4 ms·

I don't think we are ignoring any evidence here, there is just no evidence (or at least I haven't seen any). It seems these spirits are allergic to video or som

I don't think we are ignoring any evidence here, there is just no evidence (or at least I haven't seen any). It seems these spirits are allergic to video or something, I have seen more video evidence of UFOs than spirits. Of course, personal experience is also valid evidence, and I have seen none of that either.

hypertele-Xii 2y ago
You just saw a first-hand account personal experience as evidence, in text, from me, yet here you are explicitly denying that fact. Nothing short of literal personal experience is going to convince you of something everyone knew for thousands of years, because you make no room in your head to unpack the thought. It's like there's a hidden filter in your mind that automatically associates spirits with nonsense and it never reaches your consciousness.
- nulld3v 2y ago
  Well that's the thing right? First hand accounts alone are not worth much in my mind, especially since there are so many other first hand accounts of different religions. Who am I to believe? Generally, I follow the "don't trust, verify" approach for first hand accounts. I don't believe something is true, even if 1000 people tell me the same thing. I think this is a reasonable approach, especially in today's age of misinformation. 1000 people can repeat the same false rumor as long as the rumor seems reasonable.
  - hypertele-Xii 2y ago
    > not worth much Interesting change of tone. Now it's already worth something, just not much. But previously you wrote: > there is just no evidence (or at least I haven't seen any) ... personal experience is also valid evidence, and I have seen none of that either. You went from total denial to already assigning worth. This isn't "today's age of misinformation" stuff, by the way. These are literally thousands of years old historical records of eyewitness accounts. It is in fact "the human mind is just a meat computer" that is the modern day misinformation. It's leading you further away from the soul. So that demons can take over.
    - nulld3v 2y ago
      Yeah, sorry for the inconsistency there. I didn't consider that personal anecdotes and hearsay are technically evidence as evidence is literally anything that supports a conclusion. It is however, a good indicator for how little I value those two forms of evidence however. My point with "today's age of misinformation" is not really that there is more misinformation these days. That may be true, but it could also just be that we have access to a higher volume of information. It's more that we are more aware of misinformation, and can develop habits + tools to deal with misinformation.
      - strogonoff 2y ago
        Any evidence here would be unsound if you try to apply natural science’s requirements to it. Scientific method is about making observable predictions; i.e., it ultimately hinges on the experience of the observer and existence of observer’s mind. When you try to apply it to the theory of mind itself, you short-circuit that logic. There is pretty much no useful (falsifiable or provable) claim or conclusion to be made, and all evidence is immediately tainted as it gets deconstructed into arbitrary categories in vogue today, goes through the meatgrinder of lossy verbal descriptions, and ultimately gets subjectively interpreted by your own mind. In other words, it is not the problem of the evidence—this is among the best evidence you can get—it is the problem of the framework you are interpreting it in.
        nulld3v 2y ago
        In many scenarios, the observer is a machine or tool, not a human mind. And of course there's that whole aspect of replication along with that "scientific method" thing. If science was simply the act of humans making observable predictions and telling them to others, then there would be no difference between "science" and "personal anecdote". I also don't understand why the mind is relevant. We are trying to prove something that exists outside the mind right? However, even if this phenomena was something that only humans could observe, it would still be testable with science. Science makes observations about human behavior all the time. Ok, all that said, almost none of this is relevant because my proof standards are not as rigorous as scientific standards. I just want to see some videos of the beings, I'm not asking someone to perform a study here.

hypertele-Xii 2y ago

You just saw a first-hand account personal experience as evidence, in text, from me, yet here you are explicitly denying that fact. Nothing short of literal personal experience is going to convince you of something everyone knew for thousands of years, because you make no room in your head to unpack the thought. It's like there's a hidden filter in your mind that automatically associates spirits with nonsense and it never reaches your consciousness.

nulld3v 2y ago
Well that's the thing right? First hand accounts alone are not worth much in my mind, especially since there are so many other first hand accounts of different religions. Who am I to believe? Generally, I follow the "don't trust, verify" approach for first hand accounts. I don't believe something is true, even if 1000 people tell me the same thing. I think this is a reasonable approach, especially in today's age of misinformation. 1000 people can repeat the same false rumor as long as the rumor seems reasonable.
- hypertele-Xii 2y ago
  > not worth much Interesting change of tone. Now it's already worth something, just not much. But previously you wrote: > there is just no evidence (or at least I haven't seen any) ... personal experience is also valid evidence, and I have seen none of that either. You went from total denial to already assigning worth. This isn't "today's age of misinformation" stuff, by the way. These are literally thousands of years old historical records of eyewitness accounts. It is in fact "the human mind is just a meat computer" that is the modern day misinformation. It's leading you further away from the soul. So that demons can take over.
  - nulld3v 2y ago
    Yeah, sorry for the inconsistency there. I didn't consider that personal anecdotes and hearsay are technically evidence as evidence is literally anything that supports a conclusion. It is however, a good indicator for how little I value those two forms of evidence however. My point with "today's age of misinformation" is not really that there is more misinformation these days. That may be true, but it could also just be that we have access to a higher volume of information. It's more that we are more aware of misinformation, and can develop habits + tools to deal with misinformation.
    - strogonoff 2y ago
      Any evidence here would be unsound if you try to apply natural science’s requirements to it. Scientific method is about making observable predictions; i.e., it ultimately hinges on the experience of the observer and existence of observer’s mind. When you try to apply it to the theory of mind itself, you short-circuit that logic. There is pretty much no useful (falsifiable or provable) claim or conclusion to be made, and all evidence is immediately tainted as it gets deconstructed into arbitrary categories in vogue today, goes through the meatgrinder of lossy verbal descriptions, and ultimately gets subjectively interpreted by your own mind. In other words, it is not the problem of the evidence—this is among the best evidence you can get—it is the problem of the framework you are interpreting it in.
      - nulld3v 2y ago
        In many scenarios, the observer is a machine or tool, not a human mind. And of course there's that whole aspect of replication along with that "scientific method" thing. If science was simply the act of humans making observable predictions and telling them to others, then there would be no difference between "science" and "personal anecdote". I also don't understand why the mind is relevant. We are trying to prove something that exists outside the mind right? However, even if this phenomena was something that only humans could observe, it would still be testable with science. Science makes observations about human behavior all the time. Ok, all that said, almost none of this is relevant because my proof standards are not as rigorous as scientific standards. I just want to see some videos of the beings, I'm not asking someone to perform a study here.