Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 50
  1. #21
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    I think the OP is too vague. Where is all this supposed research on the supposed female orgasm?
    I think some research is in order.....

    .... researching...

    Yea, so after googling "sleeping women having orgasms." the answer is clear. The search turned up a surprising amount of "documentaries". The evidence pretty clearly shows men as the number 1 cause, with a smaller number of self caused or by other women. So this is clearly a case where we are not dealing with an unknown cause, but a known physical causes.

    So the OP is thus falsified. 100percent of all sleeping woman having orgasms have documented physical causes. Thus necessarily ruling out the spectral vibrators described in the OP.
    Of course you are free to do your own research on this topic. There really was too many documentaries to watch, so evidence of an unknown cause would be helpful.
    Do we need an official challenge on this?
    To serve man.

  2. #22
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Smile Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    If the orgasm is not caused by the spectral vibrator then it's caused by something else.
    Perhaps, but how do you arrive at the "IF"? You keep introducing this "if" factor as if observation of the physical provides some insight into the non-physical (I'm just going to say "non-physical" going forward for the sake of brevity). It doesn't.

    Regarding causes, in the case of the proposed relationships between physical and non-physical, it is ALWAYS possible that either one or the other is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT to manifest some effect. In any case, observing only ONE aspect is not enough to make a judgment call on the likelihood of the other's contribution/necessity/sufficiency.



    ---------- Post added at 12:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    I think the OP is too vague. Where is all this supposed research on the supposed female orgasm?
    I think some research is in order.....

    .... researching...

    Yea, so after googling "sleeping women having orgasms." the answer is clear. The search turned up a surprising amount of "documentaries". The evidence pretty clearly shows men as the number 1 cause, with a smaller number of self caused or by other women. So this is clearly a case where we are not dealing with an unknown cause, but a known physical causes.

    So the OP is thus falsified. 100percent of all sleeping woman having orgasms have documented physical causes. Thus necessarily ruling out the spectral vibrators described in the OP.
    Of course you are free to do your own research on this topic. There really was too many documentaries to watch, so evidence of an unknown cause would be helpful.
    Do we need an official challenge on this?

  3. #23
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Regarding causes, in the case of the proposed relationships between physical and non-physical, it is ALWAYS possible that either one or the other is NECESSARY but not SUFFICIENT to manifest some effect. In any case, observing only ONE aspect is not enough to make a judgment call on the likelihood of the other's contribution/necessity/sufficiency.
    But we KNOW that there is a large physical component to an orgasm. If you want to posit that there is also an essential non-physical element that is involved, you can.

    But the OP says that the non-physical and unevidenced is equal to the physical and observed and I see no basis to agree with that.

  4. #24
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But we KNOW that there is a large physical component to an orgasm. If you want to posit that there is also an essential non-physical element that is involved, you can.

    But the OP says that the non-physical and unevidenced is equal to the physical and observed and I see no basis to agree with that.
    From my research, a large physical component is not necessary
    To serve man.

  5. Likes Dionysus, evensaul, Belthazor liked this post
  6. #25
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But we KNOW that there is a large physical component to an orgasm. If you want to posit that there is also an essential non-physical element that is involved, you can.

    But the OP says that the non-physical and unevidenced is equal to the physical and observed and I see no basis to agree with that.
    And I see no reason to accept that, just because you happen to be persuaded by physical evidence, that we should claim that such evidence diminishes the likelihood of non-physical components by virtue of having observed only physical ones. What's more, clearly these events involve a person's consciousness, as women often report erotic dreaming when these things occur and, as you know, our model of consciousness is incomplete. Therefore, the possibility of non-physical components interacting with the consciousness of these women during these events cannot be blithely discounted, or even diminished in terms of likelihood.

  7. #26
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    And I see no reason to accept that, just because you happen to be persuaded by physical evidence, that we should claim that such evidence diminishes the likelihood of non-physical components by virtue of having observed only physical ones. What's more, clearly these events involve a person's consciousness, as women often report erotic dreaming when these things occur and, as you know, our model of consciousness is incomplete. Therefore, the possibility of non-physical components interacting with the consciousness of these women during these events cannot be blithely discounted, or even diminished in terms of likelihood.
    Clearly, the only defensible position is to be agnostic on the vibrator issue!!

