Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/30/2008 12:41 PM:
> On Aug 30, 10:07 am, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>> Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/30/2008 9:52 AM:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 30, 12:42 am, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>>>> Erwin Hessle wrote, On 8/29/2008 5:40 PM:
>>>>> On Aug 29, 3:29 pm, Meltdarok
aol.com> wrote:>>>>>> That there is more to reality than the limits of what our new technology
>>>>>> can, or is able to tell us? No. We do not have enough information to
>>>>>> completely deny that possibility.
>>>>> It's not a question of denying such a possibility. Of course the
>>>>> possibility exists that there are things we don't know yet - it's a
>>>>> 100%% probability, in fact.
>>>>> The problem is that you are arbitrarily picking one of those infinite
>>>>> number of possibilities -
>>>> My choice is not arbitrary.
>>> Yes, it is. If you think otherwise, present some evidence for it. If
>>> you can't, then you're lying.
>> What kind of evidence is acceptable?
>
> The verifiable kind - that consists of something other than you
> asserting a bunch of crap because you felt all warm and fuzzy once -
> that has a coherent and testable theory purporting to explain it.
>
>> I had two major metaphysical experiences:
>> An external one on December 12th, 1987,
>> An internal one on June 12th, 1988.
>
> Yes, neither of these would qualify. "Metaphysical experiences" have
> no explanatory power of any kind and are evidence of nothing except
> for the fact that you had an experience that you thought was quite
> nice once.
Yes, like I said before, "Too bad I wasn't in a lab."
>
>
> Erwin Hessle, 8=3
