says "I think X", attack "B wants to 
impose belief X on everyone."

> >You t.b.s are a blight on human reason,
> 
> Har, har, har!  Here we (some of us) are trying to argue logically, and
> you're calling us a "blight on human reason"!?!  I thought _you_ were
> arguing against the oh-so-stifling bonds of reason...  ROFL^2

(The bark of the puling hyena:  Har, har, har!)

Look, Lar:  there's reason and there's reason. (At this point, LS tunes out.)  
I revere reasonableness and good science and respect for others.  I abominate 
scientism and sophism and the use of truth as a territorial ego-weapon, and 
all attempts to claim that "science" ***disproves*** *anyone's* *experience*.

> I _respect_ your experiences, I just totally disagree with your theories
> that attempt to explain them.

Well, no, I don't count "all in your head" as respecting my experiences, no 
way.  In fact, I would call that *distilled, malevolent, unconscious evil*.

> >Well, piss on you back!
> 
> More spirituality... that's what the world needs, by gum.  %)

Denialist classic (#2 in a series): If B tries to do something good, attack 
him.  If he fights back, argue "B can't be doing good, because he's fighting 
back."

> >This is an *arts* forum, your preconceptions carry no weight here,
> 
> ..but yours do.  Got it.

Denialist classic (#3, collect 'em all): If B states an opinion you disagree 
with, he's trying to impose his prejudices on you.  If you heap judgments on 
B, that's just logic.  If B resents your judging him, he's trying to impose 
his prejudices again.

Larry, you're a *disease*... WAKE UP.