  8. Likes Dionysus liked this post
  9. #27
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Clearly, the only defensible position is to be agnostic on the vibrator issue!!
    Clearly.

  10. #28
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,274
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Clearly.
    You guys are cracking me up and infuriating me at the same time. How do people get away with such nonsense and how do we combat it?

  11. #29
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,144
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by SharmaK View Post
    You guys are cracking me up and infuriating me at the same time. How do people get away with such nonsense and how do we combat it?
    Perhaps I misunderstand Dio's motivations (though I think not), but I thought that is what we WERE doing (admittedly just on a debate site, but ya gotta start somewhere)



    Dio, I would just hit the "thank you" button, but that won't do it. One of the few times I have agreed with Mican is being agnostic with regards to religion. You have given me a new way to look at this and I thank you for it.

  12. Thanks Dionysus thanked for this post
  13. #30
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    And I see no reason to accept that, just because you happen to be persuaded by physical evidence, that we should claim that such evidence diminishes the likelihood of non-physical components by virtue of having observed only physical ones.
    I didn't say it diminishes it. I'm saying that the evidenced is not equal to the unevidenced. Logically, we should put more stock in what we know is real than what is hypothetical.

    What criteria are you using to weight the two options? I mean it is your argument that they are equal.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    What's more, clearly these events involve a person's consciousness, as women often report erotic dreaming when these things occur and, as you know, our model of consciousness is incomplete. Therefore, the possibility of non-physical components interacting with the consciousness of these women during these events cannot be blithely discounted, or even diminished in terms of likelihood.
    I didn't discount it.

    At this point, I don't think there's an identifiable standard for weighing and comparing the two things in your argument and therefore there is no coherent standard to consider them equal.

    So please present a reasonable and consistent standard for weighing the two things to determine their relative merit. Otherwise, there is no basis to declare them equal.
    Last edited by mican333; March 1st, 2019 at 07:24 AM.

  14. #31
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    850
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    Clearly, the only defensible position is to be agnostic on the vibrator issue!!
    It's not an issues - it's great!

  15. #32
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I didn't say it diminishes it. I'm saying that the evidenced is not equal to the unevidenced. Logically, we should put more stock in what we know is real than what is hypothetical.

    What criteria are you using to weight the two options? I mean it is your argument that they are equal.

    I didn't discount it.

    At this point, I don't think there's an identifiable standard for weighing and comparing the two things in your argument and therefore there is no coherent standard to consider them equal.
    I'm not sure what you mean. For example, in this post you claimed that you're "comparing the likelihood that a physical explanation is correct compared to a metaphysical explanation". When I pointed out that such a comparison doesn't really affect likelihood, you doubled-down on this claim in this post, going a step further and introducing actual percentages. Now you're saying that we should put "more stock" in what we know, then suggesting that non-physical aspect of the OP is a mere hypothetical with no basis in reality.

    So, up to this point, you've been comparing and weighing the physical and non-physical, going so far as to use those weighted comparisons to underpin your objections. Now suddenly you're at a complete loss on how to compare and weigh them, going so far as to suggest that the non-physical aspect of the OP it tantamount to a figment of imagination (that seems a little like smuggling your premise to me). On what basis do you claim that non-physical possibilities used to occupy gaps in understanding are merely hypothetical? If you aren't using the term in the way I've suggesting you are, what do you mean by "hypothetical"? Further, how much stock should we put in one thing over the other? On what basis should we do that?

  16. #33
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I'm not sure what you mean. For example, in this post you claimed that you're "comparing the likelihood that a physical explanation is correct compared to a metaphysical explanation". When I pointed out that such a comparison doesn't really affect likelihood, you doubled-down on this claim in this post, going a step further and introducing actual percentages. Now you're saying that we should put "more stock" in what we know, then suggesting that non-physical aspect of the OP is a mere hypothetical with no basis in reality.
    Nope. I didn't say that the hypothetical has no basis in reality.

