Existence after mortal death...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
06-02-2013, 10:55 AM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 11:06 AM by Adenosis.)
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(05-02-2013 03:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  A "pattern of explanation" might be anything - a body map of organs, bones and nerves, a mechanism of perception, wiring of nerves, hormone reaction mechanism, anything specific that corresponds in some way to the feelings. For example, there is a partial correspondence between seven major chakras and main endocrine glands. It might be interesting to measure their activity and health in people claiming that a corresponding chakra is open and active. For example, I'd love to have my pineal and pituitary gland scientifically measured, they feel quite busy.

How does your explanation have anything to do with patterns? This seems like a method of twisted logic you created as support for your delusion.

(05-02-2013 03:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yeah. I perform a group meditation for years. We sit down in a darkened room, relax, chant a little and meditate for a couple of hours.

Wow someone sat and meditated for a couple hours and they felt strange things. Seriously, your evidence is ridiculous. Sorry but this is not the result of rational thought and you just confirmed for me that this is the result of a delusional mind. I meditate often and I feel some interesting things, this has nothing to do with anything external. Delusions tend to bend the reasoning of the individual with them, and I think we can all agree(except you) that is clearly evident here.

(05-02-2013 03:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Hey, this time it's clear, we're on an objective, scientific field. The matter and antimatter are naturally asymmetric.
http://press.web.cern.ch/backgrounders/m...-asymmetry

As for the rest, is it really a delusion? Isn't seeing things first hand a powerful, compelling influence?

You completely missed the point. You think science is unreliable or limited greatly and doesn't show us all of reality because of your delusion, and I didn't trust the theory that there are not equal amounts of both anti-matter and matter. How would it being a powerful and compelling influence imply it is not a delusion? That makes no sense. The fact that it is so compelling to you is why you have delusional beliefs about it.

(05-02-2013 03:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I don't know if it's scientific or not, but it's a very logical choice. If there is a refutation, it must be also logical. If I have some complex, impressive observations, the refutation must be to the point, very likely it would be also an impressive thing. Therefore, I am curious about refutation.

If all you rely on is logic then your going down to end up extremely confused about the nature of reality, the universe is not always logical. Logic isn't a stand alone method of determining the truth.

(05-02-2013 03:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  What objective reality? Who is the one subjective here? If I lived in ancient China or India, my perception would be taken as a normal thing and I'd be encouraged to take career of a healer or a yogi. They had and still have writings and body charts that describe independently what I perceive. There is even a scientific method of detecting these things, for example, I have successfully many times tried a diagnosis and prescription through EAV measuring of skin resistance. It And the Reich's or Provod's devices would offer more evidence.


Your talking about things that either detect the weak bioelectromagnetic fields our bodies give off or biophotons, none of which are proof of chakras and are perfectly explainable without them. If you think there are people with methods of detecting chakra scientifically then you should put them in the hands of real scientists and get that shit peer reviewed, I bet you there is a reason that hasn't happened yet Wink

(05-02-2013 03:57 PM)Luminon Wrote:  With the arrival of science, we started constructing our worldview from scratch. What you consider an objective reality is actually a worldview positively constructed by peer-reviewed journals out of carefully done studies, in past couple of centuries. This is only admirable, but it's a cold start from the beginning. It's a very new, restricted view of the universe. It separates everything into neat little boxes, regardless of the underlying reality. Science means taking in only as much as we can get under control, which is not necessarily how the universe is arranged. My guess is, the universe of dark matter and energy is vastly different from our current knowledge, but much more similar to the ancient traditions. And we don't take this into our estimates. We think we do, but just because we know dark matter is out there in the space, doesn't mean we realize what it means that it is here and now, on Earth, in billions of years of concentration.

We know there is reality beyond science, only we don't know how to pin it down, how to separate it. You say that woo does not exist, I say even the woo-mongers don't know what is it that they do, and even they are not competent in arranging tests for the science. But they've been a part of tradition in touch with the reality beyond science for millenia. Science threw it all out because it didn't conform to the standard of evidence, it didn't give us the control. But then we need to somehow compensate for our voluntary, necessary self-imposed ignorance. Our wiped racial memory. We need to keep in mind that there is reality out there too and that it will come knocking in thousand different ways, unacceptable to the science, because uncontrollable. We need to be very open-minded and see the patterns, because the universe is not likely to always respect our separate branches of science. We may find cosmic influences that touch everything, from physics to biology, psychology, sociology and even history. Influences, that can not be pinned down by a single branch of science. I have a feeling that synthetic sciences are about to become very popular in the next century. I wouldn't be surprised if the concept of afterlife was introduced somewhere along the way, after a discovery of different matters, energies and dimensions.

And you wondered why I related you to Theists. Your assuming we are by default extremely confused about the nature of reality and that science can't penetrate the far reaches of this reality. Discrediting science and implying the existence of things without evidence is exactly what theists do. Yes I say woo doesn't exist, just like I say the christian god doesn't exist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.

http://www.whatstheharm.net/energymedicine.html

This is what happens when people take all this pseudo-science energy/chakra stuff seriously instead of science. There is no reason to assume or assert that there is a fundamental difference between the reality we have been experimenting on for hundreds of years and objective reality except your delusion. You throw all of that out just because of that one thing. You must realize that it clouds your reasoning.

(05-02-2013 07:14 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Excuse me, but they feel quite real.

Point being...?

(06-02-2013 07:17 AM)Luminon Wrote:  At the same time, it made a requirement of evidence (controllable). The first thing you ask is an evidence. This is a misunderstanding, for you evidence is the first thing before doing anything, for me it is the last thing, the goal of all investigation. I move in the pre-scientific stages, where I necessarily have little control over things.

