The empty and not empty people
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-07-2014, 08:44 PM
RE: The empty and not empty people
(17-07-2014 04:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  On the forum, I know most of my positions are extremely non-obvious. One of my hobbies is esotericism.

With philosophy nowadays I find myself too good at dissecting other people's opinion.

People's opinions are mostly undefined, inarticulate. To build an opinion out of hard logic and principles is like to build a hard muscle by exercise. Soft opinions are like a fog, they can never be knocked down and people think it's an advantage (eternal faith!). People don't want to build the hard muscle, because that will lead them to the fighting pit of getting knocked down. They stay outside, have pretend-fights with waving fists and say they are fighters for reason.

Ah yes. Your posts are *esoteric*, if you don't say so yourself. And of course YOUR opinions are all nice and defined and articulate, and you're SO superior at dissection that you need to tell us all about it.

I just don't know how we can stand all your brilliance. So as not to blind us with your intelligence, how about if you only post once a week just for safety's sake.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 01:52 AM
RE: The empty and not empty people
(17-07-2014 06:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Okay. Disprove solipsism. Go.
Why? You just did that, George #1. Hint: solipsists don't communicate. If they do, they're identical with douchey non-solipsists.

(17-07-2014 08:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Ah yes. Your posts are *esoteric*, if you don't say so yourself. And of course YOUR opinions are all nice and defined and articulate, and you're SO superior at dissection that you need to tell us all about it.

I just don't know how we can stand all your brilliance. So as not to blind us with your intelligence, how about if you only post once a week just for safety's sake.
Hello George #2!

[Image: 10300295_10152554851029183_8520916812618212121_n.jpg]

(17-07-2014 04:56 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 04:21 PM)Luminon Wrote:  Only if people were like that!
It takes two to argue.
If you attempt to behave like that yourself then you may avoid wasting time in arguments with argumentative people.
Touché. Well, wasting time with argumentative people is like video games. Even though you passed the level and defeated the boss, you look around and it's the same old room with computer again.
I think real relationships must be more like an online game, where your stats get saved.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 02:16 AM
RE: The empty and not empty people
TL; DR

Lumi, when I got excited about you was when you wrote to CSICOP about your ideas. That was showing intent to have your facts checked. I guess they didn't reply, but... it was that that was important - willingness to be wrong. If you don't have that... you have no skepticism, you don't have any way to tell what's you having a good idea that's true and what's you having a good idea that's false.

Skepticism is a good thing. That's *why* people in science always couch their theories in 'it's possible that' and 'we're not quite sure but'. It's to *emphasize* that they could be wrong. They don't *want* to be wrong, but if you are wrong it's sure as hell better to find out sooner rather than later.

That's why people have the peer review system and all the rest of it - the more eyeballs on the experiments, the more likely it is that someone'll spot something and go "Aha! there's an error here".

Of course, all that's presupposing that it works Sad One of the most depressing things now that science is seen as prestigious, is that people are finding ways to game the system. But mostly they get caught anyway, like that Korean cloning guy.

But the easiest way to spot a charlatan / crank is that they're always very reluctant to have their stuff pulled apart and shredded. They want all the nice things that go with scientific prestige (admiration, the feeling of being intelligent etc) but they're not putting in the hard yards to get it, they find ways to convince themselves that they are right, and that the reason that no one else will admit that is because they are 'blinkered' or something else like that. The only difference is that a crank *truly* believes what he's trying to sell. Charlatans tend to be found more in religious circles, although charlatans like Deepak Chopra et al can also be found pretending to scientific knowledge.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like morondog's post
18-07-2014, 04:50 AM
RE: The empty and not empty people
(17-07-2014 08:36 PM)DLJ Wrote:  Hi. I'm George and I am right and you are wrong.

Dodgy

Fucking Aspies!

Wink
Brace yourself and tell him, "so what?" It's cruel, but it needs to be done Sadcryface

I remember now. Mental endurance would be the same thing as self-esteem. People who have self-esteem feel no need to jump at any provocation - such as me being myself. They would not consider that a provocation, a problem, a threat, or a criminal waste of a forum bandwith.