    I'm just saying we should put more stock in what know "IS" and what "might be".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    So, up to this point, you've been comparing and weighing the physical and non-physical, going so far as to use those weighted comparisons to underpin your objections. Now suddenly you're at a complete loss on how to compare and weigh them
    I'm at a loss because I'm confused on what standard you are using to determine when it's "caused".

    So let's go back to the OP.

    "Certainly, there are a number of biological/psychological components that could be said to play a role, but because we cannot be absolutely certain, even in the face of biological/psychological explanations, that they’re NOT caused by sentient, immaterial, spectral vibrators, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence for sentient, immaterial, spectral vibrators is EQUAL to that of biological/psychological causes."

    I typically define "cause" as the primary factor that makes something happen. There might be a variety of factors that contribute to something happening but if one is going to say that ONE PARTICULAR THING (like the spectral vibrator) CAUSED the orgasm, then they are positing that it had a greater contribution than all other factors. As an example, when someone says that drunk driving caused an accident, they aren't saying that there were no other factors that contributed to the accident (such as bad weather) but that drunk driving played a greater role than all other factors, even if the accident would not have happened if they weren't present.

    So to say that a spectral vibrator caused the orgasm is to say, assuming we are abiding by the term "caused" as it is typically defined, that it is the primary cause. You are saying that it caused the orgasm in the same fashion that one would say that a physical vibrator caused an orgasm if that were being used for self-pleasure

    So is THAT what you are saying when you posit that the spectral vibrator caused the orgasm?

    And if that is the case, then we are indeed weighing the likelihood that a SV caused the orgasm as opposed to some other physical factor (such as a wet dream as they are typically defined or some kind of spontaneous nerve stimulation that has a physical cause that has yet to be identified but is not a SV).

    And if that's not what you mean by "caused" then you seem to be using the word in a non-standard fashion and need to explain what you mean by "cause" or else your OP is incoherent.

  17. #34
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    Nope. I didn't say that the hypothetical has no basis in reality.

    I'm just saying we should put more stock in what know "IS" and what "might be".
    How MUCH stock?

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm at a loss because I'm confused on what standard you are using to determine when it's "caused".

    So let's go back to the OP.

    "Certainly, there are a number of biological/psychological components that could be said to play a role, but because we cannot be absolutely certain, even in the face of biological/psychological explanations, that they’re NOT caused by sentient, immaterial, spectral vibrators, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence for sentient, immaterial, spectral vibrators is EQUAL to that of biological/psychological causes."
    Here's where it's getting confused.

    I'm not even claiming that the SV does or does not exist, let alone anything even remotely like "ONE PARTICULAR THING" (in this case, the SV) that CAUSED "X" to happen.

    I'm pointing to an established and well-documented cognitive event that involves a known state of consciousness (and happens to have physical manifestations), further pointing out that our knowledge of consciousness - and by extension the causes of cognitive experiences (which are internal, personal, and subjective) - are incomplete, and positing a "possible" non-physical contributor. You're giving unqualified deference to physical causes for this cognitive event, and claiming that we should give more deference to physical causes, when we don't know enough about consciousness OR the possible non-physical contributors to cognitive experience, and suggesting that the physical components are so well understood that we can virtually rule out any possible non-physical contributors (which happen to include the SV). So, if you are going to argue that science has determined what consciousness is well enough to conclusively say that it's strictly a product of the physical body, please support that.

  18. #35
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    How MUCH stock?
    Doesn't really matter. If we even put 1% more then it's 51% to 49% and no longer equal.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus;564315I'm not even claiming that the SV does or does not exist, let alone anything even remotely like "ONE PARTICULAR THING" ([I
    in this case, the SV[/I]) that CAUSED "X" to happen.

    I'm pointing to an established and well-documented cognitive event that involves a known state of consciousness (and happens to have physical manifestations), further pointing out that our knowledge of consciousness - and by extension the causes of cognitive experiences (which are internal, personal, and subjective) - are incomplete, and positing a "possible" non-physical contributor. You're giving unqualified deference to physical causes for this cognitive event, and claiming that we should give more deference to physical causes, when we don't know enough about consciousness OR the possible non-physical contributors to cognitive experience, and suggesting that the physical components are so well understood that we can virtually rule out any possible non-physical contributors (which happen to include the SV). So, if you are going to argue that science has determined what consciousness is well enough to conclusively say that it's strictly a product of the physical body, please support that.
    But we DO know enough about orgasms to give more credence to a physical cause than a non-physical cause in situations where we can't tell for sure which it is.

    Let's say that the sleeping orgasms are 1% of all female orgasms (don't know the exact percentage but it's obviously a significant minority). That means that we KNOW that 99% of female orgasms are caused by physical means, be it someone else directly stimulating the genitals or self-stimulation. So given that 99% of KNOW orgasms are proven to have a physical cause, it is indeed justifiable to give credence to the notion that the remaining 1% likewise have a physical cause instead of a non-physical cause.

    Similar to if you had a bag of 100 marbles and you pulled out 99 of them and they were all black. It's not impossible that the last marble will be a different color than black but you are certainly justified in giving more deference to the notion that the last marble will be black as opposed to a different color.

  19. #36
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    @ mican, that kinda sounds like the gamblers fallacy.
    The problem is that the past experience is not causative of the next. So that one marble is black doesn't dictate or effect the colors of any other marbel.

    All the research documentaries on sleeping women having orgasms show , the cause by another person or themselves. So the only proper challenge is to challenge that there is an example where the cause is not directly know. As no such example exists.

    You guys really need to more research on this topic. Some of these documentaries are really well done. I am also starting to get the sense that there may be an underlying genetic cause. As the documentaries often focus on the same people. So a genetic cause should be seriously considered.
    To serve man.

  20. #37
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ mican, that kinda sounds like the gamblers fallacy.
    The problem is that the past experience is not causative of the next. So that one marble is black doesn't dictate or effect the colors of any other marbel.
    But it does give you reason to think that the last marble is more likely to be black than a different color. It's pretty simple math.

    If there is one white marble and 99 black marbles and you drew them one at a time, the odds of pulling the white marble prior to the last pull is 99 to 1. So if you haven't pulled the white marble prior to the very last draw, the odds are 99 to 1 against the last marble being white.

    That doesn't mean that the last marble will be black but it does give you ample justification to favor the notion that the last marble will be black as opposed to a different color.

    I'm just justifying giving more credence to the physical explanation.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    All the research documentaries on sleeping women having orgasms show , the cause by another person or themselves. So the only proper challenge is to challenge that there is an example where the cause is not directly know. As no such example exists.
    Sure, but whatever the explanation is, the more it resembles what we do know about how orgasms are caused, the more likely it is to be correct.


    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    You guys really need to more research on this topic. Some of these documentaries are really well done. I am also starting to get the sense that there may be an underlying genetic cause. As the documentaries often focus on the same people. So a genetic cause should be seriously considered.
    Well, I don't think this debate is about female orgasms per se but is using that topic to discuss something a bit more wide-ranging such as the physical versus the non-physical and use of evidence in determining things.

    But thanks for the recommendations regardless.
    Last edited by mican333; March 1st, 2019 at 09:20 AM.

  21. #38
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,162
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But it does give you reason to think that the last marble is more likely to be black than a different color. It's pretty simple math.

    If there is one white marble and 99 black marbles and you drew them one at a time, the odds of pulling the white marble prior to the last pull is 99 to 1. So if you haven't pulled the white marble prior to the very last draw, the odds are 99 to 1 against the last marble being white.

    That doesn't mean that the last marble will be black but it does give you ample justification to favor the notion that the last marble will be black as opposed to a different color.

    I'm just justifying giving more credence to the physical explanation.
    I think this is a flawed analogy, as well as incorrect on a few points.

    First, it is a flawed analogy because it assumes to know the color of all the marbles. If a black marble is analogous to a physical cause for female orgasms, and a white one is analogous to a spectoral vibrator, then we simply don't know how many marbles are in the bag, or what color they make up. Some of them could be pink for all we know.
    It would be more correct to say we have a bag of unknown amount of marbles, and every one we have pulled out so far is black. Or rather, all the ones I have ever seen pulled out are black, but others say they don't know what color it is. The only way to argue what the next marble will be, is to argue the nature of marble colors. So if the bag came from the black marble factory, then we could have cause to say that all the marbles are black and there are no white.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Sure, but whatever the explanation is, the more it resembles what we do know about how orgasms are caused, the more likely it is to be correct.
    My point is to challenge the idea of the unknown. I am rejecting the bag of unknown colored marbles.
    There is no example of a marble we don't know the color to.
    Which is what all the research is for.



    Quote Originally Posted by mican333
    Well, I don't think this debate is about female orgasms per se but is using that topic to discuss something a bit more wide-ranging such as the physical versus the non-physical and use of evidence in determining things.

    But thanks for the recommendations regardless.
    Wait.. are you telling me that all this research is not really relevant?
    I mean, its really extensive research, and it's frankly exhausting.
    This can't all be for nothing.
    To serve man.

  22. #39
    ODN's Crotchety Old Man

    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Location, Location
    Posts
    9,671
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    But we DO know enough about orgasms to give more credence to a physical cause than a non-physical cause in situations where we can't tell for sure which it is.
    Really? Good luck showing that. Consciousness is THE basis for all cognitive experience - no consciousness; no experience. Consciousness is the ONE thing we CAN be 100% certain exists. However, consciousness isn't fully understood, which means cognitive experience isn't fully understood; there is a gap in our understanding that may well be occupied by the SV (or something like it, or something not like it at all). A sleeping orgasm is a cognitive experience. It is possible that the non-physical SV interacts with the non-physical aspects of consciousness to produce the sleeping orgasm - it may well be the case that the physical aspects of the sleeping orgasm would not be possible at all without the SV. So to defer to our knowledge of the physical in order to show that it diminishes the likelihood of the non-physical is to claim to know BOTH the physical and the non-physical SO THOROUGHLY as to actually impact the likelihood of the possible contribution of the latter in the case of sleeping orgasms.

  23. #40
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,627
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    First, it is a flawed analogy because it assumes to know the color of all the marbles. If a black marble is analogous to a physical cause for female orgasms, and a white one is analogous to a spectoral vibrator, then we simply don't know how many marbles are in the bag, or what color they make up.
    Some of them could be pink for all we know.
    It would be more correct to say we have a bag of unknown amount of marbles, and every one we have pulled out so far is black. Or rather, all the ones I have ever seen pulled out are black, but others say they don't know what color it is. The only way to argue what the next marble will be, is to argue the nature of marble colors. So if the bag came from the black marble factory, then we could have cause to say that all the marbles are black and there are no white.
    No. You are not address the analogy correctly.

    Let me explain it more clearly then.

    You have a bag of 100 marbles of unknown color. You pull out a black marble, then another black marble, and so on. You finally have pulled out 99 black marbles.

    NOW based on what you DO know (99 of the 100 marbles drawn so far are black) you have to figure out how likely it is that the last marble is black compared to a different color (like white). So you figure that the odds of drawing any particular marble at any one time is 1 out of 100. So the odds of any particular marble being left in the bag after 99 draws is 1 in 100. Therefore the odds that a specific non-black marble being left in the bag after 99 draws is 1 in 100. So the odds that you will draw a non-black marble after 99 draws of black marbles is 1 in 100. So there is a 1% chance that the last marble will not be black.


    Or another way to approach this. Once you've pulled 99 black marbles, you have consider the odds that what you were originally given was 99 black marbles and one non-black marble. So if that was the case, what was the odds that you would have pulled the non-black marble on your first try. 1 in 100 of course. And likewise what are the odds that you would draw the non-white marble on your last try? 1 in 100. So If you were given a bag with 99 blacks and 1 non-black, the odds are 1 in 100 that would pull the non-black marble on your last try. So once you've pulled 99 black marbles, you know that the odds of the last marble being non-black is 1 in 100.




