Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


snex wrote:
Stile4aly wrote:
snex wrote:
Stile4aly wrote:
snex wrote:
Stile4aly wrote:
snex wrote:
Stile4aly wrote:
snex wrote:
<snip>
it is you who just waffled. i asked you that IF i mumble about potato
chips in my sleep, and then i later wake up i tell you i dreamed about
potato chips, what would you say to that? you are the idiot claiming
that dreams are untestable, despite the fact that I JUST GAVE YOU A
TEST FOR THEM.

I would say that you mumbled "potato chips" and you claimed to be
having a dream about potato chips. What does this tell me about the
overall content of your dreams. You couldn't have been dreaming for 8
hours about nothing but potato chips, could you? What if you woke up
and told me you dreamt you ordered a bag of potato chips while at a
restaurant on a cruise line seated between Mahatma Ghandi and Jimi
Hendrix. Unless you rattle off the entire narrative of your dream
while you're sleeping, then there's no way to verify what you're
dreaming about, or why.

the question is whether or not dreams happening is testable.

Actually, the original poster in this part of the thread stated:

"The same is true for dreams; we can accept the testimony of
individuals that
they dream, and we can observe both REM sleep and brainwave
patterns, but neither one can tell us the *content* of a
dream. That takes testimony from the individual dreamer, and
is neither demonstrable to, nor repeatable by, an observer."

Noone disputes that dreams do occur, and that we can test to see if a
person is dreaming. The point is we cannot test to determine the
content of someone's dream. All we have to go on is the person's
testimony, which you've stated isn't evidence. Therefore dreams have
no content, unless you happen to recite the narrative while you sleep.

if my reporting of dream content is accurate when you *do* witness me
mumbling it, why would they be inaccurate otherwise?

We haven't established that your reporting is accurate to begin with.
Just because you say potato chips in your sleep, and claim that you
dreamt about potato chips doesn't mean that I can prove objectively
that you were dreaming about them. Maybe you practiced a little deep
hypnosis to force yourself to say potato chips, and claim you dreamt
about them, while you actually dreamt about something entirely
different. Maybe potato chips were only the most tangential part of
the dream, but that happens to be the part you remember when I
interview you.

But even if I grant you that you accurately reported your potato chip
dream, that isn't a predictor of future reliability. Indeed, unless
you mumble in your sleep and your mumbles match up to your reports,
then there's not even an independant check against your report which is
unverifiable. You're not asking us to take the content of your dreams
on faith, are you?

what youre doing is no different than what creationists do. they point
out that science isnt 100%, and therefore they dont have to accept its
conclusions. the question is, is it TESTABLE. since i gave you a test,
it clearly is and you should stop harping on the idea that it isnt. all
youre doing is engaging in solipsism by coming up with excuses. well
you can always come up with excuses for anything in science. evidence
points to old earth? well then omphalism! evidence points to common
descent? well then god designed that way!

Got all sore, did we? Look, the fact of the matter is that you've been
spouting for some time that unless something is testable and verifiable
independantly, then there is no justification to believe in it. It's
been pointed out that the content of dreams is not testable and
independantly verifiable, but noone disputes that dreams are real and
do have content, even though this conclusion comes from shared personal
experiences, not data. So we can agree that there are some things that
can't be tested that are real. You've basically been arguing that
science is 100% and to argue otherwise is stupid, ignorant, or insane.
I agree with your above statement that science isn't 100%, but it
doesn't follow that we shouldn't still accept the conslusions it is
capable of coming up with..

how are you still claiming dream content is not testable even after ive
given a test for it?

You've given a test which is at best highly limited and not
independently verifiable. Not a scientific test in any sense.


this entire subthread is the result of somebody claiming *i* believe in
things without evidence, even though 1) ive never claimed to believe
the dream content of others, and 2) i gave a very simple test for it.

So do you believe that others dreams have content, why or why not? Or
are you the only person on the planet who dreams?

if it doesnt follow that we shouldnt accept conclusions that science
cant come up with, then what *does* follow? *why* should we accept
conclusions that we cant verify. i have asked this so many times ive
lost count, and nobody can answer it

What does follow is that not everything is in the purview of science.
So when something isn't testable, then how can we draw conclusions?
And the answer is faith, even though you don't like that answer. I
have no way of verifying that the person standing next to me exists,
that I'm not just a brain in a vat, but I take it on faith that person
does exist. I have no way of verifying whether or not your dreams have
any content, or if you're lying to me when you tell me that you've
dreamt of potato chips. But I know I dream, and so I take it on faith
that you dream also. I realize this is not the most reliable method,
but it isn't meant to be. It's an imperfect way of making
observations, but it is the only way we can make some observations.

.

Relevant Pages

  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... chips in my sleep, and then i later wake up i tell you i dreamed about ... I would say that you mumbled "potato chips" and you claimed to be ... overall content of your dreams. ... which you've stated isn't evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... chips in my sleep, and then i later wake up i tell you i dreamed about ... I would say that you mumbled "potato chips" and you claimed to be ... overall content of your dreams. ... We haven't established that your reporting is accurate to begin with. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... chips in my sleep, and then i later wake up i tell you i dreamed about ... I would say that you mumbled "potato chips" and you claimed to be ... overall content of your dreams. ... dreamt about potato chips doesn't mean that I can prove objectively ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... chips in my sleep, and then i later wake up i tell you i dreamed about ... I would say that you mumbled "potato chips" and you claimed to be ... overall content of your dreams. ... We haven't established that your reporting is accurate to begin with. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...
    ... chips in my sleep, and then i later wake up i tell you i dreamed about ... I would say that you mumbled "potato chips" and you claimed to be ... overall content of your dreams. ... That takes testimony from the individual dreamer, ...
    (talk.origins)