Self-esteem is not derived from formal competence, or what you can do. It's what you are. People who are nothing but walking degrees are extremely sensitive about the sciences, because that is the source of their identity. Self-esteem is not a flawless peer-reviewed knowledge, it's the early emotional validation or a shitload of therapy if you don't have that. It can't be read, learned, bought or forced. It's the golden sour grapes of the world.

(18-07-2014 02:16 AM)morondog Wrote:  TL; DR

Lumi, when I got excited about you was when you wrote to CSICOP about your ideas. That was showing intent to have your facts checked. I guess they didn't reply, but... it was that that was important - willingness to be wrong. If you don't have that... you have no skepticism, you don't have any way to tell what's you having a good idea that's true and what's you having a good idea that's false.
Skepticism. You keep using that word, but you measure skepticism by contacting a government-funded institution in another country that does not even reply. And I am not allowed to be skeptical to authorities. Which science invented, tested and peer-reviewed the idea of government, academia and peer review? If a method can not be turned back on itself and stand its own scrutiny, WTF?
Peer review is not just unreliable, it's impossible to define.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...po=12.5000


(18-07-2014 02:16 AM)morondog Wrote:  Skepticism is a good thing. That's *why* people in science always couch their theories in 'it's possible that' and 'we're not quite sure but'. It's to *emphasize* that they could be wrong. They don't *want* to be wrong, but if you are wrong it's sure as hell better to find out sooner rather than later.

That's why people have the peer review system and all the rest of it - the more eyeballs on the experiments, the more likely it is that someone'll spot something and go "Aha! there's an error here".
The peer review system is not a guarantee of reality. In fact, it's a non-transparent bureaucracy. It is a social problem and peer review does not even work for social sciences.
http://bastiat.mises.org/2014/07/academi...w-process/
The only true peer review in social world is the free market - whatever people pay for, voluntarily and specifically, not what they are forced to fund through taxes.

(18-07-2014 02:16 AM)morondog Wrote:  Of course, all that's presupposing that it works Sad One of the most depressing things now that science is seen as prestigious, is that people are finding ways to game the system. But mostly they get caught anyway, like that Korean cloning guy.

But the easiest way to spot a charlatan / crank is that they're always very reluctant to have their stuff pulled apart and shredded. They want all the nice things that go with scientific prestige (admiration, the feeling of being intelligent etc) but they're not putting in the hard yards to get it, they find ways to convince themselves that they are right, and that the reason that no one else will admit that is because they are 'blinkered' or something else like that. The only difference is that a crank *truly* believes what he's trying to sell. Charlatans tend to be found more in religious circles, although charlatans like Deepak Chopra et al can also be found pretending to scientific knowledge.
I am not selling anything. I am a hobbyist. Please don't take it the rude way, I am never after admiration or validation from people. My hobby is a part of who I am. We share ourselves socially and me too, that's about it. Anyone who wants to peer-review me, would have to invest years of meditation or get me under a big superconductive rig that costs shitload per hour to operate.
Instead, think of me as a Zen-Buddhist practitioner who shares an experience or two. Do you think that these fairly common atheist Zen-Buddhists care about what do others think? Only with me it's not Zen, it's Laya Yoga.

You don't care about me or Laya Yoga, which is all right. But if you cared about peer review, you'd care about the philosophical basis of it and its government funding. If you don't care about that, you don't care about peer review either. What you care for is your anxiety of not fulfilling an obligation to an institution. And if you don't care about truthfulness of peer review and institutions, I don't have to either. Especially if I'm not selling anything.
I do not trust scientists under persistent delusion that the way to get things done is to create a bureaucracy, fund it by robbery and let it work unchecked for a few generations.

Yeah, I tried to contact the authorities, but they didn't reply and meanwhile my life blew up in my face for family and personal reasons. I think it will take years fixing myself, finally. Meanwhile, the dollar will probably collapse and all the institutions you see as embodiments of skepticism will be deprived of funding. Why? Because they were not skeptical about where their funding is coming from. You will be deprived of a centralized truth authority. Only truth is central, authorities are not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 04:56 AM
RE: The empty and not empty people
Rolleyes Christ man. The important thing was *willingness to be wrong*. I don't know how the fuck you translated that into "willingness to suck up to government funded entities".

You like all this shit of new theories and woo stuff? Have you *ever* read a physics textbook? Or are those too mainstream?

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 05:10 AM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2014 05:13 AM by Luminon.)
RE: The empty and not empty people
(18-07-2014 04:56 AM)morondog Wrote:  Rolleyes Christ man. The important thing was *willingness to be wrong*. I don't know how the fuck you translated that into "willingness to suck up to government funded entities".

You like all this shit of new theories and woo stuff? Have you *ever* read a physics textbook? Or are those too mainstream?
In Laya Yoga, I simply do what works and doesn't burn me out. I do not have enough control to arrange experiments that might turn out right or wrong. I make experiences and observations and compare them to literature, that's all. But I can't go un-experience the experiences and un-read the literature and try that again!

The only way to test, which would include government funding and official authority, would be some external machinery and external theory. I don't have much external stuff to work with, except the literature. The internal stuff is as real as the external, but we have a greater control over everything external.
Why would I read a physics texbook, when it is not about the topic at all? No physics textbook describes electric properties of a human organism. I do not know what questions to ask to get answers from a physics textbook. And frankly, you don't know that either, because you know nothing about Laya Yoga. It's something both old and new and not represented in textbooks yet. You might as well look for the Austrian economic theory in today's government school textbooks - it won't be there.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 05:21 AM
RE: The empty and not empty people
(18-07-2014 01:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(17-07-2014 06:15 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Okay. Disprove solipsism. Go.
Why? You just did that, George #1.

Thus we see that having invented a way to handily ignore anyone else, you're all too eager to apply it.

Congratulations; you've lived down to my expectations.

(18-07-2014 01:52 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Hint: solipsists don't communicate. If they do, they're identical with douchey non-solipsists.

That's not coherent and it doesn't answer the task I gave you.

Thanks for playing!

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-07-2014, 05:32 AM
RE: The empty and not empty people
(18-07-2014 04:50 AM)Luminon Wrote:  
(18-07-2014 02:16 AM)morondog Wrote:  TL; DR

Lumi, when I got excited about you was when you wrote to CSICOP about your ideas. That was showing intent to have your facts checked. I guess they didn't reply, but... it was that that was important - willingness to be wrong. If you don't have that... you have no skepticism, you don't have any way to tell what's you having a good idea that's true and what's you having a good idea that's false.


Skepticism. You keep using that word, but you measure skepticism by contacting a government-funded institution in another country that does not even reply.

CSI (formerly CSICOP) is a "government-funded institution"? No, that's your bizarre paranoia and confirmation bias again.
And they may be based in the U.S., but their board and membership are international.

Quote:And I am not allowed to be skeptical to authorities. Which science invented, tested and peer-reviewed the idea of government, academia and peer review? If a method can not be turned back on itself and stand its own scrutiny, WTF?
Peer review is not just unreliable, it's impossible to define.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...po=12.5000

CSI is not "the authorities", not the government; is their anyone whose motives you don't utterly distrust?

And there is no one system of peer review. It is many human processes; human, and therefore imperfect. Gee, what a fuckin' surprise - it's not perfect.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
18-07-2014, 07:08 AM
RE: The empty and not empty people
(18-07-2014 05:10 AM)Luminon Wrote:  Why would I read a physics texbook, when it is not about the topic at all? No physics textbook describes electric properties of a human organism. I do not know what questions to ask to get answers from a physics textbook.

You might for example find out what the current theory of electricity *is*. A good starting point for studying the electric properties of the human organism. You know what potential is? Current? Resistance? Ohm's law?

Again, this hardly seems like an area which biology would ignore, assuming that you're talking about standard electricity and not special esoteric woo electricity. How about picking up a biology textbook? Some knowledge of the human body would also not go amiss...

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-07-2014, 06:28 PM (This post was last modified: 18-07-2014 07:31 PM by Luminon.)
RE: The empty and not empty people
(18-07-2014 07:08 AM)morondog Wrote:  You might for example find out what the current theory of electricity *is*. A good starting point for studying the electric properties of the human organism. You know what potential is? Current? Resistance? Ohm's law?

Again, this hardly seems like an area which biology would ignore, assuming that you're talking about standard electricity and not special esoteric woo electricity. How about picking up a biology textbook? Some knowledge of the human body would also not go amiss...
I've had many electrician's subjects on my high school, which included low voltage electronics, high voltage electronics and automation. So far I think my knowledge of this is adequate. But my use for these concepts is wildly different. I need to know how electricity behaves, but not in equations and units, I need to know how it looks and feels like for qualitative descriptions.
If there are Yogas that allow a person to interact with.... as the claims go, solar wind and geomagnetic field, I need to know *how would it feel like*. This is important both for researching literature and performing individual meditations.
My current problem (pun intended) is translating what I discovered back to human language.

I grew up with books about human body since I was a child. Again, I think I have a good layman's understanding but what I look for is very specialized. What I work with is not skin, muscle or bone tissue, not even the blood stream. There is some nerve system and endocrine gland aspect. But the main thing I work with are ionic flows in living tissue, which are almost unknown and under suspicion in western medicine. I have already mentioned Bjorn Nordenstrom and his research of Biologically Closed Electric Circuits. Here's a short review of his work, turns out he was a lone researcher in that.
http://www.rexresearch.com/nordenstrom/JApplNutr.pdf
You have to understand, that this is a researcher's clusterfuck, because the object of research (human body) is determined by many factors, such as health, mood or life history. This can be to some degree remedied (stabilized) with discipline and years of meditation such as I do, but such people are rare and discipline can not be replicated with other undisciplined people.
The methodological nightmare is further complicated by claims of the written sources, that there are factors like solar activity and weather or researchers' mental attitude towards the work.

I'm talking about both. I am aware mostly of the woo aspect. Various machines and devices can detect mostly the standard electric aspect, which is secondary. Standard machines can double as lie detectors, because the bodily chemical electricity is always present. But the woo electricity isn't always present, it must be evoked.

However, there seems to be a fairly comprehensive and expert theory on biology of Kundalini, which is related to what I do. I haven't read through this all yet, looks like I've got some catching up to do! I've got too little time.
I'd say what I do is a preparatory stage to awakening of Kundalini, which is very dangerous. Last years I accidentally overdid my meditations once or twice and got seriously burned the second time. I had to change my course of work quite a lot after that. I would say the Kundalini energy is exactly the same effect as when you put a conductive object into a microwave oven. The metallic object turns partially into an antenna and forms a current of its own. The preparatory stage, such as Laya Yoga is about clearing the spinal and bodily channels - feels like burning through some connective tissue and so on, but the overall final effect is rendering the torso as a whole conductive that can form the internal spinal upward current known as Kundalini or the antenna current, as a result of the "cosmic fire".

Kundalini is of course a very fascinating, dangerous and almost unknown phenomenon. Just recently I have heard about an ethnologic research about stone age-level !Kung bushmen who conducted tribal wars against neighbour tribes. The wars were not as we know them, they were more like a gang ambush, hit and run warfare. The ethnologist did not say it was about Kundalini, but he did provide a description of the ritual that the savages used to get psyched up before going for the kill. He described both the ritual, the sensation of fire rising up the spine and the terminology. All the signs were virtually identical with Indian Kundalini Yoga, only somehow used to violently short-circuit the higher brain functions and make the people killing machines without remorse.
I think Molyneux quoted the research to prove his thesis that there was no primordial paradise and peace in stone age, that people were murdering each other for superstition all the time. And that maternal symbols are universal in war and politics.
The description may seem short to you, but I recognize the definite Kundalini pattern in these rituals, having both read and experienced it myself as a very powerful burning force. Probably the only reason why the bushmen can do this repeatedly without dying horribly or going insane (well...) is, that they are very primitive and have rough, simple nerve systems, instead of modern man's refined apparatus.
Kundalini is called the fire of matter, which is in turn poetically called the mother aspect of the universe. Sure enough, these murderous bushmen used lots of maternal imagery in their rituals. Please compare it with the link above to biology of Kundalini - and you may also see some parallels with the cult of goddess Kali.

The whole thing is kind of long, if you're not into politics, read the reference #80 and further.
Please tell me how convincing that is to you - I think it might at least open your mind to the possibility that there are some seriously messed up things possible to do with human body and that it is not easy to piece the phenomena together unless you know exactly what you're looking for. I couldn't come up with the article any sooner, because I lost it and found it just now.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: