Existence after mortal death...
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2013, 05:35 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(27-01-2013 04:01 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Our brains aren't hiding almost everything from us, I have heard of Dawkins' Cosmic Burka before. If I remember correctly, he used it to describe limiting factors within the human body which affect perceptions, and related it against our "perfect design" for instance, the eye, if memory does indeed serve me correctly. It is not that our brains hide things like higher or lower light frequencies, the brain simply cannot receive them as our eyes are too limited to register them, it is not hiding it at all. However, we can build things which allow us to "see" them as waves, radiation or other things, so we can know they exist.
I am also familiar with the cocktail party effect and it's ilk. Our brain does not filter things out entirely, it just lowers the 'volume' on things which to not require immediate attention. However this does not include things that the human body cannot physically register, such as too high or low pitch noises. But again, we can make things to register them and allow our observation.
You're right, the cosmic burka metaphor is related to sensitivity of the eye, not the brain. However, I think I meant it as a comparison to what the brain does with all the sensory data and our conscious awareness of them. I can't look up again the exact number, but there seem to be several orders of magnitude difference between the unconscious and consciously processed data. It's not just the cocktail party effect, it's all senses and nerves going into an extreme detail plus all the internal control of organs, etc. And who knows what else is there?

(27-01-2013 04:01 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  I find it amusing that you bring up your apparent awareness of fields, when recently, you seemed to lack an understanding of how electromagnetic fields work. If a thing like chakra existed, we would have been able to detect it by now as they are typically described: Ie an energy. It could be argued that the electrical energy created within the brain could be a chakra, however, we know the electro-chemical energy made in our Thinkin' Sponges is certainly not of a supernatural source, nor is it special, so putting forward that sort of idea, if you were planning on doing so, is pretty pointless. It is more than likely that your mind concocted this supposed awareness of fields, to what purpose, I cannot speculate, however the brain does a habit of creating a bubble for itself to protect it in a similar manner; that which conforms comes in, but detractions stay out.
There is a great difference between awareness of something and being able to name it, explain it and define in such terms that others would understand. Subtle body may feel like a field, but it is not a field, it is more like a concentration of dark matter plasma, held together by an electric field. A chakra does not have an exact correspondence in the current language. It could be defined as a vortex or a nozzle of dark matter plasma, that appears at crossing of two or more meridians. For example, the forehead chakra has about 42 meridians, but twice from each side in opposite polarity, so it's 94 in total. Other chakras have much fewer and regularly placed. Heart chakra has six, for example.
Chakras are reputedly made of a dark matter plasma, however I believe there is an interaction in terms of electric field between dark matter plasma and living tissue, specially the highly electrically active nerve tissue and endocrine glands. This interaction caused over the millions of years an evolution of particular nerve centers and plexuses - and it is not coincidence that major chakras are located near major endocrine glands. I don't know which came first, that would be like arguing about egg and chicken.

However, to lesser extent there should be electric interaction between the subtle body and living cells in the whole body, reflected in electric parameters of the tissue. I've seen awesome possibilities in reality - that the subtle body field can interact with chemical substances in a bottle and change skin resistance in certain places according to if the substance is beneficial for the momentary health state or not. This is possible only if there is a kind of energy field around the organism, that gets into the bottle, interacts with the substance within and then interacts with the living cells.

I can't objectively disprove that my mind made this all up, with all my critical attention I'd say that not, but the fMRI scan has the final word. Remembering this kind of awareness is one of my earliest memories, I was born with this ability to sense my own invisible fields around. I thought it's normal, until I grew up a little and learned about science (popular anatomy books etc) and Christianity and neither had any answers. Only the spiritual books did, so I tried to feel for the chakras, and was very soon successful. They're very easy to stimulate with a little attention, as the axiom says, energy follows thought.

(27-01-2013 04:01 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  By the "exchange of ideas", it is very obvious what I mean; whether through discussion or conversation, alternate ideas are presented. Regardless of how determined you are to pigheadedly ignore points brought up by others in the conversation, your brain will still receive the messages and be churning over them, just as it is churning over the body language and vocal tones of the person, looking for signs of anything from them normally.
We can check almost everything in a conversation, at least so long as it is in a format like this: purely text with no response times, in a normal (face to face) conversation, that might not hold so true. However, exactly the same can be said for a discussion: There is no major difference between the two, the words, are interchangeable. We can check the premise of an argument, by simply asking "What is your reason for X", "What lead you to your conclusion", or by examining the argument laid before us, and reversing Modus Ponens: If this if their B, what is their A. (If this is their conclusion/result, what is their premise), granted that is simply guessing all gussyied up, but it is directed somewhat, as opposed to the random nature of a guess normally.
Yes, you can check my logic, my conclusions. But without a common ground (like a brain scan report), you can't check my premises. You'd have to assume I report them correctly. But instead, you do something different. You don't like my conclusions, they seem too unlikely to you. So what is more likely? That I accurately feel the existence of chakras and meridians, something that scientists had not yet discovered, or that I made a mistake in some of my premises? You have no way of knowing if I did or didn't, but you assume I did, because it's the simpliest explanation.
This is why I refuse this as a discussion, it's like having a discussion with your parents for leaving Christianity, they don't believe that you found logical flaws in the Bible, they're convinced you want to be atheist so you can go sinning and fornicating all you want. And you can't convince them otherwise. They're seeing their own, more believable version of the argument and I don't know what to do about it.

(27-01-2013 04:01 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Philosophy can only go so far, as such, I disagree that it is the beginning of everything, which is why I am prone to making the disparaging comment "It's all philoso-bull anyway", in a society and age, where information that the philosophers of ancient Greece would be having wet-dreams about, if only they could have imagined it, is accessible speculating a philosophical "Why" is relatively unimportant. We can be sure of the physical "Why" (Why something happened, I.E, the physical cause which resulted in "it", whatever it may be) with most things now. Philosophy might maintain the air of being involved in all things, but that is simply a human made illusion, similar to 2+2=4 being an assessment of an A Priori truth, rather than evidenced fact. People have attached all kinds of philosophy to all manner of things, which existed long before the words of philosophy ever did.
It's true that the Descartes philosophy and onwards it is all crap, things like circular arguments in his lifetime work or self-disproving arguments. But people like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle were really concerned with absolute necessities of correct human thinking, communication and knowledge. They worked on questions like what is freedom, what is a human being and if a human being is free. Seems like a vague crap, but not when politicians, priests and doctors come to the scene and with them topics like justice, prison, abortion, death penalty and so on. Then philosophy becomes extremely useful. We need a great deal of damn good philosophy to create a non-totalitarian regime. All totalitarian regimes made basic mistakes in philosophy. They achieved great things, but in a wrong way, that's why philosophy is the beginning of all. Science can't replace philosophy, because science only states facts from their respective areas, it says nothing about how or why the facts should be used.
That's why we need philosophy, to think, know and communicate correctly. Logic is a part of philosophy and you know we need to watch out for people using fallacies.

(27-01-2013 04:01 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  Again, you are creating a schism between discussion and conversation, the two are more or less interchangeable. If you wish to present an argument, you should present your premise at the beginning, you'd hardly write a report without an introduction, no?

Even if you feel discussing ESP or the afterlife is pointless, it can be done, even without evidence, you can argue logic and reasoning behind a set of statements as usually, people will defend their logic; think of it as an anti-non sequitur, if your opponent starts with a solid premise but has a false conclusion, or countering the false premise if theirs was faulty to begin with, rather than attacking an unassailable position in the first place. You could also argue from a lack of evidence; The less evidence for a belief, the less justified it is, if there is none, it is not justified. That should force your opponent into producing some form of evidence to attack.
I'd really like to argue logic and reasoning, but in my experience people don't accept my premises. They don't realize I've paid attention to my perception for 20 years. I've been careful not to take seriously the experiences that I expected beforehand - if I expected them, I might have fabricated them, it's often impossible to say. But there have been a plenty of totally unexpected observations, yet very significant ones. So let's say I know how to safeguard for false positives, I've had a plenty of time to learn. Anything you can think of, I've thought of that too, checked for it, looked it up on the net and so on. I might seem like closed-minded, but really it's difficult to tell me anything I haven't heard or tried before.

And anyway, would it be satisfying to you? Let's say you find my logic correct and compelling, provided my premises are correct. What would that mean to you? Wild stories, albeit internally consistent?

If you claim there are nuances to principles, there are no nuances to getting arrested or shot for disobeying the power.
The Venus Project
FreeDomain Radio - The greatest philosophy show on the web!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply

Messages In This Thread
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 13-01-2013, 09:27 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 14-01-2013, 01:22 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 14-01-2013, 01:56 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 14-01-2013, 02:07 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 14-01-2013, 02:12 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 14-01-2013, 02:29 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 14-01-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 15-01-2013, 06:43 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 08:03 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Dom - 20-01-2013, 05:20 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 08:45 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 10:48 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 11:01 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 20-01-2013, 11:21 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 21-01-2013, 08:19 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 21-01-2013, 04:05 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 21-01-2013, 05:25 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 22-01-2013, 01:50 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 22-01-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 22-01-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 24-01-2013, 01:31 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 24-01-2013, 02:05 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 07:58 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 09:35 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 12:26 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 25-01-2013, 04:10 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 27-01-2013, 12:15 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 22-01-2013, 05:43 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 23-01-2013, 07:40 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 23-01-2013, 06:13 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 26-01-2013, 04:20 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - Chas - 27-01-2013, 09:45 AM
RE: Existence after mortal death... - amyb - 27-01-2013, 04:25 PM
Forum Jump: