Proof of Heaven.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-03-2013, 06:38 PM (This post was last modified: 29-03-2013 06:49 PM by Luminon.)
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  All the proof's I've ever read of an afterlife, heaven, hell or god. Always relies upon peoples feelings, emotions, and hallucinations. Which later instead of questioning their feelings, assert them as truth.
What should we question about these feelings? After all, they are (if reported precisely) a truth. Truth about what, that is what we don't know.

(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Feelings after all are simply an internal reaction to events in the world. About half of that time our emotions invoke irrational responses, upon subjects that require further thought before a rational action can be made.
Correction: Some feelings are an internal reaction to events in the world. If we can find any feelings that are not a such a reaction, we have a problem. A delightful, exciting scientific problem.
Of course we can't track every inner feeling to an outer event. But there are feelings of such a high order that they are as great as the internal universe and the external surroundings seem small and unrelated as a prison cell compared to them. And this sense of innerverse seems to be shared across time and cultures, found even today.

(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Personally having experience with hallucinations through psilocybin has shown me how powerful the mind when it's in distress. Those feelings, hallucinations, and emotions are real as they relate to my mind, but did not in any way accurately reflect reality when under the influence of such a thing.

Extreme emotions, lack of sleep, drugs, and many many other things can bring about powerful feelings, but that doesn't mean that it's true. It means that your brain is under some kind of stress or influence that you may need a break from.
Please notice how an observation works. When we try to observe something, we try not to interfere with it. We try to let the phenomenon assert itself. Meditation is one such method. We try to do as little as possible, slowing down even thought, even the fireworks of sensory-deprived brain (makyo as Buddhists call it), tone it down into near nothingness.

Now, extreme emotions, lack of sleep, psylocibin and so on, these seem to me hell of an interference! How can anyone take such things seriously?! Even worse so, how can anyone think that these polluted, interfered observations have anything to say about the true source of feelings or true nature of reality? How can they validate or invalidate the mystical experience? That is not a good reasoning at all. Just because feelings can be artificially produced, does not mean... mean what? It means nothing! Anything that exists in real world must have a material basis and anything that has a material basis can be replicated, simulated, faked and so on. Even feelings and thoughts. This is a fact and if you are honest with yourself, you will not hold it against the whole mysticism thing.

That is why we abstain from all interference and call it purity (sobriety) and meditation. Because the whole purpose of mysticism is not about special feelings, it is about that Transcendental Object which causes the feelings, in absence of all interference or other possible causes of the feelings.

Please try to think like a scientist. A scientist would see the logic of observation and non-interference with drugs or the God helmet because he knows that proves nothing about people who don't take drugs and don't wear God helmet. The Buddhists knew that too, feelings are like a finger, that points to the Moon. Don't look at the finger, or you'll miss all the heavenly glory Wink

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 07:27 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(29-03-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  All the proof's I've ever read of an afterlife, heaven, hell or god. Always relies upon peoples feelings, emotions, and hallucinations. Which later instead of questioning their feelings, assert them as truth.
What should we question about these feelings? After all, they are (if reported precisely) a truth. Truth about what, that is what we don't know.

(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Feelings after all are simply an internal reaction to events in the world. About half of that time our emotions invoke irrational responses, upon subjects that require further thought before a rational action can be made.
Correction: Some feelings are an internal reaction to events in the world. If we can find any feelings that are not a such a reaction, we have a problem. A delightful, exciting scientific problem.
Of course we can't track every inner feeling to an outer event. But there are feelings of such a high order that they are as great as the internal universe and the external surroundings seem small and unrelated as a prison cell compared to them. And this sense of innerverse seems to be shared across time and cultures, found even today.

(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Personally having experience with hallucinations through psilocybin has shown me how powerful the mind when it's in distress. Those feelings, hallucinations, and emotions are real as they relate to my mind, but did not in any way accurately reflect reality when under the influence of such a thing.

Extreme emotions, lack of sleep, drugs, and many many other things can bring about powerful feelings, but that doesn't mean that it's true. It means that your brain is under some kind of stress or influence that you may need a break from.
Please notice how an observation works. When we try to observe something, we try not to interfere with it. We try to let the phenomenon assert itself. Meditation is one such method. We try to do as little as possible, slowing down even thought, even the fireworks of sensory-deprived brain (makyo as Buddhists call it), tone it down into near nothingness.

Now, extreme emotions, lack of sleep, psylocibin and so on, these seem to me hell of an interference! How can anyone take such things seriously?! Even worse so, how can anyone think that these polluted, interfered observations have anything to say about the true source of feelings or true nature of reality? How can they validate or invalidate the mystical experience? That is not a good reasoning at all. Just because feelings can be artificially produced, does not mean... mean what? It means nothing! Anything that exists in real world must have a material basis and anything that has a material basis can be replicated, simulated, faked and so on. Even feelings and thoughts. This is a fact and if you are honest with yourself, you will not hold it against the whole mysticism thing.

That is why we abstain from all interference and call it purity (sobriety) and meditation. Because the whole purpose of mysticism is not about special feelings, it is about that Transcendental Object which causes the feelings, in absence of all interference or other possible causes of the feelings.

Please try to think like a scientist. A scientist would see the logic of observation and non-interference with drugs or the God helmet because he knows that proves nothing about people who don't take drugs and don't wear God helmet. The Buddhists knew that too, feelings are like a finger, that points to the Moon. Don't look at the finger, or you'll miss all the heavenly glory Wink

I can concede that there are secondary and tertiary emotions.

However if there are emotions that are not reactions to the outside word, could you provide an example?

It seems with out the world in sensory deprivation experiments, peoples own brains begin to generate an external world for them.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2013, 07:34 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(29-03-2013 05:44 PM)Vosur Wrote:  As a man of science he should know better than to call his anecdotal experience proof of anything, let alone an afterlife.

Quite so.
He probably took a bit of poetic license there, realising that scientific proofs are based on high degrees of probability.Cool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Mr Woof's post
30-03-2013, 06:27 AM (This post was last modified: 30-03-2013 06:51 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(29-03-2013 07:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  I can concede that there are secondary and tertiary emotions.

However if there are emotions that are not reactions to the outside word, could you provide an example?

What are the secondary and tertiary emotions?

If you mean what I think then yes, though they're not exactly emotions anymore. I mean mystical ecstasy, realization of sublime order of things, enlightenment, broadening of transcendental awareness... Yes, even universal love and unity.
I'd say this is not how the world looks like. If you want to see how people see the world, don't look at me. Look at realists like Zat or pessimists like Earmuffs. That's what you get from the environment, this is not from within or from the Transcendental Object.
The intermediate stage between awareness of the world and ourselves and between TO is a phenomenon found in many mystical writings - various moody realizations of one's and world's inadequacy and corruptedness, withdrawal from the world, turning within, cutting off all the stimuli... It may occur after some bad event in one's life, specially in our civilization that is so outwardly and sensually oriented.

(29-03-2013 07:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  It seems with out the world in sensory deprivation experiments, peoples own brains begin to generate an external world for them.
Maybe so, but this should calm down as the person gets better at meditation. The goal is to be calm of thought, devoid of emotion and have attentively poised awareness.
During meditation all emotion disappears - for example feeling boredom. If any transcendental feelings appear, then it is a very significant phenomenon. It is like creating a void darkness within ourselves, not unpleasant on it's own, but gradually through further meditation in this darkness a light will appear. Faint at first, this light will gradually grow stronger until the small light of one's personal awareness is engulfed within the greater light of Transcendental Object.

Another method is contemplation, where the person is focused on one concept or problem, again with exclusion of all unnecessary thoughts, but open to flashes of intuitive insight. The purpose of all this is to make the person an "actively receptive" target of the presumed Transcendental Object that seeks out such people to assert itself in their consciousness. Besides meditation, another method that needs to be combined is doing some sort of personal contribution to the humanity or charity work.
Most beginners need also the various disciplines of yoga, vegetarianism and so on, because there is a lack of control of biologic urges. But after the beginner stages, once the basic link with TO is established, the person evolves primarily by cooperating with TO through meditation, contemplation and contribution.

Various psychic practices are either left behind, or if spontaneously occuring, left aside as not important compared to TO. TO is a very impersonal, essential presence. All the imagination of lower psychism is like a shabby and bizarre circus carnival compared to a vision of a fractal hologram, perfect in both orderliness and diversity. Not necessarily visually, but rather in purity and intensity of emotion and thought, such as we don't normally find in daily life.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Luminon's post
31-03-2013, 11:12 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
I say NO

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2013, 12:26 AM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
The way I understand it is that everything we see, experience and touch is really our brain's interpretation of random stimuli. Particularly in times of great stress, the fact is that our brains are perfectly capable of producing the same results with all the stimuli removed. This is why some people are convinced they have visited 'heaven' when close to death. And why none of the heavens is alike

The secret to a happy life is lowering your expectations to the point where they are already met
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like PeterKA's post
01-04-2013, 12:34 AM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(29-03-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  All the proof's I've ever read of an afterlife, heaven, hell or god. Always relies upon peoples feelings, emotions, and hallucinations. Which later instead of questioning their feelings, assert them as truth.
What should we question about these feelings? After all, they are (if reported precisely) a truth. Truth about what, that is what we don't know.

You should always question your emotional response to a given situation. They are not always accurate, and arguably highly inaccurate. They have been the cause many irrational behaviors.

(29-03-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Feelings after all are simply an internal reaction to events in the world. About half of that time our emotions invoke irrational responses, upon subjects that require further thought before a rational action can be made.
Correction: Some feelings are an internal reaction to events in the world. If we can find any feelings that are not a such a reaction, we have a problem. A delightful, exciting scientific problem.
Of course we can't track every inner feeling to an outer event. But there are feelings of such a high order that they are as great as the internal universe and the external surroundings seem small and unrelated as a prison cell compared to them. And this sense of innerverse seems to be shared across time and cultures, found even today.

You probably wouldn't be willing to let the fact that we are human, and having more in-common than we do the differences, might account for that?

Also how does emotion account for anything that exists. It's our responce to the world and out thoughts, not anything more.

(29-03-2013 06:38 PM)Luminon Wrote:  
(29-03-2013 05:27 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  Personally having experience with hallucinations through psilocybin has shown me how powerful the mind when it's in distress. Those feelings, hallucinations, and emotions are real as they relate to my mind, but did not in any way accurately reflect reality when under the influence of such a thing.

Extreme emotions, lack of sleep, drugs, and many many other things can bring about powerful feelings, but that doesn't mean that it's true. It means that your brain is under some kind of stress or influence that you may need a break from.
Please notice how an observation works. When we try to observe something, we try not to interfere with it. We try to let the phenomenon assert itself. Meditation is one such method. We try to do as little as possible, slowing down even thought, even the fireworks of sensory-deprived brain (makyo as Buddhists call it), tone it down into near nothingness.

Now, extreme emotions, lack of sleep, psylocibin and so on, these seem to me hell of an interference! How can anyone take such things seriously?! Even worse so, how can anyone think that these polluted, interfered observations have anything to say about the true source of feelings or true nature of reality? How can they validate or invalidate the mystical experience? That is not a good reasoning at all. Just because feelings can be artificially produced, does not mean... mean what? It means nothing! Anything that exists in real world must have a material basis and anything that has a material basis can be replicated, simulated, faked and so on. Even feelings and thoughts. This is a fact and if you are honest with yourself, you will not hold it against the whole mysticism thing.

That is why we abstain from all interference and call it purity (sobriety) and meditation. Because the whole purpose of mysticism is not about special feelings, it is about that Transcendental Object which causes the feelings, in absence of all interference or other possible causes of the feelings.

Please try to think like a scientist. A scientist would see the logic of observation and non-interference with drugs or the God helmet because he knows that proves nothing about people who don't take drugs and don't wear God helmet. The Buddhists knew that too, feelings are like a finger, that points to the Moon. Don't look at the finger, or you'll miss all the heavenly glory Wink
[/quote]

It always seems to me that when a person adheres to a position that is for the most part nonsense, they say others are mistake the finger for the moon.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2013, 04:23 AM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  You should always question your emotional response to a given situation. They are not always accurate, and arguably highly inaccurate. They have been the cause many irrational behaviors.
I see, you're being reasonable and cautious. You never know on the internet if people did their homework. I know emotional responses. People found just too easy to push my buttons. Now people call me self-aware and that in practice means knowing my inner workings and noticing when someone is pushing my buttons or when I'm pushing my buttons (getting obsessive). And trust me, many of these weren't easy to pin down.
It's an ongoing process, but there's a hint: emotional responses are usually bad feelings. The experience of TO is usually a very good feeling. Too good for normal life, actually. People do and need to do much to get such feelings, take drugs, get drunk, have sex. Evoking such feelings is not easy and means a great intervention in the organism. That's why it's so strange!

I think I can tell an emotional response from something that is not a response (there's nothing to track it to) and not exactly emotional, because it's very impersonal. It is more like an independent, deliberate action of TO, that is felt within.

(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  You probably wouldn't be willing to let the fact that we are human, and having more in-common than we do the differences, might account for that?
I have very little in common with most of people. I suppose they're not going through mystical experiences on regular basis or getting flashes of insight into global problems and workings of man & nature. They're also very well adjusted to the social world.
What it means to be human anyway? Emotions and biology is something we inherited from animals. I'd say it means having an intellect, intuition (I'd need to properly define that, as opposed to instinct) and perhaps it essentially means having a TO, even if most of us aren't using it.

(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Also how does emotion account for anything that exists. It's our responce to the world and out thoughts, not anything more.
Yes, this is why I say the experience of TO is not exactly emotional. It's a feeling, as is anything a feeling. But of a higher order. It can't be tracked as a response to anything we know. It of course has to have some neurologic effects, but they're effects, I doubt if they reveal the cause. Right now it is a very mysterious phenomenon, one we know has been going on in various cultures for millenia.

(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  It always seems to me that when a person adheres to a position that is for the most part nonsense, they say others are mistake the finger for the moon.
What position? It's an experience. A very persistent and profound experience, one can not not adhere to it and there is no obvious explanation. The words are just imperfect means of pointing at the experience, but you see only the words, you'd have to experience the Transcendental Object for yourself to "see the moon".
Hopefully it's obvious I usually do my homework and that this is something that can radically change worldview even of a well-accomplished scientist, you can not take it lightly. It must be surprising to find a frontier of science so close by, after the mainstream view shifted attention towards the quantum and cosmic scales.

(of course, the Transcendental Object name is a little private joke - refers to the good old hippie triphead Terrence McKenna who spiced up with his quotes many an electronic music album)

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
01-04-2013, 07:36 PM
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(01-04-2013 04:23 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  You should always question your emotional response to a given situation. They are not always accurate, and arguably highly inaccurate. They have been the cause many irrational behaviors.
I see, you're being reasonable and cautious. You never know on the internet if people did their homework. I know emotional responses. People found just too easy to push my buttons. Now people call me self-aware and that in practice means knowing my inner workings and noticing when someone is pushing my buttons or when I'm pushing my buttons (getting obsessive). And trust me, many of these weren't easy to pin down.
It's an ongoing process, but there's a hint: emotional responses are usually bad feelings. The experience of TO is usually a very good feeling. Too good for normal life, actually. People do and need to do much to get such feelings, take drugs, get drunk, have sex. Evoking such feelings is not easy and means a great intervention in the organism. That's why it's so strange!

I think I can tell an emotional response from something that is not a response (there's nothing to track it to) and not exactly emotional, because it's very impersonal. It is more like an independent, deliberate action of TO, that is felt within.

(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  You probably wouldn't be willing to let the fact that we are human, and having more in-common than we do the differences, might account for that?
I have very little in common with most of people. I suppose they're not going through mystical experiences on regular basis or getting flashes of insight into global problems and workings of man & nature. They're also very well adjusted to the social world.
What it means to be human anyway? Emotions and biology is something we inherited from animals. I'd say it means having an intellect, intuition (I'd need to properly define that, as opposed to instinct) and perhaps it essentially means having a TO, even if most of us aren't using it.

(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Also how does emotion account for anything that exists. It's our responce to the world and out thoughts, not anything more.
Yes, this is why I say the experience of TO is not exactly emotional. It's a feeling, as is anything a feeling. But of a higher order. It can't be tracked as a response to anything we know. It of course has to have some neurologic effects, but they're effects, I doubt if they reveal the cause. Right now it is a very mysterious phenomenon, one we know has been going on in various cultures for millenia.

(01-04-2013 12:34 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  It always seems to me that when a person adheres to a position that is for the most part nonsense, they say others are mistake the finger for the moon.
What position? It's an experience. A very persistent and profound experience, one can not not adhere to it and there is no obvious explanation. The words are just imperfect means of pointing at the experience, but you see only the words, you'd have to experience the Transcendental Object for yourself to "see the moon".
Hopefully it's obvious I usually do my homework and that this is something that can radically change worldview even of a well-accomplished scientist, you can not take it lightly. It must be surprising to find a frontier of science so close by, after the mainstream view shifted attention towards the quantum and cosmic scales.

(of course, the Transcendental Object name is a little private joke - refers to the good old hippie triphead Terrence McKenna who spiced up with his quotes many an electronic music album)

While I do understand the connection you have with your personal experiences and feel defensive about them. I can not accept your claim as truth until it is demonstrated.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
02-04-2013, 05:01 AM (This post was last modified: 02-04-2013 11:19 AM by Luminon.)
RE: Proof of Heaven.
(01-04-2013 07:36 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  While I do understand the connection you have with your personal experiences and feel defensive about them. I can not accept your claim as truth until it is demonstrated.
How defensive? There is nothing threatening in what you say. I just point out that this is a different phenomenon than you're used to dealing with. Presumably you usually deal with Christians whipped into joyful frenzy on prayer meetings.

And what would you want to (not) accept about the claim? We know so little, that there is nothing specific to accept. This is still just an observation stage. We make observation, then we make a hypothesis, then we test it... Damn, I feel like stuck in the observation/hypothesis stages all my life. The least I can do is to pass it forward to someone who might be better informed/equipped.

I just want to assert again the problem with our science, that the unknown part of reality was all along with us and shaped the ancient cultures.
Scientists tend to reject that pool of data wholesale, effectively making an assumption that all the past cultures were not in touch with their environment besides the obvious solid, material objects. I'd say this is an unjustified assumption. Past cultures involved lots and lots of people putting themselves effectively into sensory deprivation chambers and controlling their neurology towards complete serenity and so they offer a good observation environment in which some greater phenomenon may reflect itself. The fact that there are reports of such greater phenomena and there are such reports even today should raise a scientific brow. Ideally, someone well-read should post a link to an ongoing neurologic research which follows the same hypothesis.

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