Of course, it is something latently present in all people, but not active in most of them. The writings are clear on the progression towards enlightenment (whatever it turns out to be in scientific terms), but today few people are systematically working on it and even fewer are aware of it.

We require a controlled environment and consistent results. There is a reason we require results to be consistent, and to be consistent when measured by multiple scientists. If we did not require this we would and could easily believe in astrology, chakra, psychics, astral projection and all other nonsense based on subjective experiences and unjustified theories.

All scientists that understand the value of evidence are reaching towards enlightenment, people that do not understand what constitutes as good evidence and lack it are living fairy tales.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
06-02-2013, 12:59 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 01:08 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  How does your explanation have anything to do with patterns? This seems like a method of twisted logic you created as support for your delusion.
It's very difficult to explain. I could try to use some obscure philosophic concepts like "identity" but I'm not that good in philosophy. Look at a small child trying to put a square peg into a square hole. It works. Then a triangular peg into the square hole. It does not work. Then a round peg into the square hole. It works, but there are gaps in the corners.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Wow someone sat and meditated for a couple hours and they felt strange things. Seriously, your evidence is ridiculous. Sorry but this is not the result of rational thought and you just confirmed for me that this is the result of a delusional mind. I meditate often and I feel some interesting things, this has nothing to do with anything external. Delusions tend to bend the reasoning of the individual with them, and I think we can all agree(except you) that is clearly evident here.
The event itself was in the beginning of meditation. And having involved another person, without any intervention on my part, it was external. The meditation is not drug taking, for more than half an hour pretty much nothing happens. We can properly remember what happened in the beginning, how can we remember what happened an hour before that.
And you just confirmed that you really want to mark me as delusional. The desire for quick explanations leads as much to superstition as it leads to marking other people as superstitious. Or maybe - you want to gather some more like points from Chas and Vosur. Smile

Maybe I have a "delusional mind", but it is only one of many "minds"! I maintain an ecosystem of opinions and theories, just like a laboratory grows multiple cultures of bacteria and fungi for the purpose of study. The only difference between a laboratory and a student campus kitchen is in how well are these bacteria and fungi kept in Petri dishes and accounted for. Just because you've become acquainted with one of my mental Petri dishes, doesn't mean it is the only one or that I can't keep track of them.

The mental laboratory of Chas must be a shiny and clean place indeed, a pristine example of optimal arrangement. A sterile environment suitable to print computer chips or assemble space probes. Only I don't know what is he actually doing in there. From what I see, all he does in that magnificent place is quality control of the work of others. An actual workplace is more messy, a playground messier yet.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  If all you rely on is logic then your going down to end up extremely confused about the nature of reality, the universe is not always logical. Logic isn't a stand alone method of determining the truth.
Logic is not my only instrument, but it is the most objective, most universally available one. Why the universe wouldn't be always logical? Except the quantum level, which can be still expressed in mathemathics, everything is logical. If something is not logical, then we only have it in a wrong context. Truth is like water, it can only be contained in a vessel of context. Sometimes we need to broaden the context, that's all.
An example of logic is causality. I believe the universe is causal, perhaps except of the quantum level, on this I suspend my judgement. If it's causal, it's logical and humanly comprehensible, potentially.

And I don't feel confused right now. I feel there is an objective pattern behind everything that is real. (very difficult to explain, but possible to understand intuitively) However, I hope I will get confused when reach limits of my knowledge. People who don't get confused when they should end up way too sure of themselves.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Your talking about things that either detect the weak bioelectromagnetic fields our bodies give off or biophotons, none of which are proof of chakras and are perfectly explainable without them. If you think there are people with methods of detecting chakra scientifically then you should put them in the hands of real scientists and get that shit peer reviewed, I bet you there is a reason that hasn't happened yet Wink
We need to connect. I must learn to communicate, apparently. I must learn how to get an idea across. See how you and me have problems communicating? You want to mark me as a delusional character and go home with a feeling of good day's work well done. If I get to understand my delusion, it would be a nice bonus.

Well, let's say I've sent around a couple of e-mails. Some people replied, some replied positively, some expressed interest, some expressed their lifetime disappointment and lack of motivation to get into the undemocratic clique of journal science and skeptical lobby.
So I think meanwhile I should try to communicate. If I get branded as hopelessly delusional, I lose. I know I can't win, only a laboratory can win, but I can learn the rules of the game and find out the unwritten rules. Especially the unwritten rules! The written rules of scientific method I can look up on Wikipedia, but as our failures to communicate show, there must be a plenty of unwritten ones.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  And you wondered why I related you to Theists. Your assuming we are by default extremely confused about the nature of reality and that science can't penetrate the far reaches of this reality. Discrediting science and implying the existence of things without evidence is exactly what theists do. Yes I say woo doesn't exist, just like I say the christian god doesn't exist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Science can penetrate the far reaches of reality! I never said it can't! I only try to understand the way how it does so. I see that the science gathers knowledge in thousands small steps, one step at a time. It sets a standard and then watches how much reality passes through that standard, it's called hypothesis and a test. It also interprets the newly discovered things according to the relatively small pool of things we already discovered. It is the right thing to do, I say, go ahead! I'm just concerned that it involves making too many assumptions, getting way too certain about things. Essentially, the science has built an island of knowledge in the sea of ignorance. And then it tries to interpret the sea according to the island. Poetically said, the island is dry, so the science hunts the sea for dry things. Nobody is permitted to bring anything from the sea, unless it is dry Wink Yes, in a narrower sense I hint at the island of solid matter in the sea of dark matter and the way we go at detecting it.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  http://www.whatstheharm.net/energymedicine.html

This is what happens when people take all this pseudo-science energy/chakra stuff seriously instead of science. There is no reason to assume or assert that there is a fundamental difference between the reality we have been experimenting on for hundreds of years and objective reality except your delusion. You throw all of that out just because of that one thing. You must realize that it clouds your reasoning.
No, you assume that I throw that all out. No, as I said, I maintain an ecosystem of opinions, ideas, theories... An ecosystem has to have a firm ground that is the basis of everything. From the firm ground I grow the theories and so on... Science is the firm ground to which I can always return, and which I seek to enlarge! But how could I contribute to it, if not by exploring the unknown? Of course, I am not a scientist, but I can still contribute in a different way. To say with poetry and understand with intuition - If a scientist would be a white hunter in jungle, I would be an illiterate and cowering tribesman with a basic command of English, advising the massa hunta to walk silently and don't make much noise, because the prey has a good hearing and may run away from places it could be otherwise found. Surprisingly, the mighty massa hunta makes an assumption from shooting skillfully at fixed targets, that targets stay in place regardless of the way he approaches them. The idea of a timid prey with good hearing and fast legs is quite alien to him, just as the nebulous idea of the mysterious invisible medium that permeates everything and spreads information on a distance (the air and sound waves). Remember how alien and misunderstood is the idea from quantum physics that the observer causes collapse of the quantum wave! The idea that an observer might influence the observed object sounds like a superstition, but there is a core of truth in it.

As for the energy healing and so on... I may be ignorant, but I know I'm ignorant, therefore I know I must be careful. Knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness. People who don't know they're ignorant and powerless are not careful. They have woo and think they're in control of it, they use it and risk their health and sanity. I know that only scientific evidence gives us control and can be used safely and effectively. I return to science when I need it to do something for me. I turn to other methods when I want to do something for the world. It is a work in progress and it's imperfect, I know.

It's not the way you would do things but that's all right, if I do my job properly, you can invest your effort into something different. And then after much work and investment, there comes someone like Chas and checks our quality of work Smile But we could not work all on the same thing at the same time, we'd mark each other as delusional.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  
(05-02-2013 07:14 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Excuse me, but they feel quite real.
Point being...?
Point being I am not allowed to ignore it, I have to do something and I have to be careful.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  We require a controlled environment and consistent results. There is a reason we require results to be consistent, and to be consistent when measured by multiple scientists. If we did not require this we would and could easily believe in astrology, chakra, psychics, astral projection and all other nonsense based on subjective experiences and unjustified theories.

All scientists that understand the value of evidence are reaching towards enlightenment, people that do not understand what constitutes as good evidence and lack it are living fairy tales.
The value of evidence is control, power over things. I salute to that and I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less. However, look at some scientific discoveries or other achievements that came up in uncontrolled circumstances. Some discoveries were made by coincidence, other by hunch or simply because the historical time was appropriate for them. And most importantly, because there was a common knowledge or technology that the inventors could build on. However, they did not discover anything new. Nobody ever discovers anything new. All things and principles existence have to already exist, so that they can be "discovered", that is, grasped by science. Science grasps the reality, handful at a time. And we have to assume, that there is a lot of reality that is not yet grasped. For example, I in my extremely confusing and delusional way might be interested in how the sea of non-grasped reality may or may not affect our island of grasped reality. I know it doesn't give me control, but it might be a preparatory work. For what? Maybe for a scientific revolution that would turn our worldview upside down. We have our present theories only because we can measure only 4 % of the universe. When we discover more, our current theories will be transcended, they will be put into a greater context like Newton's mechanics was transcended by relativity.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 01:42 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 01:59 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 09:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  You continue to exhibit a misunderstanding of science. Evidence doesn't come first. Or last.

Imagination, hypothesizing, conceiving new things are key to the process of science. We wonder about something, we imagine what might be happening, we concoct ideas about it.

But first, we have to show that the something exists, then we investigate its properties. To say anything definite about 'it', we have to support the assertions with evidence. Evidence is objective and reproducible by others. That is why I aver that your internal states are not evidence.

You make unsupported assertions like "it is something latently present in all people".
Let's try to replace the word evidence with control.

Let's say, I come to you and tell you, I want to gain a control of the chakras. How do I go at it? And you say, "you can't! First you must have control over chakras, then you can have control over chakras. If you don't already have the control, you won't get the funds and the keys to laboratory where you might gain control of chakras." I point out, that this is a circular argument, a Chas 22.... er, I mean, Catch 22 situation. You will say that nonetheless it works, because we have science. I will say that someone had to bend some rules and begin without a control over things, otherwise we'd have no science at all. You will say that maybe in the early days of science, but today we're not allowed to bend rules and we only derive more control from the control we already have. I say, doesn't the control then become too narrow? Why is our view of the universe limited only to 4 % of the existing matter and energy that is like ours? Doesn't our genetic pool of ideas become inbred? Where is the inflow of any fresh ideas? You say, that scientists are free to introduce new ideas, as long as they have control over them.

And we'll be right where we started. To me, it looks like a blind circle and it worries me. Please show me, where I make a mistake.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 01:44 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  How does your explanation have anything to do with patterns? This seems like a method of twisted logic you created as support for your delusion.
It's very difficult to explain. I could try to use some obscure philosophic concepts like "identity" but I'm not that good in philosophy. Look at a small child trying to put a square peg into a square hole. It works. Then a triangular peg into the square hole. It does not work. Then a round peg into the square hole. It works, but there are gaps in the corners.

That doesn't explain anything. It doesn't even clarify.

Quote:
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Wow someone sat and meditated for a couple hours and they felt strange things. Seriously, your evidence is ridiculous. Sorry but this is not the result of rational thought and you just confirmed for me that this is the result of a delusional mind. I meditate often and I feel some interesting things, this has nothing to do with anything external. Delusions tend to bend the reasoning of the individual with them, and I think we can all agree(except you) that is clearly evident here.
The event itself was in the beginning of meditation. And having involved another person, without any intervention on my part, it was external. The meditation is not drug taking, for more than half an hour pretty much nothing happens. We can properly remember what happened in the beginning, how can we remember what happened an hour before that.
And you just confirmed that you really want to mark me as delusional. The desire for quick explanations leads as much to superstition as it leads to marking other people as superstitious. Or maybe - you want to gather some more like points from Chas and Vosur. Smile

We really don't have much choice but to claim that your experience is entirely internal, since you can provide absolutely no external or observable evidence.

Quote:Maybe I have a "delusional mind", but it is only one of many "minds"! I maintain an ecosystem of opinions and theories, just like a laboratory grows multiple cultures of bacteria and fungi for the purpose of study. The only difference between a laboratory and a student campus kitchen is in how well are these bacteria and fungi kept in Petri dishes and accounted for. Just because you've become acquainted with one of my mental Petri dishes, doesn't mean it is the only one or that I can't keep track of them.

You don't have 'many minds'; you surely have many thoughts and trains of thought, various ideas, perceptions and so on.

Quote:The mental laboratory of Chas must be a shiny and clean place indeed, a pristine example of optimal arrangement. A sterile environment suitable to print computer chips or assemble space probes. Only I don't know what is he actually doing in there. From what I see, all he does in that magnificent place is quality control of the work of others. An actual workplace is more messy, a playground messier yet.

Well, since I create software and other solutions, and I have patents, I don't think my mind is all that sterile. But I will agree that yours seems very disorderly.

Quote:
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  If all you rely on is logic then your going down to end up extremely confused about the nature of reality, the universe is not always logical. Logic isn't a stand alone method of determining the truth.
Logic is not my only instrument, but it is the most objective, most universally available one. Why the universe wouldn't be always logical? Except the quantum level, which can be still expressed in mathemathics, everything is logical. If something is not logical, then we only have it in a wrong context. Truth is like water, it can only be contained in a vessel of context. Sometimes we need to broaden the context, that's all.
An example of logic is causality. I believe the universe is causal, perhaps except of the quantum level, on this I suspend my judgement. If it's causal, it's logical and humanly comprehensible, potentially.

And I don't feel confused right now. I feel there is an objective pattern behind everything that is real. (very difficult to explain, but possible to understand intuitively) However, I hope I will get confused when reach limits of my knowledge. People who don't get confused when they should end up way too sure of themselves.

Don't make the mistake of confusing logical with actual. There are many things that are logical but have no reality.

Quote:
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Your talking about things that either detect the weak bioelectromagnetic fields our bodies give off or biophotons, none of which are proof of chakras and are perfectly explainable without them. If you think there are people with methods of detecting chakra scientifically then you should put them in the hands of real scientists and get that shit peer reviewed, I bet you there is a reason that hasn't happened yet Wink
We need to connect. I must learn to communicate, apparently. I must learn how to get an idea across. See how you and me have problems communicating? You want to mark me as a delusional character and go home with a feeling of good day's work well done. If I get to understand my delusion, it would be a nice bonus.

Well, let's say I've sent around a couple of e-mails. Some people replied, some replied positively, some expressed interest, some expressed their lifetime disappointment and lack of motivation to get into the undemocratic clique of journal science and skeptical lobby.

Why should it be democratic? It's not. It is a meritocracy. And it's not a clique, it is open to anyone who has evidence.

Quote:So I think meanwhile I should try to communicate. If I get branded as hopelessly delusional, I lose. I know I can't win, only a laboratory can win, but I can learn the rules of the game and find out the unwritten rules. Especially the unwritten rules! The written rules of scientific method I can look up on Wikipedia, but as our failures to communicate show, there must be a plenty of unwritten ones.

Find some evidence. Design an experiment.

Quote:
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  And you wondered why I related you to Theists. Your assuming we are by default extremely confused about the nature of reality and that science can't penetrate the far reaches of this reality. Discrediting science and implying the existence of things without evidence is exactly what theists do. Yes I say woo doesn't exist, just like I say the christian god doesn't exist. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever.
Science can penetrate the far reaches of reality! I never said it can't! I only try to understand the way how it does so. I see that the science gathers knowledge in thousands small steps, one step at a time. It sets a standard and then watches how much reality passes through that standard, it's called hypothesis and a test. It also interprets the newly discovered things according to the relatively small pool of things we already discovered. It is the right thing to do, I say, go ahead! I'm just concerned that it involves making too many assumptions, getting way too certain about things. Essentially, the science has built an island of knowledge in the sea of ignorance. And then it tries to interpret the sea according to the island. Poetically said, the island is dry, so the science hunts the sea for dry things. Nobody is permitted to bring anything from the sea, unless it is dry Wink Yes, in a narrower sense I hint at the island of solid matter in the sea of dark matter and the way we go at detecting it.

No, no, and no. When evidence of something new, paradigm busting, unheard of occurs, people sit up and take notice.
If what you say is what really happens, we wouldn't be studying evolution, plate tectonics, quantum theory, dark matter, and so many others. Scientists want to find new things, make a name for themselves, win Nobel prizes.

Quote:
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  http://www.whatstheharm.net/energymedicine.html

This is what happens when people take all this pseudo-science energy/chakra stuff seriously instead of science. There is no reason to assume or assert that there is a fundamental difference between the reality we have been experimenting on for hundreds of years and objective reality except your delusion. You throw all of that out just because of that one thing. You must realize that it clouds your reasoning.
No, you assume that I throw that all out. No, as I said, I maintain an ecosystem of opinions, ideas, theories... An ecosystem has to have a firm ground that is the basis of everything. From the firm ground I grow the theories and so on... Science is the firm ground to which I can always return, and which I seek to enlarge! But how could I contribute to it, if not by exploring the unknown? Of course, I am not a scientist, but I can still contribute in a different way. To say with poetry and understand with intuition - If a scientist would be a white hunter in jungle, I would be an illiterate and cowering tribesman with a basic command of English, advising the massa hunta to walk silently and don't make much noise, because the prey has a good hearing and may run away from places it could be otherwise found. Surprisingly, the mighty massa hunta makes an assumption from shooting skillfully at fixed targets, that targets stay in place regardless of the way he approaches them. The idea of a timid prey with good hearing and fast legs is quite alien to him, just as the nebulous idea of the mysterious invisible medium that permeates everything and spreads information on a distance (the air and sound waves). Remember how alien and misunderstood is the idea from quantum physics that the observer causes collapse of the quantum wave! The idea that an observer might influence the observed object sounds like a superstition, but there is a core of truth in it.

Your interpretation of 'collapse of the wave function' is incorrect. Observing does nothing to the object - it is measurement that affects it.

Quote:As for the energy healing and so on... I may be ignorant, but I know I'm ignorant, therefore I know I must be careful. Knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness. People who don't know they're ignorant and powerless are not careful. They have woo and think they're in control of it, they use it and risk their health and sanity. I know that only scientific evidence gives us control and can be used safely and effectively. I return to science when I need it to do something for me. I turn to other methods when I want to do something for the world. It is a work in progress and it's imperfect, I know.

It's not the way you would do things but that's all right, if I do my job properly, you can invest your effort into something different. And then after much work and investment, there comes someone like Chas and checks our quality of work Smile But we could not work all on the same thing at the same time, we'd mark each other as delusional.

During or after the work, without evidence it is no better than delusion.

Quote:
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Point being...?
Point being I am not allowed to ignore it, I have to do something and I have to be careful.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  We require a controlled environment and consistent results. There is a reason we require results to be consistent, and to be consistent when measured by multiple scientists. If we did not require this we would and could easily believe in astrology, chakra, psychics, astral projection and all other nonsense based on subjective experiences and unjustified theories.

All scientists that understand the value of evidence are reaching towards enlightenment, people that do not understand what constitutes as good evidence and lack it are living fairy tales.
The value of evidence is control, power over things. I salute to that and I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less.

No, the value of evidence is confirmation, it has nothing to do with power. That is some odd ideological stance.

Quote:However, look at some scientific discoveries or other achievements that came up in uncontrolled circumstances. Some discoveries were made by coincidence, other by hunch or simply because the historical time was appropriate for them. And most importantly, because there was a common knowledge or technology that the inventors could build on. However, they did not discover anything new. Nobody ever discovers anything new. All things and principles existence have to already exist, so that they can be "discovered", that is, grasped by science. Science grasps the reality, handful at a time. And we have to assume, that there is a lot of reality that is not yet grasped. For example, I in my extremely confusing and delusional way might be interested in how the sea of non-grasped reality may or may not affect our island of grasped reality. I know it doesn't give me control, but it might be a preparatory work. For what? Maybe for a scientific revolution that would turn our worldview upside down. We have our present theories only because we can measure only 4 % of the universe. When we discover more, our current theories will be transcended, they will be put into a greater context like Newton's mechanics was transcended by relativity.

Yes, and all of that will require evidence.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-02-2013, 01:49 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 01:42 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 09:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  You continue to exhibit a misunderstanding of science. Evidence doesn't come first. Or last.

Imagination, hypothesizing, conceiving new things are key to the process of science. We wonder about something, we imagine what might be happening, we concoct ideas about it.

But first, we have to show that the something exists, then we investigate its properties. To say anything definite about 'it', we have to support the assertions with evidence. Evidence is objective and reproducible by others. That is why I aver that your internal states are not evidence.

You make unsupported assertions like "it is something latently present in all people".
Well, what if we don't have evidence? Let's try to replace the word evidence with control. We don't always have control over things, but we always want it.

Let's say, I come to you and tell you, I want to gain a control of the chakras. How do I go at it? And you say, "you can't! First you must have control over chakras, then you can have control over chakras. If you don't already have the control, you won't get the funds and the keys to laboratory where you might gain control of chakras." I point out, that this is a circular argument, a Catch 22 situation. You will say that nonetheless it works, because we have science. I will say that someone had to bend some rules and begin without a control over things, otherwise we'd have no science at all. You will say that maybe in the early days of science, but today we're not allowed to bend rules and we only derive more control from the control we already have. I say, doesn't the control then become too narrow? Why is our view of the universe limited only to 4 % of the existing matter and energy that is like ours? Doesn't our genetic pool of ideas become inbred? Where is the inflow of any fresh ideas? You say, that scientists are free to introduce new ideas, as long as they have control over them.

And we'll be right where we started, in the beginning. To me, it looks like a blind circle and it worries me. Please show me, where I make a mistake.
You have to show that something exists. There has to be something to investigate. What affect, however slight, do these chakras have on anything? You and others keep talking about them, but where are they?

Eventually you just have to admit that
if it looks like the absence of a duck,
walks like the absence of a duck,
and quacks like the absence of a duck,
the duck is probably absent.



Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
06-02-2013, 02:11 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 04:04 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have to show that something exists. There has to be something to investigate. What affect, however slight, do these chakras have on anything? You and others keep talking about them, but where are they?
Again, you stay in the circular logic. How can I show something that is invisible? I need resources, knowledge, specialists. How can I get them? First I have to tell somebody something, what do I say? How do I get other people to allocate the resources that I need to create a visible evidence? It seems a question of economy from where I stand. Perhaps one must first study business before doing science.

These chakras have a huge effect on me, on my moods, my feeling, my senses, perhaps health. There must be even more influence in the unconscious brain activity. Furthermore, it is worthy to investigate if the active chakras have any influence on things like increased biophoton emission (if they are real, their furious activity that I perceive might radiate some microscopic qualities of real, measurable light) and also we should investigate electric fields and resistance of skin on the places where they're supposed to be located.
However, that is all guesswork, I think I could easily prove a preliminary point if I ordered the Reich device for a couple hundred dollars and showed that it measures a "vital field" around people and not any kind of common electric field. But who do I tell? Where should I travel? Do I need to win a lottery first? Or make a Kickstarter project?

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 05:05 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  It's very difficult to explain. I could try to use some obscure philosophic concepts like "identity" but I'm not that good in philosophy. Look at a small child trying to put a square peg into a square hole. It works. Then a triangular peg into the square hole. It does not work. Then a round peg into the square hole. It works, but there are gaps in the corners.

It's impossible to explain because it doesn't make sense.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Wow someone sat and meditated for a couple hours and they felt strange things. Seriously, your evidence is ridiculous. Sorry but this is not the result of rational thought and you just confirmed for me that this is the result of a delusional mind. I meditate often and I feel some interesting things, this has nothing to do with anything external. Delusions tend to bend the reasoning of the individual with them, and I think we can all agree(except you) that is clearly evident here.

The event itself was in the beginning of meditation. And having involved another person, without any intervention on my part, it was external. The meditation is not drug taking, for more than half an hour pretty much nothing happens. We can properly remember what happened in the beginning, how can we remember what happened an hour before that.
And you just confirmed that you really want to mark me as delusional. The desire for quick explanations leads as much to superstition as it leads to marking other people as superstitious. Or maybe - you want to gather some more like points from Chas and Vosur. Smile


To the delusional mind it might seem like I want to , I don't, it's just blatantly obvious that that is the case. You give ridiculous 'evidence' and can't explain your reasoning. Two traits that are common in the deluded. The fact that the more comments you post that I read makes me more and more sure that this is the case isn't a coincidence.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Maybe I have a "delusional mind", but it is only one of many "minds"! I maintain an ecosystem of opinions and theories, just like a laboratory grows multiple cultures of bacteria and fungi for the purpose of study. The only difference between a laboratory and a student campus kitchen is in how well are these bacteria and fungi kept in Petri dishes and accounted for. Just because you've become acquainted with one of my mental Petri dishes, doesn't mean it is the only one or that I can't keep track of them.

You have one mind, just like everyone else. Having different opinions and theories is completely different than multiple minds. The more delusions a mind contains the less we can trust that minds reasoning.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Logic is not my only instrument, but it is the most objective, most universally available one. Why the universe wouldn't be always logical? Except the quantum level, which can be still expressed in mathemathics, everything is logical. If something is not logical, then we only have it in a wrong context. Truth is like water, it can only be contained in a vessel of context. Sometimes we need to broaden the context, that's all.
An example of logic is causality. I believe the universe is causal, perhaps except of the quantum level, on this I suspend my judgement. If it's causal, it's logical and humanly comprehensible, potentially.


It is logical for us to have photo receptors in our eyes behind the nerves that connect them to the brain? To have the same tube for breathing as eating? For particles to act like waves? Things are not always logical, if you disagree then you have to explain how these examples are logical.

The problem is you use logic with subjective experience and fail-evidence. Using logic with real evidence is the only way to deduce the nature of reality. Someone else feeling something that you interpret as similar to what you feel isn't evidence. Do you understand chance? Your bound to run into people that feel interesting things that you can relate to what you feel, especially when meditating people can be prone to feel interesting things. Did that person even tell you it was at the very begining of the meditation session or is that something you manifested as additional fail-proof? Because that is also common in minds that suffer delusions.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  And I don't feel confused right now. I feel there is an objective pattern behind everything that is real. (very difficult to explain, but possible to understand intuitively) However, I hope I will get confused when reach limits of my knowledge. People who don't get confused when they should end up way too sure of themselves.

Obviously, people with false beliefs don't feel that they are false, the reason they hold the belief is because they feel it is right. Just because it feels right doesn't mean it is.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  We need to connect. I must learn to communicate, apparently. I must learn how to get an idea across. See how you and me have problems communicating? You want to mark me as a delusional character and go home with a feeling of good day's work well done. If I get to understand my delusion, it would be a nice bonus.

This isn't giving me any positive feelings, it's depressing to see how misunderstood people can be about the nature of reality. Your failing to communicate some of the reasoning because it doesn't make sense, as I've pointed out already. It's a creation of alternate reasoning that fits your delusion.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Science can penetrate the far reaches of reality! I never said it can't! I only try to understand the way how it does so. I see that the science gathers knowledge in thousands small steps, one step at a time. It sets a standard and then watches how much reality passes through that standard, it's called hypothesis and a test. It also interprets the newly discovered things according to the relatively small pool of things we already discovered. It is the right thing to do, I say, go ahead! I'm just concerned that it involves making too many assumptions, getting way too certain about things. Essentially, the science has built an island of knowledge in the sea of ignorance. And then it tries to interpret the sea according to the island. Poetically said, the island is dry, so the science hunts the sea for dry things. Nobody is permitted to bring anything from the sea, unless it is dry Wink Yes, in a narrower sense I hint at the island of solid matter in the sea of dark matter and the way we go at detecting it.

You claim to agree with science while belittling it at the same time. Science studies things that we can accurately identified as being an aspect of the objective reality. While science does not know all the answers, there is no rational reason to believe you know something the general scientific community does not unless you are on the bleeding edge of scientific research and have just discovered evidence in support of a new theory. Posing theories based on quirky sense integration problems, non-logic and non-evidence is not the same thing in any way, shape or form. If you want to understand more about science then that's where you should start.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  No, you assume that I throw that all out. No, as I said, I maintain an ecosystem of opinions, ideas, theories... An ecosystem has to have a firm ground that is the basis of everything. From the firm ground I grow the theories and so on... Science is the firm ground to which I can always return, and which I seek to enlarge! But how could I contribute to it, if not by exploring the unknown? Of course, I am not a scientist, but I can still contribute in a different way. To say with poetry and understand with intuition - If a scientist would be a white hunter in jungle, I would be an illiterate and cowering tribesman with a basic command of English, advising the massa hunta to walk silently and don't make much noise, because the prey has a good hearing and may run away from places it could be otherwise found. Surprisingly, the mighty massa hunta makes an assumption from shooting skillfully at fixed targets, that targets stay in place regardless of the way he approaches them. The idea of a timid prey with good hearing and fast legs is quite alien to him, just as the nebulous idea of the mysterious invisible medium that permeates everything and spreads information on a distance (the air and sound waves). Remember how alien and misunderstood is the idea from quantum physics that the observer causes collapse of the quantum wave! The idea that an observer might influence the observed object sounds like a superstition, but there is a core of truth in it.

Your misunderstanding what causes the collapse of the wave function. It isn't because we observe it, it's because we measure it, and when you measure a system you have to interfere with it (usually via photons). The quantum world is very susceptible to influence from single photons, and thus we see a fundamental change in behavior. It has nothing to do with a conscious being observing the event.

(06-02-2013 12:59 PM)Luminon Wrote:  IAs for the energy healing and so on... I may be ignorant, but I know I'm ignorant, therefore I know I must be careful. Knowledge is power, ignorance is weakness. People who don't know they're ignorant and powerless are not careful. They have woo and think they're in control of it, they use it and risk their health and sanity. I know that only scientific evidence gives us control and can be used safely and effectively. I return to science when I need it to do something for me. I turn to other methods when I want to do something for the world. It is a work in progress and it's imperfect, I know.

It's not the way you would do things but that's all right, if I do my job properly, you can invest your effort into something different. And then after much work and investment, there comes someone like Chas and checks our quality of work Smile But we could not work all on the same thing at the same time, we'd mark each other as delusional.

Working on the same thing at the same time would cause us to call eachother delusional? How does that make any sense? If a co-worker believed in a crazy interpretation of the data then yes we would call him delusional, if not then no.

Ignorance is weakness, everyone is ignorant in some aspect of life, we can't clear up all the gaps in knowledge. Which is why it is best to study one aspect of life and to become highly knowledgeable of it. Such as getting into science, music and art or language. Then we specify further and choose the subtype of the group, for example in science we could choose neurology or physics (My favourites). When we enter music and art we can pretty much come up with whatever we want, this is not the case for science which is why what your doing is silly.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  Point being...?
Point being I am not allowed to ignore it, I have to do something and I have to be careful.


That something you have to do is to do reasearch into how the brain works and gather an understanding of how it can misinterpret information and fool us.

(06-02-2013 10:55 AM)Aspchizo Wrote:  The value of evidence is control, power over things. I salute to that and I wouldn't be satisfied with anything less. However, look at some scientific discoveries or other achievements that came up in uncontrolled circumstances. Some discoveries were made by coincidence, other by hunch or simply because the historical time was appropriate for them. And most importantly, because there was a common knowledge or technology that the inventors could build on. However, they did not discover anything new. Nobody ever discovers anything new. All things and principles existence have to already exist, so that they can be "discovered", that is, grasped by science. Science grasps the reality, handful at a time. And we have to assume, that there is a lot of reality that is not yet grasped. For example, I in my extremely confusing and delusional way might be interested in how the sea of non-grasped reality may or may not affect our island of grasped reality. I know it doesn't give me control, but it might be a preparatory work. For what? Maybe for a scientific revolution that would turn our worldview upside down. We have our present theories only because we can measure only 4 % of the universe. When we discover more, our current theories will be transcended, they will be put into a greater context like Newton's mechanics was transcended by relativity.

We can only SEE 4% of the universe, the fact that we could measure dark matter and dark energy are the reason we have those place holders.

Why do we have to assume that? We have a very good understanding of the world, just because there are some things missing doesn't mean we are missing anything fundamentally game changing. Of course it also does not mean we are not missing something game changing, however I'm not going to assume there is because of someones subjective feelings.

Give me an example of one discovery that didn't require confirmation via the scientific method.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 05:17 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 02:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(06-02-2013 01:49 PM)Chas Wrote:  You have to show that something exists. There has to be something to investigate. What affect, however slight, do these chakras have on anything? You and others keep talking about them, but where are they?
Again, you stay in the circular logic. How can I show something that is invisible? I need resources, knowledge, specialists. How can I get them? First I have to tell somebody something, what do I say? How do I get other people to allocate the resources that I need to create a visible evidence? It seems a question of economy from where I stand. Perhaps one must first study business before doing science.

How is that circular logic? It isn't circular. It is a fact that we need evidence of it's existence, this isn't a complex thing to grasp.

"I feel something that I interpret as something in the objective reality that I am sensing due to my super sense of touch.
I discover the idea of chakra, and I know chakra are real based on my interpretation of the experiences I have"


Chakra exist because of my experience and my experience is the result of chakra. This is circular logic.


(06-02-2013 02:11 PM)Luminon Wrote:  These chakras have a huge effect on me, on my moods, my feeling, my senses, perhaps health. There must be even more influence in the unconscious brain activity. Furthermore, it is worthy to investigate if the active chakras have any influence on things like increased biophoton emission (if they are real, their furious activity that I perceive might radiate some microscopic qualities of real, measurable light) and also we should investigate electric fields and resistance of skin on the places where they're supposed to be located.
However, that is all guesswork, I think I could easily prove a preliminary point if I ordered the Reich device for a couple hundred dollars and showed that it measures a "vital field" around people and not any kind of common electric field. But who do I tell? Where should I travel? Do I need to win a lottery first? Or make a Kickstarter project?

No, your interpretation of the sensory information and your thoughts have an effect on you. There is no reason to believe chakras exist. I recommend you get your bioelectromagnetic field measured, so you can see that it is just like everyone elses. Then you'll probably still just say 'well my field is the same but im the only one that can sense it'.

When put infront of counter-evidence, your brain will undergo cognitive dissonance and you will reject, ignore, or fail-rationalize your way out of it.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Adenosis's post
06-02-2013, 05:50 PM (This post was last modified: 06-02-2013 06:15 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 05:17 PM)Aspchizo Wrote:  No, your interpretation of the sensory information and your thoughts have an effect on you. There is no reason to believe chakras exist. I recommend you get your bioelectromagnetic field measured, so you can see that it is just like everyone elses. Then you'll probably still just say 'well my field is the same but im the only one that can sense it'.

When put infront of counter-evidence, your brain will undergo cognitive dissonance and you will reject, ignore, or fail-rationalize your way out of it.
Obviously, my perception is very stable, but my interpretation can not be firmly set, because I know little of it. I don't know for example, what is the scientific explanation for these experiences and I'd be glad for a concrete, positive information. I already have Theosophic explanation, for a start. Therefore what I say is very much a work in progress. I'm sorry if I come across authoritatively, but it's just tiring to include so many maybes and perhapses. It is not even my full time job, it's a hobby. I have spent most of my life in a small village under mountains in a poor region of "eastern" Europe. I have only recently moved into the capital city and I only get acquainted with full benefits of civilization. Universities, truly professional dentists, political life, and yes, there must be advanced medical and scientific institutions around.

How do you behave, if you encounter a person with a work in progress? Do you offer sympathy, help, advice, constructive criticism or what? Or do you ask for finished results and not getting any, do you say I don't intend to finish the job at all? What am I supposed to say, so that you don't get such ideas? I say, it's a work in progress. The physicist Kanarev said, "Scientific truth is never born in dispute." I think I understand, work in progress is such a phase where one is not ready for a dispute. We can still communicate, but I'm sorry if I come across authoritative. One has to be authoritative if I want to pursue something and form ideas. If I want to develop any idea into a prepared, testable state, I can not be swayed from it by non-constructive criticism. Please don't take it as I'm irrational, deluded and stubborn, I think the word is "assertive and determined".

I suggest you at least take a look, for the first time I drew a couple of pictures about how it is like to be me.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-02-2013, 06:19 PM
RE: Existence after mortal death...
(06-02-2013 05:50 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Obviously, my perception is very stable, but my interpretation can not be firmly set, because I know little of it. I don't know for example, what is the scientific explanation for these experiences and I'd be glad for a concrete, positive information. I already have Theosophic explanation, for a start. Therefore what I say is very much a work in progress.

Yet you assume what it is your experiencing is not only an aspect of your subjective reality. Even contrary to the evidence that we have stacked up that people are susceptible to hallucination and delusion.

(06-02-2013 05:50 PM)Luminon Wrote:  How do you behave, if you encounter a person with a work in progress? Do you offer sympathy, help, advice, constructive criticism or what? Or do you ask for finished results and not getting any, do you say I don't intend to finish the job at all? What am I supposed to say, so that you don't get such ideas? I say, it's a work in progress. The physicist Kanarev said, "Scientific truth is never born in dispute." I think I understand, work in progress is such a phase where one is not ready for a dispute. We can still communicate, but I'm sorry if I come across authoritative. One has to be authoritative if I want to pursue something and form ideas. I think it's called assertive.

How I behave when I encounter a person with a work in progress is by helping them by pointing out the problems with their theory. This can either lead them to modifying the theory, creating a stronger argument for their theory (which hopefully leads to more rational reasons to believe it is true rather than getting shifty with works) or throwing the theory in the trash.

(06-02-2013 05:50 PM)Luminon Wrote:  I suggest you at least take a look, for the first time I drew a couple of pictures about how it is like to be me.

(06-02-2013 05:26 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Yes, I would agree there is a kind of electricity that courses through all things - and specially life, most of all, the higher, complex life.

Saying this makes me question your understanding of physical, biological, and chemical science.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: