No one has ever said that evidence which looks like it must be a design equates to a design.

I feel the same way you do.

Is this one of those "senseless arguments" that neeeds to be sifted through?

I understand what you're saying.

Well, you know me. It's what I do.

But I understand that it is really intended to be a scientific topic. And since I think anything I might be able to add, already would have been either confirmed or refuted but someone else with years of study and research under their belt, I guess I don't really have anything to contribute to the scientific discussion.

So you believe there to be only one reality. Fine. I've got no problem with that. I can't disprove it any more than you can prove it. So you pick your starting premise and I'll pick mine and you can make fun of mine all you want and I'll refrain from returning the favor.

Ok. No harm, no foul.

What matters to me is truth, and for me to assume that we can get at truth I have to assume that we can perceive facts, and come to consistent conclusions about those facts.I agree with that in that it is a valid and viable means of operating as a human being on this planet.

I can see how one could interpret my philosophy as dualism, but in truth, it is no more dualistic than quantum complementarity or quantim non-locality. So I'm not sure what you're referring to as "dualism", but as I understand the term, it doesn't apply to my personal philosophy. Also, solipsism most definitiely does not apply either. I firmly believe that I am not the only consciousness that exists.

But I do understand your disinterest, just as I'm sure you can understand my disinterest in a materialistic approach to philosophical questions.

It seems to me that one must presuppose that there is only one reality, in order for all of that to follow.

But if one presupposed multiple realities, then the whole picture changes. It could be that all so-called “hallucination” is nothing more than the perception of a different reality.

But that may be going too far off topic. How say you Bushi? Too far off topic?

Dunno if it's "silly" or not, but that simple fact that is has the highest post count in the history of the Sci&Phi forum would seem to indicate that it is a subject of interest.

Well done Creative.

Agreed.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying. Now I understand better.

You see, the problem here is that we have two different philosophies that are based on diametrically opposed fundamental premises.

The simple use of the word “hallucination” necessitates a differentiation between “reality” and “perception”, which I don’t make at the fundamental level.

So my answer to the question would be: “The same thing that is always happening with everything – the ‘perceiver’ is creating a reality, and that reality is different from other realities.”

Hmmm. I’m not even sure how that can make sense. If I’m saying nothing, then what could be the source of the concept of criticism?

So maybe you should be “saying something”.

I wasn’t discussing hallucinations by themselves so much as how the how they related to the thread title – specifically “stigmatism” and where it’s roots lie. IMO, the ad hominem inherent in the mundane explanation is the stigmatization.

And really, what is there to discuss here? One can simply say “It is/is not interesting that such phenomena are reported.” and that’s it.

Or one can say “Here is what I think about the sources/causes of the phenomena themselves” and hence a debate ensues.

Or one can address the effects of the phenomena – which is exactly what title imples (ref: “stigma”).

So I picked the latter and discussed that, just as you did (ref: "hallucination", "does not lead you to proper perception", "not perceiving things correctly", etc.)

No. I’m only saying that the mundane explanation of hallucinations is insufficient – at least for my needs.

Your use of the term "skeptical" made me start wondering what would be it's opposite.

So I looked it up and had a small epiphany: I tend more towards belief than disbelief. That is, given a situation with no evidence or proof, there is no objective reason to either believe or disbelieve. So I pick “believe” just because that’s what I want – which really just says that the only reason available is necessarily a subjective one.

I guess that’s more related to the “Evidence of a designer thread” than this one. But it came up here so this is where I’m posting it.

But in any case, thanks for bringing it up because, however irrelevant it may be to anything else, it gave me the impetus to investigate in a direction I had never investigated before.

Yes and Yes.

Yeah, it sure looks like a design.

But then that doesn't really matter does it?

The fact that something waddles and quacks is not enough reason to assume that it's a duck.

Or, one could choose to assume that it's a duck based on the only avaialble evidence.

Who cares? Only the person choosing to assume or not to assume.

I think there is a very sound reason why “the paranormal is far easier to consider and accept then the mundane”… the paranormal is the simpler explanation (not to mention being more comprehensive).

But to stay on-topic…

I think it's obvious that the stigmatization is inherent in the mundane explanations: "delusion", "hallucination", "does not lead you to proper perception", "not perceiving things correctly", etc.

And to me, that is the sad part.

the "mundane explanation" really amounts an ad hominem - “The perception is wrong because there’s something wrong with the perceiver.”

That's a two-way street.

The problem I see with all the questions regarding “the creation of the creator” (turtles all the way down) is that they are inherently nonsensical.

They all depend on the assumption that the creator could not have created time.

It’s saying that time must have existed before time could exist.

Patently absurd.

I'll see your Cantherin Zeta-Jones and raise you an Anne Hathatway

Ok, I get that.

Maybe it's just because of my background (25+ years as a computer programmer) that I thought of the "finite set of numbers" as being the more intuitive expectation.

From http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm

So as best I can tell, “order” is arbitrary even in the thermodynamic sense. That is, just like pattern recognition software, it is dependent on arbitrarily selected parameters.

But I could be wrong.