    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    Wait.. are you telling me that all this research is not really relevant?
    I mean, its really extensive research, and it's frankly exhausting.
    This can't all be for nothing.
    I don't think it's relevant to the OP.

    It's kind of like if I were using a story about a dog and a dog catcher as an analogy for something else. You can do a ton of research on dogs and dog catchers but if what you find is not relevant to the analogy, it is kind of waste of time in regards to the OPs argument. Although it's never a waste of time to learn more about any particular topic.

    ---------- Post added at 03:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Really? Good luck showing that
    I offered support for what I said after the original comment and you did not respond to it. So my support for "showing that" has not been rebutted and therefore stands until you do provide a rebuttal to it. Here is my argument again in its entirety.

    But we DO know enough about orgasms to give more credence to a physical cause than a non-physical cause in situations where we can't tell for sure which it is.

    Let's say that the sleeping orgasms are 1% of all female orgasms (don't know the exact percentage but it's obviously a significant minority). That means that we KNOW that 99% of female orgasms are caused by physical means, be it someone else directly stimulating the genitals or self-stimulation. So given that 99% of KNOW orgasms are proven to have a physical cause, it is indeed justifiable to give credence to the notion that the remaining 1% likewise have a physical cause instead of a non-physical cause.

    Similar to if you had a bag of 100 marbles and you pulled out 99 of them and they were all black. It's not impossible that the last marble will be a different color than black but you are certainly justified in giving more deference to the notion that the last marble will be black as opposed to a different color.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Consciousness is THE basis for all cognitive experience - no consciousness; no experience. Consciousness is the ONE thing we CAN be 100% certain exists. However, consciousness isn't fully understood, which means cognitive experience isn't fully understood; there is a gap in our understanding that may well be occupied by the SV (or something like it, or something not like it at all). A sleeping orgasm is a cognitive experience.
    No, it's a physical experience. If you hook up a sleeping woman to a certain machine, it will detect when she physically has an orgasm.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    It is possible that the non-physical SV interacts with the non-physical aspects of consciousness to produce the sleeping orgasm - it may well be the case that the physical aspects of the sleeping orgasm would not be possible at all without the SV.
    Moving the bar. When X CAUSES Y, X is not defined as something that makes Y possible but is what is primarily responsible for Y happening. So downgrade cause to something other than primary responsibility is setting a lower bar for "cause".

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    So to defer to our knowledge of the physical in order to show that it diminishes the likelihood of the non-physical is to claim to know BOTH the physical and the non-physical SO THOROUGHLY as to actually impact the likelihood of the possible contribution of the latter in the case of sleeping orgasms.
    I'm not deferring to the physical. I'm deferring to what we do know.

    If someone has a disease and the doctors say, based on research, that it's caused by X, they are deferring to their knowledge and holding it above some hypothesis that has no evidence to back it up. So if someone forwarded that the disease was caused by the spirit Gullilli and that sacrificing a chicken to the spirit would cure the disease, the doctor is more than justified in deferring to his knowledge and prescribing the medicine that is known to be effective instead of sacrificing a chicken and odds are very good that he will get better results abiding by what he knows even if it means diminishing the likelihood of employing an alternative cure that MIGHT be as or more effective than what he did prescribe.
    Last edited by mican333; March 1st, 2019 at 10:51 AM.

 

 
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Does god exist?
    By Abut77 in forum Formal Discussion
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: February 13th, 2018, 05:39 AM
  2. Replies: 59
    Last Post: January 27th, 2008, 01:59 PM
  3. Why Does God Exist?
    By Castle in forum Religion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: April 16th, 2007, 10:49 AM
  4. I may not exist
    By Tek Nectar in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2006, 01:44 PM
  5. Do you exist?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: August 27th, 2006, 10:52 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •