I’d agree to a degree, but one has to not confuse subjective belief with empirical evidence.
Though I like your rationale of belief in the law of big numbers… but i would wager we all also use other methods along side this… perhaps, prior probabilities for example.
Well, if you want to talk bollocks i.e. me ‘having a stroke’, don’t expect me to not take the piss back.
I’m more then happy to debate or just have a chat, but if you want to ‘shit house’ then I will obliege you! I love it!
Despite my sister having had a very large stroke last year, I won’t hold that against anyone making a crass remark… in fact, more power to you! but it does open the ‘being offensive’ door to me.
Hey. I’m just kidding man. I had no idea of your sister. It’s only fun and games until someone gets hurt, right? Sorry, dude. Sincerely. If you want to shoot the shit, I’m all for it.
As far as the schizophrenia question goes, I really have very little more to say. It is deeply personal for me, and that’s extremely idiosyncratic… so, perhaps making a philosophical argument on such a basis isn’t in my own interests. I experience it on a different level than I should expect others to. That’s all I can say.
Supernatural claims have no explanatory powers, they are appeals to ignorance and mystery. There is also no objective evidence that anything supernatural is even possible.
No need to suggest anything, you’re describinng human beings, no one has disputed that they exist, and have those traits.
From your link…
" a person who claims to speak with or for the spirits of the deada celebrity psychic who managed to convince at least some people that their deceased loved ones were using him to relay messages."
Time to stop with semantics now, just say psyche if that’s what you mean.
There is no objective evidence that anything supernatural is possible. I think ive mentioned this.
Assuming you could offer any objective evidence to support this, and you can’t, it still doesnt suggest it has a supernatural cause, since human consciousness is only ever observed from a functioing human brain, and disapoears when the brain dies.
Whoever said it was? Though all the evidence suggests consciousness is an emergent property of a functi9ning brain, and brains are material.
Nope.
This contradicts your earlier claims tgat hallucibations don’t exist, and are in fact separate suoernatural causal agency, as i said your claims are at odds with mefical science, this hardly strengthens your claims.
Oh ratty, it does nothing of the sort, youre violating Occam’s razor, with a bare subjective claim, adding something tgat no one can demonstrate is possible, in any remotely objective way.
The agency tgat produces those traits are humans, no need or any evidence requires us to add anything.
Ni i am not, don’t be silly.
See above, humans are the agent, not the unevidenced and unecessary supernatural causation you’re trying to tack on.
Do what, you’ve lost me?
I think you need to google the definition of existence and real, as you have that completely reversed.
Unless you’re actually claiming material things don’t exist?
That’s not remotely what Occam’s razor does, and humans have precisely those traits, so adding unevidenced supernatural causes, you can’t evidence are even possible, violates Occam’s razor.
I am a body yes, among other things.
By definition, yes, look up the word existence if you doubt me.
Tah dah, finally…humans have agency for a start…
You would hope, but you keep spinning this unevidenced merry-go-round of superstition.
Sigh, you just said humans are agents, the characteristics you assigned this agency are all common to humans. Paradoxically we have no objective evidence that deities or anything supernatural is even possible.
So, nothing you have said points to what you are experiencing as being caused by a separate entity. It is also adding something we don’t require, as hallucinations are explains as a purely natural product of human brains. Auditory hallucinations are the most common, with some studies recording reporting rates among test groups as high as 28%, they’re quite common.
lol classic use of “The Just Joking Defense”. I really hate this defense because it’s often used to deflect and gas light the person. 
Humor and joking have a place both in our personal stories and throughout human history. A History of Laughter describes the potential that humor has to bond humans but also to separate and isolate them. The “just joking” defense, however, uses the joke as a form of deflection.
This is a way for children to test boundaries: when they’ve crossed one, they can back away and not take ownership over what they said. This process allows children to learn. They realize where the social boundaries are, and (hopefully) won’t cross them again. By the time someone grows to become an adult, they should have a clear understanding of where these boundaries are. An adult who uses the just joking defense no longer is testing boundaries but is attempting to escape punishment for crossing them.
With the caveat that in some contexts and usages it is clear that the poster isn’t serious (this isn’t one of them as it is making a rhetorical point at the expense of persons who have speech aphasia or dyslexia from strokes), people who deploy this are either:
None of those options speak favorably of the poster.
Thanks for the citation, it’s a good one.
Great! Then you will have no need for personal insight into anything whatsoever. I’m sure that will assist you greatly on your death bed (god forbid that day should ever come).
