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 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 50 of 50
  1. #41
    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 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.
    I didn't ignore it. I pointed out that it is irrelevant; it's all right there in my post. All you've done here to "rebut" it is deny that it is a cognitive experience (and accidentally imply that a person can have cognitive experience without possessing consciousness. In fact, orgasms are hugely active in the brain.), which is nothing like a rebuttal at all. Also, deferring to "what we know" IS deferring to the physical, given that the physical IS "what we know", so your objection on that matter is, unfortunately, trivial and unimportant to anything I've said.

    Anyway, here is my argument in its entirety again. Until you offer something beyond a "nuh-uh" response, or responses that fixate on meaningless trivialities, it stands.

    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.

    NOTE: regarding the false charge of "Moving the bar" - A couple of concepts that would probably help in what's being talked about here are Proximate Causes, Ultimate Causes, Necessary Components, and Sufficient Components. You might not know much about these things (or maybe you do), but they are important to this conversation.

  2. #42
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    I didn't ignore it. I pointed out that it is irrelevant; it's all right there in my post. All you've done here to "rebut" it is deny that it is a cognitive experience (and accidentally imply that a person can have cognitive experience without possessing consciousness.


    That assessment appears to be entirely irrelevant to my argument. Whether it is a "cognitive experience" or not is not part of my argument. From all appearances, you've just ignored my argument again and made a straw-man argument that does not address my argument. So here it is again and I will hope for a valid rebuttal this time.


    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
    In fact, orgasms are hugely active in the brain.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    ), which is nothing like a rebuttal at all.
    It is commonly accepted that when a woman has a regular orgasm, the CAUSE is something physical, like someone stimulating her genitals to bring her to orgasm. Are you actually denying this? I am actually asking.



    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Also, deferring to "what we know" IS deferring to the physical, given that the physical IS "what we know", so your objection on that matter is, unfortunately, trivial and unimportant to anything I've said.
    So you find any argument that supports that the cause is primarily physical to be irrelevant to a debate on whether the cause is physical instead of a spectral vibration?

  3. #43
    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
    That assessment appears to be entirely irrelevant to my argument. Whether it is a "cognitive experience" or not is not part of my argument.
    Why should I care that cognitive experience isn't a part of your argument? It's a part of mine. Will you ever contend with it?

    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.

    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.
    Repeating this doesn't affect the possibility of non-physical components. See below.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    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.
    This is a terrible analogy because it assumes all the contents of the bag are known to be marbles. A more accurate analogy would be a bag of some number of marbles, plus a possible, spectral, immaterial quantity. You could remove ALL the marbles and still have no idea what's left in the bag. Pulling the marbles out only tells you about the marbles; it's tells you absolutely nothing about the possible, spectral, immaterial quantity.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    It is commonly accepted that when a woman has a regular orgasm, the CAUSE is something physical, like someone stimulating her genitals to bring her to orgasm. Are you actually denying this? I am actually asking.
    Nope. Again, concepts like Proximate Causes, Ultimate Causes, Necessary Components, and Sufficient Components are super-useful here. Also, "The pleasure centers of the brain associated with orgasm light up in women who think themselves to orgasm in exactly the same way as in women who orgasm through more conventional means." ~Dr. Barry Komisaruk PHD.

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    So you find any argument that supports that the cause is primarily physical to be irrelevant to a debate on whether the cause is physical instead of a spectral vibration?
    Again, that's not what we're debating (or maybe you are; I'm not). Again, proximate and ultimate causes, necessary and sufficient components.

  4. #44
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by mican333 View Post
    I'm not saying that a metaphysical component has been ruled out.

    I'm just comparing the likelihood that a physical explanation is correct compared to a metaphysical explanation.

    Since all KNOWN orgasms are triggered by physical means (someone physically touching the genitals with body or object), we can conclude that orgasms of unknown origins are more likely to have been causes by something physical than by something metaphysical.

    That doesn't mean that a spectral vibrator definitely didn't do it but just that a physical explanation is more likely to be true given the knowledge that we do have.

    I'm not sure it has been supported that "all KNOWN orgasms are triggered by physical means".

    ---------- Post added at 02:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:27 PM ----------

    [QUOTE=mican333;564234]
    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post

    If it can only be A or B and you've determine that it's 99% likely that the A is right, then you've determined that it's 1% likely that B is right.

    So it does effect likelihood.
    Why does it have to be one or the other? Perhaps it is both.

  5. #45
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I'm not sure it has been supported that "all KNOWN orgasms are triggered by physical means".
    That was my point, and again.. if you do the research of the vast number of documentaries. you will see that we observe the cause to always be by physical means.
    this topic is pretty deep, and I'm sure dio intended his readers to dig deep into the resources available to us. i am not getting the sense that everyone else in this thread are putting in the time to research it properly.

    I mean, has anyone else in the thread even googled "unconscious female having orgasm". It certainly seems like not everyone is doing the proper leg work and is only speaking from ignorance.

    I'm sorry to be harsh on you guys.. It's just disappointing, especially given all the resources available to us today through the internet. This is not some obscure topic that happens to only a few people under mysterious circumstances. there are literally thousands of documentaries on the topic.
    To serve man.

  6. #46
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Why should I care that cognitive experience isn't a part of your argument?


    Because you used that as a your basis for rejecting my argument. Obviously you can't reject an argument for saying something that it didn't say.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Repeating this doesn't affect the possibility of non-physical components. See below.
    Which likewise is a non-rebuttal to my argument. it doesn't say that there's no possibility of a non-physical compenent.




    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    This is a terrible analogy because it assumes all the contents of the bag are known to be marbles. A more accurate analogy would be a bag of some number of marbles, plus a possible, spectral, immaterial quantity. You could remove ALL the marbles and still have no idea what's left in the bag. Pulling the marbles out only tells you about the marbles; it's tells you absolutely nothing about the possible, spectral, immaterial quantity.
    No, it's a valid argument because the cause of 99% of orgasms ARE KNOWN and 1% aren't known. So likewise there are 99 marbles that we know the color of and 1 that we don't. So the analogy holds up and the argument stands.


    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Nope. Again, concepts like Proximate Causes, Ultimate Causes, Necessary Components, and Sufficient Components are super-useful here.
    Yes, J know that we can provide numerous definitions of "cause" and ways to determine what qualifies as the "cause" of something.

    But in PLAIN ENGLISH, the "cause" of an event is the thing that is most primarily responsible for that thing. And it's generally recognized and accepted that when a woman is brought to orgasm, 99% of the time (so this is excluding the mystery dream orgasms), the cause is physical as in another person performing sexual acts or the woman engaging in self-pleasure with her hands or object.

    If you are not going to abide by the common language and understandings for your definitions and terms, then your argument is really just so much wordplay. And in that case, you can (pun intended) just play with yourself.

    If we aren't going to use plain English and common terminology, I'm done here. So make sure to specific if you are going to use the term "cause" as it is commonly used or pick a different definition..

    ---------- Post added at 06:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:07 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Belthazor View Post
    I'm not sure it has been supported that "all KNOWN orgasms are triggered by physical means".
    When I say "known" orgasms I mean orgasms where the cause is known. So when someone were to say "I know what caused that orgasms" (weird thing to say but whatever) they do know that the cause is something physical.

    But your confusion on what I meant is entirely justified.
    Last edited by mican333; March 1st, 2019 at 03:59 PM.

  7. #47
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    9,174
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    @ mican..
    I think you took my response far more seriously than it was ever intended.
    To serve man.

  8. #48
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    East Lansing, MI
    Posts
    10,707
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    @ mican..
    I think you took my response far more seriously than it was ever intended.
    Ah. It was a joke about watching porn. Never mind. Deleting my comment.

  9. Likes MindTrap028 liked this post
  10. #49
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Posts
    1,237
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by MindTrap028 View Post
    That was my point, and again..
    Exactly, one would have to show every sleeping orgasm had a physical cause, and that has not been (nor probably could be) proven. All it takes is one SV experience to make the Op work.

    But more to the point:
    the Op is obviously a parody for religious belief.
    The immaterial can not be "seen", so it could be part of our reality. Dio is showing once we attach a supernatural/immaterial to anything it carries similar weight to many religious claims.

    And in an entertaining manner I might add

  11. #50
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    2,217
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Sentient Immatierial Spectral Vibrators Do Not Exist

    Quote Originally Posted by Dionysus View Post
    Scientists have discovered that women sometimes have orgasms in their sleep. While any number of explanations are available, none of these explanations effectively rule out the existence of sentient, immaterial, spectral vibrators causing these orgasms.
    Do any or none of the explanations rule in SISVs?
    Only what can happen does happen. ~Watchmen
    When the Standard is defined you will know how right or wrong you are.
    electricShares - a work in progress

 

 
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3

Similar Threads

  1. Does god exist?
    By Abut77 in forum Formal Discussion
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: February 13th, 2018, 06:39 AM
  2. Replies: 59
    Last Post: January 27th, 2008, 02:59 PM
  3. Why Does God Exist?
    By Castle in forum Religion
    Replies: 66
    Last Post: April 16th, 2007, 11:49 AM
  4. I may not exist
    By Tek Nectar in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: November 22nd, 2006, 02:44 PM
  5. Do you exist?
    By Apokalupsis in forum Philosophical Debates
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: August 27th, 2006, 11:52 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
  •