The lists are just a set of beliefs. No different than any other set of beliefs.

There is no proof that any of these beliefs provide any benefit

So basically, one should be skeptical about the skeptic and what the skeptic is proposing.

What about how they're based on reality unlike every pet theory you bring up here

I think you are living in an absurd world where computers are equivalent to human beings and where creativity is suppressed in the name of mindless, robotic imitation. Every great theory preceded experimentation verification - proof. The creative mind always comes first. Thanks for welcoming me into your sterile world of pluses and minuses, but I prefer a far more creative, interesting world. Thanks again.

Rich

The lists are just a set of beliefs. No different than any other set of beliefs. There is no proof that any of these beliefs provide any benefit, and therefore, by the author's own guidelines, should be treated with skepticism.

There is no proof that honesty provides any benefits?

Do all your arguments consist of ad hominems?

I think honesty does bring many benefits, for one I can live with myself, another, life is alot more and simple and you gain respect.

By a continuum I mean there is no separation between consciousness/mind - energy - matter. It is all the same, but say that one is more dense than the other. So consciousness condenses into energy and energy condenses into matter. I visual would be similar to the relationship between vapor-water-ice. Everything is the same, but just in a different form.

Rich

I've posted this link here before, but I think it might be worthwhile to re-post for review in light of the current discussion:

Critical Thinking Field Guide (Skeptical Inquirer Winter 1990)

I keep reading and rereading the article trying to find what the author is trying to prove. I don't see that he is trying to prove anything, rather he is simply offering a methodology of thought by which any (including one's own) beliefs can be tested without succumbing to blind faith.

I think you are living in an absurd world where computers are equivalent to human beings and where creativity is suppressed in the name of mindless, robotic imitation of that which was already taught in school. Every great theory preceded experimentation verification. Some theories resist proof. No one knows what stuff the universe is made of and why it acts in the way it does. I enjoy creativity and welcome it. You can live in your own sterile world of pluses and minuses, but I prefer a far more creative, active world. Quantum physicists such as Bell, d'Espagnat, Wheeler, Feymann, Bohm, Zeilinger have incredibly creative, imaginative, thoughts that stretch the imagination. Why the heck would I give up all of that fun, spice of life, for your drab world?

Hum, doesnt makes sense to me, I dont think consciousness can be declared to have a form and studied in such a way, it is always beyond our grasp.

He starts saying that life after death is unsupported then its a logical fact, so I dont agree with his methods much =)

Lets not start a discussion over life after death though, that would off-topic this even harder

as far as I understand, Richrf is making a little game here, where he is behaving in the way that author suggests as much as he can, what brings up a paradox: How to trust a guide on how to think critically if, before reading it, you, supposedly, do not know how and, therefore, do not have the basis to decide you are not running into blind belief?

Ah, who knows how open-minded and reasonable one should be? Only life will tell, probally =)

Well, we should certainly distinguish between having an open mind, and an empty head.

What do you mean exactly?

Well, having an open mind is being receptive to plausible ideas that oppose your own, and not just rejecting them out of hand. But, having an empty head is to have no beliefs of your own, and being willing to accept any implausible nonsense as worthy of consideration. There is a difference between (say) chiropractic, which has some (minimal) plausibility. and say, aroma therapy, which has none.

I can't remember now if it was Sagan or Asimov who said, "keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

Yes, and each person makes their own choice of what they want to believe. A problem arises when someone else tries to tell people what they should believe and how they should believe. That is religion - which is also OK.

Rich

Can you prove that?

I never suggested anything needed to be proved. You are entitled to your beliefs whatever they are. I will go about my merry way exploring, learning, sharing, creating, with other human beings out there who want to share with me.

It is my and their choice whether or not they likewise wish to share. And neither of us need some thought police watching over our exploratory process. I would like them to feel comfortable sharing with me their thoughts. What is not needed is some artificial religious-like constraints that are imposed on thoughtful and creative people in places like classrooms.

If you wish to talk only about things that have been proved, go right ahead. That pretty much limits you to talking about nothing. Then you relegate yourself to become a thought policeperson, for lack of anything else to say. But as you wish.



Rich

Prove it! You are just making all kinds of claims and expect me to believe it without a single shred of evidence or proof. Prove that you can change my mind. Prove that you can change anyone else's mind. Prove that there is a mind to change. And while you are at it, you can write to that author and tell him that he is wasting my time until he has some proof that his article has any affect on anyone.

This should keep you busy for a while. A mathematical proof would be ideal.

Rich

That's policeMAN to you, thank you very much. I never was much into the whole "person" thing.