So, the voices share all the same traits as human beings? Is that what you’re saying? Because I’m ascribing agency to the voices. Are you agreeing that this is a possibility?
Psyche is all I mean. We’ll use that word from here on.
Great. And no appeal to personal experience is of any worth to you, I assume?
And bodies and the universe are only ever experienced from a viewpoint of consciousness. Consciousness, not being material, implies that the very existence of the universe, (insomuch as it can be experienced) is non-material.
And all consciousnesses are non-material, regardless of what they emerge from.
Yep
I’m allowing for the use of the word “hallucination” so that we can talk about it. When you use the term, you believe it to be a phenomenon which has no basis in reality. When I use it, I’m careful to put it into quotes - indicating that I agree with anyone who posits the phenomenon as happneing. I don’t agree on the other hand that it has no basis in reality
It doesn’t have to be supernatural. It could be a facet of consciousness. I’ve posited a collective consciousness outside the limits of time and space. That can be verified through personal experience.
If the agency is human, why does it appear to be non-human and why does it surpass human capacities (intelligence, moral fibre, etc)?
But I like to be silly.
Well, that’s makes two of us. Now we’re both lost. Fuck! Sheldon! I knew this would happen.
No, just that consciousness is non-material. That’s all.
You are a body? The entity writing and thinking and commanding the body … the body is commanded by the body?
You don’t know “I” exist. I don’t know “I” exist. It’s fundamentally impossible to prove that any self of any kind exists.
The agency of the “hallucinations” cannot be the agency of the human being. They demonstrate contradictory traits and are completely separate.
It was a heartfelt apology.
Again. A heartfelt apology. I believe you guys just find it easy to demonize me as I don’t share your belief system.
It was a joke. Sometimes jokes go too far. That was the case here. So, I actually feel bad. And I offer my apology in the hopes that @Randomhero1982 will not hold it against me and will fee comfortable continuing to discuss with me.
But that’s fine. If you want to label me the demon, I’ll be the demon.
Wanting there to be something more when we die, is not objective evidence, it is subjective bias.
All the traits you assigned these auditory hallucinations, are traits humans possess. Humans have agency, intelligence, morality.
Am I agreeing what is a possibility? What objective evidence can you demonstrate to support this possibility?
Depends on the context, but he more objective the evidence, the more reliable it is, the more subjective the less reliable it is, the more objective evidence we have to support a conclusions, then the more reliable the conclusions it supports.
So I am not sure what you mean by “worth” here, but if you are asking whether I can invest credulity in a claim that is entirely anecdotal, and unsupported by any objective evidence, then you already know the answer. If someone claims they saw a mermaid, would you believe them, just based on the claim?
No it doesn’t, we’ve done this to death.
Please demonstrate that consciousness is entirely immaterial with sufficient, indeed any, objective evidence, something beyond this bare claim?
Then explain why it is relevant to your unsupported claims it is caused, or at least affected, by a deity, if it is an emergent property of an evolved physical human brain, only you’re back to adding something you cannot demonstrate is even possible, and thus violating Occam’s razor.
You have removed all context from that quote? You need to add the original context for it to mean anything.
Medical science disagrees, so I can choose between your bare claim, or medical science, take a moment and imagine not just which I MUST choose, but why I must choose it.
Then adding the unevidenced deity, that no one can demonstrate is possible, is an unnecessary & unevidenced assumption, that violates Occam’s razor, and thus it is poor reasoning.
You can posit an invisible pet unicorn, I think I have been very clear that I can’t invest credulity in nothing but a bare claim, what would be my criteria for ever disbelieving anything ever again, without bias, and therefore a closed mind?
Firstly this is just a claim, secondly what you’ve described does not appear to be non-human, since all those traits are human traits.
We also know humans exist as an objective fact, we have no objective evidence deities are possible.
Then you need to re-read your claim above. I also don’t believe your claim, as it is unsupported by any objective evidence, or even sound argument.
Straw man, read the whole sentence, I have emboldened and underlined the bit you seem to have ignored.
existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Are you alive, can we demonstrate this objectively? Yes, and yes, quod erat demonstrandum, you exist.
No they don’t, all the traits you have assigned them here are human traits, and even if you claimed this, it is still not objective evidence.
Not what I meant.
Let me ask you this. How do you want to define the traits of the hallucinations?
The claim is that the voices demonstrate agency as defined by the traits of the hallucination. The argument is that the hearer of he voice cannot be the agent of the voice, since he does not have the capacity to demonstrate the features of the voice. Nor can he be said to be the agent since he does not identity with the voice.
It can be argued. It need not be demonstrated at this point.
I’m not claiming that consciousness does not have a physical cause or correlate.
And a brain has never been demonstrated outside of consciousness. So matter has never been demonstrated outside of non-matter. If you’d like an argument for why consciousness is non material you can look to the philosophies of idealism or dualism. They provide strong arguments for why it cannot be material, like the “hard problem” and “Mary’s room.”
Possibly. Depending on what consciousness is. Since you don’t know if it is material or non-material you can’t say that or demonstrate that.
Which only draws a connection between material and immaterial. It doesn’t demonstrate in any way that consciousness is material.
As I’ve pointed out, idealism and dualism provide strong arguments like the hard problem and Mary’s room.
The razor applies to the agency of the voice, not its temporal or spatial origins within consciousness
Yet it cannot account for the agency of the voice.
The deity is the obvious conclusion based on the traits of the hallucinations (which i don’t believe are hallucinations- I’m using that word provisionally)
It’s the logical conclusion given the traits of the hallucinations and it need not be non-human. It could easily be human. Super human.
Sound arguments include the hard problem of consciousness and Mary’s room.
Then what are these “other things”?
This body exists. However I don’t think you can demonstrate that I exist. I am not my body.
Whether they are human or not, the agency is not the same as my agency. I am not aware that I am producing it, nor do I identify as its cause.
I never said it was, but it’s what your assertion implied, I pointed out there is no objective evidence a deity exists or is possible, and you ignored that, and said:
This implies deluding myself in an afterlife and deity of some sort, might allay irrational fears of dying. As I pointed out this is simply subjective bias, and not objective evidence, I also have no fear of being dead to allay.
Oh I think a request that you evidence a claim, cannot be answered with a question, this is pure evasion. You can Google the word hallucination for the Oxford English definition.
I know what the bare unevidenced claim was, which was why I asked you a question, and you have ignored it, again. Either bare anecdotal claims are a reasonable threshold for credulity, or they are not, now would you accept such a claim from someone claiming to have seen a mermaid? If not then why would you imagine the same claims for a deity from you, should be lent any credence?
Yu have presented no argument, just a string of unevidenced anecdotal claims, one of them was that “we know consciousness is immaterial” and I know no such thing, unless it is objectively demonstrated. As I said, even if it could be demonstrated to be an immaterial phenomenon, this would not objectively demonstrate it had a separate cause from a functioning human brain.
The causal deity you’re imaging is physical, great, present some objective evidence it exists then. If it is physical it falls easily within the remit of scientific inquiry.
If you find such arguments compelling present them, and we will take a look, I am not doing your research for you, it is your claim after all.
It is demonstrated every single time.
I never claimed it was, it is perfectly reasonable and rational to disbelieve any claim, without assertion the opposite is true.
Then present one, the bare claim is no good.
I know what Occam’s razor does, and your unevidenced addition of a deity as a causal agent to human consciousness violates it.
Of course it can, auditory hallucinations are well documented.
Not at all, it is unevidenced, and you cannot demonstrate it is possible, unlike hallucinations, and all the objective evidence demonstrates human consciousness only occurs in the presence of a functioning human brain. Simply repeating your claim won’t change this.
Present one then.
I think you can work that out for yourself, unless you think all you are is a body? You can view bodies in a morgue, do they seem like you? A plant or tree has a body, are they the same as you?
You have created a straw man, while ignoring two questions, try again. 1. Are you are alive?
2. Can this be objectively demonstrated?
You said we could not demonstrate objectively that you or any human existed.
Existence
noun
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Your are alive, and this reflects objective reality, then yes we can.
Goal posts ahoy, and this is another bare claim.
Yes I know, but then that is precisely how hallucinations are defined, and you have schizophrenia, which makes it more difficult for you as well. As we have discussed many times.
Hallucination
noun
an experience involving the apparent perception of something not present.
If you can demonstrate your claims about these disembodied voices you hear, reflect objective reality, then they would not be hallucinatory.
I don’t think you’re a demon, Ratty. I think you’re a long-term member of this community.
There’s a one dimensional nature of communication in these forums that can hamper one’s ability to conduct exchanges effectively. (Shall we call it our cross to bear? 
)
You’re no demon, and I don’t dislike you.
I called you out on a very specific matter. You’ve apologized. There’s nothing more to it than that, and nothing else is necessary.
As far as not sharing the same beliefs, when is that a problem for either of us? We’re discussing the difference, not valorizing it. Hopefully we each come out of it understanding why the other person holds their view in good faith, and why their personal integrity demands it.
I actually have a lot of empathy for people who hold views because of compelling personal subjective experiences. So long as they don’t demand that I accept that as evidence for myself, or insist that I’m inferior for not having their experience, or insist I must follow their rulesets or customs despite not having it – then it’s all good. I don’t see you doing any of those nefarious / intolerant things. You’re just arguing your case. Your case might be maximally lacking from my perspective, but you’re not made bad by trying to make it.
Yep, no issues with me.
No apology was necessary, but will happily accept it as intended.
This is it in a nutshell, I value debate for its own sake, but no one is obliged to change their views.
We all make a personal choice about what standard we will set, before we invest credulity in any claim or idea.
We can only explain why we set that standard, and no one else is obliged to share it.
Which goes about as far as the “Just Joking Defense” in any divorce when one or both partners play the blame game. When someone has concluded that they are done with you, no amount of apologizing works.
Abraham was clearly schizophrenic. Ive met many schizophrenics and they have all manner of imaginary friends from cia agents kidnapping them to the dark side of the moon, demons causing them to crash their vehicle, argumentative frenemies who follow them about… I agree with the others replying here. Your subjective experience is wholly the result of mental illness. The same kind shared by most of the early prophets no doubt and many of those living today. We all like to think we are special. The son of god a messenger of god or indeed god itself. You actually are sprcial but not in that way.
In danger of sounding pedantic, but:
You talk about Abraham as if he was an actual historic figure that could be psychoanalysed, millennia after his death. This is somewhat problematic, in that
The most you can do is to say that the person portrayed in the myths as Abraham displays traits or charateristics of a person suffering from schizophrenia. Which is something quite different from slapping a modern psychiatric diagnosis on a person that there is no direct evidence even existed.
That wasn’t my meaning either. I was bringing “light” if you want to call it that, to your refusal to accept personal testimony as legitimate evidence for … basically anything what so ever - which is fair. However, I don’t believe that you believe that everything you believe is founded on objective evidence and only objective evidence. I’m of the opinion that you, like most people, believe in things irrationally (so to speak).
That’s fine. The objective evidence does not exist. Much like we can’t objectively prove that the same hallucinogenic trips to the same places by different people at different times caused by the same molecule are of any consequence to this “objective” reality we live in. You will not accept those as sufficient conditions for belief. I understand.
Ask again. I shan’t ignore it.
Oh! Here it is. No. Bare anecdotal claims are not a threshold for cruedulity. However, I see the claim that consciousness is immaterial to be a fairly self evident one. But I will support the claim in a second. Give me a second.
Aaaaaand we’ll get to that. Just a second.
Wel, the evidence hinges on its presence in my mind being something other than a mere hallucination. So, we’ll get to that as well (just a sec here. Just rearranging my underwear. Got a wedgy. You know how these things are).
Okay. Getting there. Getting there …
What is?
How can I have an argument with you if you simply withhold belief on every subject?
Getting there … just trying to condense this thread a little
Okay granted. The idea that there’s an agent behind the agent is less believable than the idea that there is no agent behind the agent. As wildly stupid as that sounds…
I have not seen any documentation indicating that medical science understands the origins of a foreign agency, or even the appearance of one, in the mind of an isolated person. What is the nature of this documentation?
Very close now …
Ha! No. I can work it out for myself. Thanks.
This body is alive. That is an objective fact. I am not my body, however. And … I’ll apologize, but I’ve lost where this point is relevant.
Oh yes. You assert you can say with certainty that I exist? Define what I am, if you think that’s the case.
This is clear from the properties of the hallucination. If I was the agent of my own hallucinations, where … you see … if you only understood the extent to which the hallucinations go. Like waking up on a craft, with walls that move, and beings who hover over you. You can feel their power emanating from them. Their ability. It’s hard to express. As I’ve stated here and elsewhere, the hallucinations demonstrate moral and intellectual superiority. The “quality” of the voice is not something I’m capable of producing. We think in a reading voice, yes? The hallucinations appear with an audible quality. Anyway …
Okay. And here we are. Demonstrate that consciousness is immaterial? Well, if it were material it would be subject to the law of gravity. Have you ever noticed that your consciousness is subject to the law of gravity?